• ColeSloth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Per capita isn’t really important in this case. Overall output is. The planet doesn’t care if it’s getting less per capita from one place or another.

    Then, the other thing is that your graph is just CO2. There are many other gasses that are literally thousands of times worse than CO2.

    • paschko_mato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah the planet does not care at all. Neither the overall output or the per capita. We do.

      Problem is there is no reducing the overall output without solving the imbalance between developed countries and undeveloped countries (imbalance of the per capita emisions). Undeveloped countries will always try to achieve the same standard of living as the developed ones. And who are we to blame them?

      And I didn’t see real efforts of the developed countries to reduce their emissions fast enough. Why should the others? China has a plan at least.

      But humans be humans, so brace yourself it’s going to be hot.

      Or cold for the Europeans if the Golfstrom is really collapsing.

      • ColeSloth
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        China is shilling out solar because its making them money. Overhead satellite stuff shows they’re throwing out loads of harmful emissions that are terrible for global warming.

    • ppue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Per capita isn’t really important in this case. Overall output is. The planet doesn’t care if it’s getting less per capita from one place or another.

      I don’t see any value in that approach except for finger pointing and doomer posting.

      Then, the other thing is that your graph is just CO2.

      No, it is CO2eq.