4 ms·

I would also like to add that some countries could contribute more by offering public transit infrastructure (like, at all - looking at you "deep south of the U

I would also like to add that some countries could contribute more by offering public transit infrastructure (like, at all - looking at you "deep south of the United States", where cities don't have any transit systems, whatsoever) and encouraging/subsidising/what-have-you of far more rail use than plane use. Essentially, you're never going to drive car use down (and, thereby, fossil fuel use), if there are no viable alternatives than using a car and the poorest areas can't afford to "catch-up" to the electic vehicle trend[s]. Yes, the effect might be miniscule, compared to the output of CO^2 by businesses, but every little bit helps - when deforestation continues in the Amazon (e.g.: "the world's lungs") and we're not planting enough trees (anywhere) to counter-act that.

viraptor 7y ago
> and we're not planting enough trees (anywhere) to counter-act that. Globally it looks like we're not doing that bad. There are areas doing worse (Africa, Latin America), but the trend seems ok even for them. Based on http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/ http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/
- maxheadroom 7y ago
  From the very same link you provided (fetched via WebArchive[0], as FAO seems down right now): >However, deforestation is the second-leading cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels and accounts for nearly 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions — more than the world’s entire transport sector. How can we be doing "not that bad" and it be the second-leading cause? These do not equate. [0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190627040941/http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190627040941/http://www.fao.or...