4 ms·
"A little misleading" ?? I'd rather call it blatantly opinionated... taking to its full conclusion the logic of considering commitments (i.e. money alloted) th
by rapht 5y ago
"A little misleading" ??
I'd rather call it blatantly opinionated... taking to its full conclusion the logic of considering commitments (i.e. money alloted) through the way energy is consumed instead of the way energy is produced (the fuel you put into the plane's reactors was not produced by the plane, was it?), you may as well say that any natalist policy is a commitment towards fossil fuels because humans in the end consume fossil fuels. Tautology at its best.
- dieortin 5y agoHumans don’t require fossil fuels to function, but planes do. When you give money to an airline so it can keep its planes flying, that directly translates into emissions.
- aembleton 5y agoBut humans do need heating that largely comes from fossil fuels and fertilisers to grow enough food to eat which also come from fossil fuels.
- KptMarchewa 5y agoFertilizer usage usually does not contribute to greenhouse gas "emissions", at least directly.
- boringg 5y agoActually fertilizer does through N2O emissions.