4 ms·
> if you have a look at carbon emissions, and carbon emissions per capita. You can argue about emissions per capita until you're blue in the face, but the fact
by neverminder 5y ago
> if you have a look at carbon emissions, and carbon emissions per capita.
You can argue about emissions per capita until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that global warming is a zero sum game and projected 4 billion population of industrializing Africa will have a significantly bigger impact than USA's stable 300 million.
- crubier 5y agoGlobal warming is absolutely not a zero sum game. Quite the opposite actually.
- neverminder 5y agoWe have one planet, one atmosphere - at this point we are completely contained. If that's not a definition of zero sum game, then I don't know what is.
- crubier 5y agoYou don't understand the definition of a zero sum game, or you don't understand global warming. In a zero sum game, if one country looses, then the other wins. In global warming, if one country looses (because the atmosphere is f*ked), then the other also looses.
- UncleMeat 5y agoAnd the population of South Africa is 58m, so clearly they can ignore it since the effect of the US is significantly bigger. You can conveniently slice any population such that the population you are part of is smaller and therefore your effect (and responsibility) is minimized.
- neverminder 5y agoMy point was that overall, emissions and populations of West are either stable or decreasing, when the opposite could be said about Africa and Asia.
- UncleMeat 5y agoThe original post was criticizing the use of emissions per capita. Now you are saying that really you were talking about a change in emissions per capita. Seems different to me.