3 ms·
This is misleading and creates the illusion that sustainability is impossible. Instead, only the fraction of population using more that their fair share is res
by goodpoint 4y ago
This is misleading and creates the illusion that sustainability is impossible.
Instead, only the fraction of population using more that their fair share is responsible for reducing emissions.
And we can very much reduce meat consumption and car usage, improve home insulation, and fly around much less.
And do that while improving health, life expectancy and quality of life.
- eastbound 4y ago> Instead, only the fraction of population using more that their fair share is responsible for reducing emissions. What is “fair”? Again, it isn’t fair that a country can emit more, just by having more population.
- goodpoint 4y agoCitation needed.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- felurx 4y agoWhy would you _not_ divide up emissions by people? (And especially by country, if that's what you're trying to say.) Countries don't need to eat, countries don't live in homes that need to be heated, countries don't need to get to work, countries don't travel, etc etc etc, _people do._
- eastbound 4y ago> Why would you _not_ divide up emissions by people? Because then you give an incentive to reproduce like rabbits, to be familiar. And reproducing too much is 90% of the reason why we’re terraforming all our forests and swamps. 90% humid zones of Earth have been urbanized in the last 30 years.