2 ms·
And in the same period of time being considered, California's population got 18% larger. Perhaps the takeaway should be "be wary of non-per-capita figures whe
by akira2501 4y ago
And in the same period of time being considered, California's population got 18% larger. Perhaps the takeaway should be "be wary of non-per-capita figures when trying to measure the totality of a problem."
- lupire 4y agoWhat do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita. Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing.
- akira2501 4y ago> What do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita. What I mean is that you can still see higher total pollution even if you reduce per capita rates while experiencing population growth. Focusing solely on outputs while ignoring input considerations is bad engineering. > Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing. Does the article suggest that's happening? Or is it just looking at a year in isolation of all other facts?