5 ms·
Agreed. It's also not the whole picture. Bill gates is pretty high on that list, for example, with 3,058.71 metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted. But he also b
by chrisfosterelli 4y ago
Agreed. It's also not the whole picture. Bill gates is pretty high on that list, for example, with 3,058.71 metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted. But he also buys DAC carbon capture to literally take those all of those (and all of his family's carbon footprint) emissions back out of the air. That's not even talking about the secondary effects of being one of the world's largest funders of green energy innovation.
- 28304283409234 4y agoIt is not about the numbers. It is about publicly shaming something shameful. Instead of condoning it.
- avalys 4y agoWhy is it shameful?
- 28304283409234 4y agoBecause it is wanton destruction of public property.
- chrisfosterelli 4y agoThis seems like an emotional angle rather than a rational one.
- 28304283409234 4y agoWe are emotional beings. And it is past due for some strong emotional reactions on this topic.
- hgsgm 4y agoIf Bill Gates didn't illegally monopolize desktop computing, his customers would have that money to pay in taxes or donations to fund green energy innovation.