3 ms·
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but my understanding is that the atmosphere itself doesn't really care about "per capita", absolute numbers are what matters. I'd
by joenot443 3y ago
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but my understanding is that the atmosphere itself doesn't really care about "per capita", absolute numbers are what matters.
I'd imagine Vatican City has an even higher emission per capita than nearly anywhere else, but it would be silly to pretend that's where we should prioritize policy change.
As it stands, the one country produces more CO2 than the following 7 combined. That number is only set to increase. If our goal is a global reduction, should that not be where we focus the majority of our political energy? If Luxembourg went down to net 0 emissions, my understanding is effectively no difference would be made on a global scale.
- rat9988 3y agoThe problem with your reasoning is that you think that the atmosphere problem is a problem that should be equally burdened by every country, whereas it should be equally burdened by every human. There is no reason that people that are inmore populated countries should be burdened more than people in less populated ones.
- joemazerino 3y agoWhat if the more populated countries (ie: India and China) are the largest carbon emitters?
- rat9988 3y agoIt doesn't have any effect on the logic. The limit of CO2 should be equal for every human being.