4 ms·

I guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none". The legal issue being of environmental damage done to the state of Montana by clim

I guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none". The legal issue being of environmental damage done to the state of Montana by climate change, the actions of Montanans do indeed have a negligible impact. (Population 1.1 million)

unlikelymordant 3y ago
This argument could be extended to anything by just dividing up the target into smaller chunks, just because individuals have negligeable impact on global climate doesnt mean nobody has any responsibility to reduce emissions. No raindrop thinks itself responsible for the flood.
- InSteady 3y ago
  An individual gun, let alone bullet, kills so few people you can practically treat it as zero if you zoom out far enough. Therefore any regulation whatsoever is meaningless. Yeah, this is a very convenient rhetorical device for someone looking to trivialize important issues in bad faith.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Cost-benefit analysis is where we need to go.
esafak 3y ago
Montana is not an island. Behaviors and precedents spread.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
However negligible the impact, the State Constitution says what it says. Imagine if a local US government were to pass a law that totally banned the possession and ownership of firearms within city limits. They could analogously argue that this law does not violate the 2nd Amendment, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms in just this city has a negligible impact on “the security of a free State” overall.
tareqak 3y ago
From the article: Experts told Scientific American that Montana's emissions are significant given its population size, emitting in 2019 "about 32 million tons of carbon dioxide." That's "about as much as Ireland, which has a population six times larger," Scientific American reported.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
I guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none". So if you died of 1000 cuts and I inflicted 1 cut, then I am not guilty of any crime because proportionally my impact was almost none?
lukas099 3y ago
They have about the same share of the responsibility as they do of the consequences. (actually greater share of the responsibility and lesser of the consequences, but still)

unlikelymordant 3y ago

This argument could be extended to anything by just dividing up the target into smaller chunks, just because individuals have negligeable impact on global climate doesnt mean nobody has any responsibility to reduce emissions. No raindrop thinks itself responsible for the flood.

InSteady 3y ago
An individual gun, let alone bullet, kills so few people you can practically treat it as zero if you zoom out far enough. Therefore any regulation whatsoever is meaningless. Yeah, this is a very convenient rhetorical device for someone looking to trivialize important issues in bad faith.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Cost-benefit analysis is where we need to go.

esafak 3y ago

Montana is not an island. Behaviors and precedents spread.

Mordisquitos 3y ago

However negligible the impact, the State Constitution says what it says. Imagine if a local US government were to pass a law that totally banned the possession and ownership of firearms within city limits. They could analogously argue that this law does not violate the 2nd Amendment, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms in just this city has a negligible impact on “the security of a free State” overall.

tareqak 3y ago

From the article: Experts told Scientific American that Montana's emissions are significant given its population size, emitting in 2019 "about 32 million tons of carbon dioxide." That's "about as much as Ireland, which has a population six times larger," Scientific American reported.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

I guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none". So if you died of 1000 cuts and I inflicted 1 cut, then I am not guilty of any crime because proportionally my impact was almost none?

lukas099 3y ago

They have about the same share of the responsibility as they do of the consequences. (actually greater share of the responsibility and lesser of the consequences, but still)