3 ms·
>you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it
by imtringued 3y ago
>you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it matters
This is a classic misrepresentation of the problem. Policy makers don't care about how much CO2 you emit as long as it stays within the bio capacity of the planet. I.e. is there a net accumulation of CO2 and yes, yes there is. The CO2 you breathe had to be captured by the plants in the first place and therefore doesn't represent a net accumulation. The CO2 emissions involved in the agricultural processes of the food you eat, however do represent a net accumulation since the fuels were dug out of the ground.
- kragen 3y agoi think that my comment already covers this, except that the policy makers are not people whose judgment is of interest; the only way that they're relevant to this discussion is that they caused the problem in the first place in particular, i said that your emissions from breathing are > hopefully sourced from the air via plants. so, too, is most of the combustible garbage the story is a little more complicated, though, because point-source carbon capture is feasible for trash incinerators (and, say, container ships) but not for people breathing, so trash incinerators could conceivably provide indirect atmospheric carbon capture by way of the trees and food that ended up in the garbage. i didn't want to get into these complexities, which is why i didn't go into more detail in my original comment more importantly, though, i don't appreciate being called a fucking liar (even if euphemistically) because i disagree with you about something. people like you are why i always regret engaging on this site. please begin adhering to minimal norms of civility before you fucking comment again