4 ms·
Not for all of them in the same manner though. The richest 1% have a carbon footprint equal to the "poorest" 66%, for example.
by groestl 3y ago
Not for all of them in the same manner though. The richest 1% have a carbon footprint equal to the "poorest" 66%, for example.
- tristor 3y agoOnly when looking at things globally, and that's mostly because the vast majority of the world population is exceptionally poor with a matching low standard of living. If you look at things in developed countries, the difference in carbon footprint between rich and poor is not nearly so stark. We are /all/ to blame, and we are /all/ going to suffer for it, so we need to pull our heads out of our asses and stop turning this into some ridiculous "us" vs "them" situation that it isn't. There is no us, there is no them, we're all on the same spinning rock in space, breathing the same air.
- groestl 3y ago"Only when looking at things globally" is a very interesting thing to say. I'm with you, generally, only that I consider myself part of the "them", and us v them definitely makes sense, given the absurd distribution of resource consumption.
- blooalien 3y agoExcept that it literally is "us vs them", with "them" being the tiny fraction of humans with nearly all the money and "power" who want to keep right on with "business as usual" because money is more important than life, and "us" being all the rest of humanity who literally don't matter in the slightest to "them". We can all die a horrible death for all they care. They just don't understand (nor want to understand) that their actions are gonna end them just as surely as it's gonna end the rest of us. It just might take a tiny bit longer for them to die in their luxury doomsday bunkers.