3 ms·
Just no. In terms of bang for buck it's easier to reduce emissions in rich countries with high emissions per capita. Unless by "buck" you mean the number of de
by geysersam 2y ago
Just no. In terms of bang for buck it's easier to reduce emissions in rich countries with high emissions per capita.
Unless by "buck" you mean the number of decisions that need to be made, but that's hardly the limiting factor.
Country sizes are arbitrary. With your logic if China was to split into a bunch of smaller nations their emissions wouldn't matter any more? Per-capita emissions is the only reasonable way to measure.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- HPsquared 2y agoIt costs more bucks to change a rich person's mind, than a poor person's mind.
- glenstein 2y agoIf the Earth's population was 1 billion, 10 billion, or 100 billion, but the emissions were the same, in each of those cases we would be cooked to death by our own atmosphere. Even though they have wildly different per capita emissions. Or to put it a different way, if all I knew were the parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, and all you knew were per capita consumption figures, I would know when the atmosphere was truly cooked and you wouldn't.
- geysersam 2y agoWhat's your point? This is not about "knowing if the atmosphere is cooked or not". High emission countries/individuals are most responsible for the environmental damage, and most capable of reducing their emissions with the least impact on their living standard.