Submitted by je97 t3_120js00 in UpliftingNews
Vermaxx t1_jdlhni9 wrote
Reply to comment by birnabear in Top lawyers defy bar to declare they will not prosecute peaceful climate protesters by je97
Why the fuck would per capita matter? They're MASSIVELY HIGHER THAN ALL OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD.
If you think Britain owes some kind of equity debt for carbon, fine. The British empire can fade into obscurity.
birnabear t1_jdlnohq wrote
Because its the only way to compare two nations of vastly differing populations.
Otherwise the world as a whole has 100% ghg. Without breaking down to per capita its a useless comparison
Vermaxx t1_jdlp6wq wrote
But sure let's say I did this math right. China has a quotient of 0.01917 per pop, the entire rest of my example is 0.01051 per pop. And that's everyone together, not singling out Britain.
Correct. Every single person in China doubles the average of everyone in USA, EU and India. This isn't actually realistic though because massive portions of China's population are still backwater rural people. It means China's megacities are the most carbon polluting sources on earth.
I still don't see how protestors in Britain take themselves seriously. Even in the US it's laughable.
[deleted] t1_jdlo4iv wrote
[removed]
pawnman99 t1_jdlw6jk wrote
Do you think the atmosphere cares where the CO2 is coming from?
birnabear t1_jdlysyp wrote
Nope, which is precisely why when looking at relative success or failure to minimise CO2 output, per capita is a better comparison. We are one planet, so arbitrary national boarders are less important than getting the global output down. It's via per capita you see where the best gains can come from.
pawnman99 t1_jdm1c91 wrote
Yeah... not from any of the countries with protests.
birnabear t1_jdnlpis wrote
Not true at all
pawnman99 t1_jdnurpb wrote
True. Protesters in Germany managed to get nuclear plants shut down in exchange for coal fired plants.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments