This argument doesn’t really track for me. The absolute number of murders is bad, but to say that a town of 1000 people has 50 murders, vs a city of 1000000 having 100, is to ignore that there is clearly something being done worse in the town.
I agree that the total emissions is the important factor, which is why we need to look at the countries that have much higher emissions per person and ask how are they failing.
Our goal is limiting climate change. It doesn’t matter if the emissions come from 3billion people or 1 billion people. The total emissions must go down.
Correct, which is why we need to look at the lifestyles of the individuals that emit the most. If we look at CO2 emitted by a single home, and CO2 emitted by a city block, then say oh well the block is way higher, we are ignoring the actual waste and only seeing population numbers.
You are confusing an economic argument (where do we get the most bang for our buck) with the ecological argument. Continuing your allegory, that would be a bunch of arsonists ready to torch both towns to the ground. That must not happen.
I am actually not. I recognize that total CO2 is the important factor, which is why I argue we address the lifestyles of the individuals that emit the most.
Yes you do and you are still doing it. It is two different arguments, both are true, regardless of if one of them tracks with you or not. One is an argument about the need to act (climate change only care about absolute numbers) and the other is an argument about how to act (we need to focus on those individuals that emit the most). Both are true and a part of the bigger picture.
On a side note, it is also important to be inclusive. Consumption isn’t the only way to address emissions. An even bigger possibility lies in those able to make decisions on the means of production. They are fewer, spend a lot more money, but are harder to find. Most of them works at corporations, though.
The effects of climate change are based on absolute emissions and lines in the sand are irrelevant. The reason that we break down by country is to see the effects of different populations, governing systems, and climate policies. If we care at all about the effects of these, we need to weight our considerations based on the number of people we are looking at, otherwise, larger populations will basically always have more.
Now show per capita
Good on the EU. I think I was misremembering the comparison to the US as being largely in favor of China.
The planet doesn’t divide by the number of people. Absolute numbers are all that matter to climate change.
This argument doesn’t really track for me. The absolute number of murders is bad, but to say that a town of 1000 people has 50 murders, vs a city of 1000000 having 100, is to ignore that there is clearly something being done worse in the town.
I agree that the total emissions is the important factor, which is why we need to look at the countries that have much higher emissions per person and ask how are they failing.
Our goal is limiting climate change. It doesn’t matter if the emissions come from 3billion people or 1 billion people. The total emissions must go down.
Correct, which is why we need to look at the lifestyles of the individuals that emit the most. If we look at CO2 emitted by a single home, and CO2 emitted by a city block, then say oh well the block is way higher, we are ignoring the actual waste and only seeing population numbers.
You’re not convincing me. Sorry.
You are confusing an economic argument (where do we get the most bang for our buck) with the ecological argument. Continuing your allegory, that would be a bunch of arsonists ready to torch both towns to the ground. That must not happen.
I am actually not. I recognize that total CO2 is the important factor, which is why I argue we address the lifestyles of the individuals that emit the most.
Yes you do and you are still doing it. It is two different arguments, both are true, regardless of if one of them tracks with you or not. One is an argument about the need to act (climate change only care about absolute numbers) and the other is an argument about how to act (we need to focus on those individuals that emit the most). Both are true and a part of the bigger picture.
On a side note, it is also important to be inclusive. Consumption isn’t the only way to address emissions. An even bigger possibility lies in those able to make decisions on the means of production. They are fewer, spend a lot more money, but are harder to find. Most of them works at corporations, though.
I am not.
The effects of climate change are based on absolute emissions and lines in the sand are irrelevant. The reason that we break down by country is to see the effects of different populations, governing systems, and climate policies. If we care at all about the effects of these, we need to weight our considerations based on the number of people we are looking at, otherwise, larger populations will basically always have more.