this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
261 points (95.5% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

949 readers
605 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Thing is that India and China will still screw us. Right now India, China, and the US are probably the worst places.

[–] paschko_mato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Check out the CO2 emissions per capita! It is to easy blaming China and India. And China is switching to solar faster than the Western nations.

https://aqalgroup.com/2022-worldwide-ghg-emissions/

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

If we just had more people, that would get the per capita numbers down and the problem would be solved!

Wait...

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Per capita isn't really important in this case. Overall output is. The planet doesn't care if it's getting less per capita from one place or another.

Then, the other thing is that your graph is just CO2. There are many other gasses that are literally thousands of times worse than CO2.

[–] paschko_mato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah the planet does not care at all. Neither the overall output or the per capita. We do.

Problem is there is no reducing the overall output without solving the imbalance between developed countries and undeveloped countries (imbalance of the per capita emisions). Undeveloped countries will always try to achieve the same standard of living as the developed ones. And who are we to blame them?

And I didn’t see real efforts of the developed countries to reduce their emissions fast enough. Why should the others? China has a plan at least.

But humans be humans, so brace yourself it’s going to be hot.

Or cold for the Europeans if the Golfstrom is really collapsing.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

China is shilling out solar because its making them money. Overhead satellite stuff shows they're throwing out loads of harmful emissions that are terrible for global warming.

[–] ppue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Per capita isn't really important in this case. Overall output is. The planet doesn't care if it's getting less per capita from one place or another.

I don't see any value in that approach except for finger pointing and doomer posting.

Then, the other thing is that your graph is just CO2.

No, it is CO2eq.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

That was a good argument before the CCP started pressuring people to have 3 children. They want to actively increase their population through means other than immigration.