Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Nature doesnt really give an F about per capita though
Imagine that you live in Texas. The US has a certain amount of emissions, and Texas has a certain smaller amount of emissions. If Texas seceded from the union, then you would live in a country with less emissions. Therefore, seceding is climate action.
Can you explain the flaw in this logic?
No the net emissiona stay the same. Ergo, boundaries are useless. But we can only change so much trough goverment. Idc per capita, India and China might have a lot of people but their industry is killing us They are by far the biggest contributors.
its not about living in a country or what country emits the most. The geographical region of india and china emit the most. China and india have the most control of that geographical region. Saying they are not responsible for the emissions is saying they dont have control and/or influence in these regions of industry and murder lf the earth
If you're in the US, that's not true. India emits less than US. India emits 3 billion tons of CO2 a year. USA emits 5 billion.
Now that we've sorted out the facts, let's talk philosophy. You're arguing that we should take actions that prevent climate collapse instead of worrying about borders and blame. I agree. So worry about the political processes that you have the power to participate in. You can't vote in Chinese elections. You can't vote in Indian elections. You can vote in your country's elections, so worry about those.
The alternative is that America does nothing because China won't do anything, and China does nothing because America won't do anything. You're just playing chicken. And what's the prize for winning? Nothing. What happens if you're both stubborn? Everyone and everything dies.
The shrimp don't care whose fault it is that they all died. They just want to live. Every gram of CO2 we don't emit could mean one more shrimp lives for one more day, and the total chance of climate collapse ticks down by one trillionth of a percent.