If we are talking about “failures” in logic, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror. You can post “the earth doesn’t care about per capita emissions” as much as you want. It doesn’t make you speak for the entire population of earth, nor does it change economic/physical realities. - ThreadSky

eaos.bsky.social • 3 days ago

If we are talking about “failures” in logic, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror.

You can post “the earth doesn’t care about per capita emissions” as much as you want.

It doesn’t make you speak for the entire population of earth, nor does it change economic/physical realities.

Comments

fredrikblue.bsky.social•3 days ago

He seems to think that the emission problem would be solved if every country was split into two smaller countries. I guess he is pretty stupid. But it's people like him we have to handle.

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

It only "seems" that way to an idiot. The issue I identified was their Paris exemptions and the subsequent exponential growth. If your ilk keeps handing out exemptions it doesn't matter how many countries you split it into.

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

Your failure to substantively address my arguments duly noted. The Paris Agreement is entirely based on "the earth doesn't care about per capita emissions." Like many ideologues you ignore the whole and parse reality to find things you like. A nation's population growth can offset gains in (ctd)

fredrikblue.bsky.social•3 days ago

If a country is split into two countries, is that good for the environment?
The emissions per country has halved.

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

Depends - does each split nation get the same permission to quadruple their emissions or are you denying one or both? There's only potential answer to that question that isn't a deflection, by the way.

fredrikblue.bsky.social•3 days ago

No the only parameter to be changed is the size of the countries.
A) one big country
B) two smaller countries

Same emissions.

According to you B is better. According to the rest of us there is no difference.

What is your response?

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

Your statemen t contradicts itself. Do each of the two new nations get the same exemption of the prior one under Paris? You say "no" but then you say the "only parameter is the size of the countries" which means "yes." Which is it?

fredrikblue.bsky.social•3 days ago

My "no" wasn't about that it was about you deflecting from my question. So again:

If the ONLY parameter to be changed is the size of the country and you start with

A) one big country

And you divide it into
B) two smaller countries

What happens with the emissions?

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

You just don't want to deal with the fact that China's population growth offsets (and then some) their conservation efforts (though when you increase your use of coal, as they have done, "efforts" is being kind...)

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

"per capita" use - the earth only experiences the total emissions, it doesn't award "per capita" cookies. China has been increasing emissions exponentially for a decade, the 1.5 degree barrier will be hit 15 years earlier than predicted, and you're fawning over "per capita."

fredrikblue.bsky.social•3 days ago

"China’s greenhouse gas emissions have actually fallen "

You need to read the article you are commenting on.

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

You need to read the thread - I acknowledged the claim that it fell by an unknown amount and put it in the context of over a decade of exponential growth.

fredrikblue.bsky.social•3 days ago

You need to chill. You're heating up the climate.

lakecountydem.bsky.social•3 days ago

OK, Eliza.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply