Voilà, c’est fait. En ce 15 mars, le Canada a déjà consommé l’ensemble des ressources naturelles renouvelables que la Terre peut lui fournir en une année pour ne pas puiser dans ses réserves. Sortez les bulles… et jetez-les aux poubelles après en avoir bu une gorgée !
It matters when it’s the people and their activities causing the emissions. A bunch of unused land doesn’t make the pollution that the people actually do where they live any less bad.
This is a truly bad take, it comes across as the most desperate attempt to minimize a problem that instead we deserve to look at head on
Saying that pollution delta is important is a bad take?
Canada needs to fix its pollution problems by curbing the pollution. ALL of it. Focusing on per capita minimizes part of that just as much as focusing on landmass.
Especially since massive amounts of Canada’s pollution happens out of sight of the majority of the population.
I’m going to honest and say that I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Either you misunderstood what I’m saying, or i misunderstood you and still don’t understand; or both.
A proper accounting of the emissions generated in Canada is what’s important. Averaging our emissions down because of all our vast expanses of empty land is disingenuous at best and false propaganda at worst.
For industrial uses an ideal accounting would be look at who consumes the byproducts of those products. If we ship oil to the US we could allocate those emissions to the US and if China or India has emissions to serve our demand then we could be allocated this to us.
A consumption-based accounting in combination with the current per-capita accounting would give a decently accurate representation of where and why the emissions are occurring. Per-sq-km emissions have zero place in any reasonable discussion.
Sounds like both, because I think we’re both trying to make the same general point but getting caught up in each other’s wording, possibly because what we are trying to say is only loosely related. In the context you spelled out, I have no disagreement, but that’s not really what I thought I was originally responding to.
It matters when it’s the people and their activities causing the emissions. A bunch of unused land doesn’t make the pollution that the people actually do where they live any less bad.
This is a truly bad take, it comes across as the most desperate attempt to minimize a problem that instead we deserve to look at head on
Saying that pollution delta is important is a bad take?
Canada needs to fix its pollution problems by curbing the pollution. ALL of it. Focusing on per capita minimizes part of that just as much as focusing on landmass.
Especially since massive amounts of Canada’s pollution happens out of sight of the majority of the population.
I’m going to honest and say that I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Either you misunderstood what I’m saying, or i misunderstood you and still don’t understand; or both.
A proper accounting of the emissions generated in Canada is what’s important. Averaging our emissions down because of all our vast expanses of empty land is disingenuous at best and false propaganda at worst.
For industrial uses an ideal accounting would be look at who consumes the byproducts of those products. If we ship oil to the US we could allocate those emissions to the US and if China or India has emissions to serve our demand then we could be allocated this to us.
A consumption-based accounting in combination with the current per-capita accounting would give a decently accurate representation of where and why the emissions are occurring. Per-sq-km emissions have zero place in any reasonable discussion.
Sounds like both, because I think we’re both trying to make the same general point but getting caught up in each other’s wording, possibly because what we are trying to say is only loosely related. In the context you spelled out, I have no disagreement, but that’s not really what I thought I was originally responding to.