• someguy3
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with the idea, but there’s no getting out of needing heat in Canada.

      • kent_eh
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except we’re also setting high temperature records in Canada.

        Even with that, it still pisses me off when I hear my fellow Canadians (mostly from a certain province that exports fossil fuel) saying “why should Canada do anything when these other countries are worse”.

        • someguy3
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, doesn’t change that we need a ton of heat in the winter. An average 1.5 C change doesn’t matter much when we have to heat from -20 to +20, a delta T of 40 degs.

    • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a perfect democracy perhaps, but in the world we live in the power is in the hands of very few. Id also argue there’s too much noise using it to represent unnecessary pollution, as a single person running a generator in antartica would be horrible per capita - but quite so necessary. Larger populations have the benefit of larger systems, thereby operating more efficiently. A country could also reasonably just triple their population to increase their pollution “quota”, cause money - and a system that can be that manipulated isnt that reasonable of a system.

      Looking directly at pollution on the other hand is more like looking directly at what causes the problem (climate change), and minimizing centralized sources of it would have a much more noticable effect. Especially those that have a greater population to landmass ratio (thereby having less untouched human areas) and so less so a positive effect on greenhouse gas removal.

      • cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s frame this in inequality terms. Suppose (not the real numbers) we have the top 1% emitting half the greenhouse gases to fuel their lifestyles, and the bottom 99% emit the other half. You’re saying we should focus equally on the two groups when looking for emissions reductions???