[MildlySerious]

That's exactly what rich assholes have to do with it. Why do you believe all the consequence falls onto the working class and the poorest, when the richest have per capita the largest emissions, by whole orders of magnitude?

Yeah, the changes required are systemic and go from the top all the way to the bottom, and the things you mention are part of that process, but pricing people out of everything without offering an off-ramp is sadistic bullshit, and the only reason it's a thing is because rich people and stock prices have more representation in politics than the poor and the environment.

[IncreasePosts]

Who cares about per capita emissions? Billionaires could have 1000x the emissions as normal people, but there are so few of them, cutting their emissions down to zero would have absolutely no impact on climate change.

[MildlySerious]

You could cut the emissions of the top 1% in half, or reduce the emissions of the bottom 4 billion to 0. Same result.

Which do you believe is likely the lower hanging fruit, has a higher return per dollar spent and is likely to be more ethical and less invasive?

So yeah. I care about per capita emissions on the grounds that things need to change fast, and adjusting the lifestyle of a few million is radically easier than wiping half the planet off the emissions map.

[phatskat]

Do you consider the factories, farms, etc that they own to be part of the equation? I do, and so if you were to “cut the emissions down to zero” of the owner of a large chicken processing company, all those factory farms disappear and that’s not peanuts for climate change.