You are confusing an economic argument (where do we get the most bang for our buck) with the ecological argument. Continuing your allegory, that would be a bunch of arsonists ready to torch both towns to the ground. That must not happen.
I am actually not. I recognize that total CO2 is the important factor, which is why I argue we address the lifestyles of the individuals that emit the most.
Yes you do and you are still doing it. It is two different arguments, both are true, regardless of if one of them tracks with you or not. One is an argument about the need to act (climate change only care about absolute numbers) and the other is an argument about how to act (we need to focus on those individuals that emit the most). Both are true and a part of the bigger picture.
On a side note, it is also important to be inclusive. Consumption isn’t the only way to address emissions. An even bigger possibility lies in those able to make decisions on the means of production. They are fewer, spend a lot more money, but are harder to find. Most of them works at corporations, though.
The effects of climate change are based on absolute emissions and lines in the sand are irrelevant. The reason that we break down by country is to see the effects of different populations, governing systems, and climate policies. If we care at all about the effects of these, we need to weight our considerations based on the number of people we are looking at, otherwise, larger populations will basically always have more.
You are confusing an economic argument (where do we get the most bang for our buck) with the ecological argument. Continuing your allegory, that would be a bunch of arsonists ready to torch both towns to the ground. That must not happen.
I am actually not. I recognize that total CO2 is the important factor, which is why I argue we address the lifestyles of the individuals that emit the most.
Yes you do and you are still doing it. It is two different arguments, both are true, regardless of if one of them tracks with you or not. One is an argument about the need to act (climate change only care about absolute numbers) and the other is an argument about how to act (we need to focus on those individuals that emit the most). Both are true and a part of the bigger picture.
On a side note, it is also important to be inclusive. Consumption isn’t the only way to address emissions. An even bigger possibility lies in those able to make decisions on the means of production. They are fewer, spend a lot more money, but are harder to find. Most of them works at corporations, though.
I am not.
The effects of climate change are based on absolute emissions and lines in the sand are irrelevant. The reason that we break down by country is to see the effects of different populations, governing systems, and climate policies. If we care at all about the effects of these, we need to weight our considerations based on the number of people we are looking at, otherwise, larger populations will basically always have more.