The point is that it's not the best metric, unless you're too stupid to look at a problem from anything but a 30,000 foot view. You actually need to adjust for a large number of factors (types of waste, what happens to the waste, what sorts of activities are producing the waste and whether there is even any other way to reasonably do those activities that would produce less waste, etc ad infinitum).
Both per capita and gross are superficial and not terribly useful metrics in terms of figuring out an effective path forward for waste reduction - or more accurately, what would no doubt be thousands of effective paths forward in different regions and industries, specific to context.
In any case, he was just mocking the thread title, which is, on its face, a lie.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|