Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
2% is about the global percentage Canada emits so us going to zero emissions is performative theater.
I'll just say it, your argument is terrible. Emissions are like weight reduction in a car, you chop away as much as possible from every single component to get to your target.
|
I'm confused by the 2% comment. Are you suggesting by not flying to COP26 somehow that 2% is affected? Those flights would be 0.001% of that 2%. Them flying or not changes literally nothing in real terms. We're arguing about symbolism here because the GHG emissions of those flights are less than negligible. I'm not sure what your point with Canada's emissions is.
My argument is: there will be more substantive policy shifts and global political will by getting together than not. That's it. Symbolism matters and the symbolism of sacrificing a flight <<<< than the symbolism of global leaders showing this in an important matter to work together on.
If you want to have the "I'm not cleaning my filthy house until others do!" argument, have at it. Seems silly to me but go ahead. Leaders going or not to the conference is completely unrelated to that argument