The methodology here is kinda bs IMO.
They’re adding up the emissions of the descendants and dividing that by a parents life expectancy.
However, if a society achieves net 0, then surely the emissions of every person there in are 0, so it’s disingenuous to count them at today’s rates.
Its an attempt to illustrate the environmental cost of over-population, but it needs to be considered within the context of that methodology.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 days ago
OK, if society achieves net zero, you can have as many children as you like.
But given that it’s been going up since the industrial revolution, and it’s still going up, it seems rather fanciful to suggest that it’s within our grasp.
A number of countries have reduced emissions massively, but realistically that mostly means “we’ve moved all our emissions to China”. I could buy green energy from my supplier, but for me that was still coming from a big coal power station a few miles up the road until last year when they finally closed it.
And frankly, if corporations can count the carbon a tree will capture over 30 years and somehow “offset” that against a dirty great factory when they hurl a few pennies at a third world farmer, then we can count the carbon our descendents will emit over that time as well.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
How much carbon will a child born today emit in their lifetime?
Thats unknowable.
Your reference to emissions increasing since the industrial revolution is not a forecast.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
incorrect, humans produce co2 by breathing
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Yes but we also consume CO2 if we’re part of a society which is net 0.
As i said up top, the infographic is designed to demonstrate the environmental problems caused by over population.
However, the methodology used to represent that impact is problematic.
I’m not saying overpopulation is not bad. I’m not saying you should have n children. I’m saying the numbers here dont withstand a moments critical thought.