[deleted]

Comments

• edgemaster72@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Hmmm, gonna be hard to go from 0 to -1 kids, in terms of legality. But it makes so much more impact than everything else shown combined, it seems worth consideration.

  source

  • OrkneyKomodo@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Just go and unalive someone else’s. They probably won’t mind. If they complain you can show them this handy infographic.

    source

    • edgemaster72@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      “Think of the carbon savings!” I don’t see how that could go wrong.

      source
• duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Bullshit propaganda making climate change out as an individual issue instead of the systemic issue dominated by a few companies and the economic system that it actually is.

  This is also weirdly anti-natalist.

  source
• axh@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  If having kids is considered a consumption causing carbon emissions, then there should be even bigger bubbles on that graf with label “kill yourself”.

  source
• Papanca@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Actually, i should instead know what the most effective way for industries is to lower their carbon footprint. Btw, that footprint concept was invented by one of the big oil companies to shift blame to the consumer, afaik

  source
• NightFantom@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  -1 child per year is an impressive number to keep up, especially from prison. On the flip side, the number of cars you drive or transatlantic flights you take from prison might also be very low.

  source
• Vanth@reddthat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Psh, these people talking about removing one child from the world per year are trolling. This chart obviously means that by continuing to have zero children year over year, I get to drive a fleet of gas-guzzler cars as a reward.

  source
• Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  “Car - free” vs “car-free”?

  source