this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
126 points (95.0% liked)
Climate
8516 readers
240 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tough argument to make. Nation states are a somewhat arbitrary construct. What if China or India were each four countries instead of one? Should we take geographical area into account? This is why the per capita measure is important.
The UAE is land mass less than 2% the size of India and China and relies on desalination plants for habitibillity. Why would either India or China have populations that small, while not having such limitations?
It's easy to say less humans is the solution (and don't worry, the world is clearly headed that direction looking at global fertility rates) but saying a specific country having less people is part of the solution, especially when it's a country with lower per capita emissions, seems difficult to justify.
because a country is made up of people and governments, who have different priorities and determine how best to respond to the climate change threat
it’s not really arbitrary, there is a very clear difference between the goals of the uk who shut all their coal power plants, germany who shut all their nuclear power plants and china who are meth head addicted to building as many coal power plants as they can despite being already no.1 in co2 emissions by a long shot