abessman
Their existence is far more constant than heavily urbanized areas.
Certainly not. Moderately urbanized areas are a historical footnote. They came into existence less than a century ago, with the emergence of automobilism and cheap fuel.
Heavily urbanized areas have existed for millenia.
This is highly unrealistic. Most people do not want to be packed in tighter with other people, they want more space not less.
The alternative is that they stop existing altogether when personal automobiles become too expensive for the average consumer to own and operate.
What kind of vehicle do you think usually pulls up to a loading dock?
Grocery stores inside cities do not have loading docks. Their goods are typically delivered by this type of vehicle to curb-side offloading sites during off-peak hours.
Compare the top 10% of that cohort against the rest
Top 10% emit 22 tons of CO2 per year per person [1].
8 billion * (10% * 22 tons - 1% * 50 tons) = 14 billion tons of CO2 per year, excluding the top 1%.
Share of total emissions:
Upper middle class (top 10% excluding top 1%): 39%
Lower middle class (top 50% excluding top 10%): 38%
when you create a graph like that without putting values on the axis it’s inherently misleading
No, it’s a common way to present data in a popular scientific context.
the issue here is disproportionate impact from the minority.
No, as the graph shows, the issue is the disproportionate impact from the richest half of the population. Even without the top 1%, the remaining 50-99% percentiles emit far too much. Even without the top 10%, the 50-90% percentiles still emit far too much.
The downvotes on this post just goes to show that lemmy is overrun by a new generation of climate change deniers, denying not the phenomenon as such, but their own culpability in it.
But they’ll get what’s coming to them.
