• Moose@moose.best
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is bait or a joke, right? What a stupid take, you don’t have to play devils advocate for everything… Just being alive isn’t the biggest carbon footprint you can have, you can massively reduce or increase your contribution based on your voluntary actions. A oil executive probably has a much higher impact on carbon emissions from their choices in business when compared to, say, a monk. “Just go die if you want to save the planet” is not a reasonable solution and these people’s deaths are a tragedy that I hope the future looks back in disgust on.

      • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        no, it’s not even technically correct. You can technically have a carbon negative footprint on the planet

        • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          no, it’s not even technically correct. You can technically have a carbon negative footprint on the planet

          Lol, really?

          I’m pretty sure you’re not able to contribute to global warming after death…Unless you’re a fucking necromancer!!!

          So the proper Equation would take what they would have contributed if they were alive, and you add that as savings!!!

          PS: If you’re a necromancer and you haven’t reanimated the dead environmentalist back to life, you’re just a fucking dick.🤨

          • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            yes, as you can actively do stuff to remove carbon from the air. you can’t do that when you’re dead