this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
1426 points (98.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
8757 readers
2875 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
You've definitely given me something to think about - evaluate if even 110 million would have prevented or given us another decade before we hit +1.5c.
However, your Bangladesh stat is absolutely meaningless and misleading. It seems impressive at first glance, but it's not. The proper context is global CO2 production. In 2014, 35,000 million (or 35 billion) tons of CO2 were produced. And that's just fossil fuels. And that's more than a decade ago. I don't have the numbers, but I suspect it's even more.
110 million / 35,000 million = 0.3% reduction
Fair enough, the figure you're looking for / what I based on the Bangladesh claim is here, 39 billion tonnes total so even less, 0.28% reduction. But that is for only 10% reduction in one country. Increase that to 20% and do it for all countries and your probably getting a couple percent reduction. Again not going to stop climate change or give us another decade before 1.5c, which we've already passed in 2025.
Were going to need every percent we can get though and any sort of reduction helps. If we're going to have a carbon neutral future it's going to require these sacrifices, and the earlier we make them the better. Delaying them is only hurting the cause for some temporary comfort.