You could take *any* of the sectors in this chart, and argue that climate mitigation there is an irrelevant distraction, because the large majority of emissions come from elsewhere.
A lot of people actually do just that.
A lot of people actually do just that.
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1428286698568486921
We call this rhetorical strategy "whataboutism", and it's often applied to countries, when people say "we're just 1% of emissions!" and "what about China!?"
But it's just as often applied to *sectors* and specific measures.
(illustration by @leolinne leolinne.com/?portfolio=dis…)
But it's just as often applied to *sectors* and specific measures.
(illustration by @leolinne leolinne.com/?portfolio=dis…)
For a longer discussion of whataboutism and other discourses of climate delay see thread ⬇️ and open-access academic paper at doi.org/10.1017/sus.20…
https://twitter.com/giulio_mattioli/status/1278788155391565831
Also, when emission amounts & reductions are presented as percentages, *always* ask yourself:
- what is the denominator?
- does it make sense to use that denominator?
- if I used another denominator, would that change the implications for action?
- what is the denominator?
- does it make sense to use that denominator?
- if I used another denominator, would that change the implications for action?
https://twitter.com/giulio_mattioli/status/1414862205900795910
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
