Hacker News Reader

> I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

They completely drag down the per capita numbers. You're basically lumping people producing near-US levels of emissions with half the population producing basically nothing.

> Should we also exclude the half of the US population that uses the least carbon emissions?

Not anywhere close in terms of magnitude.

View on HN

I don't really understand why the fact that they drag down the per-capita numbers is a rationale for excluding them. Why is it that the people producing no emissions should not be allowed to raise their standard of living to that of people in the US?

Because we will destroy the planet. We can't have everyone living at that level.

Agreed - so is it more fair to have everyone living at the same sustainable level, or is it more fair to restrict people with a low carbon footprint from increasing their footprint, so that the people with a large carbon footprint can sustain their way of living?

Obviously, as a country, you want to get away with whatever you can. I'm just saying it's difficult to get people to agree to something that they think is unfair to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com