If this is true, wouldn't it lead to ridiculous conclusions like a cow farmer being responsible for the GHG emissions of all his cows?
Oil industry spinned us to calculate personal carbon foot prints [1]. That’s a good tool, but at the same time it dissolves the responsibility. In one hand the people actually producing the harm get to blame consumer demand and consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture.
If you go to work somewhere and release lots of gasses heating the planet you should probably think long and hard why you are doing that.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...
Are you saying this is actually how GHG calculations are done with respect to rural/urban, or that's how it should be counted?
>consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture.
a single consumer can't make a difference because they're one person out of 7 billion. consumers in aggregate can make a difference.
My city is heated with district heating, which comes from coal. Thats big chunk of my personal carbon footprint and makes living in a city look bad vs rural life.
I think focusing on consumers and making this about urban/rural lifestyle choices is only half the equation and to change things you need to go in and swap the power plants, farms etc.