Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.
Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them.
I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.