261
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by dwazou@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fredthefishlord 13 points 2 days ago

Per capita is a much better metric than per km

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Kind of. But by that argument, we could improve things by increasing the birth rate.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Huh?

The solution to "too much pollution per person" is to have more people polluting"???

Are you serious?

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think you (and others) have misunderstood what I was saying — the metric can be gamed by having more people. Most of Canada’s pollution is industrial and won’t shift all that much by adding more people. The solution is to just call out all the polluting factors and reduce them, no matter which metric is being used to measure.

The problem isn’t the pollution to person ratio, it’s the pollution. The solution is for the entire country to pollute less.

[-] Fredthefishlord 3 points 2 days ago

No. Being a better measurement does not indicate to it being a perfect one.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Er, per capita means that increasing the population de facto decreases the ratio, unless the pollution increases as well. What are you saying “no” to and why are you introducing “being perfect?” That’s two moved goalposts in one statement.

The goal is to reduce environmental pollutants. The way to do this is to measure the delta in pollution. Population doesn’t matter any more than landmass (and potentially slightly less).

[-] Fredthefishlord 5 points 2 days ago

I'm not introducing any goal posts. These are things assumable with common sense. "If a metric becomes a goal, it ceases to be a metric" applies in such case. For progress, the only thing that matters is the total amount going down---neither per km area nor per capita have any value in measuring meaningful progress. But they could provide a good snapshot of present impact of each country.

Per capita is a better snapshot because it measures impact of a citizen in the country. Per landmass isn't great because it ignores countries with outsized impacts.

this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
261 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9366 readers
1477 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS