Posted: Jun 11, 2019 12:39 pm
by Spearthrower
juju7 wrote:
The graph I provided shows this very clearly. These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print. The remaining 7 billion are responsible for only 20%.
How did you not see this?

It absolutely does not show 'this' very clearly.

How did I not see it?

Because it's not actually there.

The question is how did you see something that's categorically not in the graphic?

Your graphic does not show that the wealthiest 2 billion provide 80% of the ecological footprint. That's a complete fabrication your part, apparently a willful one at that.

As is clearly written on the graphic: Richest 10% responsible for almost half of total lifestyle consumption emissions.

Lifestyle consumption emissions =/= ecological footprint, as I just pointed out to you in the post you're nominally replying to.

Lifestyle consumption emissions aren't equivalent to all emissions.

Further, even total emissions are not equivalent to ecological footprint because the latter includes other elements like land usage, water usage, plastic waste and dozens of other factors which aren't in the 'emissions' category.

See? This is an honest reply to your post where I apply the principle of charity and don't try and score points based on your error which results in you invoking 9 billion people, but rather challenging the best reading of the argument you tried to make. That argument is clearly false. Unfortunately, I can't apply the principle of charity to that argument because you are replying to a post where I'd already spelled out your mistake, but here you are trying to slip it past me again.