Posted: Jun 11, 2019 1:52 pm
juju7 wrote:2 billion out of 7 is approximately 30%.
The top 10% make up 48%, the next 10% do 19%, and the third 10% are 11% of the footprint.
Simple addition: 48 + 19 +11 = 78% of the contribution from your 2 billion.
It is all in the graph.
It's amazing that you are still trying to get this past me.
Your graphic does not show that the wealthiest 2 billion provide 80% of the ecological footprint. That's a complete fabrication on your part, becoming ever more clear that it is a willful fabrication.
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 2 posts now.
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.
There's being wrong, and there's being willfully wrong.
juju7 wrote:You may say that, but so what?Lifestyle consumption emissions =/= ecological footprint
How do they differ?
Well one key way that they differ is that your graphic is about the former not the latter.
However, it being your graphic, and your argument, that would be your job to establish, wouldn't it?
All I need to do is point out that your graphic does not support your argument - it's a bait and switch, and it's what you've been trying throughout this thread.
juju7 wrote:By the way you did not spell out any mistake,...
I spelled out your mistake: you claimed that the graphic you presented:
These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print.
Whereas that's not what the graphic shows at all, ergo a mistake.
juju7 wrote:you just contradicted,...
Untrue, as anyone can see in the post which you're replying to. I spelled out to you in clear argumentation.
juju7 wrote:... and provided no evidence to support your view.
I don't need to provide evidence to support my view - it's written in YOUR graphic and you misrepresented it in YOUR post.
juju7 wrote: I have given articles, graphs to support my view.
And the articles and graphics categorically do not support your argument, nor are they actually relevant to the point that was supposedly being discussed. You're attempting a bait and switch, but it's not working.
juju7 wrote: You just gainsay what I have put forward.
Yes, I am denying what you're written, but I am doing so on substantive grounds, whereas we can go back to when this thread of discussion started and see that you've actually offered nothing, nada, niente relevant to that.
If you want me to agree with you, then say something truthful.