this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025

261 points (97.5% liked)

Canada

9587 readers

1720 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

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

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

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

[email protected]

261

Canada is now one of the most polluting countries per capita. Huge cars, lack of public transit, food waste, plastic packaging. We can do better (www.lapresse.ca)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Why do you feel pollution per km is an appropriate metric?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You can see the pollution from India and china from space. Or you could before Covid when it was making the news.

You can’t see any of Canada’s. From a distance you can see smog of the GTA and Vancouver’s lower mainland

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t think most people are trying to reduce emissions to improve the view of their region from space.

Most people are focusing on, you know, the carbon emissions which are heating the planet, and the downstream effects from the changes that incurs?

Emission levels per capita is absolutely a better metric than “the view from space”. It’s perhaps a bit misleading— should the emissions from China that go to making disposable shit for europe and North America be attributed to their production or our consumption? (Obviously China should own the fraction for their own domestic consumption regardless)

But yeah, the emissions per capita is a good metric even if my country doesn’t look good in it. Because even if you’re fooling yourself with this view from space nonsense you’re not fooling anyone else

[+] [email protected] -6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

We’re talking about global emissions here. Canada makes up a large portion of the globe. Per square km makes perfect sense.

The world doesn’t really care how many humans there are, but there’s a fixed amount of landmass*

*discounting sea level rise

That said, the important bit is overall impact. If Canada pumps CO2 into the atmosphere, burns the boreal forest, and releases the methane deposits in the permafrost and oceans, that’s a massive problem globally, and involves morethan just the petrochemicals we burn.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It matters when it’s the people and their activities causing the emissions. A bunch of unused land doesn't make the pollution that the people actually do where they live any less bad.

This is a truly bad take, it comes across as the most desperate attempt to minimize a problem that instead we deserve to look at head on

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Saying that pollution delta is important is a bad take?

Canada needs to fix its pollution problems by curbing the pollution. ALL of it. Focusing on per capita minimizes part of that just as much as focusing on landmass.

Especially since massive amounts of Canada’s pollution happens out of sight of the majority of the population.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I’m going to honest and say that I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Either you misunderstood what I’m saying, or i misunderstood you and still don’t understand; or both.

A proper accounting of the emissions generated in Canada is what’s important. Averaging our emissions down because of all our vast expanses of empty land is disingenuous at best and false propaganda at worst.

For industrial uses an ideal accounting would be look at who consumes the byproducts of those products. If we ship oil to the US we could allocate those emissions to the US and if China or India has emissions to serve our demand then we could be allocated this to us.

A consumption-based accounting in combination with the current per-capita accounting would give a decently accurate representation of where and why the emissions are occurring. Per-sq-km emissions have zero place in any reasonable discussion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

Sounds like both, because I think we’re both trying to make the same general point but getting caught up in each other’s wording, possibly because what we are trying to say is only loosely related. In the context you spelled out, I have no disagreement, but that’s not really what I thought I was originally responding to.