this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
260 points (97.4% liked)

Canada

9385 readers
1131 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
260
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 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think you're getting it.

If Canada has 10 people and 6 of them are heroin addicts, and China has 1000 people and 60 of them are heroin addicts, then even though China has 10 times as many addicts they're doing a better job curbing addiction since only 6% rather than 60% of people are addicted.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I understand percentages. But in your example of addicts, it’s the number of people that counts in my book, not whether or percentage is lower. I also understand that more people, pollute more, absolutely. So to think that our small population needs to make a significant effort to reduce pollution , which is absolute, is a guilt reaction.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The only logical way to compare countries' climate progress is per capita....

[–] [email protected] 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It is certainly one way to compare. But in terms of global change, absolute numbers must be considered. No matter hours many people there are, we all breathe the same air. With more people in the area, there’s more pollutants in the air, whether it’s per capita or not. So while it may be logical to compare per capita, it’s not really the practical reality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Canada has low population density, poor public transit, a very fossil heavy economy, and it's taking significantly slower and less drastic steps towards becoming green compared to Europe and China.

Instead of giving ourselves a pass by looking at it from the only statistical lens that obfuscates all of those things by dramatically over-weighing our low population, instead you should be demanding more.

Do you know what a ranking of countries by total emissions looks like? A ranking of countries by population, with some small reordering at certain indices. How is that useful for anything scientific?

I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong.

By that same reasoning we can't criticize billionaires for contributing 100s of times as much in carbon emissions as the average person because of their lifestyles.

Per capita analysis tells us which countries have poor transit infrastructure, harmful lifestyles, legacy fossil-based economies. Total emissions analysis tells us which countries are more populated. Cool.