| ▲ | geysersam 10 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> how will converting farmland to forest Farming is very carbon emission intensive if the farmland is reclaimed wetland. Converting the farmland to forest and stopping draining (making it more wet again) can definitely reduce carbon emissions significantly. > Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions This is such a tiresome and logically hollow argument. Denmark has the ability to reduce a fraction of the worlds emissions. The size of the fraction is proportional to the size of their emissions. Every country has a responsibility to reduce it's per capita emissions to sustainable levels. China has lower per capita emissions than most richer countries. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | addcommitpush 9 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note that China has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. Let’s split China population in k Denmark-sized groups, plus one smaller-than-Denmark reminder. None of the k groups has any ability to impact global CO2 emissions (same as Denmark). We can reasonably assume that a smaller group has even less ability to impact global CO2 emissions than a bigger group. Hence the smaller-than-Denmark reminder has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. Thus China is made of groups that have no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. And therefore China as a whole has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions. (Otherwise at least one group within China would have to impact global emissions and we just saw that it isn’t possible). This is known as the CO2 impossibility theorem, loosely based on Arrow’s concept of “(in)decisive” set. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||