• Mambabasa@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    FYI, this is a right-wing dog whistle popularized during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s now an anti-vaxxer talking point.

  • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the carbon is in my body, it’s not in the atmosphere where it would contribute to climate change. Checkmate, atheists

  • SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Negative, you are 65% oxygen, so in effect hot air. 18.5% is carbon, 10% is hydrogen.

    Or by molecules, you are mostly water.

    And by those metrics, the average vehicle exhaust from a year of driving contains as much carbon and oxygen as 300 humans.

      • Deme@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The CO2 we breathe out is a rounding error compared to the emissions from our fossil fuel use. It’s frankly laughable to even compare the two.

          • Deme@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t bring it up. The meme posted by OP did because it’s a schizopost implying that the evil lizard people want to genocide the common people to preserve the climate.

            Your comment was talking about the fact that humans exhale CO2 as an unfortunate fact. I agree with that in and of itself, but in the context of the post one could definitely get the idea that you’re propagating the malthusian and exaggerated assumption that the meme is built on. That’s how I interpreted it.

            If there’s no people exhaling CO2, then who would be left to enjoy the infinitessimally better state of the climate?

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically, we sequester zero CO2. We only consume already sequestered carbon. We do not convert even single molecule of CO2 in to carbon.

  • DearOldGrandma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Edit: Since people seem to think I’m saying abating climate change causes fewer children, I’m not. Communication is not my strongpoint - but I have a B.B.A in Econ with an emphasis in Sustainable Supply Chains, and a Master’s in Quantitative Finance, so let me rephrase this. Countries that implement more policies to fight climate change are typically populated by people who care and are educated about climate change, who are also less likely to have more children due to the current path humanity is on.

    Something vaguely related to this topic is the fact that countries with more laws designed to abate climate changing effects are also experiencing a slowdown in the rate with which they have children. Whereas many countries with relatively high birthrates generally do not have very strict climate standards. Overall levels of general education also play into this.

    Tldr; Generally, the more people know about climate change, the less likely they are to have children.

    • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah and selling ice cream leads to shark attacks 🙄

      Countries with a well-educated population care more about the future of the planet and well-educated people have fewer kids. There’s no “climate childlessness” like you seem to be implying.

      • DearOldGrandma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say they are experiencing these slowdowns because of abatement policies, like you said with shark attacks and ice cream. Read my edit. I think I’m being misunderstood, and I don’t think I clearly communicated what I was trying to. Your second paragraph literally summarized what I was trying to convey, which I thought I did in the tldr, but I’m better at numbers and graphs than I am with words lol.