Next time you encounter someone who thinks that economic growth intrinsically means doing more damage to the environment, show them this graph.pic.twitter.com/71AzjMlCnR
-
Which way is the causation?
There might not be any. I don't know enough to say. But the graph does at least show that economic growth is not incompatible with treating the environment better.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
the subtitle says 'adjusted for trade'. But would be good to read the original report and see how they came up with this.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Except for the climate doesn’t give a shit about ratios to consumption, only absoluts
-
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The stage of growth is an important factor to consider. Can developing economies achieve post-industrial growth without the fossil fuels that current developed economies burned back then?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Seriously. Isn’t nominal environmental damage the problem? Appreciate income consume fewer increments of pollution in CO2 terms. There’s just more and more though. Have no solution only point to “shit this place more only slower” as a cruel truth I don’t burden anyone to want
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I check the charts, when they are poor, they don’t produce much CO2, like walking, then they get some money and produce lots of CO2, like having a very rusty cheap car, then they produce less CO2, like having a modern car.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This shows consumption based emissions...
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.