That number is probably low…
To play devil’s advocate “being alive” is the biggest carbon footprint you can have. 🤷🏾♂️
Wat
I work from home and I don’t roll coal, so I feel like I’m doing pretty good.
…are you saying that the deaths of these activists were justified?
No, I was saying their death ironically does help the planet.
This is bait or a joke, right? What a stupid take, you don’t have to play devils advocate for everything… Just being alive isn’t the biggest carbon footprint you can have, you can massively reduce or increase your contribution based on your voluntary actions. A oil executive probably has a much higher impact on carbon emissions from their choices in business when compared to, say, a monk. “Just go die if you want to save the planet” is not a reasonable solution and these people’s deaths are a tragedy that I hope the future looks back in disgust on.
Simmer down outrage junkie! It was just a dark joke, and technically, it is correct.🙃
no, it’s not even technically correct. You can technically have a carbon negative footprint on the planet
no, it’s not even technically correct. You can technically have a carbon negative footprint on the planet
Lol, really?
I’m pretty sure you’re not able to contribute to global warming after death…Unless you’re a fucking necromancer!!!
So the proper Equation would take what they would have contributed if they were alive, and you add that as savings!!!
PS: If you’re a necromancer and you haven’t reanimated the dead environmentalist back to life, you’re just a fucking dick.🤨
yes, as you can actively do stuff to remove carbon from the air. you can’t do that when you’re dead
