solo

Whitout doubting what you say, from this last tweet it looks like the narrative (at least in this instance) has shifted? In the sense that this text seems pretty clear to me.

No matter what, I hope the protest goes incredibly well!!

Just found a relevant site for the US, called:

Methane Risk Map

Tracking methane-linked health risks to communities.

Dammit, you are totally correct. Deleting this post

Of course the carbon footprint of the billionaires is nothing compaired to what the industry sector emits. My point was in relation to how the per capita emissions are used, not in comparison to the economy as a whole. While keeping in mind that it's big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed, so that we focus on personnal choices, instead of collective action.

I would be interested in seeing the methodology behind that figure

If you click on the relevant link above, you will find the report itself. You can even download the methodology note seperately.

I have major issues with Hannah Ritchie's approach because imo green capitalism cannot be a solution to the Triple Planetary Crisis, and this is what she's actually advocating for. Instead of writing a lengthy comment, I will use an article that talks mainly about her approach on degrowth, which is just one of my objections to her views.

A response to Hannah Ritchie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Economic Growth

The super rich are (...) a vast minority

It seems to me that the math in this is overwhelming. If a single person in this minority emits in 90min more than an average person in their lifetime, we should take into consideration that their lifetime is made of many, many, many 90min slots.

Apart from that of course I'm all in for sustainable living and redistribution of wealth for lower classes. Preferably abolish the class-system all together, of course.

Emissions per capita are a distraction that makes us focus on a us, everyday people, instead of the major polluters: the super wealthy and their toxic coorporations. Don't fall for it!

• Billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime
• 36 Fossil Fuel Giants Responsible For Half of World’s CO2 Emissions: Report

The Nordic model's approach is relevant in imo, because this article is about Sweden, and because this path proved not be safe from capitalism taking over. This does not contradict what you said, that the entire world is electing right wing populists right now. It is a reminder that this is a mechanism that capitalism traditionaly uses to resolve its crises.

Yep. To my understanding, in the Nordic model, capitalism continues to devour all socialist tendencies.

I think it's non-binding, after all.

Dammit, I am confused.

In this article from BBC, it says:

The ruling is non-binding

In another article from the Guardian, it says the opposite:

Countries are now bound under international law

Which one is it?