• Schwim Dandy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 个月前

    Or perhaps you begin arbitrarily counting other things twice in your calculations. Then they look better.

    My point isn’t that item X doesn’t pollute, just that the graph in question is less useful in it’s nature and aimed at being alarmist.

    • Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding this but weren’t the SUVs already calculated in the countries’ bars?

      I was responding to this comment. If you remove the SUVs’ calculations from other bars then the others get smaller relative to SUVs and make SUVs look worse.

      Or perhaps you begin arbitrarily counting other things twice in your calculations. Then they look better.

      They either kept SUVs in or they didn’t. If they kept them in (counted twice) It makes SUVs look less polluting (see above). If they didn’t count them twice then it would be more accurate and make SUVs look more polluting.

      Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether they counted SUVs twice or not because it doesnt make their calculations “look better”.

      I don’t see it as alarmist at all. Rather, it’s demonstrating how much emissions come from SUVs. As seen by other comments on this post, it sparks dialogue about less carbon intensive alternatives to SUVs which are exceedingly common.