Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Doubtful. Firstly because it's very difficult to keep track in war, and it's also difficult (morally too) to count the emission reductions from destruction and death.
And, secondly, because modern wars are integrated into economy and society. Well, Putin may try to change that and turn the whole economy into a war-oriented one (top down control and nationalization), which would be a huge blunder now.
Oh, thirdly, you're mostly referring to the US, so be specific.
Emissions of GHG can be measured at many different layers, you have to decide what analysis, what perspective, you are using; otherwise, you risk counting emissions multiple times. It's all accounting.
This is one conventional way: https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/scope-1-2-and-3-emissions
It is not easy, especially since a lot of data is missing.
I know that you want to say that the US is bad, and that is valid regardless of emissions.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pclm.0000569