• Moose@moose.best
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

          • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.🤨

    • swiftcasty@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, I was saying their death ironically does help the planet.

        PS: for the love of God. Do I have to start marking sarcasm and jokes. 🙄