This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity.
By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
im not sure what youre implying with the last part, ill ignore it as long as its unclear
What a peer reviewed study across 168 countries named “Keeping the global consumption within the planetary boundaries by Peipei Tian et al. Nature magazine.” found was commented in an article about it:
The richest 1% of the world’s population produces 50 times more greenhouse gasses than the 4 billion people in the bottom 50%. BUT if the world’s top 20% of consumers shifted their consumption habits, they could reduce their environmental impact by 25 to 53%. (550€/month in Europe is richest 15.2%)
(…)The study also shows that changing consumption patterns in just the food and services sectors could help bring critical planetary boundaries back within safe limits. And just last month, Hubacek co-authored a paper describing how the livestock sector is dangerously transgressing several of the planetary boundaries (…)
Its a problem with more than one scapegoat. Of course big corporations create the goods, but theres also a demand by 8 billion people for example to just highlight one
I am implying what is clear as day: discussion about pollution must be about big companies, not about whatever individual human beings emit.
And the richest 1% should not be what it is today, but that is another thing completely - why do you suddenly bring it up?
Demand by 8 billion people, you say. I walk out of my house and can’t walk 50m without seeing some plastic garbage (literally: bags, packages etc.). Did those 8 billion people want it? Or need it? Or demand it?