63
submitted 1 year ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

More likely it would just get negotiated that costs needed to be less per emissions and then they had x years to make efforts to prove they are mitigating as much as possible. And the same old shit would carry on as it is right now.

(Not saying this is what I want, just that this is how it seems)

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

What on Earth does "costs needed to be less per emissions" mean?

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Same bullshit as always. No one will end up paying an amount that will "re-pay" sufficiently. Instead it just goes back to hoping tech advancments move us to cleaner energy quickly.

(Aka. If they were going to pay x per footprint, they instead would pay x/y)

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

(Aka. If they were going to pay x per footprint, they instead would pay x/y)

... okay so x/y is the same as x per y

meters per second = meters / seconds

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
63 points (84.6% liked)

World News

32282 readers
700 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS