this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
112 points (93.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43899 readers
1155 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] TheBananaKing 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Per kilo, sure. But in terms of overall impact, I'll lay odds that reducing the CO2 level down to preindustrial levels would be more effective than reducing any other pollutant.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Methane would be more effective than C02. Methane is the elephant in the room no one talks about