According to this article, it looks like most emissions come from Israel's IDF
Over 99% of the almost 1.89m tCO2e estimated to have been generated between the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack and the temporary ceasefire in January 2025 is attributed to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza.
Please, stop using the tactic of whataboutism. Meaning, this paper is specifically about Israel's war on Palestine, so let's talk about this post, and not everything else instead.
Edit: I need to correct my comment, since this paper is about
Sorry, but what are you talking about? Who is he? What jets?
Maybe take a look at the article?
Yes, I see many parallels between your example and Suriname's. And I don't see how the people can benefit from this drilling. Even if he keeps his "vow" to give some money to the people, the local environmental devastation will be too vast for a country that is quite small. Meaning, I cannot see a scenario in which people would actually benefit from the drilling activities.
I haven't really followed deep ecology but to my understaning there is a lot of room for criticism. At least for the past? Idk how things are today on this topic. Anyways, the following article written in 1989, meaning a few years after the one posted. It is a harsh criticism on this movement but a well founded one imo.
Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement by Murray Bookchin
Let us face these differences bluntly: deep ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of "original sin" that accurses a vague species called humanity---as though people of color were equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor with the rich, and the exploited with their exploiters.
I think the rest of the article (just below the graph you added) gives a decent overvue on how the situation is, and includes some equaly decent projections. It looks like there is a possibility that they have peaked, and will plateau or hopefully will diminish emittions. Still, no certainty that this is a trend, or that it will continue.
And June is a month to keep an eye out to see how its new electricity pricing policy for renewable energy will be.
The carbon footprint sham: A 'successful, deceptive' PR campaign
British Petroleum [BP], the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals.
Economic growth makes us all better,
No. Economic growth under capitalism is the problem. Capitalism requires infinite growth on a finite planet, and this is what got us here in the first place. So this is not a sustainable economic system.
Let's not forget an important factor: within the span of 30 years.
I spent too many hours yesterday trying to find the relevant info without taking this into consideration.
I just realised that we should also keep in mind that the time-frame of this study is several decades, so we are talking about about an average through the decades.
I'm afraid you are right. I fell into a rabbit hole yesterday trying to find were the claim of this article came from. I looked into the study itself, and didn't manage to find how they defined the 10%. If I missed it, please point it out to me.
I copy-paste bellow a comment of mine on this, from another community:
The closest thing I managed to find was saying that 16.3% of adults worldwide have wealth of 100k to 1m, in 2023 [source: Global Wealth Report 2024 by UBS, see The global wealth pyramid at p23] but this is not what the article says.
Somebody suggested the World Inequality Database but on this topic, the results come by country and/or stats.
If anyone has a decent link to share on this topic, please do.
I have noticed that The Conversation has articles that I consider to be great and others that I find to be the opposite. Unfortunately, for me, this one is in the later category.
In this one, mainly they talk about how the technologies will work, about money and the urgency to use this tech. The real urgency is to start phasing out fossil fuel globally. Also, they don't talk about the unintended consequences, the too many known unknowns, and let's keep in mind there are uncountable unknown unknowns in geoengineering.
More info: