Edit: I wanted to apologize after reading some of the comments. You raise some legitimate points, I realize that there is a subtle malthusian element to this chart and some of you feel like a burden already. Furthermore, you raise a good point about corporate pollution, oil companies, and how their footprint is much greater than average plebs like us.
That's 100% valid and I don't disagree with you at all. My "compromise" I guess would be that continue to apply pressure and protest against large corporations, but in terms of ourselves, just pick a few things you can cut down on yourself, it does not have to be everything on this list.
For example, I really prefer having animal products in my diet, but I am willing to live in a small apartment , car-free, and not go on vacation much in my adulthood. In the same way, you guys can pick what you are comfortable with in reducing and what you do not want to compromise on.
All of us have different standards of living and we are flexible on some things, and some things we are not flexible. That is alright, just consider changing what you are comfortable with, but please do not think you are a burden. Your presence and your life is valuable to me. I don't like to demoralize people.
I'm not sure I follow - are you saying that you would consider a family with two children to have made a less acceptable/responsible decision than a family with three children (or zero/one, one/two, ... etc.)?
I mean if so then I certainly don't want you to feel uncomfortable talking about it, it's just that I've never encountered that kind of outlook before, so it's a bit of an unexpected turn in the conversation for me. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
Well, the info promotes options people can do to fight climate change. It says less children is the best option. Right now eco-activists blame and attack people for using cars and planes, they promote laws to restrict this kind of things. In few years they will blame attack mothers with 2 children and promote birth restrictions laws.
How many children to have - is a personal decision made considering many different reasons. What I find not acceptable is - promoting/advertising/pushing people to have less children because to protect climate. Like: "you have a 2 children? You are a shitty person killing our planet - much worse then a guy flying private jet!"
I always find it helpful to try and decouple everything from value judgements as best as possible - in that regard I find it hard to read any kind of "blame" or accusations of "being a shitty person" into that graphic. I mean, it's just a fancy spreadsheet, isn't it? "This kind of choice entails that kind of impact".
Assuming that the data and the estimates themselves are reasonable and correct then it wouldn't seem too far-fetched to accept that avoiding a transatlantic flight is a more impactful decision for one's carbon footprint than life-long dutiful recycling. I mean at that point it's just comparing numbers and it would seem to be rather objective and judgement-free to say "A person choosing to live their life without a car has made a bigger impact on their carbon footprint with that decision than than a person choosing to replace that car with a hybrid" or, conversely, "A person choosing to live their life with one fewer children has made a bigger impact on their carbon footprint with that decision than a person choosing to recycle" - wouldn't it?
Or let's do it the other way around: What would you change about that graphic to make it more acceptable in your eyes? Would you just leave out the last column or do something completely different with the data?
I would remove the last column, all other parts are widely recommended/enforced steps and putting "less children" to the same line automatically makes it most recommend option.
If this picture is just for fun - there should be no problem to add a suicide there - since this just shows facts, not pretend to impact anyone's decisions.
Thanks for humoring me!