So I went and looked at the study they linked for that section, and it had the same number and said the same thing. Their citation for it was the EPA greenhouse gas equivalency calculator, but when I plugged the number into it gave me .072 coal plants for a year.
I’m guessing what happened is the study fucked it up somehow and the article blindly copied it.
You’re right… The “more than 20 countries” thing, is about 1000x away from the real number too, so I guess they dropped a “kilo” somewhere and somehow didn’t react to getting an obviously absurd result
Honestly I could maybe believe the 20 countries thing because it is highly dependent on what countries those 20 are and there’s a lot of tiny countries out there
I think they definitely dropped a kilo somewhere for the numbers they got tho
So I went and looked at the study they linked for that section, and it had the same number and said the same thing. Their citation for it was the EPA greenhouse gas equivalency calculator, but when I plugged the number into it gave me .072 coal plants for a year.
I’m guessing what happened is the study fucked it up somehow and the article blindly copied it.
You’re right… The “more than 20 countries” thing, is about 1000x away from the real number too, so I guess they dropped a “kilo” somewhere and somehow didn’t react to getting an obviously absurd result
Honestly I could maybe believe the 20 countries thing because it is highly dependent on what countries those 20 are and there’s a lot of tiny countries out there
I think they definitely dropped a kilo somewhere for the numbers they got tho
Yeah, the 20th least polluting country is near 1000x worse than the estimated CO2 footprint in the article