Great logic. By that strand, I suppose they could also be allowed to abuse people, I mean it’s more important that we make sure the general population doesn’t abuse right? That’s what truly moves the statistic, not the crime perpetrated by a few billionaires?
Where did I say it was OK for billionaires to waste so much? Did calling them wasteful and hypocritical sound to you like I was supporting them?
If we want to extend the fallacies in the other direction - Why should the rest of the world do anything when these wasteful Americans insist on having so many trucks?
Your switching from a truck to a car makes effectively ZERO difference in global emissions. If EVERY non-commercial vehicle in the US went down to ZERO pollution, it wouldn't even be noticed in the statistical noise of the country's pollution.
But if everyone just cherry picks a worse example than themselves to justify not doing anything until they are the worst, then no progress will ever happen.
Unfortunately, I can't tell if the source linked actually uses this metric but isn't being clear, or if it's just focused on CO2, and I'm struggling to find another source that does use CO2 equivalent emissions as a metric.
Logic won't win you any friends; and it certainly won't change anyone's feelings.
As trite as my post is: I don't see the merit in yours.
Because there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of other truck owners also using the same justification to keep their truck?
This isn't sticking up for hypocritical wasteful billionaires, just pointing there are not very many of them in the grand scheme of things. Truck owners reducing emissions by a few percent (let alone dropping to what a car would do) would have a much bigger effect than billionaires or celebs reducing by 100%.