• astropenguin5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • lurklurk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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

      • astropenguin5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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

        • lurklurk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, the 20th least polluting country is near 1000x worse than the estimated CO2 footprint in the article