Activity

Excuse me, I transposed you and sabolina, guess sometimes you both come across the same way. – Citizen

@citizenschallengev3 Figured it. No problem.

From 345891 -“What do you think “waste” isn’t “consumption”?   Please explain?”

Didirus my friend, do you understand what this person is raging about here when the Amazon point is clearly made of waste generated from predicted future consumption?  I can’t make heads or tails out of this sentence in this context. -sabolina #345913

@sabolina First of all please don’t ask me what citizen is thinking “raging”-sabo about because we don’t use the same brain. We both have our own. Therefore we phisically donth share thougts. If you want clarification ask him (what you did #345941).

I think you sabolina miss somewath the main point and quarrel about formulating definition.

How the heck does your comment, “when the Amazon point is clearly made of waste generated from predicted future consumption” change anything?
Human waste whatever its excuse for happening, is also consuming resources. Or? -citizen

I’m curious for all the whacking at branches, ever think about the roots of our problems? That’s why I asked for a little constructive feedback.-citizen

I think this should be the answer to your question though.

If I understand it correctly: The waste problem where products out of ressources are going to waste without using them which leads to using more ressources than needed. Is not a main contributer to climate change and defenitly not the main cause of problem. “A branche instead of the root” to solve something. Changing this and putting in the end ressources more efficiently to use bevore wasting them is indeed something but not everything.
If you want necessarily one single solution to climate change then you have to include a entire bunch of chages to make. Capitalism alone isn’t it, technology alone isn’t it, transportation…, wasting… etc.