What REALLY causes Climate Change? Overpopulation VS Wealth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- If you believe what you hear, climate change can all be pinned on the wealthy or on overpopulation. But what's the evidence supporting these ideas? Are rich people really to blame, or is it all caused by people having too many babies. I break down what the data is showing us.
0:00 The Question
0:57 Population Growth
3:19 CA$H
4:57 Weighing it up
5:43 What to do?!
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: / climateadam
#ClimateChange
twitter: / climateadam
facebook: / climateadam
instagram: / climate_adam
==MORE INFO==
hannahritchie.substack.com/p/...
www.carbonbrief.org/eradicati...
www.carbonbrief.org/top-1-of-...
www.nature.com/articles/s4189...
www.nature.com/articles/s4189...
www.ucsusa.org/resources/clim...
• How the rich wreck the...
www.statista.com/statistics/1...
Campaigns:
neweconomics.org/2021/07/a-fr...
gofossilfree.org/divestment/w...
How rich people can make a difference
www.nature.com/articles/s4156...
==THANKS==
Filmed by Tammy Beyrouti
Space image by Nicholas Jones
Footprint by Lydia Simmons
Clock by vecteezy - Наука та технологія
The top 10% globally being anyone who makes above 40, 000$ a year really puts that statistic into perspective
I was pretty blown away when I first learned that stat...
I'm on the cusp of being in the top 10%! But in my 53 years, I've only flown on a plane for about 9 hours. I drive my car once or twice per week. I've planted thousands of trees on our property and most of my clothes are second hand or home made from natural fibres. Almost all of our energy comes from solar. For entertainment, I mostly garden. And when I need retail therapy, I buy plants. So just because we are wealthy, doesn't mean we have to be big emitters. You can still feel wealthy by changing your values and what you cherish. I guess it's easier for me though because I live rural where I'm surrounded by people with similar values and the beauty and wonder of nature. In the city you are constantly surrounded by people showing off their latest gadgets, cars, clothes and big flash houses and talking about their recent holiday to the other side of the world. When you live in nature, and your livelihood is directly linked to it, you have a reverence and respect for it. In the city I think it's out of sight, out of mind and people don't realise that their wellbeing is a direct result of the wellbeing of the Earth.
Yes but don't let it deceive you, if you earn anything like. 100k or less your footprint will be an order of magnitude less than a 1%er with a super yacht, several homes and a private jet. Not to mention the CEOs who could tomorrow cut huge amounts of emissions just by choosing a different means of energy or investing in a different set of shares. Personal responsibility is important but much more so for the Uber wealthy and extremely powerful.
@@ClimateAdam I could do a LOT with 40k$! Like I'm in a reasonably developed, EU member, if eastern european state, yet the median net wage is stng like ~900eur a month.
So I'm not sure why the western perception seems to be one needs such excessive amounts of cash for a comfortable standard of living. How is this taking purchasing power parity or universal public services into considerations?
@@klang180do you have those stats? Because it seems to me that personal footprint is bound to reach a point diminishing returns once you get rich enough.
I'm not surprised, rich people do not live like the rest of us but even the rest of us here online live unbelievably comfortable and rich lives compared to most people living with barely enough to eat. Don't get me wrong switching from a meat based to a plant based diet does help, trading your car for public transport and taking vacations in the local area are all helpful reductions in this carbon footprint but the larger society around us that we are a part of pollutes plenty on our behalf. Cutting our own carbon footprint is not enough and societal change is not enough what we need is a 180 turn, accept economic shrinking, and pay for unprofitable damage mitigation efforts and industrial reform. Not us the people but the government needs to pay for this using our tax money but also by taking money out of those industries.
This concerns our future and the government is responsible for ensuring our future much beyond our lifespans. I hope we will see this U turn happen soon because the longer we delay this drastic change the more drastic the consequences we will see.
Thanks Adam for making these videos.
Great video, Adam! I'm sick of this shifting responsibility by the rich. Politicans often make it seem like there are wise, eco-friendly millionaires and ignorant, polluting poor people.
The “global climate change” agenda has little to do with climate or science (as you’ve discovered).
the study that works out the carbon footprints of different groups of people takes individuals' investments into account. they argue that the footprint of our investments are an important consideration, whereas I've heard others argue it's a bit bizarre and maybe a bit circular (since it makes it inevitable that richer people have more emissions). sooo I'm mentioning it here so you can make up your own minds! what say you: silly or sensible?!
verrry silly. believing in reality should not be considered sensible. only crazy people do that. ;-)
it should probably even include taxes. if i earn more, i pay more taxes. since my country still heavily subsidizes fossil fuels, i pay a bigger share of those subsidies. unless i'm rich enough to avoid paying taxes in the first place.
those subsidies then make climate-damaging products cheaper, whereas climate-friendly alternatives get more expensive. which in turn means i pay more VAT for those climate-friendly things, again growing my share of fossil subsidies.
100% sensible - forcing taxpayers to finance their own collective suicide. 😂
I think if I as a super small time investor who makes only 17,000 a year in a good year, can make investment decisions based on climate impact there is no reason anyone else can too. Also you could pin this comment
It depends what they invest in, is it in carbon increasing or decreasing investments. Im not sure if you would cancel out the existence of rich people that the emisiones would decrease, the money will still be circulating in the economy but being used by more people with possibly an even bigger impact unless these people do not decide on buying plane tickets or big cars and make wise carbon free choices. So a rich person that makes wise choices could have a huge impact negatively or positively.
To decrease a person emisiones a person could also be asked to move to climates that are more suitable for humans so they wont need to spend energie on heating or cooling. Now adays there are almost carbon free ways to heat your homes but its not affordable for everyone, in those situations the richer people have more options to actually decrease their emisiones while "poor people" do not. Which is a big discussion point in more developed countries, ""the poor" cant afford better isolation or solar panels"
I have a hard time accepting population size would not matter in the current world we live in. You can make a point that it wouldn't in a perfect world where everyone would have the opportunity to not use any carbon emiting products. Which is not the current world we live in. But hopefully we will get way closer.
But population might technically not be an issue for emisiones it definitely is for landuse which also effects emisiones. Not sure if they took that in consideration in this research.
Citi group bank...
Hey, I just wanted to say that your content is absolutely awesome and a big inspiration for me in my studies!
Ah so happy to hear! Good luck with all your studying.
*i no longer believe in the sun; bc of your content.* no time to explain! beware the red dove! _JC
Climate science is speculative, agenda-driven and prone to bias.
The human influence is sketchy at best. It’s disingenuous (and revealing) to simply blame humans without offering the equally accredited alternatives.
These days climate science has little to do with science or the environment.
@@michaelmiamiSource?
@@nihilistpenguin7511 source that it’s “speculative and agenda driven”? I haven’t watched this video in 4 months (and I won’t again), but the initial assumption that climate change is human-influenced makes that statement self-evident, doesn’t it?
That said, if you're already living in a developed country living a first world lifestyle, then remaining childfree is one of the most effective personal climate solutions.
The childfree life is the way to go. You'd have to be completely egocentric to voluntarily want to add more innocent human beings into this massively overpopulated and dying planet.
@@niqjaw5009lol the planet isn't dying it has seen worse but if we don't change humanity will surely die.
This is such a good video Adam. It addressed everything pertaining to the topic and answered some of the concerns I have for modernization like raising people out of poverty drastically increasing CO2 emissions.
I always thought this to be true but I’m super glad you addressed it and also addressed that lifting people out of poverty still shouldn’t be the end all be all goal but to also improve quality of life.
I think it goes to show that decarbonizing how human society operates goes a long way. It’s almost as if we can get more when we hurt the planet less and less.
Human population of the Earth is now in serious overshoot. It will peak at about 9 B between 2060 and 2100. It will then settle to a sustainable level estimated at between 1/2 and 1/3 the peak over several hundred years. This is a completely natural event and It is now on autopilot. There is nothing we need to do to make this happen, but there is much we can do to make it more humane. (Ref: "Empty Planet" Bricker, "Overshoot" Catton)
Thanks Adam!
As a sculptor my emissions were crazy, but I changed my artwork. Now I like my artwork more and it is designed to decrease my emissions!
Thanks again!
While your correct when discussing CO2. We should also consider the amount of stressors that are caused when there are more people on the planet when it comes to housing, the destruction of biodiversity, feeding all of these people, and of course we don’t want them to live in poverty, I think we all would prefer that they live wealthier more beautiful lives. So it’s best that we convince people to have less children and also push our societies towards a less impact for environmental mindset.
I have to say: I have seen all the statistics before, but seeing the ten people with the real cake, still shocked me and suddenly so much more real (and mean!). Excellent job!
I have a question, though: I consider the loss of natural habitats on land and in the sea due to human intervention as an even bigger threat than climate change, with us currently witnessing the sixth mass extinction.
Is it possible to also break the responsibility down to income groups or is it more a thing of individual lifestyle choice, like eating meat or living in suburbia instead of insides cities, towns and villages? I haven't found good resources on this topic, but perhaps, there are academic papers dealing with this matter?
Really interesting topic. I'd love to see a break down of land use by different groups (though as you say, it would need more break down than just wealth). I've also struggled to find anything clear on this when I've searched though.
Thank you for the content, working in academia studying climate myself I can only enjoy the fact that for a 7 minutes video you cite about 10 references !
I had a rather perculiar question (don't get me wrong about my intentions !)
Will redistributing wealth perfectly reduce the total emissions or not ?
Being from France, the geography of our country makes my prior tending toward a greater carbon intensity ( co2/€) in low class due to the use of car compared to city living (wealthier) people making the redistribution of wealth increase carbon emission in absolute value.
After a (very) quick search, I couldn't find a paper discussing this issue, do you have an idea on the question ?
What income category are you referring to when you say "low class"? Redistribution follows a shift in paradigm from pursuing enormously high consumption lifestyles to consumption patterns inside ecological boundaries. Lower income means lower emissions because of lower (resource) consumption, this Involves many more aspects than just mobility. In the global context wealthier people tend to have more cars though.
Great video, thank you!!!
The conclusion doesn't surprise me, but it's great to have all the numbers in one place, and with clear examples at that, as always :) Also good to hear some potential solutions!
The answer to this question in the title is two-fold, simply the petroleum industry & "clearcut" or deforestation style logging. Forests were nature's carbon sink the oceans were never meant to become. Logging should be done locally, with stewardship mindset which would mean selection logging with no highgrading. This protects relative old growth while maintains overhead canopy for hydrology, which is how forests generate fresh water in abundance & without flooding. Besides we need to boost continental fresh water reserves, either way. Then dilution is the solution to pollution. For posterity, please consider.
Thanks, again! This video really widened my old good "thinking" about the issue. Before I was tempted to think simplifying the too obvious correlation between pop growth and emissions. Now I see even more clear.
Another brilliant video Adam! Thanks for presenting the nuances - things can get presented as being so black & white on the internet 😬
i’m going to college for environmental science or conservation next year and your videos have been making me feel a lot more confident about it
This is why it's important to start speaking of CO2 emissions on a per capita basis, rather than on a per country basis. China produces a lot of CO2, but each citizen only produces about half of what each USA citizen does. Now, it's true that no two citizens produce the same amount of CO2, but this is still a good place to start. We should also be looking at the world average per capita emissions, and comparing them to average emissions in our own country. In my country, Canada, each citizen produces more than 3 times the world average. Lots of work to do.
Canada, with a population just over forty million, contributes very few emissions over all. However, on a per capita basis, it is one of the highest emitters in the world.
Infinite economic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable.
Infinite demographic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable.
I totally agree that looking at the data the more economically well off people contribute a disproportionately large percentage to the environmental problems we face.
Global warming is primarily driven by economic growth and only secondarily driven by population growth. That’s because global warming is mostly a function of our energy use, and the elasticity of demand for energy is very high. There’s no upper limits on how much energy services people can want and use.
Biodiversity loss however is mostly a function of human appropriation of net primary productivity (HANPP). Think of HANPP as the product of land use extent X land use intensity. And there ARE upper limits to biomass consumption. That’s why inequality in HANPP footprints is comparatively so much smaller than inequality in energy footprints. Population DOES matter for biodiversity loss (and other sustainability problems related primarily to food production / biomass appropriation, such as nutrient pollution, soil erosion, groundwater depletion, etc)
You're a great educator mate. I hope you go far !
REALLY REALLY BLOODY QUICKLY
Ah thank you! If you want to see me become overrated very fast, feel free to share far and wide.
Wonderful video, loved this. Would have loved if you mentioned how the middle of the road is emitting the other 40% tho.
You mentioned how the poorest 50% contribute 12% to climate, and the richest 10% contribute 48% to climate change, but casually DIDN'T mention the other 40% or where that comes from.
Is it agriculture? Or businesses? Travel maybe?
You make a great argument to say, "eat the rich" which in the west just means "eat anyone who makes a moderate+ wage above the poverty line" in context of the 40k plus number you use. That's most if not all Americans who aren't homeless, and basically everyone in a "first world" country.
And it just feels like a major part of the discussion is just left deliberately not spoken of.
I'm obsessed with your content and I love when you talk about data and the way you explain I love this
ah thank you adeel - awesome you like my approach
High population growth doesn't just apply to less developed nations, who have less impact on consumption, but increasingly too much, but also to developed nations with fewer people, but still too many, consuming too much.
It really is a worldwide problem, especially considering the aspirations of the people in those undeveloped, and developing countries.
Carbon emissions is not the problem.
The problem is atmospheric circulation.
For the past fifteen years, someone has been intentionally blocking air circulation by tampering with the environment to form an inversion to modify the microclimate in the Millet Swale watershed, southeast of Snowflake, Arizona. Prior to the intentional manipulation, the same watershed had other problems, going back to at least the 1980s.
The inversion led to high pressure in the watershed, and the high pressure in the one watershed put excess pressure on other watersheds in the Colorado River Basin.
It is much like a central air system in a house. If a single vent is blocked, the air conditioner functions less efficiently due to the excess pressure, and the house heats up. When the obstruction is removed the house cools down.
The high pressure ridge in the Colorado River Basin blocked atmospheric circulation from west to east.
The resulting drought, heatwaves and other severe weather extended well beyond the Colorado River Basin.
Consider what happens during a drought. Vegetation thins. Accelerated erosion makes channels wider and deeper and hills steeper. These factors open up more room for air to flow and make updrafts steeper. During a drought, surface temperatures increase.
When the obstruction to circulation is removed, the increased circulation will move a lot of heat and moisture very quickly, leading to excessive precipitation, which is what we're seeing now in the Western United States.
Flagstaff, Arizona is having the snowiest winter since 1949. The Sierra Nevada in California is seeing historic snowfall and snowpack. Even the San Bernardino mountains in California recently had an unprecedented blizzard that has trapped residents and blocked supplies.
How do I know this? I discovered the obstruction, and I eliminated it. I ended the Southwest Drought.
I have been working on the problem for the past ten years, and meteorological records reflect both progress and setbacks. Setbacks were caused by continual subversive activity to maintain the inversion, and the activity is still ongoing.
4:33 where did you get this from? according to my information just half the amount (20 000$ post tax) per person already puts you in the highest 10% category.
it comes from an Oxfam / Stockholm Environment Institute report:
www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/research-report-carbon-inequality-era.pdf
@@ClimateAdam thank u, i'll check it out.
I imagine these studies are done by linking national economical output to national emissions. So yes, wealthy people have bigger emissions because they own greater part of the economy. Not because they are directly causing greater emissions in their daily lives. Sure they do marginally, but to to the extent required to make orders of magnitude differences. Not by eating more freaking meat.
So the problem is not wealthy people, it's wealth created in a carbon fueled economy.
Hi, a fellow atmospheric scientist here (although I “only” have a Master’s degree)
Do you have links (or just author and article name) to the studies you reference? As it would be nice to show them to people that might say some of the mistakes you bring up, and that could actually be convinced by sound data and research.
I always provide links in the description of the vid
@@ClimateAdam Arh, I see. Thanks
Great video. Keep up the good work (which is no doubt made easier by the fact that you can replicate yourself, as we saw in this video)
Unfortunately all the other Adams have been failing to pull their weight 🤬
lovely video. i also love that you brought up meat consumption as a driver as well, a very big part that most people never even mention :D i would love to see a video on your thoughts about it, as i rarely hear about the environmental side! subscribed ^^
Amazing video! I love your channel and appreciate what you're doing for the climate crisis!
Such a fascinating and helpful channel, thank you so much for all you do Adam
I'm glad you like it, Andrea. thanks so much for watching 💚
Where did you get the $40,000 per year information from at 4:30?
it comes from this report:
www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/research-report-carbon-inequality-era.pdf
@@ClimateAdam thank you
@@ClimateAdam The mean income of the richest 10% is $122,100 per year (Chancel et al., World Inequality Report 2022). That is a lot higher than the $40 000 per year limit, probably because the 1% ultrarich are included. The median of the 10% might be lower. Makes you think how much responsibility the ultrarich have of climate change.
$40,000 is the threshhold (above which you're in the top 10%) not the average (mean or median) earnings of the top 10%.
Excellent video as always Adam
I think you are missing an important factor in your arguments.
When calculating the CO2 footprint of reach people, do you include only the private footprint, or also to corporate footprint?
If you include the corporate one, you would make an inaccurate comparison, as someone needs to produce medicine, trains and cars.
Great video, very well researched. I learned a lot!
We need the climate models to reflect the peaking of population. It is very important.
Many of them do! This is covered by so-called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways - CarbonBrief does a good explainer on how these are used in modelling.
Overconsumption, resource depletion, ecosystem destruction,animal agriculture. But basically rich people that use that land, meat, phone, computer, leather pants etc.
As always, really informative and well done Adam, thank you. I'll share with my Facebook friends.
thanks Kay!
Great video Adam! It's both informative and simple to understand to beginners!♥️🍃💚
Exactly the balance I aim for 💚💚💚
@@ClimateAdam 💚💚💚
Thanks for clearing this up. very necessary chocolate cake analogy too
Definitely not just because I wanted to eat chocolate cake.....!
i am on enhanced disability. today i used Wren's carbon footprint calculator. My footprint is 3.9
The world average is 4.9
The uk average (when im from) is 6.x
The us average is 18.x
To become carbon neutral, it will only cost me £6.xx/mnth -a netflix subscription, or two coffees in a cafe
i will be looking at my expenses to ascertain if i can afford this without affecting my mental health/recovery journey.
It is time to make myself a budget, so i have better financial control and more freedom to prioritise my outgoings. Luckily, i already bank with co-op and nationwide, they are the uk's top 2 big banks for ethics etc
woah sounds like you already do loads, kim!
@@ClimateAdam aww thankyou! that means alot coming from you
Biggest single Impact BY FAR one can do to reduce CO2 impact is having one less child (58tonnes/year) compared with 0.8 tonnes/yr by going vegetarian or 2.4t/yr by getting rid of the car.
@@niqjaw5009 This is good info, but 20mins ago, i very nearly replied with a scathing attack, because it triggered me.
I would ask of you that in the future, to please bear in mind that there are people out there who dont have/not able to have ONE child and their hearts are broken and triggerable.
It was too easy to skip over 'having one less child' and even when i HAD realised you meant 'instead of having multiple children, consider one child less than your desired amount', well, lets just say i was still rather snarky due to the emo impact i was experiencing 'youre preaching to the choir, i know this' etc.
I've been in therapy a while now, im pleased with my restraint, but i wanted to warn you incase others react with their initial impulses.
I honestly cant think of another concise way you couldve put the message across however and it IS an important bit of info that needs sharing, so im not encouraging you to stop sharing it, or to walk on egg-shells, but fore-warned is fore-armed as they say, so please, if such an attack happens in future, please try not to take it personally.
wow your videos are great just saw the Jordan Peterson reaction one...thank u I was very confused with that tweet..
That was a fine production as usual. You could have included the following reference that I urge reader to search for.
Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals (Population Press Files - PDF)
The following graphic demonstrates the recent trends in population growth.
Human Population Through Time (UA-cam)
It's 100% an overpopulation problem , The supply and demand increases which means more land needed for food , so cut down the amazon rainforest to create more feed/food is just one example of many! We are all sleepwalking into this by treating the symptom and not the cause.
Great video Adam - the graphics were beautiful. I picked up a few new facts about the myth of overpopulation too so thanks for that!
wow that means a lot coming from you, Holly!
Great video. Subscribed!
welcome, Hooman!
I'm not sure I understand.
The most polluting countries in the world are also the most populated.
Some are rich and some are poor.
But what they do share in common is they have more people that live there.
What am I missing?
As someone who is very interested in climate change this video does a good explanation of the causes. Thank you so much 😊
you are very welcome!
NPR recently had a great interview relative to the “population growth” discussion. The interviewee was talking about how developed countries have an economic problem with too low of population growth while the undeveloped countries have a problem with too much population growth.
He was making the case that being open to immigration can help both countries with their issues.
Obviously developed countries need to drastically cut their emissions or else this could just exacerbate other problems.
Interesting idea. But with so much anti immigration rhetoric across many rich parts of the world, it's hard to imagine this getting implemented, even if the economic benefits were clear.
Thxs for this video. Everyone needs to hear this. I originally was one of those who thought more people was the main reason climate change is getting worse. This video opened my eyes.
4:33 oops, already had my guillotine out…
A great look at how wealth and emissions relate, thanks! Agree that we are in desperate need of wealth taxes, especially to fund some of those systemic changes we need. A carbon tax could work too, if there was a buffer for the poor, although I’m not sure it would curtail the carbon consumption of the wealthy by too much. Ultimately, plutocratic capitalism is how the wealthy got wealthy in the first place. And also how the wealthy have been able to stymy climate action for so long:
I'm totally with you that it is the wealthy that are contributing the overwhelming majority of the emissions. But if we look at a longer timescale, surely general population growth is a major factor of global warming. When we talk about rising temperatures, we compare to pre-industrial levels. And we've added 7 billion people since then. If we hadn't, we wouldn't see these climate related issues that we have today. But I get there's not much value in this kind of reasoning, since we can't turn back time. We have to work with the reality that we find ourselves in. Still, it's interesting to think about.
Hi Climate Adam. Can you talk about the US corporate terrorism of the Nord Stream pipeline and the consequences of the CH4 that was leaked?
Seconding this. Also, the US military with its 800 military bases and trillion dollar annual budget around the world is the NUMBER 1 polluter and carbon emitter institution in the world. Climate advocates who don't oppose US imperialism/militarism are therefore hypocrites and greenwashers, no different to those they criticise for greenwashing and ignoring the biggest problems.
You don't have nearly enough subscribers. Commenting and liking for visibility
What makes it unwise to dismiss population control as part of the solution is that people generally aspire to increase their consumption as the years go by. Long term it is part of what needs to happen, but for the moment it is a relatively small part
FYI: ChatGPT recommended your channel to me. Solid choice. The model is good.
An element I found missing is corporations and governments. Non human organizations that have a serious impact. Industry and agriculture both contribute significantly.
Especially considering that the volume of people inundating your comments with population as the reason behind climate change is because of heavily funded PR campaigns major polluters like the oil and gas industry have pushed to propagandize people into believing that they are the problem, not the companies.
I had to do a bit of quick math, and yay I’m not in the top 10% of income, so I am likely already not having a huge carbon footprint, but not really because the difference I can make by changing personal things isn’t much. I guess I’ll just keep doing my best, I don’t eat all that much meat myself anyways, but my cats and dog eat more meat in a week than I do in a month, are animal carbon footprints calculated separately from human carbon footprints?
It is important to realize that GHG emissions are not the only cause of human civilization's current state of severe ecological overshoot.
They are too much Adams in the world! For sure that is causing Climate Change 😉😉 Great video! Thanks for creating this content.
Good job Adam. As a climate presenter, this addresses many questions I get. The next most common challenge is "what about China?"
You're doing God's work, Adam! So glad to have found you today, I hope your channel goes mega ultra viral ♥️
As a person educated in sociology and political economy who chose to pursue being an artist instead, thank you for doing this for the public!
Sorry, wrong person.
OK, the question asked was, "Who or what is causing climate change?" You discounted population growth. That is true for the future. But, it is less true for the past. Since the early 70s the population in the advanced nations has more than doubled, and most of the new people earn over $40K/yr. Those added people are adding a lot to the additional CO2 going forward. The number of billionaires is also increasing rapidly. So, this increase of those numbers is also a big problem.
. . IMHO, the market has dominated policy in advanced nations as Neo-liberalism has taken over policy making since 1981. This is the same period as I have known that the world would be in the current mess around this time. So, relying on the market to make decisions has been the main cause of the mess we are in. Relying on the market to solve the mess is NOT going to work. The very idea is insane/crazy. We need non-market solutions, and we need them very fast. I have been proposing a WWII style rationing system (only in advanced industrial nations) with the poor getting enough to survive well, and the super-rich being limited to just 4 times as much as the poorest 50%, with 2x and 3x for those between the poor and the 1%. Rationing will not let the 1% cheat.
I would argue that increased population creates the low paid workers that the wealthy depend upon to make their stuff.
If the world's population had held steady, from say 1960, we would be in a very different place today.
Those who benefit from population growth always argue for it's continuation.
the richer countries do use more energy disproportionately, Steve Koonin makes this clear. He also makes the case that fossil fuel isn't the only impact on climate and that the models that shows this have been wrong in the past and can not even predict the past, Dr John Christy came to the same conclusion.
In actual fact, the greatest influencer of the climate is our sun. Solar energy output is the prime factor. The climate follows solar output patterns.
omg the SUN! why didn't climate scientists remember to check THE SUN?!?
Rich people are rich because of us consumers. We demand products, they supply the product, we pay, they get rich and then we complain that they get rich.. wtf! 🙄
they supply the product? damn.. can't wait for jeff bezos to deliver my amazon package. i bet its hand-made.
Try recontextualisation around ecological overshoot, suddenly your arguments fall flat, or read electrifying the titanic.
Everyone is at fault but not all are on purpose.
Like when they had a 5% off all food when you bring your own cotton or hemp made bag instead of using a plastic bag i used the cotton bags every time.
But then 3 months later it went nobody wants to do it so it doesn't matter if you use a cotton or hemp bag its the same price as if you used a plastic bag that killed it for me like really people bringing a cotton bag to same 5% on every item you buy was to hard how.
Algorithm comment, so hopefully more people get to see it :) Also loved the cake visuals makes the info easy to *digest*
Development appears to be key as well. China was still relatively poor and a small emitter in 1980. Now they emit more than the USA and Europe combined. Of course, they also have more billionaires than the USA now. The developed West did reduce overall emissions slightly, but not enough to offset the increase from China. If everyone develops and emits at China's level, then we have a problem unless they do it with green tech. So far, annual emissions just keep increasing even with all the talk about zero emissions.
Excellent video!
Seems like you have a particular social agenda outside of climate change, that you're trying to wrap inside a climate change video. An economics question for you: would the richest 10% of the population still be as rich (in this context, carbon emitters) if the other 90% did not exist? _Wealth_ is a flexible concept, but if we define it as the ability to consume and emit carbon, then how much of the wealth of the wealthiest nations depends upon the masses of the poor doing the dirty work?
Seems like you haven't really paid attention to the video, he notes in the video that before making the video, he was expecting that blaming the rich is wrong but that the actual data showed that it is right. He isn't pushing an agenda, he is just revealing the data. Most pollution usually comes from flights and eating meat, not necessarily processes the poor are involved in too much so even if you wanted to blame poor people for having a slave job to make products that you consume, you would be wrong.
Exactly those rich needs to drop footprint.
And it isn’t wealth in terms of capital wealth that is the problem. It is consumption, and especially overconsumption
Very informative video. I gave up red meat long ago for non-climate reasons and have pecked away at reducing my use of fossil fuels but as you say a big problem is structural, and that can't change rapidly enough until there is a critical a mass of informed citizens. I heard Jordan Peterson in a video (forget who he was talking to) say that if the poor can become richer then they will care about the environment. The implication being that fossil fuels are the most expedient way to increase prosperity. Which does have a basis in fact I think, at least historically. Except the downsides at multiple levels, including of course a gigantic increase in CO2 emissions would be a catastrophe. So, a big part of the problem is simplistic bumper-sticker-level logic put out there by clueless or disingenuous people having high visibility and trusted by many that are wrongly taken as knowledgeable or sincere when they may be neither.
You're right that that has a historical basis, as well as to point out the downsides (such as climate change and air pollution). But beyond this, times have changed. Wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of energy, and are especially useful where there's no electricity grid. So providing (more) electricity to people in poverty can increasingly be done by "leapfrogging" - going straight to renewables.
Even if someone has low emissions they could still be contributing to the problem by, for example, razing the rainforest to grow cattle.
emissions from land use changes are normally taken into account in carbon footprints (and where they're not... they should be!)
As all these poorer countries gradually accumulate more wealth, they too are going to want to live as Westerners do, much like we're seeing in China and, to a slightly lesser degree, India. And I know this isn't the focus of your channel, but the effects of overpopulation on biodiversity are incredibly problematic, from an increase in land-use change to the consumption of bush meat and traditional "medicines." Then we have the additional problem of gender inequality. Women who have more children in these poorer countries have fewer opportunities for education, leading to lower incomes and less independence. We can't say that overpopulation isn't a serious concern. Ideally, we will simultaneously reduce overconsumption AND overpopulation.
great video
Good video.
The reason for the population drop is well understood. For several hindered years there has been a great movement of people out of rural places into urban places. Urban women do not have as many children as rural ones do. It is that simple. Think of the young women in your life. How many children do they have? If below 2.1 then the population is falling. Now you can even argue that a young woman with a cellphone is an urban woman no matter where she lives.
Well, there is a difference between getting people out if poverty and getting developing countries onto our levels (which are almost all close to the richest 10% in western countries) - including rising life expectations due to access to good nutrition, healthcare and other luxuries in our lifes that are "normal" for us. Of course, we can blame "the rich", but realizing that we are "the rich" won't cause commuting house owners with a car, a washing machine, big TV screen, a dryer and newest cell phone to move into a small flat in the city center without internet. Or would you?
Excess / inefficient (meat dairy eating ) consumption .
We are now in the boiling frog stage
"if you add a billion people"
But... What kind of people?
Limiting population growth is not so much about direct carbon output adding to climate change, ( which is only part of the problem)...it is about the intense pressure the population places on a struggling planet.
The poorer countries may not have the same consumerist carbon footprint the richer ones do, but they still place a devastating effect on the land they spread out onto. This is includes richer countries like Australia, where I live.
You only have to watch a few documentaries on places in Africa, Asia and South America to see the cutting down of trees, sickening of the waterways, killing off of animals around, overfishing, child labour.
At a time when ecologists suggest we could counterbalance the human footprint by potentially rewilding or at least regenerating a large chunk of our cleared areas, it seems insane to support a growing population anywhere.
Crunching numbers does not change the damage on the ground that is very real right now in every part of the planet.
You have to think why they are cutting down trees, I don't have numbers but most 'new' land is for growing crops to feed cows, for pasture or for mineral resources, wich are either eaten or used by the global north, aka usa and europe. Most of the pollution is the same, is industry that makes products for the rich and middle class, using cheap labor and weak environmental laws (laws that are weak by purpose and by lobbying of multinational corporations), the industry is most of the time a multinacional corporation sending the profits away
@@otaviomoreira2587As human population in a country grows then they need habitat to live and so cut down surrounding rainforest, wetlands or whatever to build new urban sprawl and so displacing whatever wildlife previously lived there
Where we humans live not much else lives.
What causes climate change? Errr, the earth. Up and down over millenia.
Yes, Life finds the way since dinosaurs to the present man on the moon 🌙😅😅.
Edison generators and dynamos power plants and vehicles make the sources of food and water nearly unlimited supply.
We all contribute to climate change. All organisms need to consume resources which they convert into energy which releases heat. Civilizations are massive heat engines, converting massive amounts of resources into heat releasing gases. It's the price we pay for ever greater comfort.
My original comment that I now agree was incorrect (see below) was: "I think the kurtsgesagt video clip is taken out of context. I haven't seen it recently but I'm pretty sure it's not saying what you made it appear to say with that clip"
When listing what causes climate change, they mention population first and foremost. I'd be curious to know what you feel the wider context of the vid is saying.
@@ClimateAdam can you link the video please
sure! ua-cam.com/video/wbR-5mHI6bo/v-deo.html
@@ClimateAdam Thanks Adam. Re-watched. I think that particular part of that particular video did need some more context and your video is perfect for it. Overall their video and video series are very good however. They also have a number of videos about population growth and living standards which are also good. Taken as a whole I think their video series are pretty great, but yes, I retract my earlier comment because taken on its own the above linked video doesn't do the subject you addressed justice and is somewhat misleading.
@@samuelprice538 thanks for your perspective. And, yeah, I'm in general a big watcher of Kurzgesagt, so was def disappointed when I felt they were fairly misleading on this point in this vid.
What… Mercury is in Retrograde… Watch Exon, Royal Duutch Shell & BPP etc promote this new Theory … Would be funny if the situation was not so very dire… Sending U Support from 🇨🇦
Omg not looking forward to the next season of fossil fuel horoscopes..!
@@ClimateAdam LOL … you humour is first rate !!!
Since I was born population in the US has tripled. We have created our fair share of carbon dioxide. Population growth has more to do with habitat loss. It will be very hard to combat poverty in decimated ecosystems. I'm pretty sure we could say what causes climate change is money. Nasty addictive stuff. Worse than fentanyl. The withdrawal is next to impossible. I don't know anyone who has succeeded.
But why has the top 1% been increasing their carbon footprint?
Neo-liberal capitalism.
Personal flights and cruises is my guess
What controls the weather?
00.02% of the gas in the atmosphere OR a yellow boi 10,000% bigger than the earth?
Everyone who enjoyed this video should read “Factfulness”, by Dr Hans Rosling, for more on this approach. The video works much like the book, contrasting the “common sense” conventional wisdom most people believe (even well meaning, intelligent, well educated people) with, well, FACTS. This is the book I recommend the most, and wish everyone would read. We would all be better people for it.
Great video. I'm really fed up with the idea of population being the problem when a 1 percenter with a super yacht emits more than an entire town in the global South. It's so obvious that it's a tactic that is convenient for the rich.
Oh and p.s I love Attenborough but it's a bit rich for someone with two Western kids to bang on about over population when he clearly didn't take any action himself.
Attenborough talks specifically about the REDUCTION ON HABITAT due to human overpopulation. Survival of a species is due habitat availability. As humans increase in numbers (rich And poor) then less habitat is available for other species. Where we live (humans) not much else lives.
how much is the minimum salary of the 1% richest people?
Depends on how much of their products all of us buy.
@@kalidor2299 But right now? 10% richest means 40'000$ or more. How much do you need to earn to count among the 1%?
based on the calculations from the same report, minimum salary is $109k
see table 2 here:
www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/research-report-carbon-inequality-era.pdf