@@johanponken buying a jet versus paying a luxury fuel tax are two different thing. Most aviation fuel is taxed less than gasoline and the EU is looking to scarp tax on fuel for price jets. The rich control the laws, not the poor. It’s the poor who pay more because they can’t affect a change in political policy.
@@gregorymalchuk272 the upper middle class the not rich. Rich people have hundreds of millions and multiple planes and cars and probably own a large company.
So if the richest countries are penalized for sending their (outsourcing) work to polluting countries and the richer countries then have to pay a climate price penalty, who exactly will receive these benefits and why? So if the money goes to other "more?" affected countries, and the money is used to help them develop, are they developing more infrastucture that will only pollute more, or industry that will only pollute more or to individuals are given funds that we must trust the governments to 'control'? Well let's do the math, INDUSTRY has produced the pollution and the governments of the richest countries are going to dole out funds, are the industries then going to be fined, taxed, or penalized in any way? This is the dumbest equation that the taxpayers fund the unruly industrial behaviour that the governments allowed so that they can make profits, but the taxpayers are expected to have guilt and pay more money out to bail out the Industries? This is nuts.
Govt must help the personal income taxpayers by giving them a tax credit for participating in the green economy instead. Right now,only the business entities are benefiting from transforming to the new renewable energy, technology etc. They somehow make their profits with subsidies offered by the govt. Public lose out of their pocket with reduced disposable income.every year. Govt reps have always been pro business citing the provision of employment and economic growth. People must decouple themselves from any economic growth driven by consumerism and save their money. Do you need different clothing for all four seasons and fashion cycles, New phone every two years etc. as if they were born with the dubious social status, social belonging, recognition.....
Those third world countries will take the money and immediately deposit it right back into Swiss banks. Dumb sjw liberals have no idea how corrupt some places can be.
@@savagepro9060 you’re combining polluting and man-made climate change into a single topic called climate change. More absurdity, driven from desperation.
You must realize that this idea of paying is in response to a climate crisis that wasn't seen 10,000, 100,000, and 65 million years ago -- this is with the added human portion in the equation. Moreover, this notion of "paying" isn't a silver bullet and there is no one person that is being paid, it is the response in a money centric society. Do some research; what do you mean 10k, 100k years ago?
We will own nothing and be happy....thats what the very wealthiest in this world are preparing you and everyone else to accept. Then you will do as you are told and wont have any choice in anything.
I totally agree with MonsterMashed it must be some sort of multi faceted arrangement internationally agreed to for example the rivers and oceans must be cleaned and managed as these provide us of so much such as food water oxygen help in cooling the planet ect ect / this would only be one stage of the endeavor
cant stand the inbr3d well off attitude that money makes gravity pull and makes the sun shine. the earth created us. we didnt create it. it turns whether currency is circulating on it or not
7:24 I am annoyed this sentiment made it into this video. Climate change really isn't a question of individual emissions. Individual emissions are peanuts in comparison to the systematic emissions of governments and large corporations. Most individuals today do not choose where there electricity comes from (is it their fault their government is funneling millions in subsidies to fossil fuel power plants? No), nor do they choose how they get their heating, or infrastructure decisions that their country makes (like a focus on expanding car infrastructure instead of offering any collective transport alternatives). And in terms of consumption it's a question of production, the producers choose the methods and location of production, they also artificially induce demand through advertising and by selling products that cannot be repaired, or upgraded/modified. Lastly, air plane travel is kept artificially cheap while other alternatives like high speed trains are often both more expensive for the same distance, and less convenient. Travel by boat also isn't competitive in price. Should people travel less by plane? Yes, but currently most people are encouraged to, or even forced to depending on their specific circumstances with no viable alternative.
100%. The funding for cop27 will come mainly from world tax payers with some contributions from corporations and billionaires. I wonder who'll get more bang for their bucks.
It is a collective lifestyle, rather than individual choice that is the problem. We all want a middle class lifestyle, but that lifestyle is much harder on the environment. A poor person uses 1/50th to 1/100th of CO2 emissions of a middle class person. We have done an absolutely sterling job of bringing the world out of abject poverty (from 40% in 1990s to 10% now), with the notable exception being Subsaharan Africa. This comes at the cost of huge increases in emmisions in China, India and the rest of South East Asia, which have done a stirling job at tackling abject poverty and in terms of reforrestation. There is a structural issue with the united states leveraging its power to avoid cutting emissions. Otherwise I see most of the problem as a conflict between a rich lifestyle (our priorities are to create a clean environment) and a poor lifestyle (why can't we have what thery have). I do not know the australian constitution 11:27, but I would assume that it contains secondary rights along the line of the european convention. The rights violation is that the government has failed to protect the healthy environment of the individuals. In that clip I see nothing that points to an aboriginal lifestyle, and a lot that fits into the desire to live a middle class life that is so normal to us. So I would probably look at something like a subsidy payed proportional to the value of property lost each year to the individuals. That then allows the community and the individual to decide collectively how climate adaptation needs to happen in that part of the world. In my experience, within their means, poor people make smart choices.
@@martinmuller3244 Can you define the middle class. and what makes the "middle class" so different from those that are poorer? Unless you're Elon Musk\Putin, or the poorest person on earth there will always someone who is either richer than you, or poorer than you, and you likely have a lot more in common with those poorer than you than with Musk/Putin. As for abject poverty it's all about where you place the cutoff, which has been moved around a lot. There's also the question of absolute vs proportional poverty. Also, I think you missed my point, for a lot of people it isn't a collective or individual choice, it's systematic caused by organizations you have little control over, like the United States government.
@@Jo-Heike Abject poverty: World bank definition, so $1.90 per person per day correctet for present day. Relative poverty is how you perceive poverty, so absolutely a valid measure, but unhelpful in terms of CO2 emmisions. Middle class would be the intuitive meaning of the word, so something along the lines of: I can buy goods from all over the world, I can take my family to Mc Donalds once a week and I own a TV, a computer and a cell phone. I have running water, sanitation, a geyser, light and some heating. I can access a doctor if I am sick. I have the means to commute, typically by car. Probably what you would call lower middle class in the US. The world has about seven US' worth of middle class today and should have nineteen by 2030. What makes the middle class different is that it uses oil for it's transportation, it uses USA/a common set of ideas for it's food (so for Mc Donalds beef needs to be attained rather than local ingredients), a TV needs to be imported from Taiwan. The Dell Laptop from China, with a fraction going to the high IQ boys in the US. The geyser needs to be powered by gas that comes from fracing somewhere, the sanitation requires sewage plants that are run by electricity that comes from coal; concrete and steel for its mainenance. It is, however nonsense to separate our choices (eg warm shower every day) from the havoc caused by extracting the gas, and make it a "bad companies that extract the gas ..." issue. A poor person would till his field/ own cattle and use animals for transport. This is typical around all the little satelite villages all around the towns in our country. We are one of the richest countries in Africa, but have nearly one in five living in abject poverty. The Unites States is a democracy(albeit a corrupt one), so in the end it's power is vested in its people. If you feel like you have no control over your country, it is more about you having an inflated sense of your own importance, than that you have your fair share in its running. A functioning democracy allows you to get involved at the local, regional, or national level; you do have to make some kind of sense, however. My people have found it possible to sway public opinion in the United States when it was nescessary, and I really do appreciate the openness that the US has to the world. Personally our democracy works a lot less well than yours, yet I have always managed to get the important things done. 7:24 talks about the load we individually put on the planet, which I responded to. I actually do not find it unfair when a company abides by the laws of the land and then cannot be found to have broken the law (as per the clip on the german petroleum company). In terms of structuraI problems, I have always found it horrible that we do not protect the commons and that we have private profit and public liabilty as a value. I do, however blame myself more than the system, as I have often not stood my ground when important things happen. The Europeans do this a lot better than the states or our country ...
@@martinmuller3244 I talked about absolute and relative in terms of numbers. In that relative poverty might have been reduced, but absolute poverty has increased with population growth. I think you have a very skewed view of middle class. Most people don't fit into that definition, not in America, nor in Europe. Emissions also don't have to linked to wealth. For example Sweden's economy is disconnected from its emissions. By the same token a relatively poor person in the Netherland who can walk or bike everywhere is going to emit less than a poor American who has to drive everywhere. And even the American doesn't drive the electricity they're using to power their small apartment might not be as clean, etc. It's about the share of responsibility. The impact of large corporations is undeniable. The German company in the video is responsible for 0.5% of global warming according to estimates, that's an insane amount, much more than many countries. And the damage the do can be vast, just look at Shell in Nigeria, and what they did there. The United States can hardly be considered a democracy. According to a 2014 study published by American Political Science Association called Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens by Martin Gilens and Benjamin the policy opinion of average citizens has a discountablely small effect on actual policy decisions, particularly compared to the economic elites. In short, the US is not a real democracy and is much closer to a plutocratic oligarchy. Even in Europe we don't have direct democracy, we have representative democracy (also, yes, I am European, not American). The only place with some direct democracy is Switzerland. Other places despite public opinion governments are not taking the actions asked of them by their populations. Personally I find it entirely fair to try a company or country in court and find them guilty. Polluting the oceans and the atmosphere should not be accepted. The burning of fossil fuels is causing the deaths of millions through air pollution annually (if you want a better idea look at our world in data).
It's clear we don't have the social structure to address this honestly. Until we find a meaningful way to verify exactly what is being done where and by whom AND tie that information to the solution this is just a pointless game of Wack-A-Mole. Is there really a court with enough scope to deal with this effectively? What about people who would rather die than change? How to confront them without losing our humanity?
the climate changes itself where the earth is in the universe means more than oil there's been multiple ice ages & volcano periods & calm periods before humans burned anything do you think by not burning oil everything would stay the same forever
They’ll never stop asking for or taking our money. It needs to end, now. No more foreign aid to Africa. We need a new Marshall Plan to help Russia and Ukraine.
This is a very Thatcherian question. Whenever the word "pay/payment" is involved with nature, it seams as if a Guilt stigma or a guilt complex is created. Plus, it makes us assume it's about money, property, posession. When in reality I think it's about power. Money is merely a means of transference, like ATP or NADH (in biology), way of transporting something to somewhere, it's a way of exchange. Offcourse, the ones having more money have the hability to controle better the flux of things, and that equals to power. I'm also of the opinion that who has power over something should be held responsible. "With great power comes great responsability. The hard thing to do is making the ones with power feel responsible. The more power one has the more responsibility it should have and feel. How can the system change? - it's very unpredictable, it depends on the morals, ethics, character, personality, education, knowledge, and wisdom of individuals. Another problem is that power atracts the corruptable. A more positive question could be: how to give the tools to those with knowledge and responsability to change the system?
I shouldn't waste your time with this dumb Economist question. Politicians don't have the power to control global climate systems to order simply by redistributing wealth in the form of taxation. Its preposterous.
Rich countries are earning for the cost of environment, but the poor countries are the sufferers. Neither they can protect themselves nor get help from the others. It's shocking.
@@calbowa exactly the problem. Africans need convenient, affordable abortion services on demand; mobile abortion clinics would be a great idea for the UN or MSF.
@@calbowa That's why the developed countries should compensate the emerging countries to make a green energy in the emerging countries. Developed countries had their welfare through polluting, colonialism, unfair trade and nany more. Now, developed countries must change their energy to green energy and compansate your historical carbon to emerging countries. You cannot say that they cannot pollute. Because that is unfair. They want to be Developed also just like people in the developed countries. But you kick off the ladder and blame them. You have no moral and ethics to critize them.
Yes. But invest in smart leap frogging tech. Loans with reasonable (zero real rate) interest rates are acceptable. STOP the subsidies for carbon intensive industry. Global carbon tax (based on the actual cost to offset the tonnage emitted) with half going back to domestic green investment and other half going to international, developing markets.
It’s infuriating. Countries like mine that are not responsible for most emissions will suffer most. The ones who have created this mess will not suffer that is why they are dragging their feet. They should pay us, they owe it to us, frankly it is the least they can do after centuries of injustice.
@@Munchausenification per capita emissions are irrelevant. The climate does not care about how much C02 per person is emitted. The entirety of the US could switch off tomorrow and we'd still be heading towards environmental collapse.
@@WalterKhayyam Actually it does matter as we are discussing who will pay. That means taxes. That means individuals pay. Obviously individuals who are mostly responsible are mostly responsible. Even if we're discussing corporate taxation, the burden per individual matters (shareholder, employee, executive, etc).
They mean by the rich the one in dept to the real ( the goat at the slaughterhouse ) the real rich is the one's who own it all, so that they appeear like the savior of the planet what a fraudulent owners, responsible the corruption of 🌎 yet they are pretending to be the hero .
Definitely: USA, China, Japan, EURO (include UK), Brazil, Canada, Russia, Korea, Mexico, MIddle East. These rich countries top in GDP rankings should definitely pay.
Brazil???? Mexico????? their ecological footprint are very low comparing with the others mentioned..... does not makes any sense your statement..... many small rich countries are far worse than Mexico or Brazil which still kinda poor....
Everyone should know that 1 kg of beef produces about 60kg of carbon dioxide. Plant foods are about 0.5 to 2 kg per 1 kg Food such as beef should have a large carbon tax. And this is without taking into account that 70% of forests are cut to make room for beef, and the water use is gigantic. Driving is less harmful than eating a steak. Why is this not common knowledge yet?
this well be a clear violation of human rights! the rich didnt become rich bcuz he was born with that but he became that and earned that ! everyone must be depending of monthly income and expenses
Rich people need not pay individually for each social / environmental issue. Instead they pay their high proportion of taxes. It is the job of the government to divert the funds wherever it is required.
As a Peruvian I am quite proud of Don Saul and his tenacity, which is just one example of tireless fighters in developed countries. However, I live in Canada for some years now. I am amazed that they don't notice that the Arctic is warming faster than the tropics. Like they really think this is the familiar tune...only people suffering around the tropics, they feel bad and send money/thoughts/prayers. Nah, this is more like COVID, very democratic in a terrifying way. Canada is melting faster than the Amazon is burning. Rich countries are in line for disaster just as much as down South.
We will all pay the price if we don't change our ways. It would be very easy for the richest people of the world to step up to the plate and take responsibility.
The richesta countries such as Usa and many European countries already reduced the CO2 emissions. Whereas China and India are Sky Rocketing. So it useless if we do all the job and the 90% of the world keep increasing emissions
I wish The Economist would include spoken translations. I'm sure there are others like me who are interested in this story, but can't watch the screen to read the subtitles.
You just have to get used to it. Here in Sweden we just subtitle everything, so I often find myself frustrated over the spoken translation instead. It feels like some kind of sloppy dubbing.
It's not about responsibility, or even really justice IMHO, it's about economics. The price of fossil fuels should reflect the harm they are causing. More expensive fossil fuels will make alternatives more economically attractive, helping society better allocate resources. To some degree, one of the functions of civil liabilities is to inject societal preferences and negative externalities into the capitalist economic system, in a fair manner e.g. _yes in principle it would be most profitable to dump waste into a river, no we've decided harms outweigh the benefits there, so we'll penalise you if you do, making it unprofitable_ We need less money going into fossil fuels and more money going into alternatives. (which is why I would encourage people reading this to try and make sure any investments they have aren't in fossil fuels)
The only thing which people don't understand that it's not rich or poor which are harming the planet but unconscious human which are both rich and poor. Do you know why they are doing it because they are in pursuit of well-being. So basically pursuit of well-being is killing this planet. So you have to find the way through which people achieve well being. Other than this there is no way.
Yes and no. We must help them, but not by paying all of it. It’s partially their own responsibility. Did they maintain their infrastructure properly? Even the USA don’t maintain their infrastructure properly. So must Europe pay for the repairs of USA lack of maintenance in infrastructure? I don’t think you can call that fair. And keep in mind that almost every new technology originated from the western country’s. The research and development are expensive. Not to mention that new technology’s in the beginning are way more expensive. By the time new technology are mass produced in the world it will eventually become more affordable for the low income country’s. And what will happen with corruption when we give not so stable country’s/governments unlimited money?
Personally I'm not rich. Probably richer than some out there I guess. But, I'll pay my own way. If I can afford it. I need to live too. That means access to affordable green tech and policies which do not stand of the way of green tech or less plastic, etc, just to try and eke more profit from fossil fuels wherever possible. If the economy shrinks a bit, but the average man or woman is better off, because they don't have electricity bills from generating it themselves and can charge their car from it - Then that's change I can live with. As well as future generations - literally - Which is the point right? I don't think the rich absolutely MUST pay for everything - But they should consider foregoing a bit of profit in the future right? To do the right things. The future of humanity cannot be contingent on profits as usual for the uber wealthy. That would make a mockery of our species.
.Hmm. People build cities in down Valleys, use 4wd cars and other machines, use new technology, develop agriculture, cow farmer, etc ¿They blame rich countries for climate change? ¿Seriously?
I strongly crackdown on climate activism.and climate advocates still must be respect private property than government regulation and creating gov't agency.
@@andrewmcintyre4955 Pleased to hear that you are not another gullible idiot who believes that "countries like yours" can "break" global climate systems and "fix" the problem (whatever that may mean) Maybe your first contribution is just gobbledegook.
It is a collective lifestyle that is the problem. We all want a middle class lifestyle, but that lifestyle is much harder on the environment. A poor person uses 1/50th to 1/100th of CO2 emissions of a middle class person. We have done an absolutely sterling job of bringing the world out of abject poverty (from 40% in 1990s to 10% now), with the notable exception being Subsaharan Africa. This comes at the cost of huge increases in emmisions in China, India and the rest of South East Asia, which have done a stirling job at tackling abject poverty and in terms of reforrestation. There is a structural issue with the united states leveraging its power to avoid cutting emissions. Otherwise I see most of the problem as a conflict between a rich lifestyle (our priorities are to create a clean environment) and a poor lifestyle (why can't we have what they have). I do not know the australian constitution 11:27, but I would assume that it contains secondary rights along the line of the european convention. The rights violation is that the government has failed to protect the healthy environment of the individuals. In that clip I see nothing that points to an aboriginal lifestyle, and a lot that fits into the desire to live a middle class life that is so normal to us. So I would probably look at something like a subsidy payed proportional to the value of property lost each year to the individuals. That then allows the community and the individual to decide collectively how climate adaptation needs to happen in that part of the world. In my experience, within their means, poor people make smart choices.
I think most of this clima arguments have lacking incentives. I would like to think that in a carbon neutral, crytal clear, peace loving future most humans will be able to LIVE and WORK longer. I also think that this future can mitigate live loss, economy loss and clima desasters. What i not understand is the following. If *we* western countrys belife this then it would be economical to invest in change. If this IS economical each government could bunde the biggest fund of the world and gather money of normal working people. Those people would be guaranteed about 6% p.a. The eldery could have a secure retirement, the middle aged could save for a better retirement, and our kids should do better because they would be healthier, can life and work more efficently. ( I am from germany by the way ) One last thing. Yes of course you can sue and tax governments or companys. But all they do is put that cost on to their customers. So as german i watch this and the guy basically says: i will sue this german company which then put's higher prices on me. While i have plenty of cash that i would like to invest in OUR future if you let me.
I believe in one way or another we are all responsible for climate change and global warming, for example i'm sure everyone who reads this comment can look around where they live and find 5 things that they can absolutely live with out, we have been come creatures of comfort and habits but of course there are some who have a bigger carbon footprint than others who lets say live a more simple life. It's only when catastrophic events start affecting the planet on a whole then will every stop and say okay guys we gotta do something spend less, get out of our comfort zones, until then most people are distracted with the status quo.
I think reparations are ridiculous. Keeps folks in the past, instead of the present. The past can’t be changed, but arguing about the past keeps folks from needed changes in the present.
One question for all posts here - during the last ice age 20,000 to 12000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered with ice a couple of kilometres thick. The earth's population was at most 2 million. So, with no human input all that ice melted and sea levels rose by a few hundred metres. Was that a crisis?
For anyone who experienced it it was an unmitigated, EXISTENTIAL crisis just like for anyone today without the means to prepare, or mitigate climate change caused disasters. Also, another issue is that the current rate of climate change is massively accelerated due to human caused emissions. If you have any doubts I recommend looking at the latest IPCC reports.
@@jww0007 There is indisputable scientific evidence that human activities over the last roughly three hundred years (since the start of the industrial revolution) has had a large impact on the rate of climate change, as well as the raise in sea levels world wide. Again I recommend you look at the latest IPCC reports. Also the latest climate report showing proof that human activities are behind the current climate change, and global warming (particularly in Arctic regions, which is where I have lived for most of my life, and trust me if you were closer to the poles you'd notice).
Lest we forget early climate advocates advocated against climate adaptation as an easy way out versus making 'real change', and the same rhetoric is deployed against carbon offsets etc. Doesn't the environmental movement hold responsibility in delaying action towards climate resilience too when the effects of rising temperatures have been known for decades now?
The climate doesn't change every day. The weather does. Dont allow yourself to be so easily fooled. No scientist would ever directly compare average temperatures with high or low temperatures. This is why the Economist should stick to economics and stay out of climate science. Its a dumb schoolboy error by the misinformed.
IMPORTANT REMINDER ! PLEASE READ ! when discussing climate collapse, we completely leave out military operations. which is an extreme mistake since they are responsible for well over half the emissions that are causing climate collapse. thats without considering the effects that over 2000 atmoshperic nuclear explosions have had on what was likely vital parts of the atmosphere that kept our planet safe and stable..
yes of course.If the rich can do it, means if after do it, their business is not in the serious problem because of they donate to save the wholeworld, for us all. And then please donate now to save the wholeworld as much as you can do. Thank you.
One of the saddest things about this report is how you don't mention the effects of climate change in Africa, as if Africa isn't affected by climate change. From the extended droughts, ie. DayZero. The floods in Mozambique that happened at the same time as Notredam burning, the only thing being covered was an old church burning, not the 5000 plus who died in the flooding. Floods in South Africa throughout 2022, people dying, billions in Damage, Nigeria, drought in Kenya, excessive heat. Yet no mention at all.
? That's a bit of an harsh take. They focused on Peru in this case because that's where there's a story about international legal action against an oil company. Nowhere do they say or suggest that Africa _isn't_ be affected by climate change, and the bit about the least responsible countries being the most harmed includes Africa implicitly. Is it really necessary to add a 'oh and Africa too!' bit to the end? What does that add to the topic of the report?
@@merrymachiavelli2041 I appreciate your opinion but you are missing the point. This is not the only story where Africa is overlooked. There are many other stories where Africa's struggle against climate change isn't mentioned at all. Unless it's a story about how the safari experience will be affected, you would be remiss to think that Africa has any issue or even exists. You think I'm being a bit harsh, I think I'm not being harsh enough. The rich got rich on the backs of the poor, and the poor are still suffering for it. Now more than ever.
Stop believing nonsense. Understand the difference between what is climate and what is a weather event. Weather events will always happen. Politicians can NOT control global climate systems to order. Its misinformation. Wake up.
You can't get rich countries to pay poorer countries for natural disasters.. it's like asking a rich person to pay for a taxi to a far away shop if your shopping if the near by shop is closed.. what's needed is a super global fund and international emergency teams..
@sloth bear Drown together... This kind of apocalyptic fanaticism is offputting. And developign coutnries are using a lot of funds to innovate cutting environmental damage, with a lot of that knowledge being spread abroad (thereby creating more jobs). Bankrupting ourselves is not the solution.
Climate Change "Peace without Justice is Tyranny." ~ William "Whenever law ends, tyranny begins." ~ John "Three things cannot be long hidden; the Sun, The Moon and The Truth." ~ Buddha If you want peace, work for justice. ~ Pope VI
The problem is, developed countries back then know the science about climate catastrophe, they have the resources to start the green revolution and steer us away from fossil fuel addiction but they didnt because they choose profit over our biosphere... now they profited from it while most vulnerable countries always loss their gdp to recover from climate change induced disasters and your asking who needs to pay?
People who use private jets should pay for it
They already do. Do you think they are cheap??
3rdworlders are responsible for CO2 emissions
@@johanponken buying a jet versus paying a luxury fuel tax are two different thing. Most aviation fuel is taxed less than gasoline and the EU is looking to scarp tax on fuel for price jets. The rich control the laws, not the poor. It’s the poor who pay more because they can’t affect a change in political policy.
@@Sophie-and-Ken Why are all these activists upper middle class?
@@gregorymalchuk272 the upper middle class the not rich. Rich people have hundreds of millions and multiple planes and cars and probably own a large company.
Theoretically everyone should pay but in reality no one wants to pay. Human greed will end the world.
So if the richest countries are penalized for sending their (outsourcing) work to polluting countries and the richer countries then have to pay a climate price penalty, who exactly will receive these benefits and why? So if the money goes to other "more?" affected countries, and the money is used to help them develop, are they developing more infrastucture that will only pollute more, or industry that will only pollute more or to individuals are given funds that we must trust the governments to 'control'? Well let's do the math, INDUSTRY has produced the pollution and the governments of the richest countries are going to dole out funds, are the industries then going to be fined, taxed, or penalized in any way? This is the dumbest equation that the taxpayers fund the unruly industrial behaviour that the governments allowed so that they can make profits, but the taxpayers are expected to have guilt and pay more money out to bail out the Industries? This is nuts.
Govt must help the personal income taxpayers by giving them a tax credit for participating in the green economy instead. Right now,only the business entities are benefiting from transforming to the new renewable energy, technology etc. They somehow make their profits with subsidies offered by the govt. Public lose out of their pocket with reduced disposable income.every year. Govt reps have always been pro business citing the provision of employment and economic growth. People must decouple themselves from any economic growth driven by consumerism and save their money. Do you need different clothing for all four seasons and fashion cycles, New phone every two years etc. as if they were born with the dubious social status, social belonging, recognition.....
Don't be fooled. CO2 is not pollution. Wake up and see where you are being manipulated by political extremists.
Those third world countries will take the money and immediately deposit it right back into Swiss banks. Dumb sjw liberals have no idea how corrupt some places can be.
Who paid for it 10,000 years ago?, 100,000 years ago? 65million years ago? Pay who? This is absolute nonsense.
there was no man-made toxic shyte back then . . . stop being an idiot, the earth crapped and fixed things up . . . naturally
@@savagepro9060 you’re combining polluting and man-made climate change into a single topic called climate change. More absurdity, driven from desperation.
You must realize that this idea of paying is in response to a climate crisis that wasn't seen 10,000, 100,000, and 65 million years ago -- this is with the added human portion in the equation. Moreover, this notion of "paying" isn't a silver bullet and there is no one person that is being paid, it is the response in a money centric society. Do some research; what do you mean 10k, 100k years ago?
Why is there a pride flag at a climate rally?
they take pride in fkin-up lives, that's why
The "rich" will eventually morph into " The Middle Class" when it comes to "who should pay".
We will own nothing and be happy....thats what the very wealthiest in this world are preparing you and everyone else to accept. Then you will do as you are told and wont have any choice in anything.
Time is of the essence All that can should pay and those who truly have no funds can help in some other designated way
Climate change can't even be measured with exact parameters since we can't define what causes it.
I totally agree with MonsterMashed it must be some sort of multi faceted arrangement internationally agreed to for example the rivers and oceans must be cleaned and managed as these provide us of so much such as food water oxygen help in cooling the planet ect ect / this would only be one stage of the endeavor
Nothing you do will change the outcome...
@@michael2275 Some are inspired to be active and some stay on the couch, watch tv and comment on YT enjoy
@@leadreviewer3257 Some are naive and some are not. The math doesn't pencil on any material change in trajectory on global warming.
It's not about money, you can't pay the universe to give you a new planet. That's a dumb question and the wrong approach to the problem.
cant stand the inbr3d well off attitude that money makes gravity pull and makes the sun shine. the earth created us. we didnt create it. it turns whether currency is circulating on it or not
Probably the Media companies should pay.
7:24 I am annoyed this sentiment made it into this video. Climate change really isn't a question of individual emissions. Individual emissions are peanuts in comparison to the systematic emissions of governments and large corporations. Most individuals today do not choose where there electricity comes from (is it their fault their government is funneling millions in subsidies to fossil fuel power plants? No), nor do they choose how they get their heating, or infrastructure decisions that their country makes (like a focus on expanding car infrastructure instead of offering any collective transport alternatives). And in terms of consumption it's a question of production, the producers choose the methods and location of production, they also artificially induce demand through advertising and by selling products that cannot be repaired, or upgraded/modified. Lastly, air plane travel is kept artificially cheap while other alternatives like high speed trains are often both more expensive for the same distance, and less convenient. Travel by boat also isn't competitive in price. Should people travel less by plane? Yes, but currently most people are encouraged to, or even forced to depending on their specific circumstances with no viable alternative.
100%. The funding for cop27 will come mainly from world tax payers with some contributions from corporations and billionaires. I wonder who'll get more bang for their bucks.
It is a collective lifestyle, rather than individual choice that is the problem. We all want a middle class lifestyle, but that lifestyle is much harder on the environment. A poor person uses 1/50th to 1/100th of CO2 emissions of a middle class person.
We have done an absolutely sterling job of bringing the world out of abject poverty (from 40% in 1990s to 10% now), with the notable exception being Subsaharan Africa. This comes at the cost of huge increases in emmisions in China, India and the rest of South East Asia, which have done a stirling job at tackling abject poverty and in terms of reforrestation.
There is a structural issue with the united states leveraging its power to avoid cutting emissions. Otherwise I see most of the problem as a conflict between a rich lifestyle (our priorities are to create a clean environment) and a poor lifestyle (why can't we have what thery have).
I do not know the australian constitution 11:27, but I would assume that it contains secondary rights along the line of the european convention. The rights violation is that the government has failed to protect the healthy environment of the individuals. In that clip I see nothing that points to an aboriginal lifestyle, and a lot that fits into the desire to live a middle class life that is so normal to us.
So I would probably look at something like a subsidy payed proportional to the value of property lost each year to the individuals. That then allows the community and the individual to decide collectively how climate adaptation needs to happen in that part of the world. In my experience, within their means, poor people make smart choices.
@@martinmuller3244 Can you define the middle class. and what makes the "middle class" so different from those that are poorer? Unless you're Elon Musk\Putin, or the poorest person on earth there will always someone who is either richer than you, or poorer than you, and you likely have a lot more in common with those poorer than you than with Musk/Putin.
As for abject poverty it's all about where you place the cutoff, which has been moved around a lot. There's also the question of absolute vs proportional poverty.
Also, I think you missed my point, for a lot of people it isn't a collective or individual choice, it's systematic caused by organizations you have little control over, like the United States government.
@@Jo-Heike Abject poverty: World bank definition, so $1.90 per person per day correctet for present day.
Relative poverty is how you perceive poverty, so absolutely a valid measure, but unhelpful in terms of CO2 emmisions.
Middle class would be the intuitive meaning of the word, so something along the lines of: I can buy goods from all over the world, I can take my family to Mc Donalds once a week and I own a TV, a computer and a cell phone. I have running water, sanitation, a geyser, light and some heating. I can access a doctor if I am sick. I have the means to commute, typically by car. Probably what you would call lower middle class in the US. The world has about seven US' worth of middle class today and should have nineteen by 2030.
What makes the middle class different is that it uses oil for it's transportation, it uses USA/a common set of ideas for it's food (so for Mc Donalds beef needs to be attained rather than local ingredients), a TV needs to be imported from Taiwan. The Dell Laptop from China, with a fraction going to the high IQ boys in the US. The geyser needs to be powered by gas that comes from fracing somewhere, the sanitation requires sewage plants that are run by electricity that comes from coal; concrete and steel for its mainenance. It is, however nonsense to separate our choices (eg warm shower every day) from the havoc caused by extracting the gas, and make it a "bad companies that extract the gas ..." issue.
A poor person would till his field/ own cattle and use animals for transport. This is typical around all the little satelite villages all around the towns in our country. We are one of the richest countries in Africa, but have nearly one in five living in abject poverty.
The Unites States is a democracy(albeit a corrupt one), so in the end it's power is vested in its people. If you feel like you have no control over your country, it is more about you having an inflated sense of your own importance, than that you have your fair share in its running. A functioning democracy allows you to get involved at the local, regional, or national level; you do have to make some kind of sense, however.
My people have found it possible to sway public opinion in the United States when it was nescessary, and I really do appreciate the openness that the US has to the world. Personally our democracy works a lot less well than yours, yet I have always managed to get the important things done.
7:24 talks about the load we individually put on the planet, which I responded to. I actually do not find it unfair when a company abides by the laws of the land and then cannot be found to have broken the law (as per the clip on the german petroleum company).
In terms of structuraI problems, I have always found it horrible that we do not protect the commons and that we have private profit and public liabilty as a value. I do, however blame myself more than the system, as I have often not stood my ground when important things happen. The Europeans do this a lot better than the states or our country ...
@@martinmuller3244 I talked about absolute and relative in terms of numbers. In that relative poverty might have been reduced, but absolute poverty has increased with population growth.
I think you have a very skewed view of middle class. Most people don't fit into that definition, not in America, nor in Europe.
Emissions also don't have to linked to wealth. For example Sweden's economy is disconnected from its emissions. By the same token a relatively poor person in the Netherland who can walk or bike everywhere is going to emit less than a poor American who has to drive everywhere. And even the American doesn't drive the electricity they're using to power their small apartment might not be as clean, etc.
It's about the share of responsibility. The impact of large corporations is undeniable. The German company in the video is responsible for 0.5% of global warming according to estimates, that's an insane amount, much more than many countries. And the damage the do can be vast, just look at Shell in Nigeria, and what they did there.
The United States can hardly be considered a democracy. According to a 2014 study published by American Political Science Association called Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens by Martin Gilens and Benjamin the policy opinion of average citizens has a discountablely small effect on actual policy decisions, particularly compared to the economic elites. In short, the US is not a real democracy and is much closer to a plutocratic oligarchy.
Even in Europe we don't have direct democracy, we have representative democracy (also, yes, I am European, not American). The only place with some direct democracy is Switzerland. Other places despite public opinion governments are not taking the actions asked of them by their populations.
Personally I find it entirely fair to try a company or country in court and find them guilty. Polluting the oceans and the atmosphere should not be accepted. The burning of fossil fuels is causing the deaths of millions through air pollution annually (if you want a better idea look at our world in data).
No
I think they should first take the initiative on how to reduce the carbon emissions.
If the lake flooded the village in 1941, why is it some current corporation's fault that it might flood again in the future?
@The Wandering Fool Sad but true! but the taxpayers have to pay for it.
"Every culture and every era, two driving forces, omnivorous human greed and the quenchless thirst for power." ~ Unknown
Add to that the need for stories and to fit in with the group.
Yes, but its only a handful of individuals and it has nothing to do with global climate systems.
The super-rich should be outlawed. If you can afford a yacht with a swimming pool you've got too much money.
move to North Korea
@@dimaniak...coz that is the only alternative?
@@rhysholdaway yes, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.
It’s incredibly sad how little the general public understands about energy and emissions.
Clearly The Economist knows even less about climate science and should stick to economics.
did not watch the video. answer still yes
"Who should pay?" - "Yes." ??
If you tax the companies, they just pass on the higher prices back to you.
Thats the game!
It's clear we don't have the social structure to address this honestly. Until we find a meaningful way to verify exactly what is being done where and by whom AND tie that information to the solution this is just a pointless game of Wack-A-Mole. Is there really a court with enough scope to deal with this effectively? What about people who would rather die than change? How to confront them without losing our humanity?
the climate changes itself
where the earth is in the universe means more than oil
there's been multiple ice ages & volcano periods & calm periods before humans burned anything
do you think by not burning oil everything would stay the same forever
They’ll never stop asking for or taking our money. It needs to end, now. No more foreign aid to Africa. We need a new Marshall Plan to help Russia and Ukraine.
@@jww0007 it's not about climate change or not, it's about the rate of change which you cannot compare with any previous changes in human history
why should i pay tax for the Maldives, everyone that goes there fly's on a jet or takes a boat as well, all the grub is shipped in,
can anyone explain me what do you mean by sustainable fishing?
Anyone that profits from selling petrochemicals should pay.
When you say rich should pay I assume you mean Black Rock and Vanguard?
This is a very Thatcherian question. Whenever the word "pay/payment" is involved with nature, it seams as if a Guilt stigma or a guilt complex is created. Plus, it makes us assume it's about money, property, posession. When in reality I think it's about power. Money is merely a means of transference, like ATP or NADH (in biology), way of transporting something to somewhere, it's a way of exchange.
Offcourse, the ones having more money have the hability to controle better the flux of things, and that equals to power.
I'm also of the opinion that who has power over something should be held responsible. "With great power comes great responsability. The hard thing to do is making the ones with power feel responsible. The more power one has the more responsibility it should have and feel. How can the system change? - it's very unpredictable, it depends on the morals, ethics, character, personality, education, knowledge, and wisdom of individuals. Another problem is that power atracts the corruptable.
A more positive question could be: how to give the tools to those with knowledge and responsability to change the system?
I shouldn't waste your time with this dumb Economist question.
Politicians don't have the power to control global climate systems to order simply by redistributing wealth in the form of taxation. Its preposterous.
The sad truth is that for the environment the more countries that get richer the worse off it is for the environment.
Rich countries are earning for the cost of environment, but the poor countries are the sufferers. Neither they can protect themselves nor get help from the others. It's shocking.
African population is exploding so idk how that really is ‘suffering’.
@@damonmelendez856 you know nothing. You don’t have any tangible experience. Have you starved for a single day?
The majority of new emissions will come from developing economies with rapidly growing populations.
@@calbowa exactly the problem. Africans need convenient, affordable abortion services on demand; mobile abortion clinics would be a great idea for the UN or MSF.
@@calbowa That's why the developed countries should compensate the emerging countries to make a green energy in the emerging countries. Developed countries had their welfare through polluting, colonialism, unfair trade and nany more. Now, developed countries must change their energy to green energy and compansate your historical carbon to emerging countries. You cannot say that they cannot pollute. Because that is unfair. They want to be Developed also just like people in the developed countries. But you kick off the ladder and blame them. You have no moral and ethics to critize them.
Yes. But invest in smart leap frogging tech. Loans with reasonable (zero real rate) interest rates are acceptable. STOP the subsidies for carbon intensive industry. Global carbon tax (based on the actual cost to offset the tonnage emitted) with half going back to domestic green investment and other half going to international, developing markets.
Enforcing one child policy in 3rd world countries would be more effective
@@dimaniak Can't do both? Also as countries become richer (better education, industrialization, healthcare) their fertility rates naturally drop.
People who make more than 1 babie should pay for everything
Define "babie."
It’s infuriating. Countries like mine that are not responsible for most emissions will suffer most. The ones who have created this mess will not suffer that is why they are dragging their feet. They should pay us, they owe it to us, frankly it is the least they can do after centuries of injustice.
Developing countries emit 5 times more CO2 than the US.
@@dimaniak Try and take a look on per capita emmisions. Its a whole different picture
@@Munchausenification per capita emissions are irrelevant. The climate does not care about how much C02 per person is emitted. The entirety of the US could switch off tomorrow and we'd still be heading towards environmental collapse.
@@dimaniak jesus christ now that's a bad argument
@@WalterKhayyam Actually it does matter as we are discussing who will pay. That means taxes. That means individuals pay. Obviously individuals who are mostly responsible are mostly responsible. Even if we're discussing corporate taxation, the burden per individual matters (shareholder, employee, executive, etc).
The rich should pay for a number of things
careful, zero is a number
They mean by the rich the one in dept to the real ( the goat at the slaughterhouse ) the real rich is the one's who own it all, so that they appeear like the savior of the planet what a fraudulent owners, responsible the corruption of 🌎 yet they are pretending to be the hero .
@@savagepro9060 not really. Nothing is not a thing.
@BrownBraniac I see you are a condescending egomaniac.
@@CassieAngelica if nothing is not a thing then how does nothing have a name
Definitely: USA, China, Japan, EURO (include UK), Brazil, Canada, Russia, Korea, Mexico, MIddle East. These rich countries top in GDP rankings should definitely pay.
Brazil???? Mexico????? their ecological footprint are very low comparing with the others mentioned..... does not makes any sense your statement..... many small rich countries are far worse than Mexico or Brazil which still kinda poor....
The US and European nations are at the forefront of innovating to reduce environmental damage?
Doh, really?
We try to get the rich to pay for everything. It never happens. Next caller...
So we remove the notion of "rich"?
Everyone should know that 1 kg of beef produces about 60kg of carbon dioxide.
Plant foods are about 0.5 to 2 kg per 1 kg
Food such as beef should have a large carbon tax. And this is without taking into account that 70% of forests are cut to make room for beef, and the water use is gigantic.
Driving is less harmful than eating a steak. Why is this not common knowledge yet?
Yup
Wilful ignorance.
this well be a clear violation of human rights! the rich didnt become rich bcuz he was born with that but he became that and earned that ! everyone must be depending of monthly income and expenses
"Conflict, insecurity, weak institutions and limited access to justice remain a great threat to sustainable development." ~ UN
Rich people need not pay individually for each social / environmental issue. Instead they pay their high proportion of taxes. It is the job of the government to divert the funds wherever it is required.
of course the economist frames the large problem of climate change is from the individual and not large multinational corporations
Problem, reaction, solution, by the book scheme.
Great material. Hope these voices are heard…
The people who waste the most, fill the landfills, exploit resources? Only The Economist dares ask this question.
How exactly will money solve this issue? Which currency are we going to use and who's going to do what exactly, in order to "solve" this?
Yes.
No.
The government should make the move .
Maybe Saudi Arabia should pay for it, since they make money off oil, instead of buying Newcastle.
Liquidate Exxon and that’s enough cash to tackle globally
As a Peruvian I am quite proud of Don Saul and his tenacity, which is just one example of tireless fighters in developed countries. However, I live in Canada for some years now. I am amazed that they don't notice that the Arctic is warming faster than the tropics. Like they really think this is the familiar tune...only people suffering around the tropics, they feel bad and send money/thoughts/prayers. Nah, this is more like COVID, very democratic in a terrifying way. Canada is melting faster than the Amazon is burning. Rich countries are in line for disaster just as much as down South.
I think UA-cam should pay.
We will all pay the price if we don't change our ways. It would be very easy for the richest people of the world to step up to the plate and take responsibility.
Nonsense. Stop repeating garbage and educate yourself with the science.
The richesta countries such as Usa and many European countries already reduced the CO2 emissions. Whereas China and India are Sky Rocketing. So it useless if we do all the job and the 90% of the world keep increasing emissions
I wish The Economist would include spoken translations. I'm sure there are others like me who are interested in this story, but can't watch the screen to read the subtitles.
You just have to get used to it. Here in Sweden we just subtitle everything, so I often find myself frustrated over the spoken translation instead. It feels like some kind of sloppy dubbing.
Countries that produces carbon emissions the most, should foot the bill
Big OIL Should Pay , not tax payers
It's not about responsibility, or even really justice IMHO, it's about economics. The price of fossil fuels should reflect the harm they are causing. More expensive fossil fuels will make alternatives more economically attractive, helping society better allocate resources. To some degree, one of the functions of civil liabilities is to inject societal preferences and negative externalities into the capitalist economic system, in a fair manner e.g. _yes in principle it would be most profitable to dump waste into a river, no we've decided harms outweigh the benefits there, so we'll penalise you if you do, making it unprofitable_
We need less money going into fossil fuels and more money going into alternatives. (which is why I would encourage people reading this to try and make sure any investments they have aren't in fossil fuels)
The only thing which people don't understand that it's not rich or poor which are harming the planet but unconscious human which are both rich and poor. Do you know why they are doing it because they are in pursuit of well-being. So basically pursuit of well-being is killing this planet. So you have to find the way through which people achieve well being. Other than this there is no way.
Yes and no. We must help them, but not by paying all of it. It’s partially their own responsibility. Did they maintain their infrastructure properly? Even the USA don’t maintain their infrastructure properly. So must Europe pay for the repairs of USA lack of maintenance in infrastructure? I don’t think you can call that fair.
And keep in mind that almost every new technology originated from the western country’s. The research and development are expensive. Not to mention that new technology’s in the beginning are way more expensive. By the time new technology are mass produced in the world it will eventually become more affordable for the low income country’s.
And what will happen with corruption when we give not so stable country’s/governments unlimited money?
Personally I'm not rich. Probably richer than some out there I guess. But, I'll pay my own way. If I can afford it. I need to live too. That means access to affordable green tech and policies which do not stand of the way of green tech or less plastic, etc, just to try and eke more profit from fossil fuels wherever possible. If the economy shrinks a bit, but the average man or woman is better off, because they don't have electricity bills from generating it themselves and can charge their car from it - Then that's change I can live with. As well as future generations - literally - Which is the point right? I don't think the rich absolutely MUST pay for everything - But they should consider foregoing a bit of profit in the future right? To do the right things. The future of humanity cannot be contingent on profits as usual for the uber wealthy. That would make a mockery of our species.
.Hmm. People build cities in down Valleys, use 4wd cars and other machines, use new technology, develop agriculture, cow farmer, etc ¿They blame rich countries for climate change? ¿Seriously?
Aonde existe montanha aqui ?
I strongly crackdown on climate activism.and climate advocates still must be respect private property than government regulation and creating gov't agency.
The countries like mine that contribute the most to the problem. You break it, you fix it.
You are misinformed dear chap. Politicians can NOT control global climate systems to order. Its misinformation. Wake up.
@@spillarge Spare your bs for some gullible idiot.
@@andrewmcintyre4955 Pleased to hear that you are not another gullible idiot who believes that "countries like yours" can "break" global climate systems and "fix" the problem (whatever that may mean) Maybe your first contribution is just gobbledegook.
"Crimes that Affect the Environment and Climate Change, It need integration of criminal justice and law enforcement." Unknown
Three things cannot be long hidden; The Sun, The Moon and The Truth. ~ Buddha
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." Jesus Christ
Carbon emission : Air jet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Bike,
Overpopulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Air jet
Developing countries emit 73% of CO2
There is no price for the vinsequences. The only price to pay is to go to zéro carbon asap. No ?
Can you guys suggest me channels like the economist
I think rich people should take the responsibility first, as they are able to make big differences to the world.
No
The way the rich (both world and people) "take responsibility" is to make the poor behave as the rich. Which strangles them.
@@johanponken and that creates poverty. Poverty also pollutes.
The fashion industry produces more carbon emissions that the transportation sector.
It is a collective lifestyle that is the problem. We all want a middle class lifestyle, but that lifestyle is much harder on the environment. A poor person uses 1/50th to 1/100th of CO2 emissions of a middle class person.
We have done an absolutely sterling job of bringing the world out of abject poverty (from 40% in 1990s to 10% now), with the notable exception being Subsaharan Africa. This comes at the cost of huge increases in emmisions in China, India and the rest of South East Asia, which have done a stirling job at tackling abject poverty and in terms of reforrestation.
There is a structural issue with the united states leveraging its power to avoid cutting emissions. Otherwise I see most of the problem as a conflict between a rich lifestyle (our priorities are to create a clean environment) and a poor lifestyle (why can't we have what they have).
I do not know the australian constitution 11:27, but I would assume that it contains secondary rights along the line of the european convention. The rights violation is that the government has failed to protect the healthy environment of the individuals. In that clip I see nothing that points to an aboriginal lifestyle, and a lot that fits into the desire to live a middle class life that is so normal to us.
So I would probably look at something like a subsidy payed proportional to the value of property lost each year to the individuals. That then allows the community and the individual to decide collectively how climate adaptation needs to happen in that part of the world. In my experience, within their means, poor people make smart choices.
Rich people building rockets to make space travel "affordable", just making a way to escape this planet and leaving it in Abyss.
Only the rich can pay with their money, the poor can only pay with their life.
have less kids
I think most of this clima arguments have lacking incentives.
I would like to think that in a carbon neutral, crytal clear, peace loving future most humans will be able to LIVE and WORK longer.
I also think that this future can mitigate live loss, economy loss and clima desasters.
What i not understand is the following. If *we* western countrys belife this then it would be economical to invest in change.
If this IS economical each government could bunde the biggest fund of the world and gather money of normal working people.
Those people would be guaranteed about 6% p.a.
The eldery could have a secure retirement, the middle aged could save for a better retirement, and our kids should do better because they would be healthier, can life and work more efficently.
( I am from germany by the way )
One last thing. Yes of course you can sue and tax governments or companys. But all they do is put that cost on to their customers.
So as german i watch this and the guy basically says: i will sue this german company which then put's higher prices on me. While i have plenty of cash that i would like to invest in OUR future if you let me.
No, the polluting countries should.
Love this video.
heat resistance crop
sea water resistance crop
rising sea level, flood
heat, drought
ancient virus
Answer: YES
Y’all should pay Amazonian countries a carbon tax.
Strangely the IPCC itself has found no evidence of increasing severe weather events.
I believe in one way or another we are all responsible for climate change and global warming, for example i'm sure everyone who reads this comment can look around where they live and find 5 things that they can absolutely live with out, we have been come creatures of comfort and habits but of course there are some who have a bigger carbon footprint than others who lets say live a more simple life. It's only when catastrophic events start affecting the planet on a whole then will every stop and say okay guys we gotta do something spend less, get out of our comfort zones, until then most people are distracted with the status quo.
Moral hazard and corruption will be rife.
Who should pay? Those who made a profit from heating it.
3rdworlders
the poor country should pay for the famine sufferings they cause,
by holding the wrong politics.
I think reparations are ridiculous. Keeps folks in the past, instead of the present. The past can’t be changed, but arguing about the past keeps folks from needed changes in the present.
Everyone said everyone, except oneself.
The biggest polluters
are developing countries
One question for all posts here - during the last ice age 20,000 to 12000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered with ice a couple of kilometres thick. The earth's population was at most 2 million. So, with no human input all that ice melted and sea levels rose by a few hundred metres. Was that a crisis?
For anyone who experienced it it was an unmitigated, EXISTENTIAL crisis just like for anyone today without the means to prepare, or mitigate climate change caused disasters. Also, another issue is that the current rate of climate change is massively accelerated due to human caused emissions. If you have any doubts I recommend looking at the latest IPCC reports.
But there was no one to make a racist melee mouth video about it or anyone to sue.
@@Jo-Heike you just let it fly over your head
the CLIMATE CHANGES ITSELF
it's not going to be crazy because of oil burning
@@jww0007 There is indisputable scientific evidence that human activities over the last roughly three hundred years (since the start of the industrial revolution) has had a large impact on the rate of climate change, as well as the raise in sea levels world wide. Again I recommend you look at the latest IPCC reports. Also the latest climate report showing proof that human activities are behind the current climate change, and global warming (particularly in Arctic regions, which is where I have lived for most of my life, and trust me if you were closer to the poles you'd notice).
All because Groknug Trump pulled out of the cave accords of 12000BC.
Lest we forget early climate advocates advocated against climate adaptation as an easy way out versus making 'real change', and the same rhetoric is deployed against carbon offsets etc. Doesn't the environmental movement hold responsibility in delaying action towards climate resilience too when the effects of rising temperatures have been known for decades now?
The climate always changes daily.
The climate doesn't change every day. The weather does. Dont allow yourself to be so easily fooled. No scientist would ever directly compare average temperatures with high or low temperatures. This is why the Economist should stick to economics and stay out of climate science. Its a dumb schoolboy error by the misinformed.
IMPORTANT REMINDER ! PLEASE READ ! when discussing climate collapse, we completely leave out military operations. which is an extreme mistake since they are responsible for well over half the emissions that are causing climate collapse. thats without considering the effects that over 2000 atmoshperic nuclear explosions have had on what was likely vital parts of the atmosphere that kept our planet safe and stable..
Everyone should pay.
Poor people cant pay
@@agateslate7939 so don't procreate
China,India,USA,Russia,Japan,and whole Europe
Who are destroying forest for mining and using coal, fossil fuels most, are responsible for this
Free water from super heavy rain
Yes, they should. Thank you for asking.
Nope
yes of course.If the rich can do it, means if after do it, their business is not in the serious problem because of they donate to save the wholeworld, for us all. And then please donate now to save the wholeworld as much as you can do. Thank you.
One of the saddest things about this report is how you don't mention the effects of climate change in Africa, as if Africa isn't affected by climate change. From the extended droughts, ie. DayZero. The floods in Mozambique that happened at the same time as Notredam burning, the only thing being covered was an old church burning, not the 5000 plus who died in the flooding. Floods in South Africa throughout 2022, people dying, billions in Damage, Nigeria, drought in Kenya, excessive heat. Yet no mention at all.
African population is exploding. Do they really need more aid??
@@damonmelendez856 no idea what you mean
? That's a bit of an harsh take. They focused on Peru in this case because that's where there's a story about international legal action against an oil company. Nowhere do they say or suggest that Africa _isn't_ be affected by climate change, and the bit about the least responsible countries being the most harmed includes Africa implicitly. Is it really necessary to add a 'oh and Africa too!' bit to the end? What does that add to the topic of the report?
@@merrymachiavelli2041 I appreciate your opinion but you are missing the point. This is not the only story where Africa is overlooked. There are many other stories where Africa's struggle against climate change isn't mentioned at all. Unless it's a story about how the safari experience will be affected, you would be remiss to think that Africa has any issue or even exists.
You think I'm being a bit harsh, I think I'm not being harsh enough. The rich got rich on the backs of the poor, and the poor are still suffering for it. Now more than ever.
Stop believing nonsense. Understand the difference between what is climate and what is a weather event. Weather events will always happen.
Politicians can NOT control global climate systems to order. Its misinformation. Wake up.
Time to strengthen promoting climate action worldwide urgently.
You can't get rich countries to pay poorer countries for natural disasters.. it's like asking a rich person to pay for a taxi to a far away shop if your shopping if the near by shop is closed.. what's needed is a super global fund and international emergency teams..
@sloth bear Fair point. These changes cost billions.. it's like asking normal people to suddenly go out and buy electric cars...
@sloth bear Drown together... This kind of apocalyptic fanaticism is offputting. And developign coutnries are using a lot of funds to innovate cutting environmental damage, with a lot of that knowledge being spread abroad (thereby creating more jobs). Bankrupting ourselves is not the solution.
Climate Change
"Peace without Justice is Tyranny." ~ William
"Whenever law ends, tyranny begins." ~ John
"Three things cannot be long hidden; the Sun, The Moon and The Truth." ~ Buddha
If you want peace, work for justice. ~ Pope VI
It’s weather ffs. It’s alway happened.
Who exactly are these giant companies emitting the carbon for again?!
who cares? CO2 is NOT pollution, it's a natural trace compound. Its essential for all life on the planet.
The problem is, developed countries back then know the science about climate catastrophe, they have the resources to start the green revolution and steer us away from fossil fuel addiction but they didnt because they choose profit over our biosphere... now they profited from it while most vulnerable countries always loss their gdp to recover from climate change induced disasters and your asking who needs to pay?