Are the Rich to Blame for Climate Change?

Рет қаралды 12,235

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 69

@bobthegoat7090 6 ай бұрын

I think you forgot something essential when considering if the rich are the cause of pollution. The ultrarich have an unprecedented power in the US political system, and have very little incentive to make policies that decrease emissions. So while the ultrarich might not directly cause more CO2 pollution, their policies do, and not by a small amount.

@HoldOffHunger 6 ай бұрын

Economics: "The supply and demand of any commodity will level out." The commodity: The earth's limited supply of oxygen. The leveling out: Everyone dying. Thanks, economics!

@xStickStockx 5 ай бұрын

Maybe instead of being cynical on the internet, go study something that will help humanity grow beyond this problem. Maybe you'll even discover something, open a business and become rich and set an example to all the crony rich people out there~

@pavelkozlov7163 6 ай бұрын

With 10% the answer is more than expected. But I am still interested how much the richest 1% pollute? How about the richest 0.1%?

@philoslother4602 5 ай бұрын

It doesn't really matter since these figures are not PPP adjusted, I live in India and when I chart my expenses onto San Francisco, the cost of living difference is like 25X The top 1% of the world make 30k USD by the way 4% of the world lives in the US, There are 130 million full-time workers in the US The median wage for those full-time workers is 58k USD, So that means that 65 million Americans make more than 58k USD a year And 65 million make less than 58k USD a year 1% of the world's population is 80 million

@lampyrisnoctiluca9904 4 ай бұрын

The middle class of the rich countries pollutes way less than the elite of the poor countries that are having it less in the dollar amount, but more in the real riches. Those who are in the top 1% of the world by how much they earn are not the problem. Those who are in 0.1% of their society are. In the poor society, having 30000 dollars a year would get you significantly higher lifestyle than it would in America. Those earning 30000 in the poor countries have significantly richer lifestyles than people earning 100000 in America. They are the real elite. The richest in the poor countries are polluting like crazy. Just like the richest in the rich countries. Pollution with the rich is not about the richest in the dollar amount but the elites of the given societies.

@davidharris23 6 ай бұрын

Haiti deforested their land because they were forced to pay the French an extortion fee for no longer enslaving them. This forced Hati to sell and over extract their natural resources in a way the DR did not, thus the image you showed.

@realdreamerschangetheworld7470 6 ай бұрын

I’ll make a guess before I watch. The answer is yesn’t. Corporations as a whole do so much more damage than any one individual could do. Even if that individual has a PJ. That said, it is easier to point fingers at a face, rather than some abstract mega-conglomerate.

@juimymary9951 6 ай бұрын

Exactly, it's called the 1% for a reason, in order to have a considerable impact on climate they'd need to consume tens to a hundred times what the average citizen does!

@hannes_k5666 6 ай бұрын

I agree that corporations have the biggest leverage to take some action. But products or services of corporations are in the end created for humans. I know this sounds so cheesy but everybody has to do its part. Because otherwise there is always someone you can take as an excuse for. You know, it's this typical argument: 'Our country's action do not matter because we are so small.' Then mid-sized country says: 'Our actions don't matter because there are still bigger countries who are bigger polluters and so on'. And then nothing would happen. Same argument could be made with poor individuals to middle-class indiviuduals and rich individuals. I know, in reality there are many cases where actions of countries/individuals/corporations don't matter at a global scale but the logic still applies.

@TheSandkastenverbot 6 ай бұрын

@@hannes_k5666100% agreed. We work at companies and buy their stuff. It's only slightly exaggerated to say our life depends on them. So no, blaming executives is cheap.

@JamielDeAbrew 6 ай бұрын

Corporations act in the interests of their shareholders. And the wealthy own more shares, so have greater voting rights.

@torque3331 6 ай бұрын

The thumbnail is unfortunate.

@Javadamutt 5 ай бұрын

I wonder if the example of London is actually backwards. Many of the reasons for improving the environment and reducing pollution in London wasn't because GDP improved but the numerous health crisis experienced. Take the smog of 1952 that killed so many or the cholera outbreaks and the state of the river Thames. They were cleaned up as people were dying, they were preventing business from being done. Solving the pollution and the environmental issues was done to increase GDP and extract more from the people not the other way round

@nabarajpokhrel1012 5 ай бұрын

What about Pollution per Capita.

@arunaugustine4938 6 ай бұрын

Economists will always criticize the actions of Vikings but they will never criticize colonizers for pushing colonized countries into extreme poverty, and now they look down on poor countries for being poor. 😅

@aryanhacker5820 6 ай бұрын

We should incentive rich people to solved climate change.

@LuisRomeroLopez 6 ай бұрын

Or what is the same: Facilitate private participation in general (not just the rich) and let make a good profit.

@jerzyczajaszwajcer 6 ай бұрын

also here in NL we had to limit speed on freeways from 130 km/h to 100 but they calculate it and it is the same result as if one cruiseship would stop faring lol

@MarkEm 6 ай бұрын

Currently visiting Vietnam and I've lost all hope on humanity reducing their carbon footprint. Vietnamese light plastic fires like they just discovered the red flower 🌹

@yabutmaybenot.6433 6 ай бұрын

Personally, I feel that this is all tied to the rapid spread of french fries, thus over farming potatoes. Just think about it.

@knobjockey6882 6 ай бұрын

Who owns the most polluting industries? Who owns them? They are the ones responsible.

@JamielDeAbrew 6 ай бұрын

They are in part responsible. But it is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario… Yes, companies have to follow shareholders. But at the same time companies have to follow their customers. And they also must obey government regulations.

@breaktide251 6 ай бұрын

0:40 literal lord fatquaad

@simfinso858 5 ай бұрын

Whatever Mistake Done by Devloped Countries while Becoming Rich Developing countries have a chance to avoid it.

@pawemajorkiewicz9778 6 ай бұрын

I firmly believe that it has been about 20 years since we have had any opportunity to address the severity of climate change

@patrickgallagher9069 6 ай бұрын

When world leaders use public transportation or electric cars in the name of climate change, I'll start taking the issue seriously.

@Khneefer 6 ай бұрын

3:45 - Chinese CO2 emissions from coal are still incresing. Chinise CO2 emission per capitra over took EU in 2015 - 9 years ago!

@Blondul11 6 ай бұрын

The Chinese didn't get to the point where they care about nature. Question is, will they? The will of the people pales in comparison to the will of the CCP.

@JamielDeAbrew 6 ай бұрын

Correct. What about per capita emissions?

@hannes_k5666 6 ай бұрын

On the point of climate conferences and private jet use by its visitors - I always have to think about the same problem when it comes to pop star concert. At the end of the day it is definitely much better from a efficiency and CO2 emissions perspective that the pop star flies to a venue full of 50,000 fans (private) than those 50,000 fans fly (economy) to the pop star. And the same goes for leaders who fly to such conferences. Theoretically it is better and more efficient to send a (hopefully) democratictly-elected and representative leader to such a conference than to send it’s whole country’s people to express their opinions. But not to say that we shouldn’t address the issues of heavy CO2 emitting aviation, fortunately solutions will eventually be viable with hydrogen/electric planes and much better virtual reality videoconference technologies. Regarding China - There are some reasons people like to bash china when it comes to emissions but right now they are really making an effort ramping up their clean energy deployment. I mean the progress is brutal, they average about 300 gigawatts per year in new solar and wind installations. And why wouldn’t they - it is now much cheaper than fossil fuels sources anyways. Also China heavily depends on oil imports in comparison to other countries. I think many major developing economies like India will follow this trajectory and leapfrog a high emissions-per-capita phase. I mean just look at India’s newest huge solar developments. China’s greenhouse gas emissions are expected to peak much earlier than it was expected, possibly maybe even this year. So fortunately there really seems to be a strong connection between increased efficiency and decreasing pollution. This gives hope for the future.

@reggie69. 6 ай бұрын

China also spent 890 bn usd on renewable energy in 2023 so that hope they can bring it down

@JamielDeAbrew 6 ай бұрын

Does the world’s economy need to move away from relying on continuous human population growth? If yes, how should economies shift for aging populations? If no, why?

@egg174 6 ай бұрын

Thumbnail be going crazy

@Sicarius125 6 ай бұрын

I came here for Know Your Enemy, not Man in the Mirror 😢

@thakursahab9833 6 ай бұрын

The main reason this debate comes up is bcoz european union and other devopled nation trying to impose carbon emissions tax to the industries of developing nation which very much hinder their growth, even though their emission level has not yet reach to the level of these developed nation.

@beartales1427 5 ай бұрын

Yes

@snackplissken8192 6 ай бұрын

Degrowth is a great recipe for depriving the rich countries of the wealth to develop cleaner technology, mass produce it, and innovate it till it's affordable; as well as to ensure that the poor cannot afford to think about the future. Degrowth is a "luxury belief" advocated by those who have already gotten theirs and who won't have to live or ever face somebody who will have to live with the consequences. If the elites really care about saving the planet, instead of jet-setting across the world to be seen in exclusive brands decrying the working poor, they should be investing their wealth into developing things like carbon capture technology, small modular nuclear power plants, hydrogen power, and better battery storage technology to improve the viability of wind and solar power so they don't need coal or natural gas backup plants.

@JamielDeAbrew 6 ай бұрын

Should it be down to wealthy individuals? Or wealthy countries? Or highest emitting countries? Or highest per capita emitting countries? Or all consumers? Or governments? Let the finger pointing games begin.

@StevieFQ 5 ай бұрын

Whataboutism? Cute that 14k is the cutoff but that doesn't really allow you to get electric cars, or install PVs or install a battery in their homes. Not that they could because you can't live in a house on a 14k income. It's much more likely a cramped flat. What you can do at 14k is consume less which a lot of ppl do. Maybe it's my country's communist past but I rarely take vacations, I don't waste food and I avoid wasting money on unnecessary purchases. I walk to work and if I'm being realistic electricity is the main way I polute. Is the point here that I should not consume electricity except I use it for work? Comments like you are already rich annoy me because of how childish they are. The core concept is that it's difficult for you to justify overpaying to install PV or forgoing a vacation when you see an elected official using the economic equivalent of 2 electric cars to go to a conference where they discuss how much of a POS you are for poluting so much.

@armorbearer9702 6 ай бұрын

You remind me of what Homer Simpson said about alcohol. He said in a loud voice, "To alcohol! The cause and solution to all of life's problems". This is the relationship climate change has with technology. Human technology cause climate change, and the solution is to advance human technology to stop climate change.

@mousamoradi3038 6 ай бұрын

I just found out that I belong to the 10% richest people on earth!

@lampyrisnoctiluca9904 4 ай бұрын

Cherry picking of the information. There is a lot of it in this video.

@Xamufam 6 ай бұрын

it's complicated

@TheSandkastenverbot 6 ай бұрын

I find it rather astonishing how little the normal population of industrialized countries do to reduce their carbon footprint. Apart from a few individuals, people still drive their cars everywhere, cars even get increasingly bigger, we heat (and even cool down if you live in the US) our rooms to the same temperature as ever. If energy costs for heating went down then only because of better insulation. Maybe meat consumption decreased a bit but rather because people think it's unhealthy. Now I'm no eco preacher and don't blame anybody for that. But putting all the blame on companies (even oil and gas producers) or private jet owners is cheap.