Top 3 Ways Economic Growth will Solve Climate Change

[@counter-intelligence7902]

What I most hate about "degrowth" is that they invented a new word to hide that they argue for impoverishment.

[@theblacklakes9351]

The fact that there are people advocating for de-growth in any way is simply horrific

[@TheGreyGhost_of43rd]

For who?

[@Unsensitive]

It just shows their place of privilege in modern society. Obviously we need to take climate change seriously, but the degrowth stance is as irrational as the climate change "skeptics" aka deniers.

[@garysarela4431]

Global warming of 4°C vs 2°C, will cost $17 trillion every year by 2100. Source: Kompas et al. (2018) "The Effects of Climate Change on GDP by Country.."

[@Creeperking-bw7wi]

The fact that you don't see the many problems with this video is simply horrific

[@theblacklakes9351]

@@Creeperking-bw7wi What problems? I think everything in the video makes sense

[@Isvakk]

I'm still very curious about what LL thinks of carbon taxes.

[@kimlibera663]

The bakery is a good example. We here this same paradigm with healthcare--would not we just go with 1 healthcare system instead of all these group plans. Demand is too high, needs not met. It never works toward efficiency.

[@Creeperking-bw7wi]

It's actually pretty horrible. In the real world you don't have three bakers on an equal playing field. You have two small bakeries and one huge chain which is able to use their financial advantage to push the two smalls one off the market to then sell their products at a ridiculously high price because people need food. You end up with one bakery chain without competition anyways. That's actually our current grocery store situation in germany. There are so few chains who completely control the market that they just keep increasing their prices because people are forced to pay them. Current inflation of food prices is 20%. And increased food prices are hitting the poorest the hardest. Great system!

[@ChasePhifer-hj3wl]

Or have each of the 100,000 hospitals (or 3-10 local hospitals) compete for patients rather than the big 3 health insurance companies.

[@macsnafu]

This is a good start, but these ideas really need more elaboration if you're going to convince people. You have to overcome propaganda and deeply ingrained biases and fallacies.

[@ResisterOfEvil]

Well put

[@jasonmcphee]

Great Video. However, pricing pollution is an important concept in allowing the markets to address it. Often these innovations worked hand in hand with trying to avoid the cost of penalties for pollution. Consider how clean cars are today. That didn't happen in a vacuum. Just go back to videos of LA and San Francisco from the 60's. You'll be shocked at how bad the air quality looks. Of course, the challenge is determining the right pollution price as the market doesn't really price the externality.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

that isnt true all that does is restrict the designs of technologies and often saves very little while raising the cost a ton. its not worth paying 30% more for a 5% pollution cut. thats the problem with price controls and government policy. and to be honest i couldnt care less about reducing pollution i care more about keeping costs down even if it means we have to pollute a little more in the short term. climate change is not due to fossil fuels and there is no way to prove that it is as the margin of error gets larger as you move forward in time. there is no way to measure the effect of what we do now and what will come of it even 20 years from now accurately. the best thing is to separate economy and state and let the economy work. im not willing to sacrifice or give up my way of life for anything. nobody has the right to force me to do that.

[@jasonmcphee]

@@lilyscarlet2584 how would you police pollution? If you'd go with top down central planning, you will find the cost is much higher to society. No policing of pollution at all causes the tragedy of the commons which can have very high costs to society. By putting a market mechanism on it, you get price signals that everyday people can respond to in their choices. We see the impact of a price signal simply in how people look for the cheapest price in gas when they fill up. Certainly those who manage to control the price of the pollution by efficiently reducing will attract the great amount of customers. This will cause those efficient solutions to dominate the economy. Setting the initial price is no easy task, but not addressing pollution at all is no fix either.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

@@jasonmcphee as long as it doesnt impose a cost i dont care. i couldnt care less about pollution personally. the world can take care of itself just let innovation happen. i only care about my own living and my immediate surroundings. central planners are all corrupt and stupid leave it to the individual.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

@@jasonmcphee also you shouldnt police pollution at all. thats the whole problem.

[@michaelwhite7892]

Are you saying we should all move to the city and allow factory farms to produce all of our food, instead of the family farms?

[@mattbaron14]

Buy local, unless it's bad for the GDP. Thanks for pointing out what we lose when growth is the only priority. I would love to see more economic growth... If that includes family farms, if it encourages sustainable farming, if it helps lift people out of poverty.

[@michaelwhite7892]

It seems "everyone move to the city" was the theme. I have a small (20 acres) farm that we pasture raise egg and meat chickens on, and hope to add a few cows and hogs. If I sell this land it will go to developers and will be houses in no time. Unfortunately, I anticipate being taxed off of my land within a decade. I don't see how this is a benefit and a solution to climate change.

[@mattbaron14]

@@michaelwhite7892 I agree, wish you luck in keeping that farm going as long as you can

[@mattbaron14]

Good video but I have a question. Reasons 1 and 2 make sense, but reason 3 is more confusing. Basically, people are more concerned about getting their basic needs met than caring for the environment. But doesn't that mean that once people are able to provide for themselves, they are able to have other priorities as well, similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I would think that a modest citizen that has their needs met has less of a carbon footprint than a billionaire with 3 houses and a private jet. It makes sense to say that innovation is useful when it allows people to efficiently allocate resources, but growth for growth's sake doesn't seem to mean much. We also need to have the right values: the whole argument here relies on the idea that people already care about the environment but have more immediate concerns. Sadly, we live in a world where a lot of people don't care about the environment, or other important matters such as elections/civic engagement, faith/spirituality, health/wellness, etc. Living virtuously and modestly, caring about the world around us while living within our means, seems to be essential to any promise to make the world a better place. As amazing as the free market is, being the change we want to see in the world does require more than just profit incentives.

[@Donkeyearsa]

People are naturally concerned about the environment because they have no choice but to live in it. That billionaire you said that could not care less about the environment. I would love you to show me the rich neighborhood that looks all trashed and nasty. The richer that most people are the nicer they want there environment to be. Yes there are people that become rich and could not care less about the environment but they rarely stay rich. The longer families stay rich the nicer they want their environment to be.

[@mattbaron14]

@@Donkeyearsa Yes and no... Obviously people care about thier immediate surroundings and don't want to live in filth. But most things that affect the environment (emissions, waste management, landfills, etc) do not have immediate effects visible from my backyard. Basically there are 3 possible ways a billionaire could act in regard to the environment: 1) Keep thier own surroundings clean, but have a large carbon footprint and indulge in private jets, cars, and other luxuries. 2) Use thier wealth to advocate for a cleaner environment, sometimes by investing in green technology, sometimes by lobbying for regulations or global agendas. This would include Elon Musk, Bill Gates, WEF, etc. 3) Lead by example. Provide for yourself and your family, but don't overindulge or contribute to environmental problems. Live a humble, modest, and authentic life. Mind your business and don't tell other people how to live thier lives. Due to human nature, a lot of people gravitate towards #1. Those that recognize the problem usually wind up in #2, but end up making more laws and yet having a large carbon footprint, mostly being grandstanding hypocrites. I do appreciate what people like Elon Musk are doing, but I would argue the best billionaire would fit into group #3. The thing is, you don't need to be a billionaire to follow that lifestyle: basically anyone middle class and above can do that.

[@michaelherrera4450]

@@mattbaron14 Yes I was going to say the same thing. I live in the SF Bay Area, where judging by all the Teslas I see, it seems like his argument that wealthier people care more about the environment is true. But when you consider that wealthier people live in larger houses, buy more things, use air travel more ... it doesn't seem to bear out that they really have a smaller environmental footprint. Especially when you consider billionaires.

[@tedmac87]

It is government’s job to be the collective voice of morality. Hobbes said “without gov” life is solitary poor nasty brutish and short. People forget that gov is our collectively elected conduit to controls on business. Hasn’t worked too well on cigarettes, OxyContin, drugs etc need a new gov I think.

[@mattbaron14]

@@tedmac87 Our government's job is to be the collective voice of billionaires, special interests and lobbyists, and the military-industrial complex. Would be nice if they had some morality, not that I necessarily agree with Hobbes.

[@Delgwah]

100 trillion a year divided by the entire worlds population. We have a problem. I purpose 604,800,000,000,000 a year world budget. This way, as you say, each human being gets 7,000 per month, all that exists now can improve, as you say will happen. The monetary system can happen as it does to this day. But without the inability to budget everyone in, and resorting to short cuts, waste, contamination, and the inability to give all; a financial voice. Things may improve? Point is; Our resources may still be there for future years if we uncouple them from being the only choice we have to grow and survive in our journey through time.

[@j4s0n39]

So I shouldn't take economic advice from an emotionally unstable twelve year old?

[@soundscape26]

You shouldn't but she's 20.

[@amadexi]

The video makes the mistake of attempting to apologize for growth by trying to find convoluted reasons of why growth somehow leads to less consumption (which is stupid). Don't apologize. Growth is natural, consuming is natural. Is the essence of life itself. Reaching a cap of (or worse, decreasing) consumption would be the sign of a failing and doomed life form. While consumption of specific things may decrease, there is no real upper limit to what we can consume. We will keep consuming more and more forever. In fact I would say that hopefully, earth is just the beginning, and in millions of years, humanity may likely consume amounts of resources across the universe, that dwarves what earth contains. (Or space travel is impossible and we will just die on earth).

[@johndol9549]

i agree to many arguments but damn F cities...

[@rarelycold6618]

Learn Liberty doesn't seem to understand that the rural people they denigrate over city people are the only ones who have sympathy or agreement with liberty based policies

[@silverhawkscape2677]

Infinite Growth is a Pipe dream. You have an infinitely growing economy with Finite resources.

[@LearnLiberty]

It is not a dream while there is technological development.

[@deepalibarapatre7966]

The three reasons mentioned in the video are basically status quo of our world right now -- technology is helping businesses become efficient, people are migrating to the cities and people's purchasing power is increasing. However, the climate crises continues to get worse. How is continuing one the same path going to change that? If continuous growth would be good for the environment, would the climate crisis not happened in the first place?

[@JohnReon]

You should look at what happened in the past about the three year global winter starting in 536 AD to 539 AD and 1816 the year with out a summer. All in documented globally. We are do for this to happen again and it will not be caused by Man.

[@juansebonillas]

Gretha should go back to school

[@BbobIII]

OK I'm not a capitalist but Greta Thunberg sounds like she's in a skit😂

[@SaveEarthNowOfficial]

Let’s all do something for the climate, go donate to charities or whatever, at least do something. This is our only planet, at least for the moment..

[@EricColeThornton]

I have given some thought to the idea of economic growth before. Yes, technology will make production more efficient, but eventually we will experience diminishing returns from tech. The planet has finite resources, so it is worth considering if eternal growth is possible. We don't know that answer to that question yet... perhaps there will be new recycling methods in the future, or perhaps we will mine minerals from asteroids. On the flip side, perhaps we will hit a limit on how far tech can take us. We don't know the answer yet, but it is worth keeping an open mind and consider the idea that eternal growth may not be possible, even if we want it to be. Remember, one of the foundational ideas in Economics is that we have scarce resources, and we must choose how to use them. Our economic growth may also face limitations due to scarcity.

[@williamlovaton8182]

Resources although finite, we will never run out of them. We will get to economic de-growth due to a decline in global population, most likely in this very same century. We need more people all around 😢

[@bdfunke]

People learn about diminishing resources through price increases. They either use the resources more efficiently or find substitutes.

[@xxxBradTxxx]

Asteroid mining will solve this, also thorium reactors.

[@antc5010]

So what about the billions of people with living standards well below that of the US? As their education, urbanisation and wealth increase, so will global consumption. It is well known that resource consumption of the west far exceeds many countries and our CO2 emissions per capita also far outweigh there's. The planet is currently demonstrating environmental stress, degradation of ecosystems and rapid changes never seen before in such a short period of time. Many of these observations are affecting places and people outside of the west. Following a GDP focus is simply human-centric and misses the point that not only are we part of the global ecosystem, we're dependant on it. We need to move away from a GDP focus and implement Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which ranks countries based on their environmental health and ecosystem vitality, using metrics like air and water quality, biodiversity, and climate change policies. Until then, there will be no effective change. Emissions will continue and technology cannot rebuild a heathy, diverse ecosystem. And population growth? Simple finite resources on the planet logically answers that one.

[@kimlibera663]

Problem with carbon markets is you must always retain a large polluter on market to keep those fines coming in. So let me guess--such polluter will be installed in Africa where the people have no power & the head honshos will be bought off by the other countries.

[@BrianWilcox1976]

Disagree with last point. More money = buying more, creating more waste. Poor people don’t fly on private jets and create a year’s worth of emissions in 1 day…

[@silverhawkscape2677]

And you want Millions to be impoverished to save the Planet?

[@abbliee5439]

​@@silverhawkscape2677having less money does not mean you're gonna be poor

[@ryonsanders4045]

Did you mean rural or suburban? Cause rural we don’t drive around for nothing we plan trips to town cause it’s not just down the street so bike analogy isn’t relevant. Plus highway miles are more efficient then start and stop. Rural will always be better then urban that’s better then suburban.

[@linuxman7777]

Rural living can be incredibly sustainable. It has been for almost all of human history. But the Obeisity and Emission problems in Rural Areas came about in the machine age, yes it made life easier, but it in turn made rural living less ecologically sustainable.

[@joeldwest]

We do not WANT continued economic growth

[@lilyscarlet2584]

no. YOU dont want continued economic growth. dont force your feelings onto everyone else. i want the most i can get at the best price. so please keep it going.

[@Creeperking-bw7wi]

@@lilyscarlet2584 YOU want to get the most you can at the best price. Don't force your feelings onto everyone else. I want a not screwed up planet Btw. you're not getting a part of the economic growth anyways. Real wages (wages accounted for inflation) are on the decline even though productivity is skyrocketing

[@silverhawkscape2677]

No You want MASS IMPOVERISHMENT

[@joeldwest]

@@silverhawkscape2677 What Crapitalism makes is mass impoverishment. That's why poverty has grown and grown since stupid Reagan

[@bdfunke]

Urban living leads to people having fewer children which will lead to a slowdown of economic growth, gradually then suddenly. Greta will get her wish.

[@luisantos1996]

Solution: dont be so desperate in your own fear of future and try to control the world. Climate change is always happening, with or without humans.

[@Coldbird1337]

this is widely inaccurate. New technology is both slow and difficult to scale so it's not gonna save us from the damage happening today, corporation basically buy the rules they want to follow and are not incentivize to reduce waste-just expenses which tends to be people-resulting in them buying more resources instead of cutting resources. Also no, if rich people cared more about the environment you wouldn't have oil or coal tycoons pumping out fossil fuels in greater quantities for power-and we are pretty much at the point where demand is greater than supply, not to mention that new innovations require even more power, and then you have corporations like nestle and space x harming the environment instead of actually saving it.

[@silverhawkscape2677]

Amd Degrowth will cause Mass Impoverishment. Sorry but I don't want my high standard of living to decline.

[@garysarela4431]

The fossil fuel industry must begin to pay their fair share. They don't pay for the externalities caused by their flawed product. The rest of us end up paying for climate change and air pollution.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

well if you want to bankrupt the country go ahead. people dont understand what they mean when they say pay their fair share. pay for what? some delinquents to sit at home and do opioids while not working a day in their life? all companies in a free market must show results and must be efficient in order to survive. its costly to start drilling operations and of course they wont take the risks when you have an anti fossil fuel government. blaming companies is stupid they only play within the rules that are set. if anything taxes should be as low as possible as thats wasted money. only a very small percentage actually goes where you are thinking it goes. what we need is to stop taxing profits and give back the incentives to invest and hire people and grow the economy.

[@garysarela4431]

@@lilyscarlet2584 The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay for climate change caused by their flawed product. It's a negative externality that isn't accounted for. It makes it harder for clean energy to compete on a level playing field. The fossil fuel industry also doesn't pay for air pollution caused by their flawed product.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

@@garysarela4431 well i guess we should go back to horse and buggy then. but are horses really that much cleaner. also nobody should be paying for climate change thats dumb. we pay for products and services. as long as we still need fuel we need oil companies. we just need the government to stop regulating it and making it so expensive.

[@garysarela4431]

@@lilyscarlet2584 Clean renewable technology is the way forward, not horse and buggy. Expect 15%-25% reduction in global per capita output by 2100 with 2.5-3.0°C of global warming. Source: M.Burke et al. (2018) "Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets"

[@lilyscarlet2584]

@@garysarela4431 yeah but dont rush it is what im saying let it naturally happen. dont force it.

[@joeldwest]

Communism and green economy is NECESSARY. CORPORATIONS MADE THE PROBLEMS. THEY WULL NEVER CARE

[@Hirogit]

Shut up commie.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

you can live how you want just dont force your virtues on everyone else.

[@BbobIII]

I do agree with you.

[@TheGreyGhost_of43rd]

We have been going for economic growth above all else for decades now guy. It has never led to more innovation or a love of cities. Pretty flawed outlook but presented well..

[@xxxBradTxxx]

Tell that to the Dutch, the Netherlands is the size of Oregon, but they are the second largest exporter of food because of agricultural innovation. Also you’re commenting on a platform that’s only 17 years old.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

thats because we no longer are the free market capitalist society we once were like during the industrial revolution. ever since we left the gold standard and allowed the government to interfere in the economy more and more we been slowed down.

[@minoadlawan4583]

im going to sue this channel for not providing proper subtitles thus violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

[@jamesjross]

I think the real answer is far more complicated and will involve growth in industries that meet the goals and compromises in other areas.

[@joeldwest]

No it won't

[@cherribraden1045]

Money is taken from earth more money= faster extinction

[@DVincentW]

It is possible to wash brains so much they are blank.

[@hilciaseluzahivelasquezser1644]

I understand what you mean, but you really need to interview Matt Ridley, Alex Epstein and Bjorn Blomborg to update your concept of "climate change"

[@TheRealInscrutable]

You're missing two simple arguments here. 1. (the good one) You will never achieve a goal that you don't aim for. So growth, elimination of poverty, control of the environment, and technological advancement are things we won't gain unless we try. 2. (the bad one) Believe them when they say they want to shrink the global economy. The consequences of that goal will not be accidental. Those consequences are intentional. Greta is too young to a perpetrator of the movement, she is though a victim of that movement. She grew up in conditions designed to create her and people like her. In order to save ourselves from people like her, we have to save people like her from the people pushing de-growth and de-vastation (intentional typo) on humanity.

[@lilyscarlet2584]

the problem is that the government is involved at all. people who care can amass funds in a voluntary free market way. its unethical to force everyone to join in. tax is theft. do it the right way and stop leeching.

[@joeldwest]

Hate the bs market bull

[@GregoryTheGr8ster]

You can hear the fear and despair in Greta's voice. When she speaks about what we are doing to the planet, her voice trembles. Greta is the conscience of the Planet, but our Earth needs a hero to save it.

[@TheGreyGhost_of43rd]

😂 poor kid

[@brianm.johnson4438]

She probably wants Vaccine Man to become a real thing

[@lilyscarlet2584]

shes a braindead moron who needs help if anything.

[@michael4250]

Yeah, or maybe the tooth-fairy will come and save us.

[@Creeperking-bw7wi]

0:05 "We will fix it in the future. How I don't know yet but I am confident" 0:35 In 2022 earth overshoot day was on 28th of july. Maybe we should work on that before worrying about increasing productivity? That is basically the whole point of degrowth: We're producing too much for our current efficiency levels. That means we have to lower production at first but can increase it in the future as efficiency increases. What you are claiming is that efficiency will increase so rapidly that it will not only keep up with increasing production but also manage to catch up with how much we're consuming over the limit right now. Then how do you explain that earth overshoot day is becoming earlier basically every year? You're making claims which contradict data 0:58 "Humans can and should" Only problem is that isn't happening. I too can make realities up in which everything I say is true. 1:15 "Have demonstrated" Too bad resource usage is still going up anyways. I don't care about how efficient our society will be able to be in 100 years. I care about the damage we cause the planet right now by not being this efficient at the moment. 1:20 Yeah pretty sure all the species going extinct see you as a friend. Especially the ones in the burning rain forests 1:24 THE RATE IS IMPORTANT. Are you stupid or are you trying to manipulate your viewers? Having net zero carbon emissions won't be a problem in the long term. The problem is the damage that is being caused right now. CO2 won't kindly vanish from the atmosphere as soon as we reach net zero. Extinct species won't come back so live once the rainforests stop burning. What we are doing right now is causing permanent irreversible damage which is why we need to stop ASAP to limit how much permanent damage is caused. Degrowth isn't the only way to get to net zero carbon emissions but it's the quickest and causes the least permanent damage. The question isn't if we can reach net zero it's how quick we can do it. 1:40 Not it doesn't? Increase in efficiency means economic growth but not the other way around... To you point about resource efficiency: "They can reduce the amount of resources they expend" sounds on the surface like a logical claim but if you actually take a deeper look at it your realize how nonsensical it is. The problem is that increasing resource efficiency comes at the cost of reducing cost efficiency and businesses are only interested in cost efficiency in their production. Yes you are able to extract a bit more but extracting this last bit is way harder than extracting the rest was decreasing the overall cost efficiency. It's like eating a soup. At the start it's easy to get a full spoon but if you've already eaten most of the soup and there are just a few leftovers sticking at the side of your bowl it becomes impossible to get an even close to being full spoon. From a work efficiency perspective (which his what businesses are interested in) it's easier to just get another bowl instead of efficiently eating everything the first one contained. Your claim about businesses being incentivized to be as efficient as possible is right. Just that it's not resource efficiency it's cost efficiency. So how do you conclude from that "by using as few resources as they can" (2:17)? There are again two options. Either you're too ignorant to realize that this makes absolutely no sense or you are maliciously trying to manipulate viewers who don't question what you are saying and I'm not sure which one is worse. 2:25 Matt Ridley is a businessman. Your "source" for your argument that BUSINESSES as they are aren't gonna destroy they world is a quote from a BUSINESSMAN whose statement is backed up by nothing. Do I need to add anything to that? Again do you not realize the problem here or are you doing this maliciously? But even if you had a valid point there which you don't please read what I wrote to 1:24 as it applies here again. Nobody is claiming that further growth or keeping our current production level is impossible. The only problem is that it's majorly screwing up the planet and causing permanent damage and that "new developments" aren't coming quick enough. If they were coming quick enough we wouldn't see earth overshoot day become earlier basically every year. 3:33 How often do I have to mention earth overshoot day becoming earlier basically every year? Your cute theories can predict all they want but if we take a look at the real world we can see that it's not working like that. What we are able to see is coal and oil companies lobbying and bribing politicians to slow the transition to renewables and even financing campaigns which play down the effects or even deny climate change so they can make profit for just a bit longer. Your model isn't working. Do you wanna know why? Because it doesn't take already existing inequality into account. If one of the bakeries owners (let's call them A) inherits a billion he'll be able to sell at a loss to force the others to close their business or sell it to A at which point A will be able to sell his bread for as much as he wants because everyone relies on A allowing him to make insane profit. 3:47 Let's assume this would apply to everything else as well. Please read again what I wrote to 1:24. New developments aren't coming quick enough Basically to your whole reason 2: You're making it seem as if economic growth as a whole is the sole diving factor behind migration to cities completely ignoring the cities come with more career opportunities (even without a growing economy), more social and educational options and that migration to cities doesn't have to be caused by pull factors. Rural areas are simply on a huge downwards trend in all of those mentioned aspects (social, educational, career options) which is forcing people into cities. 4:53 YOU DIRTY DEGROWTHER! SUGGESTING THAT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T DRIVE CARS ANYMORE! THAT WILL SHRINK THE ECONOMY! DO YOU WANT TO RUIN US? JUST IMAGINE HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE CAR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS! HOW COULD YOU? Do you not realize that part of degrowth is making those more efficient (but slightly less convenient options) more widespread? Just think about how many resources are wasted each year producing cars and how much CO2 is emitted by people driving them (no electric cars aren't better). You could degrow that part of the economy (and shrink productivity) and instead transition to a public transport and bike focused society. Productivity and GPD would go down a good chunk but the loss of comfort would be minimal if you expanded bike and public transport infrastructure. That is what degrowth is. 5:45 "Let's also appreciate the long run truth" Finally you're able to see that the damage we are causing the planet is permanent which is why we need to stop ASAP. Wait... You're not? But you're talking about the long term! You are this close! 6:06 pfffttt I don't see any poor people polluting the environment with cars or private jets. I don't see any poor people bribing politicians in favor of keeping fossil fuels for longer. I don't see any poor people buying as much meat as the rich (the really poor). I don't see any poor people burning rainforests to produce meat. I don't see any poor people taking part in fast fashion What is this point? 6:26 People forced into horrible living conditions by late stage capitalism (which could almost already be called neofeudalism) worry about if they're able to keep their home and their kids fed? Crazy Even if they care less they also emit less simply because they're not able to. 6:52 They don't have cars. And if they do only because living without one is made basically impossible in the US due to it's city design. Believe me there are enough people who have more to worry about than if they can buy a car or not. 7:17 Solar is cheaper than coal but coal is subsidized more heavily by the government. And again do you not realize that there are people who can't afford a car at all? How far are you from reality? We're living in a society where an entire generation isn't having kids because they're too expensive. We're living on a world were 2.3 billion people are facing dangerous levels or food insecurity. We're living in a mass extinction. We're living on a world which is heating without any sign of stopping. What has your fancy system and growth done to put an end to this? It has allowed some clowns to fly to space in their personal rockets for their own entertainment 7:47 THEY CAN'T AFFORD BEEF 8:16 Population growth? Are you freaking kidding me? We wouldn't have any problems if there were fewer humans because fewer humans produce lest waste All in all a horrible video. Your claims seem to make sense to an uninformed person on the surface but some are simply wrong and the rest fall apart easily. Plus you don't even get what degrowth is and still made a video on it. I got this video as an ad which I saw as a challenge. Now it's your turn to respond

[@MasonCatalone]

Solid reasoning why conservatives tend to be working people who don't overthink environmental issues.

[@adamdymke8004]

Or very wealthy people who don't overthink environmental issues.

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

Not all conservatives are rich capitalists, ​@@adamdymke8004.

[@silverhawkscape2677]

​@@adamdymke8004 Dude. The Average Conservative is Blue collar