What REALLY causes Climate Change? Overpopulation VS Wealth

[@sapientisessevolo4364]

The top 10% globally being anyone who makes above 40, 000$ a year really puts that statistic into perspective

[@ClimateAdam]

I was pretty blown away when I first learned that stat...

[@squeaker19694]

I'm on the cusp of being in the top 10%! But in my 53 years, I've only flown on a plane for about 9 hours. I drive my car once or twice per week. I've planted thousands of trees on our property and most of my clothes are second hand or home made from natural fibres. Almost all of our energy comes from solar. For entertainment, I mostly garden. And when I need retail therapy, I buy plants. So just because we are wealthy, doesn't mean we have to be big emitters. You can still feel wealthy by changing your values and what you cherish. I guess it's easier for me though because I live rural where I'm surrounded by people with similar values and the beauty and wonder of nature. In the city you are constantly surrounded by people showing off their latest gadgets, cars, clothes and big flash houses and talking about their recent holiday to the other side of the world. When you live in nature, and your livelihood is directly linked to it, you have a reverence and respect for it. In the city I think it's out of sight, out of mind and people don't realise that their wellbeing is a direct result of the wellbeing of the Earth.

[@klang180]

Yes but don't let it deceive you, if you earn anything like. 100k or less your footprint will be an order of magnitude less than a 1%er with a super yacht, several homes and a private jet. Not to mention the CEOs who could tomorrow cut huge amounts of emissions just by choosing a different means of energy or investing in a different set of shares. Personal responsibility is important but much more so for the Uber wealthy and extremely powerful.

[@ciragoettig1229]

​@@ClimateAdam I could do a LOT with 40k$! Like I'm in a reasonably developed, EU member, if eastern european state, yet the median net wage is stng like ~900eur a month. So I'm not sure why the western perception seems to be one needs such excessive amounts of cash for a comfortable standard of living. How is this taking purchasing power parity or universal public services into considerations?

[@androkguz]

​@@klang180do you have those stats? Because it seems to me that personal footprint is bound to reach a point diminishing returns once you get rich enough.

[@basbekjenl]

I'm not surprised, rich people do not live like the rest of us but even the rest of us here online live unbelievably comfortable and rich lives compared to most people living with barely enough to eat. Don't get me wrong switching from a meat based to a plant based diet does help, trading your car for public transport and taking vacations in the local area are all helpful reductions in this carbon footprint but the larger society around us that we are a part of pollutes plenty on our behalf. Cutting our own carbon footprint is not enough and societal change is not enough what we need is a 180 turn, accept economic shrinking, and pay for unprofitable damage mitigation efforts and industrial reform. Not us the people but the government needs to pay for this using our tax money but also by taking money out of those industries. This concerns our future and the government is responsible for ensuring our future much beyond our lifespans. I hope we will see this U turn happen soon because the longer we delay this drastic change the more drastic the consequences we will see. Thanks Adam for making these videos.

[@ronsayler3003]

The best video on climate change and population growth online. Summary - rich people's excessive consumption is the problem.

[@ClimateAdam]

the study that works out the carbon footprints of different groups of people takes individuals' investments into account. they argue that the footprint of our investments are an important consideration, whereas I've heard others argue it's a bit bizarre and maybe a bit circular (since it makes it inevitable that richer people have more emissions). sooo I'm mentioning it here so you can make up your own minds! what say you: silly or sensible?!

[@jochenzimmermann5774]

verrry silly. believing in reality should not be considered sensible. only crazy people do that. ;-) it should probably even include taxes. if i earn more, i pay more taxes. since my country still heavily subsidizes fossil fuels, i pay a bigger share of those subsidies. unless i'm rich enough to avoid paying taxes in the first place. those subsidies then make climate-damaging products cheaper, whereas climate-friendly alternatives get more expensive. which in turn means i pay more VAT for those climate-friendly things, again growing my share of fossil subsidies. 100% sensible - forcing taxpayers to finance their own collective suicide. 😂

[@clarabisson7299]

I think if I as a super small time investor who makes only 17,000 a year in a good year, can make investment decisions based on climate impact there is no reason anyone else can too. Also you could pin this comment

[@remco6816]

It depends what they invest in, is it in carbon increasing or decreasing investments. Im not sure if you would cancel out the existence of rich people that the emisiones would decrease, the money will still be circulating in the economy but being used by more people with possibly an even bigger impact unless these people do not decide on buying plane tickets or big cars and make wise carbon free choices. So a rich person that makes wise choices could have a huge impact negatively or positively. To decrease a person emisiones a person could also be asked to move to climates that are more suitable for humans so they wont need to spend energie on heating or cooling. Now adays there are almost carbon free ways to heat your homes but its not affordable for everyone, in those situations the richer people have more options to actually decrease their emisiones while "poor people" do not. Which is a big discussion point in more developed countries, ""the poor" cant afford better isolation or solar panels" I have a hard time accepting population size would not matter in the current world we live in. You can make a point that it wouldn't in a perfect world where everyone would have the opportunity to not use any carbon emiting products. Which is not the current world we live in. But hopefully we will get way closer. But population might technically not be an issue for emisiones it definitely is for landuse which also effects emisiones. Not sure if they took that in consideration in this research.

[@toyotaprius79]

Citi group bank...

[@bartolomeus441]

Great video, Adam! I'm sick of this shifting responsibility by the rich. Politicans often make it seem like there are wise, eco-friendly millionaires and ignorant, polluting poor people.

[@michaelmiami]

The “global climate change” agenda has little to do with climate or science (as you’ve discovered).

[@IWouldLikeToRemainAnonymous]

Hey, I just wanted to say that your content is absolutely awesome and a big inspiration for me in my studies!

[@ClimateAdam]

Ah so happy to hear! Good luck with all your studying.

[@JCResDoc94]

*i no longer believe in the sun; bc of your content.* no time to explain! beware the red dove! _JC

[@michaelmiami]

Climate science is speculative, agenda-driven and prone to bias. The human influence is sketchy at best. It’s disingenuous (and revealing) to simply blame humans without offering the equally accredited alternatives. These days climate science has little to do with science or the environment.

[@nihilistpenguin7511]

@@michaelmiamiSource?

[@michaelmiami]

@@nihilistpenguin7511 source that it’s “speculative and agenda driven”? I haven’t watched this video in 4 months (and I won’t again), but the initial assumption that climate change is human-influenced makes that statement self-evident, doesn’t it?

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

NPR recently had a great interview relative to the “population growth” discussion. The interviewee was talking about how developed countries have an economic problem with too low of population growth while the undeveloped countries have a problem with too much population growth. He was making the case that being open to immigration can help both countries with their issues. Obviously developed countries need to drastically cut their emissions or else this could just exacerbate other problems.

[@ClimateAdam]

Interesting idea. But with so much anti immigration rhetoric across many rich parts of the world, it's hard to imagine this getting implemented, even if the economic benefits were clear.

[@Timlagor]

5:25 That depends entirely on how you spent the money -they're not the problem because they're rich (but they are partly rich because they're the problem; also partly because they're selfish evil gits which is also how they get rich)

[@Shiv-ym1rr]

You don't have nearly enough subscribers. Commenting and liking for visibility

[@sculptureforasmallplanet]

Thanks Adam! As a sculptor my emissions were crazy, but I changed my artwork. Now I like my artwork more and it is designed to decrease my emissions! Thanks again!

[@peskyfervid6515]

This is why it's important to start speaking of CO2 emissions on a per capita basis, rather than on a per country basis. China produces a lot of CO2, but each citizen only produces about half of what each USA citizen does. Now, it's true that no two citizens produce the same amount of CO2, but this is still a good place to start. We should also be looking at the world average per capita emissions, and comparing them to average emissions in our own country. In my country, Canada, each citizen produces more than 3 times the world average. Lots of work to do.

[@johnnyokeeffe6577]

This is such a good video Adam. It addressed everything pertaining to the topic and answered some of the concerns I have for modernization like raising people out of poverty drastically increasing CO2 emissions. I always thought this to be true but I’m super glad you addressed it and also addressed that lifting people out of poverty still shouldn’t be the end all be all goal but to also improve quality of life. I think it goes to show that decarbonizing how human society operates goes a long way. It’s almost as if we can get more when we hurt the planet less and less.

[@swagcat420]

i’m going to college for environmental science or conservation next year and your videos have been making me feel a lot more confident about it

[@nunofoo8620]

Infinite economic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. Infinite demographic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. I totally agree that looking at the data the more economically well off people contribute a disproportionately large percentage to the environmental problems we face.

[@mina_en_suiza]

I have to say: I have seen all the statistics before, but seeing the ten people with the real cake, still shocked me and suddenly so much more real (and mean!). Excellent job! I have a question, though: I consider the loss of natural habitats on land and in the sea due to human intervention as an even bigger threat than climate change, with us currently witnessing the sixth mass extinction. Is it possible to also break the responsibility down to income groups or is it more a thing of individual lifestyle choice, like eating meat or living in suburbia instead of insides cities, towns and villages? I haven't found good resources on this topic, but perhaps, there are academic papers dealing with this matter?

[@ClimateAdam]

Really interesting topic. I'd love to see a break down of land use by different groups (though as you say, it would need more break down than just wealth). I've also struggled to find anything clear on this when I've searched though.

[@reforest4fertility]

The answer to this question in the title is two-fold, simply the petroleum industry & "clearcut" or deforestation style logging. Forests were nature's carbon sink the oceans were never meant to become. Logging should be done locally, with stewardship mindset which would mean selection logging with no highgrading. This protects relative old growth while maintains overhead canopy for hydrology, which is how forests generate fresh water in abundance & without flooding. Besides we need to boost continental fresh water reserves, either way. Then dilution is the solution to pollution. For posterity, please consider.

[@ВераПономаренко-у1з]

Great video Adam! It's both informative and simple to understand to beginners!♥️🍃💚

[@ClimateAdam]

Exactly the balance I aim for 💚💚💚

[@ВераПономаренко-у1з]

@@ClimateAdam 💚💚💚

[@DrGilbz]

Another brilliant video Adam! Thanks for presenting the nuances - things can get presented as being so black & white on the internet 😬

[@johnthomasriley2741]

We need the climate models to reflect the peaking of population. It is very important.

[@hunterdouglas9765]

Many of them do! This is covered by so-called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways - CarbonBrief does a good explainer on how these are used in modelling.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

You're a great educator mate. I hope you go far ! REALLY REALLY BLOODY QUICKLY

[@ClimateAdam]

Ah thank you! If you want to see me become overrated very fast, feel free to share far and wide.

[@gmelliot19]

Global warming is primarily driven by economic growth and only secondarily driven by population growth. That’s because global warming is mostly a function of our energy use, and the elasticity of demand for energy is very high. There’s no upper limits on how much energy services people can want and use. Biodiversity loss however is mostly a function of human appropriation of net primary productivity (HANPP). Think of HANPP as the product of land use extent X land use intensity. And there ARE upper limits to biomass consumption. That’s why inequality in HANPP footprints is comparatively so much smaller than inequality in energy footprints. Population DOES matter for biodiversity loss (and other sustainability problems related primarily to food production / biomass appropriation, such as nutrient pollution, soil erosion, groundwater depletion, etc)

[@wasgehtsiedasan8660]

I think you are missing an important factor in your arguments. When calculating the CO2 footprint of reach people, do you include only the private footprint, or also to corporate footprint? If you include the corporate one, you would make an inaccurate comparison, as someone needs to produce medicine, trains and cars.

[@em945]

Limiting population growth is not so much about direct carbon output adding to climate change, ( which is only part of the problem)...it is about the intense pressure the population places on a struggling planet. The poorer countries may not have the same consumerist carbon footprint the richer ones do, but they still place a devastating effect on the land they spread out onto. This is includes richer countries like Australia, where I live. You only have to watch a few documentaries on places in Africa, Asia and South America to see the cutting down of trees, sickening of the waterways, killing off of animals around, overfishing, child labour. At a time when ecologists suggest we could counterbalance the human footprint by potentially rewilding or at least regenerating a large chunk of our cleared areas, it seems insane to support a growing population anywhere. Crunching numbers does not change the damage on the ground that is very real right now in every part of the planet.

[@otaviomoreira2587]

You have to think why they are cutting down trees, I don't have numbers but most 'new' land is for growing crops to feed cows, for pasture or for mineral resources, wich are either eaten or used by the global north, aka usa and europe. Most of the pollution is the same, is industry that makes products for the rich and middle class, using cheap labor and weak environmental laws (laws that are weak by purpose and by lobbying of multinational corporations), the industry is most of the time a multinacional corporation sending the profits away

[@niqjaw5009]

​@@otaviomoreira2587As human population in a country grows then they need habitat to live and so cut down surrounding rainforest, wetlands or whatever to build new urban sprawl and so displacing whatever wildlife previously lived there Where we humans live not much else lives.

[@SPLICEKNIGHT]

Wonderful video, loved this. Would have loved if you mentioned how the middle of the road is emitting the other 40% tho. You mentioned how the poorest 50% contribute 12% to climate, and the richest 10% contribute 48% to climate change, but casually DIDN'T mention the other 40% or where that comes from. Is it agriculture? Or businesses? Travel maybe? You make a great argument to say, "eat the rich" which in the west just means "eat anyone who makes a moderate+ wage above the poverty line" in context of the 40k plus number you use. That's most if not all Americans who aren't homeless, and basically everyone in a "first world" country. And it just feels like a major part of the discussion is just left deliberately not spoken of.

[@Lalorama]

Thanks for clearing this up. very necessary chocolate cake analogy too

[@ClimateAdam]

Definitely not just because I wanted to eat chocolate cake.....!

[@MicaiahBaron]

"People making over $40,000" Goddammit, I make $45k. I liked feeling superior to people richer than me...

[@ronaldkichurchak3833]

As all these poorer countries gradually accumulate more wealth, they too are going to want to live as Westerners do, much like we're seeing in China and, to a slightly lesser degree, India. And I know this isn't the focus of your channel, but the effects of overpopulation on biodiversity are incredibly problematic, from an increase in land-use change to the consumption of bush meat and traditional "medicines." Then we have the additional problem of gender inequality. Women who have more children in these poorer countries have fewer opportunities for education, leading to lower incomes and less independence. We can't say that overpopulation isn't a serious concern. Ideally, we will simultaneously reduce overconsumption AND overpopulation.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Canada, with a population just over forty million, contributes very few emissions over all. However, on a per capita basis, it is one of the highest emitters in the world.

[@jackpanella3285]

Carbon emissions is not the problem. The problem is atmospheric circulation. For the past fifteen years, someone has been intentionally blocking air circulation by tampering with the environment to form an inversion to modify the microclimate in the Millet Swale watershed, southeast of Snowflake, Arizona. Prior to the intentional manipulation, the same watershed had other problems, going back to at least the 1980s. The inversion led to high pressure in the watershed, and the high pressure in the one watershed put excess pressure on other watersheds in the Colorado River Basin. It is much like a central air system in a house. If a single vent is blocked, the air conditioner functions less efficiently due to the excess pressure, and the house heats up. When the obstruction is removed the house cools down. The high pressure ridge in the Colorado River Basin blocked atmospheric circulation from west to east. The resulting drought, heatwaves and other severe weather extended well beyond the Colorado River Basin. Consider what happens during a drought. Vegetation thins. Accelerated erosion makes channels wider and deeper and hills steeper. These factors open up more room for air to flow and make updrafts steeper. During a drought, surface temperatures increase. When the obstruction to circulation is removed, the increased circulation will move a lot of heat and moisture very quickly, leading to excessive precipitation, which is what we're seeing now in the Western United States. Flagstaff, Arizona is having the snowiest winter since 1949. The Sierra Nevada in California is seeing historic snowfall and snowpack. Even the San Bernardino mountains in California recently had an unprecedented blizzard that has trapped residents and blocked supplies. How do I know this? I discovered the obstruction, and I eliminated it. I ended the Southwest Drought. I have been working on the problem for the past ten years, and meteorological records reflect both progress and setbacks. Setbacks were caused by continual subversive activity to maintain the inversion, and the activity is still ongoing.

[@kalidor2299]

Rich people are rich because of us consumers. We demand products, they supply the product, we pay, they get rich and then we complain that they get rich.. wtf! 🙄

[@ldgerman]

they supply the product? damn.. can't wait for jeff bezos to deliver my amazon package. i bet its hand-made.

[@ldgerman]

4:33 where did you get this from? according to my information just half the amount (20 000$ post tax) per person already puts you in the highest 10% category.

[@ClimateAdam]

it comes from an Oxfam / Stockholm Environment Institute report: www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/research-report-carbon-inequality-era.pdf

[@ldgerman]

@@ClimateAdam thank u, i'll check it out.

[@soredon]

lovely video. i also love that you brought up meat consumption as a driver as well, a very big part that most people never even mention :D i would love to see a video on your thoughts about it, as i rarely hear about the environmental side! subscribed ^^

[@mrrecluse7002]

High population growth doesn't just apply to less developed nations, who have less impact on consumption, but increasingly too much, but also to developed nations with fewer people, but still too many, consuming too much. It really is a worldwide problem, especially considering the aspirations of the people in those undeveloped, and developing countries.

[@kimwarburton8490]

i am on enhanced disability. today i used Wren's carbon footprint calculator. My footprint is 3.9 The world average is 4.9 The uk average (when im from) is 6.x The us average is 18.x To become carbon neutral, it will only cost me £6.xx/mnth -a netflix subscription, or two coffees in a cafe i will be looking at my expenses to ascertain if i can afford this without affecting my mental health/recovery journey. It is time to make myself a budget, so i have better financial control and more freedom to prioritise my outgoings. Luckily, i already bank with co-op and nationwide, they are the uk's top 2 big banks for ethics etc

[@ClimateAdam]

woah sounds like you already do loads, kim!

[@kimwarburton8490]

@@ClimateAdam aww thankyou! that means alot coming from you

[@niqjaw5009]

Biggest single Impact BY FAR one can do to reduce CO2 impact is having one less child (58tonnes/year) compared with 0.8 tonnes/yr by going vegetarian or 2.4t/yr by getting rid of the car.

[@kimwarburton8490]

@@niqjaw5009 This is good info, but 20mins ago, i very nearly replied with a scathing attack, because it triggered me. I would ask of you that in the future, to please bear in mind that there are people out there who dont have/not able to have ONE child and their hearts are broken and triggerable. It was too easy to skip over 'having one less child' and even when i HAD realised you meant 'instead of having multiple children, consider one child less than your desired amount', well, lets just say i was still rather snarky due to the emo impact i was experiencing 'youre preaching to the choir, i know this' etc. I've been in therapy a while now, im pleased with my restraint, but i wanted to warn you incase others react with their initial impulses. I honestly cant think of another concise way you couldve put the message across however and it IS an important bit of info that needs sharing, so im not encouraging you to stop sharing it, or to walk on egg-shells, but fore-warned is fore-armed as they say, so please, if such an attack happens in future, please try not to take it personally.

[@singingway]

Good job Adam. As a climate presenter, this addresses many questions I get. The next most common challenge is "what about China?"

[@sarah-annchiara2686]

Amazing video! I love your channel and appreciate what you're doing for the climate crisis!

[@samuelprice538]

Excellent video as always Adam

[@KarolaTea]

Great video, thank you!!! The conclusion doesn't surprise me, but it's great to have all the numbers in one place, and with clear examples at that, as always :) Also good to hear some potential solutions!

[@teemulaulajainen9410]

Thanks, again! This video really widened my old good "thinking" about the issue. Before I was tempted to think simplifying the too obvious correlation between pop growth and emissions. Now I see even more clear.

[@hoomanmortazavi]

Great video. Subscribed!

[@ClimateAdam]

welcome, Hooman!

[@pablouribe1522]

They are too much Adams in the world! For sure that is causing Climate Change 😉😉 Great video! Thanks for creating this content.

[@alvinopler8293]

Thank you for the content, working in academia studying climate myself I can only enjoy the fact that for a 7 minutes video you cite about 10 references ! I had a rather perculiar question (don't get me wrong about my intentions !) Will redistributing wealth perfectly reduce the total emissions or not ? Being from France, the geography of our country makes my prior tending toward a greater carbon intensity ( co2/€) in low class due to the use of car compared to city living (wealthier) people making the redistribution of wealth increase carbon emission in absolute value. After a (very) quick search, I couldn't find a paper discussing this issue, do you have an idea on the question ?

[@Danycuraj]

What income category are you referring to when you say "low class"? Redistribution follows a shift in paradigm from pursuing enormously high consumption lifestyles to consumption patterns inside ecological boundaries. Lower income means lower emissions because of lower (resource) consumption, this Involves many more aspects than just mobility. In the global context wealthier people tend to have more cars though.

[@sabaidaniel555]

Great video. Keep up the good work (which is no doubt made easier by the fact that you can replicate yourself, as we saw in this video)

[@ClimateAdam]

Unfortunately all the other Adams have been failing to pull their weight 🤬

[@vernepeterson7352]

I would argue that increased population creates the low paid workers that the wealthy depend upon to make their stuff. If the world's population had held steady, from say 1960, we would be in a very different place today. Those who benefit from population growth always argue for it's continuation.

[@megforrestart2710]

4:33 oops, already had my guillotine out…

[@ilonaupite609]

Overconsumption, resource depletion, ecosystem destruction,animal agriculture. But basically rich people that use that land, meat, phone, computer, leather pants etc.

[@maxmorimoto6481]

Thxs for this video. Everyone needs to hear this. I originally was one of those who thought more people was the main reason climate change is getting worse. This video opened my eyes.

[@SofiA-nf7os]

Where did you get the $40,000 per year information from at 4:30?

[@ClimateAdam]

it comes from this report: www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/research-report-carbon-inequality-era.pdf

[@SofiA-nf7os]

@@ClimateAdam thank you

[@SofiA-nf7os]

@@ClimateAdam The mean income of the richest 10% is $122,100 per year (Chancel et al., World Inequality Report 2022). That is a lot higher than the $40 000 per year limit, probably because the 1% ultrarich are included. The median of the 10% might be lower. Makes you think how much responsibility the ultrarich have of climate change.

[@ClimateAdam]

$40,000 is the threshhold (above which you're in the top 10%) not the average (mean or median) earnings of the top 10%.

[@Turboy65]

In actual fact, the greatest influencer of the climate is our sun. Solar energy output is the prime factor. The climate follows solar output patterns.

[@ClimateAdam]

omg the SUN! why didn't climate scientists remember to check THE SUN?!?

[@andreajean3348]

Such a fascinating and helpful channel, thank you so much for all you do Adam

[@ClimateAdam]

I'm glad you like it, Andrea. thanks so much for watching 💚

[@gburro4579]

It is important to realize that GHG emissions are not the only cause of human civilization's current state of severe ecological overshoot.

[@Sarah-sf3zp]

Algorithm comment, so hopefully more people get to see it :) Also loved the cake visuals makes the info easy to *digest*

[@preciousmousse]

You're doing God's work, Adam! So glad to have found you today, I hope your channel goes mega ultra viral ♥️ As a person educated in sociology and political economy who chose to pursue being an artist instead, thank you for doing this for the public!

[@MarshallMathersthe7th]

Sorry, wrong person.

[@tonykelpie]

What makes it unwise to dismiss population control as part of the solution is that people generally aspire to increase their consumption as the years go by. Long term it is part of what needs to happen, but for the moment it is a relatively small part

[@djinghiskhan9199]

Hi Climate Adam. Can you talk about the US corporate terrorism of the Nord Stream pipeline and the consequences of the CH4 that was leaked?

[@elatedmaniac]

FYI: ChatGPT recommended your channel to me. Solid choice. The model is good.

[@haddow777]

An element I found missing is corporations and governments. Non human organizations that have a serious impact. Industry and agriculture both contribute significantly. Especially considering that the volume of people inundating your comments with population as the reason behind climate change is because of heavily funded PR campaigns major polluters like the oil and gas industry have pushed to propagandize people into believing that they are the problem, not the companies.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

That was a fine production as usual. You could have included the following reference that I urge reader to search for. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals (Population Press Files - PDF) The following graphic demonstrates the recent trends in population growth. Human Population Through Time (KZbin)

[@Hmza92]

As someone who is very interested in climate change this video does a good explanation of the causes. Thank you so much 😊

[@ClimateAdam]

you are very welcome!

[@stevefitt9538]

OK, the question asked was, "Who or what is causing climate change?" You discounted population growth. That is true for the future. But, it is less true for the past. Since the early 70s the population in the advanced nations has more than doubled, and most of the new people earn over $40K/yr. Those added people are adding a lot to the additional CO2 going forward. The number of billionaires is also increasing rapidly. So, this increase of those numbers is also a big problem. . . IMHO, the market has dominated policy in advanced nations as Neo-liberalism has taken over policy making since 1981. This is the same period as I have known that the world would be in the current mess around this time. So, relying on the market to make decisions has been the main cause of the mess we are in. Relying on the market to solve the mess is NOT going to work. The very idea is insane/crazy. We need non-market solutions, and we need them very fast. I have been proposing a WWII style rationing system (only in advanced industrial nations) with the poor getting enough to survive well, and the super-rich being limited to just 4 times as much as the poorest 50%, with 2x and 3x for those between the poor and the 1%. Rationing will not let the 1% cheat.

[@hollyexley]

Great video Adam - the graphics were beautiful. I picked up a few new facts about the myth of overpopulation too so thanks for that!

[@ClimateAdam]

wow that means a lot coming from you, Holly!

[@redjetsen1002]

Glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, long before the industrial revolution. explain that.

[@thesilentone4024]

Everyone is at fault but not all are on purpose. Like when they had a 5% off all food when you bring your own cotton or hemp made bag instead of using a plastic bag i used the cotton bags every time. But then 3 months later it went nobody wants to do it so it doesn't matter if you use a cotton or hemp bag its the same price as if you used a plastic bag that killed it for me like really people bringing a cotton bag to same 5% on every item you buy was to hard how.

[@PhilipTa10]

Hi, a fellow atmospheric scientist here (although I “only” have a Master’s degree) Do you have links (or just author and article name) to the studies you reference? As it would be nice to show them to people that might say some of the mistakes you bring up, and that could actually be convinced by sound data and research.

[@ClimateAdam]

I always provide links in the description of the vid

[@PhilipTa10]

@@ClimateAdam Arh, I see. Thanks

[@johnthomasriley2741]

Human population of the Earth is now in serious overshoot. It will peak at about 9 B between 2060 and 2100. It will then settle to a sustainable level estimated at between 1/2 and 1/3 the peak over several hundred years. This is a completely natural event and It is now on autopilot. There is nothing we need to do to make this happen, but there is much we can do to make it more humane. (Ref: "Empty Planet" Bricker, "Overshoot" Catton)

[@InternetDarkLord]

2:30 One of the biggest problems with this video is absolute poverty is only a few dollars a day. If we raise everybody out of this income bracket, they will still be relatively poor. Do you think all these people will want to stay poor............or get richer and become middle class? Everybody tries to get richer all the time, its human nature. Another problem is that human life extension might become a reality, causing a 1st world population boom instead.

[@mandarkokate5613]

Exactly those rich needs to drop footprint.

[@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039]

Great video, very well researched. I learned a lot!

[@harshvardhansaxena859]

wow your videos are great just saw the Jordan Peterson reaction one...thank u I was very confused with that tweet..

[@IamCELARIOjesusFREAK]

the richer countries do use more energy disproportionately, Steve Koonin makes this clear. He also makes the case that fossil fuel isn't the only impact on climate and that the models that shows this have been wrong in the past and can not even predict the past, Dr John Christy came to the same conclusion.

[@oleonard7319]

We are now in the boiling frog stage

[@adeelakif814]

I'm obsessed with your content and I love when you talk about data and the way you explain I love this

[@ClimateAdam]

ah thank you adeel - awesome you like my approach

[@jenniferlevine5406]

Excellent video!

[@tradeprosper5002]

Development appears to be key as well. China was still relatively poor and a small emitter in 1980. Now they emit more than the USA and Europe combined. Of course, they also have more billionaires than the USA now. The developed West did reduce overall emissions slightly, but not enough to offset the increase from China. If everyone develops and emits at China's level, then we have a problem unless they do it with green tech. So far, annual emissions just keep increasing even with all the talk about zero emissions.

[@kaputfretudy]

A great look at how wealth and emissions relate, thanks! Agree that we are in desperate need of wealth taxes, especially to fund some of those systemic changes we need. A carbon tax could work too, if there was a buffer for the poor, although I’m not sure it would curtail the carbon consumption of the wealthy by too much. Ultimately, plutocratic capitalism is how the wealthy got wealthy in the first place. And also how the wealthy have been able to stymy climate action for so long:

[@MyKharli]

Excess / inefficient (meat dairy eating ) consumption .

[@tonykelpie]

And it isn’t wealth in terms of capital wealth that is the problem. It is consumption, and especially overconsumption

[@kaysimperfectgarden.4043]

As always, really informative and well done Adam, thank you. I'll share with my Facebook friends.

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks Kay!

[@roberthornack1692]

We all contribute to climate change. All organisms need to consume resources which they convert into energy which releases heat. Civilizations are massive heat engines, converting massive amounts of resources into heat releasing gases. It's the price we pay for ever greater comfort.

[@andrew9812]

But why has the top 1% been increasing their carbon footprint?

[@jellevaneijk9397]

Personal flights and cruises is my guess

[@MissMeganBeckett]

I had to do a bit of quick math, and yay I’m not in the top 10% of income, so I am likely already not having a huge carbon footprint, but not really because the difference I can make by changing personal things isn’t much. I guess I’ll just keep doing my best, I don’t eat all that much meat myself anyways, but my cats and dog eat more meat in a week than I do in a month, are animal carbon footprints calculated separately from human carbon footprints?

[@annettecash5425]

It's 100% an overpopulation problem , The supply and demand increases which means more land needed for food , so cut down the amazon rainforest to create more feed/food is just one example of many! We are all sleepwalking into this by treating the symptom and not the cause.

[@rogerdittus2952]

Very informative video. I gave up red meat long ago for non-climate reasons and have pecked away at reducing my use of fossil fuels but as you say a big problem is structural, and that can't change rapidly enough until there is a critical a mass of informed citizens. I heard Jordan Peterson in a video (forget who he was talking to) say that if the poor can become richer then they will care about the environment. The implication being that fossil fuels are the most expedient way to increase prosperity. Which does have a basis in fact I think, at least historically. Except the downsides at multiple levels, including of course a gigantic increase in CO2 emissions would be a catastrophe. So, a big part of the problem is simplistic bumper-sticker-level logic put out there by clueless or disingenuous people having high visibility and trusted by many that are wrongly taken as knowledgeable or sincere when they may be neither.

[@ClimateAdam]

You're right that that has a historical basis, as well as to point out the downsides (such as climate change and air pollution). But beyond this, times have changed. Wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of energy, and are especially useful where there's no electricity grid. So providing (more) electricity to people in poverty can increasingly be done by "leapfrogging" - going straight to renewables.

[@andystevenphotography]

great video

[@alexandrascherer5463]

Well, there is a difference between getting people out if poverty and getting developing countries onto our levels (which are almost all close to the richest 10% in western countries) - including rising life expectations due to access to good nutrition, healthcare and other luxuries in our lifes that are "normal" for us. Of course, we can blame "the rich", but realizing that we are "the rich" won't cause commuting house owners with a car, a washing machine, big TV screen, a dryer and newest cell phone to move into a small flat in the city center without internet. Or would you?

[@Sam-jz2uy]

Good video.

[@timeenoughforart]

Since I was born population in the US has tripled. We have created our fair share of carbon dioxide. Population growth has more to do with habitat loss. It will be very hard to combat poverty in decimated ecosystems. I'm pretty sure we could say what causes climate change is money. Nasty addictive stuff. Worse than fentanyl. The withdrawal is next to impossible. I don't know anyone who has succeeded.

[@glory_1412]

It makes me really mad that the richest 1% would have the chance to live the perfect sustainable life but always chose to buy 10 cars (maybe one Tesla, wow) a private jet and other useless stuff. If I had that money I'd live my dream life with nature, only consuming local bio-products, buying parts of rainforest to protect it, investing in projects for environmental friendly mobility, economy etc., renovating my home into a zero emission home... AND I'd have the money to travel only with public transport, like going on vacation only travelling by train is really expensive.

[@kalidor2299]

What is stopping you from becoming rich and successful? It is much easier to be lazy and complain about them hard working people? 🙄

[@ldgerman]

@@kalidor2299 if you think hard working is the characteristic trait that separates the poor from the ritch.. you are either 15 years old or a delusional. the meritocracy is a myth.

[@glory_1412]

@@kalidor2299 are you rich then? I'll be hard working in the environmental sector and it won't make me rich, but fulfilled. Becoming rich is only possible through business - I hate business and money. Well or through fame and I am working on my musical career but let's be honest, it won't make me rich, probably not even famous. And I don't mind, I just wanted people to see that there's a much cooler way to deal with your money as a rich person

[@kalidor2299]

@@ldgerman Stop believing that cartoons are real. Successful people who get rich are mostly smart, highly educated and very hard working people. They pay more taxes than all of us together. They pay for our welfare. They create work places for us. They pay millions to charity each year. So why not be grateful?

[@ldgerman]

@@kalidor2299 so it is indeed the first one. thank u.

[@bikinisforever4163]

Overpopulation has an impact on literally every environmental problem we face. Water scarcity is expected to be severe in Africa due to their population growth, this is going to cause them a major crisis which I am sure will impact the West.

[@doubleohhhhseven]

Imagine I was a climate change superhero with incredible mechanokinetic power, possessing the ability to disable as many (or as few) passenger cars as I wanted to, on-demand. Now imagine that in my concern for the environment, I decided to disable half of all passenger cars in the US. How much would you think that would lower total global CO2 output, as a percentage? 0.503% What if I used my power to disable half of all the on-road vehicles in the United States? So, in addition to half of all passenger cars, this means I would also disable half of all light-duty trucks, motorcycles, buses, and medium- and heavy-duty trucks. How much do you think that would lower total global CO2 output, as a percentage? (Obviously, doing this would have countless follow-on ramifications, so, for the sake of this discussion, let's not consider those.) 2.011% Feeling very activist, let's assume now that I directed my mechanokinetic power to additionally disable half of all US aircraft, including commercial aviation, military aircraft, and general aviation. How much do you think that would lower total global CO2 output, as a percentage? 2.220% Now if we add half of all US-attributed ships, boats, and trains? 2.335% If we add half of all US-attributed non-transportation agricultural and construction equipment (including "other") and pipelines and lubrication? 2.708% Given that the trends are showing the US to be a shrinking percentage of the world's CO2 output, then my mechanokinetic superpower thusly applied would have diminishing returns over time as a percentage of global CO2 output. Why is the US's CO2 output as a percentage of global CO2 output shrinking over time? Is it because we've made substantial gains in reducing our output? A little yes, a lot of no. Over the five years from 2016 to 2021, we (in the US) reduced our per capita carbon output 3%. But our total CO2 output decreased in that period just 0.087% -- less than one-tenth of one percent. It seems the answer to the question that leads this paragraph has more to do with the denominator than the numerator. In other words, the rest of the world's CO2 output is increasing. Why? Well, Adam, you addressed part of this. Poor people emit less CO2, and there are a lot of people who are poorer in the two countries that rank above the US in terms of population. China, in that same five-year period, increased its total CO2 output 9.96%, with their per capita output up 8.20%. India increased their total CO2 output 6.95%, with their per capita carbon output up 2.12%. Today, it would take nearly two Chinese people to output the carbon of the average American, and 7.7 Indian people to do the same. China, India, and the US are the three most populous countries, and it's projected the combined population of these three countries will decrease 19.70% by 2100. The world's population, however is projected to increase 32.67% by the year 2100. By then, it's projected the US will no longer be #3, but #6. Which countries are projected to move ahead of us? In order, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Let's look at the current per capita carbon emissions in those countries, which, like you said, shouldn't be surprising: • It would take 23.22 Nigerians to output the carbon of the average American; • It would take 15 Pakistanis to output the carbon of the average American; • It would take 495 Congolese (from the Democratic Republic of the Congo) to output the carbon of the average American. As China has shown, as more wealth is attained (look at their GDP per capita over time), the more they want what you and I have. Do a Google search for images of Shenzhen 40 years ago versus now. Our TV screens don't get smaller the more money we make. Our homes don't get smaller the more money we make. We drive cars one person at a time. We air condition our homes. We heat our homes. And, if we can afford to, we don't just cool or heat our homes to just-survivable levels -- if we can afford to, we control our indoor climates to levels that are *comfortable*. Others will want this, too. Do you think per-person carbon emissions of Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo will stay the same, go down, or go up, should any or all of those countries increase their GDP per capita? Where do you think India is headed? They're projected to be the most populous country for most of the years leading up to (and including) 2100, with a projected 9.33% population growth from 2020 to 2100, when they're projected to be at 1.533 billion people. Do you think their per-person carbon emissions are going to go up or down? Again, look at the photos of Shenzhen 40 years ago compared to now -- India is almost certainly going to have several Shenzhen-type centers develop between now and 2100. We're talking about a country that currently accounts for 60% of the world's open human defecation, with 594 million (48%) of its population practicing open defecation. Do we really think (barring the deployment of revolutionary technologies that don't yet exist) that the per capita emission of carbon in India is likely to decrease over time, in the foreseeable future, and/or within the timelines the most climate alarmist among us are doom-warning us with? Zero percent chance. What about the other poor countries who (like most everyone) aspire to improve their situations? Let's go back to my hypothetical mechanokinetic superpower. If my mechanokinetic power was limited only to air conditioners in the USA, disabling half of them would lead to a 0.157% reduction in global CO2 emissions, with a shrinking relative effect (as a global percentage over time). Alas, I don't have those powers -- but even if I did, I couldn't stop what you're predicting. So, what do I think? I think I'm going to prepare. We're planning on buying a second home further up north, in a location projected to be one of the top places in the future for climate migration. And we've also scheduled the installation of a large whole-house backup generator at our primary home, to prepare for increased grid-overload outages. I do hope the world continues research and development & investment in more sustainable (and hopefully (and necessarily) _revolutionary_ and deployable) energy sources. But, realistically, the kind of as-one global action -- now and over time -- that we'd need to reverse our CO2 output trends just isn't happening. So, we're choosing to prepare.

[@redenvironmentalist]

While your correct when discussing CO2. We should also consider the amount of stressors that are caused when there are more people on the planet when it comes to housing, the destruction of biodiversity, feeding all of these people, and of course we don’t want them to live in poverty, I think we all would prefer that they live wealthier more beautiful lives. So it’s best that we convince people to have less children and also push our societies towards a less impact for environmental mindset.

[@Timlagor]

The rich are also to blame for shaping and maintaining the system that keeps us all emitting. In this case it's even more strongly focused on the richest but everyone with a vote in 'the West' contributes to that effect.

[@katp7148]

Even if someone has low emissions they could still be contributing to the problem by, for example, razing the rainforest to grow cattle.

[@ClimateAdam]

emissions from land use changes are normally taken into account in carbon footprints (and where they're not... they should be!)

[@I.____.....__...__]

Yes, it's definitely overpopulation, it's the Law of Large Numbers. But more importantly, it's not a per-capita matter, it's not because a few people use a lot or lots of people use a little that adds up, it's because overpopulation causes literally _every_ problem in the world either directly or indirectly. In this case, the ever-increasing number of humans leads to not being able to do things in a sustainable way like our ancestors used to do, it leads to doing things in was that lead to problems like climate-change. For example, in the past, when humans lived in small villages, they'd have a couple of farms in each village with a handful of livestock, and every once in a while, one of the cows would disappear and the whole village would eat for a couple of weeks. Now, with over 8 BILLION humans, that's just not possible, they have to make cruel, inhumane FACTORIES to churn out an unnaturally large number of animals (there would NEVER be this many cows if humans didn't exist), and to maximize profit, they have to feed them whatever feed is cheapest, even if it makes them extra gassy, so "cow gas" is still the fault of humans. And that's just one, easy-to-understand example. Every other problem is the same, human overpopulation causes effects regardless of how many of them are rich or poor.

[@ClimateAdam]

the thing is even with this simple analogy of food, this argument breaks down. we currently *already* produce enough food for TEN billion people, but with food waste, overconsumption, and feeding this food to animals that humans then eat, we waste a lot of it.

[@sapientisessevolo4364]

Meat is just inefficient. Using chickens (which are way more efficient than beef), for every 4 Calories you put in, you only get 1. And the food grown just for livestock, last I checked, could feed about 1 billion. It gets worse with the waste since most people in rich countries primarily, if not exclusively, eat the muscle and not other parts.

[@johnthomasriley2741]

The reason for the population drop is well understood. For several hindered years there has been a great movement of people out of rural places into urban places. Urban women do not have as many children as rural ones do. It is that simple. Think of the young women in your life. How many children do they have? If below 2.1 then the population is falling. Now you can even argue that a young woman with a cellphone is an urban woman no matter where she lives.

[@markcampbell7577]

Edison generators and dynamos power plants and vehicles make the sources of food and water nearly unlimited supply.

[@androkguz]

"if you add a billion people" But... What kind of people?

[@singingway]

So funny how his alter egos are always scowly. Frowning with a disgruntled voice creates ... a whole new character.

[@davestagner]

Everyone who enjoyed this video should read “Factfulness”, by Dr Hans Rosling, for more on this approach. The video works much like the book, contrasting the “common sense” conventional wisdom most people believe (even well meaning, intelligent, well educated people) with, well, FACTS. This is the book I recommend the most, and wish everyone would read. We would all be better people for it.

[@dragonwukong9]

james watt, the inventer of steam engine.