▫What are your thoughts on "carbon footprints." Do you think they're a useful metric? ▫Commenting on this video really helps this video reach more people! (let's try to get to 1000 comments!) ▫Companion video about fossil fuel barons: nebula.tv/videos/occ-the-capitalists-who-pollute-for-profit You can watch that for free! if you want to watch all of my other bonus content the best way to get access is just by signing up for the Nebula/CuriosityStream bundle for $14.79 a year here: curiositystream.com/occ ▫You can help create subtitles in other languages for this video here: amara.org/videos/fjuSOavaB0oO/info/how-the-rich-really-cause-climate-change/
Systemic Change? Well, that surely can only happen if we watch the Issue-listing Type of RU-vidr more, like Some-More-News and Second-THought and Holy-Koolaid. Sure, i can list the best of the best Climate-Coverage, and you may still ask me to just do so, but i didnt on purpose.
this is a false argument, in terms of blaming just one group of people for the destruction of the earth. You are basically ignoring 10,000 years of civilisation - denying thousands of years of plunder, agriculture, destruction of forests, rivers and lakes, denying over-fishing, mining, disease, war and all sorts of human acts which leads us to this age - where the carrying capacity of the earth is over. 10,0000 years of human colonization as parasites is finished. Everything has a limit. Given certain rich people can be blamed for carrying on the destruction. Yet we are all to blame. The generations before us, the bad leaders with bad ideas, economists, scientists, policy makers, karl marx, the industrialists, the mainstream media, hollywood, the dominant american culture + a thousand things more. Get off this high-horse please. Perhaps your own lifestyle has also caused climate change and or mountains of trash. Check out Easter Island, there were no rich people there to cause mass extinction.
I just can't believe this is the world I'm living in. When I was 15 years old I decided I should be vegetarian because of my personal impact to the planet and ethical issues. I'm twice that age now and things have only gotten worse. I was naive to think people would fix the problem by making personal sacrifices like I did, but the ultra rich just don't care.
The individual has no choice to make, no matter how you consume, these richest few will out do all our progress, at this point, it'll take a systemic, government shift, of the entire world, there's just no way. It's not the individuals fault, it's the ultra wealthys fault
Self-awareness is something a lot of people lack, and it makes it much harder for people to change their behavior. My child's father has a large problem with this, and it had me start the conversation about their behavior and its impact on everyone around them from preschool age.
As consumer habits go, eating a vegetarian/vegan diet actually the most effective means of reducing emissions and driving systemic change, so it's worth persevering. I'll try to sum up why as briefly as possible. 1. Eating plant-based is the most effective lifestyle change a person can do (short of not having children) to reduce their emissions. It's far more powerful than taking shorter showers, or driving an EV, or using public transport, or recycling. All these things are good, but they can't compete with going plant-based in terms of efficiency of carbon savings. This is because each level of the food chain requires 10 times the energy of the level below it. Eating from the lowest trophic level uses literally orders of magnitude less carbon and resources than eating higher on the food chain (ie eating meat). 2. Eating is a zero sum game. Choosing tofu over beef not only deprives the beef industry of custom, it adds it to plant-based industries, so you double your "vote". 3. Food is a different kind of resource to other things like clothes, cars, electronics etc, which are somewhat optional and consumed infrequently. Everyone needs to eat several times a day, so there is constant demand. Food producers *want* this revenue, and if they don't provide what someone wants to buy (eg soy milk instead of dairy), their competitors WILL take their business. And since profit is all that matters to these companies, enough of a drop in revenue will cause food producers to offer plant-based alternatives. 4. Abstaining from animal products cuts off GHG emissions and environmental destruction on multiple fronts. Choosing beans over steak, for instance, cuts out GHG emitted directly from the animals, and from the land cleared for grazing, from emissions from feed crops grown, from fertilizer from feed crops grown, from transport of food to the animals, from effluent waste from animals, from anti-biotics fed to animals, from the water used directly by the animals and that used in growing their fodder etc. All these things add up to make a BIG difference environmentally. Plus it means you're not hurting those poor cows, pigs, chickens etc.
Eyeing the mishandling of production over the damages of consumerism is certainly where our collective focus needs to be, but I also think that if we practice reducing waste in our individual lives it can strengthen our resolve to push for system change. We can reject individual consumerism and corporate greed at the same time
Sure, but capitalism needs to end. No way around that. Instead of just spending forever resisting consumerism and corporate greed, end the system that creates those things in the first place - capitalism. Liberals who only talk about voting and reducing our individual carbon footprints are useless, but socialists? They’re scary, because they actually want to uproot our current power structures, hence why socialists/communists have been the ones who historically got imprisoned. We have teeth, liberals don’t.
@@jaylockwood5030 explain how we will ever heal the earth if 1/3 of the planet is destroyed and replaced by animal agriculture? It's not simply about greed and over production with everything, and not all environmental issues are tied to fossil fuels. If we stopped consuming fossil fuels tomorrow the holocene extinction wouldn't suddenly stop happening.
why would i reject my freedom of buy everything i want??? Climate change is just a natural cycle of our planet,like ice ages, you cant stop this thing even if all of us will buy electric cars and stop traveling
Indeed. The inevitable Guillotine for the French wealthy ruling elite class proved that. It looks like taxing the living $#!t out of the ultra rich, for them, is worse than death itself.
You're still missing a large chunk of the system: The financial sector. Those CEOs, even if somehow they want to, can't just choose to pollute less. If polluting less = less money for shareholders, the CEO will be liable to answer to them, gets kicked out, or even get sued to oblivion. Then they'll just be replaced with a new one that will loyally protect the bottom line at all cost. Unions is part of the answer of course, if the workers threaten to strike if they don't pollute less, then it makes polluting less can be the logical choice, and therefore won't get the CEO into trouble for choosing it. But on the other hand, the CEOs will logically also be required to fight unionizations at all cost to make sure that kind of threat won't happen in the first place. The second problem is this also only empower the workers of those particular companies to make the right choice, and not the larger population. While it's reasonable to put more trust on the workers making the moral choice than the execs, they're still human beings, and they might be enticed with concessions that will only benefit them, and not humanity as a whole. The larger solution should also include these 2 factors: Financial sector and international rules and regulations. A reform in the financial sector towards ethical investment hopefully can force execs to not just care about the bottom line, but also about the ethics of their decisions. And this empowers not just the workers, but the general public (with money to invest on). And international rules and regulations would mean companies can't just move their polluting (and anti-union) businesses around the world to evade stricter local/national regulations. This one empowers even more people, which include basically everyone living in democratic countries. This is a tall order obviously, but IMO just pointing out the fault of execs is still missing the mark. It's better than pointing out personal footprints of course, but not by that much. It's still moving from *our* fault to *their* fault, instead of focusing on the larger system.
legislation. make companies pay for the emissions and use the money for balancing out social inequality for example with a guaranteed mothly income. It would be possible to produce cement with renewable energy. It is just not profitable. So lets make it profitable and by making it the only economically viable option.
@@grischa762 That'd be a good idea, however... companies have stakes in politicians. You'd have to overcome the exploitation of the system in order to make that a reality.
@@keegans.969 I did not say it is currently possible to implement. We have know this is the solution for decades. Heck I was taught this in economy in the university more then 10 years ago by several professors. Yet those basic economic principles are not sufficiently applied to politics. And we all know why, at least to an extend.
I don't think we'd even need international regulations, just have national regulations that care about international behaviour. Instead of a law saying "only emissions produced in our country count", it could say "all emissions required to service our country count"
@@NathaNeil27 I think that community anger is better than individual despair. Although, I suppose an argument could be made for the latter as it did lead to it in my case. In contrast, it could also lead to apathy which would be very bad.
@@kazuesohma2425 both can and will lead to despair and apathy, as long as the system does not change. being vegan for a decade and not seeing any change is just as depressing as organizing protests for a decade and not seeing any change. what does help is having a community that enables you to process that despair and overcome it - in which case despair might be even useful, because it may help you reflect on your strategy and refine it. a phase of despair, instead of a constant state of despair. unfortunately most communities (even many climate activists) don't want to hear anything about despair. "you don't know that". "have hope". "concentrate on good things". "i don't want to hear about climate impacts, it's depressing". if you regularly despair over phrases like that - find a better community...
Two things environmentalist movements NEED to address: Class differences, and disability. If someone even dares to mention the size of the human population...and says we have to dwindle it or blames disabled people for a lack of eco-friendly tools--1. They are wrong about who's to blame--and 2. They are eco-fascists. We have plenty of materials to feed everyone on earth, and we have the technology to get it to everyone, but we don't work together enough to make it actually happen because of capitalism. We don't need fewer people, we need a better system. We need a system that will work with disabled people to make them assistance tools that are eco-friendly and affordable--if they cost anything at all.
EXACTLY THIS. I've been talking to some extremely cool people about this, and they discussed this in-depth. Ultimately, we need to establish new systems here, and put everyone on the same level.
Very much agree. The whole blaming disabled people for their carbon footprint is ridiculous. One thing I'm wondering about though (and I'm really coming to this wanting to learn) is about the aspect of population reduction. And by that I'm not talking eugenics, but about the tendency for nations that get wealthier to have lowering birth rates. My personal thought is that it relates to women's education/empowerment and access to medical care (including birth control). I consider those to be a really good thing, and I feel like a byproduct of empowering women would be a reduction in global population, which may habe a positive effect on the climate (?). Is there a hole in my thinking? Is there ethical issues with this? (These are genuine questions for anyone who sees this comment)
@@MichiruEll Personally, I do not think so. You bringing up the empowerment of women reducing births interests me very much, and I'm interested in where you got that. After all, hardly any of us want a Hunger Games to reduce the world population ahahaha. (And with eco-fascists, I'd put them through the Hunger Games. After all if they want to put disabled people through it, they should fight each other as well.)
Even if there was no hope for our climate being saved, I would still do what is right in saving the climate. I also think that vast gatherings and a togetherness against the rich and powerful are going to be important in creating the change that we need. Thank you for your educational videos.
Indeed, we need vast, solidarity movements against the wealthy elites. But also must note that the system is the sickness. Capitalism is a cancer. It's a selfish, violent system and we can change it if we really want to. We can make our lives better for now and especially for our future, if we are not scared to learn and grow together.
Youre not saving the climate, the climate changes it doesnt care at all. What you are trying to save is humanity and to some extend to ecology of ecosystems. But yeah, good luck with that.
The rich always blame others for the big problems that they create. For more proof of this read "Winners Take All" by Anand Giridharadas. The many Interviews with him are also very interesting and informative. The congresswoman Katy Porter is trying to hold many greedy CEO's accountable by having them testify before Congress. She uses a whiteboard to show statistics and other info. She's one of the only people in Congress doing this. This is a very important video. I hope that many more people see it. Thank you.
It's the other way around, poor people blame rich for the problems they create. Poor people consume far bigger portion of their income, their CO2 toll is bigger.
Honestly I ddin't think that the outrage over private jets was bad. Actually it sparked a conversation over outlawing private jets (and so a very polluting industry) in my country and I feel like it goes towards the thinking about production side of the problem. But of course the framing of the issue is not ideal to think about those structural issues first. Great video!
@@troywalkertheprogressivean8433 yes and mining even more rare earth metals to power those electric vehicles is a great idea! Surely nothing could go wrong.
It is indeed a problem of framing, and in the production is the key to not only climate action but social justice and equality. Great video essay. I have participated in multiple communal cooperatives, and the power that it gives to the people to own the means of production is astounding. Nature thrives, people thrive and everything is more balanced.
Systemic Change? Well, that surely can only happen if we watch the Issue-listing Type of RU-vidr more, like Some-More-News and Second-THought and Holy-Koolaid. Sure, i can list the best of the best Climate-Coverage, and you may still ask me to just do so, but i didnt on purpose.
it's fantastic the these individual communal cooperatives exist and you have worked with them. but what did they DO? yes they controlled the means of production... but for what production? im so tired of hearing this idea of seizing the means of production in local community, but then you find out its just growing local food, weaving baskets, artisan paper, a pottery shop, a local news paper, etc. never is it a world industry like materials production, mining, manufacturing of appliances and vehicle, construction. please say otherwise. i really really really want to hear the cooperatives you participated with weren't just some escapism "back to nature" kind of thing. hope to hear from you. thank you in advance.
@@Andre-qo5ek Look, we are mostly people who have suffered from natural disaster, mostly floods here in Colombia. We get together in those hard times, most of us have nothing with us. Older members helped new ones get started, mostly with really cheap loans, that the majority of people payback. I am from a poor background, but really poor, poor that you struggle to eat and have somewhere to sleep. Now thankfully i am in a better position, but without this people i will probably be death. The economical activities are mostly agriculture related, but the help can be for anything productive.
@@pablouribe1522 ah i see. i hope you the best. context is absolutely key. mutual aid in times of crisis is of course productive. it is really great that you are able to come together and do some real positive actions. helping people, and being helped, where you are, with what you NEED, trumps seizing power of the global corporations for sure.
I'm glad you finally took my suggestions from a year ago to heart. THIS is THE ISSUE. We have to address CLASS in order to address CLIMATE CHANGE. They are fundamentally tied to each other.
Systemic Change? Well, that surely can only happen if we watch the Issue-listing Type of RU-vidr more, like Some-More-News and Second-THought and Holy-Koolaid. Sure, i can list the best of the best Climate-Coverage, and you may still ask me to just do so, but i didnt on purpose.
Address capitalism as unsustainable, violent and selfish and couple that with the connection to the environmental crisis and human rights crisis, then we might have a movement that is successful for creating system change.
@@zpettigrew Sounds good. Any of us who can do our part to educate, inspire and motivate on these critical issues is appreciated. I'm always inspired by learning about the truth, seeing the technologies and people power that is possible if we re-invent our economy to end the toxic oppression that it currently weighs on us. A graphic novel could be very useful, especially if it depicts a future that is sustainable and healthy. A future based on technical efficiency that we already know how to do, and projected to be able to improve that could create such an abundance of basic needs that all people's needs are met - eliminating the existence of poverty, debt, money itself, as well as politicians and war.
You're an amazing writer and narrator, I was hooked for the entire video. I bet Hydrocarbon company board members are delighted that we are angered by Taylor Swift and not by their ruthless business practices.
I have an issue with just "framing emissions to the production" and completely ignoring the consumption part. Sure, the hyper rich making decisions purely based on profits have an order of magnitude more impact. Yet it seems like the video is saying that Taylor Swift's use of a private jet isn't an issue. The change needs to come from the production, that's for sure. But if we don't change our consumption as well, it doesn't seems feasible ... Even Exxon switch to 100% electricity, and we electrify our means of transports, we can't have celebrities using electric private jets. As Aurélien Barreau says, "with an electric bulldozer you can deforest the Amazonian forest" ... It's not just changing our production, nor our consumption... I think both go hands in hands.
Or look at it another way. There was a concerted effort to shame the individual, which also reinforced the carbon footprint campaign that focused on the individual, not the system of inequality (exploitive capitalism)
But the Amazon rainforest is full of renewable resources. Resources that we'll need to move away from using plastic amongst other artificial resources. We have a pollution crisis to deal with on top of a carbon crisis. And at the end of the day, if tax payers think paper, or wood is better for the environment because it pollutes less, then we'll have to find it somewhere like that.
"Even Exxon switch to 100% electricity, and we electrify our means of transports, we can't have celebrities using electric private jets." Why not???? The capitalist system is based on letting people 1) make as much money as they can (by legal means), and 2) spending that money as they please (after paying taxes). I agree with electric transportation 100%, and I hope it extends in due time to the aviation industry. But once that happens, and a rich person wants to fly his own electric private jet, then he should be permitted to do so. It's the free choice of the capitalist system.
I’m so grateful to have come across your channel. This is the exact kind of conversation we need to be having if we want to make any progress. Thank you for posting!!
What BS, the people buying the product chose about what they value. And if they don't care about the way it is produced the company offering the product doesn't care as well. Everyone can go buy phones that can do less and cost twice as much. That is the power of each individual, voting with their pocket every day. If those people look the other way, rich people exploit that looking away.
@@swish6143 And companies can also direct how they turn the consumer's perspective through things such as advertising and public announcements. Ultimately, it's a balance of powers.
@@keegans.969 yeah, i am sure the mass thinks cows are purple and we are just mindless robots manipulated through ads. Gotta go, need to eat a whopper.
It seems like the problem is capitalism and the solution is the redistribution of the means of production. If only someone had come up with that earlier.
Redistribution of the means of production caused a number of the most severe famines in history. Capitalism, on the other hand, only caused the epidemy of obesity.
If "pollution starts in the worplace", as you just mentionned, it is because there is a demand by the people for it. No work is done without a demand. This is why I still think that both consumption and mindset of the people; whether they are rich or middle-class (poor ppl exempted); are responsible for the climate change, and so, why the carbon footprint is still relevant. You did not mention how the ciment sector intended to lower their emission for example, something which is very well documented. I really could not disagree more with the purpose of this video and I think people's behavior and mindset are the priorities for handling the current crisis. Taking the yellow vests as an example for this video only reinforces my point of view. I'll still watch carefully the future videos but I really think that we should still hold a lot of pressure on the people who are still consuling as if we could take planes, eat meat and drive as much as we wanted, or used to want. I hope I'm not the only one thinking this !
Oh yeah, but this was addressed in the video tho: behavioral patterns do make the issues even worse by providing a base for producers, it's just that behavior is determined by the surroundings and possibilities, and under a system where a big bulk of people are barely scraping by, changing behavior is out of the picture. And that's even more the case when you consider that producers can just publicize themselves into existence (examples that come to mind: some aspects of the fashion industry, cars and transport as a symbol of status (points to SUVs, and your comment regarding wanting to use planes/drive), coca-cola and similar beverages, the whole deal with women "needing" to get rid of leg-hair) by _changing_ behavioral patterns to their liking. Sure it can be fought back, but as a specific example I don't see slaughterhouses improving their work and breeding conditions out of vegetarian/vegan pressure any time soon. However, if the workers inside there were able to properly unionize and workers from similar fields joined the causes, then they'd be able to at least force the conditions to be sanitary - which would make meat a lot more expensive and naturally steer people away from it as a daily necessity. And this is what a production focused approach means: Better slaughterhouse working conditions → Lower maximum output → Less animals will be bred and killed → Space is freed for other crops → The rised cost of meat won't be that bad → More people can make the transition away from meats. (Oh and yeah, the workers _not being empoverished anymore_ is a nice bonus) This sort of thing shows that some productions aren't dependant on consumers when the scales are big enough, but _please_ don't get me wrong, most *are* tied to what the masses want, it's just that the masses are NOT responsible for what they have available in their options, which is somehow skipped over. TLDR: sure one can say that no work is done without demand, but companies are the ones manufacturing demand, so even if it works and isn't just individualist propaganda, it will take too long until the *bigger* producers feel any pressure from consumers. Meanwhile, pressure from workers is felt nearly instantly and can result in real changes (as long as they aren't just silenced).
@@makelgrax Some of your points are very interesting and I can agree with this sentence "one can say that no work is done without demand, but companies are the ones manufacturing demand", only in a certain way though. Regarding all the better production point I'm not convinced yet
The cause → consequence bit and the idea I tie to it? Yeah that example was a bit too specific and iffy even to my liking, because the starting point has quite a couple weird assumptions tied to it and the overall scheme it paints is also odd, like looking at one branch of a tree, then assuming all of the tree looks like that. I just don't know how to avoid doing that with a topic as complex and multifaceted as the relationship between producers, products, and consumers, while considering the product, the consumer, and the producer as different entities, so I opted for the solution of skipping over the stuff I don't know about - which is certainly icky.
@Lind Morn No matter what society you make humans will always have urges like greed etc. There is no government type that is immune from corruption of human desires. Like we could take power from the private capitalists and give it to the government but all that does is give power to government officials who have the same urges as private capitalist so they will abuse that power for their own benefit. Now could we have no leader or position of power? I don't think so as mob rule would be chaotic with no sense of direction. If everyone has a say efficiency would go way down because of all the debating etc That's why most societies have leadership positions or people that have more power than the average person that ideally will give people time to debate but will force a green light for the sake of getting it done eventually.
While I am all for more democratised workplaces, I have serious doubts that this would help mitigate the climate crisis. The cognitive biases that in my opinion had a critical role also apply to the common people. In western countries the politics of less is absolutely necessary as even the middle and lower classes lead unsustainable lifestyles. What was not addressed is the inherently unsustainable demand for never ending economic growth and the addiction of the masses to consumption. The key challenge is convincing everyone that less material wealth can actually still improve our quality of life or that a slight decline is necessary. What matters most are human connections, which our "innovations" are continuously degrading. Democratised workplaces do have a role to play in the efforts to limit the extent of climate change by reducing the sense of powerlessness and increasing empathy between people that will hopefully lead to more community oriented decisions. But they are only part of the solution
Exactly. Democratised workplaces may be better in many areas, but they won't do anything whatsoever to address the climate situation (I won't use the word 'crisis' because it's a purely a matter of individual opinion about whether something is a 'crisis' or not).
while i think this is all legitemate i think it's still important for the people that have the means of consuming less to consume less which can sometimes also include investing less. not just for the climate crisis but also to soften the boom and bust cycle we've kept experiencing and seemingly also accelerating. spend less money, generate less waste ,and reduce demand ultimately it would also be nice if it results in a slower world where there's more free time rather than worktime simply because you don't need to produce more production doesn't really need to keep in pace with innovation
We also need to weigh the sustainability of products/production. ie; concrete isn't good for the environment, but an ICF PassivHaus dwelling that can last hundreds of years through natural disasters with little-to-no maintenance & deliver a healthier living environment (air quality & nearly silent) is a huge win.
Since Taylor Swift's private jet carbon emissions are trending again, you should redo this video with her name in the title or picture on the thumbnail.
Just to keep things in perspective a little, let us do keep in mind that the top 1% earners in the world includes everybody with a net income of about 2500$ per month. So not just millionaires, but also a large part of the "upper middle" classes in North America, Europe and some other highly "developed" countries in the world. Since 1% of 8 billions is still 80 million people. Of course power to make decisions regarding production, consumption & waste are still distributed unevenly in this group, I think even at the bottom end of it there are more decisions to be made than just private consumption.
Hmm I'm not to sure about that. The latest inequality report by Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, & Gabriel Zucman is the 2022 report about 2021. In it they use the incomes based on Purchase Power Parity data from the World Bank. Their Footnote on the numbers say "At PPP, EUR 1 = USD 1.4 = CNY 5.0". Here is the table on global income distribution, or at least the top 10%, 1%, & 0.1%. Income Group | Average Annual Income [Monthly] | Income Threshold [Monthly] Top 10% | 87,200 PPP EUR [7,266.67 PPP EUR] | 37,200 PPP EUR [3,100 PPP EUR] Top 1% | 321,600 PPP EUR [26,800 PPP EUR] | 123,900 PPP EUR [10,325 PPP EUR] Top 0.1% | 1,300,800 PPP EUR [108,400 PPP EUR] | 446,000 PPP EUR [37,166.67 PPP EUR] This would equate to a $10,173.33 PPP USD income per month to even make it into the top 10%.
THANK YOU! I was just trying to articulate this in another comment. My parents come from developing countries, one that houses one of the largest vegetative carbon sink outside of the amazon. I feel like people really forget their privilege on the internet. I am not "rich" by any means but compared to the rest of the world I need to take a seat and listen and do my part to minimize this issue the USA is complicit in, esp as an American myself.
From consumption to production. Ugh I love this, mwAh. Cuz like- how is it My Fault that I can only easily get clothes and food or whatever that massive companies are making with terrible ways
?? im not sure if i am reading your message with the right tone. it sound sarcastic. its SOUNDS like you are making the defeatist " there is no ethic consumption under capitalism" argument ...... could you go a bit deeper as to what you meant?
Because if they were produced locally and in your region you wouldn't be able to easily afford it anymore. That's the whole point, working twice as much for the same product. Plenty of companies out there, that produce in non horrible ways, just more expansive.
This is a very important video. Working in the sustainable development industry, its very common for people to immediately blame the consumers for their lifestyles and consumption. But the influence of the forces controlling the production of any commodity is rarely considered. I find myself also jumping to solutions like taxation of fossil-fuel based products to shift people to use sustainable products without understanding the impact such a policy might have on working individuals. Its such an easy trap to fall into. Will definitely remember to flag it, if someone brings up consumption and carbon footprint.
7:30 Ok, the Taylor Swift comment. Please remember Taylor Swift's Carbon Footprint involves not just Her flying around but Taylor Swift Incorporated flying around, meaning all the roadies, accountants, lawyers, lighting crew, dancers. Also all the GHG's involved in Folks streaming her songs and videos that add to her fortune also add to her Carbon Footprint. Celebrities are Corporate Brands now a days.
Totally. I read and hear this time and again. The roots of the climate crisis issue are the fossil fuel companies, the high polluting, high consumer industries and the politicians that are complicit thanks to lobbying and bribery. The blame shouldn't land on individuals as it is a tactic to divert the blame and focus of the root of the cause. Of course we should take our personal measures to reduce impact as everything helps, but that pales in comparison to the impacts of the fossil fuel companies themselves. I have recently been reading 'This Changes Everything' by Naomi Klein which covers some of this.
Reverse finger pointing. The poor people now want their excuse to not change anything. Blame rich people. Why not. As soon as poor people stop fueling their cars rich people stop digging oil out.
@@swish6143 I'm sorry, but apparently you have missed the point. Did you watch the video? Or any of our changing climates videos at all? Yes, as individuals we still hold responsibility and can and should do our part, I have already also stated that (on a personal level I'm vegan, waste conscious, regularly plant native trees etc.), but the wealthy are the most poluting, and even more to the point the fossil fuel companies and governments are even more polluting and in control of that pollution on top of that again. They create the conditions for that pollution. If the fossil fuel companies didn't have so much power and free reign over the planet engaging in ever-more dangerous extractive processes, paying no taxes and receiving government handouts despite being the most insanely profitable industry in the world, if governments actually invested in better public transport, more condensed and liveable cities etc. then there would be far less need or incentive for individual (or poorer) to drive more, consume more, pollute more. The poorest countries in the world are seeing the most severe consequences of climate change, yet have the least impact on creating it. We have a responsibility as global citizens to stand up and say something. Everyday "carbon footprint" (thanks BP) actions by individuals are not enough. We need system change. That system change is up to governments and industry, but currently they're only interested in bolstering their insane profits and growth.
@@TheDudleyReport i just disagree, without fossil fuels heating as well as our economy will shut off, as people are going to experience right now. Thinking modern life can continue without energy is a giant miscalculation. If you would live fully solar, then there is no need to buy any fossil fuels. Anyone can make that move, the more people do it, the less powerful fossil fuel companies become. Who is bribing you to keep you car and not go by bike? Until then, the government need to keep our homes warm and our cars moving. The day we can tell our politicians "well actually, we don't need Saudi Arabia, my solar roof makes all the energy, stores enough of that energy as hydrogen for winter" will be the day fossil companies will die. Btw they aren't that profitable, share price of Exxon isn't much higher than it was 20 years ago. You think companies are all about profit, but competition kills any profit, as Venezuela recently experienced. Saudi Aramco can make some decent bucks, but the elephant in the room is how much reserves they have left, it won't last forever.
@@jellyfishi_ Sure, as in the capitalist system that enables the fossil fuel companies to make such insane profits and dodge taxes? Their investors on the stock market? That kind of thing?
Today (Netherlands) there was a newsarticle that our government uses the private jet to fly from Rotterdam to Eindhoven, which is less than 1h30m car ride / 112km. Meanwhile our farmers are protesting due to the fosforregulations ✨✨
I don't know if I don't understand the video, but does the narrator argue that if there was a collective ownership of the means to production we would pollute less? That consumer demand is formed by producer supply? I don't think the line of thought is entirely drawn out to the logical conclusion. I agree that production is a giant share of the problem, together with consumption. But switching to coops (which I'm all for) would not magically make production pollute less. It might dispossess some of the richest consumers, but giving more means to others means that they will consume more. There will still be a problem unless we all consume significantly less (no fridges, cars, clothes), and make sure that the production is as green as possible.
Manufacturer: produces 2,000,000,000 plastic bags a day to sell to a grocery marts around the world Grocery Marts: using 1,000,000,000 plastic bags a year for product distribution Consumer: gets blamed for poisioning the environment 🥲 using 2000 plastic bags a year 😮💨
What is the better life : getting up early, tilling the soil, spending the evenings with your family; going camping . OR running/flying from stressful meeting to meeting, returning after 11h00 at night - earning lots of money and spending it on luxuries, insurance and stress related medical bills.
Check your 401k and retirement plan as you'll unknowingly own shares in major polluters like ExxonMobil or Coca-Cola, important to vote as a shareholder because focus on profits and the almighty dividends translate to short-term profits that damage the environment.
So you want to abandon normal valuation models, pump up stock prices for companies that get a green checkmark for environmentalism, and you still expect to get a retirement out of that?
The celebrities that do this are for sure 100% to blame. But some of that falls on civilians as well. We act as if they are worthy of so much attention. It makes celebrities want to have a need to fly private. If we acted like they just regular humans they would sit on the bus with us.
I’ve been saying it’s a group issue… it’s all of us. Exxon mobile (or BP, or or or) wouldn’t have such a large footprint if consumers weren’t demanding products. We wouldn’t demand products if marketing weren’t so effective, and if the suburbs weren’t a thing (creating the need for excessive driving, oil, roads, etc). Marketing wouldn’t be needed if CEOs weren’t pressured to create wealth for investors. Investors wouldn’t be invested if the markets were regulated so that they pay 90% tax on profits earned. They’re not gonna stop, and laws won’t change because of briber- excuse me, lobbying… so it seems the obvious answer is that it’s up to us. We’re the key. STOP UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION on all levels. Capitalism is killing us Edit: I realize my statement of fact sounds like I’m doing as macron did… I’m not asking people to suffer. I’m asking that we all suffer for a time, to FORCE change in the system designed for capitalism. It needs to be redesigned for all humans, not just the rich. Us “lying flat” (look it up) would force this change. What would you lose? A rat-race of stress to keep up with the Jones’, *as designed* by corporate marketing to sell you things you don’t actually need in order to make the rich richer, which goes back to my original statement above
The root cause of climate change is that our economies are built on the consumption of fossil fuels. As such, we need to transition to economies that are built on renewable energy sources. Yes, companies like ExxonMobil are lobbying and spreading propaganda to ensure their profits. But if they stopped existing, someone else would fill the gap. What we need is to hold companies accountable on a legislative level, but we also need to recognize the root cause of climate change: humanity's consumption of fossil fuels. And that is humanity as a whole, not just "the rich" (btw "the rich" are the majority of people watching this video, globally speaking).
Yeah, but we lower class dont have choices in our consumptions. A gas car has been cheaper than an electric car, thus comsuming fossil fuel, thus enriching the fossil fuels ceos, they thus bribing more, thus making gas and gas cars cheaper. It's a positive feedback loop
@@quocanhnguyen7275 That might be true for cars but it is not a general rule. Think of meat consumption. The "working class" should have no trouble living as a vegetarian or vegan. Yet, many don't (me included, to be honest). Because of its high environmental impact one could argue that meat consumption needs to be reduced significantly. And yes, the meat industry profits off of people eating meat. But they don't lobby against vegetarianism. The video is making a general argument about the structure of our economy, yet it doesn't provide evidence that the claims made can be taken as a general rule or are even truthful.
@@marlonwood6529 ExxonMobil would love to sell renewable energy to you, as McDonald's would love to sell you vegetarian food and send the profit to their millions and millions of shareholders. but so far neither can find an acceptable replacement. One doesn't work and the other is full of artificial flavouring
The way i think about is this. When someone asks me "what is your carbon footprint" they're thinking my answer would include things like "the heating in my house during winter" and "all that plastic packaging from the stuff i buy". But that's not *my* carbon footprint, not really. The emissions from my heating is not my issue, it's the issue of how our infrastructure, including crucial things like not freezing to death in winter, depends on fossil fuels. It's not my carbon footprint, it is that of the companies that produce the electricity and the gas that heats my homes. The plastic packaging is not *my* carbon footprint, it's the footprint of those companies that use often cheap plastics to package their products in a bid to increase profits and longevity. The fact of the matter is, i live in canada, i need to eat food, so food and heating are things i cannot avoid...the problem is that the ONLY way to acquire these things reasonably for a lot of people are produced by using methods that do a lot of damage to the environment. None of us ASKED for that, all we wanted was a meal and a warm hearth...how that's produced is the issue. The giant industries and monopolies that rule every aspect of our lives is the issue. This is a bit facetious i admit, but looking at this way sort of shifts my focus. Suddenly MY responsibility isn't to "use less" it's to consume things produced in a friendly fashion, is to do things like shop local to reduce the carbon footprint of the companies that usually provide groceries. This allows the blame to fall more on where it SHOULD - i.e our current capitalist economy, the infrastructure we have that so depends on fossil fuels and harming the planet but ALSO allows for SOME amount of personal responsibility, i'm not totally powerless here either.
Its your footprint mate, because you're the one buying it. Its like a guy from the 18th century saying he doesn't support slavery, yet he's still buying his cotton pants from a southern plantation owner. Besides, climate change isnt even a big issue in the first place. You're worrying about nothing.
"all we wanted was a meal and a warm hearth" Sorry to say but those two things arent free, someone has to make those things. Funnily enough a warm hearth needs fire.
Absolutely right. The problem that no one (except you and others that actually work to understand the problem) will even bring into the discussion of solutions to imminent catastrophe. We have to produce less. New technology might prove helpful. Reducing the use of fossil fuels across the board is essential. But the bottom line is that we must produce less, a lot less. Of course anyone that understands even basic economics knows that reducing production will collapse the global economic model. Constant growth is not just a symptom of capitalism, it is a necessity for its existence.
@@jellyfishi_ You're right, but the current economy depends on making things that don't work, can't be fixed, and have to be constantly replaced. Fixing just that aspect of this disaster could be the basis for an American economic resurgence and partial solution to alleviating the climate crisis. Unfortunately, the Plutocracy would never allow that to be done.
So true. 100%. What I disliked, though, is the focus on the building industry in this context. That is one industry which actually creates lasting value for everyone. Nevertheless, also they should of course work on ways to produce more sustainably.
Ah, really? We have more real estate than we need. In Germany (your name sounds German) average room for one person went up to almost 50 squaremeters p. p. There are empty buildings even in big cities just standing there because of speculation (empty shops or offices included). Or big houses habitated by just one person. In the USA it is even worse. Average German family houses are „small living“ in comparison to U.S. suburban homes. We do not need as much building industry as we have. It is destroying landscape and has a terrible carbon footprint.
@@kaischmidt730 This is what I mean. Capitalist speculation is the problem. Building new just fights the symptons. Also: If there was equal infrastructure and a more local economy the run into the big cities was not so big. I live in a part rural - part suburban area (bordering the "Speckgürtel" of a university city) and I see it: The next big city has enormous rents. Our smaller city still has a lack of low rent appartements, but on the other hand a lot of empty houses that need to be renovated but reluctant owners. We have a train connection to the city. BUT the neighbour city, just 5 kilometres away, has no train connection and there is plenty of empty real estate. Germany did not substantially grow in the past decades, but there are more and more buildings. This means: distribution is the problem, not the space. Edit: Typo
@@Siures I think we can agree that the numbers clearly indicate that the world’s population is growing. Hence, the demand for buildings increases. And in order to connect that other city you are referring to, building infrastructure (roads, public transportation) would certainly help. What I am saying is, in terms of environmental impact, the construction sector at least delivers lasting value, compared to, say, air travel (especially private) or cruise ships. A sharp reduction in the former and an outright ban of the latter wouldn’t hurt anyone and free resources to be used where they actually benefit the majority.
This unfortunately doesn’t surprise me at all, someone who is poor tries to stretch an object for as long as it possibly can. The rich replaces a thing as soon as something minimal on it breaks. The poor fixes, the rich replaces.
I can't see how pointing blame around is going to help, because then nobody takes any responsibility. Billions of people driving cars, heating standard homes, burning gas and oil for everything definitely has an impact which can't be ignored. We all need to take personal responsibility for this problem, as well as push back at the wealthy grabbing everything. This is an all-hands-on-deck problem. It won't be easy, but neither is catastrophe and warfare.
THANKS! We need to politizise our production. Since I had this revelation, I found out I'd change nothing by voting or consuming. Seize your workplace for the workers.
During the worst of the pandemic nearly everything grinded to a halt. We would have to live like that to actually make a small the smallest of dent on the climate. And I know that barely no one who is willing to live their entire life minimizing so much of this current lifestyle.
not really. if all military operations were banned we could actually expand our consumption and reduce climate collapse at the same time. the vast majority of emissions come from military operations and manufacturing stuff for the military.
That's an ignorant lie. Not only are there so many ways, large + small, we could improve everyone's experience of the pandemic, & not only did we ignore many obvious lessons we could learn from the pandemic, but pandemics are going to happen more & more as the climate continues to destabilize.
@@saturationstation1446 Less than 20% of the global population now lives in a Free democratic country. Too low to ban anything military. Call me when it gets closer to 90% m'kay.
We need a "Politics of the same" we need to start aiming for sustainability above profit and expansion. We cannot always have more on a finite planet with 8,000,000,000 people.
I think every little bit helps, one more voice, one more comment one less steak sold, one less hoodie sold. It doesn't change the world by itself but it is part of a larger whole. Just like how the problem isn't just personal carbon footprint the solution isn't just reducing your own consumption but it is part of the solution. There is no one answer that is the only correct answer. We have many options and we need to use more and more of those options to solve the problem eventually. Many small steps gets you around the world, many small fires can change the climate and many small changes will lead to a big change. We can do it and it would have been great if we started earlier but there is no time like the present, wear your clothes a bit longer or get second hand goods, buy food you know you can finish and try to waste less, maybe instead of buying presents that might go to waste ask for something the other person wants. Small changes will lead to a change in the greater whole eventually.
Consumers still have a big impact. A good example are growing numbers of vegans and vegetarians in Germany which are forcing big meet producers to export and hinder their growth. Taylor Swift and everyone else is still responsible for their own emissions.
The rich don't 'force' us to buy the stuff their industries make. We don't have to patronise their projects, their products. We supply them with the opportunities to supply us with our needs - which is a list of needs way longer than it was 40 years ago. And 40 years ago, there weren't any people with sickeningly huge fortunes on the scale of today. So, if we didn't act like a bunch of witless zombies and go falling for every advert telling us how we should live and look all the time, what we should drive, what size house we should live in, what the furnishings should look like, where we should be going on holiday, and all the rest of it - then these elites won't get any richer, we won't get any poorer, and this wreck of a planet might have a chance of making some sort of a recovery. It's our fault.
Thank you for this comment! Seeing some sensible people here and there in the comment's section. I hate how he's trying to deflect blame like it's not both a consumer and supplier issue.
Fantastic video. Keep making public videos on this topic! It’s one of my biggest frustration that ‘personal-footprint’ propaganda has convinced so many people to focus on their own consumption and now on pop-culture characters instead of the oil execs behind it all.
I think that the rich dont sell what they want but rather what we as society currently need... i mean someone has to produce the zement for our buildings and houses. The real solution is finding a new building ressource which is less bad for our enviroment in order for the few rich people to loose power. Or am I wrong there? Sorry for my bad english im from germany xD
Very informative video! I also share similar opinions but I think that we shouldn't start doing this ping-pong of who is the bad guy we the individuals or the big polluting companies. I think we all have to think that we all are involved in this process. We are in different levels we all to blame there is no doubts and if we have to change things for the better we have to act and think in the common goal and try to find solutions and not trying to create more social tensions. We already have enough socials tensions as it is. I truly think the best approach to this problem is really to promote climate crisis solutions on the social level as well because we are all "bad wired" to address the real problems so we have to think collectively on this global crisis. Thank you! 🌏🌍🌎☮
Look up The Juice Media, they do honest government ads now, very funny if slightly depressing because it's true. Anyway, he did a video titled "rap news- NWO" eleven years ago. It says what you're saying in your comment, and takes it a little further.
Can you do a 3 part series on servers? One about video games, one about the biggest internet corporations, and one about apps? Or maybe how the paper industry could be non arboreal? I'll have more ideas soon. Newcomer overall but long time industrial change for environmental reasons advocate. Lol. Love the way you do your work. Wish i could contribute more.
Disagree strongly with this analysis. We use these consumable goods so we don't get to blame the supplier instead of ourselves. Yes, we share responsibility to create the system change, but blaming one person at the top is ludicrous, just like blaming a general alone for war atrocities is misguided. I'm all for eating the rich, but the theory stated here isn't describing collective system change. It's just fueling angst towards the corporations while ignoring our common need to shift how much and what we use. Of course people who fly constantly are examples of how not to live. So let's not bail on that focus just to shift it to one producer of planes or jet fuel, as if that creates change. Play out your thesis. All the industry mavens from Davos, bail out, give their money to CBOs or NGOs and nothing changes. Addresding Climate Change requires mass living changes, which I'm sure your viewers understand. The labor movement is failing us, and I've worked with them on the environment professionally. I am a union member and a climate organizer. When people refuse to acknowledge that their job is contributing massively to Climate Crisis, are they excused from responsibility because they don't run the company? No. We need collective action and that doesn't focus on a handful of industry leaders. Climate Action in the USA will require regulation and buy-in from society to accept new limits. We cannot tech our way out of Climate Crisis anyway, so guillotine policy for the mavens of dirty industry solves little. Please let's share the responsibility, not take it individually, or place blame uselessly on those who often stopped needing to drive demand decades ago. We consume because we aren't working to break that pattern.
True, im also not a fan of the rich who exploit poor people for profit but we can't blame someone for supplying something critical like cement, how tf are we supposed to build bridges house's and important stuff like that? I know someone will say "just use wood"...
@@faustinpippin9208 It's not really about suppling the cement, it's who makes the decisions and what it is motivated by. If cement is what is needed then cement it is
YES, this is true, but there are lots of choices, especially for the middle class. In small towns and villages here in Germany you often see lots of uninhabited older houses while the middle class build their giant new houses for half a million € in the "Neubaugebiet" just outside of town. Most people also would not be bothered to heat with renewable firewood when they could get cheap Russian gas. Now, that didn't go too well. But the firewood was available all the time, people just couldn't be bothered to order it, stack it, haul it to the stove etc. People also drive the most ridiculously small distances in their huge gas guzzling SUVs. They drive to the restaurant which would be a 10 minute walk only to cruise around searching for a parking lot for 15 minutes. Who enables the rich to profitably own concrete producing plants? The middle and upper classes building in their "Neubaugebiet". Who pays for Putin's war in Ukraine? People too wealthy to be bothered to light a wood stove and too lazy to walk even the smallest distances. Who buys these monstrous SUV abominations that they build here at VW, at BMW and everywhere else? If we want to know who enables these rich people to pollute, we should look no further than in the mirror.
Thanks for that. Eco and other movements in Germany before and after the Maueröffnung was the subject of my B.A. thesis. This is the kind of info I look for. Of course, you know burning also pollutes. I try not to do it too often, with the state of world pollution.
The level of research you do and the amount of information you put into each video is just amazing. I for one changed the way I look at this problem significatly and I'm sure you helped do that for a lot of other people. Keep up the good work!
This is a great video for the people that say we are the problem because we buy the company’s products when the company’s should be making the products safe and as environmentally friendly as possible we can choose how they make there products or how they run things one of the biggest problems with capitalism no democracy to speak of
Don't take complete blame off of the consumer. The average person still has a choice. A choice to bike instead of drive. A choice to reuse an item. A choice to buy used. A choice to support sustainable companies.
@@isaimtz-cmcho688 people ride their bike to work in the places like the Netherlands everyday… Besides do you really think they spill oil in the ocean on purpose? How would that be profitable?
@@e.thomas2475 the larger the entity, the larger their accidents are, scale is the differing factor. okay sure, ill ride my bike to work. completely disregarding the fact that bike lanes in the united states are extremely hazardous, and the fact that all of our infrastructure is centered around cars. people dont choose to drive to work because they get to drive a car, they drive to work because its the only viable option. make our infrastructure centered around humans, not cars. the issue is systemic.
Directing climate change responsibility to the individual is the greatest con the public embraced wholeheartedly. Whilst cargo ships and tankers cross the ocean my actions are meaningless.
We are a time-poor society; we are temporally impoverished. And there is no issue, no aspect of human life, that exceeds this in importance. The destruction of time is literally the destruction of life. Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism- Jacob Needleman. Ps. Such a well- researched video. Thanks for taking the focus away from specific individuals and on the flawed system.
The problem is that revolutions are messy and could be exploited by people with ulterior motives, whether it be for a good or bad cause, socialism or communism wants a violent revolution due to during its inception you need a violent revolution to have any change during the time. there was barely any laws to protect the workers let alone rights too. Im not opposed to it, but it would take an large educated majority effort for it to happen successfully
I deny thinking your voice is not being fried on purpose at least a significant amount of times, to the point it's sounding robotic and monotonic to me. And I say this out of pure good will because your content is INVALUABLE and I don't want to quit coming everytime you surprise me with a great subject. Of course you are smart enough to realize this on your own, I just wanted to reinforce the certainty that the most important feature in your voice is being a reliable carrier of your spirit, a great one!
I disagree somewhat. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that people should have a huge amount of children, and I have no desire to ever have children myself for other reasons. However, as noted in the video, the main problem driving climate change is the way our economy and society is structured as a whole, not individual consumption habits. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t consider the resource usage of your children, but you’re not going to get many people on board by telling them whether or not they can start an intergenerational family, which for a lot of people for better or for worse is a big part of life. Also, side note, if your logic is that we must avoid resource usage in every circumstance regardless of whatever pain it causes us, the logical conclusion of that in my opinion is suicide, which I refuse to believe is the answer. Not sure if that is your logic, my mind just went there. If you’re worried about the effects of a large population on climate change and resource usage, absolutely fair. However, because I want you to be effective in your advocacy on this subject, I would suggest rather than dictating or even suggesting how many children people can have, which will almost certainly provoke a negative reaction and not accomplish anything, instead making sure that people, especially women, have the legal and economic power to decide when and if they want children, since on average this leads to a stable or negative population growth. Also, while long term resource use is a concern, sure, and so is environmental degradation from extracting resources, right now we still produce more food for example than the current world population needs, we just fail to distribute it in a way that actually feeds everyone. Sorry for the rant lol. I didn’t mean to be preachy, I just care about this a lot.
Power dynamics are key to having any real change, the privileged will use everything in their power to protect their status. Human life and prosperity is a right, but not under class structures.
This is like the local leadership of our environmental community saying that politicians shouldn't care about getting elected.. they should care about saving the planet instead.. duh. I am losing all faith in the environmental movement.
This presentation lives up to it's click bait title. If humanity survives climate change, the survivors will be asked "why?" Yes, we won't worry about Taylor Swift. IF WE SURVIVE, we will ask why we did not pay attention to who controls pollution behind the scenes. We can change laws so that ownership = responsibility to manage the effects of your production and pay for its damage. Thank you for your hard work in laying out this argument.
@@slevinchannel7589 just good old socialism but with a great emphasis on protecting, restoring, maintaining the environment for future generations. Instead of what we have now which is further environmental degradation. This proverb comes to mind: "When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realise that one cannot eat money"
