Is Economic GROWTH Compatible with the ENVIRONMENT?- VisualPolitik EN


Congratulations!! Yes. To you and to all of us. Dear friends of VISUALPOLITIK, it may have
gone unnoticed, but this is a historical event. Listen up: For the first time in the entire
history of humanity, we live in a world where poverty no longer affects most of the population. Surprised? Well you shouldn’t be. Here at VisualPolitik, we’ve already told
you that this was about to happen. Folks, today, let’s forget all the apocalyptic
perspectives that we’ve covered for so many years about the world we live in. The truth is that today, on our planet, most
of the population either belongs to the middle class or to the wealthiest classes. In other words, as you can see, poverty is
now not such a looming issue. Yes, I know, there’s still a lot of poverty,
but the truth is that we’ve never before known a world where poverty didn’t affect
most of the population. Don’t tell me that isn’t great news. But… just a second, you might be asking
yourself some questions, like for example… What on earth are you talking about Simon? What do you mean exactly? If that’s the case, why is there so much
pessimism? Or maybe… Is all this sustainable? Can the environment withstand such a heavy
burden? Are we perhaps on the threshold of the world’s
destruction? We’ll explore all of these questions in
this video. Listen up. The general impression – don’t deny it
– is that we live in a world full of misery, inequality, injustice… And yes, all of that exists but, fortunately,
it’s becoming less frequent. Yes, see, every time we turn on the TV or
visit a news website, we almost always find catastrophes of all kinds… Unfortunately, we don’t usually find good
news… Even though this kind of news are much, much
more important. See, according to the Brookings Institute
and the World Data Lab’s estimates, we hit an extraordinary milestone this past September
2018: For the first time in the history of mankind,
most people who live in this world are no longer poor. We’re talking about more than 50% of the
world’s population, of approximately 3.8 billion people who belong to middle class
or wealthy homes. In fact, this is the rough distribution of
the world’s population today, check it out. Now, some of you may be wondering… What exactly do you mean by the middle class? Well fundamentally, people with enough purchasing
power to allow them to live comfortably. That is, they can buy washing machines and
refrigerators; they can go to restaurants and on vacation; people who can endure some
unexpected instability such as an illness or a period of unemployment without falling
back into poverty. But, to be more specific, for this study’s
authors, the households that have a consumption capacity of more than $11 a day per person,
adjusted by the price level, are part of the middle class. But that’s not all, the best is yet to come. Allow me to explain. As you know, there’s still a lot of poverty
in the world. No less than 650 million people live in extreme
poverty. They aren’t even guaranteed the most basic
things… like food. And of course, 650 million people are far
too many. The good news is that changes are happening
so quickly that in a few decades this issue may have disappeared entirely. But… Do you want to know exactly how quickly we’re
talking about? Well, to give you an idea of how fast things
are changing, check out these figures. In our world, for every second that passes,
1 person escapes extreme poverty. Every second. It’s exactly this lightning fast rate that
caused the population living in conditions of extreme poverty to fall by 75% between
1990 and 2015. But even with this news, without a doubt,
what’s most surprising is what’s happening with the middle class. In that same period of time, that is, every
second, approximately 5 people leave poverty behind and join the middle class. 5 people per second! That, folks, means that, if this rate continues,
in just about 12 years, by the year 2030, the middle class would make up the vast majority
of the world’s population. Good news, don’t you think? A middle class world means a world with fewer
poor people, with a greater commitment to academic studies and knowledge, with a greater
tendency to set up companies and, also, a population that’s more demanding toward
politicians. Among other things, because the middle class
is a proprietary class. People in the middle class have houses, savings,
businesses, and that, of course, leads them to be more committed to stability and to be
more demanding. And not only that, as we’ve told you many
times, this huge growth means another thing: hundreds of thousands of opportunities for
enterprise. Now, just a moment. Here’s a question that many of you may be
asking yourselves. We know because you usually tell us in the
comments. Can our world support so many people consuming
so much? Aren’t we sowing the seeds of destruction? Let’s see (A PATH TO THE ABYSS?) Climate change, mass extinction, water pollution… Folks, I don’t even have to say it. We’re facing many challenges. In fact, if we just take a look at the news,
we could get the impression that we’re heading directly and at full speed towards the precipice. And of course, with so many people consuming
more and more resources, it’s normal for our lives to be pervaded by this question:
What’s going to happen to our planet? But, what if it wasn’t exactly like that? What if, after a certain level, the relationship
between the environment and wealth was positive? Well, folks, that’s the direction that things
are moving. See, when we talk about development, economic
growth, consumption… Two issues logically concern us a lot: one
is pollution and damage to the environment, and the second is whether or not there will
be resources for everyone. Let’s start with the first one. Is it possible that things aren’t going
down such a bad path? Let’s take a look, for example, at what has
happened in recent years in the largest economies on the planet: that is, in the United States,
the European Union, China and Japan. Well, in 1960, the United States issued 0.94
kilograms of CO2 for every dollar of production. In 2014 this value was just 0.34, 64% less. For its part, the European Union reduced its
CO2 emissions per dollar of production by 54% between 1991 and 2014. Same for Japan. Even China, infamous China, the country that
used coal for everything, has reduced its relative CO2 emissions by 75% over the past
4 decades. That is to say, technological developments
and new environmental concerns are helping the world produce more while polluting less. Yes, folks, you heard that right. Improved technology and increasing concern
for the environment are managing to slow down and even reverse our damage to the planet. Take a look at the United States: Again and again, environmental improvements
once deemed impossible have taken place. Since 1970, when the Environmental Protection
Agency was established, the United States has slashed its emissions of five air pollutants
by almost two-thirds. Over the same period, the population grew
by more than 40 percent, and those people drove twice as many miles and became two and
a half times richer. Steven Pinker) The truth folks is that it’s becoming increasingly
clear that the relationship between the environment and wealth has an inverted U shape. That is to say, after a determined level of
wealth, societies begin to worry more about the environment, begin to take measures to
take care of it and begin to develop and use cleaner technologies. (“Renewable energies will dominate the future
German electricity sector thanks to the impulse of offshore wind and geothermal.” For example, this is what the Environmental
Performance Index– an index constructed from metrics that measure the quality of air, water,
forest and natural habitats–indicates. Out of the 180 countries that make up the
index, all but 2 have improved in the last decade. On the other hand, this index also shows that
the richer a country is, on average, the cleaner its environment becomes, the more environmental
awareness exists, and the better results it gets. Sure, if we think about it, it’s quite logical. Richer countries can allocate more resources
towards technological development and protecting natural areas. In fact, since 1990, as the world has become
richer and richer, protected areas have almost doubled. Today, more than 15% of the surface of the
planet is protected. And not only that, deforestation, one of the
great ecological threats, is undergoing a clear decline. Deforestation of the world’s largest tropical
forest, the Amazon, peaked in 1995, and from 2004 to 2013 the rate fell by four-fifths. Steven Pinker) Well, a larger middle class will mean more
resources to care for the environment, more people developing cleaner technologies and
a greater level of environmental awareness. Don’t get me wrong, there are many challenges
ahead, but the trend isn’t nearly as bad as it’s often portrayed. We don’t really need to take our foot off
the gas, and of course we’re convinced that we need to promote cleaner production methods
and technologies, but we’re not in an apocalyptic or irreversible situation. And of course the empirical evidence tells
us that the best way to overcome these challenges is with more investment and with richer and
better-formed societies. Regarding the second question to whether natural
resources will be exhausted or not… I think we can rest assured that they won’t
be. Not only because there are many resources,
but above all because human activity aims to seek better ways of production, including
recycling, the development of new technologies that allow for the exploitation of new resources
or that manage to do more with less. For all of these reasons, dear friends of
VisualPolitik– and don’t worry, we’ll talk much more about this topic in the future–
I think we have to be more than satisfied that for the first time in the history of
humanity, our average condition isn’t poverty or hunger. Yes, humanity is managing to defeat poverty. So I really hope you enjoyed this video, please
hit like if you did, and don’t forget to subscribe for brand new videos. Don’t forget to check out our friends at
the Reconsider Media Podcast – they provided the vocals in this episode that were not mine. Also, this channel is possible because of
Patreon, and our patrons on that platform. Please consider joining them and supporting
our mission of providing independent political coverage. And as always, I’ll see you in the next
video.

Comments 99

  • We must choose politicians that prioritize enviroment preservetion. Here in Brazil we elected Jair Bolsonaro as President who thinks that protecting our forests, the "lungs of the world", is bullshit.

  • READ INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

  • Even though the emissions pero dollar hace decreased, growth has been far higher than the increase in efficiency. Therefore the total amojnt of emissions is soaring and we are not even close to reaching the plateau

  • Regardless of the benefits of the free market. Having countries with strong welfare nets, high quality infrastructure, regulations to protect consumers and the environment, and strict anti-trust laws are necessary to further this growth.
    Having government direct the development of unprofitable necessities will be the most important thing for the future.

    Also tax loophole are just UNFAIR. And if you can't follow the rules like anyone else, especially with financial power, you don't deserve to have benefits.

  • I looove your style, your shirt is so cool and the video very interesting!!

  • What you didn't mention though, is the most important thing. Power. Economic power.
    Oil companies as far as they're concerned – won't stop mining and burning fossil fuels: and they have influence. The US is already reversing its attitude to reducing emissions due to lobbying (or what it really is, bribery) and Brazil has elected a fascist that wants more deforestation.

  • What are the definitions of the different classes??!!

  • So once everyone in the planet are more or less well off, All countries will get to consume resources and goods like the west? Sounds Great! A future like wall-e.

    I would start to get optimistic once industrial producers no longer consume resources linearly. Where is the concept of cradle to cradle? but I doubt that would really happen under our current economic system.

  • dude you are a joke throwing numbers. You say USA reduced their CO2 emmisions to 1/3 per dollar in the last 60 years. Forgot to say that these 60 years USA GDP increased by almost 40 times, lipstick man bad

  • Very misleading video. You are talking only about relative changes. For example you say that the proportion of people living in extreme poverty in the smallest in recorded history. How about the absolute number of people? Is the total number of people living in extreme poverty today smaller than 200 years ago?
    The same goes for the use of fossil fuels. What are the absolute figures? If you are only talking about relatives numbers, then it's misinformation.

  • Is Saakashvili Putin’s Worst Nightmare? where is part 2 of that video

  • I bought into the Steven Pinker positivity train too for awhile. However, Pinker is atrocious when it come to statistical interpretation and ensuring the validity of his measurement sources, and he often cherry picks data or how he analyzes it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAQ0BfcftBA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zDpMo-yE2A, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/steven-pinker-this-is-historys-most-peaceful-time-new-study-not-so-fast/. This is not to say a professor cannot have multiple areas of expertise, but as far as I understand Pinker has not done ANY post secondary education in formal economic or statistical theory, nor does he have a lengthy background in historical interpretation. I have relied on this channel to provide accurate reporting, so to not provide opposing-arguments or opinions to a man that has been called out multiple times for being flat out wrong, seems extremely dishonest. Besides you are appealing to an authority whose primary field of expertise is psychology. I'm not saying that it isn't right to try to find positivity, but when you pull apologist shit like this you de-motivate people to try and address the problems our planet faces when we need urgency most. Talk about how people everywhere are standing up for their rights, talk about how people everywhere are starting to become aware of their ecological footprint. You have a large platform and a reputation use them with some responsibility rather than trying to paint an inaccurate picture because it calls into question quite a few of your videos where I did not have this level of prior knowledge.

    This also gets into a difference between commodification vs actual happiness. Sure people might have more money, but what does that really mean if the places where they live are squat and disgusting, they live far away from their families, and do work that they absolutely hate for 15 hours a day. In some cases that is literally what we are talking about. Not to mention in the video you committed a major fallacy of … if this trend continues then… This is completely counterfactual reasoning as you are not looking at what drives those statistics. The book The Power of Mathematical thinking outlines this excellently. Say you see people are getting fatter, the trend continues as a linear curve for a decade straight until 50% of the population is obese. Oh god you say in another decade we will all be obese! The problem is you've projected a line onto a curve. It is the same problem with taxation or poverty. There is probably some point along a hyperbolic, logistic, or s-shaped curve along which these things optimize or stabilize that cannot be seen with a given snap shot of data. The other problem is that this leaves out real world causal chains and gets into the world of paradoxes.

    Do you know how much effort has had to go into making large scale societies sustainable. Whistler you are making this sound like companies just came to this conclusion on their own. It took decades of people speaking out and building coalitions to see these kinds of change. Fucking decades. And you are assuming that we can change how we source our energy fast enough to counteract climate change when most of the experts agree that the pace of change needs to be within 12 years. It took us from charitably the 1960's until now to even get to the point of consensus that our actions are a problem https://history.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm, though the earliest publications started back in the 1890s. We're talking such an extreme overhaul to people's way of living that their lives will be irrevocably changed and it has to be done within 12 years and your response is no problem, we'll figure it out? You have literally robbed this message of all its urgency. It's like telling a graduate student, oh don't worry your dissertation isn't due for at least 6 years you've got plenty of time to think about what you want to talk about.

  • And what's the credit load on the middle class to make this happen, particularly in the 1st world countries where the average person/household carries an enormous amount of debt, mortgage, revolving credit and student loans, all to feed the company town.

  • It bothers me that PPP is adjusted by currency and not location. 110$/day may be rich in rural Kansas, but it would barely cover rent in San Francisco. People are moving to cities, which at least in the developed world have higher costs of living. Is this offsetting gains at all?

  • great video!!
    whats about overfishing? I dont rest assured that the oceans wont collapse…. And the planet only cares about absolute rates – not about relative rates…. I like the positivity of this video, but it feels like turning a blind eye and not adressing what really matters…. It doesnt matter if a clean germany gets drier and faces mass extinction (as biologists have already stated) and climate change – because the absolute number matter and they are way too high and increasing with our modern lifestyle and having more people on the planet.
    Yes please do more videos on this topic

  • You know the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies, highlighted greatly the terrible nature of the media, honestly I wonder if anyone has ever thought about the harm that constant negative media has on a society over a generational period. Excellent video as always.

  • Someone's been reading too much Pinker.

  • I missed the part of the video where he has the climate change graph and another showing pollution increasing year on year. The truth is our planet is dying and Simon is telling you a convenient lie.

  • But… But the poverty line has been changed over time to artificially reduce the amount of people in poverty whilst not accounting for actual poverty.

    You spreading this information makes the whole thing even worse.

  • Great news. Unfortunate that so much of this recent global progress has been the result of a massive global credit bubble. We've been spending future productivity, so it does lead to at least an illusion of prosperity. And the good news is, now that so many more people have been exposed to middle class concerns, they won't stop caring about those things and having something to say about them even when they wind up struggling to put food on the table again.

    We are headed into a massive economic contraction that is going to take back a lot of these gains, but we will move forward again. Two steps forward, one step back, is still progress.

  • Stop sucking that fucker Pinker's cock.

  • I wish the citation of Steven Pinker were a little more in context. Who is he and on what data is he basing himself on?

  • Fall of communism definitely, also the end of colonial imperialism in emerging countries.. Especially Africa and India

  • Mass civil unrest is around the corner.

  • 11dollars a day is middle class, nuff said.

  • All these BlazeTV Ads are ANNOYING, I clicked away the first time, get over it

  • This sort of video is very dangerous cause it legitimize the economic growth rhetoric by implying that it is the solution to the environmental crisis that we're facing. Uncontrolled economic growth is what got us in this situation we're currently. And if in the long run economic growth help reduce the adverse impact of production on the environment, why 5 of the 10 most polluting countries are advanced countries and the 10 most polluting countries are all part of the G20? The market could help solve some problems that climate change arise, but saying that we need more economic growth to tackle climate change is irresponsible and isn't supported by any empirical evidence. The IPCC is telling us to drastically reduce our emissions by 2050 and Simon is telling us to increase our emissions.

  • So just a single quote of Steven Pinker as a proof of declining problem of deforestation? Very "constructive" video.

  • As has been noted elsewhere – while I largely appreciate this channel's depth and insight. This video is oddly off track.

    The near final tagline of the video 'we're not in an apocalyptic or irreversible situation' at 10:35 is in stark opposition to the UN Climate change report just released stating that…wait for it….an irreversible climate change tipping point could be reached as early as 2030. That's a pretty hard 12 year deadline from a pretty unapproachably respected organization. How can you be signing off without even addressing this? Poor form VisualPolitik.

    Also as stated elsewhere, why use 5 year old Steven Pinker rainforest stats when Bolsanaro has made clear a very different path will be taken moving forward? Tsk tsk.

  • simon, I love your videos, but this one about that SO2, well i hv a problem that it causes such a great environmental affect..
    generally speaking that big bullshit propaganda that is causing our climate change, so the leftists keep placing environmental taxes on their nations (we know the bastards' real reason for taxation)..
    just take a look at that link below plz
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM

  • These things don't apply so much to the US since we've gone from a Republic to an Oligarchy.

  • You don't get positivity from the mainstream media because they have an agenda. It's all to do with having a common enemy to reinforce your agenda.

  • Of course coutries of the global north perform better regarding their environmental impact. That is because they are able to extract ressources, use cheap labour and produce in the global south. If adjusted in a way that takes into account the amount of CO2 emiited, the materials extracted and the work force expoited in other countries, the carbon footprint of european and american countries is by far the highest.

    Investment, economic growth and consuption are not the cure, but a way to prolong the life of a capitalist system with its inherent flaws of a global capitalist hegemony (in the sense of Gramsci); A capitalist society cannot help but exploit labour and materials from its periphery. The smaller the periphery gets (by growing the middle class in developing countries), the harder the system becomes to maintain. In the current system, there cannot be such a thing as a global middle class, because then there is no one to exploit. A system based on eternal growth with a finite amount of ressources must inevitably fail. What you`ve seen here is just a desperate attempt to keep a system alive that creates inequalities, destroys livelihoods and focusses only on profit.

    But there is another way. A circular economy, while not getting rid of capitalism eniitrely, amends the societal system just enough, so that it becomes sustainable. There is only one party in Europe currently advocating this: VOLT. I will vote for them because they are the only ones that see this problem and are not in the pocket of big finance. Only in that way can we save our planet in the long term.

    For further research check out:
    Brand / Ulrich, Wissen / Markus (2013): Crisis and continuity of capitalist society-nature relationships: The imperial mode of living and the limits to environmental governance. In: Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis
    Raworth / Kate (2017): Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist.

  • I think bolsonaro, brazils new president, will allow the amazon to be damaged, wont that be terrible?

  • DEATH TO THE FUCKING LEFTIST JEW.

  • I am no scientist and did not conduct any studies but I would assume that those rich countries which are very clean find ways to skew these numbers when they do things such as ship their recyclables and trash to other countries for processing. I like that these videos are generally positive, but the fact the we miss almost every goal of reducing temperature increases around the world make it seem like Simon deliberately did not speak about this important aspect of climate change and co2 reduction.

  • Ah, so we needn't worry about global warming, rising sea levels, increasing natural disasters, millions of hectares of forests being lost, half of animal kingdom being wiped off, increasing health risks, etc etc? Really?

  • ‪#Presently, humanity’s threatening activities are contributing the absolute worst than other processing lifeforms‬.

  • Continue keeping it real Simon.

  • Interesting enough is that there is no mention of USA retreating from the environment agreements. Also the fact that the CO2 emissions per dollar are declining (which is a good thing) don't show the whole picture of the other pollutants that are gradually replacing them, for instance the radioactive materials. Overall what Simon said is correct, just that this is a very small part of the whole picture, taken out of a gloomier context.

  • It has to get worse before it gets better

  • It has to get worse before it gets better

  • The world is finally suitable for Total Communism.

  • Why does your video have more than 5 youtube video ads?! Im getting sick of it, unsubscribe

  • "That's a very feel-good way to look at it, and it's very feel-good because it isn't true.
    Yes, there is great technological progress with efficiency, but we're also buying more things, and using things even more because they're "energy-efficient anyway".
    You won't hear politicians saying it, because it's uncomfortable to say, and uncomfortable to hear (and political suicide), but we all need to change our way of life immediately, everyone in an industrialised nation, if we want to slow down anything (never stopping or reversing it; we're theoretically not past that, but it's not realistic).

  • Yeah, but here in Brazil we had a centre-left govt from 2003 until 2016. In 2014, the year the Amazon destruction started to grow again, the then presidente Dilma Rousseff had a environment ministry led by Katia Abreu, who all about favouring big agriculture companies and someone who doesn't really care much about environment impact. Then in 2016 we had Rousseff's impeachment and MIchel Temer came rose into power. His government is basically made of huge scandals, including some pretty serious ones involving himself, and as expected, the environment ministry is quite neglected. The elected presidente, Jair Bolsonaro (who will take power on January 1st 2019) tends to be very hostile against nature protection, regarding both faun and flora. Some of his allies are pushing to legalise native animals hunting, some other allies want to loose the already loose environmental regulations in Brazil both (and mostly) for farming, lumber production and mining, but also for some industrial sectors. Since 2016 poverty is growing again in Brazil.
    The world as a whole is sure getting better, but here things are getting worse, sadly.

  • I've always liked your videos but this one is really lacking in scientific evidence.

  • Capitalism and globalisation may be reducing poverty but with the help of neoliberal economic policies has created increasing working poor class, ever increasing struggling middle class with the rich become richer in developed countries. Capitalism, globalisation and technology has created increasing pollution generating consumerism that is putting pressure on the environment and natural resources. Global warming is speeding up which we are seeing more erratic global weather patterns, let there are some world leaders, especially the so call leader of the free world, who have their heads buried in the sand and global warming is fake news.

  • S&p fell below 200 MA and can't get above it. Not a good sign. Do expect a massive recession with a vengeance which will bust through the bailout wall like it is tin foil. Millions will be on govt assistance(Demonized later as being lazy). Consumerism and debt accumulation has gone too far. Effects are already being felt in the housing market, next will be the auto sector and banking sector will bring down everybody with it. I may be wrong, but parabolic growth cannot be sustained.

  • Why the F** hasn't Simon done a Brexit video yet? Is he not British? Doesn't he care about his homeland?

  • China is developing the Thorium Reactor. This technology will give us clean energy with zero Co2, cheeper that coal and we will not run out of it for more than several 1000s of years. The future looks bright.

  • Middle class rising and the income back is bigger and bigger idk what you talking about.

  • Thanks for making this video. Visual Politik has made it clear that any nation that embraces capitalism, globalized trade and a reasonably free democracy will achieve substantial wealth gains within 50 years.
    Also, it is clear that global warming alarmists are fear mongering and should largely be ignored. Improving technology will solve any issues with climate and the environment in the future. We have a bright future ahead of us.

  • We have unburdened a great deal of pessimism off for many of us

  • Great video! Brazilian here. That quote from Pinker saying the deforestation in the Amazon forest greatly decreased between 2004 and 2013, yes it absolutely did. But unfortunately since 2015 it's been rapidly on the rise again, and next year it promises to escalate even more since our now president-elect is commited to prioritize the agrobusiness sector over the preservation of the forest in the name of economic recovery.

  • Why didn't you talk about the Millennium Development Goals?

  • Poverty in the 21st century (especially in the developed world) means 3 TVs, 2 cars, playing consoles and steady welfare state benefits. Take them back to the 1890s to see what poverty looked like!

  • Except that poverty levels and the entry point to the middle class haven't adjusted to scale with inflation. Far more people are in the "middle class" because you only need 1/4 the income equivalent to 1970.

    We can actually see two fast food workers barely making ends meet being in the "middle class". Since in 2018 $19.47/hour for a household is middle class. Combined household income of $40,500 is middle class.

    Jump back to 1970 and the median household income was $41,318 which adjusted for inflation is $265,164 in 2017 valuation. Which is over $200k above the estimate on Wiki of $61k median for 2017 and would put you in the top 2% of earners. So the equivalency of middle class households over time has dropped in purchasing power and is evident in home ownership, credit usage and savings levels.

    So no, people are not getting lifted up out of poverty into the middle class at the rate described. The bar is just lowering at an alarming rate and being touted as a good thing. Poverty is getting better, don't get me wrong. But don't say people who can barely get by on the actual numbers are middle class. When the middle class is working with less and less historically.

  • When you quantify carbon usage in units per dollar or any currency for that matter, your basing your study on a variable that is arbitrary.

  • Upbeat Simon. We can live with hope that technology will save the planet. I do hope so, but am pretty unsure about the future.

  • I really like watching your videos, but sometimes I am confused about the pictures you are showing. For example: you talk about climate change and CO2 emissions and show a video of an industrial chimney at the same time. I get the connection but the chimney isn't doing much in supporting your point. How about some more charts and illustrations?

  • Hello, I'm curently writing a dissertation where I will have to analyse Meodows conclusions and it's therefore a good axis to talk about the studies you mentionned. However, I can' find your sources or a website where I could dig the subject. Could someone helps me ?

  • guys…really awesome data you presented to all of us in this video. Thank you so much 🙂

  • delete this video

  • This video can be a supplementary reading material for the book "Factfulness" written by Hans Rosling.

  • Lower population. Less people = less pollution.

  • VisualPolitik is a great channel but they really failed to fact check this video. At 8:24 they quote a cognitive psychologist on environment and economics. Worse the information in the quote was misleading and/or wrong. Picking apart this whole video would be pretty easy, but no body really cares. #consultyourpsychologistonscience This video does make me wonder about the accuracy of other videos on this channel.

  • 5:54 Thanos 🤔

  • We need biomimicry to make happen circular economy as soon as possible, not capitalist nor socialist, but the moderate one.

  • One suggestion: you're focusing wayyy too much on the stats. Need to do more explanation and suggested solutions for the given problems, not only give statistical data and give your opinion how it's good or bad. Cheers!

  • What does EN part of "VisualPolitik EN" mean?

  • We overpopulating the earth is the problem, we can only hope for a virus killing us of in large numbers, who will survive? The rich. If we let our numbers increase, we will be hit by famin and starvation, who will survive? The rich. And we all know who caused the global warming, the rich.

  • Are you kidding me, just take a look at the IPCC report of 2018 maybe we are doing better economically but environmentally we still have to do a lot more than we are doing right now…

  • You can actually kill two birds with 1 stone by irrigating deserts on a large scale…
    1) more food to sustain the worlds population.
    2) Irrigated farmland has a cooling effect, as opposed to the heating effect of the previous desert landscape that was there!

  • they cant
    power and money are predatory

  • Remember, spending is zero sum. When you're purchasing a good or service that has a heavy environmental footprint, you're at the same time not giving money to people trying to provide a good or service that has a lesser footprint

    The only way to sustainably grow is to sufficiently invest some of your spending into areas that cause sustainable growth.

  • Most economic predictions seem to completely disregard the most important part of economics – human behavior. Fear is one great factor. Look at what fear is doing to trade and economy currently.

  • This assumes categories are static. Once the poor enter the middle class the middle class will have moved on so the formerly poor will be the lower middle class and the rest the upper middle class and so on. It would be interesting to see some historical data on the proportion of each income group. The rate of deforestation may reduce but it still goes on. And we have other more meaningful (and worsening) environmental indicators, like loss of biodiversity, habitat destruction, plastics in the ocean….

  • I have enjoyed your geo-political perspectives. However, this was a simple minded view of the sustainability question. Obviously lacking ecological expertise. Unsubscribing…

  • Can there be a World War III in a world with 50% od middle class?.. Especially, if they start to dominate also in China? What do you think?

  • Pinker is great

  • I heard that if China continues like this then by 2030 all its energy needs could be met with renewable energy.

  • As an environmental scientist you are way oversimplifying the environmental situation. The more people have, the more they want. The more efficient you make things, you don't make more with less, you make more with more. And with the rise of populism in Brazil and 99.9% of the human species isn't even aware of mass extinction taking place under the radar. This is IRREVERSIBLE! You can't unextinct a species that took millions of years to get here and provide a food web of ecological services. And protected areas aren't having the required corridors for migrations needed. etc etc etc

  • I needed this video. Thank you.

  • why does he sound like Simon from Whatculture ??

  • I'm happy with the poverty news. All of us should be proud of that, though de definition of poverty is quite inexact… Now, about the possibility of co-living economy growth and environment, a cannot be more disagree. Every week there are many news about how bad the human being is doing it.

    From the ice in the artic to the corals in Australia. From the limit of petrol combustible to the carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

    We can not predict the future based on new technologies which are not invented yet.

    No matter what, the level of production is absolutely unsustainable for the Earth.

  • Great vídeo!!!!! Congratulations!!!! Environment is for all of us the top point to a better world!!!!!! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 likes from Brasil 🇧🇷

  • One person gets out of poverty every SECOND!?!? Is this number right?

  • The first half of this is accurate; that absolute poverty is slowly reducing. The second half that the environmental indicators are getting better is incredibly weak.
    It's not enough to say "look, the trend is that things are getting bad less fast than they were". You should look at the ACTUAL conditions of our planet, whether they are deteriorating or getting better, and by how much. For example, Co2 levels are RISING not falling. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46347453
    The fact that "per dollar" emissions are falling is irrelevant when the amount of economic activity is rising exponentially so the overall levels are rising FAR BEYOND ecologically safe levels. And bear in mind that scientists tell us we need to RADICALLY reduce emissions within the next 12 years.
    So no, to suggest that the trend is positive is a misuse of statistics. He says its "not apocalyptic", well that just shows a complete ignorance of what the science suggests.
    Seriously, read up on the health of the world's ecosystems, the rapidity of the decline and the SCALE of what scientists are saying we need to do, and it reveals just how flimsy these arguments here are.

  • The whole point about the potential climate disaster we are facing is that whilst we continue to consume resources within a system that deprioritizes the environment in favour of economic growth our problems will continue. This guy's focus on percentage decreases in co2 emmisions suggests he doesn't actually understand the nature of climate abuse as an immediately ongoing thing. ie, it is only when the percentages reach negative levels that we can even consider applauding our efforts. As long as GDP continues to grow in the rapid way it has done for the last 70 years, the climate will continue to be neglected. I appreciate that he has a desire to look optimistically at the current world, but this video shows no awareness of the reality of climate change.

  • The reductions are shit, way more needs to be done. Who cares if the us per dollar emissions are down if they’re now producing a ridiculous amount and growing at 3% a year

  • I had to check if the video was uploaded on april's first. Now I have to check the statistics.

  • Despite the claims of this video, it is not tenable to have a situation where a third of the planet's diverse land surface – what is not consisting of glaciers and deserts that is – consisting of industrial monocultures. Neither is it sustainable to release any fossil carbon into the atmosphere at this point. Data from the Global Footprint Network indicate that we currently are living on what 1,5 Earths could sustain us with, and this relationship is not sustainable in the long term. Jevons' paradox states that whenever the economy is growing due to the advancement of tech, the result will be more usage of land resources, not less, and this has shown to hold up.

    There are only three ways which can be pursued to try solving the conundrum. The first one is what we are trying today and which has not succeeded, namely investments in new technologies. The second one is to colonize the solar system and use its resource base. The third one would be to have a global ecological budget ceiling.

  • objective positivity is key

  • Better be safe than sorry: Climate change has to have priority over economy for at least the next 25 years. There is no guarantee that we will survive as a species until 2100. We rely on nature just as much as the animal species that are going extinct by the hundreds per week

  • Thank God for capitalism.

  • You've shaken my whole world dude. Fuckin redpilled the shit out of me. Capitalism actually works well then? We can carry on as we are and the natural competition will reduce waste and increase production such that we can all have an abundance of luxury.
    At the same time the environment isn't even a problem? Our factories will switch to cheaper renewable energy and used recycled materials? Actually I still dont quite get this one, unless we stop increasing our physical consumption of goods and our economies become based on digital services?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *