this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
1025 points (94.8% liked)

Comic Strips

19792 readers
3831 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We are not over capacity at all, this is a fucked up lie propagated by the rich western northern hemisphere people and the rich in general, the wealthiest 10% causes over 50% of the pollution.

That includes lots of Americans and Europeans.

Here is an excellent episode from the climate deniers playbook podcast about this topic. https://pod.link/1694759084/episode/Z2lkOi8vYXJ0MTktZXBpc29kZS1sb2NhdG9yL1YwL3I3WDh5SjhNY3RKY1hab2Rva09pRUxiR0NZYzFoNWsyT3gzcE0wZm5sUk0

[–] relianceschool@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

We are not over capacity at all

We're in a state of ecological overshoot, defined as a population consuming more resources than its environment can replenish. At its simplest, overshoot is a function of individual consumption x total population.

The Global Footprint Network calculates that we crossed this line in 1971, when both our global population (3.8B) and individual energy consumption (15.8kWh) were far lower than they are today (8.2B and 21.7kWh, respectively). Consider also that population is both a cause and effect of energy consumption.

the wealthiest 10% causes over 50% of the pollution.

You're referring to CO2 emissions here (and it's actually closer to 60%), but there are many other symptoms of overshoot. Habitat loss, species extinctions, overharvesting of resources, and other forms of pollution (industrial, particulate, trash) are huge problems in less wealthy nations. In South America, for example, we've seen a 95% loss of wildlife species over the past 50 years. The planetary boundaries framework is helpful for looking at overshoot more holistically, instead of focusing solely on emissions (although that's important too).

In wealthy nations, populations are declining but consumption is unsustainable. In poorer nations, individual consumption is low but population growth is unsustainable. Only by reducing both do we have a hope of living equitably on this planet.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Wealthy nations decreasing consumption will have a knock on effect on habitat loss in South America for example, where a shit ton of rainforest is being killed to make pastures for beef that's exported.

Poorer nation's peak population estimates are declining every year, as life gets better and child mortality falls population growth lowers everywhere (another racist shit that's spreading that poor nations are reproducing too much, btw).

Energy consumption is more or less useless measure with the rapid rise of renewables, although there are also efforts there to lower that everywhere.

[–] relianceschool@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Poorer nation’s peak population estimates are declining every year, as life gets better and child mortality falls population growth lowers everywhere

Yes, that's a good thing.

(another racist shit that’s spreading that poor nations are reproducing too much, btw).

Race doesn't enter into it. If we accept that we crossed into overshoot over 50 years ago, then any birth rate above replacement is ultimately unsustainable.

Energy consumption is more or less useless measure with the rapid rise of renewables, although there are also efforts there to lower that everywhere.

Energy consumption is the measure. It's a direct reflection of the degree to which our lifestyles impact our environment. People seem to have this idea that the only real issue with industrial civilization is that it runs primarily on a fuel that destabilizes our atmosphere, and that if we could simply transition away from this fuel (to solar/wind/nuclear/fusion) we'd be on our way to utopia.

But let's consider what we direct all that energy towards: first, we use it to harvest massive amounts of natural resources, degrading and destroying the environment in the process. (Mining, logging, farming, fishing, etc.) We then transform those natural resources into towns and cities, which pave over and fragment the natural environment in which they're built. We transform them into consumer goods (cars, electronics, plastics, clothing, etc.), the vast majority of which end up as waste in less than a decade. We transform them into all manner of industrial chemicals, many of which end up becoming individual ecological disasters of their own.

Transitioning to a "clean" form of energy does nothing to address what we do with it. Living sustainably requires drastically downscaling our total ecological footprint.