We need to reduce the number of humans on Earth.
In other cases, its a ponzi scheme, where people have an excessive number of children in order to ensure their own livelihood in old age.
The solution is probably to stop sending all forms of food aid, to stop interfering in local and regional conflicts, and to replace all aid with education, abortion and contraception for women.
For example, in countries like Somalia, about half of the population rely on food aid for survival [1], but the fertility rate is 6.07 children per woman. The population is forecast to double in the next 25 years [2].
It would seem reasonable to me that if we are offering food aid, that we also require all recipients to undertake long-term contraception.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/somalia-people-depend-on-food-aid-to-p...
It's better to attack the cause than the effect.
We don't have a population problem, we have a crisis in greed and hypercompounding concentration of capital and dominating, ineffective forms of power. We have a status quo that abhors any idea of slowing down, even though studies show slowing down would naturally reduce rates of energy consumption and carbon emissions. We have a trickle-down rent extraction problem that's pushing people and communities around the world to the brink.
Of course they also use their money to invest in development projects which will I would imagine have significant environmental effects.
In the case of Gates he has been widely criticized by people like Vandana Shiva for his agricultural ambitions pushing chemical intensive agriculture all over the developing world, which Shiva says will have massive negative environmental effects.
Gates also pushes in I believe the WTO for stronger intellectual property restrictions, which has a side effect of more products in the landfill as they are harder to repair.
Bezos has constructed a machine which consumes huge amounts of CO2 (Amazon) in the form of delivery trucks and a flood of cheap flimsy goods which consume energy when constructed and soon end up in landfills.
There’s a lot that billionaires do, by virtue of the power they have in this world, which damages the environment.
The alternative being more labor intensive agriculture (so requiring more people) and less buffer in case of a bad harvest (so potential famine and instability).
> Gates also pushes in I believe the WTO for stronger intellectual property restrictions, which has a side effect of more products in the landfill as they are harder to repair.
The alternative is a slowdown in research and development since now the research you paid millions for in payroll and time can now be copied by your competitor with one or two engineers.
She argues for a more resilient food system through seed collection and sharing, biodynamic farming practices that promote healthy disease resistant soil, and an end to fossil fuel inputs in farming.
She is advocating for a stronger food system less susceptible to disease and economic disruption.
Regarding intellectual property restrictions: I’m sorry but you’ve bought in to the widely held belief that patents promote innovation. Of course the main function of the patent is to strictly regulate innovation. Large corporations buy up every new idea they can, and use their patent portfolios to threaten anyone who might dare tread on their turf.
Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. With patents, much fewer players buy up rights to yesterday’s ideas and prevent a sea of competition.
Think of the 3D printer. $50,000 when release under patent. $25,000 12 years later when still under patent. $2,000 from many companies three years after the patents expired. $250 and available worldwide from hundreds of companies ten years after the patents expired. There was a LOT of innovation that occurred in the 3D printing space in that decade after the patents expired!
I’m sorry I’m in a rush but here is some further reading:
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/03/08/neoliberal-pl...
https://inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...
> Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry.
And a complete stagnation in some areas due to the cost barrier of certain research since, as soon as the product will be out someone will start to improve it incrementally without having to recoup the R&D costs.
The world would be vastly better without patents in my opinion. Faster innovation, cheaper goods, less environmental waste. Medical technology would be better and cheaper. High technology like MRI machines would become cheaper, health care would become cheaper, etc. Really massive benefits.
It could be that there are certain fields where patents actually help to some degree. In other words an artificial monopoly is the only way to secure enough funds to cross some threshold for viability. Well, fine. We shouldn’t throw out all of the benefits of open innovation just because a few areas will need help. We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care. Then we still get all the benefits of open innovation and we can distort the market with cash injections instead of planet wide distortions on copying.
That's the first sector where research will grind to a halt. It's extremely costly to bring something to the finish line due to regulations. Think drug research where testing and clinical trials take years. But once the molecule has been synthesized, it's trivial to do so at scale. So what smarter players will do is simply wait for someone to spend years on R&D then copy at the finish line and flood the market.
> We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care
So bureaucrats will have even more say in who/what project gets funding. See how wonderful that has been for the EU tech sector.
1. Improvement on panels - you are right, physics is holding us back here. It is debatable whether cross-licensing so prevalent elsewhere in the industry would help. Even then I'd say Eink is holding industry back because they've closed avenues for other companies to iterate on Eink's core patents. (Again maybe good for Eink, but not good for everyone else)
2. Variety, use, licensing of existing technology - here Eink corporation is holding everyone else back.
They decide on what to manufacture and how to sell it. How can this be good for the consumer / small time startup?
There is plenty of anecdata on how hard it is to make a new product with Eink. They are very protective of their technology. LG can't just decide to make 32inch eink panels and license the tech from Eink.
Eink practically holds a monopoly in their niche.
They've bought most of their competitors in eink industry. SiPix was one of them. They are heavily pushing for vertical integration.
My argument is that with more open patent situation in e-ink world, we would see more/different manufacturers, we would see more interesting devices with different sizes/ratios at a lower cost.
PS I own 10+ e-ink readers in sizes from 5 inches to 13.3 inches and everything in between that Eink has allowed makers to use.
I am convinced that with more competition we would see better variety in large size e-ink device market.
I have an open mind, and would love to see an example of some company being a sole patent holder/monopoly for 20+ years in some industry being good for everyone else.
As I mentioned in my past comments, I work in the display industry and the only people I've heard the above comment from are people who are not in the display industry. It is the equivalent of someone outside software development making an accusation like Microsoft is holding back operating system development because of Microsoft's patents. I hope you can see the point. If not, perhaps you could give some evidence.
The rest of your post (monopoly, lack of competition, lack of variety) is based on the same fundamental claim you've made above.
Please do provide some evidence. (not a snark)
So often here on HN we hear from experts in some field that common wisdom is wrong but we do not see the evidence. (HFT insiders come to mind)
I have been hearing the lamentations on the consumer side of eink for over 10 years .
My observation is that there is a dearth of competition and innovation in e-ink display industry.
What are the causes? Physics okay, but what else?
My hypothesis is that it is caused by Eink corporation choosing to go after a big slice of a relatively small pie. They are trying to grow this pie very slowly in a controlled matter not willing to sacrifice any market share.
I would love to hear otherwise.
Why are we as consumers only now getting one choice of a 20+ inch eink screen?
Analogy would be Mac:PC in the 1980s and their experiences with compatibles. Both Apple and IBM regretted allowing compatible devices. There is also Xerox and before-mentioned 3D printing.
So to me it seems E-ink has taken those lessons(closed system good/open bad) to heart.
> Why are we as consumers only now getting one choice of a 20+ inch eink screen?
You as a consumer can buy a mile of E Ink fpl if you like. They'll sell it to you. Then you can go and figure out how to laminate a >20" TFT backplane to it. Good luck getting that size in less than 1 million unit MOQ quantities especially now with all the backplane shortages. Good luck trying to convince VCs to fund your display startup with the billions you'll need to construct a physical factory. If they say they'd rather fund an AI, machine learning, internet services startup, tell us what convincing argument you'd use to convince them otherwise. No snark. Genuinely interested to see how you'll solve this problem that we in the display industry genuinely face.
I would love to hear your expert opinion on the causes.
We have not had the explosion in devices and the reduction in prices that has happened in other areas(scanners, various types of printers including 3D,LCD monitors, digital cameras, mobile phones, etc etc). E-ink is stagnating, this has been the constant lament on mobileread forums for 10 years.
Eink corporation usually gets the blame. Maybe they shouldn't and it would be interesting to hear it.
People want high quality color, people want lower prices, and we are not getting it.
https://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/EBook_Reader_Matrix is rather limited.
Only recently we've had some larger devices. Why is only Dasung able to offer a very limited sized monitors and at a very high price to the consumer?
When/if ever will we have $200 e-ink monitors?
Insufficient progress? How does one know what is sufficient progress? To provide an analogy to software, you're saying the equivalent of there has been insufficient progress in Linux desktop.
Perhaps E Ink set too high an expectation? I never thought they'd even reach their current level of achievement. In my opinion, they're achieving about as much as what they can achieve with the physics of their material and the level of demand the market provides to them. For example, the most common request I've heard is when are they going to have bistable color. The response I would have is they had that at SID2019 but then nobody wanted to pay $2000 for a 16 color display that peaked at 16" diagonal. That's not 16-bit color, that's 16 colors! So they pivoted to adjust to what the market was willing to accept which was about $100 for a 7 color 6" display. That's what the market was willing to buy. Last I heard even that's thin pickings with no high volume products. In the display industry, if you're not able to sell at least a million displays a month, you're a niche player who won't be able to support having a factory with a fully tuned production line. Backplane vendors will treat you like a red haired stepchild and you'll be perpetually on the bottom of their manufacturing queue.
> E-ink is stagnating, this has been the constant lament on mobileread forums for 10 years.
Physics is a bitch ain't it? Perhaps you can invent a way for a fast moving pigment particle to achieve bistable and consistent positioning. You have access to E Ink displays after all, you could invent your own drive scheme if you believe they aren't doing the best that physics allows.
> People want high quality color, people want lower prices, and we are not getting it.
Yes, I want a $100 iPhone 12 and a $1000 ferrari and I'm not getting it. Why is that?
> Only recently we've had some larger devices. Why is only Dasung able to offer a very limited sized monitors and at a very high price to the consumer?
Volume. How many people are buying? Not a million a month? Then who wants to make it? Price correlates with volume. If you want prices to go down, go find a million buyers and put down the order so that manufacturers can afford to build up a production line for that device.
> When/if ever will we have $200 e-ink monitors?
When a million people a month are buying it.
I'm not going to argue regarding the merit of IP laws, but most analysis indicates that market players ignore most intellectual property, and that replication costs for technology are roughly 60-70% of the cost of the initial research. So you spend a bit more, but end up with a first mover advantage; in network-effect or capital intensive industries, these normally end up being determinative of overall success.
But layer that on with other R&D incentives placed in the market. Canadian SR&ED credits subsidize research costs by 15-35%, for instance, so the total delta between first mover and copy-cat implementations drops further.
The assumption that IP laws actually increase R&D rates is NOT something that is shown by the academic literature.
Why? Does money produce CO2?
> which Shiva says
Never heard of Shiva.
> chemical intensive agriculture
About half the planet will die without chemical fertilizers.
> I believe
I need better than that.
> Besos has
Amazon (not Bezos' wealth) has displaced a number of other companies that provided goods to consumers. I haven't seen any evidence that Amazon produces, on the net, more CO2 than them. It arguably produces less, because it replaces innumerable car trips to the mall with one truck that drives far fewer miles per delivery.
> by virtue of the power they have
Doesn't remotely compare to the power government wields and accretes daily. Bill Gates has zero power over my life.
On the other hand, if you were genuinely curious, you could have figured out who Vandana Shiva was.
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128176740/inequality-...
> you could have
If someone is indulging in Appeal to Authority, it is incumbent upon them to provide a reference, not the reader.
According to who? This is not a debate class. If you are motivated to understand another you may well want to look up what they are saying. What are you adding when you reply with “never heard of her” instead of doing a quick search?
I regularly put sources in my comments but this time I was in the middle of other things.
To have claims to be taken seriously, back it up. That's expected of anyone making a claim.
In a debate, sure, the other party isn’t going to do any work to understand you unless they can use it to make you look bad.
But if two curious people are talking, either party will do work to fill in the blanks. And I’m afraid you’re treating this as a debate.
Seems pretty obvious, no? Private jets, multiple huge residences all over the world (full of air conditioners, furniture, manicured lawns etc).
I won't make the Amazon argument, but I'd be surprised if their personal emissions aren't many many times more than the average American.
Gates also invests heavily in environmental technologies.
Just think of the private flights, to begin with
Hustling is literally "going fast to get stuff done within a short amount of time". In order to go fast it takes energy. People are wasting energy to perform obligatory busywork for impatient people who have more money than them and are also performing obligatory busywork for people who have even more money. It's a viscous compounding of sacrifice.
I'm not pointing at Bill Gates, I'm talking about the larger network effect of time-crunch-pressure-relationships. Everyone knows there's a gun at the end of the line, if you were to stop paying rent and try to stay put in your home you'd be stepping out of line. Poor people know this more viscerally and immediately than rich people, but rich people know it just the same and are also terrified.
For example in Somalia only 12% of children will die before age 5:
https://knoema.com/atlas/Somalia/Child-mortality-rate#:~:tex....
Thus for the average woman in Somalia with 6 children, statistically, none of her children will actually die.
If childhood mortality was such a major issue, then the population would be stable - instead of doubling every two decades.
Childhood mortality is also likely to be worsened by having multiple children, since it reduces the number of resources available per child.
Also, that woman with 6 children has roughly a 50/50 chance of at least one of them dying before age 5.
If deaths are evenly distributed at 12%, there's a 54% (1-0.88^6) chance a woman will have at least one child die.
Anyway it seems to be true that child mortality has dropped across the board. US child mortality used to be almost 50% (in 1800). Now its around 0.7%. Somalia is about where the US was in 1925.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041693/united-states-al...
Are you arguing for more or fewer children?
Seems plainly obvious the birthrate is too high.
Like Australia and US?
Somalia - 0.1 Metric ton of CO2 per person per year
US - 15 Metric ton of CO2 PPPY
Secondly instead of a one-child policy, Western welfare states could just modify their welfare systems to not reward single mothers for having children (by not paying people extra or giving preferential access to public housing).
That's also the arguments used by countries like Canada to justify out of control immigration quotas.
"We can save your family from starving, but you have to agree to enroll in our long-term contraception program first."
That's what is sounds like to me, at least.
A, the "kicking the ladder" argument. We had a good run in the West over-consuming and producting Co2, and we continue to be at the top (including the Co2 we outsource to our global outsourced factories for our consumption), but others shouldn't.
Before we talk about over-population in e.g. Africa and India, why not talk about cutting down on consumption in the US (#2 co2 global producer with just 5% of the global population - and that's even not including the co2 produced in China for products the US companies ordered/will consume/sell).
Giving a good example how more people can live with less?
Else it's "let us keep our mega-polluting way of life and you better stop having kids so we are not inconvenienced".
(It's also often accompanied with quotes from westerners not having children "for the planet", when they just do it for their career, or to avoid any obstacles like kids on their personal "journey" to consumption and fun).
Developing economies don't have to imitate everything the west did. Solar technology and cheap battery storage can be built from scratch instead of retrofitted.
That colonialist barons are helping the local population by improving infrastructure for them? (While massively enriching themselves)
I don't think that really worked out well. The exploited wealth (both from resources and labour) arguably contributed to our current position, where unlimited greed at others' expense and total exploitation and destruction of the planet's resources is seen as noble.
Continuing this theme with modern-day Western corporations seeking further profit extraction is a tragedy.
Instead, industrialized countries push for their own agendas, plunder them for their resources, install their lackeys into power, play "divide and conquer" games with local populations, force them into unfavorable for the country deals, impose penalties and embargos whenever the developing country doesn't cave in to their demands, and so on...
Yes; going there and building this new infrastructure is counterproductive. It creates dependencies and introduces moral hazards. That's not the way to do it.
The emphasis here is on help building the infrastructure, be it with knowledge, resources or context. Not to force progress, but to support it. Not to maintain strongholds on existing technologies using copyright and patents, but instead share knowledge and make it available.
(1) the majority of CO2 emission is happening in North America, China, Europe, and industrial part of Asia, none of which exhibits high birth rate.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...
(2) Birth control is already being tackled with in developing countries. It's just not being talked much in the context of global warming, because (1).
(3) Talking about population when the majority of CO2 is emitted by a small number of wealthy countries (with low birthrate) seems like focusing on the wrong thing. Especially since almost all arguing about it online are living in one of those wealthy countries. Yes, it would be really convenient for me if climate problem could be solved by telling Africans to get their shit together, but it's not happening that way.
I mean, if you're saying "We should do more," then I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't think it will make a meaningful dent on CO2 emission in the short to mid term.
This is going to mean about a 5-10% cost of living increase for the typical Westerner - affordable, and beneficial because it will also mean much less air pollution.
It would also mean that the 2nd/3rd world would build up with renewable energy and electric transport from the ground up, instead of with fossil fuel infrastructure which will be difficult to replace.
We already have condensed carbon - in the ground, stable, in the form of coal, natural gas, and oil.
We need to just stop digging it out and burning it.
There's really no getting around the need for a direct and transparent price on carbon. The health benefits from lower air pollution alone would probably pay for the transition itself.
For example, at just about $15/tonne, coal is immediately dead (doubled in price) as an electricity source:
https://www.resources.org/common-resources/calculating-vario...
Whereas current techniques are coming in at about $500/tonne for CO2 removal.
That can be determined by CO2 per unit of GDP, and CO2 per scientific article.
For example, Pakistan has about the same level of scientific output as Slovakia [1], and 28x the GDP. Pakistan's population is 40x that of Slovakia.
Slovakia's per-capita CO2 output is 7.1 tonnes, vs Pakistan 0.87 tonnes.
But actually, per unit of CO2, Slovakia is substantially more efficient than Pakistan in terms of economic and scientific output: Slovakia is 4.9x more efficient than Pakistan at scientific output per unit of CO2, and 1.8x as efficient for GDP.
You can see similar things across the world when comparing highly efficient Western countries to inefficient 2nd and 3rd world countries.
But its true that Western countries must decarbonise electricity generation and transport, and then support/force others to do the same.
[1] https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo...
This is why cap and trade systems are much less fair than a global carbon tax. Countries, individuals, businesses should be able to emit CO2 if they think that the return is justified against the cost. Meanwhile, low-value and inefficient output should be eliminated as much as possible.
This is a false assumption. The reason African countries don't produce as many papers is not that they're less "efficient" than anyone else, it's the geopolitical history of the region. Likewise for GDP.
I wanted to comment on what you said about a global carbon tax for countries, individuals and businesses though. I really don't think that's a good way to go. I'm assuming you mean a significant carbon tax, because a small tax wouldn't do much in the time we need it to.
A carbon tax for corporations banks everything on the hope that it will be profitable to move away from fossil fuels in the near future. The cost of failure is a catastrophic global crisis. How do you financially factor that in? How much profit does an activity need to generate for it to be worth causing a global catastrophe? The cost is immeasurable, so you can't put a price on it. Not to mention you might create perverse incentives. An oil company might decide it's financially worth it to emit tons of CO2, pay a fine, cause sea levels to rise, and then corner the market on building inland. There is literally no monetary value that justifies the trajectory we're on.
For individuals, a significant carbon tax means rich people get to emit CO2, and poor people don't. Rich people get to sail on their yachts, and poor people starve because they have to pay more for food.
At a national scale, it's even worse. Rich countries that got rich off of fossil fuels get to keep emitting CO2 as they see fit. Poor countries that were exploited by the rich countries for slaves or resources have to beg for help.
Legislative solutions don't have any of these problem. Ban yachts. Subsidize food. Ban cars. Stop oil extraction. Build public transit. Decrease meat production. Embargo countries that keep emitting CO2. Yeah, these are hard things to do, but they're the only thing we can reliably do. Taking the awful system that got us to where we're at today, adding incentives around it to fix it, and hoping that it works well enough within 10 years so that we don't drive ourselves to extinction is not a good plan. I personally think the economic system we have today is inherently unfixable, but even if you think there is a way of using it for good, are you willing to bet the Earth that we'll find the right configuration for it in time to stop global catastrophe? I wouldn't take that bet
>A carbon tax for corporations banks everything on the hope that it will be profitable to move away from fossil fuels in the near future.
It's almost profitable today without even pricing in externalities.
>The cost of failure is a catastrophic global crisis. How do you financially factor that in? How much profit does an activity need to generate for it to be worth causing a global catastrophe? The cost is immeasurable, so you can't put a price on it.
Failed econ 101... It doesn't matter how high the damage is. The same way it doesn't matter how important food and water is. Food and water is still affordable. Why? Because the value provided by water/food isn't what matters, it's the cost of the next cheapest alternative. If someone sells bottled water for $5000 and someone else for $0.25 I don't have to pay the "death penalty" because I cannot afford the expensive water. It's the same thing with CO2 emissions. A single ton of CO2 could do infinite damage and therefore the price would have to be infinite, that is, if it were impossible to reverse CO2 pollution. It's expensive to extract CO2 from the air but the maximum cost is $600 per ton, that alone reduces the minimum price needed to $600 even though the modeled damage caused by CO2 pollution is infinite.
>For individuals, a significant carbon tax means rich people get to emit CO2, and poor people don't. Rich people get to sail on their yachts, and poor people starve because they have to pay more for food.
What the fucking hell? We are literally taxing the polluters in this case. We are making it expensive for rich people to pollute, we are literally shouting in their face and saying, "You must pay dearly for your pollution, rich prick". We are taking money out of their damn pockets so they have less to spend on pollution. Compare that to the alternative which involves no punishment.
>Legislative solutions don't have any of these problem. Ban yachts. Subsidize food. Ban cars.
You run into the incompetent politician problem, also, you are making the mistake that politicians even give a damn about climate change. In Germany the CDU doesn't give a crap, they will take a CO2 tax shoved down their throat by the greens and never touch it but they themselves are never going to ban yachts or cars.
I hope this planet burns down because everyone involved, including myself, deserves it.
If the goal is reducing carbon emissions, this is one of the most counterproductive policies imaginable.
> We need to reduce the number of humans on Earth.
I'm happy to point out that this is not the case.
We're already peak child and the next two billion will not come from population growth but from population replacement[0] (Thanks, Hans. RIP, I loved you), where children replace the people in previous cohorts that never made it to reproductive age.
The number of humans will reduce rather drastically in the next fifty years. Many countries on earth already and most countries on earth in about twenty years will have problems maintaining their population as it is. Fertility has been dropping all over the globe, with a few exceptions in sub-Saharan Africa.
No, really. There's nothing we can do about the people we already have and there are barely any new babies arriving.
What we do need to worry about is population migrations. We need to make it easier for people to migrate. We need to set up political and social infrastructure to welcome people from places that climate change has made inhospitable.
Since most of the world will be suffering from over aging and from a lack of births, these migrants will be dearly needed.
So, no need to talk about birth control, let's talk about immigration reform instead!
It doesn't look like it. The UN predicts the population will be ~10.5 billion in 2070. Of course, there is a large range of uncertainty. [1]
Given sustainability limits, the cost to the environment (and to humans) of going from 10 to 11 billion is a lot worse than the cost of going from 5 to 6 billion, say. (For example, there's only so many fish in the sea.)
[1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9...
Sorry, I should have been more exact in my choice of words with this regard, mea culpa.
Yes, total human population is expected to grow. But this growth is limited to very few places, especially found in sub-Saharan Africa (and strangely: the USA). If you look at places like West Asia, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, the more-developed-group of countries or the middle-income group of countries you will see that all across the board population is expected to fall within 50 years.
This groups of countries will have a desperate worker shortage in the given time frame and we should start thinking how we can accommodate the needs of both immigrants and residents alike.
Fertility is already falling, rapidly. There's not much that we can do in that regard (some countries are even trying to raise total fertility). We will not get rid of the people we already have. (Well, not in any way, shape or form that is ethically and worth further discussion).
I agree that we need to have a good and hard think about our resource management. We need to reduce waste. We need to reduce our footprint. We need to stop the predatory ecosystem exploitation we're currently practicing. We're moving very fast towards a cliff.
>> The number of humans will reduce rather drastically in the next fifty years.
I really should be more careful how to phrase my argument. Thanks for pointing it out.
Needed for what exactly? Wouldn't this keep the value of human labor low and thus slow down automation?
Yet some people keep reproducing here, it's true birth rate has fallen in educated people but there are simply too many people at the bottom here in India so our population isn't going to come done anytime soon
There's definitely a sweet spot the world should hit.
The Bomb That Didn't Explode: Why Our Fears About Population Growth Didn't Come True
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09/813801640/the-bomb-that-didnt...
And a debate :
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/docum...
The alternative: Asking each human to reduce their C02 output won't get you very, especially since most of our individual output is more influence by govt policy rather than our own actions, for instance: commute distances, etc.
Interestingly, they proposed population control before promoting the climate agenda. Many view fear of a climate apocalypse as a vehicle to advance the preexisting agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Biodemography_and_...
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-forgotten-le...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation#Eugenic...
For example, AOC's "Green New Deal" proposal was full of social justice programs. Socialism is often put forward as the solution to climate change, although socialist countries have a very poor track record of environmental stewardship.
Free markets, on the other hand, produce the necessary surplus needed to address environmentalism, i.e. free market countries can afford to address it. Marginal economies cannot.
Which "socialist" countries are those? Do you mean (ex-)communist countries instead? Socialism != communism.