Deconstructing The Real Causes Of Climate Change (w/ Prof. Aviva Chomsky)

Solving the climate crisis is about more than just swapping out fossil fuels with renewables. Though renewable energy is required for a sustainable planet, understanding the political, social, and economic structures that have allowed for fossil fuels to be burned long after global warming reached dangerous levels is essential for attacking the root causes of the crisis. Professor Aviva Chomsky addresses these issues in her new book Is Science Enough? Forty Critical Questions About Climate Justice. In this conversation, Professor Chomsky explains why social, racial, and economic justice is just as crucial as science in determining how humans can reverse climate catastrophe. We also discuss the Green New Deal, the Degrowth movement, tension between unions and the environmental movement, and why climate change is a democracy problem.

Be sure to subscribe to The Climate Pod YouTube channel!

Listen to the full episode of The Climate Pod featuring Prof. Chomsky here:

The Climate Pod is a weekly conversation on the latest climate issues with the journalists, activists, academics, and artists at the center of the story.
Follow us on social media!

[itsureishotout-itshotterin]

Incredible interview - never heard anyone explain the nexus of climate change and economic equality/justice so well.

[milesobrien]

It is astonishing to me to see very committed "climate warriors" discuss this topic while completely ignoring the *actual cause* of the death of humanity by its own hands. People are consuming their own habitat faster than that habitat can recover. In 1970 the world's population was 4 billion people. 2022 has seen that population *double to 8 billion* The latest study I have seen this year says that the earth can sustain a population of 3.5 to 4 billion. But that reconciliation of present population and sustainable population is unthinkable, ie that *4 billion people must die* and die relatively soon as well as stop population growth for many years to allow our habitat time to recover.
It is all well and good to sit around discussing scientific papers that that have as their rationale a continuous growth in the population.
Let's look at two areas that are abject failures under the current population growth model:
*Agriculture* Modern farming requires the soil be fertilized with fossil fuel derived chemicals, the primary chemical being Nitrogen which is derived from natural gas. This fertilization needs to be repeated every year because the bulk of the fertilizer applied to the soil, leaches out of the soil and into the water tables, rivers and oceans.
We already cannot "feed the world". Huge numbers of people around the world are _food insecure_, which actually means *starving* An abundance of food is produced but if it doesn't reach starving people, then it's just words, isn't it? If it sits in silos and warehouses because there's no profit to be made from it, *what was the point of growing that abundance* ???
*Water*
There is literally *NO* body of water that isn't permanently contaminated! Micro-plastic particles, in measurable quantities, pollute *every* body of water on the planet. These particles are in the water we drink and the water our food is raised on or lives in. They don't degrade and once in our bodies *don't get eliminated* . There is not a single urban potable water supply that doesn't have to be treated with deadly chemicals in order to make it safe for human consumption. [ As an aside, the infrastructure that was built in the 1970's to 1980's to accommodate 4 billion people hasn't been upgraded to accommodate 8 billion people. Neither have the sewage treatment facilities. Think of what doubling the number of people eliminating their bodily waste adds up to.. think about what 12 billion people will produce.]
Forests are being cut down, concrete is being manufactured, asphalt tiles are being installed on roofs. People have to live inside something. 4 billion more housing units since 1970. 4 billion more vehicles. Either for personal use or mass transit or to move their food from farm to market or fresh strawberries from Bolivia to Seattle *in February* or the latest iphones from China to Ecuador. Yet 42.5 million people in the US alone are living in near starvation, 16 million of whom are children.
There's a reason pollution isn't going to stop in the next 10 years. 8 billion consumers need electricity and housing.
*In conclusion*
Climate *scientists* seem to be ignoring the most basic *science* of all: *BIOLOGY*

[charliebrandt]

I believe that the regeneration of the soils around the world would address a large part of the inequality issue. Half the viable soils of the world have been destroyed. Agribusiness has been driving this along with the poisons that are now affecting everybody. There are many projects on a small scale, not only regenerating, but creating a sustainable future for impoverished communities, and without chemicals. Extended to all the ruined land with help from the wealthy countries with education, (using those that know how) and funds to begin that restoration. This would not only address the CO2 issue as the soil turn CO2 into plants, but end the mass emigration from those poor countries that the west is so threatened by.

[Sancarn]

Good video! A few criticisms:
* 4:49 "Global emissions have been rising every year" - Yeah, but so has population... You can't just look at global emmissions, you need to look at global emissions per capita. Which have been dropping steadily since 2013. (See world bank CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita))
* 8:56 "Every form of energy has environmental costs" - Indeed, but depends. The environmental impact of 1 solar panel (a 1 off cost) is likely less environmentally impactful than burning coal every day. Though indeed because there is no carbon capture these technologies are still not net-zero carbon. Ah, this is later discussed at 15:00 😊
* 20:40 "US is significantly higher in energy use per capita" - Not a criticism, this is a fact, but I wonder why this is the case... It's similar to australia and canada too. Is air conditioning responsible?
* 25:55 "We don't know if it is going to work and it's aspirational" - It's not aspirational, it's absolutely required. Even planting trees isn't a good solution here. Unless you're going to start pumping soredust down underground.
* 30:00 "Peasant agrictulture" - The use of peasants has very little to do with it, though the profit angle may well do. However without profits the human mind won't percieve it as worth it... If we all resorted to peasant agriculture millions of people will die... Somewhat discussed at 39:15, a little.
* 32:11 "FAO includes plantations which are planted to be cut down" - Not a criticism, wow, the FAO are bafoons if that is the case... Unless there are exceptions e.g. being made into paper - in which case that is a carbon offset. Really depends on if they are burnt or eventually end up in the ground and how much CO2 is used in that process.
* I didn't get a timestamp but it would be very interesting to see how it would affect the lives of a US citizen if a global minimum wage was created.

[DanA-nluo]

Complaining about the end of life for something lasting 40 years is ironic when you look around modern life at how much shorter the lifespan of everything else in our society is.

[SSNewberry]

The Chomsky line produces another stellar fine example.

[libertysprings]

Much smaller schools would reduce transportation costs for schools because kids could just walk 2 blocks to a small house where their teacher operates a one room school. Using buses to take kids far from their homes uses a lot of fuel, plus each school costs $80 million to construct. No need. With the $13000 per child we currently spend on public education, each teacher of 10 kids could make $130, 000 a year. Modern scht systems are so wasteful on big buildings and transportation and big administration with high paid extra employees who never even see the kids. Plus small schools of 10 kids would be better for mental health of te kids similar to small village life where humans evolved to work and live in smaller groups

[justicetruth]

No mention of Geoengineering. Useless. Typical hat tricks.

[rerialicemontgomery]

Solar panels that gets ripped off the roof or the ground when there's a super cell storm coming in.

[grindupBaker]

At 9:57 wind turbines don't require much land if they are offshore. It does require 3.3 million wind turbines in a 500 x 500 metre grid along pretty much all the coasts of Earth though, extending in ranks for 20 km out from shore. So it isn't trivial. Right ? Am I right or can't I do Sums ?

[robertwollen]

Complaining about climate change and global emissions on the internet.
How cute

[DanA-nluo]

When you have roof top solar you don't increase land usage because the house already used the land. There is also a very small distrubution system running from the roof to the loads inside the building.

[audrajones]

I think she must be at her kitchen table, and... this little view, shelves and piles of books and the hanging fruit basket, pictures on the wall, everything slightly askew... this is someone who cares for the content of life above appearance. A person who has priorities in her life. I love her.

[libertysprings]

Maybe also easier for Europe to talk about low growth plan since their population grows so slowly there. The u.s. population has doubled since 1960 whereas Germany is about the same and UK/France only grew by 1/3. Populations in Europe are expected to decline due inverted population pyramid (lots of elderly) whereas u.s. is expected to keep growing a lot mainly from immigration. The u.s. has major problems with lack of public transportation though and lower population density other than NYC

[Syzygy]

why can’t we access energy the way Tesla did?

[antonyjh]

I just watched the jeffery sachs interview, david wallace wells and this one, how do you still have a camera shake after all this time.. Do you not watch your videos. Appreciated the time but it seems a shame if people turn off from these video's because of it.

[cynthiatheresasuzara]

10:18 yes solar panels is not the answer!Several mountains in rural Japan become treeless and replaced by solar panels!

[barryth]

why can't solar and wind electricity be generated locally where resources are mined and manufactured.
Wind solar operated ships for transportation.
wheres the Vision?

[WorldJazz]

2023-08-17 @ Actually, we are currently at 416 parts per million and the level which will be truly catastrophic is 427 parts per million – global collapse will come – so sad to think of how recently we were at 400 parts per million @

[lshwadchuck]

The final answer explains why every 'should' in the previous discussion is pretty hard to imagine achieving, given that global lack of real democracy.