The world’s population reached 8 billion in 2022.
Not everyone produces the same amount of carbon emissions. People in richer, high-consuming countries contribute far more to climate change than those in poorer, low-consuming countries.
Professor Arvind Ravikumar calculated that adding 2 billion low-income people would only raise global carbon emissions by 1.5%, while adding 2 billion high-income people would increase emissions by over 60%.
This shows that overconsumption, driven by affluence and modern conveniences (cars, air-conditioning, fridges, etc.), is a bigger problem than population growth alone.
For example, an affluent Indian housewife admitted she enjoys shopping and material possessions, and though she knows it harms the environment, she is "not apologetic" because it makes her happy. She lets her heart rule her head.
🍇
Reading Comprehension Questions & Answers
1. Why does Professor Ravikumar believe population growth in low-income countries has little impact on global carbon emissions?
2. What do you think is the biggest cause of climate change?
3. What is the difference between overpopulation and overconsumption in terms of climate change?
🍎
An obvious answer would be that climate change is the result of carbon emissions caused by humans. It’s about people’s carbon footprint – the measurement of how much carbon dioxide is produced by someone’s everyday activities.
Over the last 100 years, within one lifetime, the world’s population has soared.
Since climate change is caused by human activities, it seems common sense that fewer people would mean lower carbon emissions. But in fact the connection isn’t so simple. Not everyone emits carbon equally, and people in the western world produce far more than people in sub-Saharan Africa or Asia.
So when it comes to climate change and population, where you were born matters.
Professor Ravikumar concluded that whereas two billion low-income people would increase carbon levels very little, two billion high-income people would increase it a lot. That’s because high-income populations have mod cons, which is short for ‘modern conveniences’: technology and machines like cars, fridges and air-conditioning that make life easier and more pleasant.
According to this view, the real problem is not overpopulation but overconsumption. Affluence – that’s having lots of money and owning many things, has become a big factor in climate change, and that’s true in poorer countries as well as richer ones.
I need everything that I buy. You cannot be judgmental about anybody's needs, and I derive a lot of happiness out of being very, very drawn towards consumer things, and I love it. And I'm not apologetic about it.
She does not feel apologetic about her shopping – she doesn’t think that she should feel sorry. Shopping makes her happy and she lets her heart rule her head – an idiom meaning that you do something based on emotions rather than reason.
Poor people have a smaller carbon footprint as compared to their richer counterparts.
So the brain says yes, we should be apologetic about it, but the heart does not agree. Yes, poor can’t afford lots of stuff so their carbon imprint is small, but here my heart wins over my brain because it gives me happiness.
Priti is being very honest. She is consuming and looking for happiness in a way that people in the west have been doing for decades.
It seems overconsumption is a bigger cause of climate change than raw population numbers.
👉點我看文章👈
1. Why does Professor Ravikumar believe population growth in low-income countries has little impact on global carbon emissions?
2. What do you think is the biggest cause of climate change?
3. What is the difference between overpopulation and overconsumption in terms of climate change?
🍎
An obvious answer would be that climate change is the result of carbon emissions caused by humans. It’s about people’s carbon footprint – the measurement of how much carbon dioxide is produced by someone’s everyday activities.
Over the last 100 years, within one lifetime, the world’s population has soared.
Since climate change is caused by human activities, it seems common sense that fewer people would mean lower carbon emissions. But in fact the connection isn’t so simple. Not everyone emits carbon equally, and people in the western world produce far more than people in sub-Saharan Africa or Asia.
So when it comes to climate change and population, where you were born matters.
Professor Ravikumar concluded that whereas two billion low-income people would increase carbon levels very little, two billion high-income people would increase it a lot. That’s because high-income populations have mod cons, which is short for ‘modern conveniences’: technology and machines like cars, fridges and air-conditioning that make life easier and more pleasant.
According to this view, the real problem is not overpopulation but overconsumption. Affluence – that’s having lots of money and owning many things, has become a big factor in climate change, and that’s true in poorer countries as well as richer ones.
I need everything that I buy. You cannot be judgmental about anybody's needs, and I derive a lot of happiness out of being very, very drawn towards consumer things, and I love it. And I'm not apologetic about it.
She does not feel apologetic about her shopping – she doesn’t think that she should feel sorry. Shopping makes her happy and she lets her heart rule her head – an idiom meaning that you do something based on emotions rather than reason.
Poor people have a smaller carbon footprint as compared to their richer counterparts.
So the brain says yes, we should be apologetic about it, but the heart does not agree. Yes, poor can’t afford lots of stuff so their carbon imprint is small, but here my heart wins over my brain because it gives me happiness.
Priti is being very honest. She is consuming and looking for happiness in a way that people in the west have been doing for decades.
It seems overconsumption is a bigger cause of climate change than raw population numbers.