>you could say that global warming is one of its legacies
Considering that the majority of emissions came from a select few countries(over half from the EU & USA) that don't make up the majority of the population, and they majority of those emissions have happened while there's been smaller population growth, I don't think it's unfettered population growth that's the problem.
As countries get wealthier, their CO2 emissions have also trended upwards. The world is clearly trending toward catching up to the wealthy countries. If everyone trends toward similar emissions per-person, then the raw number of people will be what matters most.
It'd also be interesting to know what assumptions the climate change models themselves are constructed around. Do they assume by 2050 that less developed countries will continue at the same population trajectory there on today and then multiply that number by the annual carbon output of a person in a developed country today?
Where are you seeing this? San Francisco condos run $1077/sqft, more than the most expensive county for single family homes, San Mateo, at $1022/sqft.
Correspondingly the price per square foot in Manhattan is about $1300, while Queens and Staten Island run not even half that.
People may choose to put the savings from less desirable environments into larger homes. But there’s no reason condos shouldn’t be as large as houses. Urban environments are just so scarce that the only way even pretty rich people can get them is to compromise on space.
I recognize it's a filter bubble that talks about these things a lot on the internet, but $1000+/sqft for NY and SF condos aren't lying. People want these things, badly.
I suspect many of the people who want those $1k/sq ft condos in NYC and SF would not appreciate a fossil fuel tax sufficiently high to curb air travel such that even annual vacations to tropical destinations are not possible.
The point of a carbon tax isn't to ban things, but to redirect spending to more efficient uses, even people who like foreign holidays come out ahead as the greater efficiency is a net gain.
Carbon Tax money is not thrown out of the window. It will mostly stay in the same country, and it will create jobs and wealth for people who are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I think it's the "Screw you, I got mine" race-to-the-bottom attitude will destroy us faster. Pointing out this ongoing problem is not resentment - no one wants to talk about per-capita carbon footprint, or have binding targets, because everyone is selfish.
Considering that the majority of emissions came from a select few countries(over half from the EU & USA) that don't make up the majority of the population, and they majority of those emissions have happened while there's been smaller population growth, I don't think it's unfettered population growth that's the problem.