Essay by Eric Worrall
“This isn’t a population crisis. It’s a distribution crisis.”
‘Dangerous’ population lie billionaires want you to believe
A reporter has called out a dangerous population myth – one designed to protect billionaires while punishing everyday people.
Carly Wright
October 15, 2025 – 2:32PMIt’s one of the most persistent climate myths out there: the planet is frying because there are simply too many people.
But journalist Louisa Schneider has taken to TikTok to call it out for what it really is – a “dangerous” lie.
“They want us to believe that the climate crisis is caused by ‘overpopulation.’
“But we have enough resources for everyone!” the text of her video read.
“This isn’t a population crisis. It’s a distribution crisis.”
“And the myth of overpopulation? It’s not just wrong – it’s dangerous.”
…
Schneider pointed to a 2023 Oxfam report which found the richest 1 per cent of the world’s population were responsible for as much carbon pollution in 2019 as two-thirds of everyone else combined.
That same year, their emissions alone were estimated to have caused more than 1.3 million heat-related deaths, Oxfam putting it bluntly: the super-rich “burned through their share of the global carbon budget” within the first 10 days of the year.
…
Schneider’s takeaway? The Earth doesn’t have a people problem – it has a power problem.
Read more: https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/dangerous-population-lie-billionaires-want-you-to-believe/news-story/3757284704ab57f0c3044a71ab96f6ea
See? To solve the climate crisis we should reject the overpopulation fascists and embrace the redistribution communists instead.
I wish schools still made an effort to teach history. Then otherwise intelligent people might stop dredging these dreadful failed ideas from the trashcan of history, and presenting them as new and innovative solutions to imaginary problems.
Almost as funny as this one
https://www.msn.com/en-au/weather/topstories/paris-agreement-has-curbed-deadly-heating-but-not-by-enough/ar-AA1OyUkz
Every fraction of a degree means someone dies … apparently we really are that fragile 🙂
Considering how fragile we (and everything else on earth )are,
one really wonders how life on this planet was able to go on for hundreds of millions of years,populating areas within a range of 50+ degrees difference all over the world,
surviving massivevolcano outbreaks,meteors,floods,ice ages etc. etc.
But look at here, 2 degrees temperature increase on a planet that has been on average 10 degrees warmer,with 15* higher co2 concentration during the last 500 million years – and we all gonna die.
Before modern science appeared life was extremely robust,
but now everyone has become a woke supersoft fragile safezone pussy who may be killed by the wrong pronoun.
Even if the CO2 warming fallacy were true, that would mean a lot less people would die of cold.
IIRC the ratio is something like 10:1 for deaths from cold : heat.
When I read ‘heat related deaths’ in the article my thought was: Is freezing to death ‘heat related’?
The “climate crisis” is actually caused by people with under active brains and overactive imaginations.
We are not programmed to respond in that area.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd!
I object.
One needs to have an extremely active brain to be so organized on a global level to deceive,control and/or scare billions of people so effectively.
Extremely knowledgable in terms of human psyche and how to manipulate it.
Those who causethe climate crisis have very active brains.
As the American Goebbels Edward Bernays used to say:
” We are governed,our minds are molded,our tastes formed,our ideas suggested
largely by men we have never heard of ”
Bernays was so spot on that became superrich by manipulating people using his strategies in advertising.
The leaders are smart, it’s the followers and hanger ons who have trouble getting said brains in gear.
Partly correct, as it’s those leaders who cause the ” climate crisis “,
not the masses.
But as Biden, Kamala etc have shown, It’s not the (official)leaders who are or need to be smart(the dumber they are the easier to control and the less own ambitions and visions they have).
It’s their masters who managed to entangle the planet in this trap,
who control and organize all the MSM and Big Tech to censor and go after the sceptics to a degree that they deplatform the same person on the very same day(as happened to Alex Jones) = even the CEO’s are not the masters of their companies.
Who even control the ” experts”(journalists,scientists ) to such a degree that noone was able to see Bidens obvious dementia – until a very specific day when suddenly everyone of them was allowed to see he is demented.
The climate crisis is like Kamala – 90% would forget about it within a few weeks if the MSM would no longer talk about it.
Therefore It’s the very smart who control the crisis and the other main narratives.
Because there actually is no “climate crisis”. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that cO2 has any effect on our glaobal climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. Mankind does not even know what the optimal global climate actaully is let alone how to aciieve it. World wide, mamkind has spent trillions of dollars trying to fight climate change yet no one is saying that there hs been any imporvement in our logal ofr global climate. Spending money trying to fight climate change is a total wast of funds.
Only Marxists can fix problems only they perceive-
Inequality impacts the brain structure of kids from both sides of the track, study finds
It’s a familiar circular make work program.
Take a cross country drive across US and you clearly see “over population” is a lie. Same for the “cutting down all the trees” bullshyte.
Overpopulation is about competition for resources, not per person per square mile. The US is not overpopulated, BTW.
There are more than enough resources to go around, as technology continues to improve that is getting even more true.
Not even close to over populated. As for competition, that is not it either. Take Africa, resources are all around them, on the one hand they are failing to utilize them, on the other they are being blocked from utilizing them by outside forces the UN being the primary one. Throw into the mix the sick leftist ideology which has taken root in so many of these countries and they are doubly screwed. Same goes for so many other places on this planet, the vast majority of “problems” are ideological, not physical. All the people screeching about the climate have one thing in common, leftist political ideology. THAT is the cancer we should be focused on eradicating. The climate is just fine.
Or maybe in Brazil. But not in India, China, or Japan.
They have a lot of people, but they aren’t over crowded. Japan especially.
Redistribution is one of the most destructive ideas ever.
This always reminds me of John Smith of Jamestown. If you don’t work, you don’t eat. How many centuries and how many times has this been proven to be the only way to maintain a cohesive society?
Don’t you mean William Bradford of Plymouth?
Yes, when productive people are allowed to produce it benefits all. The price of all commodities trends downward in real inflation correct terms.
They are not holding unproductive poor people back. Stopping or killing productive people has never made poor people wealthy. The Soviets, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Haiti have proven this.
Who made up the “carbon budget”? A green accountant?
If you do think overpopulation is a problem, just wait a while;
“Two-thirds of the world population now with below-replacement fertility rates”. And the rates everywhere keep falling, even in Africa
https://www.ined.fr/en/news/press/mapping-the-massive-global-fertility-decline-over-the-last-20-years-a-radical-change-in-the-geography-of-fertility/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
It started with post WWII. Female factory workers did not want to go back to their previous domestic roles. Cars, TVs, suburban houses, etc. started a dependence on 2 wage earners. The kids were no longer a priority.
Then came the feminist movement (perhaps there is a precursor). Highly intelligent and motivated women pulled out of the gene pool to pursue executive management positions where child bearing would be a detriment.
About that time, The Population Bomb was published.
China went into a 1 birth regimen for a while to deliberately reduce their population.
Next came the climate scare. Too many young people are forgoing families due to the belief the world their kids would inherit would not be livable. The climate scare started with the Club of Rome in the 1950s. The goal was the One World Order.
Finally we are experiencing the trans movement. People voluntarily being sterilized.
The USA is not a mirror for the world, but there are remarkable similarities.
I think the simplest answer is the correct one. If you give women the choice of whether or not to have more kids, the answer often is “no”.
Check out this chart on the 90 year birth rate for Canada, and notice when the rate falls off a cliff. It’s right when the first birth control pill was approved.
The problem is that a lot of those women who opted out of child bearing when they were young have found out that later, is often too late. It may not be fair, but it is still true. While men can afford to delay becoming a father, women who delay often have trouble conceiving.
Very true. And even if they can conceive the risks of birth defects climb dramatically.
Incidence of down syndrome;
At age 25, risk ≈ 1 in 1,250
At age 35, risk ≈ 1 in 350
At age 40, risk ≈ 1 in 100
At age 45, risk ≈ 1 in 30
Knew a couple whose last child (very smart kid ) was born when she was 53.
He was “uncle” to kids 10 to 15 years older than he was .
😉
That is a fact.
Funny thing about that is, most people do not quote the full passage from the Bible.
Be fruitful and multiply and omit and fill the earth.
In addition there is God gives you what you need.
I have long suspected the be fruitful command was fulfilled in the 60s when the population hit about 4 billion and the discovery of effective birth control was available.
Is it worth considering we miss the yield sign?
Many are not religious. Many are not Christian. I get that. I do not intend to be disrespectful or insulting.
Still, it is a thought I have had for a long time.
Someone once quipped that the population explosion would not be so bad if lighting the fuse were not such fun.
The earth could easily handle 2 or 3 times the current population. Maybe more.
Maybe true, maybe not.
It depends on which factors one considers.
For example:
Wars are competition for resources.
More people, more resources needed.
More resources needed, more wars.
It is not a single factor equation, obviously, there is no “CO2 control knob.”
Funny how wars over resources were much, much more common when the Earth’s human population was a fifth to a tenth what the current population is.
If you theory is all there was to it, you would expect war to be 5 to 10 times more common today that it was in the 1700’s.
As technology improves, resources become less and less meaningful.
June 23, 1960. The FDA approves “The Pill.”
Okay, eliminate Gen X. Line go down.
Open borders, line go up.
So correct. Soooo much better.
I omitted pornography and how it shapes relationships. It has changed over the years.
I also omitted social media, influencers, online dating, cam girls, and the like which affects (in my opinion) negatively relationships.
“Getting your rocks off” without the burden of a relationship could be part of the cause of declining fertility rates.
is there evidence of that?
Yes. Start with my kids.
Go read comments on various social commentary sites.
I do not know if there are any “official” research reports.
Are there any reasons to take those at face value, ever? And not chop it off with trusty Occam’s razor at the root, seeing how abundant virtue signaling and lame excuses (in this case, for chickening out or being lazy) are in such public statements? Other than wishful thinking, that is.
“This isn’t a population crisis. It’s a distribution crisis.”
The Earth doesn’t have a people problem – it has a power problem.
Anyone remember the ‘Dear Officer Krupke’ song from West Side Story?
“the richest 1 per cent of the world’s population were responsible for as much carbon pollution….”
WTH is “carbon pollution” ??
If they mean CO2 emissions, the top 1% should be thanked for helping provide food for plant life that feeds the world’s population of all living things.
Reduce atmospheric CO2, then you will start having food supply issues.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science.
Control the language control the ideas.
Global climate system is an expression that has only validation by climate liars. There is no global climate system.
Falsified by science is likewise incorrect. Science does not falsify. Science via observation and experimentation attempts to falsify. Falsification is fundamental to scientific method.
There is no verifiable evidence that CO2 has any effect beyond trivial and inconsequential on the earth’s coupled energy systems. The ABW hypothesis has not be validated and null hypothesis testing has determined it is invalid.
I am not disagreeing on your points. However, we all must do better with our phraseology. Buy using climate liar language we augment their credibility.
There is nothing wrong with my phraseology. The problem seems to be with your lack of understanding. In some ways you seem to understand but in other ways you do not. You need to seek to understand and not to seek to not understand.
Ah yes, the old carbon pollution trick, 99.
That expression and similar are intended to cause memories of the smog (smoke & fog) back 50 years ago. Particulate carbon mixed with fog were the primary ingredients of fog. By using carbon pollution and associating the meaning with CO2 emissions, one easily “proves” CO2 is harmful to health.
Mr Worrall
For you to say that any redistribution back to 1960s levels of inequality is ‘communist’ betrays your lack of intellectual rigour.
Communism has nothing in common with saying that a strong middle class is far more healthy than a few thousand worth $50bn+ and 70% of the population struggling to pay the bills every month.
Income distribution in any form is communistic.
If you want a strong middle class stop the government from trying to help people. They never get it right.
Stealing money from one group because you think they have too much in order to give it those who have less benefits nobody. Over the long haul, those you think you are helping end up being destroyed by that help.
If the government wants to help people, they need to make it easier for people to work.
Fewer taxes, fewer regulations. Allow people to suffer the consequences of their mistakes. Allow people to benefit from their hard work and good ideas.
The bigger and more intrusive the government becomes, the poor the general population becomes and the wealthier those who run the government and their friends become.
My 21 y/o grandson faces a year-long expensive process to get a driver’s licence which will expand his employment opportunities. Being limited to where there is public transport is a killer.
Anyone that believes a government central planner can perfectly allocate resources to create a utopia has deified the government. You would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than refute the government gospel that the “woke again” cult, like Worral, accept without question.
I agree in principle with your points.
I think we could have a debate about semantics.
Income redistribution in any form is socialism, derived from the marxist philosophy of each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Originally, the Bolsheviks created Marxist Communism, which later was shortened.
Communism is political and involved command economics with central planning dictating who, what, when and where things were produced rather than supply and demand.
What is present in Russia and China today is the vestiges of communism (elite ruling control) with a small liberalization of the economy to allow some capitalism (supply and demand).
The bigger and more intrusive the government becomes, the poor the general population becomes and the wealthier those who run the government and their friends become.
Fact.
rtj, the 1960 reference was to population growth, if you care to re-read the quoted article.
As for redistribution, it never works out because redistribution punishes people whose hard work keeps society running. After a while they emigrate or stop trying.
Attempting redistribution the scale proposed by Louisa Schneider would crash our society, just as society has crashed in Venezuela.
Personally I prefer to buy my food from a supermarket than hunt for food in other people’s trash, but you know, if that’s your thing go for it.
There was a great essay published on JoNova (a couple of times, I think), about an economics professor who heard from his students that ‘socialism’ was the perfect system. Short version: he instituted a system where all grades on exams would be ‘equally distributed’. It was a disaster; a microcosm of what happens in the real world.
Hope someone can find it; I had a copy, but have lost it in the intervening years.
3 socialist walk into a bar and one says to the bartender “drinks are on you.”
and Cuba, and Argentina, in Russia, economic growth that had been paralleling Europe, ground to a halt.
China was similar, it was a very poor country when the communists took over, and 50 years later, it was still a very poor country, not until the communists eased their grip did any growth occur. Now that Xi is re-imposing communism, growth is slowing.
Yet, when third parties decide how much someone should have you’ve crossed a line.
Worldwide population seems to be leveling off. Many nations are losing population- including China. If Africa were allowed abundant use of ff, it’s population would stop climbing too. Prosperity results in fewer children, by and large.
Besides, who the hell is saying “the planet is frying because there are simply too many people”. It’s a myth that that myth exists.
It’s myths all the way down.
“But journalist Louisa Schneider has taken to TikTok”
So she’s a narcissist as well.
Don’t they prefer instagram?
But…. But….
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.” —Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of IPCC WG III, New American, Nov. 19, 2010
Number one CO2 is not a problem. Number two if it were government in any form would not be the place to seek a solution. Command and control governments are the worst choice. Just say no to Marxism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism.
There is a positive relationship between the size of a countries government and the wealth disparity in that government.
The bigger government gets, the poorer the people get and the richer those who run government get.
Modify that to include bureaucracy. The bigger the government bureaucracy gets, the poorer…
In my opinion, bureaucracy is part of government, two branches of the same parasitic tree.
The way to solve the problems of poverty is not more wealth redistribution, which by the way has never worked, it is to get government out of the way.
Almost all modern poverty is caused by corrupt governments that steal from their people and then give to those who run the government and their friends.
Robin Hood in reverse.
Trickle down was the wrong description. Flow down is better.
The economy is an engine.
The greater potential difference, the more work can be performed.
Diminish the wealth input to the economic engine and the less work the economy can accomplish.
It is so damn simple it is hard to believe these people don’t understand it. The vast majority of people don’t want to work. Work is hard, often degrading, you’ve got to get up early in the morning to go to a job you don’t like doing, you often have to get along with people you simply don’t like, you’ve got to follow order you may disagree with, and at the end of the day you are dog tired and you smell. That’s why they have to pay you to work. If you didn’t get paid almost no one would work. (Yeah, I know there are a few that love their work. There are exceptions to everything.) I mean let’s be real about it.
My point is no one will work if they can’t keep what they earn. That’s why socialism doesn’t work. As they said in the Soviet Union, “they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” If you “re-distribute” what people earn then people won’t try very hard.
It is that damned simple.
The simple problem with redistribution of wealth is the number of middlemen taking their cuts.
The Earth doesn’t have a problem. But some people apparently have an Earth problem.
I’ve noticed that these wealth redistribution advocates are always marching to the same tune: sharing the wealth will help solve all of the planet’s problems, as long as it’s someone else’s wealth. How fast they’d be willing to give up their own privileges is another story.
and as long as most of that wealth is being redistributed to them.
People who want to redistribute wealth always fail to explain where the wealth they want to redistribute came from.
The fact that there is any wealth at all never came from their ideas.
Spot on.
There’s a webcomic about this:
https://redpanels.com/?n=Walking+the+Walk/
In his first inaugural address Obama made the statement that we/USA needed to redistribute the money and the Democrats applauded. Little did they know he meant redistribute it to the world, not within the US. He definitely pushed Marxist ideology but was careful to hide his real intentions. AGW made it easy to proclaim saving the planet was the goal and not wealth redistribution.
How much of his recently gained wealth is he distributing to the poor? I bet none or next to none.
Re-Publishing a book about your fathers dreams is a good way to generate enough wealth to buy a $12 million dollar beachfront mansion in Martha’s Vineyard and an $18 million dollar beachfront mansion on Oahu.
My father’s dreams were having a glass of Johnny Walker red in his easy chair after working all day. I wrote a book about that but nobody wanted to read it.
Al tho I’m certainly not a Socialist, I partly agree: Wealth distribution makes it too obvious to the newly wealthy at the bottom that they cannot have 8 kids.
Universally, more wealth means smaller families.
Typical of Marxists, which most climate catastrophists are – fixed pie economics.
It’s freedom that is inequitably distributed – freedom feeds people, Marxism does nought.
The pitch may recognize that wealthier societies feed people – but should ask why they are wealthier.
Today’s headlines include violent protesters against the freest state in the Middle East – Israel, supported by Scumedia like the New York Times.
All societies require ‘Wealth Distribution’ in order to function. The creation of money made that ‘wealth distribution’ much more efficient.
The earliest human societies used a bartering system which required a direct exchange of goods. This was very inefficient because individuals had to find someone who had what they wanted and wanted what they had.
To overcome this limitation of bartering, societies began using objects with intrinsic value, such as shells, grains such as barley, or cattle, as a “money of exchange” to facilitate trade.
Eventually, standardized forms of money, like coins made of precious metals were developed, which made trade even easier and more predictable. This allowed for the creation of a more sophisticated economic system where wealth could be stored, transferred, and accumulated more easily.
However, this introduction of money created new ways for wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few, leading to greater social and economic inequality than typically existed in a barter-based system. In other words, there has been a continuous process of ‘Wealth Redistribution’ throughout human history.
Now, I have no objection to some people being extremely wealthy. The main problem that needs to be addressed is ‘how people and governments use the wealth they have control over’.
Is their use of wealth, sensible, efficient, pragmatic, and in the best interest of the world population? How much money is wasted on activities and puchases merely to boost a wealthy person’s ego and fulfill their vanity? How much money has been spent on rediculously insane wars, such as what’s currently going on in Ukraine and Gaza, and many other areas throughout human history.
The reality is, we have enough energy and technological understanding to provide a comfortable and safe lifestyle for every person on the planet, and many more than the current 8 billion. But that’s obviously not a priority.
Who gets to decide what uses of money are beneficial and which are not?
You?
It takes quite an ego to believe you have the right, much less the ego to decide what other people should do with they money they earned.
The only people who have a right to decide how their money gets used, are the people who earned it.
As to government, the only money it has, is money it has taken from those who have earned it.
When you ask most people what the best use of other people’s money would be, you will always get something like, by giving it to me.
This is nothing more than raw jealousy.
Using force to re-distribute money from those who earned it, to those who have the power to take it, is evil. The legitimate roles of government, defense, law enforcement, infrastructure development, etc. have nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
Historically all wealth redistribution by means of socialism have resulted in economic disasters. We need to learn form history.
We certainly do need to learn from history. However, there’s an awful lot of confusion regarding the term ‘socialism’. Many people, especially Americans, seem to associate the term ‘socialism’ with Communism. But it’s not an ‘either/or’ situation.
There is a related concept called “social democracy”, which generally advocates for a greater degree of redistribution of wealth to help the disadvantaged.
For example, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are predominantly ‘socialist democracies’ where people pay high taxes which fund free health care, education, and provide lifetime retirement income. The countries are also amongst those with the highest standards of living. Their standard of living is rated higher than that of the USA, according to the World Population Review.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country
If one is to include every fee, tax, etc., for everything, one finds the USA is the most taxed country on the planet. If we were to simplify it to a single tax and rid ourselves of all of those hidden fees, costs, etc., we could possibly accomplish a social democratic republic akin to those you mentioned.
In Sweden’s tax code, the highest tax rate kicks in at a little bit above the median income. In the US, the highest tax rate is not only greater, but doesn’t kick in until about 8 times the median income.
The USA is currently a “socialist democracy”.
As Marx said, socialism is just a way station on the way to communism.
The problem is that socialism has the same problem as communism. That is it takes money from those who work and give it to those who don’t.
This can work as long as those who work, consent to be robbed and continue to work just as hard.
That rarely lasts more than about a generation. People discover that they can live just as well without having to work, so more and more of them make the logical decision to stop working.
Taxes for those dumb enough to keep working, rise inexorably and as a result they give up working hard.
Norway and Denmark pay for their social welfare state by selling oil. Let’s see if they keep their vast welfare system once the money runs out.
Norway and Sweden are also countries with small, socially uniform populations. For them, their is still social pressure that keeps those on the dole from accepting it as a legitimate lifestyle. Unfortunately for both of them, that social pressure appears to be breaking down.
The problem with polls like the one you mention, is that what you measure and how you weight it, is entirely subjective. Change a few assumptions and you get completely different results. Inevitably, the biases of the agency doing the study inevitably shape the result generated. It always ends up confirmeing whatever the organization paying for the poll, wants to see.
As Marx said, socialism is just a way station on the way to communism.
The problem is that socialism has the same problem as communism. That is it takes money from those who work and give it to those who don’t.
This can work as long as those who work, consent to be robbed and continue to work just as hard.
That rarely lasts more than about a generation. People discover that they can live just as well without having to work, so more and more of them make the logical decision to stop working.
Taxes for those dumb enough to keep working, rise inexorably and as a result they give up working hard.
Norway and Denmark pay for their social welfare state by selling oil. Let’s see if they keep their vast welfare system once the money runs out.
Norway and Sweden are also countries with small, socially uniform populations. For them, their is still social pressure that keeps those on the dole from accepting it as a legitimate lifestyle. Unfortunately for both of them, that social pressure appears to be breaking down.
The problem with polls like the one you mention, is that what you measure and how you weight it, is entirely subjective. Change a few assumptions and you get completely different results. Inevitably, the biases of the agency doing the study inevitably shape the result generated. It always ends up confirmeing whatever the organization paying for the poll, wants to see.
I wish schools still made an effort to teach history. Then otherwise intelligent people might stop dredging these dreadful failed ideas from the trashcan of history, and presenting them as new and innovative solutions to imaginary problems.
I wish schools would teach the meaning of words so that we don’t have people using oxymorons such as “new and innovative”.
It’s a pity they cannot both lose, indeed.