You can't really live like a sub saharan person if you're in the US. Just sitting in an air conditioned office for a week probably makes you use more energy than the average guy in Sudan use in a year.
I've seen coworkers manually cranking the heat up to 25C in the middle of winter, people just don't give a shit.
I live in berlin, you literally don't need heating if your building has any kind of insulation, you can just wear a sweater and be ok. But no, they even heat the damn stair cases no one uses because we have elevators.
It’s not possible to live so far apart from each other and be “carbon neutral”. All the mass required to live needs to be pushed further and the energy required grows exponentially the farther people spread out.
I don't know, hanging out in Asia makes me feel otherwise. The real results of climate change are in your face there. It's not just about being able to feed everyone.
No argument about the impact of climate change at all.
But even the IPCC report doesn't have a consensus on if food production increases or decreases from it.
For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation will negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). {7.4, Figure 7-4} Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10% and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century
Just pointing out there is no real evidence this is the case.
Many people use vastly less resources than the average American, and even at high standards of living this remains true.
We are able to feed all the people in the world easily, with current (or less) environmental impact (just look at the waste we produce).
It's choices, not carrying capacity that leads to environmental issues.