how to lessen climate change essay

November 26, 2007

10 Solutions for Climate Change

Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change

By David Biello

Mark Garlick Getty Images

The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change ? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called " wedges " for nations to utilize toward this goal—each of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels —there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.

Forego Fossil Fuels —The first challenge is eliminating the burning of coal , oil and, eventually, natural gas. This is perhaps the most daunting challenge as denizens of richer nations literally eat, wear, work, play and even sleep on the products made from such fossilized sunshine. And citizens of developing nations want and arguably deserve the same comforts, which are largely thanks to the energy stored in such fuels.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Oil is the lubricant of the global economy, hidden inside such ubiquitous items as plastic and corn, and fundamental to the transportation of both consumers and goods. Coal is the substrate, supplying roughly half of the electricity used in the U.S. and nearly that much worldwide—a percentage that is likely to grow, according to the International Energy Agency. There are no perfect solutions for reducing dependence on fossil fuels (for example, carbon neutral biofuels can drive up the price of food and lead to forest destruction, and while nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, it does produce radioactive waste), but every bit counts.

So try to employ alternatives when possible—plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power—and to invest in the change, be it by divesting from oil stocks or investing in companies practicing carbon capture and storage.

Infrastructure Upgrade —Buildings worldwide contribute around one third of all greenhouse gas emissions (43 percent in the U.S. alone), even though investing in thicker insulation and other cost-effective, temperature-regulating steps can save money in the long run. Electric grids are at capacity or overloaded, but power demands continue to rise. And bad roads can lower the fuel economy of even the most efficient vehicle. Investing in new infrastructure, or radically upgrading existing highways and transmission lines, would help cut greenhouse gas emissions and drive economic growth in developing countries.

Of course, it takes a lot of cement, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, to construct new buildings and roads. The U.S. alone contributed 50.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2005 from cement production, which requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Mining copper and other elements needed for electrical wiring and transmission also causes globe-warming pollution.

But energy-efficient buildings and improved cement-making processes (such as using alternative fuels to fire up the kiln) could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world and prevent them in the developing world.

Move Closer to Work —Transportation is the second leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (burning a single gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO 2 ). But it doesn't have to be that way.

One way to dramatically curtail transportation fuel needs is to move closer to work, use mass transit, or switch to walking, cycling or some other mode of transport that does not require anything other than human energy. There is also the option of working from home and telecommuting several days a week.

Cutting down on long-distance travel would also help, most notably airplane flights, which are one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and a source that arguably releases such emissions in the worst possible spot (higher in the atmosphere). Flights are also one of the few sources of globe-warming pollution for which there isn't already a viable alternative: jets rely on kerosene, because it packs the most energy per pound, allowing them to travel far and fast, yet it takes roughly 10 gallons of oil to make one gallon of JetA fuel. Restricting flying to only critical, long-distance trips—in many parts of the world, trains can replace planes for short- to medium-distance trips—would help curb airplane emissions.

Consume Less —The easiest way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions is simply to buy less stuff. Whether by forgoing an automobile or employing a reusable grocery sack, cutting back on consumption results in fewer fossil fuels being burned to extract, produce and ship products around the globe.

Think green when making purchases. For instance, if you are in the market for a new car, buy one that will last the longest and have the least impact on the environment. Thus, a used vehicle with a hybrid engine offers superior fuel efficiency over the long haul while saving the environmental impact of new car manufacture.

Paradoxically, when purchasing essentials, such as groceries, buying in bulk can reduce the amount of packaging—plastic wrapping, cardboard boxes and other unnecessary materials. Sometimes buying more means consuming less.

Be Efficient —A potentially simpler and even bigger impact can be made by doing more with less. Citizens of many developed countries are profligate wasters of energy, whether by speeding in a gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicle or leaving the lights on when not in a room.

Good driving—and good car maintenance, such as making sure tires are properly inflated—can limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle and, perhaps more importantly, lower the frequency of payment at the pump.

Similarly, employing more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners and other appliances, such as those rated highly under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, can cut electric bills while something as simple as weatherproofing the windows of a home can reduce heating and cooling bills. Such efforts can also be usefully employed at work, whether that means installing more efficient turbines at the power plant or turning the lights off when you leave the office .

Eat Smart, Go Vegetarian? —Corn grown in the U.S. requires barrels of oil for the fertilizer to grow it and the diesel fuel to harvest and transport it. Some grocery stores stock organic produce that do not require such fertilizers, but it is often shipped from halfway across the globe. And meat, whether beef, chicken or pork, requires pounds of feed to produce a pound of protein.

Choosing food items that balance nutrition, taste and ecological impact is no easy task. Foodstuffs often bear some nutritional information, but there is little to reveal how far a head of lettuce, for example, has traveled.

University of Chicago researchers estimate that each meat-eating American produces 1.5 tons more greenhouse gases through their food choice than do their vegetarian peers. It would also take far less land to grow the crops necessary to feed humans than livestock, allowing more room for planting trees.

Stop Cutting Down Trees —Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down . Timber harvesting in the tropics alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions and a source that could be avoided relatively easily.

Improved agricultural practices along with paper recycling and forest management—balancing the amount of wood taken out with the amount of new trees growing—could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.

And when purchasing wood products, such as furniture or flooring, buy used goods or, failing that, wood certified to have been sustainably harvested. The Amazon and other forests are not just the lungs of the earth, they may also be humanity's best short-term hope for limiting climate change.

Unplug —Believe it or not, U.S. citizens spend more money on electricity to power devices when off than when on. Televisions, stereo equipment, computers, battery chargers and a host of other gadgets and appliances consume more energy when seemingly switched off, so unplug them instead.

Purchasing energy-efficient gadgets can also save both energy and money—and thus prevent more greenhouse gas emissions. To take but one example, efficient battery chargers could save more than one billion kilowatt-hours of electricity—$100 million at today's electricity prices—and thus prevent the release of more than one million metric tons of greenhouse gases.

Swapping old incandescent lightbulbs for more efficient replacements, such as compact fluorescents (warning: these lightbulbs contain mercury and must be properly disposed of at the end of their long life), would save billions of kilowatt-hours. In fact, according to the EPA, replacing just one incandescent lightbulb in every American home would save enough energy to provide electricity to three million American homes.

One Child —There are at least 6.6 billion people living today, a number that is predicted by the United Nations to grow to at least nine billion by mid-century. The U.N. Environmental Program estimates that it requires 54 acres to sustain an average human being today—food, clothing and other resources extracted from the planet. Continuing such population growth seems unsustainable.

Falling birth rates in some developed and developing countries (a significant portion of which are due to government-imposed limits on the number of children a couple can have) have begun to reduce or reverse the population explosion. It remains unclear how many people the planet can comfortably sustain, but it is clear that per capita energy consumption must go down if climate change is to be controlled.

Ultimately, a one child per couple rule is not sustainable either and there is no perfect number for human population. But it is clear that more humans means more greenhouse gas emissions.

Future Fuels —Replacing fossil fuels may prove the great challenge of the 21st century. Many contenders exist, ranging from ethanol derived from crops to hydrogen electrolyzed out of water, but all of them have some drawbacks, too, and none are immediately available at the scale needed.

Biofuels can have a host of negative impacts, from driving up food prices to sucking up more energy than they produce. Hydrogen must be created, requiring either reforming natural gas or electricity to crack water molecules. Biodiesel hybrid electric vehicles (that can plug into the grid overnight) may offer the best transportation solution in the short term, given the energy density of diesel and the carbon neutral ramifications of fuel from plants as well as the emissions of electric engines. A recent study found that the present amount of electricity generation in the U.S. could provide enough energy for the country's entire fleet of automobiles to switch to plug-in hybrids , reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the process.

But plug-in hybrids would still rely on electricity, now predominantly generated by burning dirty coal. Massive investment in low-emission energy generation, whether solar-thermal power or nuclear fission , would be required to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And even more speculative energy sources—hyperefficient photovoltaic cells, solar energy stations in orbit or even fusion—may ultimately be required.

The solutions above offer the outline of a plan to personally avoid contributing to global warming. But should such individual and national efforts fail, there is another, potentially desperate solution:

Experiment Earth —Climate change represents humanity's first planetwide experiment. But, if all else fails, it may not be the last. So-called geoengineering , radical interventions to either block sunlight or reduce greenhouse gases, is a potential last resort for addressing the challenge of climate change.

Among the ideas: releasing sulfate particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption; placing millions of small mirrors or lenses in space to deflect sunlight; covering portions of the planet with reflective films to bounce sunlight back into space; fertilizing the oceans with iron or other nutrients to enable plankton to absorb more carbon; and increasing cloud cover or the reflectivity of clouds that already form.

All may have unintended consequences, making the solution worse than the original problem. But it is clear that at least some form of geoengineering will likely be required: capturing carbon dioxide before it is released and storing it in some fashion, either deep beneath the earth, at the bottom of the ocean or in carbonate minerals. Such carbon capture and storage is critical to any serious effort to combat climate change.

Additional reporting by Larry Greenemeier and Nikhil Swaminathan .

Soaring temperatures in New York, July 2010. Photo by Eric Thayer/Reuters

The melting brain

It’s not just the planet and not just our health – the impact of a warming climate extends deep into our cortical fissures.

by Clayton Page Aldern   + BIO

In February 1884, the English art critic and polymath John Ruskin took the lectern at the London Institution for a pair of lectures on the weather. ‘The Storm-Cloud of the Nineteenth Century’ was his invective against a particular ‘wind of darkness’ and ‘plague-cloud’ that, in his estimate, had begun to envelope Victorian cities only in recent years. He had been taking careful meteorological measurements, he told a sceptical audience. He railed against the ‘bitterness and malice’ of the new weather in question; and, perhaps more importantly, about how it mirrored a certain societal ‘moral gloom’. You could read in us what you could read in the weather, he suggested.

July Thundercloud in the Val d’Aosta (1858) by John Ruskin. Courtesy Wikipedia

It was easy that February, and perhaps easy today, to disregard any alleged winds of darkness as the ravings of a madman. Clouds are clouds: even if Ruskin’s existed – which was a question of some contemporaneous debate – it would be untoward to imagine they bore any relationship with the human psyche. As Brian Dillon observed of the cloud lectures in The Paris Review in 2019, it can be hard to tell where Ruskin’s ‘bad weather ends and his own ragged, doleful mood begins.’ In 1886, Ruskin suffered a mental breakdown while giving a talk in Oxford. By the end of his life at the turn of the century, he was widely considered insane. His ramblings on meteorology and the human spirit aren’t exactly treated with the same gravitas as his books on J M W Turner.

And yet, for Ruskin, the clouds weren’t just clouds: they were juiced up by a ‘dense manufacturing mist’, as he’d noted in a diary entry. The plague-clouds embodied the miasma of the Industrial Revolution; the moral gloom was specifically that which arose from the rapid societal and environmental changes that were afoot. Ruskin’s era had seen relentless transformation of pastoral landscapes into industrial hubs. Everything smelled like sulphur and suffering. Soot-filled air, chemical and human waste, the clamour of machinery – these were more than just physical nuisances. They were assaults on the senses, shaping moods and behaviour in ways that were not yet fully understood.

Mining Area (1852-1905) by Constantin Meunier. Courtesy Wikipedia

Ruskin believed that the relentless pace of industrialisation, with its cacophony of tools and sprawling factories and environmental destruction, undermined psychological wellbeing: that the mind, much like the body, required a healthy social and physical environment to thrive. This was actually a somewhat new idea. (Isaac Ray, a founder of the American Psychiatric Association, wouldn’t define the idea of ‘mental hygiene’, the precursor to mental health, until 1893.) Instability in the environment, for Ruskin, begot instability in the mind. One reflected the other.

M ore than a century later, as we grapple with a new suite of breakneck environmental changes, the plague-clouds are again darkly literal. Global average surface temperatures have risen by about 1.1°C (2°F) since the pre-industrial era, with most of this warming occurring in the past 40 years. Ice is melting; seas are steadily rising; storms are – well, you know this story. And yet, most frequently, it is still a story of the world out there: the world outside of us. The narrative of climate change is one of meteorological extremes, economic upheaval and biodiversity losses. But perhaps it is worth taking a maybe-mad Ruskin seriously. What of our internal clouds? As the climate crisis warps weather and acidifies oceans and shatters temperature records with frightening regularity, one is tempted to ask if our minds are changing in kind.

Here are some of the most concerning answers in the affirmative. Immigration judges are less likely to rule in favour of asylum seekers on hotter days. On such days, students behave as if they’ve lost a quarter-year of education, relative to temperate days. Warmer school years correspond to lower rates of learning. Temperature predicts the incidence of online hate speech. Domestic violence spikes with warmer weather. Suicide , too.

In baseball, pitchers are more likely to hit batters with their pitches on hot days

But you already know what this feels like. Perhaps you’re more ornery in the heat. Maybe you feel a little slow in the head. It’s harder to focus and easier to act impulsively. Tomes of cognitive neuroscience and behavioural economics research back you up, and it’s not all as dire as domestic violence. Drivers honk their horns more frequently (and lean on them longer) at higher temperatures. Heat predicts more aggressive penalties in sport. In baseball, pitchers are more likely to hit batters with their pitches on hot days – and the outdoor temperature is an even stronger predictor of their tendency to retaliate in this manner if they’ve witnessed an opposing pitcher do the same thing.

In other words: it would appear the plague-clouds are within us, too. They illustrate the interconnectedness of our inner and outer worlds. They betray a certain flimsiness of human agency, painting our decision-making in strokes of environmental influence far bolder than our intuition suggests. And they throw the climate crisis into fresh, stark relief: because, yes, as the climate changes, so do we.

T he London Institution closed in 1912. These days, when you want to inveigh against adverse environmental-mind interactions, you publish a paper in The Lancet . And so that is what 24 mostly British, mostly clinical neurologists did in May 2024, arguing that the ‘incidence, prevalence, and severity of many nervous system conditions’ can be affected by global warming. For these researchers, led by Sanjay Sisodiya, professor of neurology at University College London in the UK, the climate story is indeed one of internal clouds.

In their survey of 332 scientific studies, Sisodiya and his colleagues show that climatic influence extends far beyond behaviour and deep into cortical fissures. Aspects of migraine, stroke, seizure and multiple sclerosis all appear to be temperature dependent. In Taiwan, report the authors, the risk of schizophrenia hospitalisation increases with widening daytime temperature ranges. In California , too, ‘hospital visits for any mental health disorder, self-harm, intentional injury of another person, or homicide’ rise with broader daily temperature swings. In Switzerland , hospitalisations for psychiatric disorders increase with temperature, with the risk particularly pronounced for those with developmental disorders and schizophrenia.

Outside the hospital, climate change is extending the habitable range of disease vectors like ticks, mosquitoes and bats, causing scientists to forecast an increased incidence of vector-borne and zoonotic brain maladies like yellow fever, Zika and cerebral malaria. Outside the healthcare system writ large, a changing environment bears on sensory systems and perception, degrading both sensory information and the biological tools we use to process it. Outside the realm of the even remotely reasonable, warming freshwater brings with it an increased frequency of cyanobacterial blooms, the likes of which release neurotoxins that increase the risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).

Experiencing natural disasters in utero greatly increases children’s risk of anxiety, depression and ADHD

Indeed, recent studies suggest that climate change may be exacerbating the already substantial burden of neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. In countries with warmer-than-average climates, more intense warming has been linked to a greater increase in Parkinson’s cases and, as Sisodiya et al note, the highest forecasted rates of increase in dementia prevalence are ‘expected to be in countries experiencing the largest effects of climate change’. Similarly, short-term exposure to high temperatures appears to drive up emergency department visits for Alzheimer’s patients. The air we breathe likely plays a complementary role: in Mexico City, for example, where residents are exposed to high levels of fine particulate matter and ozone from a young age, autopsies have revealed progressive Alzheimer’s pathology in 99 per cent of those under the age of 30.

The risks aren’t limited to those alive today. In 2022, for example, an epidemiological study revealed that heat exposure during early pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk of children developing schizophrenia, anorexia and other neuropsychiatric conditions. High temperatures during gestation have long been known to delay neurodevelopment in rats. Other scientists have shown that experiencing natural disasters in utero greatly increases children’s risk of anxiety, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorders later in life. Such effects cast the intergenerational responsibilities of the Anthropocene in harsh new light – not least because, as Sisodiya and colleagues write, there is a tremendous ‘global disparity between regions most affected by climate change (both now and in the future) and regions in which the majority of studies are undertaken.’ We don’t know what we don’t know.

What we do know is that the brain is emerging, in study after study, as one of climate change’s most vulnerable landscapes.

It is a useful reorientation. Return to the horn-honking and the baseball pitchers for a moment. A focus on the brain sheds some potential mechanistic light on the case studies and allows us to avoid phrases like ‘wind of darkness’. Higher temperatures, for example, appear to shift functional brain networks – the coordinated behaviour of various regions – toward randomised activity. In extreme heat, scientists have taken note of an overworked dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), the evolutionarily new brain region that the neuroendocrinologist Robert M Sapolsky at Stanford University in the US calls ‘the definitive rational decider in the frontal cortex’. The dlPFC limits the degree to which people make impulsive decisions; disrupted dlPFC activity tends to imply a relatively heightened influence of limbic structures (like the emotionally attuned amygdala) on behaviour. More heat, less rational decision-making.

When extreme heat reaches into your mind and tips your scales toward violence, it is constraining your choices

The physicality of environmental influence on the brain is more widespread than the dlPFC – and spans multiple spatial scales. Heat stress in zebrafish, for example, down-regulates the expression of proteins relevant to synapse construction and neurotransmitter release. In mice, heat also triggers inflammation in the hippocampus, a brain region necessary for memory formation and storage. While neuroinflammation often plays an initially protective role, chronic activation of immune cells – like microglia and astrocytes – can turn poisonous, since pro-inflammatory molecules can damage brain cells in the long run. In people, hyperthermia is associated with decreased blood flow to this region. Psychologists’ observations of waning cognition and waxing aggression at higher temperatures makes a world of sense in the context of such findings.

The nascent field of environmental neuroscience seeks to ‘understand the qualitative and quantitative relationships between the external environment, neurobiology, psychology and behaviour’. Searching for a more specific neologism – since that particular phrase also encompasses environmental exposures like noise, urban development, lighting and crime – we might refer to our budding, integrative field as climatological neuroepidemiology. Or, I don’t know, maybe we need something snappier for TikTok. Neuroclimatology? Ecological neurodynamics?

I tend to prefer: the weight of nature.

The weight forces our hands, as in the case of the behavioural effects highlighted above. When extreme heat reaches into your mind and tips your scales toward violence, it is constraining your choices. By definition, impulsive decisions are rooted in comparatively less reflection than considered decisions: to the extent that a changing climate influences our reactions and decision-making, we should understand it as compromising our perceived free will. The weight of nature is heavy. It displaces us.

It is also a heavy psychological burden to carry. You are likely familiar with the notion of climate anxiety . The phrase, which tends to refer to a near-pathological state of worry and fear of impending environmental destruction, has never sat particularly well with me. Anxiety, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual , is usually couched in terms of ‘excessive’ worry. I’m not convinced there’s anything excessive about seeing the climatic writing on the wall and feeling a sense of doom. Perhaps we ought to consider the climate-anxious as having more developed brains than the rest of the litter – that the Cassandras are the only sane ones left.

I ’m not exactly joking. Neuroscience has begun to study the brains in question, and not for nothing. The midcingulate cortex, a central hub in the brain’s threat-detection circuitry, may hold some clues to the condition’s biological basis: in one 2024 study , for example, researchers at Northern Michigan University in the US found that people who reported higher levels of anxiety about climate change showed distinct patterns of brain structure and function in this region, relative to those with lower levels of climate anxiety – and irrespective of base levels of anxiety writ large. In particular, the climate-anxious brain appears to play host to a smaller midcingulate (in terms of grey matter), but one that’s functionally more connected to other key hubs in the brain’s salience network, a system understood to constantly scan the environment for emotionally relevant information. In the salience network, the midcingulate cortex works hand in hand with limbic structures like the amygdala and insula to prepare the body to respond appropriately to this type of information. In people with climate anxiety, this network may be especially attuned to signals of climate-related threats.

Rather than indicating a deficiency, then, a diminutive midcingulate might reflect a more efficient, finely honed threat-detection system. The brain is well known to prune redundant connections over time, preserving only the most useful neural pathways. Selective sculpting, suggest the Michigan researchers, may allow the climate-anxious brain to process worrisome information more effectively, facilitating rapid communication between the midcingulate and other regions involved in threat anticipation and response. In other words, they write, the climate-anxious midcingulate might be characterised by ‘more efficient wiring’.

This neural sensitivity to potential dangers could be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it may attune some people to the very real perils of the future. The midcingulate is critical for anticipating future threats, and meta-analyses have found the region to be consistently activated when people contemplate unpredictable negative outcomes. Given the looming spectre of climate catastrophe, a hair-trigger threat-detection system could be an adaptive asset.

Climate anxiety is not just a sociocultural phenomenon. It has a theoretically identifiable neural correlate

On the other hand, argue the researchers:

[T]he complexity, uncertainty, as well as temporal and geographical distance of the climate crisis, in addition to its global nature, may lead individuals to deprioritising the risks associated with climate change, or becoming overwhelmed and disengaged – a state sometimes referred to as ‘eco-paralysis’.

An overactive midcingulate has been implicated in clinical anxiety disorders, and the new findings suggest that climate anxiety shares some of the same neural underpinnings. (It’s important to recall that climate anxiety seems to be distinct from generalised anxiety, though, as the brain differences observed in the Michigan study couldn’t be explained by overall anxiety levels.)

Ultimately, while speculative, these findings suggest that climate anxiety is not merely a sociocultural phenomenon, but one with theoretically identifiable neural correlates. They provide a potential biological framework for understanding why some people may be more psychologically impacted by climate change than others. And they raise intriguing questions about whether the brains of the climate anxious are particularly well-suited for confronting the existential threat of a warming world – or whether they are vulnerable to becoming overwhelmed by it. In all cases, though, they illustrate that world reaching inward.

T here is perhaps a flipside to be realised here. A changing climate is seeping into our very neurobiology. What might it mean to orient our neurobiology toward climate change?

Such is the premise of a 2023 article in Nature Climate Change by the neuroscientist Kimberly Doell at the University of Vienna in Austria and her colleagues, who argue that the field is well positioned to inform our understanding of climate-adaptation responses and pro-environmental decision-making. In the decades since Ruskin shook his fists at the sky, environmental neuroscience has begun to probe the reciprocal dance between organisms and their ecological niches. We know now that the textures of modern environments – green spaces, urban sprawl, socioeconomic strata – all leave their mark on the brain. Climate change is no different.

Accordingly, argue Doell et al, scientists and advocates alike can integrate findings from neuroscience to improve communications strategies aimed at spurring climate action. They want to turn the tables, taking advantage of insights from neurobiology and cognitive neuroscience to more effectively design climate solutions – both within ourselves and for society as a whole.

The Anthropocene’s fever dream is already warping our wetware

We have models for this type of approach. Poverty research, for instance, has long implicated socioeconomic conditions with subpar health. In more recent years, neuroscience has reverse-engineered the pathways by which poverty’s various insults – understimulation, toxic exposures, chronic stress – can erode neural architecture and derail cognitive development. Brain science alone won’t solve poverty, yet even a limited understanding of these mechanisms has spurred research in programmes like Head Start, a family-based preschool curriculum that has been shown to boost selective attention (as evident in electrophysiological recordings) and cognitive test scores. While the hydra of structural inequity is not easily slain, neuroscientists have managed to shine some light on poverty’s neural correlates, flag its reversible harms, and design precision remedies accordingly. This same potential, argue Doell and her colleagues, extends to the neuroscience of climate change.

To realise this potential, though, we need to further understand how the Anthropocene’s fever dream is already warping our wetware. Social and behavioural science have begun cataloguing the psychological fallout of a planet in flux, but a neural taxonomy of climate change awaits. The field’s methodological and conceptual arsenal is primed for the challenge, but honing it will demand alliances with climate science, medicine, psychology, political science and beyond.

Some are trying. For example, the Kavli Foundation in Los Angeles, US, recognising a need for answers, last year put out a call for scientists to investigate how neural systems are responding to ecological upheaval. With a trial $5 million, the foundation aims to illuminate how habitat loss, light pollution and other environmental insults may be influencing the molecular, cellular and circuit-level machinery of brains, human and otherwise. The central question is: in a biosphere where change is the only constant, are neural systems plastic enough to keep pace, or will they be left struggling to adapt?

The first wave of researchers to take up Kavli’s challenge are studying a diverse array of creatures, each uniquely positioned to reveal insights about the brain’s resilience in the face of planetary disruption. Wolfgang Stein at Illinois State University in the US and Steffen Harzsch at University of Greifswald in Germany, for example, focus on crustaceans, seeking to understand how their neural thermal regulators cope with rising temperatures in shallow and deep waters. Another group has targeted the brains of cephalopods, whose RNA-editing prowess may be key to their ability to tolerate plummeting oxygen levels in their increasingly suffocating aquatic habitats. A third Kavli cohort, led by Florence Kermen at University of Copenhagen in Denmark, is subjecting zebrafish to extreme temperatures, scouring their neurons and glial cells for the molecular signatures that allow them to thrive – even as their watery world heats up.

These initial investments have sparked federal curiosity. In December 2023, the US National Science Foundation joined forces with Kavli, inviting researchers to submit research proposals that seek to probe the ‘modulatory, homeostatic, adaptive, and/or evolutionary mechanisms that impact neurophysiology in response to anthropogenic environmental influence’. We may not be in arms-race territory yet, but at least there’s a suggestion that we’re beginning to walk in the right direction.

T he brain, that spongy command centre perched atop our spinal cord, has always been a black box. As the climate crisis tightens its grip, and the ecological ground beneath our feet grows ever more unsteady, the imperative to pry it open and peer inside grows more urgent by the day. Already, we’ve begun to glimpse the outlines of a new neural cartography, sketched in broad strokes by the likes of Sisodiya and his colleagues. We know now that the brain is less a static lump of self-regulating tissue than it is a dynamic, living landscape, its hills and valleys shaped by the contours of our environment. Just as the Greenland ice sheet groans and buckles under the heat of a changing climate, so too do our synapses wither and our neurons wink out as the mercury rises. Just as rising seas swallow coastlines, and forests succumb to drought and flame, the anatomical borders of our brains are redrawn by each new onslaught of environmental insult.

But the dialogue between brain and biosphere is not a one-way street. The choices we make, the behaviours we pursue, the ways in which we navigate a world in crisis – all of these decisions are reflected back onto the environment, for good or for ill. So, I offer: in seeking to understand how a changing climate moulds the contours of our minds, we must also reckon with how the architecture of our thoughts might be renovated in service of sustainability.

Bit by bit, synapse by synapse, we can chart a course through the gathering plague-cloud

The cartographers of the Anthropocene mind have their work cut out for them. But in the hands of neuroscience – with its shimmering brain scans and humming electrodes, its gene-editing precision and algorithmic might – there is something approaching a starting point. By tracing the pathways of environmental impact to their neural roots, and by following the cascading consequences of our mental processes back out into the world, we might yet begin to parse the tangled web that binds the fates of mind and planet.

This much is clear: as the gears of the climate crisis grind on, our brains will be swept along for the ride. The question is whether we’ll be mere passengers, or whether we’ll seize the controls and steer towards something resembling a liveable future. The weight of nature – the immensity of the crisis we face – is daunting. But it need not be paralysing. Bit by bit, synapse by synapse, we can chart a course through the gathering plague-clouds. It was Ruskin, at a slightly more legible moment in his life, who offered: ‘To banish imperfection is to destroy expression, to check exertion, to paralyse vitality.’ Even if we somehow could, we ought not banish the alleged imperfections of environmental influence on the mind. Instead, we ought to read in them an intimate, vital relationship between self and world.

In this, climatological neuroepidemiology – young and untested though it may be – is poised to play an outsized role. In gazing into the black box of the climate-altered mind, in illuminating the neural circuitry of our planetary predicament, the field offers something precious: a flicker of agency in a world that often feels as if it’s spinning out of control. It whispers that the levers of change are within reach, lodged in the squishy confines of our crania, waiting to be grasped. And it suggests that, even as the weight of nature presses down upon us, we might yet find a way to press back.

Political philosophy

C L R James and America

The brilliant Trinidadian thinker is remembered as an admirer of the US but he also warned of its dark political future

Harvey Neptune

Progress and modernity

The great wealth wave

The tide has turned – evidence shows ordinary citizens in the Western world are now richer and more equal than ever before

Daniel Waldenström

Falling for suburbia

Modernists and historians alike loathed the millions of new houses built in interwar Britain. But their owners loved them

Michael Gilson

Computing and artificial intelligence

Mere imitation

Generative AI has lately set off public euphoria: the machines have learned to think! But just how intelligent is AI?

Anthropology

Your body is an archive

If human knowledge can disappear so easily, why have so many cultural practices survived without written records?

Helena Miton

Illness and disease

Empowering patient research

For far too long, medicine has ignored the valuable insights that patients have into their own diseases. It is time to listen

Charlotte Blease & Joanne Hunt

What can we do to slow or stop global warming?

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to stopping or slowing global warming, and each individual, business, municipal, state, tribal, and federal entity must weigh their options in light of their own unique set of circumstances.  Experts say  it is likely many strategies working together will be needed. Generally speaking, here are some examples of mitigation strategies we can use to slow or stop the human-caused global warming ( learn more ):

• Where possible, we can switch to renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind energy) to power our homes and buildings, thus emitting far less heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.
• Where feasible, we can drive electric vehicles instead of those that burn fossil fuels; or we can use mass transit instead of driving our own cars.
• Where affordable, we can conserve energy by better insulating our homes and buildings, and by replacing old, failing appliances with more energy-efficient models.
• Where practicable, we can counterbalance our annual carbon dioxide emissions by investing in commercial services that draw down an equal amount of carbon out of the atmosphere, such as through planting trees or  carbon capture and storage  techniques.
• Where practical, we can support more local businesses that use and promote sustainable, climate-smart practices such as those listed above.
• We can consider placing an upper limit on the amount of carbon dioxide we will allow ourselves to emit into the atmosphere within a given timeframe.

Note that NOAA doesn’t advocate for or against particular climate policies. Instead, NOAA’s role is to provide data and scientific information about climate, including how it has changed and is likely to change in the future depending on different climate policies or actions society may or may not take. More guidance on courses of action can be found in the National Academy of Sciences' 2010 report, titled  Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change . Also learn more  here,   here,  and  here .

Thanks to low friction between train wheels and tracks, and level train tracks with gradual turns, trains have high energy efficiency. Photo from National Park Service Amtrak Trails and Rails .

Stabilizing global temperature near its current level requires eliminating all emissions of heat-trapping gases or, equivalently, achieving a carbon-neutral society in which people remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as they emit. Achieving this goal will require substantial societal changes in energy technologies and infrastructure that go beyond the collective actions of individuals and households to reduce emissions.

We value your feedback

Help us improve our content

Lisa Hupp/USFWS

Arctic Match Live Now!

For a limited time, all gifts are being matched to stop Big Oil from blocking a new once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to protect the Arctic.

How You Can Stop Global Warming

Healing the planet starts in your garage, in your kitchen, and at your dining room table.

Weatherizing doors and windows by sealing drafts can make your home more energy efficient.

Getty Images

• Share this page block

Rising sea levels. Raging storms. Searing heat. Ferocious fires. Severe drought. Punishing floods. The effects of climate change are already threatening our health, our communities, our economy, our security, and our children’s future.

What can you do? A whole lot, as it turns out. Americans, on average, produce 21 tons of carbon a year, about four times the global average. Personal action is, of course, no substitute for meaningful government policies. We still must limit carbon pollution and aggressively move away from dirty fossil fuels toward cleaner power.

But it’s important to remember the equally vital contributions that can be made by private citizens—which is to say, by you. “Change only happens when individuals take action,” says clean energy advocate Aliya Haq. “There’s no other way, if it doesn’t start with people.”

Here are a dozen easy, effective ways each one of us can make a difference.

1. Speak up!

What’s the single biggest way you can make an impact on global climate change? “Talk to your friends and family, and make sure your representatives are making good decisions,” Haq says. By voicing your concerns—via social media or, better yet, directly to your elected officials —you send a message that you care about the warming world. Encourage Congress to enact new laws that limit carbon emissions and require polluters to pay for the emissions they produce. “The main reason elected officials do anything difficult is because their constituents make them,” Haq says. You can help protect public lands, stop offshore drilling, and more here .

2. Power your home with renewable energy.

Choose a utility company that generates at least half its power from wind or solar and has been certified by Green-e Energy , an organization that vets renewable energy options. If that isn’t possible for you, take a look at your electric bill; many utilities now list other ways to support renewable sources on their monthly statements and websites.

3. Weatherize, weatherize, weatherize.

“Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy,” Haq says. Indeed, heating and air-conditioning account for almost half of home energy use. You can make your space more energy efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring it’s adequately insulated. You can also claim federal tax credits for many energy efficiency home improvements. To help you figure out where to start, you could also get a home energy audit, which some utilities offer free of charge. (Alternatively, you can hire a professional to come to your home and perform one; the Inflation Reduction Act offers a partial tax credit for this.) The EPA’s Home Energy Yardstick gives you a simple assessment of your home’s annual energy use compared with similar homes.

4. Invest in energy-efficient appliances.

Since they were first implemented nationally in 1987, efficiency standards for dozens of appliances and products have kept 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the air. That’s about the same amount as the annual carbon pollution coughed up by nearly 440 million cars. “Energy efficiency is the lowest-cost way to reduce emissions,” Haq says. When shopping for refrigerators, washing machines, heat pump water heaters , and other appliances, look for the Energy Star label. It will tell you which are the most efficient. (There may also be rebates to earn from your purchase of Energy Star–certified products.)

And when you’re ready to swap out your old machines, don’t just put them on the curb: Recycling an old refrigerator through the EPA’s Responsible Appliance Disposal Program can prevent an additional 10,000 pounds of carbon pollution because the global-warming pollutants in the refrigerants and foam would be properly captured rather than vented to the air.

5. Reduce water waste.

Saving water reduces carbon pollution, too. That's because it takes a lot of energy to pump, heat, and treat your water. So take shorter showers, turn off the tap while brushing your teeth, and switch to WaterSense -labeled fixtures and appliances. The EPA estimates that if just one out of every 100 American homes were retrofitted with water-efficient fixtures, about 100 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year would be saved—avoiding 80,000 tons of global warming pollution .

6. Actually eat the food you buy—and compost what you can’t.

Approximately 10 percent of U.S. energy use goes into growing, processing, packaging, and shipping food—about 40 percent of which winds up in the landfill. “If you’re wasting less food, you’re likely cutting down on energy consumption,” Haq says. As for the scraps you can’t eat or the leftovers you don’t get to, collect them in a compost bin instead of sending them to the landfill where they release methane. Recycling food and other organic waste into compost provides a range of environmental benefits, including improving soil health, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, recycling nutrients, and mitigating the impact of droughts.

7. Buy better bulbs.

LED light bulbs use one-sixth the amount of energy to deliver the same amount of light as conventional incandescents and last at least 10 times longer. They’re also cheaper in the long run: A 10-watt LED that replaces your traditional 60-watt bulb will save you $125 over the light bulb’s life. And because the average American home has around 40 to 50 light bulbs, this is a simple swap that will reap huge rewards. If every household in the United States replaced just one incandescent with an Energy Star–labeled LED, we would prevent seven billion pounds of carbon pollution per year. That’s equivalent to the emissions of about 648,000 cars.

8. Pull the plug(s).

Taken together, the outlets in your home are likely powering about 65 devices—an average load for a home in the United States. Audio and video devices, cordless vacuums and power tools, and other electronics use energy even when they're not charging. This "idle load" across all U.S. households adds up to the output of 50 large power plants in the country . So don't leave fully charged devices plugged into your home's outlets, unplug rarely used devices or plug them into power strips and timers, and adjust your computers and monitors to automatically power down to the lowest power mode when not in use.

9. Drive a fuel-efficient vehicle.

Gas-smart cars, such as hybrids and fully electric vehicles, save fuel and money . And once all cars and light trucks meet 2025’s clean car standards, which means averaging 54.5 miles per gallon, they’ll be a mainstay. For good reason: Relative to a national fleet of vehicles that averaged only 28.3 miles per gallon in 2011, Americans will spend $80 billion less at the pump each year and cut their automotive emissions by half. Before you buy a new set of wheels, compare fuel-economy performance here .

10. Maintain your ride.

If all Americans kept their tires properly inflated, we could save 1.2 billion gallons of gas each year. A simple tune-up can boost miles per gallon anywhere from 4 percent to 40 percent, and a new air filter can get you a 10 percent boost. Also, remove unnecessary accessories from your car roof. Roof racks and clamshell storage containers can reduce fuel efficiency by as much as 5 percent.

11. Rethink planes, trains, and automobiles.

Choosing to live in walkable smart-growth cities and towns with quality public transportation leads to less driving, less money spent on fuel, and less pollution in the air . Less frequent flying can make a big difference, too. “Air transport is a major source of climate pollution,” Haq says. “If you can take a train instead, do that.” If you must fly, consider purchasing carbon offsets to counterbalance the hefty carbon pollution associated with flying. But not all carbon offset companies are alike. Do your homework to find the best supplier.

12. Reduce, reuse, and recycle.

In the United States, the average person generates 4.5 pounds of trash every day. Fortunately, not all the items we discard end up in landfills; we recycle or compost more than one-third of our trash. In 2014 this saved carbon emissions equivalent to the yearly output of 38 million passenger cars . But we could be doing so much more. “ Reduce should always be the number-one priority,” says NRDC senior resource specialist Darby Hoover . And to reap the environmental benefits of “recyclable” goods, you must recycle according to the rules of your municipality, since systems vary widely by location . Search your municipality’s sanitation department (or equivalent) webpage to learn exactly what you can place in the recycling bin, as counties and cities often differ in what they accept.

This story was originally published on April 20, 2022 and has been updated with new information and links.

This NRDC.org story is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the story was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the story cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can’t resell the story in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can’t republish our material wholesale or automatically—you need to select stories individually; you can’t republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should drop us a note to let us know when you’ve used one of our stories.

Related Stories

A Consumer Guide to the Inflation Reduction Act

What Are the Solutions to Climate Change?

How to Ditch the Biggest Fossil Fuel Offenders in Your Life

When you sign up, you’ll become a member of NRDC’s Activist Network. We will keep you informed with the latest alerts and progress reports.

New to Climate Change?

What can be done about climate change.

It is not too late to take action on climate change.

The Science

Given what we know about the threats that climate change poses to humans, we must take swift action. As a global community, we need to soon level off—and then decrease—the amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The faster we do this, the less damage we will cause to our world and our way of life.

Stopping the Rise in CO2

The fastest way to address the buildup of CO 2 in the atmosphere is to stop adding more. Many vital parts of our economy emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases: the way we generate electricity and heat for our buildings and industry; the oil we burn to power our cars, trucks and planes; the refrigerants we use to preserve our food and cool our buildings; and the intensive manufacturing processes for making concrete and steel .

And yet there are many ways to reduce the CO 2 from these sectors. We can replace high-emitting fuels like coal, oil and gas with nearly “carbon-free” alternatives, such as solar power , wind power , or nuclear power . We can capture the CO 2 from fossil fuel power and manufacturing plants and store it underground. We can also update our buildings and infrastructure, so that it takes less energy to build and use them.

We can add to these efforts by trying to remove some of the CO 2 that is already in the atmosphere: for instance, by reforesting the Earth, by changing our farming practices to store more carbon in the soil , or through “direct air capture” technology. However, these methods will likely not be able to remove CO 2 quicker than we are now adding it to the atmosphere. We must begin with stopping our runaway greenhouse gas emissions.

Adapting to Change

Because human activity has already added such a large amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the world is now experiencing the early effects of climate change. We need to prepare for and adapt to these changes, so that we can protect human health, water and food supplies, our cities and towns , and natural habitats. A new field of work has emerged to reinforce coastlines to shield them from rising oceans , grow new crops to match regions’ changing climates, protect our infrastructure from wildfires and hurricanes , and plan for shifting supplies of water and food.

Today, these tasks are still manageable. If we get ahead of the regional changes we know are coming, and if we put the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable first, very few parts of the world will be irreparably damaged by the climate change we have already caused.

But unless we also actively cut our greenhouse gas emissions, unchecked climate change could eventually put safe and just adaptation beyond our reach. This possibility has led some scientists to study more extreme and controversial options, like geoengineering; for example, there are proposals that would try to artificially cool the Earth to counter some of the effects of climate change. Urgent action is needed to avoid the need for these riskier options.

Driving Solutions

Great progress can and must be achieved with the low-carbon technologies we have today. And all of us can help speed the pace at which these technologies take root and spread. Individuals can change their behavior and advocate for ambitious new policies. Corporations can drive change across whole industries. Governments can enact laws to make it easier and cheaper to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and to help communities prepare for new challenges. And intergovernmental agreements such as the Paris Agreement have already created a strong framework for international cooperation and aggressive action, if governments around the world step up their commitments .

At the same time, the world does not have a true alternative to fossil fuels that can meet all our current energy needs, let alone meet an increased demand in the future. We severely lack the suite of solutions to address climate change at an economic and social cost that we can agree to bear.

A tremendous amount of work is taking place at MIT and other scientific and engineering institutions around the world to develop these options, in collaboration with the industries and communities that can deploy and scale them. But to quicken the pace of technological breakthroughs, policymakers need to set the stage now for game-changing advances in multiple fields of science, technology, and policy. To take on the hardest challenges in reducing our emissions, in removing CO 2 from the atmosphere, and in adapting to a changing climate, we urgently need new tools.

Seizing the Opportunity

The MIT community fundamentally agrees that climate change presents grave risks that demand society’s urgent attention. The challenge requires an aggressive and pragmatic plan to achieve a net zero carbon global energy system, the sooner the better, for all of humankind.

If academia, business, government, and citizens act together toward this common goal, we can create a pollution-free energy system; form a prosperous, adaptable and resilient society; keep human, animal, and plant life flourishing; and create a better world for ourselves and generations to come.

You may notice that we, the writers on this site, use the word “we” to collectively refer to those who have benefitted in various ways from burning fossil fuels, those who will face the impacts of climate change, and those whose responsibility it is to act. We did this intentionally to create a sense of community in addressing this challenge. However, we acknowledge that people and groups across the globe have not equally benefitted from the use of fossil fuels, and many – including young people and future generations – will disproportionately endure the consequences. We, those who are affiliated with MIT and those who live in developed countries, are often among those whose activities have historically had a disproportionate impact on climate change. Therefore, we see that we have a greater responsibility – as professionals, citizens, community members, and consumers – to act to reverse its course.

Beef up your knowledge on specific climate change impacts and solutions with our quick explanations about clean energy, climate models, and much more, written by MIT experts.

Have Questions?

Whether it's simple or sticky, about science or solutions, ask us! We work with MIT faculty and scientists to get you clear, no-nonsense answers grounded in the best scientific information.

Tinker Around

Create your own set of climate change solutions in this online simulator from Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan’s Sustainability Initiative.

Take a Course

Extend your learning with edX's online courses on clean energy, food security, sustainable architecture, protecting health and many more.

Collections of news, posts, and research around major climate science topics. 

The Paris Agreement

Renewable Energy

Carbon Pricing

Mit climate news in your inbox.

Here are the most effective things you can do to fight climate change

PhD Student, University of Leeds

Disclosure statement

Max Callaghan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Leeds provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels requires reaching net zero emissions by the middle of this century. This means that, in less than three decades, we need to reverse more than a century of rising emissions and bring annual emissions down to near zero, while balancing out all remaining unavoidable emissions by actively removing carbon from the atmosphere.

To help speed this process as individuals, we’ve got to do everything we can to cut down our use of fossil fuels. But many people aren’t aware of the most effective ways to do this. Thankfully, the latest report by the UN climate change panel IPCC devotes a chapter to all the ways in which changes in people’s behaviour can accelerate the transition to net zero.

The chapter includes an analysis of 60 individual actions which can help fight climate change, building on research led by Diana Ivanova at the University of Leeds – and to which I contributed. We grouped these actions into three areas: avoiding consumption, shifting consumption and improving consumption (making it more efficient). The charts below, produced for the IPCC report , show what we found.

What to avoid

By far the most effective things to avoid involve transport. Living without a car reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 2 tonnes of CO₂ emissions per person per year, while avoiding a single long distance return flight cuts emissions by an average of 1.9 tonnes. That’s equivalent to driving a typical EU car more than 16,000km from Hamburg, Germany to Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia and back.

Since the vast majority of the world’s population do not fly at all – and of those who do, only a small percentage fly frequently – fliers can make very substantial reductions to their carbon footprints with each flight they avoid.

What to shift

But living sustainably is not just about giving things up. Large reductions in emissions can be achieved by shifting to a different way of doing things. Because driving is so polluting, for example, shifting to public transport , walking or cycling can make an enormous change, with added benefits for your personal health and local air pollution levels.

Likewise, because of the high emissions associated with meat and dairy – particularly those produced by farming sheep and cows – shifting towards more sustainable diets can substantially reduce your carbon footprint. A totally vegan diet is the most effective way to do this, but sizeable savings can be made simply by switching from beef and lamb to pork and chicken.

What to improve

Finally, the things we do already could be made more efficient by improving carbon efficiency at home: for example by using insulation and heat pumps , or producing your own renewable energy by installing solar panels . Switching from a combustion car to an electric one – ideally a battery EV, which generates much larger reductions in emissions than hybrid or fuel cell EVs – will make your car journeys more efficient. Plus, its effect on emissions will increase as time goes by and the amount of electricity generated by renewables grows.

In the race to net zero, every tonne of CO₂ really does count. If more of us take even a few of these suggestions into account, we’re collectively more likely to be able to achieve the ambitious goals set out in the Paris climate agreement . Of course, these changes will need to be backed by major political action on sustainability at the same time.

If we’re to use less fossil fuel energy, the use of fossil fuels needs to be either restricted or made more expensive. The social consequences of this need to be carefully managed so that carbon pricing schemes can benefit people on lower incomes: which can happen if revenues are redistributed to take the financial burden off poorer households.

But there’s a whole lot more that governments could do to help people to live more sustainably, such as providing better, safer public transport and “ active travel ” infrastructure (such as bike lanes and pedestrian zones) so that people have alternatives to driving and flying.

There’s no avoiding the fact that if political solutions are to address climate change with the urgency our global situation requires, these solutions will limit the extent to which we can indulge in carbon-intensive behaviours. More than anything, we must vote into power those prepared to make such tough decisions for the sake of our planet’s future.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

• Fossil fuels
• Climate change
• Renewable energy
• Sustainability
• Public transport
• Sustainable living
• climate mitigation
• Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Student Administration Officer

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Senior Lecturer, Digital Advertising

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 August 2024

Reducing climate change impacts from the global food system through diet shifts

• Yanxian Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1947-7541 1 ,
• Pan He   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1088-6290 2 , 3 ,
• Yuli Shan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5215-8657 4 ,
• Ye Hang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1368-905X 4 ,
• Shuai Shao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9525-6310 6 ,
• Franco Ruzzenenti 1 &
• Klaus Hubacek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2561-6090 1  

Nature Climate Change ( 2024 ) Cite this article

5553 Accesses

197 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change impacts
• Climate-change mitigation

How much and what we eat and where it is produced can create huge differences in GHG emissions. On the basis of detailed household-expenditure data, we evaluate the unequal distribution of dietary emissions from 140 food products in 139 countries or areas and further model changes in emissions of global diet shifts. Within countries, consumer groups with higher expenditures generally cause more dietary emissions due to higher red meat and dairy intake. Such inequality is more pronounced in low-income countries. The present global annual dietary emissions would fall by 17% with the worldwide adoption of the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, primarily attributed to shifts from red meat to legumes and nuts as principal protein sources. More than half (56.9%) of the global population, which is presently overconsuming, would save 32.4% of global emissions through diet shifts, offsetting the 15.4% increase in global emissions from presently underconsuming populations moving towards healthier diets.

Similar content being viewed by others

Simple dietary substitutions can reduce carbon footprints and improve dietary quality across diverse segments of the US population

The ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection

Adoption of the ‘planetary health diet’ has different impacts on countries’ greenhouse gas emissions

Food choices impact both our health and the environment 1 , 2 . The food system is responsible for about one-third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions 3 , 4 and climate goals become unattainable without efforts to reduce food-related emissions 5 , 6 . However, not everyone contributes the same way to food-related emissions because of disparities in lifestyle, food preferences and affordability within and across countries 7 , 8 , 9 . High levels of food consumption (especially animal-based diets), one of the leading causes of obesity and non-communicable diseases 10 , 11 , lead to substantial emissions 9 , 12 . Simultaneously, >800 million people still suffer from hunger and almost 3.1 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet 13 . Ending hunger and malnutrition while feeding the growing population by extending food production will further exacerbate climate change 14 , 15 . Given the notable increase in emissions driven by food consumption despite efficiency gains 16 , changing consumer lifestyles and choices are needed to mitigate climate change 17 .

Research shows that widespread shifts towards healthier diets, aligned with the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations 18 , offer solutions to this complex problem by eradicating hunger (SDG 2), ensuring health (SDG 3) and mitigating emissions (SDG 13) 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 . Numerous dietary options have been proposed as guidelines for diet shifts 1 , 23 , 24 . The planetary health diet 12 , proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission, stands out as a prominent option. It aims to improve health while limiting the impacts of the food system within planetary boundaries by providing reference intake levels for different food categories 9 , 25 . It is flexibly compatible with diversities and preferences of regional and local diets 12 . Previous research has estimated changes in country-specific environmental impacts, including GHG emissions 26 , 27 , 28 and water consumption 25 , resulting from adopting the planetary health diet. However, there is limited evidence on how different population groups will contribute differently in this process 7 .

Food consumption and associated emissions differ as a result of disparities in consumer choices guided by social and cultural preferences, wealth and income 29 . Quantifying food-related emissions along the entire supply chain for different products and population groups provides information for emission mitigation through changing consumer choices 17 . With the improved availability of household consumption data, recent studies have revealed inequality in energy consumption 30 , 31 and carbon emissions 17 , 32 , 33 , 34 . Although there are several studies on income- or expenditure-specific food-related emissions within individual countries based on survey-based data 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , previous studies have not assessed global food-related emissions with a detailed breakdown into specific products and population groups. Furthermore, reducing the overconsumption of wealthy or otherwise overconsuming groups can increase the availability of resources for reducing hunger and malnutrition 7 . However, it remains unclear how emissions from different population groups would change in response to global diet shifts.

To fill these gaps, this study evaluates GHG emissions (CO 2 , CH 4 and N 2 O) throughout the global food supply chains (including agricultural land use and land-use change, agricultural production and beyond-farm processes) 16 induced by diets, termed ‘dietary emissions’, in 2019 and the potential emission changes of global diet shifts. Food loss and waste during household consumption 25 , 39 , 40 have been subtracted from the national food supply to obtain dietary intake. We quantify dietary emissions of 140 products 16 (classified into 13 food categories 12 ) on the basis of the global consumption-based emissions inventory of detailed food products 16 . By linking detailed food intake amounts to the food consumption patterns of 201 global expenditure groups (grouped according to the per capita total expenditure of each group) from the household-expenditure dataset 41 based on the World Bank Global Consumption Database (WBGCD) 42 , we analyse the unequal distribution of dietary emissions in 139 countries or areas, covering 95% of the global population. Despite limitations, the total expenditure of consumers, which effectively reflects patterns in household income, consumption and asset accumulation, is a useful approximation to represent levels of income and wealth 31 , 43 . Additionally, we build a scenario of shifting from diets in 2019 to the global planetary health diet to estimate emission changes ( Methods ). This study investigates differences in dietary emissions among regions, countries and population groups, identifying areas where efforts are needed to mitigate emissions during the global transition towards a healthier and more planet-friendly diet.

Present dietary emissions across countries

In this study, dietary emissions account for emissions along the entire global food production supply chains, which are allocated to final consumers of diets. We use the term ‘GHG footprints’ to specifically refer to the dietary emissions of an individual over 1 year 17 , 34 . The total dietary emissions and country-average per capita GHG footprints show different distributions across countries in 2019 (Fig. 1a ; for detailed food categories see Supplementary Figs. 1 – 9 ). The present total global dietary emissions reach 11.4 GtCO 2 e (95% confidence interval 8.2–14.7 Gt) (details of uncertainty ranges in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 ). China (contributing 13.5% of emissions) and India (8.9%), the world’s most populous countries (Supplementary Table 3 ), are the largest contributors to global dietary emissions. Alongside Indonesia, Brazil, the United States, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, Russia, Japan and Mexico, the top ten contributors represent 57.3% of global dietary emissions but with very unequal per capita emissions within and between countries. We find the highest country-average per capita footprints in Bolivia, with 6.1 tCO 2 e, followed by Luxembourg, Slovakia, Mongolia, the Netherlands and Namibia, with >5.0 tCO 2 e (Supplementary Discussion 2.1 ). Haiti (0.36 tCO 2 e) and Yemen (0.38 tCO 2 e) have the lowest country-average footprints, followed by Burundi, Ghana and Togo. Insufficient food intake of residents due to limited food affordability 44 , 45 is the root cause of low footprints in these low- and lower-middle-income countries 46 .

a , Total and per capita dietary emissions for 139 countries/areas. b , Regional dietary emissions from different food categories and populations. The bar chart (left primary axis) shows the regional emission amounts and the line chart (right secondary axis) shows the number of regional populations. Columns are ordered by the descending per capita GDP of regions (Supplementary Tables 5 and 6 ). USA, United States; AUS, Australia; WE, Western Europe; CAN, Canada; JPN, Japan; RUS, Russia; ROEA, Rest of East Asia; EE, East Europe; CHN, China; ROO, Rest of Oceania; NENA, Near East and North Africa; BRA, Brazil; ROLAC, Rest of Latin America and the Caribbean; ROSEA, Rest of Southeast Asia; IDN, Indonesia; IND, India; ROSA, Rest of South Asia; and SSA, Sub-Saharan Africa. Details for the division and scope of regions are shown in Supplementary Fig. 10 and Supplementary Tables 7 and 8 . Country classification by income levels is based on the World Bank 46 . Credit: World Countries basemap, Esri ( https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/esri::world-countries/about ).

Source data

While animal-based (52%) and plant-based (48%) products contribute nearly equally to global dietary emissions 4 , 16 , the latter accounts for 87% of calories in global diets (Supplementary Table 4 ). The three main sources of emissions, namely red meat (beef, lamb and pork) (5% of calories), grains (51%) and dairy products (5%), contribute to 29%, 21% and 19% of global emissions, respectively. The substantial emissions from red meat and dairy products are attributed to their considerably higher emissions per unit of calories compared to other categories (Supplementary Table 4 ).

To highlight emission differences at a regional level, we further group the country-level results into 18 regions according to geographical locations and development levels (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Fig. 10 ). In most regions, animal-based products contribute fewer calories (less than a quarter) (Supplementary Data 21 ) but yield more emissions than plant-based products, especially in Australia (84% from animal-based products), the United States (71%) and the region Rest of East Asia (71%) where residents excessively consume both red meat and dairy products. However, the consumption of plant-based products in Indonesia (83% of total calories), Rest of Southeast Asia (92%) and Sub-Saharan Africa (77%) accounts for the most emissions, at 92%, 73% and 64%, respectively. Southeast Asia including Indonesia has a high-emission proportion from grains (42%) due to the prevalent meals dominated by rice. The typical food basket in Sub-Saharan Africa is broadly made up of grains, tubers, legumes and nuts 25 , 47 , representing over half of the regional emissions.

Unequal distribution of dietary emissions within countries

We find substantial differences in per capita GHG footprints within countries and regions. To clearly present the distribution of footprints within each country and region, individuals are sorted in ascending order of their total expenditure levels and then sequentially allocated to ten expenditure deciles with equal population size (Supplementary Fig. 11 and Fig. 2a ). As expenditures increase, individuals tend to have higher levels of footprints, with the largest increase attributed to red meat and dairy products. Richer populations usually have higher per capita footprints related to animal-based products than the poorer in most regions (Fig. 2b ). However, there are differences in per capita footprints within expenditure deciles. For example, even in high-income countries such as Australia and Japan, the dietary intake of red meat for some people in the poorest deciles falls below the recommended levels (Supplementary Data 15 ). Rest of East Asia is one exception, with the poorest decile having high footprints due to a substantial intake of red meat, as seen in Mongolia where beef and mutton are the most common dish 48 .

a , GHG footprints from all types of food categories. The size of the bubble refers to the average total expenditure represented by the decile. b , GHG footprints from different food categories. The colours of bubbles in a and b indicate expenditure deciles ranging from the poorest in blue to the wealthiest in red and are comparable only within each region.

Footprints related to plant-based products in specific regions show a different trend from animal-based products as expenditures increase. The middle expenditure groups are responsible for the highest footprints associated with grains in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia and the highest footprints of tubers, vegetables and fruits (mainly starchy tropical fruits 49 ) in the Rest of Oceania. These locally produced, high-carbohydrate products are traditional staple foods. In poor countries, agricultural policy primarily targets improving the productivity of staple food, with little investment in the market and facilities for nutrient-rich products 50 , 51 . Consequently, the need for dietary diversity for middle- and low-income people is not adequately addressed 50 , leading to increased consumption of these lower-cost products. However, wealthier consumers can afford more expensive products, such as red meat, reducing their reliance on these staple products.

We use the GHG footprint Gini (GF-Gini) coefficient, calculated on the basis of data from 201 expenditure groups, to measure the dietary emission inequality within a country (Fig. 3 ), with 0 indicating perfect equality and 1 indicating perfect inequality. The inequality of dietary emissions tends to decline with the increase of the per capita GDP of a country, especially for animal-based products. We find the highest inequality of dietary emissions of food products generally in low-income countries, most of which are located in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the highest spending 10% of the population contributes 40% of the regional emissions from red meat, 39% from poultry and 35% from dairy products. In contrast, high-income countries generally have relatively low inequality with high levels of emissions despite country-to-country variations. The GF-Gini coefficients for all types of products of most Western European countries are <0.20 (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10 ), which is lower than for other high-income countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada and Japan.

a – j , The x axis represents the country-average per capita GDP, and the y axis represents the national GF-Gini coefficients of all types of ( a ) and different ( b – j ) food categories. b , Beef, lamb and pork. c , Dairy products. d , Poultry, eggs and fish. e , Grains. f , Tubers and starchy vegetables. g , Vegetables and fruits. h , Legumes and nuts. i , Added fats. j , All sugars. Logarithmic regression (red solid line) and locally weighted regression analysis (blue dotted line) are used to determine the relationship between the national GF-Gini coefficient (dependent variable) and the country-average per capita GDP (independent variable). The coefficients of determination ( R 2 ) and the exact P values from the two-sided Student’s t -test for the logarithmic regression are indicated in each subgraph. The error bands (grey shaded areas) represent 95% confidence intervals around the fitted logarithmic regression lines. Blue, orange and green dots represent all types of products, animal-based products and plant-based products, respectively.

Dietary emission shares across consumer groups

There are notable differences in dietary emission shares associated with food categories across expenditure deciles between regions (Fig. 4 ). In high-income countries, expenditure groups have relatively similar patterns of dietary emissions, with large shares of red meat and dairy products contributing the largest amount of emissions. Even poor consumer groups in high-income countries tend to be more likely to be able to afford animal-based products as a result of relatively lower prices for dairy products, eggs, white meat and processed red meat. This contrasts with the high prices of animal-based products due to supply constraints in most low- and lower-middle-income countries 52 , 53 . Except in high-income countries, starchy staple foods (including grains and tubers), with low prices but high-carbohydrate content 44 , 54 , constitute a large proportion of dietary emissions because of the high level of consumption, especially in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. As individuals’ expenditures increase in these countries, emission shares from starchy staple foods in total emissions decrease substantially. These changes demonstrate that as the affordability of food increases, populations tend to adopt instead more diverse diets composed of fewer starchy staple foods and more meat, dairy products, vegetables and fruits. This trend generally aligns with Bennett’s Law 25 , 55 , 56 . For example, research shows that with rapid economic growth, China’s urban or high-income groups increase their intake of non-starchy foods to fulfil their requirements of dietary diversity 35 , while poorer groups, often engaging in strenuous physical jobs, predominantly consume inexpensive starchy staple foods. One exception is Rest of Oceania, where poorer groups have higher percentages of emissions from not only tubers but also vegetables and fruits. Owing to relatively low expenditure on food, poor populations in this island region usually choose locally cultivated tubers and fruits (such as cassava, taro and bananas) 57 , 58 with high intensities of land-use emissions 59 .

The numbers at the bottom of each bar represent the expenditure levels of regional expenditure deciles, ranging from the poorest (1) to the wealthiest (10). Food categories are shown in the colour legend. a , United States. b , Australia. c , Western Europe. d , Canada. e , Japan. f , Russia. g , Rest of East Asia. h , Eastern Europe. i , China. j , Rest of Oceania. k , NENA. l , Brazil. m , ROLAC. n , Rest of Southeast Asia. o , Indonesia. p , India. q , Rest of South Asia. r , Sub-Saharan Africa.

Emission changes from adopting the planetary health diet

To estimate the emission changes from a global diet shift, we build a hypothetical scenario by assuming that everyone in all countries adopts the planetary health diet ( Methods ). Results indicate that the global dietary emissions would decrease by 17% (1.94 (1.51–2.39) GtCO 2 e) compared with the 2019 level (details of the uncertainty ranges can be found in Supplementary Tables 11 and 12 ). The presently overconsuming groups (56.9% of the global population) would save 32.4% of global emissions through diet shifts, more than offsetting the 15.4% increase in global emissions from the presently underconsuming groups (43.1% of the global population) as a result of adopting healthier diets (Supplementary Table 13 ). National dietary emissions in 100 countries would decline by 2.88 GtCO 2 e, whereas the other 39 countries (mainly low- and lower-middle-income countries 46 in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia) would have an increase in emissions by 938 MtCO 2 e (Fig. 5a ; for detailed food categories see Supplementary Figs. 12 – 20 ).

a , Volume changes and percentage changes of national emissions for 139 countries/areas. b , Regional emission changes from different food categories. Abbreviations of 18 regions and the source of the base map are listed in Fig. 1 caption.

Countries would be affected differently regarding emission changes by adopting the planetary health diet, reflected in the percentage change in national emissions (Fig. 5a ). Uzbekistan (−74%), Australia (−70%), Qatar (−67%), Turkey (−65%) and Tajikistan (−64%) would see the largest percentage decrease. In comparison, most of the countries with an estimated considerable percentage increase are located in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, with the largest percentage increase from Iraq (+155%). Notably, with the increase in per capita GDP, the percentage change in overall dietary emissions of countries shows a shift from a positive to a negative trend, primarily led by changes in animal-based emissions (Supplementary Fig. 21 ).

Global emission reduction would be dominantly driven by red meat and grains (Fig. 5b ). The reduction in meat, eggs and fish would lead to 2.04 GtCO 2 e of emission reduction, of which 94% is driven by the decrease in red meat. China (22%), the United States (15%) and Brazil (14%) would be the largest contributors to emission reduction associated with a decrease in red meat consumption. A decline in grains would result in 914 MtCO 2 e of emission reduction, of which 56% would happen in Asia. A further 240 and 89 MtCO 2 e reduction in emissions would come from reduced sugars and tubers, respectively. However, increased proteins (legumes and nuts and dairy products), added fats and vegetables and fruits would partly offset the above-reduced emissions by 41%. Intake of legumes and nuts would increase in all regions, leading to a further 757 MtCO 2 e of emissions, whereas most of the emission increase related to added fats (largely vegetable oils) (279 Mt) and dairy products (143 Mt) would take place in Sub-Saharan Africa, China and other Asian countries. Global dietary emissions associated with vegetables and fruits would increase by 163 Mt, despite declines in China and Rest of Oceania.

The decline in per capita GHG footprints would be achieved primarily in wealthy consumer groups in high- and upper-middle-income countries, while increased footprints would occur mainly in poor groups in most countries (Fig. 6a ). Results show that the shifts of chief protein sources from animal-based to plant-based proteins according to the planetary health diet 12 would contribute the most to changes in footprints globally (Fig. 6b ). For example, in Australia, Brazil, Canada and the United States where diets are dominated by red meat and dairy products, the top and upper-middle expenditure groups would have notable reductions in footprints. However, most populations in South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa would have a considerable increase in footprints because of the present low levels of red meat intake. Meanwhile, the present intake of plant-based proteins in all countries is below the recommended level 25 . Footprints related to legumes and nuts would increase for most expenditure groups in all regions to meet nutrient demands. This increase is particularly substantial in Rest of Oceania, Brazil, Indonesia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where most of the consumed legumes and nuts are domestically produced with high land-use emission intensities 59 , 60 , assuming the present production and trade patterns remain unchanged.

a , Changes in GHG footprints from all types of food categories. The size of the bubble refers to the average total expenditure represented by the decile. b , Changes in GHG footprints from different food categories. The colours of bubbles in a and b indicate expenditure deciles ranging from the poorest in blue to the wealthiest in red and are comparable only within each region.

Discussion and conclusions

This study uncovers the extent of inequality of dietary emissions within countries based on detailed expenditure data 17 , 34 and underlines the dependence of dietary emissions on expenditure and income levels. Emissions aggregated at expenditure deciles may lose some fine-grained information from the 201 expenditure groups. For example, people from the lowest expenditure groups in affluent countries may experience malnutrition or even hunger, which is not adequately captured at a decile level. Nevertheless, the GF-Gini coefficient calculated from 201 groups provides an accurate reflection of emission inequality. Results show that affluent countries consume high-emission diets but show relatively lower levels of inequality, whereas many poor countries tend to have diets with lower emissions but higher levels of inequality.

The objective of the diet shift scenario is to assess the potential implications of emission mitigation of the food system resulting from changing consumer choices. Widespread diet shifts offer dual benefits by moving 43.1% of the global population out of underconsumption and mitigating 17% of global dietary emissions. The simulated changes in the volume of global emissions under the planetary health diet approximate the findings by ref. 26 (Supplementary Discussion 1 ). However, worldwide diet shifts require tailored policies targeted at regions, countries, expenditure groups and products instead of ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies.

We find that, compared to plant-based products, animal-based products, particularly red meat and dairy products, exhibit greater potential for reducing both emission volumes and emission disparities among different expenditure groups. Priorities lie in reducing the overconsumption of specific emission-intensive products in affluent countries (particularly the high-expenditure groups), such as beef in Australia and the United States, to achieve health 9 , 12 and climate benefits 25 , 26 , 28 . Incentives, such as implementing subsidies or taxation on environmental externalities through food or carbon pricing 61 , ecolabelling 62 and expanding the availability of less emission-intensive products (for instance, menu design for diverse vegetarian foods 63 ), can encourage consumers to make dietary changes. Moreover, a well-designed (primarily urban) food environment can reshape residents’ dietary patterns 35 and the parallel development of urban planning and infrastructure can alleviate the time and financial burdens of shifts to healthier diets 64 . However, in countries such as Mongolia, where diets heavily rely on red meat and dairy products because of their traditional nomadic lifestyle and limited accessibility of diverse foods, especially in rural areas 48 , diet shifts may not be feasible but there is a need to improve national nutritional education 48 .

Low-income countries face more severe challenges in reaching healthier diets. On the one hand, diet shifts require increased food consumption in these countries. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the planetary health diet requires a 3.4-fold increase in dairy consumption for the entire population and a 69-fold increase for the poorest decile (Supplementary Fig. 22 ). However, Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia, which have experienced stagnating agriculture production efficiency for decades 8 , cannot produce domestically nor afford to import the food required for diet shifts 65 . It is crucial to enhance the production efficiency of feed and food crops through various measures such as crop and soil management techniques 8 , 66 and the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties and hybrids 67 , 68 . Moreover, increasing the proportions of nutrient-rich products in food imports 65 and reducing restrictive trade policies which tend to raise food prices 25 , 69 help to address this challenge. On the other hand, poor populations often opt for lower-cost, calorie-dense but less nutritionally beneficial foods. High cost and low affordability remain the largest barriers for these individuals to select healthier diets 44 , 54 , 70 , 71 . Others 44 found that >1.58 billion low-income populations worldwide cannot afford the cost of the planetary health diet. Therefore, policy efforts (for instance, pricing interventions 72 , technical assistance to reduce food production costs 73 and so on) should focus on making food more affordable and accessible, especially for lower expenditure groups 37 , 74 . However, studies indicate that lower food prices may decrease the income of agricultural households 75 , 76 , widen wealth gaps between individuals employed in food- and non-food sectors, especially in low-income agrarian countries and exacerbate rural poverty 1 , 77 . In this sense, policies aimed at promoting diet shifts should be deliberately and cautiously designed with vulnerable groups in mind to reduce inequality 37 , 61 .

Lastly, altered food demand due to diet shifts can induce notable structural adjustments within the global agri-food system. Although this study does not assess the feasibility of countries supplying sufficient food if the planetary health diet was adopted, results indicate that the composition of global food production would change considerably to adapt to the substantial changes in demand 8 , 25 , 77 . The diet shifts would necessitate the global supply (in calorie content) of red meat decrease by 81%, all sugars by 72%, tubers by 76% and grains by 50%, while that of legumes and nuts increase by 438%, added fats by 62% and vegetables and fruits by 28% (Supplementary Data 16 ). Research 77 , 78 confirms that changed food demand could cause fluctuating prices of agricultural products and land in global markets, triggering spillover effects between different food categories or to other non-food sectors (for example, stimulating biofuel production) and partly offsetting the benefits of diet shifts. Therefore, policy-making should focus on alleviating these effects. Incentives such as increased subsidies or tax breaks can generate new economic opportunities and motivations for industries that need to scale up production to meet the heightened demand for products (for example, plant-based proteins). By contrast, for emission-intensive food industries that need to downsize, measures such as gradual crop substitution 25 , 79 could be adopted to optimize production and reduce the costs of production transformations while safeguarding the interests of producers.

In this study, we first assess the GHG emissions from diets comprising 140 products 16 (Supplementary Table 14 ) in 139 countries or areas (we collectively use the term ‘country’ because most of them are individual countries) (Supplementary Data 1 ) in 2019 based on the global consumption-based emission inventory of detailed food products from ref. 16 . The inventory 16 provides data (in mass units) of GHG emissions (including CO 2 , CH 4 and N 2 O) generated during supply chain processes, including agricultural land use and land-use change (LULUC), agricultural activities and beyond-farm processes (excluding emissions from household and end of life) 4 . All emissions are allocated to final consumers of food products. The year 2019 (the latest year before the COVID-19 pandemic) is selected as a baseline year, which can reflect the level of present dietary intake without the interference of the pandemic 80 , 81 . Subsequently, dietary emissions from different expenditure groups are quantified by matching diets with the household-expenditure dataset 42 to reflect the differences and potential inequality of dietary emissions. Finally, to measure the magnitude of the emission impact of the global diet shift, we model the transition from diets in 2019 to the widespread adoption of the planetary health diet. The research framework of this study is shown in Supplementary Fig. 23 .

The following data sources are mainly used in this study. The consumption-based food emissions inventory 16 is based on data derived from the FAOSTAT 82 , comprising national emission accounts of supply chain processes and data on food trade and production. Data on food loss and waste throughout the global supply chain and at the household level as well as food supply data, all used for linking emissions with diets, are obtained from FAOSTAT 83 and previous research 25 , 39 . The household-expenditure data 41 are built on the basis of the WBGCD 42 and further refined and supplemented by consumer expenditure surveys from high-income countries 17 , 41 to bridge the dietary emissions with different expenditure groups. Detailed data sources used for calculation are provided in Supplementary Table 15 . Data processing, assumptions and uncertainties for all calculations are also given.

Dietary energy intake and emissions

Accounting of food consumption and supply chain emissions.

The estimation of the present dietary emissions and the emission changes for adopting the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet 12 is based on the accounting framework designed by ref. 16 . They assess global GHG emissions induced by the consumption of food products in 181 countries based on the physical trade flow approach 84 , 85 . Consumption-based GHG emissions along global supply chains, including local production and international trade, are calculated as follows 16 , 84 :

where E i,r refers to the consumption-based GHG emission of product i in country r . G i / P i represents the vector of direct emission intensity of product i from entire food supply chain processes, of which G i denotes total emissions generated from entire supply chain process of product i , P i is the production vector of product i . \({(I-{A}^{i})}^{-1}\) is the trade structure of product i , of which A i is the matrix of export shares and I is the identity matrix with the same dimension as matrix A i . DMI i refers to the vector of direct material input of product i and DMC i,r is the vector of domestic material consumption of product i in country r with values set to zero for other countries. The DMI of a country is defined as the total inputs of products and the DMC is defined as the amount of products consumed domestically. DMI equals DMC plus exports of products (or production plus imports). F i refers to the vector of total (or consumption-based) emission intensity of product i from food supply chain processes, that is, total emissions induced by per unit of domestic consumption of product i . All variables in equation ( 1 ) are in units of mass (metric tonnes).

Feed products are excluded from diets because emissions from feed crops have been allocated to livestock products that consume feed during production 16 . Food loss and waste (FLW) along supply chains and households are subtracted to quantify the net intake amount of food products from the household stage.

Dietary calorie conversions

We use the annual per capita food supply (FS) quantity of 140 food products from the supply utilization accounts of FAOSTAT 83 and population from the United Nations 86 to calculate the total supply amount of product i in country r (FS i,r , in the unit of mass):

where \({{\rm{FS}}}_{{\rm{per}}}^{i}\) denotes the per capita supply of product i per year and p r refers to the population in country r .

To be consistently matched with the DMC , the FS values should be limited within the coverage of the DMC and values that exceed this range are removed. At the same time, to aggregate food products into food categories and compare their nutritional contents with the reference level from the planetary health diet, we convert the quantity of food consumption or supply into calorie content using product-specific nutritive factors (calories per unit weight of product) 87 , 88 from FAO (Supplementary Table 14 ).

Subtracting food loss and waste at the household level

The food supply derived from FAOSTAT datasets does not exclude FLW that happens during household consumption 25 . FLW before dietary intake can be divided into two parts: the FLW during supply chain processes (including agricultural production, postharvest handling and storage, processing and packaging and distribution) as well as the FLW during the food preparation and supply for household consumption 39 , 40 . The food supply value provided by FAOSTAT only excludes FLW during supply chain processes. Therefore, we exclude household FLW using the method by ref. 25 to calculate the annual dietary intake for each product as follows:

where DI i,r and \({{\rm{DI}}}_{{\rm{per}}}^{i,r}\) refer to the national and per capita caloric intake amount of product i in country r each year, respectively. \({{\rm{FS}}}_{{\rm{energy}}}^{i,r}\) and \({{\rm{FS}}}_{{\rm{energy}\_per}}^{i,r}\) are the national and per capita supply quantity (in calorie content) of product i annually, respectively. Parameter \({f}_{{\rm{FLW}}}^{\;i,r}\) is the FLW factor in the household consumption stage 39 of food product i in country r . Others 39 provide regional FLW factors, expressed as the weight percentage of food that is lost or wasted at different stages of food production and consumption, for different food categories. As a result, household food waste is subtracted from the FS to obtain the dietary intake amount of each product. Detailed household FLW factors are shown in Supplementary Table 16 .

Quantifying dietary GHG emissions

Our equation ( 1 ) can be transformed into the following equation to calculate the total emission intensity of food calorie consumption:

where \({F}_{{\rm{energy}}}^{\,i,r}\) represents total emissions per unit of calorie content of product i in country r , \({{\rm{DMC}}}_{{\rm{energy}}}^{i,r}\) refers to total calorie content of product i consumed domestically in country r . Then, emissions from the dietary intake (without FLW) of product i in country r ( \({E}_{{\rm{intake}}}^{\,i,r}\) ) are calculated as follows:

Classification of food categories

The EAT-Lancet Commission report provides coverage of different food categories in the planetary health diet and their recommended caloric intake levels at 2,500 kcal for adults each day 12 (Supplementary Table 17 ). In this study, we classify 140 products into 13 aggregated food categories according to the planetary health diet 12 , including grains, tubers or starchy vegetables, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, red meat (beef, lamb and pork), chicken and other poultry, eggs, fish, legumes, nuts, added fats (both unsaturated and saturated oils) and all sugars. On the basis of the data availability of the FAOSTAT 4 , 82 , the food products in this study include both primary and processed products (primary and secondary food processing) which can be classified into specific food categories 16 . Ultraprocessed products that combine ingredients from several food categories, such as ice creams made from both dairy and sugar, are not considered. Detailed coverages of each food category and their mapping relationship with specific products are shown in Supplementary Table 18 .

Matching diets with the household-expenditure dataset

We explore the dietary emissions from consumers with different expenditure levels (defined as expenditure groups) using the household-expenditure dataset 41 for the year 2011. The dataset, containing 116 countries and almost 90% of the global population (Supplementary Table 19 ), is primarily based on the household survey microdata from the WBGCD 42 , supplemented by consumer expenditure surveys of national statistical offices from high-income countries such as the United States and European countries 17 , 41 . For every country in the dataset, 201 expenditure groups (grouped according to the per capita total expenditure of each group) and the corresponding population share are listed. The annual per capita expenditure of people in different expenditure groups ranges from <US$50 to ~US$1 million per year (expressed in 2011 Purchasing Power Parities, PPP) 31 , 34 . For each expenditure group, the expenditure for 33 different sectors of goods and services (including 11 food items) and the corresponding expenditure share in national consumption of each sector are provided 31 , 34 , 41 . For some affluent (or poor) countries that do not have a sufficient representative number of people at the bottom (or top) end of the expenditure spectrum, the population in the corresponding expenditure groups is empty. Expenditure shares of 11 food items are matched with the 140 products in this study (Supplementary Table 20 ). We calculate the dietary intake of different food products for each expenditure group in each country by multiplying the food expenditure share of groups with the total dietary intake amounts of food products of each country.

This study assumes that the amount of food consumption is proportionate to food expenditures and the purchasing price for the same product is unchanged across 201 groups ignoring higher prices for high-quality or luxury food items within the same food category. Although the assumption of an unchanged purchasing price is an unsolved limitation shared by similar studies using monetary expenditure data 31 , 34 , 41 , household expenditures on food can still effectively highlight the differences in food consumption and emissions across consumer groups with different affordability of, and spending on, food. We also assume that the proportion of food sources from local production and trade for the same food category remains constant across the 201 groups. In other words, the magnitude of dietary emissions is solely determined by the size and pattern of food expenditure of each group and the associated supply chains for each food consumption item.

For countries that are major food consumers (and emitters) but without data in WBGCD, expenditure shares from countries with similar development levels and eating habits and neighbouring geographical locations are used to calculate the distribution of their food expenditure. We finally select 201 expenditure groups in 139 countries/areas, covering 95% of the global population in 2019 (Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary Data 3 ). Details for dealing with missing data are provided in Supplementary Table 7 . Countries or areas are then classified into 18 regions for comparison according to geographical locations (Supplementary Table 8 ). The WBGCD expenditure data from the year 2011 are adjusted to PPP in 2019 to represent the expenditure level of populations in figures. Results of emissions from 13 types of food categories of 201 expenditure groups at the national and regional levels are shown in Supplementary Data 8 , 10 and 11 .

Analysis of GF-Gini coefficients

Calculation of gf-gini coefficients.

This study uses the GF-Gini coefficient 33 , 89 , which is based on the well-known Gini coefficient 90 , to measure the inequality of GHG footprints from 201 expenditure groups within countries, regions and globally. The GF-Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, indicating the emission distribution across expenditure groups changes from perfect equality to perfect inequality. The GF-Gini coefficient of each food category is calculated as 33 :

where Gini j indicate the GF-Gini coefficient of food category j (including product i , i  = 1, 2, 3, …, n ). Expenditure groups and their population are reordered in ascending order of per capita GHG footprint of food category j and m refers to the reordered number of groups ( m  = 1, 2, 3, …, 201). \({D}_{m}^{j}\) and \({Y}_{m}^{j}\) represent the proportions of population and GHG footprints (of food category j ) for each expenditure group, respectively. \({T}_{m}^{j}\) is the cumulative proportion of GHG footprints of each expenditure group. The results of national, regional and global GF-Gini coefficients are shown in Supplementary Tables 9 and 10 .

Regression analysis

We use the regression approach to examine the relationship between the national GF-Gini coefficients and the per capita GDP 91 , 92 of 139 countries/areas. The GF-Gini coefficient of each country is regarded as the dependent variable ( y ) and the national per capita GDP acts as the independent variable ( x ). Initially, locally weighted regression is applied to illustrate the trend lines within the scatterplot. Subsequently, we test different regression methods for validation based on the general trend. Ultimately, we found that logarithmic regression is the most fitting for dietary emissions of most food categories, particularly in the case of animal-based products. Thus, the logarithmic regression is applied.

Scenario of the planetary health diet

Scenario setting and assumptions.

To estimate the emission changes resulting from the transition from the 2019 diet to the global planetary health diet, we build a hypothetical scenario by assuming that individuals belonging to 201 different expenditure groups in all countries will all reach the reference intake level of 13 types of food categories 12 . First, we assume that the proportion of food sources from local production and trade in each country is unchanged, that is, emission changes from dietary shifts would be calculated on the basis of emissions from local production and imports accounting for emissions along global food supply chains, similar to studies by refs. 25 , 26 . At the same time, emission changes induced by decreased food consumption in countries following the planetary health diet, such as carbon uptake from agriculture abandonment 59 or emission increase from non-food biomass production in saved agricultural land 77 , are not considered in this study. Second, we assume that agricultural and food-related production technology, trade patterns and emission intensities of food supply chain processes remain unchanged during the diet transition. Third, fluctuations in food prices induced by altered food demand or the affordability of the planetary health diet for different consumer groups are not considered in this study.

Diet gaps for different food categories

The diet gap (DG) reflects gaps between present dietary intake and the planetary health diet 12 , 25 , as follows:

where \({{\rm{DG}}}_{{\rm{per}}}^{j,r}\) is defined as the percentage ratio of the present per capita caloric intake of food category j in country r each year ( \({{\rm{DI}}}_{{\rm{per}}}^{\,j,r}\) ) to the annual reference level ( \({{\rm{DI}}}_{{\rm{EAT}}\_{\rm{per}}}^{i}\) ). \({{\rm{DI}}}_{{\rm{EAT}\_day\_per}}^{\,j}\) is the recommended per capita caloric intake of food category j each day 12 (Supplementary Table 17 ). We assume a uniform annual calorie reference level for each food category across all populations in all countries. We allow flexibility in local diets by keeping the composition of each food category unchanged, requiring only that the calorie content reaches the reference level. According to the definition, present food intake is considered insufficient compared with reference levels when DG is <100%, while it is deemed excessive and should be reduced when DG is >100%. Daily per capita caloric intake of food categories from 201 expenditure groups of countries or regions are shown in Supplementary Data 12 and 13 . We calculate the DG for food categories of 201 expenditure groups at national and regional levels (Supplementary Data 14 and 15 ).

According to equation ( 1 ), the total emissions per unit of calorie content of food category j in country r ( \({F}_{{\rm{energy}}}^{\;j,r}\) ) can be calculated as:

where E j,r refers to the national emissions due to consumption of food category j in country r . Thus, emission changes for adopting the planetary health diet are calculated as follows:

where \(\Delta {E}_{{\rm{intake}}}^{\;j,r}\) represents the national emission changes of food category j in country r , \({E}_{{\rm{intake}}}^{\;j,r}\) is the national emissions from intake of food category j in country r . Changes in dietary emissions of food categories from 201 groups are shown in Supplementary Data 9 . The number of people with increased/decreased emissions from 201 groups is shown in Supplementary Data 19 .

Uncertainty analysis

We assess the uncertainty range of dietary emissions from different food products using a Monte Carlo approach, which simulates the uncertainties caused by activity data, emission factors and parameters in each emission process 16 , 59 , 93 . More details can be found in Supplementary Methods 1 .

Limitations

This study has the following limitations regarding data analysis and scenario setting.

In terms of data analysis, this study is limited by the data availability. First, we use regional household food loss and waste factors of aggregated food categories without more detailed product division at the national level because of a lack of data. There might also be differences between calculated and actual food intake amounts that are unable to be removed, such as animal bones or fruit skins 25 . Second, we use the consumer household-expenditure dataset based on WBGCD for the year 2011, which provides the most precise and detailed differentiation of consumer groups and their consumption patterns within countries so far. We assume that the shares in food expenditure and population for each expenditure group are the same as in 2011. Third, we assume that the composition of different products aggregated in one category consumed by expenditure groups is the same as the national consumption composition and there is no difference in the price of food products purchased by people from different expenditure groups. In addition, data for some populous high- or upper-middle-income countries are missing from the household-expenditure dataset. However, the countries are the world’s major food consumers and emitters, their emission changes due to diet shifts are important for the global food system. We use the expenditure shares of similar countries in the household-expenditure dataset to allocate the distributions of food expenditure in these countries.

In terms of scenario setting, we focus on the impact induced by changes in consumer choices without changing the proportion of food supply sources (domestic production and imports). We do not consider altering the proportions of supply sources and associated emissions in this study. However, future studies may explore the impacts of the production side and supply chains for diet shifts. Moreover, as we focus on the present emission inequality and mitigation potentials within the food system, we assume that the income and expenditure levels of expenditure groups remain unchanged. However, a shift in food supply may affect household income and subsequently alter the household food budgets, especially for populations employed in, or countries reliant on, food-related sectors. Additionally, as a result of data and model limitations, this study does not consider price fluctuations induced by food demand and subsequent changes in household affordability or spillover effects (between food categories or to non-food sectors). Future studies may combine assessment models incorporating elasticities to project the long-term feasibilities and consequences of diet shifts.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

Data for LULUC, agricultural and beyond-farm emissions and data for physical food consumption are curated by the FAO and can be freely obtained from FAOSTAT 82 , available from ref. 16 . Data of food loss and waste rate are retrieved from FAOSTAT 82 and ref. 25 . The global household-expenditure data are obtained from the World Bank 42 and refs. 17 , 41 . Population data used in this study are obtained from World Population Prospects of the United Nations 86 . Data on per capita GDP in countries can be collected from the World Bank 91 and the International Monetary Fund 92 . Supplementary datasets are also available on Zenodo ( https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11934909 ) 94 . Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Data collection is performed in MATLAB and Microsoft Excel. Code developed for data processing in MATLAB and R in this study is available from Zenodo ( https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11880402 ) 95 .

Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 4146–4151 (2016).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kesse-Guyot, E. et al. Sustainability analysis of French dietary guidelines using multiple criteria. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 377–385 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2 , 198–209 (2021).

Tubiello, F. N. et al. Pre-and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14 , 1795–1809 (2022).

Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5 °C and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 370 , 705–708 (2020).

Ivanovich, C. C., Sun, T., Gordon, D. R. & Ocko, I. B. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat. Clim. Change 13 , 297–302 (2023).

Béné, C. et al. Five priorities to operationalize the EAT-Lancet Commission report. Nat. Food 1 , 457–459 (2020).

Navarre, N., Schrama, M., de Vos, C. & Mogollón, J. M. Interventions for sourcing EAT-Lancet diets within national agricultural areas: a global analysis. One Earth 6 , 31–40 (2023).

Laine, J. E. et al. Co-benefits from sustainable dietary shifts for population and environmental health: an assessment from a large European cohort study. Lancet Planet. Health 5 , e786–e796 (2021).

Craig, W. J. Health effects of vegan diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 , S1627–S1633 (2009).

Afshin, A. et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393 , 1958–1972 (2019).

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 , 447–492 (2019).

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0639en

Bajželj, B. et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4 , 924–929 (2014).

Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562 , 519–525 (2018).

Li, Y. et al. Changes in global food consumption increase GHG emissions despite efficiency gains along global supply chains. Nat. Food 4 , 483–495 (2023).

Hubacek, K., Baiocchi, G., Feng, K. & Patwardhan, A. Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained world. Nat. Commun. 8 , 912 (2017).

Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World (United Nations, 2017); https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Humpenöder, F. et al. Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein. Nature 605 , 90–96 (2022).

Hasegawa, T., Havlík, P., Frank, S., Palazzo, A. & Valin, H. Tackling food consumption inequality to fight hunger without pressuring the environment. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 826–833 (2019).

Kim, B. F. et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob. Environ. Change 62 , 101926 (2020).

Denton, F. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 1727–1790 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515 , 518–522 (2014).

Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2 , e451–e461 (2018).

Tuninetti, M., Ridolfi, L. & Laio, F. Compliance with EAT-Lancet dietary guidelines would reduce global water footprint but increase it for 40% of the world population. Nat. Food 3 , 143–151 (2022).

Semba, R. D. et al. Adoption of the ‘planetary health diet’ has different impacts on countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Food 1 , 481–484 (2020).

Guo, Y. et al. Environmental and human health trade-offs in potential Chinese dietary shifts. One Earth 5 , 268–282 (2022).

Sun, Z. et al. Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat. Food 3 , 29–37 (2022).

Mbow, C. et al. in Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 5 (IPCC, 2019); https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCCL_Chapter_5.pdf

Millward-Hopkins, J. & Oswald, Y. Reducing global inequality to secure human wellbeing and climate safety: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 7 , e147–e154 (2023).

Guan, Y. et al. Burden of the global energy price crisis on households. Nat. Energy 8 , 304–316 (2023).

Hubacek, K. et al. Global carbon inequality. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2 , 361–369 (2017).

Mi, Z. et al. Economic development and converging household carbon footprints in China. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 529–537 (2020).

Bruckner, B., Hubacek, K., Shan, Y., Zhong, H. & Feng, K. Impacts of poverty alleviation on national and global carbon emissions. Nat. Sustain. 5 , 311–320 (2022).

He, P., Baiocchi, G., Hubacek, K., Feng, K. & Yu, Y. The environmental impacts of rapidly changing diets and their nutritional quality in China. Nat. Sustain. 1 , 122–127 (2018).

Rao, N. D. et al. Healthy, affordable and climate-friendly diets in India. Glob. Environ. Change 49 , 154–165 (2018).

He, P., Feng, K., Baiocchi, G., Sun, L. & Hubacek, K. Shifts towards healthy diets in the US can reduce environmental impacts but would be unaffordable for poorer minorities. Nat. Food 2 , 664–672 (2021).

Reynolds, C. J., Horgan, G. W., Whybrow, S. & Macdiarmid, J. I. Healthy and sustainable diets that meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and are affordable for different income groups in the UK. Public Health Nutr. 22 , 1503–1517 (2019).

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R. & Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste-Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO, 2011); https://www.fao.org/3/mb060e/mb060e00.htm

Kummu, M. et al. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438 , 477–489 (2012).

Zhong, H., Feng, K., Sun, L., Cheng, L. & Hubacek, K. Household carbon and energy inequality in Latin American and Caribbean countries. J. Environ. Manag. 273 , 110979 (2020).

Global Consumption Database (World Bank, 2022); https://datatopics.worldbank.org/consumption/

Wier, M., Birr-Pedersen, K., Jacobsen, H. K. & Klok, J. Are CO 2 taxes regressive? Evidence from the Danish experience. Ecol. Econ. 52 , 239–251 (2005).

Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Affordability of the EAT-Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8 , e59–e66 (2020).

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023 (FAO, 2023); https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3017en

World Bank Country and Lending Groups (World Bank, 2021); https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups

Okou, C., Spray, J. A. & Unsal, M. F. D. Staple Food Prices in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Empirical Assessment (International Monetary Fund, 2022); https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/07/08/Staple-Food-Prices-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa-An-Empirical-Assessment-520567

Delgermaa, D., Yamaguchi, M., Nomura, M. & Nishi, N. Assessment of Mongolian dietary intake for planetary and human health. PLoS Glob. Public Health 3 , e0001229 (2023).

Burkhart, S., Underhill, S. & Raneri, J. Realizing the potential of neglected and underutilized bananas in improving diets for nutrition and health outcomes in the Pacific Islands. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6 , 805776 (2022).

Pingali, P. Agricultural policy and nutrition outcomes—getting beyond the preoccupation with staple grains. Food Secur. 7 , 583–591 (2015).

Sibhatu, K. T. & Qaim, M. Rural food security, subsistence agriculture and seasonality. PloS ONE 12 , e0186406 (2017).

Headey, D. D. & Alderman, H. H. The relative caloric prices of healthy and unhealthy foods differ systematically across income levels and continents. J. Nutr. 149 , 2020–2033 (2019).

Bai, Y., Alemu, R., Block, S. A., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Cost and affordability of nutritious diets at retail prices: evidence from 177 countries. Food Policy 99 , 101983 (2021).

Batis, C. et al. Adoption of healthy and sustainable diets in Mexico does not imply higher expenditure on food. Nat. Food 2 , 792–801 (2021).

Bennett, M. K. International contrasts in food consumption. Geogr. Rev. 31 , 365–376 (1941).

D’Odorico, P. et al. The global food–energy–water nexus. Rev. Geophys. 56 , 456–531 (2018).

Traditional Pacific Island Crops (Univ. Hawaii, 2024); https://guides.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/paccrops

Fiji—Agricultural Commodities (International Trade Administration, 2022); https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/fiji-agricultural-commodities

Hong, C. et al. Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017. Nature 589 , 554–561 (2021).

Hong, C. et al. Land-use emissions embodied in international trade. Science 376 , 597–603 (2022).

Darmon, N., Lacroix, A., Muller, L. & Ruffieux, B. Food price policies improve diet quality while increasing socioeconomic inequalities in nutrition. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 11 , 66 (2014).

Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360 , 987–992 (2018).

Bacon, L. & Krpan, D. (Not) Eating for the environment: the impact of restaurant menu design on vegetarian food choice. Appetite 125 , 190–200 (2018).

Swinburn, B. A. et al. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition and climate change: the Lancet Commission report. Lancet 393 , 791–846 (2019).

Geyik, O., Hadjikakou, M., Karapinar, B. & Bryan, B. A. Does global food trade close the dietary nutrient gap for the world’s poorest nations? Glob. Food Secur. 28 , 100490 (2021).

Pradhan, P., Fischer, G., Van Velthuizen, H., Reusser, D. E. & Kropp, J. P. Closing yield gaps: how sustainable can we be. PloS ONE 10 , e0129487 (2015).

Sánchez, P. A. Tripling crop yields in tropical Africa. Nat. Geosci. 3 , 299–300 (2010).

Huang, J., Pray, C. & Rozelle, S. Enhancing the crops to feed the poor. Nature 418 , 678–684 (2002).

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets (FAO, 2020); https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en?details=ca9692en

Allcott, H. et al. Food deserts and the causes of nutritional inequality. Q. J. Econ. 134 , 1793–1844 (2019).

Springmann, M., Clark, M. A., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P. & Webb, P. The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 5 , e797–e807 (2021).

Darmon, N. & Drewnowski, A. Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutr. Rev. 73 , 643–660 (2015).

Baylis, K., Peplow, S., Rausser, G. & Simon, L. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison. Ecol. Econ. 65 , 753–764 (2008).

Swinnen, J. The right price of food. Dev. Policy Rev. 29 , 667–688 (2011).

Headey, D. D. Food prices and poverty. World Bank Econ. Rev. 32 , 676–691 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Headey, D. & Hirvonen, K. Higher food prices can reduce poverty and stimulate growth in food production. Nat. Food 4 , 699–706 (2023).

Gatto, A., Kuiper, M. & van Meijl, H. Economic, social and environmental spillovers decrease the benefits of a global dietary shift. Nat. Food 4 , 496–507 (2023).

Puma, M. J., Bose, S., Chon, S. Y. & Cook, B. I. Assessing the evolving fragility of the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 024007 (2015).

Davis, K. F. et al. Alternative cereals can improve water use and nutrient supply in India. Sci. Adv. 4 , eaao1108 (2018).

Le Quéré, C. et al. Temporary reduction in daily global CO 2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 647–653 (2020).

Shan, Y. et al. Impacts of COVID-19 and fiscal stimuli on global emissions and the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 200–206 (2021).

FAOSTAT Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/

Supply Utilization Accounts, Food Blances, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/SCL

Kastner, T., Kastner, M. & Nonhebel, S. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 70 , 1032–1040 (2011).

Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Haberl, H. Rapid growth in agricultural trade: effects on global area efficiency and the role of management. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 , 034015 (2014).

World Population Prospects 2022 (United Nations, 2022); https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/

Food Balance Sheets—A Handbook (FAO, 2001); https://www.fao.org/3/x9892e/X9892e05.htm#P8217_125315

Nutritive Factors (FAO, 2023); https://www.fao.org/economic/the-statistics-division-ess/publications-studies/publications/nutritive-factors/en/

Wiedenhofer, D. et al. Unequal household carbon footprints in China. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 75–80 (2017).

Gini, C. Measurement of inequality of incomes. Econ. J. 31 , 124–125 (1921).

The World Bank Data: GDP per Capita (Current US$) (World Bank, 2023); https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD

Datasets, World Economic Outlook (April 2023): GDP per Capita, Current Prices (IMF, 2023); https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD

Xu, X. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2 , 724–732 (2021).

Li, Y. et al. Supplementary Datasets for ‘Reducing climate change impacts from the global food system through diet shifts’. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11934909 (2024).

Li, Y. et al. Code for ‘Reducing climate change impacts from the global food system through diet shifts’. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11880402 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos 72243004, 32101315, 71904098). Y.S. and S.S. acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 72243004). Yu Li acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 32101315). P.H. acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under a Young Scholar Programme Grant (grant no. 71904098). Yanxian Li and Y.H. acknowledge the funding support by the China Scholarship Council PhD programme. We thank Y. Zhou for supporting visualization and J. Yan for assisting in writing and revising. For the purpose of open access, a CC BY public copyright license is applied to any author accepted manuscript arising from this submission.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Integrated Research on Energy, Environment and Society (IREES), Energy and Sustainability Research Institute Groningen (ESRIG), University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

Yanxian Li, Franco Ruzzenenti & Klaus Hubacek

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Yuli Shan & Ye Hang

School of Public Administration, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, China

School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Yanxian Li, Y.S. and K.H. designed the research. Yanxian Li performed the analysis with support from P.H., Yu Li, Y.H. and S.S. on analytical approaches and visualization. Yanxian Li led the writing with efforts from P.H., Y.S., F.R. and K.H. Y.S. and K.H. supervised and coordinated the overall research. All co-authors reviewed and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yuli Shan or Klaus Hubacek .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Climate Change thanks Catharina Latka and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Methods, Discussion, Figs. 1–23, Tables 1–24 and references.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary data.

Detailed data for calculated results in this study.

Source Data Fig. 1

Source data for creating Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data for creating Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Source data for creating Fig. 3.

Source Data Fig. 4

Source data for creating Fig. 4.

Source data Fig. 5

Source data for creating Fig. 5.

Source Data Fig. 6

Source data for creating Fig. 6.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, Y., He, P., Shan, Y. et al. Reducing climate change impacts from the global food system through diet shifts. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02084-1

Download citation

Received : 07 November 2023

Accepted : 05 July 2024

Published : 13 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02084-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Global Warming

• Updated on  
• Apr 27, 2024

Being able to write an essay is an integral part of mastering any language. Essays form an integral part of many academic and scholastic exams like the SAT, and UPSC amongst many others. It is a crucial evaluative part of English proficiency tests as well like IELTS, TOEFL, etc. Major essays are meant to emphasize public issues of concern that can have significant consequences on the world. To understand the concept of Global Warming and its causes and effects, we must first examine the many factors that influence the planet’s temperature and what this implies for the world’s future. Here’s an unbiased look at the essay on Global Warming and other essential related topics.

Short Essay on Global Warming and Climate Change?

Since the industrial and scientific revolutions, Earth’s resources have been gradually depleted. Furthermore, the start of the world’s population’s exponential expansion is particularly hard on the environment. Simply put, as the population’s need for consumption grows, so does the use of natural resources , as well as the waste generated by that consumption.

Climate change has been one of the most significant long-term consequences of this. Climate change is more than just the rise or fall of global temperatures; it also affects rain cycles, wind patterns, cyclone frequencies, sea levels, and other factors. It has an impact on all major life groupings on the planet.

Also Read: Essay on Yoga Day

Also Read: Speech on Yoga Day

What is Global Warming?

Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century, primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels . The greenhouse gases consist of methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, carbon dioxide, water vapour, and chlorofluorocarbons. The weather prediction has been becoming more complex with every passing year, with seasons more indistinguishable, and the general temperatures hotter.

The number of hurricanes, cyclones, droughts, floods, etc., has risen steadily since the onset of the 21st century. The supervillain behind all these changes is Global Warming. The name is quite self-explanatory; it means the rise in the temperature of the Earth.

Also Read: What is a Natural Disaster?

What are the Causes of Global Warming?

According to recent studies, many scientists believe the following are the primary four causes of global warming:

• Deforestation 
• Greenhouse emissions
• Carbon emissions per capita

Extreme global warming is causing natural disasters , which can be seen all around us. One of the causes of global warming is the extreme release of greenhouse gases that become trapped on the earth’s surface, causing the temperature to rise. Similarly, volcanoes contribute to global warming by spewing excessive CO2 into the atmosphere.

The increase in population is one of the major causes of Global Warming. This increase in population also leads to increased air pollution . Automobiles emit a lot of CO2, which remains in the atmosphere. This increase in population is also causing deforestation, which contributes to global warming.

The earth’s surface emits energy into the atmosphere in the form of heat, keeping the balance with the incoming energy. Global warming depletes the ozone layer, bringing about the end of the world. There is a clear indication that increased global warming will result in the extinction of all life on Earth’s surface.

Also Read: Land, Soil, Water, Natural Vegetation, and Wildlife Resources

Solutions for Global Warming

Of course, industries and multinational conglomerates emit more carbon than the average citizen. Nonetheless, activism and community effort are the only viable ways to slow the worsening effects of global warming. Furthermore, at the state or government level, world leaders must develop concrete plans and step-by-step programmes to ensure that no further harm is done to the environment in general.

Although we are almost too late to slow the rate of global warming, finding the right solution is critical. Everyone, from individuals to governments, must work together to find a solution to Global Warming. Some of the factors to consider are pollution control, population growth, and the use of natural resources.

One very important contribution you can make is to reduce your use of plastic. Plastic is the primary cause of global warming, and recycling it takes years. Another factor to consider is deforestation, which will aid in the control of global warming. More tree planting should be encouraged to green the environment. Certain rules should also govern industrialization. Building industries in green zones that affect plants and species should be prohibited.

Also Read: Essay on Pollution

Effects of Global Warming

Global warming is a real problem that many people want to disprove to gain political advantage. However, as global citizens, we must ensure that only the truth is presented in the media.

This decade has seen a significant impact from global warming. The two most common phenomena observed are glacier retreat and arctic shrinkage. Glaciers are rapidly melting. These are clear manifestations of climate change.

Another significant effect of global warming is the rise in sea level. Flooding is occurring in low-lying areas as a result of sea-level rise. Many countries have experienced extreme weather conditions. Every year, we have unusually heavy rain, extreme heat and cold, wildfires, and other natural disasters.

Similarly, as global warming continues, marine life is being severely impacted. This is causing the extinction of marine species as well as other problems. Furthermore, changes are expected in coral reefs, which will face extinction in the coming years. These effects will intensify in the coming years, effectively halting species expansion. Furthermore, humans will eventually feel the negative effects of Global Warming.

Also Read: Concept of Sustainable Development

Sample Essays on Global Warming

Here are some sample essays on Global Warming:

Essay on Global Warming Paragraph in 100 – 150 words

Global Warming is caused by the increase of carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere and is a result of human activities that have been causing harm to our environment for the past few centuries now. Global Warming is something that can’t be ignored and steps have to be taken to tackle the situation globally. The average temperature is constantly rising by 1.5 degrees Celsius over the last few years.

The best method to prevent future damage to the earth, cutting down more forests should be banned and Afforestation should be encouraged. Start by planting trees near your homes and offices, participate in events, and teach the importance of planting trees. It is impossible to undo the damage but it is possible to stop further harm.

Also Read: Social Forestry

Essay on Global Warming in 250 Words

Over a long period, it is observed that the temperature of the earth is increasing. This affected wildlife, animals, humans, and every living organism on earth. Glaciers have been melting, and many countries have started water shortages, flooding, and erosion and all this is because of global warming. 

No one can be blamed for global warming except for humans. Human activities such as gases released from power plants, transportation, and deforestation have increased gases such as carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants in the earth’s atmosphere.                                              The main question is how can we control the current situation and build a better world for future generations. It starts with little steps by every individual. 

Start using cloth bags made from sustainable materials for all shopping purposes, instead of using high-watt lights use energy-efficient bulbs, switch off the electricity, don’t waste water, abolish deforestation and encourage planting more trees. Shift the use of energy from petroleum or other fossil fuels to wind and solar energy. Instead of throwing out the old clothes donate them to someone so that it is recycled. 

Donate old books, don’t waste paper.  Above all, spread awareness about global warming. Every little thing a person does towards saving the earth will contribute in big or small amounts. We must learn that 1% effort is better than no effort. Pledge to take care of Mother Nature and speak up about global warming.

Also Read: Types of Water Pollution

Essay on Global Warming in 500 Words

Global warming isn’t a prediction, it is happening! A person denying it or unaware of it is in the most simple terms complicit. Do we have another planet to live on? Unfortunately, we have been bestowed with this one planet only that can sustain life yet over the years we have turned a blind eye to the plight it is in. Global warming is not an abstract concept but a global phenomenon occurring ever so slowly even at this moment. Global Warming is a phenomenon that is occurring every minute resulting in a gradual increase in the Earth’s overall climate. Brought about by greenhouse gases that trap the solar radiation in the atmosphere, global warming can change the entire map of the earth, displacing areas, flooding many countries, and destroying multiple lifeforms. Extreme weather is a direct consequence of global warming but it is not an exhaustive consequence. There are virtually limitless effects of global warming which are all harmful to life on earth. The sea level is increasing by 0.12 inches per year worldwide. This is happening because of the melting of polar ice caps because of global warming. This has increased the frequency of floods in many lowland areas and has caused damage to coral reefs. The Arctic is one of the worst-hit areas affected by global warming. Air quality has been adversely affected and the acidity of the seawater has also increased causing severe damage to marine life forms. Severe natural disasters are brought about by global warming which has had dire effects on life and property. As long as mankind produces greenhouse gases, global warming will continue to accelerate. The consequences are felt at a much smaller scale which will increase to become drastic shortly. The power to save the day lies in the hands of humans, the need is to seize the day. Energy consumption should be reduced on an individual basis. Fuel-efficient cars and other electronics should be encouraged to reduce the wastage of energy sources. This will also improve air quality and reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global warming is an evil that can only be defeated when fought together. It is better late than never. If we all take steps today, we will have a much brighter future tomorrow. Global warming is the bane of our existence and various policies have come up worldwide to fight it but that is not enough. The actual difference is made when we work at an individual level to fight it. Understanding its import now is crucial before it becomes an irrevocable mistake. Exterminating global warming is of utmost importance and each one of us is as responsible for it as the next.  

Also Read: Essay on Library: 100, 200 and 250 Words

Essay on Global Warming UPSC

Always hear about global warming everywhere, but do we know what it is? The evil of the worst form, global warming is a phenomenon that can affect life more fatally. Global warming refers to the increase in the earth’s temperature as a result of various human activities. The planet is gradually getting hotter and threatening the existence of lifeforms on it. Despite being relentlessly studied and researched, global warming for the majority of the population remains an abstract concept of science. It is this concept that over the years has culminated in making global warming a stark reality and not a concept covered in books. Global warming is not caused by one sole reason that can be curbed. Multifarious factors cause global warming most of which are a part of an individual’s daily existence. Burning of fuels for cooking, in vehicles, and for other conventional uses, a large amount of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, and methane amongst many others is produced which accelerates global warming. Rampant deforestation also results in global warming as lesser green cover results in an increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is a greenhouse gas.  Finding a solution to global warming is of immediate importance. Global warming is a phenomenon that has to be fought unitedly. Planting more trees can be the first step that can be taken toward warding off the severe consequences of global warming. Increasing the green cover will result in regulating the carbon cycle. There should be a shift from using nonrenewable energy to renewable energy such as wind or solar energy which causes less pollution and thereby hinder the acceleration of global warming. Reducing energy needs at an individual level and not wasting energy in any form is the most important step to be taken against global warming. The warning bells are tolling to awaken us from the deep slumber of complacency we have slipped into. Humans can fight against nature and it is high time we acknowledged that. With all our scientific progress and technological inventions, fighting off the negative effects of global warming is implausible. We have to remember that we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our future generations and the responsibility lies on our shoulders to bequeath them a healthy planet for life to exist. 

Also Read: Essay on Disaster Management

Climate Change and Global Warming Essay

Global Warming and Climate Change are two sides of the same coin. Both are interrelated with each other and are two issues of major concern worldwide. Greenhouse gases released such as carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants in the earth’s atmosphere cause Global Warming which leads to climate change. Black holes have started to form in the ozone layer that protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. 

Human activities have created climate change and global warming. Industrial waste and fumes are the major contributors to global warming. 

Another factor affecting is the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and also one of the reasons for climate change.  Global warming has resulted in shrinking mountain glaciers in Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic and causing climate change. Switching from the use of fossil fuels to energy sources like wind and solar. 

When buying any electronic appliance buy the best quality with energy savings stars. Don’t waste water and encourage rainwater harvesting in your community. 

Also Read: Essay on Air Pollution

Tips to Write an Essay

Writing an effective essay needs skills that few people possess and even fewer know how to implement. While writing an essay can be an assiduous task that can be unnerving at times, some key pointers can be inculcated to draft a successful essay. These involve focusing on the structure of the essay, planning it out well, and emphasizing crucial details.

Mentioned below are some pointers that can help you write better structure and more thoughtful essays that will get across to your readers:

• Prepare an outline for the essay to ensure continuity and relevance and no break in the structure of the essay
• Decide on a thesis statement that will form the basis of your essay. It will be the point of your essay and help readers understand your contention
• Follow the structure of an introduction, a detailed body followed by a conclusion so that the readers can comprehend the essay in a particular manner without any dissonance.
• Make your beginning catchy and include solutions in your conclusion to make the essay insightful and lucrative to read
• Reread before putting it out and add your flair to the essay to make it more personal and thereby unique and intriguing for readers  

Also Read: I Love My India Essay: 100 and 500+ Words in English for School Students

Ans. Both natural and man-made factors contribute to global warming. The natural one also contains methane gas, volcanic eruptions, and greenhouse gases. Deforestation, mining, livestock raising, burning fossil fuels, and other man-made causes are next.

Ans. The government and the general public can work together to stop global warming. Trees must be planted more often, and deforestation must be prohibited. Auto usage needs to be curbed, and recycling needs to be promoted.

Ans. Switching to renewable energy sources , adopting sustainable farming, transportation, and energy methods, and conserving water and other natural resources.

Relevant Blogs

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Digvijay Singh

Having 2+ years of experience in educational content writing, withholding a Bachelor's in Physical Education and Sports Science and a strong interest in writing educational content for students enrolled in domestic and foreign study abroad programmes. I believe in offering a distinct viewpoint to the table, to help students deal with the complexities of both domestic and foreign educational systems. Through engaging storytelling and insightful analysis, I aim to inspire my readers to embark on their educational journeys, whether abroad or at home, and to make the most of every learning opportunity that comes their way.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

This was really a good essay on global warming… There has been used many unic words..and I really liked it!!!Seriously I had been looking for a essay about Global warming just like this…

Thank you for the comment!

I want to learn how to write essay writing so I joined this page.This page is very useful for everyone.

Hi, we are glad that we could help you to write essays. We have a beginner’s guide to write essays ( https://leverageedu.com/blog/essay-writing/ ) and we think this might help you.

It is not good , to have global warming in our earth .So we all have to afforestation program on all the world.

thank you so much

Very educative , helpful and it is really going to strength my English knowledge to structure my essay in future

Thank you for the comment, please follow our newsletter to get more insights on studying abroad and exams!

Global warming is the increase in 𝓽𝓱𝓮 ᴀᴠᴇʀᴀɢᴇ ᴛᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴀᴛᴜʀᴇs ᴏғ ᴇᴀʀᴛʜ🌎 ᴀᴛᴍᴏsᴘʜᴇʀᴇ

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions
• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental rights and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

16 ways to take action on climate

Looking for easy and simple ways to make high-impact, achievable steps to reduce your carbon pollution and persuade others to do the same? Here are 16 actions:

These actions, derived from experts and research by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) alongside others, are featured as part the Count Us In campaign, a diverse coalition of culture, faith, sport, cities and businesses.

Organizers hope the activities and support of the partners will inspire one billion people to take practical steps to reduce carbon pollution and challenge leaders to act more boldly on climate.

Individual action can make a significant impact. Count Us In organizers estimate that if 1 billion people take practical action in their own lives, they could reduce as much as 20 per cent of global carbon emissions.

“We are in the midst of three planetary crises – the climate crisis, the nature crisis, and the pollution and waste crisis. Fuelled by unsustainable consumption and production, the three crises are destroying the natural systems that allow our economies to thrive. In this decade that will define how we live on the planet, we need to crowd in people and action like never before. Every individual action counts and must be counted,” said UNEP’s Executive Director Inger Andersen.

Keep track of your impact

Whether you sign up on the Count Us In platform or through a partner platform like the United Nations #ActNow campaign , you can count your step alongside millions of others.

Daily tips and a mechanism to track your habits are available through a new online #ActNow application from AWorld. Begin your sustainable journey here:

• Download for iPhone or iPad iOS
• Download for Android devices

Count Us In was launched at TED Countdown , a global initiative powered by TED and Future Stewards to champion and accelerate solutions to the climate crisis. 

Related event: TEDxUNEP: Racing to Zero with Higher Education

• UNEP and the climate emergency

While there are now  high levels of awareness  of climate change, there remains confusion and misinformation about what actions are necessary and wide misapprehension that climate action will have a negative impact on peoples’ lives.

UNEP stands at the core of the action in the fight against climate change. Its work cuts across the fields of science, policy, technology and finance . The organization works with countries to pursue low-emission development and boost their capacity to adapt and be resilient to climate heating through nature-based solutions .

• Clean fuels
• Waste management

Further Resources

• UNEP and nature-based solutions

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

Explore Greyhound Nation

• Loyola Today

Our Future Is Now - A Climate Change Essay by Francesca Minicozzi, '21

Francesca Minicozzi (class of 2021) is a Writing/Biology major who plans to study medicine after graduation. She wrote this essay on climate change for WR 355/Travel Writing, which she took while studying abroad in Newcastle in spring 2020. Although the coronavirus pandemic curtailed Francesca’s time abroad, her months in Newcastle prompted her to learn more about climate change. Terre Ryan Associate Professor, Writing Department

Our Future Is Now

By Francesca Minicozzi, '21 Writing and Biology Major

 “If you don’t mind me asking, how is the United States preparing for climate change?” my flat mate, Zac, asked me back in March, when we were both still in Newcastle. He and I were accustomed to asking each other about the differences between our home countries; he came from Cambridge, while I originated in Long Island, New York. This was one of our numerous conversations about issues that impact our generation, which we usually discussed while cooking dinner in our communal kitchen. In the moment of our conversation, I did not have as strong an answer for him as I would have liked. Instead, I informed him of the few changes I had witnessed within my home state of New York.

Zac’s response was consistent with his normal, diplomatic self. “I have been following the BBC news in terms of the climate crisis for the past few years. The U.K. has been working hard to transition to renewable energy sources. Similar to the United States, here in the United Kingdom we have converted over to solar panels too. My home does not have solar panels, but a lot of our neighbors have switched to solar energy in the past few years.”

“Our two countries are similar, yet so different,” I thought. Our conversation continued as we prepared our meals, with topics ranging from climate change to the upcoming presidential election to Britain’s exit from the European Union. However, I could not shake the fact that I knew so little about a topic so crucial to my generation.

After I abruptly returned home from the United Kingdom because of the global pandemic, my conversation with my flat mate lingered in my mind. Before the coronavirus surpassed climate change headlines, I had seen the number of internet postings regarding protests to protect the planet dramatically increase. Yet the idea of our planet becoming barren and unlivable in a not-so-distant future had previously upset me to the point where a part of me refused to deal with it. After I returned from studying abroad, I decided to educate myself on the climate crisis.

My quest for climate change knowledge required a thorough understanding of the difference between “climate change” and “global warming.” Climate change is defined as “a pattern of change affecting global or regional climate,” based on “average temperature and rainfall measurements” as well as the frequency of extreme weather events. 1   These varied temperature and weather events link back to both natural incidents and human activity. 2   Likewise, the term global warming was coined “to describe climate change caused by humans.” 3   Not only that, but global warming is most recently attributed to an increase in “global average temperature,” mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans. 4

I next questioned why the term “climate change” seemed to take over the term “global warming” in the United States. According to Frank Luntz, a leading Republican consultant, the term “global warming” functions as a rather intimidating phrase. During George W. Bush’s first presidential term, Luntz argued in favor of using the less daunting phrase “climate change” in an attempt to overcome the environmental battle amongst Democrats and Republicans. 5   Since President Bush’s term, Luntz remains just one political consultant out of many politicians who has recognized the need to address climate change. In an article from 2019, Luntz proclaimed that political parties aside, the climate crisis affects everyone. Luntz argued that politicians should steer clear of trying to communicate “the complicated science of climate change,” and instead engage voters by explaining how climate change personally impacts citizens with natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. 6   He even suggested that a shift away from words like “sustainability” would gear Americans towards what they really want: a “cleaner, safer, healthier” environment. 7

The idea of a cleaner and heathier environment remains easier said than done. The Paris Climate Agreement, introduced in 2015, began the United Nations’ “effort to combat global climate change.” 8   This agreement marked a global initiative to “limit global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels,” while simultaneously “pursuing means to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.” 9    Every country on earth has joined together in this agreement for the common purpose of saving our planet. 10   So, what could go wrong here? As much as this sounds like a compelling step in the right direction for climate change, President Donald Trump thought otherwise. In June 2017, President Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement with his proclamation of climate change as a “’hoax’ perpetrated by China.” 11   President Trump continued to question the scientific facts behind climate change, remaining an advocate for the expansion of domestic fossil fuel production. 12   He reversed environmental policies implemented by former President Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel use. 13

Trump’s actions against the Paris Agreement, however, fail to represent the beliefs of Americans as a whole. The majority of American citizens feel passionate about the fight against climate change. To demonstrate their support, some have gone as far as creating initiatives including America’s Pledge and We Are Still In. 14   Although the United States officially exited the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2020, this withdrawal may not survive permanently. 15   According to experts, our new president “could rejoin in as short as a month’s time.” 16   This offers a glimmer of hope.

The Paris Agreement declares that the United States will reduce greenhouse gas emission levels by 26 to 28 percent by the year 2025. 17   As a leader in greenhouse gas emissions, the United States needs to accept the climate crisis for the serious challenge that it presents and work together with other nations. The concept of working coherently with all nations remains rather tricky; however, I remain optimistic. I think we can learn from how other countries have adapted to the increased heating of our planet. During my recent study abroad experience in the United Kingdom, I was struck by Great Britain’s commitment to combating climate change.

Since the United Kingdom joined the Paris Agreement, the country targets a “net-zero” greenhouse gas emission for 2050. 18   This substantial alteration would mark an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases from 1990, if “clear, stable, and well-designed policies are implemented without interruption.” 19   In order to stay on top of reducing emissions, the United Kingdom tracks electricity and car emissions, “size of onshore and offshore wind farms,” amount of homes and “walls insulated, and boilers upgraded,” as well as the development of government policies, including grants for electric vehicles. 20   A strong grip on this data allows the United Kingdom to target necessary modifications that keep the country on track for 2050. In my brief semester in Newcastle, I took note of these significant changes. The city of Newcastle is small enough that many students and faculty are able to walk or bike to campus and nearby essential shops. However, when driving is unavoidable, the majority of the vehicles used are electric, and many British citizens place a strong emphasis on carpooling to further reduce emissions. The United Kingdom’s determination to severely reduce greenhouse emissions is ambitious and particularly admirable, especially as the United States struggles to shy away from its dependence on fossil fuels.

So how can we, as Americans, stand together to combat global climate change? Here are five adjustments Americans can make to their homes and daily routines that can dramatically make a difference:

• Stay cautious of food waste. Studies demonstrate that “Americans throw away up to 40 percent of the food they buy.” 21   By being more mindful of the foods we purchase, opting for leftovers, composting wastes, and donating surplus food to those in need, we can make an individual difference that impacts the greater good. 22   
• Insulate your home. Insulation functions as a “cost-effective and accessible” method to combat climate change. 23   Homes with modern insulation reduce energy required to heat them, leading to a reduction of emissions and an overall savings; in comparison, older homes can “lose up to 35 percent of heat through their walls.” 24   
• Switch to LED Lighting. LED stands for “light-emitting diodes,” which use “90 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and half as much as compact fluorescents.” 25   LED lights create light without producing heat, and therefore do not waste energy. Additionally, these lights have a longer duration than other bulbs, which means they offer a continuing savings. 26  
• Choose transportation wisely. Choose to walk or bike whenever the option presents itself. If walking or biking is not an option, use an electric or hybrid vehicle which emits less harmful gases. Furthermore, reduce the number of car trips taken, and carpool with others when applicable. 
• Finally, make your voice heard. The future of our planet remains in our hands, so we might as well use our voices to our advantage. Social media serves as a great platform for this. Moreover, using social media to share helpful hints to combat climate change within your community or to promote an upcoming protest proves beneficial in the long run. If we collectively put our voices to good use, together we can advocate for change.

As many of us are stuck at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these suggestions are slightly easier to put into place. With numerous “stay-at-home” orders in effect, Americans have the opportunity to make significant achievements for climate change. Personally, I have taken more precautions towards the amount of food consumed within my household during this pandemic. I have been more aware of food waste, opting for leftovers when too much food remains. Additionally, I have realized how powerful my voice is as a young college student. Now is the opportunity for Americans to share how they feel about climate change. During this unprecedented time, our voice is needed now more than ever in order to make a difference.

However, on a much larger scale, the coronavirus outbreak has shed light on reducing global energy consumption. Reductions in travel, both on the roads and in the air, have triggered a drop in emission rates. In fact, the International Energy Agency predicts a 6 percent decrease in energy consumption around the globe for this year alone. 27   This drop is “equivalent to losing the entire energy demand of India.” 28   Complete lockdowns have lowered the global demand for electricity and slashed CO2 emissions. However, in New York City, the shutdown has only decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent. 29   This proves that a shift in personal behavior is simply not enough to “fix the carbon emission problem.” 30   Climate policies aimed to reduce fossil fuel production and promote clean technology will be crucial steppingstones to ameliorating climate change effects. Our current reduction of greenhouse gas emissions serves as “the sort of reduction we need every year until net-zero emissions are reached around 2050.” 31   From the start of the coronavirus pandemic, politicians came together for the common good of protecting humanity; this demonstrates that when necessary, global leaders are capable of putting humankind above the economy. 32

After researching statistics comparing the coronavirus to climate change, I thought back to the moment the virus reached pandemic status. I knew that a greater reason underlay all of this global turmoil. Our globe is in dire need of help, and the coronavirus reminds the world of what it means to work together. This pandemic marks a turning point in global efforts to slow down climate change. The methods we enact towards not only stopping the spread of the virus, but slowing down climate change, will ultimately depict how humanity will arise once this pandemic is suppressed. The future of our home planet lies in how we treat it right now. 

• “Climate Change: What Do All the Terms Mean?,” BBC News (BBC, May 1, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48057733 )
• Ibid. 
• Kate Yoder, “Frank Luntz, the GOP's Message Master, Calls for Climate Action,” Grist (Grist, July 26, 2019), https://grist.org/article/the-gops-most-famous-messaging-strategist-calls-for-climate-action
• Melissa Denchak, “Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know,” NRDC, April 29, 2020, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know)
• “Donald J. Trump's Foreign Policy Positions,” Council on Foreign Relations (Council on Foreign Relations), accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/election2020/candidate-tracker/donald-j.-trump?gclid=CjwKCAjw4871BRAjEiwAbxXi21cneTRft_doA5if60euC6QCL7sr-Jwwv76IkgWaUTuyJNx9EzZzRBoCdjsQAvD_BwE#climate and energy )
• David Doniger, “Paris Climate Agreement Explained: Does Congress Need to Sign Off?,” NRDC, December 15, 2016, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign )
• “How the UK Is Progressing,” Committee on Climate Change, March 9, 2020, https://www.theccc.org.uk/what-is-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/how-the-uk-is-progressing/)
• Ibid.  
• “Top 10 Ways You Can Fight Climate Change,” Green America, accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.greenamerica.org/your-green-life/10-ways-you-can-fight-climate-change )
• Matt McGrath, “Climate Change and Coronavirus: Five Charts about the Biggest Carbon Crash,” BBC News (BBC, May 5, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-52485712 )

News from the Columbia Climate School

You Asked: How Can Students Make a Difference on Climate Change?

Earth Institute

“ You Asked ” is a series where Earth Institute experts tackle reader questions on science and sustainability. In honor of Climate Week NYC and the Covering Climate Now initiative , we’re dedicating a few weeks to focusing on your questions about climate change.

The following question was submitted through our Instagram page by one of our followers:

How can many of us, as younger students, do our part to help limit the effects of climate change?

Response from Meredith Harris, a student in Barnard College and the Jewish Theological Seminary (Class of ’21):

Students can take action by educating their non-environmentally informed friends about the perils of climate change, and the basic habits they can change in their daily lives (such as eating less meat) to help make an impact. While it is difficult to write policy, or change the minds of adults in power, informing the current and next generation will help prepare society for how we can combat the most life-threatening issue any of us will have to face in the coming years.

Response from Arianna Christina Menzelos, a student in Columbia College (Class of ’21):

There’s no question that I want radical climate action — i.e. upending social, economic, and political orders in favor of a more sustainable status quo overnight. However, I worry that a narrow focus on macro goals (a Green New Deal, international agreements, etc), will prevent me from taking initiative on the impacts that I  can  make as a student. In the past two years, I co-led a campaign with my close friend to urge Columbia to commit to carbon neutrality. Sure, Columbia is not New York City, or the state, or the country, but it is my world (at least for the next two years).

My best advice in taking climate action is to choose a project — no matter the scale — and see it to its completion. Then, you can take up another one. And maybe one day it  will  be on a more global scale!

Note: On September 20, three days before the UN Climate Summit in NYC, millions of young people and adults will strike all across the US and world to demand transformative action be taken to address the climate crisis. Click here to find a climate strike near you.

Got a question about climate change? Feeling curious about conservation? To submit a question, drop a comment below, message us on Instagram , or email us  here .

Related Posts

Alexis Abramson Appointed Next Dean of the Columbia Climate School

From India to Barbados: Insights from the Climate School’s Earth Month Research Showcase

Student Spotlight: Paying It Forward to Her Community

Columbia Climate School has once again been selected as university partner for Climate Week NYC, an annual convening of climate leaders to drive the transition, speed up progress and champion change. Join us for events and follow our coverage .

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

• About YPCCC
• Yale Climate Connections
• Student Employment
• For The Media
• Past Events
• YPCCC in the News
• Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM)
• Publications
• Climate Opinion Maps
• Climate Opinion Factsheets
• Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY)
• Resources for Educators
• All Tools & Interactives
• Partner with YPCCC

Home / For Educators: Grades 6-12 / Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Filed under: backgrounders for educators ,.

Climate Explained, a part of Yale Climate Connections, is an essay collection that addresses an array of climate change questions and topics, including why it’s cold outside if global warming is real, how we know that humans are responsible for global warming, and the relationship between climate change and national security.

More Activities like this

Climate Change Basics: Five Facts, Ten Words

Backgrounders for Educators

To simplify the scientific complexity of climate change, we focus on communicating five key facts about climate change that everyone should know. 

Why should we care about climate change?

Having different perspectives about global warming is natural, but the most important thing that anyone should know about climate change is why it matters.  

External Resources

Looking for resources to help you and your students build a solid climate change science foundation? We’ve compiled a list of reputable, student-friendly links to help you do just that!  

Subscribe to our mailing list

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper
• Discussion Board Post

Steps To Follow While Writing An Essay On Climate Change

Table of Contents

Climate change is the most essential issue of our generation; we are the first to witness its early signs and the last who have a chance of stopping them from happening.

Living in a bubble of denial can only get us this far; the planet which is our home is already a scene for melting glaciers, raising floods, extinction of species… the list goes on and on. Spreading awareness on matters of climate change through any means available, including as seemingly trivial form as writing a school essay, cannot be underestimated.

Follow the guidelines suggested in the paragraphs below to learn how to create a perfect essay that will get you an appraisal of your teacher.

Essay on climate changes: how to write?

If you really want to make your teacher gasp while they are reading your work, there are three vital things to pay attention to .

First of all, read the topic carefully and understand it’s specific, i.e., what is expected from you.

For instance, if it is the role of individuals in helping prevent climate change, you should not focus so much on the global problems, but speak about how small changes all of us can introduce in our routines will eventually have a positive environmental effect.

Secondly, determine your personal take on the problem . Search for materials on your subject using keywords, and pile up the evidence that supports your point of view.

Finally, write a conclusion. Make sure that the conclusion you make reflects the viewpoints you have been expressing all throughout your essay.

Below you will find a more detailed breakdown of tasks you will have to accomplish to complete writing an essay on climate changes that is worthy of a top mark.

Check if it is an argumentative essay on climate change or more of a speculative one? Arrange your writing accordingly.

• Craft the outline and don’t go off-topic.
• Search for keywords .
• Make a plan .
• Avoid the most common mistakes from the start.
• Write an introduction thinking about what you will write later.
• Develop your ideas according to the outline .
• Make a conclusion which is consistent with what you’ve written in the main paragraphs.
• Proofread the draft , correct mistakes and print out the hard copy. All set!

One of the most focal of your writing will be factual evidence. When writing on climate change, resort to providing data shared by international organizations like IPCC , WWF , or World Bank .

It is undeniable that among the main causes of climate change, unfortunately, there are oil and fossil fuels that are the basis of the whole economy and still invaluable sources of energy.

Although everyone knows that oil resources are polluting and that it would be much more useful and environmentally sustainable to rely on renewable energies such as wind and solar energies and electricity, the power of the world seem not to notice or pretend not to see for don’t go against your own interests.

The time has come to react and raise awareness of the use of renewable energy sources.

In addition to the causes already mentioned, we must consider the increase in the carbon dioxide air that traps heat in our atmosphere, thus increasing the temperatures with the consequent of the Arctic glaciers melting.

WWF reported that in 2016, the recorded data was quite worrying with a constant increase in temperatures and a 40% decrease in Arctic marine glaciers.

Topics for essay on global warming and climate change

If you do not have any specific topic to write on, consider yourself lucky. You can pick one that you are passionate about – and in fact, this is what you should do! If we think back to the very definition of essay, it is nothing more than a few paragraphs of expressing one’s personal attitude and viewpoints on a certain subject. Surely, you need to pick a subject that you are opinionated about to deliver a readable piece of writing!

Another point to consider is quaintness and topicality factors. You don’t want to end up writing on a subject that the rest of your class will, and in all honesty, that has zero novelty to it.

Even if it is something as trivial as the greenhouse effect, add an unexpected perspective to it: the greenhouse effect from the standpoint of the feline population of Montenegro. Sounds lunatic, but you get the drift.

Do not worry, below you will find the list of legitimately coverable topics to choose from:

• The last generation able to fight the global crisis.
• Climate change: top 10 unexpected causes.
• Climate changes. Things anyone can do.
• Climate changes concern everyone. Is it true?
• The Mauna Loa volcano: climate change is here.
• Water pollution and coastal cities: what needs to be done?
• Is there global warming if it’s still cold?
• The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
• Celebrity activists and climate changes.
• Individual responsibility for the environment.
• How the loss of biodiversity is the biggest loss for humanity.
• Ways to fight global warming at home.
• Sustainable living as a way of fighting climate change.
• Climate change fighting countries to look up to.
• Industrial responsibility and climate change.
• What future will be like if we fail to make an environmental stand?
• Discovering water on Mars: a new planet to live on?
• Climate change effects on poor countries.
• Nuclear power laws and climate change.
• Is it true that climate change is caused by man?

Mistakes to avoid when writing an essay on climate change

When composing your essay, you must avoid the following (quite common!) mistakes:

• Clichés – no one wants to read universal truths presented as relevant discoveries.
• Repeating an idea already expressed – don’t waste your readers’ time .
• Making an accumulation of ideas that are not connected and that do not follow one another; structure your ideas logically .
• Being contradictive (check consistency).
• Using bad or tired collocations .
• Using lackluster adjectives like “good”/”bad”. Instead, think of more eye-catching synonyms.

Structure your essay in a logical way : introduce your thesis, develop your ideas in at least 2 parts that contain several paragraphs, and draw a conclusion.

Bottom line

Writing an essay on global warming and climate change is essentially reflecting on the inevitable consequence of the irresponsible behavior of people inhabiting the planet. Outside of big-scale thinking, there is something each of us can do, and by shaping minds the right way, essential change can be done daily.

Each of us can act to protect the environment, reducing the use of plastic, recycling, buying food with as little packaging as possible, or turning off water and light when not in use. Every little help, even a short essay on climate change can help make a difference.

Can’t wait to save the planet? Do it, while we write your essay. Easy order, complete confidentiality, timely delivery. Click the button to learn more!

A Comprehensive Guide on How to Grade Papers

What Is a Good Essay on Stereotyping

50 expository essay topics for your next assignment.

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes: Update 2020 (2020)

Chapter: conclusion, c onclusion.

This document explains that there are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far. There remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure are expected.

Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage, and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven “geoengineering” solutions to counteract some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur. Each of these options has risks, attractions and costs, and what is actually done may be a mixture of these different options. Different nations and communities will vary in their vulnerability and their capacity to adapt. There is an important debate to be had about choices among these options, to decide what is best for each group or nation, and most importantly for the global population as a whole. The options have to be discussed at a global scale because in many cases those communities that are most vulnerable control few of the emissions, either past or future. Our description of the science of climate change, with both its facts and its uncertainties, is offered as a basis to inform that policy debate.

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals served as the primary writing team for the 2014 and 2020 editions of this document:

• Eric Wolff FRS, (UK lead), University of Cambridge
• Inez Fung (NAS, US lead), University of California, Berkeley
• Brian Hoskins FRS, Grantham Institute for Climate Change
• John F.B. Mitchell FRS, UK Met Office
• Tim Palmer FRS, University of Oxford
• Benjamin Santer (NAS), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• John Shepherd FRS, University of Southampton
• Keith Shine FRS, University of Reading.
• Susan Solomon (NAS), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Walsh, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
• Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Staff support for the 2020 revision was provided by Richard Walker, Amanda Purcell, Nancy Huddleston, and Michael Hudson. We offer special thanks to Rebecca Lindsey and NOAA Climate.gov for providing data and figure updates.

The following individuals served as reviewers of the 2014 document in accordance with procedures approved by the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences:

• Richard Alley (NAS), Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University
• Alec Broers FRS, Former President of the Royal Academy of Engineering
• Harry Elderfield FRS, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge
• Joanna Haigh FRS, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College London
• Isaac Held (NAS), NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
• John Kutzbach (NAS), Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin
• Jerry Meehl, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Pendry FRS, Imperial College London
• John Pyle FRS, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge
• Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
• Emily Shuckburgh, British Antarctic Survey
• Gabrielle Walker, Journalist
• Andrew Watson FRS, University of East Anglia

The Support for the 2014 Edition was provided by NAS Endowment Funds. We offer sincere thanks to the Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone Endowment for NAS Missions for supporting the production of this 2020 Edition.

F OR FURTHER READING

For more detailed discussion of the topics addressed in this document (including references to the underlying original research), see:

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019: Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [ https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2019: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259 ]
• Royal Society, 2018: Greenhouse gas removal [ https://raeng.org.uk/greenhousegasremoval ]
• U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 2018: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States [ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov ]
• IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C [ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15 ]
• USGCRP, 2017: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume I: Climate Science Special Reports [ https://science2017.globalchange.gov ]
• NASEM, 2016: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852 ]
• IPCC, 2013: Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group 1. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis [ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 ]
• NRC, 2013: Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18373 ]
• NRC, 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12877 ]
• Royal Society 2010: Climate Change: A Summary of the Science [ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science ]
• NRC, 2010: America’s Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12782 ]

Much of the original data underlying the scientific findings discussed here are available at:

• https://data.ucar.edu/
• https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu
• https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu
• https://ess-dive.lbl.gov/
• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
• https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
• http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu
• http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate. The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, produced the original Climate Change: Evidence and Causes in 2014. It was written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. This new edition, prepared by the same author team, has been updated with the most recent climate data and scientific analyses, all of which reinforce our understanding of human-caused climate change.

Scientific information is a vital component for society to make informed decisions about how to reduce the magnitude of climate change and how to adapt to its impacts. This booklet serves as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and others seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate-change science.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

The Bartlett

Essay 05: Taking the fight to climate change – on time and on budget

Climate change isn’t just a scientific problem or a political challenge – it’s also a management issue. And there’s a lot project management can do to address the threats it poses.

“ It is hard to find any evidence of an SPA for climate change, at either national or international levels

December 2015 saw virtually all the world’s nations sign an agreement, now ratified as legally binding, to limit the rise in the Earth’s ambient temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and preferably to just 1.5°C. Positive though this was, there was almost nothing on how countries planned to achieve this target, nor was there any requirement to monitor and report progress in achieving this goal.

Roughly 25% of OECD countries’ GDPs is delivered by projects. Developed in the US defence-aerospace sectors in the 1950s and 1960s, project management was initially largely sheltered from environmental issues. Over the years, however, there have been many examples of projects being knocked off course by environmental issues. In the 1990s, sustainability became mainstream practice. Now the focus is shifting to the more existential crisis of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates there is only a 50% chance of hitting the 2°C rise by 2030. To achieve this, everyone will have to cut CO2 emissions: six to four billion tonnes for developed countries – essentially halving their emissions; 15 to eight billion tonnes for developed countries. And of course things do not suddenly stabilise at 2030; we shall have to continue monitoring emission rates and, in fact, tighten targets further, to zero and into negative emissions. How can project management help in this? We can begin with the management of the overall effort, at national and international levels.

First, it can bring greater focus and drive through the creation of a ‘Single Point of Accountability’ (SPA). This is the place where all actions relevant to achieving a project’s objectives are focused. It is hard to find any evidence of an SPA for climate change, at either national or international levels.

A second fundamental support practice in project management is a PMO – a project or programme management office. At a minimum, this is the function that keeps information on the progress of projects being worked on, but it also acts as the keeper of best practices in the enterprise. Here, too, there is hardly anyone who has such a function for addressing climate change. The possibility exists, surely, for a pre-formed PMO to be prepared at the UN level down to help countries get started.

Climate change actions can be divided between those aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, such as replacing ‘dirty’ power generation plants such as coal, with clean ones such as gas or renewables, and those addressed at adapting facilities to the consequences of climate change, such as flood management. Much, maybe the majority, of mitigation projects addressing carbon emissions are doing so on a business-as-usual basis – such as developing electric vehicles – possibly boosted by ‘change projects’ that focus additionally on behaviour and people skills.

At the other end of the mitigation spectrum, project management has a role in big R&D projects, particularly in the energy sector, notably carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear fusion. Many are investing a lot of hope in CCS, but there are technical, commercial and managerial issues, and so far CCS is not commercially viable. Hopes for fusion rest on a giant global project in France, Iter, which is late and over budget. We are still decades away from operational fusion.

Nuclear fission is really an adaptation technology. It is dirtier than fusion but is seen by most as a core response for meeting climate change goals. Yet the technological challenges are enormous: it is very, very expensive and, managerially, of world-class difficulty. The tortured negotiations between Électricité de France and the UK Government to build Hinkley Point C is proof of how complex the issues are.

Currently, we don’t have a plan for addressing climate change in the UK. We do have the National Adaptation Programme and a National Infrastructure Delivery Plan, but they are weak – little more than lists of risks and responsibilities. There is not the energy and drive needed to address the urgent challenges of climate change.

Project Management can, and is, contributing significantly in responding to climate change effectively. In doing so, it is revealing several areas of new development and promise in the discipline. That’s fortunate because climate change isn’t just a scientific problem or political challenge – it’s also a management issue. Project management integrates the work of other disciplines to deliver managed change effectively. And that’s what we need right now.

Professor Peter Morris was Head of the School of Construction & Project Management until August 2012. He is well-known as a leading authority on project management.

The Bartlett Review 2016

Infographic.

Download 'Critical Mass', our Annual Review data breakdown

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Europe’s Crackdown on Environmental Dissent Is Silencing Voices the World Needs to Hear

By Christopher Ketcham

Mr. Ketcham is writing a book about direct climate action and citizen rebellion in defense of nature. He is the author of “This Land: How Cowboys, Capitalism, and Corruption Are Ruining the American West.”

A British court last month issued extraordinarily harsh prison sentences to five climate activists convicted of helping to plan a series of road blockades in London. One of the activists, Roger Hallam, 58, a co-founder of the direct action groups Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, got five years. The others were each sentenced to four years.

Mr. Hallam’s crime wasn’t that he participated in the protest, which snarled London’s major beltway, the M25, during four days in November 2022. He merely gave a 20-minute talk on Zoom, a few days before the event, to explain the tactics of civil disobedience and emphasize its value as society’s failure to curb carbon emissions is increasing the chance of catastrophe within our lifetimes. He also stated during the Zoom call that he thought the action should go forward.

This is only the latest example of a wave of repressive government measures against climate protesters across Europe. The crackdown has come in response to a rise in demonstrations and disruptive tactics such as blocking roads and access to airports, defacing art in museums and interrupting sporting events.

Reflecting growing public frustration with such tactics, Rishi Sunak, the former British prime minister, endorsed this tough approach last year after two climate protesters were sentenced to prison terms of three years and two years and seven months for creating a public nuisance by climbing Queen Elizabeth II bridge in Kent. Forty hours of traffic gridlock followed after authorities closed the crossing.

“Those who break the law should feel the full force of it,” Mr. Sunak asserted , writing on X. “It’s entirely right that selfish protesters intent on causing misery to the hard-working majority face tough sentences. It’s what the public expects and it’s what we’ve delivered.”

But Michel Forst, the United Nations special rapporteur on environmental defenders, sees this crackdown as “a major threat to democracy and human rights,” as he put it in a report in February.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

MSU Extension MI Money Health

Reduce, recycle and reuse to decrease climate change.

Brenda Long, Michigan State University Extension - June 14, 2023

More energy conservation could affect the occurrence of major storms and hurricanes.

In recent years hurricanes and storms caused major damage and affected millions, including Michigan residents. As storms of this intensity become more and more frequent, climate change and variability simply cannot be ignored.

Climate change is any major change in measures of climate, which include temperature, precipitation, rainfall, snow and wind. These changes last for decades or longer. Many factors are causing climate change, including human activities through burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees, planting trees and building developments. Most scientists now agree that climate change is happening. Read more in this publication from the  Michigan Department of Public Health.

What can you do to help? Adopt more green practices like recycling in your home and workplace is one recommendation by the Michigan Department of Community Health  (MDCH). Each of us makes many decisions in our homes and communities about the products we buy and personal habits. Some decisions result in more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. When added together, we all contribute to climate change. We all can make a difference by reducing consumption.

We can help protect our natural resources and reduce the amount of waste produced by following the three R's: "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," according to the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) .  

• Reduce the amount of products you use.
• Reuse products instead of throwing them away.
• Recycle waste products.

Thinking about your current habits and making a few minor changes can make a big difference! Consider some of these changes:

• Buy the amount of a product needed rather than the "economy" size.
• Save energy by using compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of standard light bulbs.
• Look for good, used items online, at garage sales and other local sources.
• Reuse and recycling products like plastic grocery bags.
• Recycle items like batteries, electronics, plastic and paper.

You can find the amount of energy that you’ll save using a  tool from the E.P.A.

Recycling is easy and takes a small amount of time. The  Michigan Department Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (DEGLE) has a lot of information for you about recycling and its benefits. Learn what all of those recycling symbols mean too. Find the list of hazardous household waste and recycling centers in Michigan.

Consider your existing household activities and decide how a few personal efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse could respond to specific challenges of climate change.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension . For more information, visit https://extension.msu.edu . To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit https://extension.msu.edu/newsletters . To contact an expert in your area, visit https://extension.msu.edu/experts , or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

Did you find this article useful?

Check out the Sustainable Parks, Recreation & Tourism B.S. program!

Check out the Environmental Studies & Sustainability B.S. program!

new - method size: 3 - Random key: 2, method: personalized - key: 2

You Might Also Be Interested In

MSU researcher awarded five-year, $2.5 million grant to develop risk assessment training program

Published on October 13, 2020

MSU Product Center helps Michigan food entrepreneurs survive and thrive throughout pandemic

Published on August 31, 2021

Protecting Michigan’s environment and wildlife through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

Published on September 1, 2021

MSU Extension to undertake three-year, $7 million vaccination education effort

Published on August 17, 2021

MSU to study precision livestock farming adoption trends in U.S. swine industry

Published on March 15, 2021

MSU research team receives USDA grant to evaluate effectiveness, cost of new blueberry pest management strategies

Published on February 19, 2021

• homeownership
• livable communities
• mi money health
• money management
• msu extension
• natural resources
• homeownership,
• livable communities,
• mi money health,
• money management,
• msu extension,
• See all MI Money Health events
• Read the latest MI Money Health news
• See all MI Money Health resources