essay about preventing climate change

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

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, 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.

• School Education /

Essay on Climate Change: Check Samples in 100, 250 Words

• Updated on  
• Sep 21, 2023

Writing an essay on climate change is crucial to raise awareness and advocate for action. The world is facing environmental challenges, so in a situation like this such essay topics can serve as s platform to discuss the causes, effects, and solutions to this pressing issue. They offer an opportunity to engage readers in understanding the urgency of mitigating climate change for the sake of our planet’s future.

Must Read: Essay On Environment  

Table of Contents

• 1 What Is Climate Change?
• 2 What are the Causes of Climate Change?
• 3 What are the effects of Climate Change?
• 4 How to fight climate change?
• 5 Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words
• 6 Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change is the significant variation of average weather conditions becoming, for example, warmer, wetter, or drier—over several decades or longer. It may be natural or anthropogenic. However, in recent times, it’s been in the top headlines due to escalations caused by human interference.

What are the Causes of Climate Change?

Obama at the First Session of COP21 rightly quoted “We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it.”.Identifying the causes of climate change is the first step to take in our fight against climate change. Below stated are some of the causes of climate change:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mainly from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy and transportation.
• Deforestation: The cutting down of trees reduces the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.
• Industrial Processes: Certain manufacturing activities release potent greenhouse gases.
• Agriculture: Livestock and rice cultivation emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

What are the effects of Climate Change?

Climate change poses a huge risk to almost all life forms on Earth. The effects of climate change are listed below:

• Global Warming: Increased temperatures due to trapped heat from greenhouse gases.
• Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: Ice caps and glaciers melt, causing oceans to rise.
• Extreme Weather Events: More frequent and severe hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires.
• Ocean Acidification: Oceans absorb excess CO2, leading to more acidic waters harming marine life.
• Disrupted Ecosystems: Shifting climate patterns disrupt habitats and threaten biodiversity.
• Food and Water Scarcity: Altered weather affects crop yields and strains water resources.
• Human Health Risks: Heat-related illnesses and the spread of diseases.
• Economic Impact: Damage to infrastructure and increased disaster-related costs.
• Migration and Conflict: Climate-induced displacement and resource competition.

How to fight climate change?

‘Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority,’ says Bill Gates. The below points highlight key actions to combat climate change effectively.

• Energy Efficiency: Improve energy efficiency in all sectors.
• Protect Forests: Stop deforestation and promote reforestation.
• Sustainable Agriculture: Adopt eco-friendly farming practices.
• Advocacy: Raise awareness and advocate for climate-friendly policies.
• Innovation: Invest in green technologies and research.
• Government Policies: Enforce climate-friendly regulations and targets.
• Corporate Responsibility: Encourage sustainable business practices.
• Individual Action: Reduce personal carbon footprint and inspire others.

Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words

Climate change refers to long-term alterations in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, leading to global warming. The consequences of climate change are widespread and devastating. Rising temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt, contributing to sea level rise and threatening coastal communities. Extreme weather events, like hurricanes and wildfires, become more frequent and severe, endangering lives and livelihoods. Additionally, shifts in weather patterns can disrupt agriculture, leading to food shortages. To combat climate change, global cooperation, renewable energy adoption, and sustainable practices are crucial for a more sustainable future.

Must Read: Essay On Global Warming

Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

Climate change represents a pressing global challenge that demands immediate attention and concerted efforts. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This results in a greenhouse effect, trapping heat and leading to a rise in global temperatures, commonly referred to as global warming.

The consequences of climate change are far-reaching and profound. Rising sea levels threaten coastal communities, displacing millions and endangering vital infrastructure. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires, have become more frequent and severe, causing devastating economic and human losses. Disrupted ecosystems affect biodiversity and the availability of vital resources, from clean water to agricultural yields.

Moreover, climate change has serious implications for food and water security. Changing weather patterns disrupt traditional farming practices and strain freshwater resources, potentially leading to conflicts over access to essential commodities.

Addressing climate change necessitates a multifaceted approach. First, countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through the transition to renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency, and reforestation efforts. International cooperation is crucial to set emission reduction targets and hold nations accountable for meeting them.

In conclusion, climate change is a global crisis with profound and immediate consequences. Urgent action is needed to mitigate its impacts and secure a sustainable future for our planet. By reducing emissions and implementing adaptation strategies, we can protect vulnerable communities, preserve ecosystems, and ensure a livable planet for future generations. The time to act is now.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

Five key causes of climate change include excessive greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, notably burning fossil fuels and deforestation. 

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on climate change that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

Hey there! I'm a content writer who turns complex ideas into clear, engaging stories. Think of me as your translator, taking expert knowledge and making it interesting and relatable for everyone.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Contact no. *

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.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

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.

Essay on Prevention of Global Warming for Students and Children

500 words essay on prevention of global warming.

Global warming is a term you must have heard by now as it is very prevalent in today’s world. Moreover, it has become a very dangerous environmental issue which we must resolve as soon as possible. If we do not prevent it now, soon we will find it hard to survive on this planet.

Every person needs to contribute equally to help prevent global warming. Similarly, we must identify the causes that are contributing to this dangerous phenomenon and work hard to find solutions. Furthermore, we must immediately put a halt to all those activities which are causing global warming .

Causes of Global Warming

There are many activities through which global warming is happening. Mostly human activities are contributing to this damaging phenomenon. The carbon dioxide levels are increasing in the air which is causing global warming. Moreover, the increase in greenhouse gases is also contributing to this phenomenon.

Furthermore, the usages of hot water for various purposes like bathing, cleaning and more release gases contribute to it. After that, when we make use of ordinary bulbs instead of LED lights, we contribute majorly to global warming. Similarly, the way people leave their electronic devices unattended when not in use also plays a big role.

Most importantly, deforestation and cutting plants everywhere just make it worse for our planet. The way we burn wood and fossil fuels only makes the condition of global warming worse. Similarly, when we use too much of automobiles that release harmful toxins in the air, the temperature of earth increases and causes global warming. In order to prevent global warming, we must adopt an eco-friendly lifestyle to make the future safe for our future generations.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Ways to Prevent Global Warming

There are many changes we can bring about in our life both big and small to prevent global warming and save our planet. Firstly, we must stop deforestation in all forms. Do not cut down more trees as it will only worsen the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Instead, encourage people to plant even more trees to create a fine balance in nature.

Moreover, it reduces the usage of energy everywhere. It does not matter if you are at your home or at your office, the higher the energy used the more the carbon dioxide produced. Thus, do not waste electricity as it requires the burning of fossil fuels. As a result of the burning of fossil fuels , greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase rapidly and contribute to global warming. Moreover, reduce the carbon footprint and do not travel through planes that often.

Most importantly, replace all your ordinary bulbs with LED lights. It will help in reducing the use of energy by a massive amount. Similarly, do not waste that energy. Instead of becoming more dependent, we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and electricity right away.

Opt for eco-friendly options like solar energy and win power. Take up the habit of recycling and reusing. Do not throw away things instead learn to reuse them properly. Further, carpool with your neighbors and relatives to not contribute to automobile exhausts and emissions.

FAQs on Prevention of Global Warming

Q.1 What is causing global warming?

A.1 There are many human activities that cause global warming. Some of them are the usage of hot water, old light bulbs, burning fossil fuels, wasting electricity, using excessive automobiles, deforestation and many more.

Q.2 How can we prevent global warming?

A.2 We can prevent global warming by adopting a healthy lifestyle. Try to carpool with your relatives and friends to not produce carbon emissions. Moreover, do not cut down trees unnecessarily and also replace old electronic gadgets.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

How Do We Reduce Greenhouse Gases?

To stop climate change , we need to stop the amount of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, from increasing. For the past 150 years, burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests, which naturally pull carbon dioxide out of the air, has caused greenhouse gas levels to increase. There are two main ways to stop the amount of greenhouse gases from increasing: we can stop adding them to the air, and we can increase the Earth’s ability to pull them out of the air.

This is called climate mitigation . There is not one single way to mitigate climate change. Instead, we will have to piece together many different solutions to stop the climate from warming. Below are descriptions of the main methods that we can use.

Many of these solutions are already being implemented in places around the world. Some can be tackled by individuals, such as using less energy, riding a bike instead of driving, driving an electric car, and switching to renewable energy. Other actions to mitigate climate change involve communities, regions, or nations working together to make changes, such as switching power plants from burning coal or gas to renewable energy and growing public transit.

Use less electricity.

Taking steps to use less electricity, especially when it comes from burning coal or gas, can take a big bite out of greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, electricity use is responsible for a quarter of all emissions. 

Some steps that you can take to use less electricity are simple and save money, like replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs that use less electricity, adding insulation to your home, and setting the thermostat lower in the winter and higher in the summer, especially when no one is home. There are also new technologies that help keep buildings energy efficient, such as glass that reflects heat, low-flow water fixtures, smart thermostats, and new air conditioning technology with refrigerants that don’t cause warming. In urban and suburban environments, green or cool roofs can limit the amount of heat that gets into buildings during hot days and help decrease the urban heat island effect .

Green roof on the Walter Reed Community Center in Arlington, VA, US Credit: Arlington County on Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0

Generate electricity without emissions.

Renewable energy sources include solar energy, geothermal energy, wind turbines, ocean wave and tidal energy, waste and biomass energy, and hydropower. Because they do not burn fossil fuels, these renewable energy sources do not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as they generate electricity. Nuclear energy also creates no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can be thought of as a solution to climate change. However, it does generate radioactive waste that needs long-term, secure storage.

Today, the amount of electricity that comes from renewable energy is growing. A few countries, such as Iceland and Costa Rica, now get nearly all of their electricity from renewable energy. In many other countries, the percentage of electricity from renewable sources is currently small (5 - 10%) but growing.

Wind turbines can be on land or in the ocean, where high winds are common. Credit: Nicholas Doherty on Unsplash

Shrink the footprint of food.

Today, about a fifth of global carbon emissions come from raising farm animals for meat. For example, as cattle digest food they burp, releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and their manure releases the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. And forests, which take carbon dioxide out of the air, are often cut down so that cattle have space to graze.

Eating a diet that is mostly or entirely plant-based (such as vegetables, bread, rice, and beans) lowers emissions. According to the Drawdown Project , if half the population worldwide adopts a plant-rich diet by 2050, 65 gigatons of carbon dioxide would be kept out of the atmosphere over about 30 years. (For a sense of scale, 65 gigatons of carbon dioxide is nearly two-years-worth of recent emissions from fossil fuels and industry.) Reducing food waste can make an even larger impact, saving about 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over 30 years.

Eating a plant-rich diet lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Credit: Victoria Shes on Unsplash

Travel without making greenhouse gases.

Most of the ways we have to get from place to place currently rely on fossil fuels: gasoline for vehicles and jet fuel for planes. Burning fossil fuels for transportation adds up to 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. We can reduce emissions by shifting to alternative technologies that either don’t need gasoline (like bicycles and electric cars) or don’t need as much (like hybrid cars). Using public transportation, carpooling, biking, and walking leads to fewer vehicles on the road and less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Cities and towns can make it easier for people to lower greenhouse gas emissions by adding bus routes, bike paths, and sidewalks.

Electric bicycles can be a way to get around without burning gasoline. Credit: Karlis Dambrans/CC BY 2.0

Reduce household waste.

Waste we put in landfills releases greenhouse gases. Almost half the gas released by landfill waste is methane, which is an especially potent greenhouse gas. Landfills are, in fact, the third largest source of methane emissions in the U.S., behind natural gas/petroleum use and animals raised for food production (and their manure). In the U.S., each member of a household produces an average of 2 kg (4.4 lbs) of trash per day. That's 726 kg (1660 lbs) of trash per person per year! Conscious choices, including avoiding unnecessary purchases, buying secondhand, eliminating reliance on single-use containers, switching to reusable bags, bottles, and beverage cups, reducing paper subscriptions and mail in favor of digital options, recycling, and composting, can all help reduce household waste.     

Reduce emissions from industry.

Manufacturing, mining for raw materials, and dealing with the waste all take energy. Most of the products that we buy — everything from phones and TVs to clothing and shoes — are created in factories, which produce up to about 20% of the greenhouse gases emitted worldwide.

There are ways to decrease emissions from manufacturing. Using materials that aren’t made from fossil fuels and don’t release greenhouse gases is a good start. For example, cement releases carbon dioxide as it hardens, but there are alternative products that don’t create greenhouse gases. Similarly, bioplastics made from plants are an alternative to plastics that come from fossil fuels. Companies can also use renewable energy sources to power factories and ship the products that they create in fuel-saving cargo ships.

Take carbon dioxide out of the air.

Along with reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that we add to the air, we can also take action to increase the amount of carbon dioxide we take out of the air. The places where carbon dioxide is pulled out of the air are called carbon sinks. For example, planting trees, bamboo, and other plants increases the number of carbon sinks. Conserving forests, grasslands, peatlands, and wetlands, where carbon is held in plants and soils, protects existing carbon sinks. Farming methods such as planting cover crops and crop rotation keep soils healthy so that they are effective carbon sinks. There are also carbon dioxide removal technologies, which may be able to pull large amounts of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

As the trees and other plants in a forest use sunlight to create the food they need, they are also pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. Credit: B NW on Unsplash

© 2020 UCAR

• Solving Climate Change
• Why Earth Is Warming
• The Greenhouse Effect
• What's Your Carbon Footprint?
• Classroom Activity: Mitigation or Adaptation?
• Classroom Activity: Solving the Carbon Dioxide Problem
• Stabilization Wedges (Activity and Resources)

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

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter

A sunset lights a glacier in New Zealand's Fiordland National Park. Around the world, many glaciers are melting quickly as the planet warms.

• ENVIRONMENT

Are there real ways to fight climate change? Yes.

Humans have the solutions to fight a global environmental crisis. Do we have the will?

The evidence that humans are causing climate change, with drastic consequences for life on the planet, is overwhelming .

Experts began raising the alarm about global warming in 1979 , a change now referred to under the broader term climate change , preferred by scientists to describe the complex shifts now affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas , and a range of other impacts.  

Over 200 countries—193 countries plus the 27 members of the European Union—have signed the Paris Climate Agreement , a treaty created in 2015 to fight climate change on a global scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which synthesizes the scientific consensus on the issue, has set a goal of keeping warming under 2°C (3.6°F) and pursuing an even lower warming cap of 1.5 °C (2.7° F).

But no country has created policies that will keep the world below 1.5 °C, according to the Climate Action Tracker . Current emissions have the world on track to warm 2.8°C by the end of this century.  

Addressing climate change will require many solutions —there's no magic bullet. Yet nearly all of these solutions exist today. They range from worldwide changes to where we source our electricity to protecting forests from deforestation.  

The promise of new technology

Better technology will help reduce emissions from activities like manufacturing and driving.  

Scientists are working on ways to sustainably produce hydrogen, most of which is currently derived from natural gas, to feed zero-emission fuel cells for transportation and electricity.  

Renewable energy is growing, and in the U.S., a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources provide 20 percen t of the nation’s electricity.  

New technological developments promise to build better batteries to store that renewable energy, engineer a smarter electric grid, and capture carbon dioxide from power plants and store it underground or turn it into valuable products such as gasoline . Some argue that nuclear power—despite concerns over safety, water use, and toxic waste—should also be part of the solution, because nuclear plants don't contribute any direct air pollution while operating.

Should we turn to geoengineering?

While halting new greenhouse gas emissions is critical, scientists say we need to extract existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, effectively sucking it out of the sky.  

Pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is a type of geoengineering , a science that interferes with the Earth’s natural systems, and it’s a controversial approach to fighting climate change.

Other types of geoengineering involve spraying sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the air or blocking the sun with a giant space mirror. Studies suggest we don’t know enough about the potential dangers of geoengineering to deploy it.

Restoring nature to protect the planet  

Planting trees, restoring seagrasses, and boosting the use of agricultural cover crops could help clean up significant amounts of carbon dioxide .  

The Amazon rainforest is an important reservoir of the Earth’s carbon, but a study published in 2021, showed deforestation was transforming this reservoir into a source of pollution.  

Restoring and protecting nature may provide as much as   37 percent of the climate mitigation needed to reach the Paris Agreement’s 203o targets. Protecting these ecosystems can also benefit biodiversity, providing a win-win for nature .

Adapt—or else

Communities around the world are already recognizing that adaptation must also be part of the response to climate change . From flood-prone coastal towns to regions facing increased droughts and fires, a new wave of initiatives focuses on boosting resilience . Those include managing or preventing land erosion, building microgrids and other energy systems built to withstand disruptions, and designing buildings with rising sea levels in mind.

Last year, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law and was a historic investment in fighting and adapting to climate change.

( Read more about how the bill will dramatically reduce emissions. )

Recent books such as Drawdown and Designing Climate Solutions have proposed bold yet simple plans for reversing our current course. The ideas vary, but the message is consistent: We already have many of the tools needed to address climate change. Some of the concepts are broad ones that governments and businesses must implement, but many other ideas involve changes that anyone can make— eating less   meat , for example, or rethinking your modes of transport .

"We have the technology today to rapidly move to a clean energy system," write the authors of Designing Climate Solutions . "And the price of that future, without counting environmental benefits, is about the same as that of a carbon-intensive future."

Sarah Gibbens contributed reporting to this article.

Nat Geo Kids Back-To-School Exclusive Offer

Get up to 4 bonus issues!

Related Topics

• CLIMATE CHANGE
• ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
• AIR POLLUTION
• RENEWABLE ENERGY

You May Also Like

Another weapon to fight climate change? Put carbon back where we found it

Which cities will still be livable in a world altered by climate change?

Could seaweed be the 'fastest and least expensive' tool to fight climate change?

Listen to 30 years of climate change transformed into haunting music

How the historic climate bill will dramatically reduce U.S. emissions

• Interactive Graphic
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• The Big Idea
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• Israel-Gaza War
• War in Ukraine
• US Election
• US & Canada
• UK Politics
• N. Ireland Politics
• Scotland Politics
• Wales Politics
• Latin America
• Middle East
• In Pictures
• Executive Lounge
• Technology of Business
• Women at the Helm
• Future of Business
• Science & Health
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI v the Mind
• Film & TV
• Art & Design
• Entertainment News
• Destinations
• Australia and Pacific
• Caribbean & Bermuda
• Central America
• North America
• South America
• World’s Table
• Culture & Experiences
• The SpeciaList
• Natural Wonders
• Weather & Science
• Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Business
• Green Living

COP27: How do you stop climate change?

The COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh has been billed as a "watershed moment" for climate change.

What are some key things countries need to do to tackle the problem?

1. Keep fossil fuels in the ground

Burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and especially coal, releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, trapping heat and raising global temperatures.

It's an issue which has to be tackled at government level if temperature rises are to be limited to 1.5C - the level considered the gateway to dangerous climate change.

However, a recent UN report , has said the ongoing use of fossil fuels means remaining below this temperature rise is now unlikely.

The alternative to fossil fuels is renewable energy such as wind or solar. The World Resources Institute (WRI) State of the Climate report 2022 revealed that from 2019 to 2021, solar energy generation grew by 47 percent and wind by 31 percent.

But some countries have recently had to use more coal and liquified Natural Gas (LNG) - the most polluting fossil fuels - due to a shortage in gas energy supply arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

• Are countries on track to meet the climate goals from Glasgow?

2. Curb methane emissions

A 2021 UN report suggested that reducing emissions of methane could make an important contribution to tackling the planetary emergency.

A substantial amount of methane is released from "flaring" - the burning of natural gas during oil extraction - and could be stopped with technical fixes.

• What is gas flaring and why is it a problem?

Finding better ways of disposing of rubbish is also important, because landfill sites are another big methane source.

At COP26 in 2021 in Glasgow, nearly 100 countries agreed to cut methane emissions, in a deal spearheaded by the US and the EU. The Global Methane Pledge aims to limit methane emissions by 30% compared with 2020 levels.

3. Abandon petrol and diesel

We'll also need to change the way we power the vehicles we use to get around on land, sea and in the air.

Ditching petrol and diesel cars and switching to electric vehicles will be critical.

Lorries and buses could be powered by hydrogen fuel, ideally produced using renewable energy.

And scientists are working on new, cleaner fuels for aircraft, although campaigners are also urging people to reduce the number of flights they take.

• Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

4. Plant more trees

The UN's body of climate scientists, the IPCC, said in 2018, that to have a realistic chance of keeping the global temperature rise under 1.5C, we will have to remove CO2 from the air.

Forests are excellent at soaking it up from the atmosphere - one reason why campaigners and scientists emphasise the need to protect the natural world by reducing deforestation.

Programmes of mass tree-planting are seen as a way of offsetting CO2 emissions.

Trees are likely to be important as countries wrestle with their net zero targets, because once emissions have been reduced as much as possible, remaining emissions could be "cancelled out" by carbon sinks such as forests.

But the UK Forestry Commission also says it is important to plant trees in the "right place and for the right reasons" - to make sure they are suitable for the environment and provide wider benefits to our ecosystems.

• World leaders promise to end deforestation by 2030

5. Remove greenhouse gases from the air

Emerging technologies that artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, or stop it being released in the first place, could play a role.

A number of direct-air capture facilities are being developed, including plants built by Carbon Engineering in Texas and Climeworks in Switzerland. They work by using huge fans to push air through a chemical filter that absorbs CO2.

Another method is carbon capture and storage, which captures emissions at "point sources" where they are produced, such as at coal-fired power plants. The CO2 is then buried deep underground.

However, the technology is expensive - and controversial, because it is seen by critics as helping perpetuate a reliance on fossil fuels.

• The device that reverses CO2 emissions

6. Give financial aid to help poorer countries

At the Copenhagen COP summit in 2009, rich countries pledged to provide $100bn (£88bn) in financing by 2020, designed to help developing countries fight and adapt to climate change.

That target date was not met but is expected to be reached in 2023.

The plan also estimated that developed countries would need to mobilise more than $100 billion per year each year through to 2025.

Many coal-dependent nations have shown interest in moving away from coal. However, they need support to construct and establish new renewable energy.

Experts believe poorer nations will need continuing financial support to help them move towards greener energy. For instance, the US, EU and UK last year provided $8.5bn to help South Africa phase out coal use .

• What do the poorest countries want from climate summit?
• Why hasn't climate pledge to poor countries been met?

• Simple guide to climate change
• What will climate change look like for you?
• How extreme weather is linked to climate change

6 ways ordinary people can prevent climate change, according to researchers and advocates

In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a leading international body on climate change researchers, released an alarming report . The study found that countries around the world have just 12 years to reduce global warming before it reaches catastrophic levels.

Now that we know time may be running out, the question is: What can we do about it?

Understand how climate change will impact you

If current global temperatures rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius, as the report suggests, the warming atmosphere will create more extreme weather patterns across the U.S., according to Ben Strauss, chief scientist of Climate Central, an organization that reports on climate change. He says people across the country can expect hotter summers and milder winters, which will have a direct impact on food crops and the survival of wildlife.

“It’s getting hotter, so we can expect many more days above 90 degrees or 95 degrees, depending on where you live,” says Strauss.

In the West, continued wildfires will have a direct impact on air quality and human health, according to Strauss. In the Southwest, he says droughts will lead to water scarcity, while the East and Midwest will experience more torrential rainstorms. Strauss says people in eastern coastal areas, especially in low-lying communities, will see more flooding due to heavier and longer-lasting hurricanes, which will have an impact on the value of their homes. In the Northeast, he says, warmer weather will bring more tick and mosquito-born illnesses . The region will see fewer snowstorms, but the storms will become more intense due to increased moisture in the air.

One thing will surely impact people equally across the country, according to the scientist: intensifying summer heat. “Many more days that are danger days in terms of human health and that are ‘black flag’ days — you get to a certain combination of heat and humidity,” Strauss says.

What can we do?

Focus on solutions, according to Crystal Chissell , a vice president for Project Drawdown, a coalition of researchers and scientists who are working on climate change solutions.

Chissell says reports of impending doom tend to cause ordinary people to feel hopeless and to shut down .

“We will get a lot further toward solving the problem if we focus on solutions rather than continuing to highlight the problem,” Chissell says.

Project Drawdown recently put together a report highlighting 30 behavioral solutions ordinary people can take to combat climate change. The top three include wasting less food , adopting a plant-rich diet and consuming less energy and water.

Get Involved How to be an activist for causes you believe in

6 things you can do to combat climate change, according to advocacy groups, 1) waste less food.

Methane from agricultural actives, waste management, and energy use is the second largest cause of climate change behind fossil fuels, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Reducing food waste is the number-one thing consumers can do to significantly lessen their climate impact, according to the Project Drawdown report.

“Food that is disposed of and spoiled creates methane, and that’s why it has an impact on greenhouse gases, because methane is such a strong greenhouse gas,” Chissell says. “And that’s why reducing food waste has such a large impact.”

Food waste occurs when we don’t buy produce because it has blemishes or is misshapen, when we discard food because it is a day past the expiration date, or because we simply never get around to eating it, she says.

2) Eat less factory-farmed red meat

Factory farms feed cows grains, which cause them to release methane into the air through their gases, says Chissell.

“It’s not actually natural to their digestive system so it creates more methane,” Chissell explains.

Chissell says adopting a plant-rich diet , and eating more meat from organic farms where animals are fed natural diets, can help reduce methane. “It’s not even necessary to be a vegan or a vegetarian,” she says, “it’s just reducing the amount of meat that we consume and eating plant-based [foods].”

3) Consume less energy and water

“It’s absolutely imperative to also reduce energy usage,” says Chissell. “For instance, switching to LED light bulbs — that has a very large impact, as does any measure that can reduce household water use.”

There are a number of actions you can take to reduce water consumption, according to Chissell, including purchasing low-flow shower heads and sink faucets, taking shorter showers and washing full loads of laundry.

4) Call and meet with your representatives

Constituents who do the extra legwork of calling and meeting with their representatives have a huge influence, according to Flannery Winchester, communications coordinator at Citizens' Climate Lobby, a non-partisan advocacy organization that focuses on national policies that address climate change.

“If they’re not communicating with the people who are elected to represent them, then those people are not going to be prioritizing those issues,” Winchester says.

Many people believe their elected officials won’t be swayed by their concerns, says Winchester. But when people actively lobby their representatives, she says, change does happen.

For example, Winchester says voters influenced both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to come together to create the the Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group focused on climate change solutions.

“Things really are moving,” says Winchester, “and it’s because people are taking the time to talk to their members of Congress.”

5) Open a dialogue and find common ground

While there is major consensus among scientists that climate change is happening, some people may still doubt it’s real, or see climate change policies as “job killers,” according to Winchester.

How people talk to others about climate change is important to solving the problem, Winchester says. She says it’s imperative to avoid arguing about climate change as if it is a partisan issue.

“Really listen, ask open-ended questions and focus on finding common ground ,” Winchester advises. For instance, if someone fears climate change policy will hurt coal industry jobs, re-focus the conversation on how climate change policies can create jobs, she says.

“Focusing on the common ground is the main thing that’s going to make it possible for you to introduce new information into the conversation, because they don’t feel like you’re fighting with them,” Winchester says.

6) Volunteer

A big way to be a part of the solution is to join a nonprofit organization where you live that focuses on helping the environment. Many of these organizations have membership opportunities in states and congressional districts across the country.

A BETTER Inbox The BETTER newsletter helps you make the most of your mind, your body and your life

Want more tips like these? NBC News BETTER is obsessed with finding easier, healthier and smarter ways to live. Sign up for our newsletter and follow us on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .

• 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!

10 College Tips for Sophomore Students

80 Great Compelling Argumentative Research Topics

50 expository essay topics for your next assignment.

Sign up to get the latest WWF news delivered straight to your inbox

10 reasons why climate change is an important issue

We’re all concerned about climate change, but when it looks like a problem for future generations, you ask yourself, ‘will climate change even affect me?’ No matter what you care about, climate change is already affecting our world today. While we still have time to limit the worst impact, here are ten great reasons why we should all care about climate change:

Climate change will mean big changes for animals around the world. So if we care about incredible species, we must care about how a changing climate will make it harder for them to find food, and decrease their habitats – from forest to sea ice to the UK’s rivers and chalk streams .

2. Because you need your morning coffee fix

If you’re one of those people who need a coffee hit to get going, mornings may become grim. The effects of climate change on coffee are well-documented and coffee producers are already seeing reduced harvests, and more pests, because of it. Even if you’re caffeine-free you’re not in the clear – wine production may also be hit.

Finding Nemo or Dory may become harder as their beautiful homes crumble under the stress of our changing climate. Warmer air and ocean temperatures cause coral bleaching, where corals lose their colour and may die. Ocean acidification – from increased CO2 in the atmosphere – compounds the problem. Today, the ocean is 26% more acidic than it was in 1990, and the Great Barrier Reef has just experienced unprecedented back-to-back bleaching events in 2016 and 2017. Climate change is very bad news for anyone hoping to see the Great Barrier Reef one day.

4. Because we all need clean water

Did you know that 2 in every 3 people worldwide live in regions of severe water scarcity? Even a small increase in global temperatures will destabilise the water cycle and could make water scarcity much worse. Climate change affects rainfall patterns, meaning both drought and flooding will be more common, and more intense. And although it’s hardly comparable with life-threatening floods, climate change may already be making you late for work .

Globally temperature records  have been broken in recent years, and flooding in the UK gets worse. Year after year we’ve seen politicians wading through floods in Somerset, hopping into dinghies in Cornwall and arguing with each other in Westminster. More frequent and more intense extreme weather is a documented result of our greenhouse gas emissions, and the annual cost of flooding in the UK could increase 15-fold by the 2080s. We need to see politicians taking serious action on reducing the UK's carbon footprint, not looking for the next photo opportunity.

6. Because rainforests are incredible

Unique, irreplaceable, and often described as ‘the world’s lungs’, rainforests are some of the most precious habitats on the planet. They really are amazing; the Amazon, for example, is home to an astonishing 1 in 10 of all the known species on Earth. Yet over a third of the Amazon rainforest is already threatened by climate change. It’s a double-edged sword too: worldwide, forest destruction – mainly for agriculture – is a major cause of climate change, generating an incredible amount of greenhouse gases.

With increasing carbon emissions, it stands to reason that we face compromised air quality. This affects human health, especially children. Air pollution can lead to asthma, heart and lung disease. Beijing’s insidious smog is a visible reminder of this, but bad air quality is also making headlines in the UK, and has been labelled a ‘public health emergency’ by MPs.

8. Because clean tech is exciting

It’s not all bad news. Some of the biggest advancements in technology over the past few years have come from trying to limit, and come up with alternatives to, humanity’s CO2 dependency. Solar panels, wave-energy conversion and wind farms are allowing us to harness the power of nature in a clean way, harvesting energy without harming our environment or destroying habitats. Meanwhile nifty gadgets – like the Wall-E sized robot that can insulate your house to save energy – are helping to cut carbon in unexpected places. More of this technology could mean a cleaner, healthier future for us and our planet – because clean tech doesn’t just help nature, it also has the potential to build better, more accessible and people-friendly cities.

Climate change won’t just impact forest, or coral reefs, or even people in far-off countries – it will affect all of us. From more extreme weather to increasing food prices, to recreation and decreased opportunities to appreciate the natural world, people everywhere will feel its effects. Reducing our carbon footprint is fundamentally necessary to create a world where people and nature thrive – and that’s why WWF is working on it .

10. Because of future generations

We are fortunate to live in a beautiful, diverse, nurturing, awe-inspiring planet. Our children, and all future generations, deserve the same.

If you’re feeling worried by now, you’re not alone. Millions of people are working together for our planet. Events like Earth Hour are a brilliant reminder that together, humanity is capable of great things, and we can make change happen for the right reasons.

Already, so much has changed since we first heard about the possible effect of climate change. Beginning with the Rio Earth Summit, then the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, action on a global scale is speeding up. Now it is more important than ever that we use our action, our votes and our voices to tell political and business leaders that action on climate is absolutely essential.

What can you do? You could start with taking our carbon footprint calculator, to look at how your lifestyle impacts the environment and where you can reduce your footprint.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Why People Aren’t Motivated to Address Climate Change

• Art Markman

Our brains have trouble planning for the distant future.

Whether it’s an unfamiliar dog growling outside your front door or a bus bearing down the street toward you, we are often motivated to avoid threats. Why is climate change so different? The recent United Nations report detailed that we will face serious consequences in the next 25 years if the nations of the world do not drastically act to reduce climate change now. There are many reasons that it’s difficult to motivate people to address climate change. It represents a trade-off between short-term and long-term benefits; it’s a nonlinear problem; the effects of climate change are distant from most people; and the future is always more uncertain than the present. However, there are ways to motivate yourself about the dire consequences: Bring the future mentally closer to yourself, confront the uncertainty head-on, and initiate a serious discussion about values among your peers.

People are often highly motivated to avoid threats. If you are walking down a dark, isolated city street, you are vigilant for unexpected sights and sounds and probably pick up the pace to get back to a populated area as quickly as possible. If you step into the street and see a bus bearing down on you, you jump back. If a large unfamiliar dog is growling outside your front door, you stay inside.

• Art Markman , PhD, is the Annabel Irion Worsham Centennial Professor of Psychology and Marketing at the University of Texas at Austin and founding director of the program in the  Human Dimensions of Organizations . He has written over 150 scholarly papers on topics including reasoning, decision-making, and motivation. His most recent book is Bring Your Brain to Work: Using Cognitive Science to Get a Job, Do it Well, and Advance Your Career (HBR Press).

Partner Center

Can we slow or even reverse global warming?

Yes.  While we cannot stop global warming overnight, we can slow the rate and limit the amount of global warming by reducing human emissions of heat-trapping gases and soot (“black carbon”). 

If all human emissions of heat-trapping gases were to stop today, Earth’s temperature would continue to rise for a few decades as ocean currents bring excess heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface.  Once this excess heat radiated out to space, Earth’s temperature would stabilize. Experts think the additional warming from this “hidden” heat are unlikely to exceed 0.9° Fahrenheit (0.5°Celsius). With no further human influence, natural processes would begin to slowly remove the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and global temperatures would gradually begin to decline.

Change in heat content in the upper 2,300 feet (700 meters) of the ocean from 1993-2020. Between 1993–2019, heat content rose by up to 6 Watts per square meter in parts of the ocean (dark orange). Some areas lost heat (blue), but overall, the ocean gained more heat than it lost. The changes in areas covered with the gray shading were not statistically significant. NOAA Climate.gov image, based on data from NCEI.

It’s true that without dramatic action in the next couple of decades, we are unlikely to keep global warming in this century below 2.7° Fahrenheit (1.5° Celsius) compared to pre-industrial temperatures—a threshold that experts say offers a lower risk of serious negative impacts. But the more we overshoot that threshold, the more serious and widespread the negative impacts will be, which means that it is never “too late” to take action.

In response to a request from the U.S. Congress, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a series of peer-reviewed reports, titled  America's Climate Choices , to provide authoritative analyses to inform and guide responses to climate change across the nation. Relevant to this question, the NAS report titled  Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change  explains policies that could be adopted to slow or even reverse global warming. The report says, "Meeting internationally discussed targets for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and associated increases in global average temperatures will require a major departure from business as usual in how the world uses and produces energy."

Transitioning to energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases, such as solar, wind, biofuels, and nuclear, can slow the pace of climate change, though these energy sources face hurdles ranging from manufacturing capacity to debates about where to install some facilities. Images courtesy Energy.gov.

Alternative methods to slow or reduce global warming have been proposed that are, collectively, known as "climate engineering" or "geoengineering." Some geoengineering proposals involve cooling Earth's surface by injecting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to scatter and reflect sunlight back to space. Other proposals involve seeding the oceans with iron to stimulate large-scale phytoplankton blooms, thereby drawing down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Such methods could work, in principle, but many climate scientists oppose undertaking geoengineering until we have a much better understanding of the possible side effects. Additionally, there are unresolved legal and ethical issues surrounding geoengineering.

Given these concerns, the  American Meteorological Society published a position paper  (readopted in January 2013) in which it said: "...research to date has not determined whether there are large-scale geoengineering approaches that would produce significant benefits, or whether those benefits would substantially outweigh the detriments. Indeed, geoengineering must be viewed with caution because manipulating the Earth system has considerable potential to trigger adverse and unpredictable consequences."

Martinich, J., B.J. DeAngelo, D. Diaz, B. Ekwurzel, G. Franco, C. Frisch, J. McFarland, and B. O’Neill. (2018). Reducing Risks Through Emissions Mitigation. In  Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II  [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1346–1386. doi:  10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH29 .

Allen, M.R., O.P. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragón-Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma, J. Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, R. Perez, M.Wairiu, and K. Zickfeld (2018). Framing and Context. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.

We value your feedback

Help us improve our content

Related Content

News & features, natural variability in earth’s reflectiveness would limit our ability to detect effects of climate engineering, climate science 101: ethics and issues surrounding geo-engineering to mitigate climate change, what's the difference between global warming and climate change, maps & data, climate forcing, ocean heat content - seasonal difference from average, ocean heat content - yearly difference from average, teaching climate, toolbox for teaching climate & energy, imatternow campaign, climate youth engagement, climate resilience toolkit, climate change 2023 - ar6 synthesis report, food production, international food security.

The fight against the climate crisis must not increase inequalities

Postdoctorante Labo Équité Climat, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)

Canada Research Chair in Urban Planning for Climate Change, Associate Professor of Geography and Civil Engineering, University of Victoria

Professeure en aménagement du territoire, Université Laval

Assistant Professor, environmental studies, Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto

Associate professor, Canada Research Chair in Urban Climate Action, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)

Professeure, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)

Disclosure statement

Christina E. Hoicka received funding from the Canada Research Chair Secretariat, New Frontiers in Research Fund, MITACs, SSHRC, NSERC, McConnell Foundation, Transition Accelerator, Natural Resources Canada, Clean Energy BC, Smart Prosperity Institute, Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Sophie L. Van Neste received funding from the SSHRC Connection Fund (611-2022-0322), the Canada Research Chairs Program (950-232808), and the Villes Régions Monde network.

Geneviève Cloutier, Hélène Madénian, Laura Tozer, and Stéphane Guimont Marceau do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Toronto provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS) and Université Laval provide funding as founding partners of The Conversation CA-FR.

Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS) , Université Laval , and University of Victoria provide funding as members of The Conversation CA.

University of Toronto and University of Victoria provide funding as members of The Conversation CA-FR.

Université du Québec provides funding as a partner of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

As the impact of climate change on communities increases, researchers are concerned about growing inequalities .

The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stresses the importance of one aspect that is too often neglected by local action on climate change: considering the question of inequalities.

Studies show that the people, communities and groups that are the most affected by climate change are generally those who have contributed the least to the current climate crisis. Marginalized people and communities — for example, those living in poverty, racialized persons or persons with disabilities — find they have to cope with interlinked compound crises that amplify their distress and precariousness.

These groups and communities are developing initiatives to increase climate justice at the local level and redirect priorities for public action. For example, they are promoting concerted climate action around issues such as equity, self-determination, resilience, poverty reduction and well-being.

Research shows that local climate action policies that ignore different forms of inequality tend to exacerbate the harms experienced by marginalized communities. In some cases these policies even have the effect of delaying climate gains .

This issue is at the heart of our research. We are involved in the Canada Research Chair in Urban Climate Action , Urban Planning for Climate Change and the Ecological Transition . We have also published various studies and articles on this issue, which we consider a crucial one .

It is vital to ensure that any approach to climate action take into account issues of equity and justice, in order to prevent the fight against the climate crisis from becoming a greater social crisis within marginalized communities.

Cities, climate and inequalities

To this end, we have developed Cities, Climate and Inequalities: A collection of research summaries . It brings together knowledge and research that studies the links between inequalities, climate action and the socio-ecological transition in cities and local environments. Our goal is to encourage the various players in the field to take concerted and informed actions.

This research collection was initiated by the Canada Research Chair in Urban Climate Action and the Villes Régions Monde (Cities, Regions, World) network . Collaborators from the academic world in Québec, Ontario and British Columbia, and from the consortium on regional climatology and adaptation to climate change Ouranos contributed to its creation.

The different areas of climate action are often dealt with in silos. However, a great deal of knowledge does exist both within and outside the academic world that can help shed light on blind spots, as well as areas of progress in making a socio-ecological transition that is fairer and more just.

More than forty summaries of university, collaborative, participatory or association-based research in British Columbia, Ontario and Québec are available online .

Categories of action

Climate action can take several forms. Adaptation to climate change, which consists of adapting to the present and future impacts of environmental hazards, is studied in particular by research looking at the recovery process of disaster victims who experienced the 2017 and 2019 floods in Pointe-Gatineau, Que.

A number of research studies summarised in the collection have analyzed urban social-ecological transition initiatives and their implications when it comes to community equity. One example is the research carried out by the Conseil des Montréalaises (Council of Montréal Women) to support a just and feminist ecological transition in Montréal.

Research summaries present frameworks explaining the dimensions of equity and justice that need to be considered when dealing with climate change.

Types of actors and approaches

Some of the research summarized also analyzes policies. For example, a number of reviews compare how equity issues are taken into account in climate and environmental plans. Another looks at ways of supporting climate action and Indigenous self-determination by studying ethical land-use planning in the Upper Columbia region of British Columbia.

Other summaries present results from participatory action research. This is the case of Chemins de transition (Transition Paths) , which uses an anticipatory and participatory approach to map out a future path towards more responsible, fair and resilient ways of living in Québec by 2042.

Another example is the partnership research project FORJE – FORmation collaborative pour la Justice Énergétique (Collaborative Training for Energy Justice) , which aims to develop reciprocal training practices that improve inclusion and epistemic justice in the energy transition, while taking into account the realities of struggles and eco-citizen initiatives.

Two other summaries analyze community development actors in Québec and the place they occupy in the socio-ecological transition and adaptation to heat .

A number of summaries in the collection focus on populations who have been insufficiently considered but are disproportionately affected by climate change. The Yellowhead Institute , for example, published a report showing that the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in climate change adaptation plans in Canada is an illusion.

Another study looked at the co-construction of a collaborative planning framework with an Anishinaabe community.

Other summaries also broach the questions of an inclusive approach to disability in climate action, of giving a voice to immigrant and racialized communities who suffer from territorial inequities, and who speak to the transformation of public space design practices to support homeless populations .

Areas of activity

The search for equity in climate action must be carried out in a number of areas of activity, including housing and habitat, social support, community and health, energy, mobility and greening.

For example, lack of access to sustainable mobility and housing close to public transport leads to increased dependence on the car. One study looks at how sustainable housing and electric mobility programs in Québec encourage urban sprawl and socio-economic inequalities.

Inequalities in the distribution of green spaces leads to greater vulnerability to climatic impacts such as extreme heat. They can also lead to inequalities in terms of residential stability linked to the phenomenon of green gentrification .

Several research studies also address energy poverty, i.e. the fact that households are unable to meet their needs, maintain healthy temperatures in their homes and live in dignity.

Recent research presented in our Cities, Climate and Inequalities collection on issues and initiatives accross Canada addresses some of the shortcomings of climate action. Studies reveal existing analyses and approaches that can inspire greater reflexivity and help transform priorities and methods of action.

This collection of research shows that different areas of practice would benefit from strengthening existing links and conversations between the field of social issues and inclusion and those focused on approaches to climate action. By increasing the visibility and accessibility of this research for different sectors, and its use in taking fairer and more equitable action on climate change, the Cities, Climate and Inequalities collection of research summaries is contributing to this effort.

This article was originally published in French

• Climate change
• Environment
• Indigenous peoples
• Climate crisis
• Persons with Disabilities
• Climate action
• Social inequalities
• land use planning
• climate transition

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 188,500 academics and researchers from 5,027 institutions.

Register now

Top 10 Benefits of Climate Action

Published Oct 2, 2009

Climate change is one of the most urgent issues of our day. Several recent studies show that acting quickly and decisively to address this challenge and shift our economy to clean energy will bring significant benefits to the United States—while also helping us avoid some of the worst consequences of unchecked global warming.

Congress has begun the historic process of enacting legislation to reduce global warming emissions and transition the United States to a clean energy economy. To be most effective, such legislation should

• put the nation on a path to cutting emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 and require significant reductions in the near term as well
• be comprehensive, combining a cap on carbon emissions with crucial policies that help us shift to more efficient and cleaner forms of energy and transportation
• protect tropical forests and fund adaptation to climate change

Related resources

Water, Water Every Where

Looming Deadlines for Coastal Resilience

Follow the Money

The Science and Climate Litigation Webinar Series

We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing, you accept our use of cookies. Learn more .

Support our work

Other ways to give.

• Honor & memory
• Become a member
• Give monthly
• Make a planned gift
• Gift memberships

Your donation at work

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.

While the effects of human activities on Earth's climate to date are irreversible on the timescale of humans alive today, every little bit of avoided future temperature increases results in less warming that would otherwise persist for essentially forever. The benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions occur on the same timescale as the political decisions that lead to those reductions.

Without major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by 2.5 ° C to 4.5 ° C (4.5 ° F to 8 ° F) by 2100, according to the latest estimates.

But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach:

• “Mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
• “Adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is, what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come?

Read more about NASA's efforts to address climate change at https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/resources/ .

• An unrecognizable Arctic

Discover More Topics From NASA

Explore Earth Science

Earth Science in Action

Earth Science Data

Facts About Earth

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

3598 Accesses

175 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.

August 17, 2024

How Food Banks Prevented 1.8 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Emissions Last Year

Redistributing food to food banks before it’s tossed or wasted doesn’t just fight hunger—such efforts also fight climate change

By Frida Garza & Grist

Volunteers stack bags of potatoes at the San Francisco-Marin Food Bank in San Francisco, Calif., on May 28, 2020.

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The latest annual impact report from the Global Foodbanking Network — a nonprofit that works with regional food banks in more than 50 countries to fight hunger — found that its member organizations provided 1.7 billion meals to more than 40 million people in 2023. According to the nonprofit, this redistribution of food, much of which was recovered from farms or wholesale produce markets, mitigated an estimated 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

These numbers reflect an ongoing, high demand for food banks. Last year, the Global Foodbanking Network, or GFN, served almost as many people as it did in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sent food insecurity soaring. In order to respond to this pressing need in their communities, many of GFN’s member organizations have invested in agricultural recovery, working to rescue food from farmers before it gets thrown out.

Their efforts show how food banks can serve the dual purpose of addressing hunger and protecting the environment. By intercepting perfectly good, edible food before it winds up in the landfill, food banks help mitigate harmful greenhouse gas emissions created by food loss and waste.

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.

“There is always food that is unnecessarily wasted,” said Emily Broad Leib, the founding director of the Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, who has worked with GFN before but was not involved in the recent study. All that unnecessary waste means “there is ongoing need for scaling up food banks and food-recovery operations,” Broad Leib added.

A recent analysis from the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that 13 percent of food was lost while it was making its way from producers to retailers in 2022. Subsequently, 19 percent was wasted by retailers, restaurants, and households. The world’s households alone let 1 billion meals go to waste each day. The scope of food wasted around the world has been shockingly high for years: In 2011, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations released a study that suggested roughly one-third of food produced globally is never eaten.

Food waste at this scale comes with massive planetary impacts. When food goes uneaten, all of the emissions associated with growing, transporting, and processing it are rendered unnecessary. Furthermore, when food rots in landfills, it emits methane, a greenhouse gas that is roughly 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that 58 percent of methane emissions from U.S. landfills come from food waste. Globally, food loss and waste have been estimated to be responsible for 8 percent to 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions , and reducing them is essential for achieving climate targets.

Food banks can play a special role in that reduction by rescuing more food before it’s lost and redirecting it to people in need. “Our members have been building out their redistribution capacity,” said Lisa Moon, the president and CEO of GFN. “I think that was our first challenge in the face of this rising need: How do we as an organization capture more supply?”

In order to do this, food banks within GFN member organizations have been coordinating more closely with farmers to redirect surplus food from landfills. GFN defines surplus food as food from commercial streams that was grown for human consumption but that, for some reason or another, cannot be sold. So-called “ugly” produce — misshapen food that never makes it to the grocery store because of its looks — falls into this category.

Some of this redirection actually looks like cutting out food banks as the middleman. Moon gives the example of a food bank that receives a call from a farmer with excess green beans. Instead of traveling to the farm to pick them up, traveling back to the food bank’s distribution hub, storing the green beans, and having folks wait for the next distribution day to collect them, the food bank in question might simply reach out to beneficiaries in the area (think: soup kitchens) to inform them of how many green beans are available and where so they can pick them up. GFN refers to this as “virtual food banking” because of how members are using tech platforms to match farmers with beneficiaries, rather than physically moving the produce themselves.

The result of this emphasis on agricultural recovery is that fruit and vegetables now make up the largest portion — 40 percent — of food redistributed by GFN members by volume. Moon says the organization is “just only scratching the surface” of possibilities for recovering fresh produce.

In order to calculate that 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent was mitigated by these efforts, GFN utilized the Food Loss and Waste Protocol developed by the World Resources Institute . This framework takes a number of things into account, including where recovered food would have ended up had it not been intercepted from the waste stream. These waste destinations can be landfills but also include animal feed, compost, and anaerobic digesters (a waste management technology that converts organic waste into biogas — but that can come with its own emissions problems ). Moon acknowledged that GFN does not know in every case what would happen to the surplus food if it were not rescued by a food bank — but pointed out that most of the places where the network operates do not have a robust circular economy for food.

Broad Leib, the Harvard Law food policy expert, described GFN’s estimate of carbon dioxide equivalent mitigated as “a good proxy for impact.” While other waste destinations are possible, “we also know that the large majority of wasted food globally goes to landfill,” she said. “I think their estimate is likely not far off from actual emissions avoided.”

This story was originally published by Grist , a nonprofit media organization covering climate, justice, and solutions.

• UN Environment Programme
• UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre

• Action Areas
• Partner Countries

10 ways you can help fight the climate crisis

The  evidence is irrefutable : unless we act immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will not be able to stave off the worst consequences of climate change.

The world is already 1.2°C warmer than pre-industrial times and every fraction of a degree counts. Research shows that  with 2°C of global warming  we will have more intense droughts and more devastating floods, more wildfires and more storms.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres  said  at the recent  UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) , “Our fragile planet is hanging by a thread. We are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe. It is time to go into emergency mode — or our chance of reaching net-zero will itself be zero.”

The outlook can seem depressing. But the good news is that there is a lot we can still do as individuals to change this narrative.

“The climate emergency demands action from all of us. We need to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and everyone has a role to play,” said Niklas Hagelberg, UNEP’s Climate Change Coordinator. “We, as individuals, must change our consumption habits and pressure those who represent us – our employers, our politicians – to move rapidly to a low-carbon world.”

Here are 10 ways you can be part of the climate solution:

Photo: Unsplash / Becca Tapert 

1. Spread the word

Encourage your friends, family and co-workers to reduce their carbon pollution. Join a global movement like  Count Us In,  which aims to inspire 1 billion people to take practical steps and challenge their leaders to act more boldly on climate. Organizers of  the platform  say that if 1 billion people took action, they could reduce as much as 20 per cent of global carbon emissions. Or you could sign up to the UN’s   #ActNow campaign  on climate change and sustainability and add your voice to this critical global debate.

Photo: Unsplash / Callum Shaw

2. Keep up the political pressure

Lobby local politicians and businesses to support efforts to cut emissions and reduce carbon pollution. Count Us In has  some handy tips  for how to do this. Pick an environmental issue you care about, decide on a specific request for change and then try to arrange a meeting with your local representative. It might seem intimidating but your voice deserves to be heard. If humanity is to succeed in tackling the climate emergency, politicians must be part of the solution. It’s up to all of us to keep up with the pressure. 

Photo: Unsplash / Coen van de Broek 

3. Transform your transport

Transport accounts for around  a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions  and across the world, many governments are implementing policies to decarbonize travel. You can get a head start: leave your car at home and walk or cycle whenever possible. If the distances are too great, choose public transport, preferably electric options. If you must drive, offer to carpool with others so that fewer cars are on the road. Get ahead of the curve and buy an electric car. Reduce the number of long-haul flights you take. 

Photo: Unsplash / Jeremy Bezanger 

4. Rein in your power use

If you can, switch to a zero-carbon or renewable energy provider. Install solar panels on your roof. Be more efficient: turn your heating down a degree or two, if possible. Switch off appliances and lights when you are not using them and better yet buy the most efficient products in the first place (hint: this will save you money!). Insulate your loft or roof: you’ll be warmer in the winter, cooler in the summer and save some money too. 

Photo: Unsplash / Jo Sonn 

5. Tweak your diet

Eat more plant-based meals – your body and the planet will thank you. Today, around  60 per cent of the world’s agricultural land is used for livestock grazing  and people in many countries are consuming more animal-sourced food than is healthy. Plant-rich diets can help reduce chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.

Photo: Unsplash / Artur Rutkowski 

The climate emergency demands action from all of us. We need to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and everyone has a role to play.

Niklas Hagelberg, UNEP’s Climate Change Coordinator

6. Shop local and buy sustainable

To reduce your food’s carbon footprint,  buy local and seasonal foods.  You’ll be helping small businesses and farms in your area and reducing fossil fuel emissions associated with transport and cold chain storage. Sustainable agriculture uses up to 56 per cent less energy, creates 64 per cent fewer emissions and allows for greater levels of biodiversity than conventional farming. Go one step further and try growing your own fruit, vegetables and herbs. You can plant them in a garden, on a balcony or even on a window sill. Set up a community garden in your neighbourhood to get others involved. 

Photo: Unsplash / Charles Deluvio

7. Don’t waste food

One-third of all food produced is either lost or wasted. According to UNEP’s  Food Waste Index Report 2021 , people globally waste 1 billion tonnes of food each year, which accounts for  around 8-10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.  Avoid waste by only buying what you need. Take advantage of every edible part of the foods you purchase. Measure portion sizes of rice and other staples before cooking them, store food correctly (use your freezer if you have one), be creative with leftovers, share extras with your friends and neighbours and contribute to a local food-sharing scheme. Make compost out of inedible remnants and use it to fertilize your garden.  Composting is one of the best options  for managing organic waste while also reducing environmental impacts.

Photo: Pexels / Teona Swift

8. Dress (climate) smart

The fashion industry accounts for  8-10 per cent of global carbon emissions  – more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined – and ‘fast fashion’ has created a throwaway culture that sees clothes quickly end up in landfills. But we can change this. Buy fewer new clothes and wear them longer. Seek out sustainable labels and use rental services for special occasions rather than buying new items that will only be worn once. Recycle pre-loved clothes and repair when necessary.

Photo: Unsplash / Geran de Klerk 

9. Plant trees   

Every year approximately  12 million hectares of forest are destroyed  and this deforestation, together with agriculture and other land use changes, is responsible for roughly 25 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. We can all play a part in reversing this trend by planting trees, either individually or as part of a collective. For example, the  Plant-for-the-Planet initiative  allows people to sponsor tree-planting around the world.

Check out  this UNEP guide  to see what else you can do as part of the  UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration , a global drive to halt the degradation of land and oceans, protect biodiversity, and rebuild ecosystems. 

Photo: Unsplash / RawFilm 

10. Focus on planet-friendly investments

Individuals can also spur change through their savings and investments by choosing financial institutions that do not invest in carbon-polluting industries. This sends a clear signal to the market and already many financial institutions are offering more ethical investments, allowing you to use your money to support causes you believe in and avoid those you don’t. You can ask your financial institution about their responsible banking policies and find out how they rank in independent research. 

Further Resources

• 7 climate action highlights to remember before COP26
• Climate Action Note - data you need to know
• Emissions Gap Report 2021
• Food Waste Index 2021
• Act Now: the UN campaign for individual action
• Count Us In

The NDC Action Project is a UNEP project supporting 10 partner countries worldwide to translate their NDCs into concrete strategies and actions, ready for implementation and financing.

© United Nations Environment Programme

• 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 .

The Climate Crisis and Colonialism Destroyed My Maui Home. Where We Must Go From Here

A s I watched the flames of the wildfires consume my beloved Maui, it felt as if the very pages from the Book of Revelations were coming alive.

Homes, sacred structures, and institutions flattened. Over 100 lives were lost, with a thousand more unaccounted for. Even the ancient 150-year-old Banyan tree, a guardian of my youth, was marred by the inferno. Each ember seemed to tell a tale, a memory, a piece of a narrative that connected countless generations.

The harrowing wildfires paired with a fierce hurricane wasn't just a tragedy. It felt like Goddess Papahānaumoku—Earth Mother, herself—raging at humanity's hubris. The disturbing silence left by the missing and the mourned souls tells of a disaster that's unnatural, shaped by the human hand—a byproduct of the dangerous dance between climate change and centuries of colonial greed.

While West Maui is no stranger to wildfires, the magnitude of the blaze that tore through Lāhainā is emblematic of a changing climate. Our once-wetland haven has been transformed into a vulnerable tinderbox. Compounding the problem was Hurricane Dora— made fiercer by the warming climate—which propelled the fire further. All of this underscores a painful truth: the first and most severely impacted by the climate crisis are often indigenous, Black, brown, and low-income communities. These groups have contributed the least to climate change, but have suffered the most, and must be prioritized in our transition to a better world.

We can't ignore the scars of history which set the stage for this disaster. Before the hotels, before Hawaii was known as a state or even a territory (and way before its illegal annexation), Lāhainā was the cradle of our civilization. It was the heart and capital of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The waters were so abundant that boats once surrounded the iconic Waiola Church. Kamehameha The Great’s palace stood tall at the town’s center, keeping watch over the shoreline.

Read More: The History Lost in the Maui Wildfires But at the turn of the 20th century, American sugar barons came to exploit Hawaii's rich resources . They disrupted Lahaina's water supply and brought highly flammable grasses to Hawaii—the very ones that ignited with ferocity last week. Their heirs went on to monopolize land, marginalizing our indigenous population in the process.

Their legacy and extractive way of life endures. Maui’s most dominant corporations today, like Alexander & Baldwin, embody the legacy of those same barons who once sought to profit from our fertile lands. Their ethos of extraction and destruction persists in Maui’s most dominant industries: land speculation and tourism. These industries seek to destroy much of Hawaii’s natural beauty while gatekeeping sections of it for the privileged few. This timeline of Hawaiian history could be experienced first hand by a walk down Lāhinā’s Front Street just two weeks ago. You could see milestones of our history represented in the street’s restaurants, stores, and historic buildings: from royalty, to whaling, sugar, tourism, and luxury. Today, much of Front Street is burned to the ground. It’s a potent and harrowing reminder of the terminal point of the exploitative trajectory Hawaii has been on for decades. My greatest fear is that this trajectory of exploitation will continue in the recovery from the Maui wildfires. As whispers of reshaping Lāhainā emerge, with wealthy developers eager to mold it to their vision, our generation’s vision for social and environmental justice grows even firmer. Our recovery from the wildfires can’t just be about combating climate change—it has to be about returning control of our cherished lands to the people who hold them dear.

Read More: Why the History of Hawaii Makes People Fear Lahaina's Future

The future of Maui should be more than just a haven for tourists. Our land should cater to local needs over external desires. Instead of vast monocrops, we should diversify, nurturing fields that feed our own people. Our approach to housing must be rooted in necessity: We need to build homes to actually shelter our people, not to line the pockets of distant investors. With the Department of Hawaiian Homes fully funded for the first time and various land trusts eager to lend a hand, the moment is ripe to provide our many unsheltered Kānaka Maoli with homes that dignify their heritage.

The people of Maui, especially survivors, are taking charge of the recovery process, reshaping the blueprint for our island's restoration. We're picturing a community-driven, just recovery that not only reconstructs Maui but also fosters new leadership among Maui residents—from collaboratively rebuilding a school one day to advocating at the county council the next. As we rise from the ashes, our rebuilding efforts must champion hoʻomana Lāhui—the spirit of collective empowerment.

At the national level, it's past time for President Biden to officially recognize the climate crisis by declaring a climate emergency. This would enable him to halt the destructive fossil fuel production driving these disasters. Furthermore, substantial federal investments on the scale of trillions are required to prevent catastrophes like this one in the future and prioritize the welfare of working families in mitigation and recovery efforts. Any climate solution would be incomplete without justice at its core. Kānaka Maoli, Native Hawaiians, should be central to the rebuilding and recovery efforts. We should have the authority to manage our lands and resources.

In these heartrending times, it's challenging to see beyond the immediate pain. But there’s a silver lining in our resilience. The wildfires of Maui, while devastating, have also ignited a spark in us. They’ve awakened a renewed commitment to not just rebuild, but to redefine what Hawaii stands for. This is our home, our history, our legacy. And it's our collective responsibility to ensure that Hawaii’s future is carved out of respect, understanding, and love for its past.

Just like the Banyan tree, Lāhainā may have faced devastation, but its roots are deep and resilient. As the Banyan regrows its branches—and recolors itselves with budding leaves—so too, will Lāhainā flourish again.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Breaking Down the 2024 Election Calendar
• Heman Bekele Is TIME’s 2024 Kid of the Year
• The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris
• A Battle Over Fertility Law in China
• For the Love of Savoring Sandwiches : Column
• The 1 Heart-Health Habit You Should Start When You’re Young
• Cuddling Might Help You Get Better Sleep
• The 50 Best Romance Novels to Read Right Now

Contact us at [email protected]

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.