Embedded Files
Subscribe to my Substack for regular updates!
Belize, 2023
There's good news and bad news when it comes to solving the climate crisis.
There's good news and bad news when it comes to solving the climate crisis.
The bad news is that some of the damage we have done is irreversible. The warming that has already occurred is nothing short of alarming, with “[t]he 10 warmest years in the historical record [all occurring] since 2015” and 2026 exceeding the pre-industrial average by 1.34 degrees Celsius (Assessing the Global Temperature and Precipitation Analysis in 2025 | News | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)). If we continue to increase emissions at the current rate, the planet could warm up to 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century (Predictions of Future Global Climate | Center for Science Education). Even if we curb emissions and keep them constant at the current levels, that figure would still be 2.6 degrees, an unacceptable overshoot of the Paris Agreement goals (CAT Thermometer | Climate Action Tracker).
By some estimates, we have already exceeded the level of warming that the Paris Agreement hoped to keep us below, with 2023 and 2025 being ~1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. (Overshoot: The World Is Hitting Point of No Return on Climate - Yale E360)
The result of this frightening warming is that some impacts are already "baked in." No matter what we do, there will be climate consequences. However, the good news is that we have not yet passed the point of no return. According to NOAA,
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.
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. (Can we slow or even reverse global warming? | NOAA Climate.gov)
Myth buster: Climate solutions are not more expensive than business as usual
Myth buster: Climate solutions are not more expensive than business as usual
The financial costs of anthropogenic climate change vary greatly. According to an article in Nature (now retracted due to discrepancies in data regarding a single country, leading to a wider uncertainty range), climate change is likely to cause "global annual damages in 2049 of 38 trillion in 2005 international dollars" (RETRACTED ARTICLE: The economic commitment of climate change | Nature). A separate report from the World Economic Forum finds that "[y]he global cost of climate change damage is estimated to be between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion per year by 2050." (Climate change is costing the world $16 million per hour: study). This corresponds to a total cost of $40.8 trillion to $74.4 trillion between 2026 and 2050. Another study from the Council on Foreign Relations found that, just in the US, the climate crisis would cost approximately $508B by 2090.
The costs of solving the climate crisis by 2050 deviate even more from one another, with some as high as $9.2 trillion annually (The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring). However, such estimates are highly contested, with other reputable sources citing a figure of "less than 0.5% of [global] GDP by mid-century" (Climate economics - costs and benefits). For reference, global GDP as of 2026 was $180 trillion, 0.5% of which is about $900 billion. While still massive, this is much less than $9.2 trillion. The widespread consensus is summarized in a study by the London School of Sustainability at LSE,
In its review of the latest scientific evidence, Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that putting in place mitigation measures to reduce emissions enough to limit probable warming to 2°C entail losses to global GDP of between 1.3% and 2.7% in 2050. In following action to limit probable warming to 1.5°C, losses are between 2.6% and 4.2%. However, cutting emissions in this way would also entail benefits, which are likely to outweigh global mitigation costs over the 21st century.
The overall costs of mitigation look quite small when compared with the strong underlying growth that the global economy is likely to experience. Regardless of the level of mitigation action, global GDP is projected to at least double over 2020–2050. But also, investment in green industries and infrastructure as part of climate change mitigation can boost GDP.
The article goes on to describe the co-benefits of curbing emissions (from reducing air pollution to improving diet), and stating that "[e]conomists increasingly suggest that existing cost estimates may overstate the true long-term costs of action to cut emissions because they fail to capture future advancements in technologies, and thus falling costs, as well as new innovations developed over time." (How much will it cost to cut global greenhouse gas emissions? - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment).
Every credible source echoes this sentiment. At this point, it is impossible to distort the numbers to such a degree that fossil fuels seem more economical than the alternative. Renewables and other clean technologies have become more affordable in recent years, and will continue to do so all because of a common economic phenomenon known as "the learning curve." According to Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis in their book The Big Fix, “any deliberate effort to scale up a new technology might reasonably be expected to lead to falling costs.” (The Big Fix pg 21). Already since 2010, utility scale solar farm prices have fallen nearly 90%; onshore wind by 60%, advanced batteries over by 80%; and LEDs by 97% (The Big Fix pg 11). The same is true with other green technologies: according to the International Energy Agency,
In many cases, clean energy technologies are already more cost competitive over their lifespans than those reliant on conventional fuels like coal, natural gas and oil. Solar PV and wind are the cheapest options for new generation. Even when electric vehicles, including two-and three-wheelers, have higher upfront costs, which is not always the case, they typically result in savings due to lower operating expenses. Energy efficient appliances such as air conditioners provide similar cost benefits over their lifetimes. (Rapid rollout of clean technologies makes energy cheaper, not more costly - News - IEA).
This all goes to show that solving the climate crisis is not a matter of resources or financial limitations - it is purely a matter of political will.
What do we need to do?
What do we need to do?
As the Union of Concerned Scientists states, “[c]utting carbon is the only long-term solution for avoiding climate impacts.” (Climate Solutions) Greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are what caused the climate crisis, so mitigating the worst impacts will require reducing them drastically. This means reaching net zero emissions (not putting out more GHGs than we take in) by 2050 - and preferably much earlier.
"The scale of [the necessary] changes will require significant federal policy that puts a price on carbon. It also requires international cooperation.” (Climate Solutions). Not only this, but it requires transformations in every sector, beginning with those with the highest emissions. These three components, if implemented correctly, are highly likely to get us to net zero - and yet, even if we solve the climate crisis (and that's a pretty big "if"), we will still have the sustainability crisis. That is why many advocate for a fourth action, known as the Green New Deal, in order to address the root causes of the climate crisis.
I. A price on carbon
I. A price on carbon
Carbon pricing is a tactic widely favored by economists and some politicians, because it offers an incentive to minimize fossil fuel usage. Its benefits are eloquently summarized by the London School of Economics and Political Science:
Climate change is considered a market failure by economists, because it imposes huge costs and risks on future generations who will suffer the consequences of climate change, without these costs and risks normally being reflected in current market prices. To overcome this market failure, they argue, we need to ‘internalise’ the costs of future environmental damage by putting a price on the thing that causes it – namely greenhouse gas emissions.
A carbon price ... not only has the effect of encouraging lower-carbon behaviour (e.g. using a bike rather than driving a car), but also raises money that can be used in part to finance a clean-up of ‘dirty’ activities (e.g. investment in research into fuel cells to help cars pollute less). With a carbon price in place, the costs of stopping climate change are distributed across generations rather than being borne overwhelmingly by future generations. (What is a carbon price and why do we need one? - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment)
The two primary forms of regulating carbon emissions are cap and trade and carbon tax, which are compared and contrasted by the World Resources Institute. (Carbon Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade: What’s a Better Policy to Cut Emissions? | World Resources Institute)
Cap and trade: The government sells limited permits to emit a certain quantity of greenhouse gases, which companies can then buy from one another independently. These programs “can increase certainty that emissions will fall below the predetermined emissions targets,” but are often designed poorly and have “weak emissions caps, volatility in emissions allowance prices, and overly generous allocations of emissions allowances to regulated entities.”
Carbon tax: Companies and individuals must pay a certain amount for every ton of CO2 or every barrel of oil. A carbon tax “offers stable carbon prices” as well as “a continuing price signal,” but “does not offer the same degree of emissions certainty.”
Overall, research shows that either program can be effective if implemented correctly.
One issue that might be raised with carbon pricing is that it places the cost of climate change on consumers, when it is really the producers (i.e. the fossil fuel industry) that are at fault. Some argue that increases in gasoline prices, electricity prices, and more could put unnecessary stress on low and middle income families. While this is true, the hope is that the market would adjust to the increased costs, as consumers rapidly transition away from fossil fuel products. There will be greater demand for clean alternatives, and thus fossil fuel companies will cease to be profitable enough to continue operating. However, this will only work if the price placed on carbon is high enough.
2. International Cooperation
2. International Cooperation
Climate change is undeniably a global issue, which means that it has the potential to mobilize global support. However, the dark side to this is the fact that it can result in a collective action problem, in which
a group would be better off as a whole if its members joined forces, but at the same time, those members have reasons to act selfishly and not cooperate. With climate change, cooperation means countries using their limited resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite each individual country’s temptation to use those resources for other national priorities instead. (How Are International Agreements Helping Fight Global Warming? | CFR Education)
Although multilateral treaties can be very powerful if crafted and implemented correctly, those for human-made climate change often fall by the wayside because of the collective action problem. Furthermore, the organizations that initiate them (often the United Nations) fail to properly enforce them, and oftentimes countries are too dependent on fossil fuels to agree upon meaningful pledges in the first place.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, there have been only four major climate agreements: the Montreal Protocol of 1987 (“succeeded in eliminating nearly 99 percent of… ozone-depleting substances”), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 (“the first global treaty to explicitly address climate change” by establishing the Convention of the Parties [COP]), the Kyoto Protocol of 2005 (required emission reductions but “did not compel developing countries” or the US), and the Paris Agreement of 2015. (Paris to Kyoto: The History of UN Climate Agreements | Council on Foreign Relations)
We need a legally enforceable, meaningful treaty on the climate crisis for every country in the world, crafted around principles of climate justice. The highest emitting states must rapidly decarbonize, and provide developing states with the support and resources they need to become prosperous without fossil fuels.
3. Sectoral Transformations
3. Sectoral Transformations
While a price on carbon is necessary for incentivizing sustainable behaviors, these are unhelpful if sustainable options are absent. Environemntally friendly lifestyles can no longer be expensive and alternative: they must be the norm. This can only happen if efforts are taken to make every aspect of our lives carbon neutral. As Greta Thunberg has stated, it is impossible to live sustainably in an unsustainable world.
The World Resources Institute has compiled a comprehensive guide to global emission sources with information from Climate Watch, summarized as an interactive pie chart.
These Charts Explain Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector | World Resources Institute
Energy
Energy
At over three quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions, the energy sector is by far the largest contributor to climate change. Within this category, electricity and heat generates the most emissions at 33.6% of the total, followed by transportation at 14.3%, manufacturing and consumption at 12.2%, fugitive emissions at 6.8%, buildings at 6.3%, and international bunkers at 2.4%.
This means that, first and foremost, we must radically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity. Electricity is provided to humans for a variety of purposes: residential and commercial buildings both use massive amounts of energy (8% and 5.6% of total, respectively), as do chemicals and petrochemicals (2.3%), industry (2.1%), iron and steel (1.5%), and all sorts of other processes. A huge number of modern processes use electricity in some capacity, and yet the vast majority of electricity comes from a single source: the electrical grid. Electrical grids consist of “networks that facilitate the connection between electricity generation plants and end consumers. They encompass various systems designed to transmit and distribute electrical power…”(Electric grids | Engineering | Research Starters).
This sophisticated process by which power is provided to the grid is eloquently described by Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis in their book The Big Fix:
The electrical current … consists of electrons, tiny subatomic charges that flow along the wires… Most of those electrons were propelled into motion by a device called a dynamo, also known as a generator. Some source of mechanical power turns the shaft of the dynamo, causing magnets inside to move across a copper coil, inducing a current in the wires… Modern dynamos are colossal, and it takes immense mechanical energy to turn them. [The way coal produces this energy is by being] dug from the ground, delivered to power plants… and dumped into machines that work like giant pepper grinders. The ground coal is then blown into a furnace and burned in a mighty fire… That fire, in turn, boils the water to spin the turbine that turns the dynamo… [T]he carbon within the coal combines with oxygen in the air, and the power plant pours millions of tons of carbon dioxide out its smokestack each year. (The Big Fix pg 48-49)
This process is essentially the same when natural gas or petroleum is substituted for coal, except that methane (a more potent but shorter lived compound) is the main GHG released – and when renewable energy sources are used, virtually no GHGs are emitted at all.
The grid is an essential aspect of modern life, so much so that no one would suggest eliminating it. It has provided numerous wonders that we cannot afford to sacrifice, from lights in the middle of the night to cooling in the midst of summer – however, it is a huge polluter, and thus it must be decarbonized. "Decarbonization" is a term that will be used mant times when exploring how our world can be structured sustainably. A rapid transition away from fossil fuels that is necessary for decarbonization looks different for each sector, and in fact each household. As far as energy goes, the aspects of a decarbonized grid are summarized in the graphic below. Obviously, this would look different if the energy were being provided to, say, a factory instead of a house. Although such industrial processes are huge users of electricity and huge polluters, grid decarbonization will be explored here mostly as it pertains to commercial and residential buildings, because (#1) these are the largest direct electricity consumers and (#2) industry and other related things are explored more in depth at other points.
A decarbonized grid can be achieved in several ways. Firstly, it can be done by making it more efficient. Already, major innovations are underway involving “smart grid” technologies, which save tremendous amounts of energy. According to the US Department of Energy, these
are made possible by two-way communication technologies, control systems, and computer processing. These advanced technologies include advanced sensors known as Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs) that allow operators to assess grid stability, advanced digital meters that give consumers better information and automatically report outages, relays that sense and recover from faults in the substation automatically, automated feeder switches that re-route power around problems, and batteries that store excess energy and make it available later to the grid to meet customer demand. (Grid Modernization and the Smart Grid | Department of Energy).
Basically, new innovations allow the grid to know when it is best to use energy in a particular place, based on energy availability and activity at other locations connected to the grid.
As important an efficiency is, it is an accessory to the true decarbonization: replacing all coal, oil, and natural gas with renewable energy sources. Polluters will argue against renewables, calling them unreliable or unsafe. This narrative is the single largest issue standing in the way of deploying renewable energy on a large scale in countries such as the US.
Each renewable energy source has different characteristics, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. By using a variety of renewables, the grid can be made more sustainable and more efficient, supplying all of our needs without harming the environment. In fact, the potential for just solar and wind exceeds energy demand. According to a report from Carbon Tracker,
Global energy consumption in 2019 was 65 Petawatt hours (PWh). [1] However, with current technology the world has the potential to capture more than 5,800 PWh annually from solar PV alone [2] – as much power in a single year as could be generated by burning all known fossil fuel reserves. In addition, onshore and offshore wind could capture nearly 900 PWh a year. [3] (Solar and wind can meet world energy demand 100 times over).
These numbers are a bit misleading, because solar and wind rarely generate energy at their maximum capacity, due to their intermittent nature. However, any gaps left by solar and wind can be filled by nuclear, which, although controversial, is safe and quickly becoming safer. There are also a variety of other renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, and hydrogen. This technologies will certainly evolve over time, but the only way to determine how they function (and to put them on the learning curve) is to deploy them at scale. It is the government’s responsibility to do this, by incentivizing renewables for households and businesses, and leading by example by using renewables for all of its functions.
Many people fear such transitions in the electricity sector, because they believe it will lead to unreliability or discomfort. However, smart grid technology and renewables actually provide more benefits than one might expect, such as lower energy bills and improving health. (What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? | Our World in Data).
Although these two premises (clean energy and efficient energy) stills stand, electricity usage and decarbonization will look a bit different between residential buildings and commercial buildings.
Transportation is the second largest emitting component of the energy sector, and accordingly requires major transformations. Although some forms of transportation have a greater environmental impact than others, the majority of widespread transport options are not sustainable.
According to the EPA, there are three main routes to decarbonizing transportation.
Activity - This means reducing the necessity of taking long trips in the first place. When communities are constructed to allow walking and biking instead of driving and even flying, a significant amount of carbon will be offset.
Technology - This means expanding efficient, electric public and private transport options. Buses and railways are becoming more sustainable as major companies work to ease them off of fossil fuels, while Electric Vehicles (EVs) are becoming more popular and more advanced by the moment.
Fuels - The root of the issue of transportation emissions is, like everything else, fossil fuels. By using batteries, green hydrogen, ammonia, and other options that are being researched and engineered currently, all forms of travel (from maritime shipping to personal vacations) can be made sustainable.
(Routes to Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation Future | US EPA)
The Council on Foreign Relations elaborates on each of these clean transport opportunities, emphasizing the potential for increased-efficiency Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles in the short term and EVs in the long term. Although EV demand has soared in recent years, governments still have the ability to increase their usage, productivity, and reliability. First and foremost, fossil fuel infrastructure used to charge EVs must be eliminated, so that any indirect carbon emissions associated with EV use are no more. Such 100% clean charging stations must be expanded so they are readily available, and subsidies must be implemented to incentivize the purchase of EVs.
When it comes to heavier vehicles (including trucks, ships, and planes), alternative fuels are seen to have more potential than electric batteries. (How to Lower Transportation-Sector Emissions | CFR Education)
Although electricity and transportation are the things we see most immediately in everyday life, the next largest component of the energy sector is equally important. Manufacturing emits 12.2% of total GHGs through various pathways, the largest of these being iron and steel production (4.3% of total), non-metallic minerals (2.1%), and chemicals and petrochemicals (1.6%). Others, from food and tobacco (0.4%) to paper, pulp, and printing (0.2%), contribute smaller fractions. Generally, emissions in industry can be reduced through “energy efficiency, fuel switching, combined heat and power, use of renewable energy, and the more efficient use and recycling of materials.” (Controlling Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Most of these components are interconnected with electricity. However, for some of these processes (most prominently iron and steel), the inherent chemical reactions involved emit GHGs, so more radical innovations must be employed. The details for these options can be found under "Industrial Processes."
Fugitive emissions (6.8% of total) primarily come from power plants and manufacturing facilities operated by fossil fuel companies. The large majority (4.2% of total) are vent emissions, which “is the direct release of methane gas to the atmosphere.” The rest come from flaring (1.1% of total), which is “is the practice of burning gas that is deemed uneconomical to collect and sell, and production." (Flaring and Venting - Earthworks). The primary way to reduce fugitive emissions is to require a certain level of efficiency and security in every company’s equipment, and to penalize any actor that continues to intentionally or unintentionally emit fugitive GHGs.
Buildings are responsible for a huge amount of electricity use, and demand signficiant resources to construct. Residential buildings emit 4.7% of total GHGs, and commercial emit 1.6% of total.
International bunkers account for 2.4% of total GHG emissions, including shipping at 1.3% and air at 1.1%. This sector is particularly significant because its emissions are not included in any domestic reports, and thus they are often neglected in climate targets. The primary tactic for reducing international emissions is to encourage states to source what they can domestically, and choose the most sustainable transportation option when it is truly necessary.
The final portion of energy emissions (1.2%) comes from other fuel combustion, including the energy required for agriculture and fishing (0.9% of total) and energy-use not able to be traced to a specific source (0.3% of total). The former will be addressed when describing sustainable practices in the next largest sector, agriculture, while the latter can be improved upon using the fugitive emission techniques previously described.
Agriculture
Agriculture
Non-energy emissions make up less than a quarter of the total, but they are significant nonetheless. The next largest emitter after energy, agriculture (12.3% of total), is particularly significant because it is a primary source of methane, a greenhouse gas much more potent (although shorter lived) than carbon dioxide. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, “[r]esearchers have found that 37% of methane emissions from human activity are the direct result of our livestock and agricultural practices.” (Agriculture and Aquaculture: Food for Thought | US EPA).
Unsurprisingly, then, livestock and their manure emit the most of any agricultural practice (6.6% of total). The emissions come from two main sources: the resources required to raise the livestock, and the digestion of the livestock. As far as resources go, land and food are the primary ones required, both of which are sacrificed from other valuable functions when used for egg, dairy, and meat production. Currently, 44% of habitable land is used for agriculture, ⅔ of which is grazing land (Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture | Our World in Data). Additionally, much of the food livestock consume is not even converted into edible meat, making the process wildly inefficient and even more wasteful.
The US Environmental Protection Agency describes the other source of livestock emissions as follows:
When ruminant animals such as goats, sheep, and especially cattle digest their food, it gets processed in their systems by way of fermentation. This process breaks the food down over time and produces methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to our rapidly warming planet when expelled to the atmosphere in the traditional biologic routes; i.e., flatulence or burps. (Agriculture and Aquaculture: Food for Thought | US EPA).
Although some products emit less than others, and thus emissions could be reduced by limiting the cultivation of certain animal products, the most effective way to curb agricultural emissions is to switch to mostly plant-based foods.
According to the Stanford School of Sustainability,
phasing out animal agriculture over the next 15 years would have the same effect as a 68 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the year 2100. This would provide 52 percent of the net emission reductions necessary to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels… (Could going vegan help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? | Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability).
After livestock emissions comes agriculture soil at 3.7% of total emissions. Interestingly, soils act as both a source and sink for GHGs. In theory, this should mean that soil should be net-zero: taking in what it gives out. However, due to disruptive farming processes that impair soils’ natural ability to sequester carbon, this is far from the case. According to an article from Nature Index,
Biological processes driven by soil microbes release these gases [carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide] through respiration and denitrification, while physical and chemical interactions can sequester carbon within stable organic matter pools. Agricultural management—including tillage intensity, residue handling, crop rotations and organic amendments—modulates soil structure, moisture and nutrient availability, thereby altering gas fluxes. Conservation practices such as no-tillage, cover cropping and judicious fertiliser use can enhance soil organic carbon stocks and improve soil aggregate stability, restraining emissions and mitigating global warming potential. Conversely, intensive tillage and excessive nitrogen inputs often accelerate organic matter mineralisation and amplify nitrous oxide release. (Soil Management and Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Environmental Biogeochemistry | Pollution and Contamination | Earth & environmental sciences | Topics | Nature Index).
One might not expect rice to make a noticeable dent on agricultural emissions, not to mention overall emissions. However, rice cultivation contributes 1.4% of total GHGs. This is due to the unique way that rice is grown: “Rice grows mostly in flooded fields called rice paddies. The water blocks oxygen from penetrating the soil, creating ideal conditions for bacteria that emit methane,” says the World Resources Institute. (More Rice, Less Methane | World Resources Institute).
Luckily, this is a relatively straightforward problem that requires a relatively simple solution: by interrupting the periods of flooding, bacteria will have less opportunities to prosper and generate methane. A working paper from the World Resources Institute investigates some potential strategies, including “a single drawdown of water during mid-season, alternate wetting and drying [AWD], dry seeing, aerobic rice production.” If all of these techniques and possibly others are used, this “perfect water management can theoretically reduce emissions by up to 90 percent compared to full flooding.” (Wetting and Drying: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Saving Water from Rice Production | World Resources Institute).
The final significant source of agricultural emissions is burning, at 0.6% of total emissions. Burning organic matter releases significant amounts of carbon into the air, not only perpetuating climate change but directly causing air pollution. However, burning is a convenient and widely used farming method, causing something of a dilemma. As the Climate & Clean Air Coalition descrbes,
Farmers in many parts of the world set fire to cultivated fields to clear stubble, weeds and waste before sowing a new crop. While this practice may be fast and economical, it is highly unsustainable, as it produces large amounts of the particle pollutant black carbon and reduces the fertility of soil. (Open agricultural burning | Climate & Clean Air Coalition).
However, there is much potential in alternative, “no-burn” methods, which also provide benefits such as “reduction of irrigation needs, improved air quality and public health, improved soil quality, increased yields, and capacity building via training, technology, and equipment.” (Alternative practices to mitigate agricultural open burning in Peru | Climate & Clean Air Coalition).
Industrial Processes
Industrial Processes
Industrial processes emit 6.2% of total greenhouse gases, with cement (3%) and chemicals and petrochemicals (2.6%) comprising the majority. Other industrial sources, including electric power systems (0.2%), electronics (0.2%), non-ferrous materials (0.1%), and others (0.1%), make up a smaller – but still significant – fraction.
Cement is a crucial component of concrete, which is used in the majority of infrastructure. As more and more buildings are constructed, concrete emissions continue to rise. It poses a unique challenge when it comes to decarbonization. According to the UN Industrial Development Organization,
Unlike most industries, a large share of cement’s CO₂ emissions are process-based and occur when limestone (CaCO₃) is transformed into lime (CaO) in the kiln at 1400 degrees Celsius. This process makes decarbonization particularly challenging, as reducing emissions isn’t just about energy–it’s about chemistry.
The article goes on to describe a variety of low-carbon cement opportunities (highlighting how Emerging Markets and Developing Economies can be supported). One of the most prominent options is the replacement of clinker, an “essential ingredient in cement,” with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Some of the most common SCMs include blast furnace slag and fly ash (byproducts of iron production and coal combustion, respectively, both of which are industrial processes that are now declining due to their negative environmental impacts), as well as ground glass and natural pozzolans. (Clinker: How Changing One Ingredient Can Have a Big Impact). Other low-carbon cement innovations include increased efficiency, alternative fuels, improving structural design to minimize waste, and smart production systems. (A Snapshot of Cement and Concrete Decarbonization Technologies - UNIDO).
Chemicals and petrochemicals may be even more difficult to decarbonize, because they are so widespread in the manufacturing of a variety of products. In fact, “[t]hey are used in the production of 96 percent of the manufactured goods we encounter every day.” Some of the most common chemicals include “ethylene, ammonia, propylene, and methanol” (Clean Energy 101: The Chemicals and Climate Connection - RMI). Paradoxically, they are also critical in the clean energy transition – the chemical industry “underpins more than 75% of clean energy technologies, such as solar energy (solar panels are laminated with ethylene vinyl acetate) and heat pumps (which use refrigerants).” Unfortunately, the chemical industry “is dependent on fossil fuels both as a feedstock for production and as an energy source for processing materials into finished products.” (Industry and Manufacturing | EESI).
Because of the particularly complex supply chains inherent to chemicals and petrochemicals, decarbonization will require an extremely far-reaching strategy. The US Department of Energy states that “[a]chieving deep decarbonization of the chemicals sector will require a multidimensional approach, including sustainable feedstocks, low-carbon energy, and advanced unit operations.” The former approach was described further, listing “[s]ustainable alternative feedstocks” including “industrial waste gases (CO2, CO, CH4), biomass, recovered plastics, and industrial, agricultural, or municipal solid wastes, among others.” (Chemicals Value Chain Decarbonization: Integrated Solutions for a Complex Challenge | Department of Energy).
The processing of electric power systems emits 0.2% of total emissions. Although it may seem insignificant compared to the emissions from actually using those power systems (over 30%), it still matters. The process by which “electrical designs [are turned into] into machines, parts, appliances, and power-distribution products that buyers install, test, ship, and repair” is known as electrical equipment manufacturing, and it is the first step in establishing an energy system. (⚡ Electrical Equipment Manufacturing: Key Trends 2026).
The way these emissions can be reduced is through, firstly, greater efficiency. When minimal energy is wasted, less greenhouse gas emissions will pollute the atmosphere. The second way is to ensure that the energy used in the extraction and processing of raw materials necessary is clean and renewable.
Electronics have quickly become a staple of everyday life in the Global North and elsewhere, which means that the 0.2% of emissions their production is responsible for will quickly increase if we do not address it now. As RMI has stated, “[a]s the demand for electronic products soars, the industry’s environmental impact also rises, particularly in terms of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.” Both the production and disposal of electronics is massively unsustainable – up to 80% of the carbon footprint of an electronic device comes from its manufacturing (Understanding the Climate Impact of Electronics — GoClimate), while e-waste contains toxic substances that pollute the environment (Recycling E-waste: a critical step in fighting climate change).
The first solution here, as it is in other sectors, is efficiency. “Leading electronics companies have demonstrated that energy-efficiency measures can result in up to 30 percent energy savings in existing facilities at minimal costs,” says RMI. (Towards Net-Zero Electronics - RMI). However, a circular economical approach must be simultaneously implemented so that waste is drastically reduced.
The final source of industrial greenhouse gas emissions comes from non-ferrous materials, which are metals that do not have significant iron contents. (What is a Non-Ferrous Metal?). “The production of non-ferrous metals from raw materials is a carbon-intensive process that releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” which means that reducing the demand for these materials (which include aluminum, lead, copper, and zinc) is crucial. (Environmental Benefits of Non-Ferrous Metal Recycling in Melbourne). Non-ferrous metals can also be recycled, which – while not acceptable as a substitution for other sustainable solutions – is an important aspect.
Waste
Waste
Overconsumption and waste are two of the largest all-encompassing issues that the Global North faces today. Although waste technically contributes just 3.8% of greenhouse gases, it is interconnected with many other sources. If waste in its broadest definition were to disappear, less production and manufacturing would occur, virtually eliminating industrial emissions and drastically reducing energy and agricultural ones. However, here waste is more strictly defined into two categories: landfills (2.4% of total emissions) and wastewater (1.4%).
Landfills include the majority of items that are thrown in the trash, dump, or haphazardly in the streets. Just in the US, there are “2,600 landfills for municipal solid waste (MSW)” (Landfills 101: Everything You Need to Know - EcoWatch). This figure is more difficult to access on a global level, but estimates calculate that there may be around 48,000 landfills across the world (How Many Landfills are There?). Landfills emit very concentrated amounts of greenhouse gases as landfill gas (LFG), “a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic material in landfills. LFG is composed of roughly 50 percent methane (the primary component of natural gas), 50 percent carbon dioxide (CO2) and a small amount of non-methane organic compounds.” (Basic Information about Landfill Gas | US EPA).
Technological solutions to landfill emissions include installing and maximizing the efficiency of gas collection and control systems, using effective landfill cover materials, monitoring emissions consistently, and reducing organic waste (5 Ways to Cut Landfill Methane Pollution: How Local Governments Can Lead - RMI). While these are all important and should most definitely be pursued by policy-makers, especially in local governments, the real solution must address the root of the issue. Therefore, landfill waste should not be emphasized at the end of its life, but at the beginning: minimizing waste requires minimizing the amount of stuff that can be wasted in the first place, which means sustainable production of items that can be used for as long as possible, and reused after that. For many, this will not be a major shift, because consumption inequality is vast. However, some countries will have to transition away from constant disposal.
Wastewater emits 1.4% of total GHGs. Water itself is not the issue - it is the treatment of the severely polluted water that humans produce that's the issue. “Wastewater plants usually rely on microbes to consume waste as part of the cleaning process, and the microbes produce different gases such as methane and nitrous oxide as byproducts.” This process is surprisingly potent: “wastewater plants contribute 2.5 percent of U.S. methane emissions and 8.1 percent of nitrous oxide.” These emissions are difficult to cut due to the complexity and variety of wastewater plants, which means that municipalities must take the initiative to engineer solutions for their own treatment process (Princeton Engineering - Wastewater plants produce twice as much greenhouse gas as estimated).
Since wastewater treatment is not something that can feasibly be avoided like landfill trash (people require clean water), the issue requires even more multifaceted and targeted solutions. Common strategies include improving technology, “such as membrane bioreactors or enhanced biological nutrient removal systems”; monitoring emissions and ensuring processes are as energy efficient as possible; harnessing the methane and nitrous oxide emissions as a source of energy to simultaneously reduce fossil fuel use and create a cyclical process that is more sustainable; and managing the nutrients that enter the treatment plant in the first place, especially nitrogen, to minimize the waste being dumped out. (An introduction to GHG emission mitigation in wastewater operations).
As with everything else, waste is a systemic issue that must be approached from a holistic perspective. By using a combination of supply and demand methods, and having local and federal governments collaborate, the normalized wasteful lifestyle can be replaced with something more fulfilling, more efficient, and less polluting.
Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
The final category of greenhouse gases is land use, land-use changes, and forestry, which contributes just under 1% of total emissions. Although it makes up a relatively small fraction, ecosystems that include soil, trees, and other important components of land are major carbon sinks, which means that this sector does not just need to be net-zero: it must be negative.
Out of its 0.9% of emissions this, 0.5% comes from fires in organic soil and 0.3% comes from forest fires. Together, these show how the flames that ravage our planet are not just devastating for the infrastructure and ecosystems they consume: the burning of organic matter directly emits CO2 (as occurs when using fossil fuels or even biomass as an energy source). Wildfires also serve as a feedback loop: burning accelerates climate change, and the hotter and drier conditions induced by climate change increase the likelihood of fires (Wildfires and Climate Change). According to NASA,
Researchers found that carbon emissions from forest fires increased by 60% globally between 2001 and 2023. Fire emissions from boreal forests in Eurasia and North America nearly tripled during that same time period, driven by a warmer, drier climate. (Wildfires and Climate Change - NASA Science).
This means that the first step to decreasing emissions from wildfires is to do all of the things already described to curb climate change in the first place. If we manage to mitigate the conditions that drive wildfires, a more beneficial feedback loop will occur.
Most sources cite cautionary behavior as the primary way to stop wildfires. It is certainly true that recklessness, ignorance, and even ill intentions when dealing with fire are dangerous – a prominent study reported that just below 85% of wildfires in the US were caused by humans, including “campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, equipment use and malfunctions, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson.” (Wildfire Causes and Evaluations (U.S. National Park Service)). Therefore, anyone spending time outdoors should be mindful of abiding by fire bans and containing their flames. However, taking this claim too far can turn it into another case of deflection from systems to individuals, and so it must be designated to the government to control burns.
Furthermore, it must be clarified that the goal is not to eliminate fires entirely: studies have shown that “ecological benefits for forests. Small, low-intensity fires help rejuvenate forests and are overall beneficial for conservation.” (The Ecological Benefits of Fire). If we prevent all burns from occurring, many ecosystems could face struggles that limit their productivity.
The final 0.1% of emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry comes from drained organic soils, which actually emit 1.65% but are offset by forested land’s -1.55%. Thus, there are two objectives here: decreasing drained organic soils, and increasing forested land. Wetlands are often drained for agricultural purposes. According to one study,
…25 million hectares of organic soils were drained worldwide for agriculture use, of which about 60% were in boreal and temperate cool areas, 34% in tropical areas, and 5% in warm temperate areas. Total emissions from the drainage were globally significant, totaling nearly one billion tonnes CO2eq annually. (A Worldwide Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Drained Organic Soils).
There are some alternative methods that can be used instead of draining, such as rice paddy cultivation, which “improved the greenhouse gas balance by 36 % compared to drained management” and “reduced nitrous oxide emissions by 84 %.” (Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions of a managed organic soil by paddy rice cultivation in the cool temperate zone - ScienceDirect). Other solutions include mineral soil coverage (to reduce nitrous oxide) and a raised water table (to reduce carbon dioxide). (Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Drained Peatlands – Is It Possible? - Agrarforschung Schweiz).
Forests are what is known as a carbon sink: they absorb more carbon than they produce. Although the world’s largest carbon sink is the ocean, which absorbs 25% of all CO2 emissions, trees come in second, and their survival is at risk. Forests are rapidly disappearing, with the World Economic Forum indicating that “global tree cover shrank by an eighth between 2000 and 2022, releasing 195 billion tonnes of CO2." Even amid this atrocity, forest habitats are still incredible aid's when it comes to battling the climate crisis: “NASA satellite data shows the world’s forests absorb 15.6 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, although wildfires and deforestation release almost half as much (8.1 billion tonnes) back into the atmosphere” (Here’s how carbon sinks help fight the climate crisis | World Economic Forum).
This all means that deforestation must be drastically reduced, especially in key ecosystems like the Amazon Rainforest. According to the WRI, “[t]ropical rainforests collectively sequester more carbon from the atmosphere than temperate or boreal forests, but they’re also increasingly destroyed for agricultural expansion.” (Forests Absorb Twice As Much Carbon As They Emit Each Year). Tropical regions contain some of the most miraculous biodiversity on the planet, and are quickly being degraded due to their abdundance of valuable resources. They must be preserved, but that does not mean that they are the only priority: other types of forests are crucial, and even other land cover (including grasslands and rangelands) can sequester significant amounts of carbon Grasslands More Reliable Carbon Sink Than Trees | UC Davis). Biomes vary so much across the globe that it is important to focus on conserving and enhancing whatever makes most sense locally.
This is all to say: reforestation (“regenerating forests and woodlands that have been destroyed or degraded”) and afforestation (“establishing a tree plantation or a new forest on land that has never been forested before”) are critical (Reforestation/Afforestation | UNCCD). However, a common misconception is that planting trees can be used as an excuse to continue engaging in carbon-intensive activities. In reality, reforestation and afforestation must be used to take carbon out of the atmosphere, not just prevent more carbon from being added.
One example of a successful environment-specific foresting project is China’s Great Green Wall, which, as of June 2026, contains 66 billion trees (66 billion trees have been planted in China's Great Green Wall — and they appear to be growing faster than natural forests | Live Science). If other communities and countries can mirror this project and adapt it to their local conditions, planted trees will quickly become self-sustaining forests that help counteract lingering greenhouse gases as we recover from the climate crisis.
4. A Green New Deal?
4. A Green New Deal?
Because the climate crisis is a symptom of a broader sustainability crisis, we cannot simply "fix" it by reaching net zero. Even if we curb all emissions and eliminate all fossil fuel corporations, other aspects of the sustainability crisis will still continue to ravage communities and ecosystems. The Green New Deal (GND) is a piece of legislation that aims to not only end the climate crisis, but mend all of the historical wrongs associated with it, and usher in a brighter, more equitable future. In other words, it is based on the principles of climate justice.
Named after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s series of public projects and fiscal stimuli to end the Great Depression, the GND was first introduced in the American Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Senator Ed Markey in 2019. The original bill, House Resolution 109, is titled "Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal." It goes on to outline all of the components of such a program. (H.Res.109 - Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. 116th Congress (2019-2020)) Although the bill was not passed, it was reintroduced in 2021 as House Resolution 332 - and again it failed. (H.Res.332 - Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. 117th Congress (2021-2022))
The GND is described on AOC's website as
a 10-year national mobilization, akin to FDR's New Deal, that would put millions to work in good-paying, union jobs repairing the nation's infrastructure, reducing air and water pollution, and fighting the intertwined economic, social, racial and climate crises crippling the country. (Ocasio-Cortez, Markey Reintroduce Green New Deal Resolution).
Although this is framed within the United States government, the GND has international recognition. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, "major world economies, including China, India, and the European Union, have begun implementing some of the policies envisioned by the Green New Deal" (Envisioning a Green New Deal: A Global Comparison | Council on Foreign Relations). However, the article goes on to describe logistical issues with the plan, including "an inflated price tag" and a "lack of details."
Critics of the GND span across the political spectrum, with arguments ranging from a lack of public support, to difficulties achieving a "laundry list" of items simultaneous with the climate crisis, to threats of a socialist regime. Currently, the political atmosphere in the United States is not suitable for the GND, but it is still something that many believe is the policy of the future there and elsewhere.
The barriers that we face to systemic change
The barriers that we face to systemic change
The problem faced by the GND is, unfortunately, one that the climate crisis at large also struggles with. It is perhaps the elephant in the room that climate change faces severe bipartisan divides. This barrier makes it difficult to make systemic and policy-based changes. In the most extreme situations in the US, Republicans see climate change as a way for the left to further its Communist agenda, while Democrats see perspectives from the right as useless roadblocks. Both sides have validity, but unfortunately, each Party struggles to truly listen to the other.
In recent years, however, there have been signs of more widespread support for climate action. It is critical at this time to frame the climate crisis in terms that are acceptable to as many people as possible. As conservative environmental activist Benjamin Backer has stated, "It’s not that conservatives don’t care about the environment—it’s about how the issue has been framed. When we focus on conservation and stewardship, we find common ground."
However, we still have a long way to go when it comes to finding a reasonable consensus on climate change. Thus, legislation must be considered based not just on its ability to address the climate crisis, but also its ability to have cross-partisan support - we cannot afford to waste times with petty arguments, but must instead emphasize the universal applicability and significance of the climate crisis. (Making environmentalism nonpartisan again: “It’s about common ground” – MT2030)
The other (and likely more daunting) major issue in advancing climate policy is the significant influence of the fossil fuel industry in politics. As seen below, "in the three years after the Paris Agreement, the world’s five of the largest oil and gas companies spent over US$1 billion on climate-related branding and lobbying."
Furthermore, the extractive industry is incredibly high risk, "accounting for one in five cases of transnational bribery." These actions "can distort policies and laws in favour of vested interests rather than the public good. Corporate bribery might lead state authorities not to enforce laws and turn a blind eye to illicit activities in the extractive sector." (Extractive industries - Our priorities - Transparency.org). In other words, government officials are being bought out by fossil fuel companies.
This is absolutely unacceptable, as climate accountability is one of the largest components of climate solutions. There are three primary strategies that must be expanded when it comes to stripping fossil fuel companies of their power:
The first is squeezing the money: making it harder for fossil fuel companies to obtain financing, insurance, and investment - through divestment campaigns, bank pressure, and targeting insurers. The second is reducing the social licence to operate: delegitimising and stigmatising the industry through public shaming, media exposés, advertising bans, and cultural interventions, building on a growing global normative turn against fossil fuels. The third is protecting and enforcing: using litigation, regulatory action, and policy lobbying to create new legal constraints and hold companies accountable for climate damages. (Strategies & tactics to curb the fossil fuel industry)
Recently, the American public is becoming more aware of this: progressive candidates have gained support by, among other things, refusing to accept funding from major corporate sources, policies to Make Polluters Pay are amassing more approval. In fact, several US states have "superfund bills" that will force fossil fuel companies to pay reparations for the climate damage they have caused, and several others passing "study bills" as precursors. This must continue.
For a social movement to be successful, 25% of the population must be involved - that's about 87.3 million Americans.
For a social movement to be successful, 25% of the population must be involved - that's about 87.3 million Americans.
The role of everyday people in the climate fight is grossly misunderstood in the public conscious. Most individuals believe that the extent of action we can take is to pursue a more sustainable lifestyle, minimizing our carbon footprint. The reality is that, when purely looking at greenhouse gas emissions, the vast majority of individual actions do not make a difference. This is a difficult thing for some people to recognize, but it is scientifically undeniable. With the possible exception of a billionaire flying a private jet to and fro, nothing anyone does noticeably nudges the world's carbon budget in either direction.
And yet, we still see climate activists making pledges to not fly or becoming vegan on the basis of environmental concerns. Are they delusional? Actually, there is still a convincing argument to justify this sort of "green consumerism." The two major reasons are...
Money has a major influence on corporate actions. If individuals choose not to support a company or product (for example, refusing to endorse companies that source their products from fragile tropical rainforests, purchasing electric vehicles instead of gasoline cars, avoiding AI because of the environmental impact of data centers, or choosing an impossible burger over a beef burger), this will pressure the market to innovate alternatives.
One's actions should reflect one's values. Even if a quantitative difference is not made, choosing the moral high ground and showing people that you value climate action in every decision you make can be very inspiring. It can be a way to mobilize more support for the climate movement, which is extremely important.
Knowing these things, the most useful framework for lifestyle changes is Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.
Reduce by not buying things. When you must, buy them second-hand; from a local business; and/or from a truly environmentally friendly manufacturer - this means doing your research. Purchasing choices are especially important for food: reduce your animal product consumption, and only purchase animal products from local, sustainable farms. Whatever food you purchase, don't waste it, and try to compost. Reducing also applies to things like transportation and electricity use: walk, bike, or use public transport; turn of the lights and don't leave the water running; and install renewables and energy efficient appliance to decrease energy uses.
Reuse by avoiding single-use items (especially plastic) at all costs. For example, have a reusable water bottle, and don't use disposable napkins, plates, cups, or cutlery. Don't buy into fast fashion or ads for shiny new electronics: use every item until it loses its functionality.
Recycle everything that can be recycled, but not anything else: if trash goes in the recycling bin, that entire load of recycling must go to the landfill. In the majority of locations, the following items can be recycled: plastic bottles, cups, and containers; food and beverage cans and containers; paper and paper cups; flattened cardboard and paperboard; and glass bottles and containers (Recycling 101 - What Is Recycling & What to Recycle | WM).
These sustainable habits should be pursued only to the point where they do not distract from the more important individual action: "green citizenship." Even when individuals understand the extent of systemic change that is necessary to solve the climate crisis, many jump to the conclusion that this is the job of the government, celebrities, major activists, or international organizations. That is to say, individuals who understand the vastness of the climate crisis often do not understand that systemic change is their responsibility too.
A misconception that drives this idea is that green consumerism and green citizenship are comparable. They are not. Actions aimed at minimizing individual emissions are not as important because they are efforts to live sustainably in an unsustainable system (which is impossible) - conversely, actions aimed at policy changes are crucial because they are efforts to make the system sustainable. The mantra "think global, act local" can be problematic when it comes to green consumerism, because local actions are often not enough; but it is much more applicable for green citizenship, where individual actions can quickly cumulate into collective actions.
Knowing this, the specific importance of green citizenship comes twofold:
First and foremost, green citizenship generates social capital, which is "the value derived from positive connections between people." (What is Social Capital and Why is It So Important?). Social capital is critical for any meaningful action, because it sets of a powerful feedback loop: social capital -> collective action -> positive change -> and back to social capital. Even if the exact goal isn't achieved, networks are still formed, creating potential for future actions. Making green consumption choices can do this too, but not nearly as much so.
Secondly, when social movements achieve whatever policy goal they have, that's one step in the direction of a comprehensive, legal climate solution. Whether it's fighting to ban data centers, require solar farms, expand battery technology, or eliminate fracking, every local, state, and federal policy matters.
Here are some places to start being a green citizen:
Join a grassroots movement
Learn about climate issues relevant in your area through following the news and contacting local activists or officials
Share information on the climate crisis on social media and in-person
Call, email, or otherwise contact your local, state, or federal officials about the climate crisis
Sign or start a petition for or against a piece of legislation
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse