Individual action on climate change

Individual action on climate change can include personal choices in many areas, such as diet, means of long- and short-distance travel, household energy use, consumption of goods and services, and family size. Individuals can also engage in local and political advocacy around issues of climate change.

As of 2019, emissions budgets are uncertain and estimates of the annual average carbon footprint per person required to meet climate change targets vary between 1[1] and 3[2] tonnes CO
2
-equivalent, down from a 2018 world average of about 5 tonnes.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report emphasises that behavior, lifestyle and cultural change have a high mitigation potential in some sectors, particularly when complementing technological and structural change.[3]:20 In general, higher consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact, with the richest 10% of people emitting about half the total lifestyle emissions.[4][5]

Several scientific studies have shown that when people, especially those living in developed countries but more generally including all countries, wish to reduce their carbon footprint, there are a few key "high-impact" actions they can take such as:[6][7] living car-free (2.4 tonnes), avoiding one round-trip transatlantic flight (1.6 tonnes), and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tonnes). These differ significantly from much popular advice for "greening" one's lifestyle, which seem to fall mostly into the "low-impact" category.[6][7]

Some commentators have argued that individual actions as consumers and "greening personal lives" are insignificant in comparison to collective action, especially actions that hold the fossil fuel corporations accountable for producing 71% of carbon emissions since 1988.[8]

Others say that individual action leads to collective action, and emphasize that "research on social behavior suggests lifestyle change can build momentum for systemic change."[9]

Family size

It is also time to re-examine and change our individual behaviors, including limiting our own reproduction (ideally to replacement level at most) and drastically diminishing our per capita ­consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources.

William J. Ripple, lead author of the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice, BioScience, 2017.[10]

Although having fewer children is arguably the individual action that most effectively reduces a person's climate impact, the issue is rarely raised, and it is arguably controversial due to its private nature. Even so, ethicists,[11][12] some politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,[13] and others[7][14][15][16] have started discussing the climate implications associated with reproduction.

It has been claimed that not having an additional child saves "an average for developed countries"[lower-alpha 1] of 58.6 [lower-alpha 2]tonnesCO
2
-equivalent
(tCO2e) emission reductions per year[6] and "a US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives."[6][7] This is based on the premise that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of their descendants, weighted by relatedness (the person is responsible for half their children's emissions, a quarter of their grandchildren's and so on).[18] This has been criticised: both as a category mistake for assigning descendants emissions to their ancestors[19] and for the very long timescale of reductions.[20]

Two interrelated aspects of this action, family planning and women and girl's education, are modeled by Project Drawdown as the #6 and #7 top potential solutions for climate change, based on the ability of family planning and education to reduce the growth of the overall global population.[21][22] In 2019, a warning on climate change signed by 11,000 scientists from 153 nations said that human population growth adds 80 million humans annually, and "the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity" to reduce the impact of "population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss." The policies they promote, which "are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates," would include removing barriers to gender equality, especially in education, and ensuring family planning services are available to all.[23][24]

Travel and commuting

In the early 21st century perception towards climate change influenced some people in rich countries to change their travel lifestyle.[25]

Air transport

Avoiding air travel and particularly frequent flyer programs[26] has a high benefit because the convenience makes frequent, long distance travel easy, and high-altitude emissions are more potent for the climate than the same emissions made at ground level. Aviation is much more difficult to fix technically than surface transport,[27] so will need more individual action in future if the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation cannot be made to work properly.[28]

Surface transport

  • Walking and running are among the least environmentally harmful modes of transportation, followed by cycling.
  • Public transport such as electric buses, metro and electric trains generally emit less greenhouse gases than cars.
  • Electric kick scooters could also be a low-impact form of transportation, with emerging startups such as Bird and Lime providing shared scooters allowing for last-mile transportation. However, their short lifespan caused by rough usage and vandalism could mean additional resources spent on replacement units. Some models provide higher range (35+ miles, 56+ km) and speed (40+ mph, 64+ km/h), which can be used in areas with poor public transportation infrastructure where cars and motorcycles would have previously been the only option.
  • Cars: Using an electric car instead of a gasoline or diesel car helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Diet and food

Agriculture is very difficult to fix technically so will need more individual action or carbon offsetting than all other sectors except perhaps aviation.[27]

Eating less meat, especially beef and lamb, reduces emissions.[29] A diet which is part of individual action on climate change is also good for health, averaging less than 15g (about half an ounce) of red meat and 250g dairy (about one glass of milk) per day.[30] The World Health Organization recommends trans-fats make up less than 1% of total energy intake: ruminant trans-fats are found in beef, lamb, milk and cheese.[31] In 2019, the IPCC released a summary of the 2019 special report which asserted that a shift towards plant-based diets would help to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Ecologist Hans-Otto Pörtner, who contributed to the report, said "We don't want to tell people what to eat, but it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect."[32]

Eating a plant-rich diet is listed as the #4 solution for climate change as modeled by Project Drawdown, based on avoided emissions from the production of animals and avoided emissions from additional deforestation for grazing land.[33]

Home energy, landscaping and consumption

Reducing home energy use through measures such as insulation, better energy efficiency of appliances, cool roofs, heat reflective paints[34][35], lowering water heater temperature, and improving heating and cooling efficiency can significantly reduce an individual's carbon footprint.[36][37]

In addition, the choice of energy used to heat, cool, and power homes makes a difference in the carbon footprint of individual homes.[38] Many energy suppliers in various countries worldwide have options to purchase part or pure "green energy" (usually electricity but occasionally also gas).[39] These methods of energy production emit almost no greenhouse gases once they are up and running.

Installing rooftop solar, both on a household and community scale, also drastically reduces household emissions, and at scale could be a major contributor to greenhouse gas abatement.[40]

Low energy products and consumption

Labels, such as Energy Star in the US, can be seen on many household appliances, home electronics, office equipment, heating and cooling equipment, windows, residential light fixtures, and other products.

Carbon emission labels describe the carbon dioxide emissions created as a by-product of manufacturing, transporting, or disposing of a consumer product.

Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) "present transparent, verified and comparable information about the life-cycle environmental impact of products."[41]

These labels may help consumers choose lower energy products.

Landscape and gardens

Protecting forests and planting new trees contributes to the absorption of carbon dioxide from the air. There are many opportunities to plant trees in the yard, along roads, in parks, and in public gardens. In addition, some charities plant fast-growing trees—for as little as $US0.10 per tree—to help people in tropical developing countries restore the productivity of their lands.[42] Conversely, clearing old-growth forests adds to the carbon in the atmosphere, so buying non-old-growth paper is good for the climate as well as the forest.

Turfgrass lawns can contribute to climate change through the impacts of fertilizers, herbicides, irrigation, and gas-powered lawnmowers and other tools; depending on how lawns are managed, the impact of emissions from maintenance and chemicals may outweigh any carbon sequestration from the lawn.[43][44] Reducing irrigation, reducing chemical use, planting native plants or bushes, and using hand tools can all reduce the climate impact of lawns.[45]

In addition to planting Victory Gardens which provide locally grown food,[46] gardeners may wish to experiment with companion planting of diverse species of plants and trees, in order to develop novel carbon sequestration and NOx reduction techniques suitable for their local area.[47][48][49]

Laundry

Washing in cold water can save up to 15 pounds of carbon emissions per load.[50] Hanging laundry to dry is even more impactful for saving energy.[51][52]

A 2017 study suggests purchasing well-made, durable clothing is critical for reducing climate impact.[53]

Choice of stove

The choice of stove may vary depending on location.

Electric stoves are preferable to natural gas in locations where the electric grid has a high proportion of renewable energy, such as California.[54]

Rocket stoves and other biomass stoves are important in developing countries to conserve wood.[55] The UN seeks to phase out wood-burning cookstoves.[56]

Solar cookers are an environmentally sound choice.[57]

Solar cooking has been practical for households in the highlands of China and Tibet, where "solar irradiation levels are high, cooking traditions correspond to the use of a solar cooker" and biomass is not readily available.[58][59] Institutional level solar cooking has enabled temples in India to earn money through carbon credits.[60][61]

In Vermont, an EPA compliant woodstove or pellet stove, which uses sustainably harvested local wood, may be optimal despite its black carbon and carbon dioxide emissions, as it reduces the state's fossil fuel use.[62][63]

Digital hygiene

Digital data centers had a carbon footprint "larger than the airline industry" in 2017.[64] Curbing unnecessary use of digital data, such as binge-watching streaming video,[65] the use of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin,[66] and sending "e-mails with long and tiresome attachments"[67] has a small but measurable impact on individual carbon emissions.

Consumption by urban residents

National Geographic has concluded that city dwellers can help with climate change if they (or we) simply "buy less stuff."[68]

Lloyd Alter suggests that one way to get a practical sense of embodied carbon is to ask, "How much does your household weigh?"[69]

Individual purchase of carbon offsets

The principle of carbon offset is thus: one decides that they don't want to be responsible for accelerating climate change, and they've already made efforts to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, so they decide to pay someone else to further reduce their net emissions by planting trees or by taking up low-carbon technologies. Every unit of carbon that is absorbed by trees—or not emitted due to your funding of renewable energy deployment—offsets the emissions from their fossil fuel use. In many cases, funding of renewable energy, energy efficiency, or tree planting — particularly in developing nations—can be a relatively cheap way of making an individual "carbon neutral".

Citizen participation in climate change policy advocacy

Will Grant of the Pachamama Alliance describes "Four Levels of Action" for change:

  1. Individual
  2. Friends and family
  3. Community and institutions
  4. Economy and policy

Grant suggests that individuals can have the largest personal impact on climate by focusing on levels 2 and 3.[70][71]

Others posit that individual citizen participation in groups advocating for collective action in the form of political solutions, such as carbon pricing, meat pricing,[72] ending subsidies for fossil fuels[73] and animal husbandry,[74] and ending laws mandating car use,[75] is the most impactful way that an individual can take action to prevent climate change.[76]

It has been argued that climate change is a collective action problem, specifically a tragedy of the commons, which is a political[77] and not individual category of problem.[78]

Reform of subsidies and taxes discouraging individual action

Fossil fuel and other subsidies, and taxes which discourage individual action include:

  • India is considering abolishing its subsidy of kerosene, which discourages individuals switching to other fuels[79]
  • The UK CCC has advised cutting farm subsidies for livestock, which discourage individuals shifting to a plant based diet:[80]
  • The UK CCC has advised rebalancing the taxes and regulatory costs, which are currently higher for electricity than gas and thus discourage individuals from switching from gas boilers to heat pumps[80]
  • Turkey's free coal for poor families[81] discourages them switching to natural gas in cities.
  • Redirecting the money which would have been spent as subsidies, together with any carbon tax, to form a carbon dividend in equal shares for everyone or for poor people has been suggested by the International Monetary Fund and others to encourage individuals to take action as part of a just transition away from a high carbon lifestyle.[82]

However, sudden removal of a subsidy by governments not trusted to redirect it,[83] or without providing good alternatives for individuals, can lead to civil unrest. An example of this took place in 2019, when Ecuador removed its gasoline and diesel subsidies without providing enough electric buses to maintain service. The result was overnight fuel price hikes of 25-75 percent. The corresponding fare hikes for Ecuador's existing gas and diesel powered bus fleet were met with violent protests.[84]

Lack of information, or misleading information on individual actions

As recently as 2015, "about 40% of adults worldwide ... [had] never heard of climate change, or nearly 2 billion people."[85]

Focus on climate change effects, without information on taking action

Climate change education, which became mandatory in Italy in 2019 [86], is completely absent in some countries, or fails to provide information on action that individuals can take.

In some countries media coverage of global warming reports the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather, but makes no mention of either individual or government actions which can be taken.[87]

Presenting plant based diets as strict vegetarianism

The suggestion that eating a plant based diet requires a person to become strictly vegetarian is also misinformation.[88]

The question of what individual actions could make a difference

Media focus on low impact rather than high impact behaviors is concerning for scientists

The most impactful actions for individuals differ significantly from the popular advice for "greening" one's lifestyle.

Popular suggestions for individual actions include:

  • Replacing a typical car with a hybrid (0.52 tonnes);
  • washing clothes in cold water (0.25 tonnes);
  • recycling (0.21 tonnes);
  • upgrading light bulbs (0.10 tonnes); etc. -- all lower impact behaviors.

Researchers have stated that "Our recommended high-impact actions:

  • one fewer child,
  • living car-free
  • avoiding one trans-Atlantic flight
  • eating a plant-based diet

are more effective than many more commonly discussed options.

For example, eating a plant-based diet saves eight times more emissions than upgrading light bulbs."[6][7]Public discourse on reducing one's carbon footprint overwhelmingly focuses on low-impact behaviors, and as of 2017, the mention of high-impact individual behaviors to impact climate was almost non-existent in mainstream media, government publications, K-12 school textbooks, etc.[6][7]

The impact of "climate conversations" with friends and family

“Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science,” according to a 2019 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.[89] The Yale Climate Communication Program recommends initiating "climate conversations" with more moderate individuals.[90][91] Patient listening is key, to determine the personal impacts of climate events on an individual, and to elicit information about the other person's core values.[92] Once personal climate impacts and core values are understood, it may become possible to open a discussion of potential climate solutions which are consistent with those core values.[90][91]

No effort may be too small, according to other advocates

Every single solution, large and small, presented in the Project Drawdown comprehensive plan must be implemented before carbon dioxide levels can be reversed.

Drawdown advocate Bill McKibben is joined by many others in his opinion that "no effort is too small" with regards to climate change.[93][94][95][96][97]



See also

References

  1. Welle (www.dw.com), Deutsche. "İklim korumada en önemli beş adım | DW | 15.02.2019". DW.COM (in Turkish). Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  2. Reality, Better Meets (2019-02-03). "What Is A Sustainable Carbon Footprint (Per Person) To Aim For?". Better Meets Reality. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  3. Edenhofer, Ottmar; Pichs-Madruga, Ramón; et al. (2014). "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). In IPCC (ed.). Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-65481-5. Retrieved 2016-06-21.
  4. "Emissions inequality—a gulf between global rich and poor – Nicholas Beuret". Social Europe. 2019-04-10. Retrieved 2019-10-26.
  5. Westlake, Steve. "Climate change: yes, your individual action does make a difference". The Conversation. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  6. Wynes, Seth; Nicholas, Kimberly A (12 July 2017). "The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions". Environmental Research Letters. 12 (7): 074024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541. We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
  7. Perkins, Sid (July 11, 2017). "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about". Science. Retrieved 29 March 2019.
  8. Lukacs, Martin (July 17, 2017). "Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals". The Guardian.
  9. Sparkman, Leor Hackel, Gregg (2018-10-26). "Actually, Your Personal Choices Do Make a Difference in Climate Change". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  10. Ripple, William J.; et al. (13 November 2017), "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" (PDF), BioScience, 67 (12): 1026–1028, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125
  11. Conly, Sarah (2016). One child : do we have a right to more?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-020343-6.
  12. "Bioethicist: The climate crisis calls for fewer children". Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  13. "We need to talk about the ethics of having children in a warming world". Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  14. "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children". Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  15. "Population Matters: Climate change". Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  16. Bawden, Tom (April 26, 2019). "Save the planet by having fewer children, says environmentalist Sir Jonathan Porritt". i. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  17. Wynes and Nicholas Supplementary Materials 5 (2017).
  18. Murtaugh, Paul A.; Schlax, Michael G. (2009-02-01). "Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals". Global Environmental Change. 19 (1): 14–20. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007. ISSN 0959-3780.
  19. Roberts, David (2017-07-14). "The best way to reduce your personal carbon emissions: don't be rich". Vox. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  20. editor, Damian Carrington Environment (2017-07-12). "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  21. "Family Planning". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  22. "Educating Girls". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  23. Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M; Barnard, Phoebe; Moomaw, William R (November 5, 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088. Retrieved November 8, 2019.
  24. Carrington, Damian (November 5, 2019). "Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering'". The Guardian. Retrieved November 8, 2019.
  25. "Is 'green' the new black?".
  26. "Behaviour change, public engagement and Net Zero (Imperial College London)". Committee on Climate Change. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  27. "Seven charts that explain what net zero emissions means for the UK". www.newscientist.com. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  28. "Carbon offsetting flights. A dangerous distraction. Helping Dreamers Do". responsibletravel.com. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  29. Briggs, Nassos Stylianou, Clara Guibourg and Helen (2018-12-13). "Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?". Retrieved 2019-07-22.
  30. Gallagher, James (2019-01-17). "Meat, veg, nuts - a diet designed to feed 10bn". Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  31. "Healthy diet". www.who.int. Retrieved 2019-12-03.
  32. Schiermeier, Quirin (August 8, 2019). "Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet". Nature. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  33. "Plant-Rich Diet". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  34. "IR Heat-reflective paints - Solar-reflective". The Ultimate Coatings Company. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  35. "Heat Reflective Paint, Summer Cool Paint, Cool Roof Coating - Coolroof ®". Cool Roof Paint. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  36. Heede, Richard (2002-04-09). "Household Solutions" (PDF). Rocky Mountain Institute. Retrieved 2007-07-07. As we'll see below, homeowners can take a measured approach to emissions reduction, gradually saving and investing small amounts of capital, and far exceed the U.S.'s Kyoto Protocol commitment to reduce all emissions of greenhouse gases to 7 per cent below 1990 emissions by 2012.
  37. "Guide to Solar-Reflective Paints for Energy-Efficient Homes". Educational Community for Homeowners (ECHO). Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  38. "Behaviour change, public engagement and Net Zero (Imperial College London)". Committee on Climate Change. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
  39. "What is green gas? – Ecotricity". www.ecotricity.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-07-22.
  40. "Rooftop Solar". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2019-05-12.
  41. "The International EPD® System". www.environdec.com. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  42. "Our Story". Trees for the Future. Retrieved 2019-09-25.
  43. "Lawns may contribute to global warming". Christian Science Monitor. 2010-01-22. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  44. Townsend‐Small, Amy; Czimczik, Claudia I. (2010). "Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf". Geophysical Research Letters. 37 (2): n/a. doi:10.1029/2009GL041675. ISSN 1944-8007.
  45. Fountain, Henry; Kaysen, Ronda (2019-04-10). "One Thing You Can Do: Reduce Your Lawn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  46. Tucker, Acadia. Growing good food : a citizen's guide to backyard carbon farming. San Francisco, California. ISBN 0-9988623-3-9. OCLC 1031904257.
  47. Toensmeier, Eric (2016). The carbon farming solution : a global toolkit of perennial crops and regenerative agriculture practices for climate change mitigation and food security. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60358-571-2. OCLC 920450914.
  48. Fryling, Kevin (2019-01-22). "IU study predicts air pollutant increase from U.S. forest soils". News at IU. Retrieved 2019-01-27.. In the Eastern US, maples, sassafrass, and tulip poplar, which are associated with ammonia-oxidizing bacteria known to "emit reactive nitrogen from soil," push out the beneficial oak, beech, and hickory, which are associated with microbes that "absorb reactive nitrogen oxides.
  49. Bowe, Alice. (2011). High-impact, low-carbon gardening : 1001 ways to garden sustainably. Portland, Or.: Timber Press. ISBN 978-0-88192-998-0. OCLC 666223945.
  50. Sabaliunas, Darius; Pittinger, Charles; Kessel, Cristy; Masscheleyn, Patrick (2006). "Residential energy use and potential conservation through reduced laundering temperatures in the United States and Canada". Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2 (2): 142–153. doi:10.1002/ieam.5630020206. ISSN 1551-3793.
  51. Berners-Lee, Mike; Clark, Duncan (2010-11-25). "What's the carbon footprint of … a load of laundry?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  52. "The Benefits of Using a Clothesline". Small Footprint Family™. 2009-08-10. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  53. Hurst, Nathan. "What's the Environmental Footprint of a T-Shirt?". Smithsonian. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  54. Roth, Sammy (2019-04-04). "California's next frontier in fighting climate change: your kitchen stove". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  55. "Clean Cooking Alliance". Clean Cooking Alliance. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  56. "Wood Burning and Our Climate". Doctors and Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollution. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  57. "Home". Solar Cookers International. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  58. Otte, Pia. "Relevant factors for the successful adoption of institutional solar" (PDF). Solar Cookers.org.
  59. "How Cooking with Solar Power in China Decreases Air Pollution and Empowers Women". The MetLife Blog. April 22, 2019. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  60. Singh, Madhur (2008-07-07). "India's Temples Go Green". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  61. Deshp, Chaitanya (May 21, 2016). "Shirdi Sai temple gets excellence award for solar kitchen". Nashik News - The Times of India. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  62. Mingle, Jonathan (2019-11-26). "Vermont Doubles Down on Wood Burning, with Consequences for Climate and Health". InsideClimate News. Retrieved 2019-12-06.
  63. "EPA Certified Wood Heater Database". US EPA. 2018-10-02. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  64. "Data Centers 'Going Green' to Reduce a Carbon Footprint Larger than the Airline Industry". Data Economy. 2017-01-25. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  65. Rodriguez, Ashley. "Greenpeace says binge-watching all those TV shows is bad for the environment". Quartz. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  66. "Bitcoin emits as much carbon as Las Vegas, researchers say". CBS News. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  67. "The Carbon Cost of an Email". The Carbon Literacy Project. 2018-02-23. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  68. Borunda, Alejandra (2019-06-11). "How can city dwellers help with climate change? Buy less stuff". National Geographic - Environment. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  69. Alter, Lloyd (October 18, 2018). "How much does your household weigh?". TreeHugger. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  70. Will Grant Four Levels of Action, retrieved 2019-09-28
  71. "The Drawdown Project to Reverse Global Warming — Educational Resources". Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter. April 29, 2019. Retrieved 2019-09-28.
  72. Gabbatiss, Josh (January 4, 2019). "Government must consider meat tax to tackle climate change, says Caroline Lucas". The Independent.
  73. Irfan, Umair (May 17, 2019). "whopping $5.2 trillion: We can't take on climate change without properly pricing coal, oil, and natural gas. But it's a huge political challenge". Vox.
  74. Simon, David Robinson (September 1, 2013). Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much–and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter. U.S.A.: Conari Press. ISBN 978-1573246200.
  75. Shill, Gregory (July 9, 2019). "Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It: The automobile took over because the legal system helped squeeze out the alternatives". The Atlantic.
  76. Stern, Stefan (June 21, 2019). "Politicians must find solutions for the climate crisis. Not outsource it to us". The Guardian.
  77. Anomaly, Jonathan. "Political: Collective Action Problems". Khan Academy. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  78. Kejun, Jiang (December 14, 2018). "Climate change is a problem of politics, not science". Euractiv.
  79. Jacob, Shine (2019-10-06). "Subsidy on kerosene may go by FY21 as fuel consumption shifts to LPG". Business Standard India. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  80. Rowlatt, Justin (2019-10-11). "'Only big changes' will tackle climate change". Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  81. "HOW TO DELIVER FREE COAL TO THE POOR FAMILIES? TURKEY CASE".
  82. editor, Larry Elliott Economics (2019-10-10). "Energy bills will have to rise sharply to avoid climate crisis, says IMF". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  83. "Here's why raising gas prices leads to violent protests like Ecuador's".
  84. "How not to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies". The Ecologist. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  85. Leiserowitz, Anthony (2015-10-29). "Nearly 2 Billion Adults Have Never Heard of Climate Change". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  86. Bentson, Clark (November 7, 2019). "Italy makes climate change education compulsory". ABC News. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  87. "Climate change triggers extreme weather in Turkey". DailySabah. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  88. "Myths and Misconceptions About Plant-Based Diets". National Kidney Foundation. 2018-08-18. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  89. Goldberg, Matthew (July 9, 2019). "Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  90. Kirk, Karin (2018-04-03). "Finding common ground amid climate controversy". Yale Climate Connections. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  91. "Attaining Meaningful Outcomes from Conversations on Climate". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. 2019-11-26. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  92. Evich, Helena Bottemiller (December 9, 2019). "How a closed-door meeting shows farmers are waking up on climate change". Politico. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  93. "Solutions". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  94. Wilkinson, Katharine (April 23, 2018). "Solving Climate Change: A Blueprint. Project Drawdown". YouTube.
  95. McCartney, Paul (2017-11-27). "Climate change is a real issue and no effort is too small when it comes to protecting and preserving our planet". @paulmccartney. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  96. Scanlon, Colleen (2018-07-10). "Through environmental stewardship, hospitals can preserve and protect health". GreenBiz. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  97. McAlpine, Sara; Murray, Daisy (2019-02-01). "Sustainable Style Tips From The Influencers That Know Best". ELLE. Retrieved 2019-12-09.

Notes

  1. Japan, Russia and USA only[17]
  2. Wynes and Nicholls have done a calculation (not specified in either paper but not complicated); inputs to their calculation include the results calculated by Murtaugh and Schlax in their scenario which assumes 1) per capita emissions from each country remain at 2005 levels 2) UN "medium variant" 2007 fertility estimate. By projecting an unspecified number of years into the future Murtaugh and Schlax have estimated the emissions of a person born in 2005 and half their children, quarter grandchildren etc. as USA 9441 tonnes, Russia 2498, Japan 2026.[18]
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.