# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humans impact the physical environment in many ways: pollution, burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and more. Changes like these have triggered climate change, soil erosion, poor air quality, mass extinction, and undrinkable water, among other effects. These negative impacts can affect human behavior and can prompt mass migrations or battles over clean water.

Help your students understand the impact humans have on the physical environment with these classroom resources.

Subjects

Earth Science, Geology, Geography, Physical Geography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humans impact the physical environment in many ways: pollution, burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and more. Changes like these have triggered climate change, soil erosion, poor air quality, mass extinction, and undrinkable water, among other effects. These negative impacts can affect human behavior and can prompt mass migrations or battles over clean water.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the climate crisis has many factors that play a role in the exacerbation of the environment, there are some that warrant more attention than others. Here are some of the biggest environmental problems of our lifetime, from deforestation and biodiversity loss to food waste and fast fashion.-
1. Global Warming From Fossil Fuels

The last time carbon dioxide levels on our planet were as high as today was across parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, decimating crops, and a regions, the , and increasing more than 4 million years ago. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases have led to a rapid and steady increase in global temperatures, which in turn is causing catastrophic events all over the world - from Australia and the US experiencing some of the most devastating bushfire seasons ever recorded, locusts swarming cientists are constantly warning that the planet has crossed a series of heatwave in Antarctica that saw temperatures rise above 20C for the first time. S tipping points that could have catastrophic consequences, such as advancing permafrost melt in Arctic sixth mass extinction Greenland ice sheet melting at an unprecedented rate, accelerating deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, just to name a few.

The climate crisis is causing tropical storms and other weather events such as hurricanes, heatwaves and flooding to be more intense and frequent than seen before. However, even if all greenhouse gas emissions were halted immediately, global temperatures would continue to rise in the coming years. That is why it is absolutely imperative that we start now to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, invest in renewable energy sources, and phase our fossil fuels as fast as possible.
You might also like: The Tipping Points of Climate Change: How Will Our World Change?
2. Poor Governance

Economists and environmentalists have urged policymakers for years to increase the price of activities that emit greenhouse gases (one of our biggest environmental problems), the lack of which constitutes the largest market failure, for example through carbon taxes, which will stimulate innovations in low-carbon technologies.

To cut emissions quickly and effectively enough, governments must not only massively increase funding for green innovation to bring down the costs of low-carbon energy sources, but they also need to adopt a range of other policies that address each of the other market failures.

A national carbon tax is currently implemented in 27 countries around the world , including various countries in the EU, Canada, Singapore, Japan, Ukraine and Argentina. However, according to the 2019 OECD Tax Energy Use report, current tax structures are not adequately aligned with the pollution profile of energy sources. For example, the OECD suggests that carbon taxes are not harsh enough on coal production, although it has proved to be effective for the electricity industry. A carbon tax has been effectively implemented in ; the carbon tax is U$127 per tonne and has reduced emissions by 25% since 1995, while its economy has expanded 75% in the same time period.

Further, organisations such as the United Nations are not fit to deal with the climate crisis: it was assembled to prevent another world war and is not fit for purpose. Anyway, members of the UN are not mandated to comply with any suggestions or recommendations made by the organisation. For example, the Paris Agreement, a historic deal within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, says that countries need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly so that global temperature rise is below 2C by 2100, and ideally under 1.5C. But signing on to it is voluntary, and there are no real repercussions for non-compliance. Further, the issue of equity remains a contentious issue whereby developing countries are allowed to emit more in order to develop to the point where they can develop technologies to emit less, and it allows some countries, such as China, to exploit this.

3. Food Waste

A third of the food intended for human consumption - around 1.3 billion tons - is wasted or lost. This is enough to feed 3 billion people. Food waste and loss account for a third of greenhouse gas emissions annually; if it was a country, food waste would be the third highest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind China and the US.

Food waste and loss occurs at different stages in developing and developed countries; in developing countries, 40% of food waste occurs at the post-harvest and processing levels, while in developed countries, 40% of food waste occurs at the retail and consumer levels.

At the retail level, a shocking amount of food is wasted because of aesthetic reasons; in fact, in the US, more than 50% of all produce thrown away in the US is done so because it is deemed to be "too ugly" to be sold to consumers- this amounts to about 60 million tons of fruits and vegetables. This leads to food insecurity, another one of the biggest environmental problems on the list.
You might also like: 25 Shocking Facts About Food Waste
4. Biodiversity Loss

The past 50 years have seen a rapid growth of human consumption, population, global trade and urbanisation, resulting in humanity using more of the Earth's resources than it can replenish naturally.
You might also like: The Remarkable Benefits of Biodiversity
5. Plastic Pollution

A report by science journal, Nature, determined that currently, roughly make their way into the oceans every year, 14 million tons of plastic harming wildlife habitats and the animals that live in them. The research found that if no action is taken, the plastic crisis will grow to 29 million metric tons per year by 2040. If we include microplastics into this, the cumulative amount of plastic in the ocean could reach 600 million tons by 2040.

Shockingly, National Geographic found that 91% of all plastic that has ever been made is not recycled, representing not only one of the biggest environmental problems of our lifetime, but another massive market failure. Considering that plastic takes 400 years to decompose, it will be many generations until it ceases to exist. There's no telling what the irreversible effects of plastic pollution will have on the environment in the long run.
You might also like: 8 Shocking Plastic Pollution Statistics to Know About
6. Deforestation

The three countries experiencing the highest levels of deforestation are Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia. The Amazon, the world's largest rainforest - spanning 6.9 million square kilometres (2.72 million square miles) and covering around 40% of the South American continent - is also one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems and is home to about three million species of plants and animals. Despite efforts to protect forest land, legal deforestation is still rampant, and about a third of global tropical deforestation occurs in Brazil's Amazon forest, amounting to 1.5 million hectares each year.

Agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, another one of the biggest environmental problems appearing on this list. Land is cleared to raise livestock or to plant other crops that are sold, such as sugar cane and palm oil. Besides for carbon sequestration, forests help to prevent soil erosion, because the tree roots bind the soil and prevent it from washing away, which also prevents landslides.
You might also like: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About
7. Air Pollution

One of the biggest environmental problems today is outdoor air pollution. Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that an estimated 4.2 to 7 million people die from air pollution worldwide every year and that nine out of 10 people breathe air that contains high levels of pollutants. In Africa, 258,000 people died as a result of outdoor air pollution in 2017, up from 164,000 in 1990, according to . Causes of air pollution mostly comes from industrial sources and motor vehicles, as well as emissions from burning biomass and poor air quality due to dust storms.

In Europe, a recent report from the EU's environment agency showed that air pollution contributed to 400 000 annual deaths in the EU in 2012 (the last year for which data was available).

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, attention has been put on the role that air pollution gases has in transporting the virus molecules. Preliminary studies have identified a air quality is positive correlation between COVID-19-related mortalities and air pollution and there is also a plausible association of airborne particles assisting the viral spread. This could have contributed to the high death toll in China, where r, although more definitive studies must be conducted before such a conclusion can be drawn. notoriously poo

8. Melting Ice Caps and Sea Level Rise

The climate crisis is warming the Arctic more than twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. Today, sea levels are rising more than twice as quickly as they did for most of the 20th century as a result of increasing temperatures on Earth. Seas are now rising an average of 3.2 mm per year globally and they will continue to grow up to about 0.7 metres by the end of this century. In the Arctic, the Greenland Ice Sheet poses the greatest risk for sea levels because melting land ice is the main cause of rising sea levels.

Representing arguably the biggest of the environmental problems, this is made all the more concerning considering that last year's summer triggered the loss of 60 billion tons of ice from Greenland, enough to raise global sea levels by 2.2mm in just two months . According to satellite data, the Greenland ice sheet lost a record amount of ice in 2019: an average of a million tons per minute throughout the year, one of the biggest environmental problems that has cascading effects. If the entire Greenland ice sheet melts, sea level would rise by .

Meanwhile, the Antarctic continent contributes about 1 millimetre per year to sea level rise, which is of the annual global increase. Additionally, the last fully intact ice shelf in Canada in the Arctic recently collapsed, having lost about 80 square kilometres - or 40% - of its area over a two-day period in late July, according to the Canadian Ice Service .

Bangkok (Thailand), Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), Manila (Philippines), and Dubai (United Arab Emirates) are among the cities most at risk of sea level rise and flooding.
You might also like: Two-Thirds of World's Glaciers Set to Disappear by 2100 Under Current Global Warming Scenario
9. Ocean Acidification

Global temperature rise has not only affected the surface, but it is the main cause of ocean acidification. Our oceans absorb about 30% of carbon dioxide that is released into the Earth's atmosphere. As higher concentrations of carbon emissions are released thanks to human activities such as burning fossil fuels as well as effects of global climate change such as increased rates of wildfires, so do the amount of carbon dioxide that is absorbed back into the sea.

Some studies have also found that ocean acidification can be linked as one of the effects of plastic pollution in the ocean. The accumulating bacteria and microorganisms derived from plastic garbage dumped in the ocean to damage marine ecosystems and contribute towards coral bleaching.

10. Agriculture

Studies have shown that the global food system is responsible for up to of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, of which comes from livestock and fisheries. Crop production releases greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide through the use of fertilisers .

Scientists and environmentalists have continuously warned that we need to rethink our current food system; switching to a more plant-based diet would dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of the conventional agriculture industry.
You might also like: The Future of Farming: Can We Feed the World Without Destroying It?
11. Food and Water Insecurity

Rising temperatures and unsustainable farming practices has resulted in the increasing threat of water and food insecurity and taking the mantle as one of the biggest environmental problems today.

The UN secretary-general António Guterres says, "Unless immediate action is taken, it is increasingly clear that there is an impending global food security emergency that could have long term impacts on hundreds of millions of adults and children." He urged for countries to rethink their food systems and encouraged more sustainable farming practices.

In terms of water security, only 3% of the world's water is fresh water , and two-thirds of that is tucked away in frozen glaciers or otherwise unavailable for our use. As a result, some 1.1 billion people worldwide lack access to water, and a total of 2.7 billion find water scarce for at least one month of the year. By 2025, two-thirds of the world's population may face water shortages.
You might also like: Global Food Security: Why It Matters in 2023
12. Fast Fashion and Textile Waste

The global demand for fashion and clothing has risen at an unprecedented rate that the fashion industry now accounts for 10% of global carbon emissions, becoming one of the biggest environmental problems of our time. Fashion alone produces more greenhouse gas emissions than both the aviation and shipping sectors combined, and nearly 20% of global wastewater, or around 93 billion cubic metres from textile dyeing, according to the UN Environment Programme.

What's more, the world at least generated an estimated 92 million tonnes of textiles waste every year and that number is expected to soar up to 134 million tonnes a year by 2030. Discarded clothing and textile waste ends up in landfills, most of which is non-biodegradable, while microplastics from clothing materials such as polyester, nylon, polyamide, acrylic and other synthetic materials, is leeched into soil and nearby water sources. Monumental amounts of clothing textile are also dumped in less developed countries as seen with Chile's Atacama, the driest desert in the world, where at least 39,000 tonnes of textile waste from other nations are left there to rot.

This rapidly growing issue is only exacerbated by the ever-expanding fast fashion business model, in which companies relies on cheap and speedy production of low quality clothing to meet the latest and newest trends. While the United Nations Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action sees signatory fashion and textile companies to commit to achieving net zero emission by 2050, a majority of businesses around the world have yet to address their roles in climate change.
You might also like: Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact
While these are some of the biggest environmental problems plaguing our planet, there are many more that have not been mentioned, including overfishing, urban sprawl, toxic superfund sites and land use changes. While there are many facets that need to be considered in formulating a response to the crisis, they must be coordinated, practical and far-reaching enough to make enough of a difference.

13. Overfishing

Over three billion people around the world rely on fish as their primary source of protein. About 12% of the world relies upon fisheries in some form or another, with 90% of these being small-scale fishermen - think a small crew in a boat, not a ship, using small nets or even rods and reels and lures not too different from the kind you probably use . Of the 18.9 million fishermen in the world, 90% of them fall under the latter category.

Most people consume approximately twice as much food as they did 50 years ago and there are four times as many people on earth as there were at the close of the 1960s. This is one driver of the 30% of commercially fished waters being classified as being 'overfished'. This means that the stock of available fishing waters is being depleted faster than it can be replaced.
You might also like: 7 Solutions to Overfishing We Need Right Now
Overfishing comes with detrimental effects on the environment, including increased algae in the water, destruction of fishing communities, ocean littering as well as extremely high rates of biodiversity loss.

14. Cobalt Mining

Cobalt is quickly becoming the defining example of the mineral conundrum at the heart of the renewable energy transition. As a key component of battery materials that power electric vehicles (EVs), cobalt is facing a sustained surge in demand as decarbonisation efforts progress. The world's largest cobalt supplier is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where it is estimated that up to a fifth of the production is produced through artisanal miners.
You might also like: Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition
Cobalt mining, however, is associated with dangerous workers' exploitation and other serious environmental and social issues. The environmental costs of cobalt mining activities are also substantial. Southern regions of the DRC are not only home to cobalt and copper, but also large amounts of uranium. In mining regions, scientists have made note of high radioactivity levels. In addition, mineral mining, similar to other industrial mining efforts, often produces pollution that leaches into neighbouring rivers and water sources. Dust from pulverised rock is known to cause breathing problems for local communities as well.

15. Soil Degradation

Organic matter is a crucial component of soil as it allows it to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Plants absorb CO2 from the air naturally and effectively through photosynthesis and part of this carbon is stored in the soil as soil organic carbon (SOC). Healthy soil has a minimum of 3-6% organic matter. However, almost everywhere in the world, the content is much lower than that.

According to the United Nations, about 40% of the planet's soil is degraded. Soil degradation refers to the loss of organic matter, changes in its structural condition and/or decline in soil fertility and it is often the result of human activities, such as traditional farming practices including the use of toxic chemicals and pollutants. If business as usual continued through 2050, experts project additional degradation of an area almost the size of South America. But there is more to it. If we do not change our reckless practices and step up to preserve soil health, food security for billions of people around the world will be irreversibly compromised, with an estimated 40% less food expected to be produced in 20 years' time despite the world's population projected to reach 9.3 billion people.

-

What Can I Do?

1. On A Personal Level

Ways to approach climate action within our personal lives (hint - it evolves personal action but is not focused on small behavioural changes, which whilst worthwhile will not get us there):

Check out our new 'What Can I Do' section, where we publish articles aimed at inspiring you to take action.

Joining a community can be one of the best ways to increase your impact.

First, it can enable you to make hundreds of connections in one go.

Second, a group of people working together can have more impact than individuals. If you are not already, take action by becoming an to support our mission to encourage a billion climate activists.

If you're a younger read ask your parents to take action by bringing your whole family on board as a Family Member.

Reflect on the concept of Effective Altruism , a project that aims to find the best ways to help others, and put them into practice.

Ways to approach climate action within the workplace:

Maintain your career path but consider donating a portion of your income to organisations that are focused on achieving meaningful & impactful goals and call out your boss if the company or organisation you work for does not have clear policies that will result in reduced harm to the environment and a pathway to Net Zero.

Ask your boss to support EO by bringing the whole team onboard with EO company membership - and take action together.

Reconsider your career path, with excellent advice .

3. On A Political Level
Featured image by Roy Mangersnes (EO Photographer)
Ways to approach climate action as a voter or political actor (even if you can't vote):

Protest - make your feelings known - become a vocal and passionate advocate with friends and family (without being over pushy) of the need for climate action. We need a billion activists to turn this ship around.

Join organisations that are organising climate actions and protests locally, whether in your city, district, or even at school.

Vote (if you can) for politicians who will champion effective climate action by governments.

Vote for parties or organisations that espouse self-reform and the adoption of ' Ministers of the Future ' into government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Biggest Environmental Problems Of 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From deforestation and plastic pollution to fast fashion and food waste, here are 15 of the biggest environmental problems of our lifetime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To ensure a healthy future for species and places, WWF works to tackle the threats that impact the Earth.

# data[].attributes.body
Fast Food is cheap and fast

In a country of laborers and employees, time and money is valued, making fast food appealing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2018, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that 36.6% of adults consumed fast food on a given day. This means that, daily, one out of three Americans will choose to visit a fast food restaurant. The alarming data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, released by the CDC, breaks down this testimony even further to show that:

Those aged 20-39 consumed the most fast food at 44.9%;

Fast food consumption increases with family income;

Men eat more fast food than women.

The dangers of regular fast food consumption are widely known. This often-processed food, which is high in fat, sugar, and empty calories, is historically linked to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, digestive issues, and even cancer. However, even an infrequent consumption of fast food may exacerbate gastroenterological problems, turning them into a disorder such as GERD.

Decreasing fast food consumption rates in the U.S. should make for a healthier society. While nationwide examinations of the fast food sensation are being conducted, their findings should be understood by any individual who is looking to live a happier, healthier life.

Why Do Americans Eat So Much Fast Food?

Americans eat fast food for a variety of reasons, but most of these reasons tie into a central theme of convenience. Fast food is quick, relatively cheap, and made by someone other than you or a family member. America is a country with plenty of hard-working citizens, so time and money are often highly valued.

It is pretty simple to swing your car into a drive-through and order an inexpensive meal for the family within minutes. This can be more wildly appealing than coming home from an eight-hour work shift, preparing a meal, and then spending an hour or two cooking it. If that is not enough, supermarket prices can be spendy, and grocery trips can be time-consuming.

While fast food is often cheap and easy, it's potentially damaging effects on the human body should not go overlooked.

The Effects of Fast Food on the Body

The ingredients in fast food can wreak havoc on our bodies and overall health. From high blood pressure and cholesterol, to blood sugar spikes to weight gain, it is clear that fast food often does not contain the nutrients the body needs, while introducing high levels of a diet we don't need. Fast food can contain many ingredients which are contradictory to a balanced diet, including:

Carbohydrates with little to no fiber. Many fast foods are packed with carbohydrates that our digestive system has trouble breaking down. When broken down, these carbs turned to glucose, or sugar - which increases your blood sugar. Prolonged fast food consumption can lead to insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and weight gain.

High sugars and fat. Added sugar means extra (empty) calories. It also is a hazard to your cardiovascular system and can lead to cardiovascular disease. Foods that are high in fats, especially trans fat, can increase bad cholesterol, lower good cholesterol, lead to type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.

Sodium. A high sodium diet, which includes regular fast food consumption, can lead to high blood pressure, bloating, and water retention.

Fast food can affect not only your weight, cardiovascular system, and lead to diabetes, but it can also impact your respiratory system, central nervous system, reproductive system, and more. Common symptoms can include depression, acne, shortness of breath, and even acid reflux - but these symptoms can escalate over time until they represent chronic conditions. Simply put, when consumed in excessive quantities, fast food will negatively affect your body.

Improving Nutrition in America

Nutrition in America has become a subject of much conversation. Movements are being made to make changes in school lunches for the health of our youth, encouraging more exercise, and assisting those with low incomes so they can buy more nutritious food.

Ultimately, it falls upon individuals to foster a healthy lifestyle and include their children to propel the notion of healthy eating onward. However, while a healthy lifestyle and diet may be demanding for some, there are several simple steps you can take to help establish the foundation of living a healthy life.

Tips for Staying Healthy

Abstaining from eating fast food is one step to staying healthy, but there are several efforts you should always strive to maintain to live the healthiest life you can:

Limit Your Calorie Intake. Naturally, this includes cutting out junk and fast food. You can also cut calories by counting them, eating small portions, including vegetables in every meal, and eating slower.

Exercise Regularly. Taking time for a consistent exercise routine can help you control your weight, combat several health conditions, improve your mood and energy, and help you sleep better.

Meal Prep. Prepping your own meals can allow you to keep an eye on your caloric intake, prepare smaller meals, and include the nutritious foods your body needs such as fruits and vegetables. It can also allow tailoring your diet according to any medical conditions you may have. One common issue involving certain foods is heartburn and acid reflux; having control and preparing the right foods can lessen reflux symptoms and other problems related to diet.

Less Sugar, More Water. Many times, and especially with fast food meals, consumers drink a large amount of sugar in the form of soft drinks. Choosing water instead of soda can drastically reduce sugar intake - and therefore empty calories.

Find a Friend. It might be easier to stick to a diet when you make a pact with a friend. This agreement can hold you accountable for holding up your end of the bargain. Similarly, hitting the gym with a friend can be much easier and having a workout buddy can be fun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Food Statistics in the U.S. | GERDHelp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fast food consumption is rampant in the U.S. Understanding the reasons why Americans eat so much fast food may decrease a wide range of life-threatening medical conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
The Use of AI in Decision-Making in Armed Conflict:

But what if that facial recognition software was used to identify a person to be attacked?

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation is one of the biggest environmental harms currently

many animals are being displaced as they are being removed from their homes for corporate companies

this is leading to a decline in wildlife

# data[].attributes.body
The temperature of our planet is rising more rapidly then ever

The reaons behind this include: poor governance, food waste, deforestation, air pollution

# data[].attributes.body
Humans are harming the environment in many negative ways

These ways include overpopulation, burning fossil fuels, pollution and deforestation

# data[].attributes.body
This Tech Pioneer Suggests How AI Companies Could Potentially Resolve Copyright Conflicts

AI companies then employ these instruction tools to scrape the internet for content and include it in their models.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Renowned computer scientist Jaron Lanier believes that artificial intelligence (AI) companies should determine how much an individual's work contributed to their model and fairly compensate them.
AI companies have been in constant legal challenges from artists, writers, and other creative personalities who claim that the companies utilized their work to train the AI models.

Why AI Companies Should Compensate Individuals

The generative AI models are trained with a large data set to generate human-like output through text, images, audio, or video. For instance, BeInCrypto's data was included in the dataset for training the instruction tool C4 (Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus).

AI companies then employ these instruction tools to scrape the internet for content and include it in their models.

Hence, Lanier claims that AI companies must figure out how to compensate the data providers. He told Bloomberg:

"In order to do it, we have to calculate and present the provenance of which human sources were the most important to a given AI output. We don't currently do that. We can do it efficiently and effectively, it's just that we're not. It has to be a societal decision to shift to doing that."

Read more: Will AI Replace Humans?
As generative AI rose in popularity this year, there have been multiple lawsuits from artists claiming copyright infringement. In September, famous authors, including John Grisham, George R.R. Martin, David Baldacci, and Sylvia Day, sued OpenAI for copyright infringement.

Even the music giant Universal Music Group is battling against AI companies for the same purpose. In October, it sued the Anthropic AI firm for allegedly distributing copyrighted lyrics.

Indeed, fair compensation by the AI firms to the artists might help cool down the legal battles to some extent. Or it could be the next step towards resolving the copyright infringement debates?
Read more: The 6 Hottest Artificial Intelligence (AI) Jobs in 2023
Do you have anything to say about this article or anything else? Write to us or join the discussion on our Telegram channel. You can also catch us on TikTok, Facebook, or X (Twitter).

Disclaimer

In adherence to the Trust Project guidelines, BeInCrypto is committed to unbiased, transparent reporting. This news article aims to provide accurate, timely information. However, readers are advised to verify facts independently and consult with a professional before making any decisions based on this content.

RELATED NEWS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Tech Pioneer Suggests How AI Companies Could Potentially Resolve Copyright Conflicts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A well-known tech pioneer suggested that AI companies should fairly compensate individuals whose data contributed to train AI models.

# data[].attributes.body
SEC Proposes Stringent New Conflict-of-Interest Rules Regarding Broker-Dealers’ and Investment Advisers’ Use of AI

What constitutes “AI” or other covered technology for purposes of such regulation, and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SUMMARY

On July 26, 2023, the majority of the Commissioners of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the " SEC") voted to propose new rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to regulate the use of artificial intelligence technologies (" AI") by broker-dealers and investment advisers registered, or required to be registered, with the SEC (collectively, " Firms ") to prevent Firms from using such technologies in ways that advance their interests ahead of those of their investor-clients. Interested parties have until October 10, 2023, to submit comments to shape any final rules that may be promulgated. The proposals implicate two central themes that the debate on emerging AI regulation commonly presents: (1) what constitutes "AI" or other covered technology for purposes of such regulation, and (2) does existing law effectively address the perceived harms or risks to be regulated?

Covered Technologies

The SEC's definition of covered AI under the proposed rules includes technologies with "an analytical, technological, or computational function, algorithm, model, correlation matrix, or similar method or process that optimizes for, predicts, guides, forecasts, or directs investment-related behaviors or outcomes." Such methods and processes would likely include, but would not be limited to, (1) technologies that analyze investors' behaviors to provide curated research reports on particular investment products; (2) algorithm-based tools that provide tailored investment recommendations; (3) use of a conditional auto-encoder model to predict stock returns; and (4) third-party, off-the-shelf AI technology used by Firms to draft or revise advertisements guiding or directing investors or prospective investors to use its services. The SEC specifically notes that this definition is designed to capture machine learning algorithms, neural networks, natural language processing, and large language models (including generative pre-trained transformers, commonly referred to as "GPT").

Based on this definition, the SEC's proposed rules appear intended to regulate each of the major categories of AI, which are often described as reactive (the classification of data and completion of pattern-recognition tasks), limited-memory (the use of historical data to predict outcomes), and theory-of-mind, a more aspirational type of AI at present that would deliver personalized outputs based on algorithms mimicking the human emotional response.

A Statement of Perceived Risk

Proponents of the proposed rules have hailed them as a way to create multiple checks and balances in both development and deployment of AI to prevent it from subjugating investors' interests to those of Firms. According to the SEC, though AI has the capability to decrease costs and maximize value for investors, the proposed rules are necessary to ameliorate the potential harms of Firms' use of AI including "prompt[ing] investors to enroll in products or services that financially benefit [Firms] but may not be consistent with [investors'] investment goals or risk tolerance, [encouraging] investors to enter into more frequent trades or employ riskier trading strategies ( e.g., margin trading) that will increase [Firms'] profit at the investors' expense, or inappropriately steer[ing] investors toward complex and risky securities products inconsistent with investors' investment objectives or risk profiles that result in harm to investors but that financially benefit the [Firms]."

Covered Investor Interactions and Basic Requirements

According to the proposed rules, the SEC seeks to eliminate or neutralize AI-related conflict-of-interest risk by requiring Firms to (1) identify and mitigate the effect of conflicts of interests arising from their use of AI in "investor interactions" in ways that put their own interests ahead of those of their investors; (2) implement policies and procedures reasonably designed for this purpose; and (3) maintain associated compliance books and records.

The core requirements of the proposed rules would apply slightly differently to broker-dealers than they would to investment advisers. In particular, for broker-dealers, the rules would only apply to certain interactions with "retail" investors - those with a natural person, or the legal representative of such natural person, who seeks to receive or receives services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. For investment-advisers, on the other hand, the rules would apply to covered interactions with any client or prospective client, whether consumer/retail or institutional in nature, including those in a pooled investment vehicle advised by the investment adviser, although the SEC solicits comment specifically on whether or not this difference is appropriate.

Whether as applied to broker-dealers or investment advisers, the proposed rules would not cover a Firm's interactions with investors solely for purposes of meeting legal or regulatory obligations, including for anti-money laundering purposes, such as where AI is used to identify potentially suspicious activity, or for providing other clerical, ministerial, or general administrative support (such as for "back office" purposes like the routing of investor's instructions). The SEC notes that covered interactions would include, however, those that have generally been viewed as outside the scope of investment "recommendations" for broker-dealers. They would also include an investment-adviser's exercise of discretion to manage a client's account.

The SEC's proposals also include a limited exception for conflicts of interest that exist solely because a Firm seeks to open a new client account, recognizing the attraction of new investors as being "essential to the business" of any Firm. However, the SEC explicitly notes that technologies that otherwise take into consideration the profits or revenues of the Firm could present the type of conflict of interest targeted by the proposed rules. It is easy to see how a wide variety of AI uses by Firms could satisfy this test. The SEC concedes this and explains that the focus of the Firm's analysis and monitoring should instead be on whether or not such a "conflict of interest" places the interests of the Firm ahead of those of investors, making it necessary to eliminate or neutralize under these rules.

Eliminating or Neutralizing the Effects of Covered Conflicts of Interest

As an example of how a Firm might eliminate such a conflict, the SEC cites a Firm's ending its receipt of revenue-sharing payments that give rise to the conflict. The SEC says effective "neutralization" could include, for example, adjusting the relevant AI model to apply a "counterweight" (requiring the consideration of additional investor-favorable information that would not have otherwise have been considered in order to counteract consideration of a Firm-favorable factor) or changing how the AI model's inputs are analyzed or weighted in order to systematically avoid a Firm-biased outcome.

Identifying and addressing conflicts of interest in this way would require expertise in the covered technology, such as the applicable programming language or code as well as any input data and associated model training and weighting.

Criticism and Defense of the Proposed Rules

Opponents have noted that the proposed rules could stymie innovation in Firms' use of AI in delivery of new investor-demanded technologies. This criticism echoes concerns raised by some in connection with how the SEC has approached cryptocurrency-related matters in recent years.

While the SEC says it intends the proposed rules to be technology-neutral, it recognizes that its proposals may restrict the use of, or require the adoption of back-end controls in connection with, third-party AI that may effectively be "black box" in nature to Firms. This is illustrative of concerns that have resulted in interest in the establishment of broader "explainability" standards for such technology. The SEC also recognizes that its proposed rules may pose significant barriers to entry for smaller Firms looking to enter the market or adopt new technologies (in terms of necessary compliance resources) but suggests that competition among third-party providers should over time lower these barriers.

And while the SEC also acknowledges that existing law, such as fiduciary obligations applicable to investment advisers and the relatively new Regulation Best Interest applicable to broker-dealers, already requires Firms to identify, disclose, and/or mitigate or eliminate conflicts of interest, the SEC posits that AI "could rapidly and exponentially scale the transmission of any conflicts of interest associated with such technologies" in relation to Firms' investor-clients in a way that existing regulation does not adequately address.

With respect to the concern raised by opponents that the proposed approach places too little reliance on disclosure, the SEC explains its position: "[D]isclosure may be ineffective in light of . . . the rate of investor interactions [through AI technologies], the size of the [AI] datasets, the complexity of the algorithms on which the [AI] is based, and the ability of the [AI] to learn investor preferences or behavior, which could entail providing disclosure that is lengthy, highly technical, and variable, which could cause investors difficulty in understanding the disclosure." The SEC offers that some AI uses "may expose investors to unique and opaque conflicts of interest for which disclosure may not possible or sufficient and which may not otherwise be sufficiently addressed by the existing legal framework."

Conclusion

In connection with these proposals, the SEC draws parallels between AI and older technologies such as computer punch cards and telex machines that Firms have historically introduced and overseen responsibly, resulting in better pricing, greater product choice, and improved user experience for their clients without compromising investor protection, capital formation, and fair, orderly, and efficient markets. This is a hopeful tone, but the complexities of the SEC's proposed rules and the subject matter it purports to regulate will require a great deal of further attention.

With these complexities in mind, it remains to be seen exactly how and when Firms and other financial institutions (and their service providers) will be permitted to incorporate AI into the products and services that they offer. The SEC's proposal highlights recent technology-oriented enforcement matters under less tailored existing rules-regulation by enforcement-in a pattern that is often the alternative or precursor to such a complex regulatory proposal. As a result, we expect that any AI technologies successfully brought to the market will ultimately need to be delivered and managed in ways that meaningfully address actual and apparent conflicts of interest, along with data security and other risks.

[ View source.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SEC Proposes Stringent New Conflict-of-Interest Rules Regarding Broker-Dealers' and Investment Advisers' Use of AI | JD Supra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On July 26, 2023, the majority of the Commissioners of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") voted to propose new rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the...

# data[].attributes.body
outlines statistics that emphasize the appeal of fast food to majority of the population.

time, convenience, price.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about a strategic way to reduce overconsumption and what its impacts might be

Economic and environmental impacts specifically

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I fear I'm in JB MacKinnon's bad books. Halfway through our Zoom interview, I tilt my camera to adjust to the setting sun - but from this new angle, an e-commerce box can be spotted over my shoulder. Its barcode glows in the fading light, a totem of 21st-century materialism presiding over our call.

MacKinnon is too polite to say anything, but he can't be thrilled by my cardboard companion. After all, the Canadian bestselling author and journalist is on a mission to get us to buy a lot less stuff. The Day the World Stops Shopping, his new book, explores what might happen if the world transformed into a society that does not revolve around purchasing, one in which our primary role is not as consumers and our credit cards are not our most commonly deployed tools.

His "thought experiment" plays out like a Ridley Scott sci-fi epic - or perhaps a scene from the pandemic. On the hypothetical day the world stops shopping, carbon emissions plummet; the skies turn a deeper blue; and with no ads polluting smartphone screens our minds become as clear as the bottle-free oceans in which whales swim merrily. There's also chaos. Shops shut, production lines grind to a halt and millions of factory workers lose their jobs. The global economy nosedives so severely it makes the 2008 recession seem like a blip. "It would be a shock so great that it would seem to bend time itself," MacKinnon writes.

The only thing fantastical about his vision is the timeframe: rather than ceasing all shopping overnight he thinks we should, in reality, restructure society over several years to support a sustained reduction in the amount we consume.

He sees this as an obvious, if difficult, fix to a big problem. Consumption - of fast fashion, flights, Black Friday-discounted gadgets - has become the primary driver of ecological crisis. We are devouring the planet's resources at a rate 1.7 times faster than it can regenerate. The US population is 60% larger than it was in 1970, but consumer spending is up 400% (adjusted for inflation) - and other rich nations, including the UK, aren't much better. "Many people would like to see the world consume fewer resources, yet we constantly avoid the most obvious means of achieving that," says MacKinnon. "When people buy less stuff, you get immediate drops in emissions, resource consumption and pollution, unlike anything we've achieved with green technology." That's not to mention the impact materialism has on our mental health, inducing feelings of inadequacy and envy, and encouraging a culture of overworking.

'When people buy less stuff, you get immediate drops in emissions, resource consumption and pollution.' Photograph: Harriet Noble/Studio Pi

His is an impassioned call to arms, for the sake of our planet and our wellbeing. But how feasible is it for all the world's citizens to swap Amazon baskets for a simple agrarian life? More pointedly, do we want to? Does MacKinnon's vision represent an enlightened Shangri-La - or a primitive dystopia?

"This is the best opportunity in the past 30 years to bring consumption back to the centre of the political discourse," says MacKinnon, speaking from his home in Vancouver. He's pensive, with piercing blue eyes. Indeed, the pandemic has given people pause to think about "how they consume, what their relationship with stuff should look like and what is deeply valuable in their lives," he says. "I don't think anybody is going to say that having a bunch of home-workout gear was as satisfying as being able to have contact with friends, family and neighbours."

Many of us still shopped - Amazon enjoyed record-breaking global revenues of $386bn in 2020 - but, stripped of opportunities for parading possessions in front of others, there was a widespread rethink in why we buy and wear things. "For women, particularly, the idea that they don't constantly have to be messaging and positioning through their dress was interesting," he says. "Women saying they're never going to wear jeans or bras again - these are interesting individual reckonings."

Nonetheless, as much of the world begins to reopen, there are rallying cries to boost the economy by opening our wallets. Shopping has been cast as a positive act, retail therapy a civic duty. "All the narratives are building around a new Roaring 20s, a hedonistic binge, taking revenge on the virus with our consumption," says MacKinnon. "But I think a lot of us are going to feel uncomfortable and disquieted, to the point of despair, as we remember what the fully revved-up consumer culture looks like."

He wants us to act on that discomfort. But he's not suggesting we live entirely off the land. In his hypothetical model he applies a 25% reduction in consumption - a figure "modest enough to be possible, dramatic enough to be earth-shattering" - and while he won't specify a figure when discussing what our real-world efforts should be in the coming years, something in this ballpark might well be the goal.

That doesn't just mean fewer physical things; it's also less electricity, travel and eating out. "Basically $1 spent is a consumption dollar; I'm not fussed whether it's spent on a canoe or a powerboat," he says. "If you want a rule of thumb for how much impact you're having as a consumer, the best one is: how much money are you spending? If it's increasing, you're probably increasing your impact; if it's lowering, you're probably lowering your impact."

How might a lower-consuming society look? Everything is reoriented because people, brands and governments are no longer striving for economic growth. Individuals are more self-sufficient, growing food, mending things and embracing wabi-sabi, the Japanese concept of imperfect aesthetics (think patched-up pockets or chipped ceramics). Brands produce fewer but better-quality goods, while governments ban planned obsolescence (the practice of producing items to only function for a set period of time), stick "durability" labels on items so shoppers can be assured of longevity, and introduce tax subsidies so it's cheaper to repair something than to bin it and buy a new version.

Why has such an approach never before been attempted on a broad, society-wide scale? MacKinnon rejects my suggestion that perhaps consumerism is hard-wired into human nature, but says it is "deeply ingrained" in society and it's "much easier for us to think, 'Let's make all these cars run on solar power instead of gas,' rather than, 'How do we end up with fewer cars?'" Plus, he says, "to some extent there was a point where we gave in to the idea that lowering consumption could not be a solution, because it inevitably results in economic collapse."

Well, doesn't it? Were we all to stop shopping overnight it would be disastrous, he admits, but if we built a new system, it could support a surprisingly robust economy. "If you're producing durable goods, you still need considerable labour. Then there's the secondhand market, the repair of products, taking items back in and recomposing them into new products," he says. "Whether it adds up to an economy the size of the one we have today, I doubt it," he continues, adding, with a wry smile: "I mean, I don't see a lot of billion-dollar IPOs coming out of the drive towards a lower-consuming society." But that's kind of the point. "It would be a problem if it generated as much wealth - because ultimately, the reason we feel we need to be awash in wealth is to consume. Otherwise, what's it for?"

Although MacKinnon imagines most of us will still be employed in the cash economy, in the new world order the hours will be shorter and the work often more satisfying because we'll be "participating in the production of higher-quality goods." With a smaller pot of jobs and money, some people will choose not to work and governments will provide universal basic income and/or services. Although MacKinnon avoids referencing specific anti-capitalist political systems, when pushed he agrees it looks like socialism - although "there's probably all kinds of different ways you can organise society around principles of lower consumption, none of which I think necessarily exists right now."

Most importantly, being freed from the corporate rat-race means our work-life balance shifts. We compare ourselves less to others and have more time away from screens. This change, rather than concern for the environment ("'Saving the planet' has always been a bit abstract"), is what he thinks will be most compelling to most people. We participate in communal activities, such as tending public gardens, engage in social movements and take care of children and elders. "It's the balance most of us seem to want, right? More time to engage with friends and family and to have long conversations. There are lots of opportunities, I think, for people to genuinely feel they have a higher quality of life."

Over the decades various communities have practised "voluntary simplicity," whether by choice or necessity. For the book, MacKinnon visited, among other places, sleepy Sado Island in the Sea of Japan; a farming community outside Tokyo; and the suburbs of Seattle where, since the 1990s, many folks have embraced "downshifting" in reaction to the city's conquest by the moneyed tech crowd (the most widespread rejection of consumer culture in recent times).

In general, these people buy few clothes, read library books, walk or catch buses, avoid social media and rarely listen to music or watch TV. When I ask MacKinnon whether he noticed anything distinctive about them his face lights up. "Talking to somebody working in corporate America versus somebody who's been practising voluntary simplicity for three decades is night and day, in terms of the kind of human being they are. It makes you want to be the voluntary simplicity person very much," he says. "They make time for people and have more depth and generosity of spirit. At times, it did feel like I was talking to a more evolved being."

Such lifestyles sound very worthy, I say, but also a tad... unfun? Needless to say, I am not an evolved being and I cringe as I realise how shallow I sound. Yet in my former job as a fashion editor, I have seen consumerism at its most seductive. And the first place I visited once lockdown lifted was Selfridges - possibly London's shiniest temple to materialism - to marvel at the displays. It's undeniable that consumerism brings bright lights, dazzling outfits and lively nights out.

MacKinnon gamely fields the query. "I think there's a grain of truth in it," he says. "That's the reality we need to confront, to some extent. We're certainly not talking about a return to the Stone Age, but maybe we have to accept that a lower-consuming society isn't an endless parade of distractions like the society we have today."

Getting people to believe that this can be a satisfying existence will be the biggest hurdle. "When what you've known throughout your lifetime is what satisfaction you can draw from a consumeristic materialistic society, it's very hard to imagine there's an alternative that's going to work as well or better," he says. "But there is."

He points to an uplifting case study from London. In Barking and Dagenham, one of the city's poorest boroughs, the "Every One. Every Day" initiative brings together locals to cook, partake in poetry, craft and hair-braiding sessions, and spruce up common areas, all of it free. "For many of the people participating, it's deeply engaging and profoundly affecting," he says. "In a lot of places, if you don't have the cash to consume, there's nothing to do; the closest I came to tears in researching this book was watching people who were feeling isolated and excluded from consumer culture have an alternative put in front of them. That points towards the potential."

Although a "cloak-and-dagger" culture still enshrouds talk about reducing consumption in most corporate environments - various interviewees would only speak to MacKinnon anonymously - there are some promising signs. Trailblazing brands such as Patagonia and Levi's have made impressive strides in encouraging customers to question throwaway culture and "buy less but better" is becoming a more common refrain in parts of the fashion industry (even as the industry continues to grow exponentially).

Perhaps the book's most startling comment comes from Abdullah al Maher, the CEO of a Bangladesh knitwear firm that produces for fast-fashion giants including H&M and Zara. He admits that transitioning to a lower-consuming society would be painful for his country: its 6,000 clothing factories would probably halve. But in this new system, the factories would provide better wages, pollute less and compete on quality instead of speed. "There'll be no ratrace then," Maher says, adding: "You know, it wouldn't be so bad."

It's a striking statement from a powerful businessman in a nation that is a factory for the world. And it's the sort of comment that gives MacKinnon confidence. "I'm hopeful that, coming out of the pandemic, people are going to have discussions that start to move the idea of reducing consumption back into the public discourse, from the fringes where it's been for three decades," he says.

Such conversations will involve tossing up whether we're prepared to give up our vibrant, high-velocity, acquisitive lives in order to calm our minds and save the earth. Although we might not like the answer, and change is always uncomfortable, it's tough to argue that there's even a contest.
The Day the World Stops Shopping by JB MacKinnon is published by Bodley Head at £20. Order it for £17.40 at guardianbookshop.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overconsumption and the environment: should we all stop shopping?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over-consumption is at the root of the planet's environmental crisis. One solution, proposed by author JB MacKinnon, is that we should simply buy less. But would that really work?

# data[].attributes.body
low prices of clothes leave them to be disposable and end up in the landfill

stores provide the option to save payment information, making it easier for teens to hit the "place order" button

fast fashion brands have become popular and have partnered with celebs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I n 2020, when the world was in lockdown, my classes moved online, stores and restaurants were closed, and social media was the only entertainment left, I spent hours flipping through Instagram Reels. My feed was flooded with fashion videos, try-on hauls, and product unboxings. Even though I had nowhere to be, it was fun to click through these posts, discover new online stores, and plan future outfits.

Still, the sheer volume of clothes being advertised to me was alarming-not to mention the low cost. I was used to paying $30 for a T-shirt, but I was shocked to see similar items selling for under $10, making them seem almost disposable. I had been aware of the fast fashion problem, but it wasn't until then that I realized the issue was much larger than I'd imagined. According to the consulting firm McKinsey, worldwide clothing production doubled between 2000 and 2014, and consumers are keeping clothing items about half as long as they did in the early aughts. McKinsey also suggests that the cheapest items tend to be worn the least, with some consumers wearing a piece of clothing just about seven or eight times before getting rid of it. A staggering 70 percent of clothing and shoes end up in landfills, according to 2018 data from the US Environmental Protection Agency, with many items containing microplastics that will take years to degrade. But it's not just landfills that we should be concerned about. A 2021 report from the World Economic Forum listed fashion production as the planet's third largest polluter (after food and construction), releasing 5 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The industry creates more CO2 every year than shipping and aviation combined.

This destructive cycle has been gaining momentum for several generations, but it seems especially pressing for my teenage peers. In 2019, one teenager told the New York Times that she would wear a new dress only once or twice before getting rid of it. "Because I'll normally be in photos when I'm wearing it that are then posted on social media," she explained. The problem is clearly amplified by social media, which we consume for multiple hours daily. This is also because some of the most influential people with extremely high followings on social media can be paid by brands or encouraged by the algorithm to push retailers like Shein, Zara, H&M, and Uniqlo toward their often-young audience. Then, purchasing the items becomes as simple as swiping on a post and entering a credit card number.

It's easy for adults to assume that teenagers keep sustainability top of mind. That's partially due to activists like Greta Thunberg and climate marches led by young people. But we're also caught between competing pressures: our social media feeds are filled with influencers parading around in new styles that are easier than ever to purchase with just a few clicks, and the constant documentation of our lives means that we're often thinking about how we'll be perceived by others. For a teenager with little income who is overwhelmed by fast fashion content and greenwashing from every corner, is there a way to break out of this wasteful cycle?

I t's probably no surprise that the pandemic has changed the way young people buy their clothes. According to Statistics Canada, Canadians spent around $84.4 billion online in 2020, but only 9 percent of those surveyed had ever made an online purchase before that year. Store websites and browsers now also provide the option to save payment information, making it easier for teens-who might use a parent's credit card for a purchase-to hit the "place order" button. (This feature is not only bad for the planet but it also makes it more difficult for a teen, who is still learning to manage money, to spend responsibly.) At the same time, ultrafast fashion brands have become even more popular and have also partnered with celebrities. In 2020, Katy Perry partnered with Shein and promoted its products on her Instagram page to millions of followers. Perry also has a page on the retailer's website where she lists her fashion picks. If companies like H&M and Zara are considered fast fashion, Shein has been described as ultrafast fashion. While Zara lists 600 items in its "new in" section, Shein adds 6,000, according to an investigation by CBC Marketplace. Many of these items are in the $10 to $30 range.

Meanwhile, many sustainable options are out of reach for teenagers. Even when compared to typical teenage stores at the mall, such as American Eagle, Urban Outfitters, and Brandy Melville, sustainably produced brands are much more expensive. For example, items at Reformation and MUD Jeans-two hallmarks of sustainable fashion-can cost upward of $150. This makes sense, as fair trade and ethical work environments mean a higher cost of production, but it also makes the items inaccessible. Moreover, these stores are not geared toward teens in terms of what they sell. They often produce clothes in neutral colour palettes, simple silhouettes, and mature styles. In other cases, brands muddy the waters by pretending to be sustainable when they are not, making it more difficult for young shoppers to select worthy options, even if the environment is their first priority.

Despite all this, I'm still passionate about trying to do better-even if it isn't perfect. I asked Georgia Napper, a designer and sustainability influencer based in Australia, for her advice for teenagers. "I'd suggest shopping at your local thrift stores or online platforms like Facebook Marketplace, Depop, or thredUP for pieces that you know you'll wear long into the future," she said. Shopping second hand is, of course, great for those on a low budget. But she also suggested tweaking your social media algorithms to avoid temptation. She said she stopped her apps from recommending hauls by unfollowing fashion brands and influencers.

This is perhaps the most interesting idea: even if teens can't fully become sustainable shoppers, we begin to disengage from the overall culture of overconsumption. Lily Fang, who shares resources for sustainable fashion literacy on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and her blog under the name "imperfect idealist," discusses this concept in a video. "While consumer culture is influenced by marketing and capitalism, we aren't forced to overconsume. We have individual agency," she says, while still urging viewers to continue to be engaged in discussions around larger-scale reforms.

In the meantime, the most sustainable thing I can do is "shop" in my own closet, even if many of my clothes are from fast fashion brands. This includes washing my clothes less often and storing them properly. If something doesn't feel like me anymore, I can give it to a friend or sibling or take it to a local nonprofit or thrift store. I can also learn to mend my own clothes by getting the support of a family member or trying out a youth sewing class. When I do buy new, I can use tools like Good on You to help me figure out which brands are actually sustainable. The website rates thousands of retailers on the basis of ethics and sustainability and even has an app so shoppers can search the directory on the go.

As part of one of the most environmentally aware generations, I am saddened to see the lack of transparency and sustainability in our most worn brands. The bottom line is that brands will not take action toward sustainability if we, the consumers, keep purchasing from them. It may not feel worth it to shop sustainably because just one more mass-produced tank top won't change anything, but fast fashion is destroying this planet. If each shopper opted out of another fast fashion item and supported brands that put ethics first, huge strides would be made. After all, changing the way we shop starts with the shoppers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Fashion Is Everywhere on Social Media. How Can Teens Resist? | The Walrus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The sheer volume of super cheap clothes being advertised to young people is alarming-and terrible for the environment

# data[].attributes.headline
Overconsumption in contrast with starvation 

# data[].attributes.subject
Overconsumption in contrast with starvation 

# data[].attributes.body
Contrasts overconsumption with starvation

talks about how people are obsessed with materialistic things which leads to a greater divide among people of different classes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Miller is a local author, professor at San Diego City College and vice president for the American Federation of Teachers, Local 1931. He lives in Golden Hill.
With inflation and the economic insecurity that accompanies it high, millions of American workers are experiencing anxiety as we head into the holiday season. Every single day one turns on the TV or surveys other media, it is impossible not to be bombarded with a barrage of advertising urging us all to shop 'til we drop.

This ritual has come to define us as much or more as Thanksgiving, Christmas or any other holiday. Black Friday, with its frequently violent mobs of frenzied consumers trampling each other for deals on the latest "must have" items, is a bit of grim Americana that serves to underscore what we like to think of as the excesses of our mindless consumerism. But sadly, these transgressions are simply lightning flashes that illuminate a greater darkness: We are consuming ourselves to death.

In a world where millions go to bed hungry, many of them children, North American overconsumption is a grotesque spectacle. This ongoing orgy of materialism is killing the planet, plain and simple. We need to stop.

As if the catastrophic problems that follow from the severe economic inequality and environmental crises we are facing were not enough, the religion of consumption has turned our lives into living deaths. The magic system of advertising promises to deliver the tangible in the intangible: It whispers to us that love, happiness, pleasure, respect and even identity itself can be purchased on the market.

Our lives are dominated by an industry whose sole purpose is to create false desires, to proliferate artificial wants.

We know the promise of consumerism is not true, yet we fall for it again and again, wandering miserably or, worse yet, in an affectless fashion through the mall or on Amazon in search of the totems that will deliver us from our lives of quiet desperation. We surrender to a system of social relations ruled by the commodities.

Hence, the real tragedy of Black Friday is not the handful of violently deranged bargain seekers who make the news but the hordes of unsung zombies who tramp through the parking lots or zip through virtual space in search of salvation.

Nobody has to make us do this because we are beyond alienation. To be alienated, one must feel a separation from the world, but for many of us today the world as constructed by market forces has colonized our inner space so thoroughly that we confuse it with nature.

To address this, folks who founded Adbusters and other proponents of Buy Nothing Day, the international protest against overconsumption, encourage us all to enjoy what they describe as "a day where you challenge yourself, your family and friends to switch off from shopping and tune into life. The rules are simple - for 24 hours you will detox from shopping and anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending!"

Buy Nothing Day's backers say, "Everything we buy has an impact on the environment. Buy Nothing Day highlights the environmental and ethical consequences of consumerism."

That's why I found it refreshing to see that the monks at Deer Park Monastery in Escondido were planning on replacing Black Friday with "Make Brown Friday" in reference to the color of their robes, which are a symbol of moderation and simplicity.

As they put it on their website, "On Black Friday, the day after the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, but also promoted in other countries, many people flock to stores for holiday sales, sometimes pushing and shoving one another to buy the latest electronic gadget or toy. This rush to spend money is often depicted as a sign of a healthy economy and as an example of holiday spirit. But focusing so much energy and attention on consuming can also water seeds of craving, anger and anxiety, leaving shoppers feeling empty despite having a carload of gifts to put under the tree."

In doing this, the monks with their Buddhist lesson about the dangers of "unmindful consumption" are in line with Henry David Thoreau who, in "Walden," implored us to "simplify" to "suck the marrow out of life." So, when the urge to surrender to the insane demands of consumer culture strike, perhaps we should listen to the monks, stop, and just be.

It won't cost you a thing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: In a world where millions are hungry, American overconsumption is a grotesque spectacle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The real tragedy of Black Friday is not the handful of violently deranged bargain seekers who make the news.

# data[].attributes.body
fashion is one of the most highly polluting industries

young people more aware of climate crisis but target demographic for fashion brands

though, sustainable fashion influencers show that being sustainable can be stylish

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Fashion is one of the most highly polluting industries on earth. Unlike the construction or tourism or tech industries that are also highly polluting, fashion is damaging to every sector of the environment, whether terrestrial or aquatic," says Shelley Rogers, Fashion for the Earth coordinator at EarthDay.org. Fast fashion, with its focus on short-term trends and low prices, is the biggest culprit. But those same qualities make fast fashion especially appealing to young people. That's why this year, EarthDay.org is focused on increasing youth involvement in sustainable fashion - and you can help, no matter how old you are.

Youth and Fashion

Young people, that is, millennials (born between roughly 1981 and 1996) and Gen Z (born 1995-2012) are generally more aware of climate issues than other generations and are more likely to be activists for the environment. But they are also the target demographic for most fast fashion brands.

"The problem with GenZ, considered the most environmentally conscious group, is that there is an 'intention behavior gap' where the intention is to practice sustainability, but the numbers show they are shopping from fast fashion companies a lot. The problem is price, availability, and being unsure of what is and what isn't sustainable," says Rogers.

However, some young people are closing the behavior gap. Young designers like Maya Penn are building slow fashion brands, while sustainable fashion influencers on Instagram are showing that sustainable can be stylish.

"Many young people are actually doing something about the problem. They are thrifting, reselling, and renting, disrupting fast fashion. Some expect these alternative markets to become extremely competitive, if not on par with fast fashion by 2030," says Rogers. EarthDay.org's Fashion for the Earth program is working to facilitate that shift.

Fashion for the Earth

For two years in a row, the fashion industry has been a focus for EarthDay.org's Invest in the Earth campaign.

"It is all directed at one thing - to find a way to avoid fast fashion, to shop less and to shop sustainably," says Rogers.

In time for Earth Day this year, Fashion for the Earth is launching a TikTok series of interviews with college students to share their thoughts on sustainable fashion and encourage others to think about their choices. Another new project for Earth Day 2023 is Swap for the Earth, an online toolkit for organizing campus clothing swaps in the week leading up to Earth Day. These events encourage reuse and reinforce awareness of the overconsumption of clothing. Videos from the events will be shared online.

The My Planet, My Closet program is a continuation from last year. It asks people to send in videos showing off their sustainable clothing items as an inspirational "what's in your closet" project that will be shared on social media. EarthDay.org also produced digital toolkits explaining how to shop for more sustainable clothes and how to care for clothing so it lasts longer. A series of webinars and blog posts examine sustainable fashion topics in more detail.

Look for this content on your preferred platform with the hashtags #EarthDay and #InvestInOurPlanet.

What Youth Can Do

All of these resources are designed to help young people overcome the barriers to dressing more sustainably.

"It's something that we all do every day - getting dressed - and something that's within our control. That's the important thing. Buying sustainable clothes, wearing them longer, taking care of them and keeping them for years instead of months makes an enormous difference," says Rogers.

Restrictions on time and money often drive people of all ages to make less sustainable choices despite their best intentions. But even just learning about sustainable options now is a step in the right direction.

"As GenZ moves into the working world and they begin to earn an income, hopefully they will spend the extra money it takes to purchase better quality clothing. Sooner or later educated people will demand government put an end to an industry that is harmful to all living things and continuing to grow out of control," says Rogers.

Even without much time or money, young people can start to make those demands now - and so can parents. Anyone can encourage their representatives to support legislation like the E.U. Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles and the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act in New York State's legislature.

What Parents Can Do

Parents can help their kids understand the environmental impact of fast fashion and the steps to building a more sustainable wardrobe.

"Parents should also question the way fast fashion hooks children with what's called 'FOMO' or fear of missing out. Social media pressure is a very hard thing to overcome for young people," says Rogers. Understanding that they are being manipulated can change a young person's perspective significantly.

The fashion industry also depends on child labor. Young people like themselves are working in sweatshops in the global south where they make less than a living wage to keep the prices of clothing low enough for our teenagers to overconsume.

"Once you understand the depth of the problem, it's hard to want to be part of it. Having fewer, but better made clothes that are well taken care of is the answer," says Rogers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trendy, low-priced fast fashion seems to target young people, so EarthDay.org is focused on getting youth involved in sustainable fashion.