# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Forests are an important and common feature of the Earth's land cover, covering 31 percent of the total land surface. There are two regions in particular where forests are common. A large area of forests (the taiga, or boreal forest) is found across northern North America, Europe, and Asia. Stretching out from the equator on all Earth's land surfaces is another wide belt of forests of amazing diversity and productivity. These tropical forests include dense rain forests, where rainfall is abundant year-round. They also include seasonally moist forests, where rainfall is abundant but seasonal, and drier, more open woodlands.

Human activity and other factors result in deforestation. Humans clear the natural landscape to make room for farms and pastures, to harvest timber, and to build roads and houses. Tropical forests of all varieties, in particular, are disappearing rapidly by human activity. Other causes of deforestation may include drought, forest fires, and climate change. Although deforestation meets some human needs, it also causes major problems, including social conflict, the extinction of plants and animals, and climate change. These challenges aren't just local. Deforestation also has global impacts.

Where are the World's Forests Located?

Tropical forests span both sides of the Equator, thriving in the warm, usually wet, climate, under the Sun's most direct rays. Boreal forests are found across the high latitudes of all land areas in the Northern Hemisphere.

How Do Deforestation Events Occur?

Intentional Deforestation of Tropical Forests

The biggest direct cause of tropical deforestation is turning the land into cropland and pasture. Countries build roads to improve the transportation of goods. The road development itself causes some deforestation. The new roads also provide entry to land that could not be accessed before. Logging often comes after the new roads. In some cases, it is the reason the roads were built. When loggers have harvested all the wood in an area, they move on. The roads and the logged areas attract settlers. The settlers destroy the remaining forest for cropland or cattle pasture.

Government policies to encourage economic growth, like road projects, have caused significant, unintentional deforestation. Global economic factors can also encourage deforestation. These include things like foreign debt or expanding global markets for rainforest timber and pulpwood.

Droughts

As global temperatures continue to rise, droughts are expected to become more frequent and severe in many regions during this century. A new study with NASA participation finds that land ecosystems took longer to recover from droughts in the 20th century. Incomplete drought recovery may become the new normal in some areas, possibly leading to tree death, loss of forest cover, and increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

Forest Fires

Intentional fires get out of control and burn through the understory of nearby forests, killing, but not completely burning small trees, vines, and shrubs. The dead and dying trees collapse, spilling firewood and kindling to the ground and ripping a great tear in the tent of the forest overhead. In the past, thousands of deliberately set forest fires have raged out of control in Indonesia, Brazil, and Mexico, burning millions of hectares of rainforest.

Climate Change

Changes in temperature and rainfall/snowfall affect the health of forests. Many trees in the Western U.S. are already suffering from climate change. With warmer, drier conditions in the region, pine trees are more likely to become infected with insects. These bugs bore into the trees and lay their eggs. Eventually, they kill the tree. Some forests in the West have lost over half their trees already to pine beetles. When the forest is gone, birds and small mammals that lived there have to find new homes--if they can.

Examples of Deforestation & Forest Disturbances

Southeast US & Brazil areas are analyzed by NAS Scientist.

Impacts of Deforestation

Biodiversity

Although tropical forests cover only about 7 percent of the Earth's dry land, they probably hold about half of all species on Earth. Many species can only be found in small areas. This makes them more likely to die out. In addition, the forest that remains is more dangerous for the plants and animals still there.

Rainforest products are popular around the world. These include latex, cork, fruit, nuts, timber, fibers, spices, natural oils and resins, and medicines. Some of these products can be taken out of the forest in ways that do not cause harm to the environment. If the forests are destroyed, people will no longer be able to get those products.

Biodiversity matters for another reason: Plants and animals in the rainforest may hold the cures for diseases and ways to improve the food we produce. Many of these plants and animals may not have even been discovered yet.

Soils

With all the life in tropical forests, it can be surprising to learn that tropical soils are actually very thin. These soils do not have a lot of minerals that plants need to grow, which means they are not ideal for growing crops. The soil comes from rock, and the rain in the tropics washes away its minerals over time. Nearly all the minerals of a tropical forest are in the living plants and the decomposing litter on the forest floor.

When an area is completely deforested for farming, the farmer typically burns what is left. The minerals in the soil are lost. In just a few years, soils often become unable to support crops. If the area is then turned into cattle pasture, it becomes nearly impossible for the forest to be restored.

Global Warming

Deforestation affects rainfall and temperature. Up to 30 percent of the rain that falls in tropical forests is water that the rainforest has recycled into the atmosphere. Water evaporates, condenses into clouds and falls again as rain. In addition to maintaining tropical rainfall, the evaporation cools the Earth's surface. Deforestation is likely to create a drier, hotter climate in the tropics. Tropical deforestation may also affect rainfall patterns far outside the tropics.

Deforestation can also turn the tropics into a larger source of carbon emissions, which increases the greenhouse effect and global warming. The trees and plants in the forests contain a lot of carbon. Through photosynthesis, they use carbon dioxide and store carbon in their stems and leaves. Carbon dioxide escapes back into the atmosphere when these stems and leaves decay. But when people clear the forests, more carbon returns to the atmosphere.

Why Does NASA Study Deforestation?

NASA supports and conducts research on tropical forests from space-based and ground-based perspectives, helping provide the information that national and international leaders need to develop strategies for sustaining human populations and preserving tropical forest biodiversity.

Measurements of global vegetation are valuable to scientists because they provide insight into the carbon cycle. Scientists use vegetation measurements to determine the planet's net primary productivity: how much carbon is being used by the plants to grow. Carbon cycles through the oceans, soil and rocks, plants on land and in the ocean, and atmosphere. The buildup of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel is the primary cause of global warming. The global biosphere has been helping to offset some of the excess carbon dioxide people have been pumping into the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Includes information on global greenhouse gas emissions trends, and by type of gas, by source, and by country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Includes information on global greenhouse gas emissions trends, and by type of gas, by source, and by country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Clothing retailers like Zara, Forever 21, and H&M make cheap and fashionable clothing to satisfy the needs of young consumers. Yet, fast fashion has a significant environmental impact. According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the industry is the second-biggest consumer of water and is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions - more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. Unfortunately, fast fashion problems are often overlooked by consumers.
-

What Is Fast Fashion?

The term ' fast fashion ' has become more prominent in conversations surrounding fashion, sustainability, and environmental consciousness. The term refers to 'cheaply produced and priced garments that copy the latest catwalk styles and get pumped quickly through stores in order to maximise on current trends'.

The fast fashion model is so-called because it involves the rapid design, production, distribution, and marketing of clothing, which means that retailers are able to pull large quantities of greater product variety and allow consumers to get more fashion and product differentiation at a low price.

The term was first used at the beginning of the 1990s, when when Zara landed in New York. "Fast fashion" was coined by the New York Times to describe Zara's mission to take only 15 days for a garment to go from the design stage to being sold in stores. The biggest players in the fast fashion world include Zara, UNIQLO, Forever 21 and H&M.

The Dark Side of Fast Fashion

According to an analysis by Business Insider, fashion production comprises 10% of total global carbon emissions, as much as the European Union. It dries up water sources and pollutes rivers and streams, while 85% of all textiles go to dumps each year. Even washing clothes releases 500,000 tons of microfibres into the ocean each year, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles.

The Quantis International 2018 report found that the three main drivers of the industry's global pollution impacts are dyeing and finishing (36%), yarn preparation (28%) and fibre production (15%). The report also established that fibre production has the largest impact on freshwater withdrawal (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface water or groundwater source) and ecosystem quality due to cotton cultivation, while the dyeing and finishing, yarn preparation and fibre production stages have the highest impacts on resource depletion, due to the energy-intensive processes based on fossil fuel energy.

According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions from textile manufacturing alone are projected to skyrocket by 60% by 2030.

The time it takes for a product to go through the supply chain, from design to purchase, is called a ' lead time '. In 2012, Zara was able to design, produce and deliver a new garment in two weeks; Forever 21 in six weeks and H&M in eight weeks. This results in the fashion industry producing obscene amounts of waste.

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

You Might Also Like: The 9 Essential Fast Fashion Statistics
Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

1. Water

The environmental impact of fast fashion comprises the depletion of non-renewable sources, emission of greenhouse gases and the use of massive amounts of water and energy. The fashion industry is the second largest consumer industry of water, requiring about 700 gallons to produce one cotton shirt and 2 000 gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans. Business Insider also cautions that textile dyeing is the world's second-largest polluter of water, since the water leftover from the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams or rivers.

2. Microplastics

Furthermore, brands use synthetic fibres like polyester, nylon and acrylic which take hundreds of years to biodegrade. A 2017 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated that 35% of all microplastics - tiny pieces of non-biodegradable plastic - in the ocean come from the laundering of synthetic textiles like polyester.

According to the documentary released in 2015, The True Cost, the world consumes around 80 billion new pieces of clothing every year, 400% more than the consumption twenty years ago. The average American now generates 82 pounds of textile waste each year. The production of leather requires large amounts of feed, land, water and fossil fuels to raise livestock, while the tanning process is among the most toxic in all of the fashion supply chain because the chemicals used to tan leather- including mineral salts, formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives and various oils and dyes- is not biodegradable and contaminates water sources.

3. Energy

The production of making plastic fibres into textiles is an energy-intensive process that requires large amounts of petroleum and releases volatile particulate matter and acids like hydrogen chloride. Additionally, cotton, which is in a large amount of fast fashion products, is also not environmentally friendly to manufacture. Pesticides deemed necessary for the growth of cotton presents health risks to farmers.

To counter this waste caused by fast fashion, more sustainable fabrics that can be used in clothing include wild silk, organic cotton, linen, hemp and lyocell.
You might Also Like: How to Recognise Fast Fashion Brands and Which Ones to Avoid
The Social Impacts of Fast Fashion

Fast fashion does not only have a huge environmental impact. In fact, the industry also poses societal problems, especially in developing economies. According to non-profit Remake, 80% of apparel is made by young women between the ages of 18 and 24. A 2018 US Department of Labor report found evidence of forced and child labour in the fashion industry in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam and others. Rapid production means that sales and profits supersede human welfare.

In 2013, an eight-floor factory building that housed several garment factories collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh, killing 1,134 workers and injuring more than 2,500. In her project An Analysis of the Fast Fashion Industry, Annie Radner Linden suggests that 'the garment industry has always been a low-capital and labour intensive industry'.

In her book No Logo, Naomi Klein argues that developing nations are viable for garment industries due to 'cheap labour, vast tax breaks, and lenient laws and regulations'. According to The True Cost, one in six people work in some part of the global fashion industry, making it the most labour-dependent industry. These developing nations also rarely follow environmental regulations; China, for example, is a major producer of fast fashion but is notorious for land degradation and air and water pollution.
You might also like: The Danger of Sweatshops
Is Slow Fashion the Solution?

Slow fashion is the widespread reaction to fast fashion and its environmental impact, the argument for hitting the brakes on excessive production, overcomplicated supply chains, and mindless consumption. It advocates for manufacturing that respects people, the environment and animals.

The World Resources Institute suggests that companies need to design, test and invest in business models that reuse clothes and maximise their useful life. The UN has launched the Alliance for Sustainable Fashion to address the damages caused by fast fashion. It is seeking to 'halt the environmentally and socially destructive practices of fashion'.
You might also like: What Is Slow Fashion and How Can You Join the Movement?
One way that shoppers are reducing their consumption of fast fashion is by buying from secondhand sellers like ThredUp Inc. and Poshmark, both based in California, USA; shoppers send their unwanted clothes to these websites and people buy those clothes at a lower price than the original. Another solution is renting clothes, like the US-based Rent the Runway and Gwynnie Bee, the UK based Girl Meets Dress, and the Dutch firm Mud Jeans that leases organic jeans which can be kept, swapped or returned.

Other retailers like Adidas are experimenting with personalised gear to cut down on returns, increase customer satisfaction and reduce inventory. Ralph Lauren has announced that it will use 100% sustainably-sourced key materials by 2025.

Governments need to be more actively involved in the fashion industry's damaging effects. UK ministers rejected a report by members of parliament to address the environmental effects of fast fashion. On the other hand, French president, Emmanuel Macron has made a pact with 150 brands to make the fashion industry more sustainable.
Featured image by EO Photographer Chin Leong Teo
The best advice on reducing the environmental impact of fast fashion comes from Patsy Perry, senior lecturer in fashion marketing at the University of Manchester, who says, "Less is always more."

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Fashion: Its Detrimental Effect on the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fast fashion has a massive environmental impact, it is the second-biggest consumer of water and is responsible for nearly 10% of global carbon emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate impacts of air pollution

How are air pollution and climate change linked in terms of health risks?

Pollutants not only severely impact public health, but also the earth's climate and ecosystems globally. Most policies to reduce air pollution offer a "win-win" strategy for both health and climate. Lower levels of air pollution result in better cardiovascular and respiratory health of populations in both the long- and short-term. Reducing ambient and household air pollution can also reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon particles and methane, therefore contributing to the near- and long-term mitigation of climate change.

Are there common sources of air pollution and climate-changing pollutants?

Many of the sources of outdoor air pollution are also sources of high CO2 emissions. For example, the use of fossil fuels for power generation, industry and polluting transport are all major sources of both particulate matter and CO2.

What are short-lived climate pollutants and how do they impact climate and health?

Air pollutants, such as methane and black carbon, are powerful short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) that contribute to climate change and ill health . Although SLCPs persist in the atmosphere for short lifetimes, their global warming potential is often much greater than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Black carbon, a component of fine particulate matter, is one of the largest contributors to global warming after CO2. Black carbon warms the earth's atmosphere by absorbing sunlight, thereby accelerating the melting of snow and ice.

Methane, another SLCP, is a potent greenhouse gas that is 84 times more powerful than CO2, and is a precursor to the air pollutant ozone. Ozone and black carbon affect weather processes and decrease agricultural yields, thus threatening food security.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pollutants not only severely impact public health, but also the earth's climate and ecosystems globally. Most policies to reduce air pollution offer a "win-win" strategy for both health and climate. Lower levels of air pollution result in better cardiovascular and respiratory health of populations in both the long- and short-term.

# data[].attributes.headline
Deeper Dive Transportation and Greenhouse Gases

# data[].attributes.subject
Deeper Dive Transportation and Greenhouse Gases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On this page:

Sources of Transportation Emissions

The transportation sector includes the movement of people and goods by cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, and other vehicles.

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline and diesel fuel, in internal combustion engines.

The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector.

The remaining greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector come from other modes of transportation, including commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains, as well as pipelines and lubricants. Indirect emissions from electricity are less than 1 percent of direct emissions.

Relatively small amounts of methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are emitted during fuel combustion. In addition, hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions also occur from the transportation sector. These emissions result from the use of mobile air conditioners and refrigerated transport.

Transportation Sector Emissions Trends

In 2022, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for 29% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the third largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions when considering indirect emissions from distributed electricity.

When considering only direct emissions, transportation is the largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (28%). From 1990 to 2022, total transportation emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by 19%. From 2021 to 2022, emissions decreased by less than 1%.

The largest sources of transportation greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 were light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (37%); medium- and heavy-duty trucks (23%); passenger cars (20%); commercial aircraft (7%); other aircraft (2%); pipelines (4%); ships and boats (3%); and rail (2%).

In terms of the overall trend, from 1990 to 2022, total transportation emissions have increased due, in large part, to increased demand for travel. The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by light-duty motor vehicles (passenger cars and light-duty trucks) increased by 47% from 1990 to 2022, as a result of a confluence of factors including population growth, economic growth, urban sprawl, and periods of low fuel prices.

Between 1990 and 2004, average fuel economy among new vehicles sold annually declined, as sales of light-duty trucks increased. Starting in 2005, average new vehicle fuel economy began to increase, while light-duty VMT grew only modestly for much of the period. Average new vehicle fuel economy has improved almost every year since 2005, slowing the rate of increase of CO₂ emissions.

Learn more about Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation.

Reducing Emissions from Transportation

There are a variety of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation. The table shown below categorizes these opportunities and provides examples. For a more comprehensive list, see Chapter 10 of the Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Fuel Switching

Using fuels that emit less CO ₂ than fuels currently being used. Alternative sources can include biofuels; hydrogen; electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar; or fossil fuels that are less CO ₂-intensive than the fuels that they replace. Learn more about Green Vehicles and Alternative and Renewable Fuels.

Using public buses that are powered by renewable fuels, electricity, or compressed natural gas rather than conventional gasoline or diesel.

Using electric, plug-in hybrid electric, or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Using renewable fuels such as low-carbon biofuels.

Improving Fuel Efficiency with Advanced Design, Materials, and Technologies

Using advanced technologies, design, and materials to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles. Learn about EPA's vehicle greenhouse gas rules.

Developing advanced vehicle technologies such as hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles, that can store energy from braking and use it for power later.

Reducing the weight of materials used to build vehicles.

Reducing the aerodynamic resistance of vehicles through better shape design.

Improving Operating Practices

Adopting practices that minimize fuel use. Improving driving practices and vehicle maintenance. Learn about how the freight transportation industry can reduce emissions through EPA's SmartWay Program.

Reducing the average taxi time for aircraft.

Driving sensibly (avoiding rapid acceleration and braking, observing the speed limit).

Reducing engine-idling.

Improved voyage planning for ships, such as through improved weather routing, to increase fuel efficiency.

Reducing Travel Demand

Employing urban planning to reduce the number of miles that people drive each day. Reducing the need for driving through travel efficiency measures such as commuter, biking, and pedestrian programs. Learn about EPA's Smart Growth Program.

Building public transportation, sidewalks, and bike paths to increase lower-emission transportation choices.

Zoning for mixed use areas, so that residences, schools, stores, and businesses are close together, reducing the need for driving.

References

IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transportation Sector Emissions | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in the Transportation Sector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At a Glance The largest source of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the most common greenhouse gas) in the United States is the transportation sector. Emissions from transportation surpassed emissions from the electric power sector five years ago and now constitute two-fifths of domestic emissions from burning fossil fuels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Includes information on global greenhouse gas emissions trends, and by type of gas, by source, and by country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In fact, the industrial model that dominates our nation's agriculture-a model that neglects soils, reduces diversity, and relies too heavily on fertilizers and pesticides-makes US farms susceptible to climate impacts in several ways.

The combination of advancing climate change and an already-vulnerable industrial system is a "perfect storm" that threatens farmers' livelihoods and our food supply. The good news is that there are tools-in the form of science-based farming practices-that can buffer farmers from climate damage and help make their operations more resilient and sustainable for the long term. But farmers face many obstacles to changing practices, so it's critical that policymakers shift federal agriculture investments to support and accelerate this transition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Industrial agriculture makes farms more vulnerable to climate impacts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Deeper Dive Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases

# data[].attributes.subject
Deeper Dive Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coal, gas, and other fossil fuels are neither sustainable nor safe. We shouldn't use them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wow! Clear explanations of the car emissions issue

# data[].attributes.subject
Wow! Clear explanations of the car emissions issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vehicle emissions: what’s the impact on the planet ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vehicle emissions account for a fifth of the total emissions in the US. But how are these calculated and what’s being done about it? Here are the details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Includes information on global greenhouse gas emissions trends, and by type of gas, by source, and by country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Private transport is one of the world’s biggest sources of greenhouse gases, with emissions rising year on year. It means the way you travel to work matters more than you think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in the Transportation Sector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At a Glance The largest source of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the most common greenhouse gas) in the United States is the transportation sector. Emissions from transportation surpassed emissions from the electric power sector five years ago and now constitute two-fifths of domestic emissions from burning fossil fuels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the Manufacturing Sector

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBO provides an overview of greenhouse gas emissions in the manufacturing sector, presents projections of future emissions, and explains how uncertainty about economic conditions, fuel prices, and technology affects those projections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reducing Industrial Emissions

There are many ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector, including energy efficiency, fuel switching, combined heat and power, use of renewable energy, and the more efficient use and recycling of materials. Many industrial processes have no existing low-emission alternative and will require carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions over the long term.

HFCs

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) - chemicals widely used in refrigeration, air conditioning, foam blowing, and other applications - are the fastest-growing greenhouse gases. With a global warming potential thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide, HFCs can have a significant impact on climate change. Given their high emissions rates and relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (compared to carbon dioxide), efforts to reduce HFC emissions in the near term will significantly reduce projected temperature increases over the coming decades.

The American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 directs EPA to implement an 85-percent phasedown of the production and consumption of regulated HFCs over a 15-year period, manage these HFCs and their substitutes, and facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies. EPA is required to issue regulations for the HFC phasedown within 270 days after enactment (by September 16, 2021).

Oil and Gas Production

Oil and gas production is the United States' largest manmade source of methane, the second biggest driver of climate change. In the production process, methane can leak unintentionally. It also can be intentionally released or vented to the atmosphere for safety reasons at the wellhead or to reduce pressure from equipment or pipelines.

In January 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, directing federal agencies to review actions taken in the last four years. Among many other things, the Executive Order calls on the EPA to consider suspending or revising a 2020 technical amendment to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector by September 2021. In addition, the Executive Order calls on EPA to consider proposing regulations for methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from existing operations in the oil and gas sector by September 2021.

In June 2021, Congress voted to repeal the 2020 methane rule under the Congressional Review Act and the resolution was signed into law by President Biden. The measure restores the more stringent 2016 methane rule.

In August 2020, EPA issued two amendments (i.e., the 2020 methane rule) that effectively rescinded the 2016 oil and gas new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. These amendments removed transmission and storage segments from covered oil and gas source categories, rescinded NSPS applicable to those sources, and rescinded methane-specific requirements for the production and processing segments under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. In the amendments, EPA declared that there are no emissions impacts or potential costs from removing the methane requirements for new, reconstructed, and modified sources in the production and processing segments. The EPA justified the amendments with the claim that the current methane limits are redundant with the NSPS volatile organic compounds (VOCs) requirements in the production and processing segments (e.g., fugitive emissions, pneumatic controllers, pneumatic pumps, and compressors).

Operators new oil and gas wells must now follow the 2016 methane rule, which required them to find and repair leaks and capture natural gas from the completion of hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells. They must also limit emissions from new and modified pneumatic pumps, and from several types of equipment used at natural gas transmission compressor stations, including compressors and pneumatic controllers. When it issued the rule in 2016, EPA estimated it could prevent the emission of 510,000 short tons of methane in 2025 (the equivalent of 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide) in addition to reducing other harmful air pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs, which are ozone-forming pollutants).

Regardless of the regulatory approach, EPA continues to work with industry and states through its voluntary Natural Gas STAR program to reduce methane from existing oil and gas operations.

In addition, Executive Order 13990 would require the Department of Interior to review a 2018 rule that rescinded the 2016 methane emissions rule from wells on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Indian lands. The 2016 rule placed the first limits on flaring natural gas and increased disclosure requirements. Furthermore, it prohibited venting except in specified circumstances, required pre-drill planning for leak reduction, and increased use of leak-detection technology.

Other Industrial Sources

Other industrial sectors, such as refineries and cement kilns, have been regulated for certain pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and dioxides of nitrogen (NOx), since the Clean Air Act became law in 1970.

Section 111 of the act requires the regulation of pollution from new, modified, and reconstructed facilities through the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program. NSPS are technology-based standards that apply to specific categories of stationary sources. NSPS for pollutants are regularly strengthened by EPA to safeguard human health and the environment as technology advances and new pollution controls become more economically feasible. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from all significant emitting subsectors, as clarified in the U.S. Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Controlling Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector, including energy efficiency, fuel switching, combined heat and power, use of renewable energy, and the more efficient use and recycling of materials. Many industrial processes have no existing low-emission alternative and will require carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions over the long term.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And this is only part of the story. P&G, like many other corporations, seems to be omitting substantial volumes of greenhouse gas emissions from its Scope 3 emissions estimates. For example, the company's emissions accounting category of "Purchased goods and services" is where the emissions from harvesting huge volumes of virgin pulp sourced from trees used in its tissue products should appear. P&G's total estimate of its Scope 3 emissions for the climate impact of the extraction and harvest of all the raw materials across all its "purchased goods and services" is nearly 8.6 million metric tons of greenhouse gases. That's a big number, but when we looked at just the lifecycle emissions of the company's virgin pulp use for tissue, hygiene, and baby care products alone, we found that P&G generates 17.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually [1]-a difference from P&G's calculations of 9.2 million metric tons.

How could these two estimates be so divergent? Giving P&G the benefit of the doubt, it is likely that some of the 9.2 million metric ton different is accounted for in the company's production emissions (Scope 1 & 2), and in emissions associated with product use and disposal (Scope 3). Nonetheless, there appears to be a serious shortfall in the company's calculations of Scope 3 emissions-especially since the "Purchased goods and services" segment encompasses whole other supply chains that have their own significant annual emissions (think plastics or the various manufactured chemicals in beauty and cleaning products).

And P&G is not alone, even within the tissue sector. Kimberly-Clark, one of P&G's biggest competitors, appears to underestimate its Scope 3 emissions even more drastically. It uses substantially more virgin pulp in its numerous disposable products-2.4 million metric tons to P&G's 1.5 million. This volume of virgin pulp would be expected to produce 28.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually [3], despite Kimberly-Clark's estimate that all of the company's emissions-Scope 1-3-generate only 17.5 million metric tons of emissions.

What Would Real Environmental Leadership Look Like?

These companies, which purport to be global environmental leaders, have a lot of work to do to address their full climate impacts. Measuring and reporting emissions is a great first step. Ensuring the accuracy of this measurement and transparent reporting would be a good second one. But at the end of the day, any "science-based target," as P&G likes to say, must be a target that applies to all of the emissions a corporation's activities and products are creating-not just those emitted while a product is being made in a factory.

P&G's 50% greenhouse gas reduction target is a worthy goal, but that target should be leading to real world annual reductions of at least 107 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, not 2 million, because of the necessary inclusion of Scope 3 emissions. An essential first step to reducing these monumental, unaccounted for emissions, as NRDC and Stand.earth argue in their new report, would be for P&G to increase the use of recycled pulp in their tissue products. Today, the company uses no recycled content in their household products, even though using recycled pulp emits three times fewer greenhouse gases. Increasing to even 50% recycled content in its tissue, hygiene, and baby care products could lower P&G's annual emissions by 6.2 million metric tons [4], a significant chunk of the reductions the company should make to help the world avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Government and individual actions are vital to addressing climate change, but corporations, with their outsized influence and power in today's world, have an even larger role to play. They are able to drive policy change, shape consumer preferences, and rapidly respond to the necessities of climate change at a scale and pace beyond any other political or private entity. Meaningful corporate action is not only necessary as climate change accelerates by the day, it is a global obligation. As some of the entities most responsible for putting us in the crisis we're in today, it's time for companies to take full responsibility for their climate footprints.

Take Action: Tell P&G's CEO, David Taylor, to move toward a more sustainable model and stop flushing away our forests!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Corporate Honesty and Climate Change: Time to Own Up and Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corporate commitments are hiding huge volumes of emissions that corporations should be working hard to reduce. America's tissue sector provides a shocking example of just how far the corporate world needs to go to get serious about climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the scale of deforestation and its role in climate change?

Deforestation refers to the purposeful clearing or thinning of trees and forests. When deforestation occurs, much of the carbon stored by trees﻿ is released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, which contributes to climate change﻿.

In the last decade, the largest amounts of deforestation occurred across the humid tropics, mostly in Africa, followed by South America. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation﻿ (FAO) estimates that around 420 million hectares of forest were lost between 1990 and 2020 (or 178 million hectares net, i.e. taking into account afforestation and the natural expansion of forests). The annual rate of deforestation has since slowed but was still 10 million hectares per year between 2015 and 2020. The most important driver of deforestation is the global demand for agricultural commodities: agribusinesses clear huge tracts of forest and use the land to plant high-value cash crops like palm oil and soya, and for cattle ranching.

Land use change, principally deforestation, contributes 12-20%﻿ of global greenhouse gas emissions. Forest degradation (changes that negatively affect a forest's structure or function but that do not decrease its area), and the destruction of tropical peatlands, also contribute to these emissions. As a result of deforestation and degradation, some tropical forests now emit more carbon﻿﻿ than they capture, turning them from a carbon 'sink' into a carbon source. For example, the south-eastern part of the Amazon Rainforest is now considered a net carbon source﻿ by scientists.

Where does 'REDD+' come in?

Scientists have recognised the value of protecting forests in tackling climate change. In response, policymakers have developed a family of policies - collectively known as 'reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation' (REDD) - to provide a financial incentive to governments, agribusinesses and communities to maintain and possibly increase, rather than reduce, forest cover. The plus in 'REDD+' refers to "the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries". Under REDD+, incentives for forest protection are offered to countries, communities and individual landowners in exchange for slowing deforestation, and carrying out activities that promote reforestation and sustainable forest management. Where local people are properly involved in the REDD+ process it may also help alleviate rural poverty. The principles of REDD+ were further reinforced in the Paris Agreement﻿﻿ on climate change.

REDD+ policies operate through a variety of mechanisms, including those administered by the United Nations ( UN-REDD﻿) and the World Bank (the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility﻿). REDD+ finance is also considered in the international climate change negotiations﻿, remains a key component of international climate finance discussions, and is often channelled through the voluntary carbon markets and via activities implemented by for- and non-profit organisations.

How fair, effective and efficient is REDD+?

While experts have demonstrated how REDD+ has the potential to reduce CO ₂ emissions, it is not without its problems. For example, some question the fairness of a scheme that focuses on reducing emissions caused by some of the world's poorest people while emissions continue to rise in richer countries. Some developing countries may be wary of foreign interference in their land use policies. Researchers also highlight operational concerns - such as the difficulty in monitoring and measuring deforestation rates, or attributing changes in deforestation to REDD+ finance. Variations in local circumstances and institutional capacities﻿ mean that not all countries that have tropical forests possess the capabilities to address these challenges.

How much REDD+ finance has been pledged?

Estimates of the global cost of REDD+ vary greatly, but at least US$15 billion﻿ would be needed annually to address tropical deforestation across the world. Current funding remains far off this mark: according to a 2020 review﻿, between 2015 and 2019 an average of US$220 million a year of funding was approved. The Amazon Fund, with US$720 million of approved projects, remains the largest dedicated REDD+ fund.

Without sufficient finance, it can be difficult to protect forests, as alternative land uses (such as for palm oil) can offer more immediate and guaranteed cash returns. Consequently, many experts have called for a scaling up of commitments and finance flows, although some have argued that even if large-scale REDD+ finance does materialise it may still struggle to compete with other land uses - especially as and when commodity prices rise.

Whatever becomes of REDD+ in the future, experts agree it should focus first on areas that can most efficiently provide CO ₂ reductions (such as tropical peat swamp forests) while also offering the potential for biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation.
This Explainer was updated in February 2023 by Charles Palmer, Natalie Pearson and Georgina Kyriacou. The original was reproduced from: What's REDD and will it help tackle climate change?﻿, a collaboration between the Grantham Research Institute and the Guardian, © The Guardian 2012, used under a Creative Commons No Derivative Works licence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the role of deforestation in climate change and how can 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation' (REDD+) help? - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recognising the importance of forests in tackling climate change, REDD+ policies provide financial incentives to stop deforestation globally.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scroll down for info on transportation and climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
Scroll down for info on transportation and climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Natural causes of climate change

Some amount of climate change can be attributed to natural phenomena. Over the course of Earth's existence, volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation, tectonic shifts, and even small changes in our orbit have all had observable effects on planetary warming and cooling patterns.

But climate records are able to show that today's global warming-particularly what has occured since the start of the industrial revolution-is happening much, much faster than ever before. According to NASA, "[t]hese natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades." And the records refute the misinformation that natural causes are the main culprits behind climate change, as some in the fossil fuel industry and conservative think tanks would like us to believe.

Scientists agree that human activity is the primary driver of what we're seeing now worldwide. (This type of climate change is sometimes referred to as anthropogenic, which is just a way of saying "caused by human beings.") The unchecked burning of fossil fuels over the past 150 years has drastically increased the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. At the same time, logging and development have led to the widespread destruction of forests, wetlands, and other carbon sinks -natural resources that store carbon dioxide and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere.

Right now, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are the highest they've been in the last 800,000 years. Some greenhouse gases, like hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), do not even exist in nature. By continuously pumping these gases into the air, we helped raise the earth's average temperature by about 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century-which has brought us to our current era of deadly, and increasingly routine, weather extremes. And it's important to note that while climate change affects everyone in some way, it doesn't do so equally: All over the world, people of color and those living in economically disadvantaged or politically marginalized communities bear a much larger burden, despite the fact that these communities play a much smaller role in warming the planet.

Our ways of generating power for electricity, heat, and transportation, our built environment and industries, our ways of interacting with the land, and our consumption habits together serve as the primary drivers of climate change. While the percentages of greenhouse gases stemming from each source may fluctuate, the sources themselves remain relatively consistent.

The cars, trucks, ships, and planes that we use to transport ourselves and our goods are a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions. (In the United States, they actually constitute the single-largest source.) Burning petroleum-based fuel in combustion engines releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Passenger cars account for 41 percent of those emissions, with the typical passenger vehicle emitting about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. And trucks are by far the worst polluters on the road. They run almost constantly and largely burn diesel fuel, which is why, despite accounting for just 4 percent of U.S. vehicles, trucks emit 23 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

We can get these numbers down, but we need large-scale investments to get more zero-emission vehicles on the road and increase access to reliable public transit.

As of 2021, nearly 60 percent of the electricity used in the United States comes from the burning of coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. Because of the electricity sector's historical investment in these dirty energy sources, it accounts for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

That history is undergoing a major change, however: As renewable energy sources like wind and solar become cheaper and easier to develop, utilities are turning to them more frequently. The percentage of clean, renewable energy is growing every year-and with that growth comes a corresponding decrease in pollutants.

But while things are moving in the right direction, they're not moving fast enough. If we're to keep the earth's average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists say we must do in order to avoid the very worst impacts of climate change, we have to take every available opportunity to speed up the shift from fossil fuels to renewables in the electricity sector.

The factories and facilities that produce our goods are significant sources of greenhouse gases; in 2020, they were responsible for fully 24 percent of U.S. emissions. Most industrial emissions come from the production of a small set of carbon-intensive products, including basic chemicals, iron and steel, cement and concrete, aluminum, glass, and paper. To manufacture the building blocks of our infrastructure and the vast array of products demanded by consumers, producers must burn through massive amounts of energy. In addition, older facilities in need of efficiency upgrades frequently leak these gases, along with other harmful forms of air pollution.

One way to reduce the industrial sector's carbon footprint is to increase efficiency through improved technology and stronger enforcement of pollution regulations. Another way is to rethink our attitudes toward consumption (particularly when it comes to plastics), recycling, and reuse-so that we don't need to be producing so many things in the first place. And, since major infrastructure projects rely heavily on industries like cement manufacturing (responsible for 7 percent of annual global greenhouse gas), policy mandates must leverage the government's purchasing power to grow markets for cleaner alternatives, and ensure that state and federal agencies procure more sustainably produced materials for these projects. Hastening the switch from fossil fuels to renewables will also go a long way toward cleaning up this energy-intensive sector.

The advent of modern, industrialized agriculture has significantly altered the vital but delicate relationship between soil and the climate-so much so that agriculture accounted for 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. This sector is especially notorious for giving off large amounts of nitrous oxide and methane, powerful gases that are highly effective at trapping heat. The widespread adoption of chemical fertilizers, combined with certain crop-management practices that prioritize high yields over soil health, means that agriculture accounts for nearly three-quarters of the nitrous oxide found in our atmosphere. Meanwhile, large-scale industrialized livestock production continues to be a significant source of atmospheric methane, which is emitted as a function of the digestive processes of cattle and other ruminants.

Oil and gas lead to emissions at every stage of their production and consumption-not only when they're burned as fuel, but just as soon as we drill a hole in the ground to begin extracting them. Fossil fuel development is a major source of methane, which invariably leaks from oil and gas operations: drilling, fracking, transporting, and refining. And while methane isn't as prevalent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, it's many times more potent at trapping heat during the first 20 years of its release into the atmosphere. Even abandoned and inoperative wells-sometimes known as "orphaned" wells -leak methane. More than 3 million of these old, defunct wells are spread across the country and were responsible for emitting more than 280,000 metric tons of methane in 2018.

Unsurprisingly, given how much time we spend inside of them, our buildings-both residential and commercial-emit a lot of greenhouse gases. Heating, cooling, cooking, running appliances, and maintaining other building-wide systems accounted for 13 percent of U.S. emissions overall in 2020. And even worse, some 30 percent of the energy used in U.S. buildings goes to waste, on average.

Every day, great strides are being made in energy efficiency, allowing us to achieve the same (or even better) results with less energy expended. By requiring all new buildings to employ the highest efficiency standards-and by retrofitting existing buildings with the most up-to-date technologies-we'll reduce emissions in this sector while simultaneously making it easier and cheaper for people in all communities to heat, cool, and power their homes: a top goal of the environmental justice movement.

Another way we're injecting more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is through the clearcutting of the world's forests and the degradation of its wetlands. Vegetation and soil store carbon by keeping it at ground level or underground. Through logging and other forms of development, we're cutting down or digging up vegetative biomass and releasing all of its stored carbon into the air. In Canada's boreal forest alone, clearcutting is responsible for releasing more than 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year-the emissions equivalent of 5.5 million vehicles.

Government policies that emphasize sustainable practices, combined with shifts in consumer behavior, are needed to offset this dynamic and restore the planet's carbon sinks.

The decisions we make every day as individuals-which products we purchase, how much electricity we consume, how we get around, what we eat (and what we don't-food waste makes up 4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)-add up to our single, unique carbon footprints. Put all of them together and you end up with humanity's collective carbon footprint. The first step in reducing it is for us to acknowledge the uneven distribution of climate change's causes and effects, and for those who bear the greatest responsibility for global greenhouse gas emissions to slash them without bringing further harm to those who are least responsible.

The big, climate-affecting decisions made by utilities, industries, and governments are shaped, in the end, by us: our needs, our demands, our priorities. Winning the fight against climate change will require us to rethink those needs, ramp up those demands, and reset those priorities. Short-term thinking of the sort that enriches corporations must give way to long-term planning that strengthens communities and secures the health and safety of all people. And our definition of climate advocacy must go beyond slogans and move, swiftly, into the realm of collective action-fueled by righteous anger, perhaps, but guided by faith in science and in our ability to change the world for the better.

If our activity has brought us to this dangerous point in human history, breaking old patterns can help us find a way out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can't fight climate change without understanding what drives it.

# data[].attributes.headline
See this one! Scroll down for information about agriculture and impact on climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
See this one! Scroll down for information about agriculture and impact on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Natural Causes of Climate Change

Some amount of climate change can be attributed to natural phenomena. Over the course of Earth's existence, volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation, tectonic shifts, and even small changes in our orbit have all had observable effects on planetary warming and cooling patterns.

But climate records are able to show that today's global warming-particularly what has occured since the start of the industrial revolution-is happening much, much faster than ever before. According to NASA, "[t]hese natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades." And the records refute the misinformation that natural causes are the main culprits behind climate change, as some in the fossil fuel industry and conservative think tanks would like us to believe.

Scientists agree that human activity is the primary driver of what we're seeing now worldwide. (This type of climate change is sometimes referred to as anthropogenic, which is just a way of saying "caused by human beings.") The unchecked burning of fossil fuels over the past 150 years has drastically increased the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. At the same time, logging and development have led to the widespread destruction of forests, wetlands, and other carbon sinks -natural resources that store carbon dioxide and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere.

Right now, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are the highest they've been in the last 800,000 years. Some greenhouse gases, like hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), do not even exist in nature. By continuously pumping these gases into the air, we helped raise the earth's average temperature by about 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century-which has brought us to our current era of deadly, and increasingly routine, weather extremes. And it's important to note that while climate change affects everyone in some way, it doesn't do so equally: All over the world, people of color and those living in economically disadvantaged or politically marginalized communities bear a much larger burden, despite the fact that these communities play a much smaller role in warming the planet.

Our ways of generating power for electricity, heat, and transportation, our built environment and industries, our ways of interacting with the land, and our consumption habits together serve as the primary drivers of climate change. While the percentages of greenhouse gases stemming from each source may fluctuate, the sources themselves remain relatively consistent.

The cars, trucks, ships, and planes that we use to transport ourselves and our goods are a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions. (In the United States, they actually constitute the single-largest source.) Burning petroleum-based fuel in combustion engines releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Passenger cars account for 41 percent of those emissions, with the typical passenger vehicle emitting about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. And trucks are by far the worst polluters on the road. They run almost constantly and largely burn diesel fuel, which is why, despite accounting for just 4 percent of U.S. vehicles, trucks emit 23 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

We can get these numbers down, but we need large-scale investments to get more zero-emission vehicles on the road and increase access to reliable public transit.

As of 2021, nearly 60 percent of the electricity used in the United States comes from the burning of coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. Because of the electricity sector's historical investment in these dirty energy sources, it accounts for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

That history is undergoing a major change, however: As renewable energy sources like wind and solar become cheaper and easier to develop, utilities are turning to them more frequently. The percentage of clean, renewable energy is growing every year-and with that growth comes a corresponding decrease in pollutants.

But while things are moving in the right direction, they're not moving fast enough. If we're to keep the earth's average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists say we must do in order to avoid the very worst impacts of climate change, we have to take every available opportunity to speed up the shift from fossil fuels to renewables in the electricity sector.

The factories and facilities that produce our goods are significant sources of greenhouse gases; in 2020, they were responsible for fully 24 percent of U.S. emissions. Most industrial emissions come from the production of a small set of carbon-intensive products, including basic chemicals, iron and steel, cement and concrete, aluminum, glass, and paper. To manufacture the building blocks of our infrastructure and the vast array of products demanded by consumers, producers must burn through massive amounts of energy. In addition, older facilities in need of efficiency upgrades frequently leak these gases, along with other harmful forms of air pollution.

One way to reduce the industrial sector's carbon footprint is to increase efficiency through improved technology and stronger enforcement of pollution regulations. Another way is to rethink our attitudes toward consumption (particularly when it comes to plastics), recycling, and reuse-so that we don't need to be producing so many things in the first place. And, since major infrastructure projects rely heavily on industries like cement manufacturing (responsible for 7 percent of annual global greenhouse gas), policy mandates must leverage the government's purchasing power to grow markets for cleaner alternatives, and ensure that state and federal agencies procure more sustainably produced materials for these projects. Hastening the switch from fossil fuels to renewables will also go a long way toward cleaning up this energy-intensive sector.

The advent of modern, industrialized agriculture has significantly altered the vital but delicate relationship between soil and the climate-so much so that agriculture accounted for 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. This sector is especially notorious for giving off large amounts of nitrous oxide and methane, powerful gases that are highly effective at trapping heat. The widespread adoption of chemical fertilizers, combined with certain crop-management practices that prioritize high yields over soil health, means that agriculture accounts for nearly three-quarters of the nitrous oxide found in our atmosphere. Meanwhile, large-scale industrialized livestock production continues to be a significant source of atmospheric methane, which is emitted as a function of the digestive processes of cattle and other ruminants.

Oil and gas lead to emissions at every stage of their production and consumption-not only when they're burned as fuel, but just as soon as we drill a hole in the ground to begin extracting them. Fossil fuel development is a major source of methane, which invariably leaks from oil and gas operations: drilling, fracking, transporting, and refining. And while methane isn't as prevalent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, it's many times more potent at trapping heat during the first 20 years of its release into the atmosphere. Even abandoned and inoperative wells-sometimes known as "orphaned" wells -leak methane. More than 3 million of these old, defunct wells are spread across the country and were responsible for emitting more than 280,000 metric tons of methane in 2018.

Unsurprisingly, given how much time we spend inside of them, our buildings-both residential and commercial-emit a lot of greenhouse gases. Heating, cooling, cooking, running appliances, and maintaining other building-wide systems accounted for 13 percent of U.S. emissions overall in 2020. And even worse, some 30 percent of the energy used in U.S. buildings goes to waste, on average.

Every day, great strides are being made in energy efficiency, allowing us to achieve the same (or even better) results with less energy expended. By requiring all new buildings to employ the highest efficiency standards-and by retrofitting existing buildings with the most up-to-date technologies-we'll reduce emissions in this sector while simultaneously making it easier and cheaper for people in all communities to heat, cool, and power their homes: a top goal of the environmental justice movement.

Another way we're injecting more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is through the clearcutting of the world's forests and the degradation of its wetlands. Vegetation and soil store carbon by keeping it at ground level or underground. Through logging and other forms of development, we're cutting down or digging up vegetative biomass and releasing all of its stored carbon into the air. In Canada's boreal forest alone, clearcutting is responsible for releasing more than 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year-the emissions equivalent of 5.5 million vehicles.

Government policies that emphasize sustainable practices, combined with shifts in consumer behavior, are needed to offset this dynamic and restore the planet's carbon sinks.

The decisions we make every day as individuals-which products we purchase, how much electricity we consume, how we get around, what we eat (and what we don't-food waste makes up 4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)-add up to our single, unique carbon footprints. Put all of them together and you end up with humanity's collective carbon footprint. The first step in reducing it is for us to acknowledge the uneven distribution of climate change's causes and effects, and for those who bear the greatest responsibility for global greenhouse gas emissions to slash them without bringing further harm to those who are least responsible.

The big, climate-affecting decisions made by utilities, industries, and governments are shaped, in the end, by us: our needs, our demands, our priorities. Winning the fight against climate change will require us to rethink those needs, ramp up those demands, and reset those priorities. Short-term thinking of the sort that enriches corporations must give way to long-term planning that strengthens communities and secures the health and safety of all people. And our definition of climate advocacy must go beyond slogans and move, swiftly, into the realm of collective action-fueled by righteous anger, perhaps, but guided by faith in science and in our ability to change the world for the better.

If our activity has brought us to this dangerous point in human history, breaking old patterns can help us find a way out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can't fight climate change without understanding what drives it.

# data[].attributes.headline
See this one!  Scroll down for deforestation and the impact on climate.

# data[].attributes.subject
See this one!  Scroll down for deforestation and the impact on climate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can’t fight climate change without understanding what drives it.

# data[].attributes.headline
The kids speak!  Deforestation and Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
The kids speak!  Deforestation and Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Responsible Consumption and Our Role in Deforestation | Laura Gonzalez | TEDxYouth@BIS

# data[].attributes.headline
Scroll down for great info on industry and impact on climate. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Scroll down for great info on industry and impact on climate. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Natural causes of climate change

Some amount of climate change can be attributed to natural phenomena. Over the course of Earth's existence, volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation, tectonic shifts, and even small changes in our orbit have all had observable effects on planetary warming and cooling patterns.

But climate records are able to show that today's global warming-particularly what has occured since the start of the industrial revolution-is happening much, much faster than ever before. According to NASA, "[t]hese natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades." And the records refute the misinformation that natural causes are the main culprits behind climate change, as some in the fossil fuel industry and conservative think tanks would like us to believe.

Scientists agree that human activity is the primary driver of what we're seeing now worldwide. (This type of climate change is sometimes referred to as anthropogenic, which is just a way of saying "caused by human beings.") The unchecked burning of fossil fuels over the past 150 years has drastically increased the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. At the same time, logging and development have led to the widespread destruction of forests, wetlands, and other carbon sinks -natural resources that store carbon dioxide and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere.

Right now, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are the highest they've been in the last 800,000 years. Some greenhouse gases, like hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), do not even exist in nature. By continuously pumping these gases into the air, we helped raise the earth's average temperature by about 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century-which has brought us to our current era of deadly, and increasingly routine, weather extremes. And it's important to note that while climate change affects everyone in some way, it doesn't do so equally: All over the world, people of color and those living in economically disadvantaged or politically marginalized communities bear a much larger burden, despite the fact that these communities play a much smaller role in warming the planet.

Our ways of generating power for electricity, heat, and transportation, our built environment and industries, our ways of interacting with the land, and our consumption habits together serve as the primary drivers of climate change. While the percentages of greenhouse gases stemming from each source may fluctuate, the sources themselves remain relatively consistent.

The cars, trucks, ships, and planes that we use to transport ourselves and our goods are a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions. (In the United States, they actually constitute the single-largest source.) Burning petroleum-based fuel in combustion engines releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Passenger cars account for 41 percent of those emissions, with the typical passenger vehicle emitting about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. And trucks are by far the worst polluters on the road. They run almost constantly and largely burn diesel fuel, which is why, despite accounting for just 4 percent of U.S. vehicles, trucks emit 23 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

We can get these numbers down, but we need large-scale investments to get more zero-emission vehicles on the road and increase access to reliable public transit.

As of 2021, nearly 60 percent of the electricity used in the United States comes from the burning of coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. Because of the electricity sector's historical investment in these dirty energy sources, it accounts for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

That history is undergoing a major change, however: As renewable energy sources like wind and solar become cheaper and easier to develop, utilities are turning to them more frequently. The percentage of clean, renewable energy is growing every year-and with that growth comes a corresponding decrease in pollutants.

But while things are moving in the right direction, they're not moving fast enough. If we're to keep the earth's average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists say we must do in order to avoid the very worst impacts of climate change, we have to take every available opportunity to speed up the shift from fossil fuels to renewables in the electricity sector.

The factories and facilities that produce our goods are significant sources of greenhouse gases; in 2020, they were responsible for fully 24 percent of U.S. emissions. Most industrial emissions come from the production of a small set of carbon-intensive products, including basic chemicals, iron and steel, cement and concrete, aluminum, glass, and paper. To manufacture the building blocks of our infrastructure and the vast array of products demanded by consumers, producers must burn through massive amounts of energy. In addition, older facilities in need of efficiency upgrades frequently leak these gases, along with other harmful forms of air pollution.

One way to reduce the industrial sector's carbon footprint is to increase efficiency through improved technology and stronger enforcement of pollution regulations. Another way is to rethink our attitudes toward consumption (particularly when it comes to plastics), recycling, and reuse-so that we don't need to be producing so many things in the first place. And, since major infrastructure projects rely heavily on industries like cement manufacturing (responsible for 7 percent of annual global greenhouse gas), policy mandates must leverage the government's purchasing power to grow markets for cleaner alternatives, and ensure that state and federal agencies procure more sustainably produced materials for these projects. Hastening the switch from fossil fuels to renewables will also go a long way toward cleaning up this energy-intensive sector.

The advent of modern, industrialized agriculture has significantly altered the vital but delicate relationship between soil and the climate-so much so that agriculture accounted for 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. This sector is especially notorious for giving off large amounts of nitrous oxide and methane, powerful gases that are highly effective at trapping heat. The widespread adoption of chemical fertilizers, combined with certain crop-management practices that prioritize high yields over soil health, means that agriculture accounts for nearly three-quarters of the nitrous oxide found in our atmosphere. Meanwhile, large-scale industrialized livestock production continues to be a significant source of atmospheric methane, which is emitted as a function of the digestive processes of cattle and other ruminants.

Oil and gas lead to emissions at every stage of their production and consumption-not only when they're burned as fuel, but just as soon as we drill a hole in the ground to begin extracting them. Fossil fuel development is a major source of methane, which invariably leaks from oil and gas operations: drilling, fracking, transporting, and refining. And while methane isn't as prevalent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, it's many times more potent at trapping heat during the first 20 years of its release into the atmosphere. Even abandoned and inoperative wells-sometimes known as "orphaned" wells -leak methane. More than 3 million of these old, defunct wells are spread across the country and were responsible for emitting more than 280,000 metric tons of methane in 2018.

Unsurprisingly, given how much time we spend inside of them, our buildings-both residential and commercial-emit a lot of greenhouse gases. Heating, cooling, cooking, running appliances, and maintaining other building-wide systems accounted for 13 percent of U.S. emissions overall in 2020. And even worse, some 30 percent of the energy used in U.S. buildings goes to waste, on average.

Every day, great strides are being made in energy efficiency, allowing us to achieve the same (or even better) results with less energy expended. By requiring all new buildings to employ the highest efficiency standards-and by retrofitting existing buildings with the most up-to-date technologies-we'll reduce emissions in this sector while simultaneously making it easier and cheaper for people in all communities to heat, cool, and power their homes: a top goal of the environmental justice movement.

Another way we're injecting more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere is through the clearcutting of the world's forests and the degradation of its wetlands. Vegetation and soil store carbon by keeping it at ground level or underground. Through logging and other forms of development, we're cutting down or digging up vegetative biomass and releasing all of its stored carbon into the air. In Canada's boreal forest alone, clearcutting is responsible for releasing more than 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year-the emissions equivalent of 5.5 million vehicles.

Government policies that emphasize sustainable practices, combined with shifts in consumer behavior, are needed to offset this dynamic and restore the planet's carbon sinks.

The decisions we make every day as individuals-which products we purchase, how much electricity we consume, how we get around, what we eat (and what we don't-food waste makes up 4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions)-add up to our single, unique carbon footprints. Put all of them together and you end up with humanity's collective carbon footprint. The first step in reducing it is for us to acknowledge the uneven distribution of climate change's causes and effects, and for those who bear the greatest responsibility for global greenhouse gas emissions to slash them without bringing further harm to those who are least responsible.

The big, climate-affecting decisions made by utilities, industries, and governments are shaped, in the end, by us: our needs, our demands, our priorities. Winning the fight against climate change will require us to rethink those needs, ramp up those demands, and reset those priorities. Short-term thinking of the sort that enriches corporations must give way to long-term planning that strengthens communities and secures the health and safety of all people. And our definition of climate advocacy must go beyond slogans and move, swiftly, into the realm of collective action-fueled by righteous anger, perhaps, but guided by faith in science and in our ability to change the world for the better.

If our activity has brought us to this dangerous point in human history, breaking old patterns can help us find a way out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can't fight climate change without understanding what drives it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How heavy industries contribute to climate change and what can be done to cut emissions

# data[].attributes.headline
Present Day News - Changing Priorities on use of Fossil Fuels

# data[].attributes.subject
Present Day News - Changing Priorities on use of Fossil Fuels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump aggressively working to dismantle U.S. efforts to fight climate change

# data[].attributes.headline
Video on impact of industry on climate and people (Starting at minute 3)

# data[].attributes.subject
Video on impact of industry on climate and people (Starting at minute 3)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmental Impact of Industrial Manufacturing (13 Minutes)

# data[].attributes.headline
Eating meat has an impact on climate change??

# data[].attributes.subject
Eating meat has an impact on climate change??

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Meat directly produces greenhouse gas emissions and requires more land and other resources than plant-based foods.

All kinds of agriculture, from raising animals to growing crops, affect the climate in some way. "Food production is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions as it uses machinery, entails land conversion and animal emissions, and requires transportation and storage," says Elodie Blanc, research scientist at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research. "Those greenhouse gases contribute to global warming." The machines and fertilizers used on farms, and the trucks and ships that transport food, add greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO ₂) to the atmosphere directly. Clearing forests and wetlands for farming has a more indirect effect, removing trees and soils that would otherwise store carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere.

None of this is unique to meat-but meat demands more of all these resources than crops do. Animals need to eat, so farmers must use fertilizers, machinery and land to grow feed for their animals. Animals, especially cattle, also need a lot of land. The large majority of deforestation in the Amazon region, for instance, is due to farmers clearing land for cattle ranching. ¹

Meat also contributes to climate change in one way most plant-based foods do not: animals (especially ruminants like cows and sheep) directly release the greenhouse gas methane as they digest their food. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas, but it's also a powerful one: while it persists in the atmosphere, it traps around 100 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. ²

Taken together, this all means that meat produces far more greenhouse gases than plant crops do. A recent study showed that a pound of beef produces, on average, around 15 times as much CO ₂ as a pound of rice ³-and around 60 times as much as a pound of wheat, corn or peas. ⁴

This is why some people have chosen to eat less meat to help fight climate change. But there are other changes people can make to their diets that also reduce emissions. Blanc's advice is to "favor plant-based foods that are in season. Eat whole grain, so as not to waste the nutrient-rich part of the grain. Reduce food waste and compost organic material." These simple changes will cut down on the resources used to grow the food you eat, and the distance it has to be shipped before it reaches your plate. They also cut down on waste, both before and after you buy your meals, and ensure that this waste releases less methane (by composting it instead of putting it in a landfill). ⁵

Unfortunately, other common tips for changing our diets turn out to be a mixed bag. For instance, says Blanc, "buying local also reduces transportation related emissions. But different regions are better suited to some crops or animals, and trying to grow local can do more harm than good. If, for instance, producing locally entails growing tomatoes in greenhouses that need to be heated, then the environmental footprint will be much higher than growing them in a suitable region and transporting them, especially if they're transported by boat." Organic food also has its climate problems. "Organic is great, as it aims at reducing harmful fertilizers and pesticides," says Blanc. "But it requires more land due to lower yields, so may entail higher greenhouse gas emissions."

So if you're looking for the clearest way to have a more climate-friendly diet, cutting down on meat is likely your best bet. You won't have to worry about exactly where and how your food was grown to be sure you're making reductions in your greenhouse gas footprint. And the individual reductions can be significant: well over half of the CO ₂ emissions from the average American diet are a result of eating meat-and 45% come from beef alone. ⁶ According to one recent study, going vegetarian for a year would save the average American over one metric ton of CO ₂ emissions, ⁷ the equivalent of driving 2475 fewer miles. ⁸
Read more Ask MIT Climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why have I heard that eating meat is bad for the climate?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meat directly produces greenhouse gas emissions and requires more land and other resources than plant-based foods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Meat directly produces greenhouse gas emissions and requires more land and other resources than plant-based foods.

All kinds of agriculture, from raising animals to growing crops, affect the climate in some way. "Food production is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions as it uses machinery, entails land conversion and animal emissions, and requires transportation and storage," says Elodie Blanc, research scientist at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research. "Those greenhouse gases contribute to global warming." The machines and fertilizers used on farms, and the trucks and ships that transport food, add greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO ₂) to the atmosphere directly. Clearing forests and wetlands for farming has a more indirect effect, removing trees and soils that would otherwise store carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere.

None of this is unique to meat-but meat demands more of all these resources than crops do. Animals need to eat, so farmers must use fertilizers, machinery and land to grow feed for their animals. Animals, especially cattle, also need a lot of land. The large majority of deforestation in the Amazon region, for instance, is due to farmers clearing land for cattle ranching. ¹

Meat also contributes to climate change in one way most plant-based foods do not: animals (especially ruminants like cows and sheep) directly release the greenhouse gas methane as they digest their food. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas, but it's also a powerful one: while it persists in the atmosphere, it traps around 100 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. ²

Taken together, this all means that meat produces far more greenhouse gases than plant crops do. A recent study showed that a pound of beef produces, on average, around 15 times as much CO ₂ as a pound of rice ³-and around 60 times as much as a pound of wheat, corn or peas. ⁴

This is why some people have chosen to eat less meat to help fight climate change. But there are other changes people can make to their diets that also reduce emissions. Blanc's advice is to "favor plant-based foods that are in season. Eat whole grain, so as not to waste the nutrient-rich part of the grain. Reduce food waste and compost organic material." These simple changes will cut down on the resources used to grow the food you eat, and the distance it has to be shipped before it reaches your plate. They also cut down on waste, both before and after you buy your meals, and ensure that this waste releases less methane (by composting it instead of putting it in a landfill). ⁵

Unfortunately, other common tips for changing our diets turn out to be a mixed bag. For instance, says Blanc, "buying local also reduces transportation related emissions. But different regions are better suited to some crops or animals, and trying to grow local can do more harm than good. If, for instance, producing locally entails growing tomatoes in greenhouses that need to be heated, then the environmental footprint will be much higher than growing them in a suitable region and transporting them, especially if they're transported by boat." Organic food also has its climate problems. "Organic is great, as it aims at reducing harmful fertilizers and pesticides," says Blanc. "But it requires more land due to lower yields, so may entail higher greenhouse gas emissions."

So if you're looking for the clearest way to have a more climate-friendly diet, cutting down on meat is likely your best bet. You won't have to worry about exactly where and how your food was grown to be sure you're making reductions in your greenhouse gas footprint. And the individual reductions can be significant: well over half of the CO ₂ emissions from the average American diet are a result of eating meat-and 45% come from beef alone. ⁶ According to one recent study, going vegetarian for a year would save the average American over one metric ton of CO ₂ emissions, ⁷ the equivalent of driving 2475 fewer miles. ⁸
Read more Ask MIT Climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why have I heard that eating meat is bad for the climate?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meat directly produces greenhouse gas emissions and requires more land and other resources than plant-based foods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forests are a crucial line of defense against climate change. But trees can't absorb enough CO2 to stop climate change on their own, no matter how many we plant. It's well understood that the carbon dioxide (CO 2) we're emitting into the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Forests cover about 30% of the Earth's land surface. As forests grow, their trees take in carbon from the air and store it in wood, plant matter, and under the soil. If not for forests, much of this carbon would remain in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO ₂), the most important greenhouse gas driving climate change.

Each year since 2000, forests are estimated to have removed an average of 2 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. ¹ This "carbon sink function" of forests is slowing climate change by reducing the rate at which CO ₂, mainly from fossil fuel burning, builds up in the atmosphere. Careful forest management can therefore be an important strategy to help address climate change in the future. Healthy forests also provide a host of other benefits, from clean water to habitat for plants and animals that can live nowhere else.

Deforestation, and our options to reverse it

Over the past 8,000 years, humans have cleared up to half of the forests on our planet, mostly to make room for agriculture. ² Cutting down or burning forests releases the carbon stored in their trees and soil, and prevents them from absorbing more CO ₂ in the future. Since 1850, about 30% of all CO ₂ emissions have come from deforestation. ³ Deforestation can also have more local climate impacts. Because trees release moisture that cools the air around them, scientists have found that deforestation has led to more intense heat waves in North America and Eurasia. ⁴

There are three ways to reverse these losses: afforestation, reforestation, and the natural regeneration of forest ecosystems. Afforestation refers to planting forests where there were none before, or where forests have been missing for a long time-50 years or more. Reforestation is planting trees where forests have been recently cleared. Natural regeneration, on the other hand, does not involve tree-planting. ⁵ Instead, forest managers help damaged forests regrow by letting trees naturally re-seed, and through techniques like coppicing, in which trees are cut down to stumps so new shoots can grow.

Forests as a climate solution

There is no doubt that these strategies can help remove CO ₂ from the atmosphere, but their impact is hard to measure. Even for China, which has done more afforestation and reforestation than the rest of the world combined, there are still large uncertainties about how much carbon these projects are storing. ⁶

Looking at China also shows some of the unintended consequences of large-scale tree-planting projects. In the dry northern part of the country, people have planted trees to fight desert expansion. But because the tree species that were planted were ill-suited to a dry climate, this effort has depleted water supplies and degraded soils. In the south of China, reforestation with monocultures-that is, just one species of tree-has led to loss of biodiversity. ⁷

Natural regeneration of forests, on the other hand, has few unintended consequences and large potential to store carbon over the coming decades. If done worldwide, natural regeneration of forests could capture up to 70 billion tons of carbon in plants and soils between now and 2050 ⁸ -an amount equal to around seven years of current industrial emissions. Combining natural regeneration with thoughtful afforestation and reforestation is an important option for combating climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forests cover about 30% of the Earth's land surface. As forests grow, their trees take in carbon from the air and store it in wood, plant matter, and under the soil. If not for forests, much of this carbon would remain in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO 2), the most important greenhouse gas driving climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ugh oh... Temps getting hotter = more fossil fuel use. Check out this article just published in late March of this year. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ugh oh... Temps getting hotter = more fossil fuel use. Check out this article just published in late March of this year. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Fast Fashion: Award Winning Editorial Written by a 17 Year Old.

# data[].attributes.subject
Fast Fashion: Award Winning Editorial Written by a 17 Year Old.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Fast Fashion Became Faster — and Worse for the Earth (Published 2022)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are honoring the Top 11 winners of our Student Editorial Contest by publishing their essays. This one is by Evelyn Wang, age 17.

# data[].attributes.headline
How our trash contributes to climate change — and what we can do about it 

# data[].attributes.subject
How our trash contributes to climate change — and what we can do about it 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The climate impacts of our trash are becoming harder to ignore. The waste sector is one of three key methane emitting sectors - following agriculture and oil and gas - and is responsible for about 20% of human-driven methane emissions globally. In the short-term, methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a climate pollutant and accounts for nearly half of the 1 degree Celsius of warming we've experienced to date. Quickly and significantly reducing methane pollution is one of the most important opportunities we have to slow the pace of global warming in the next two decades, a critical time period for avoiding potentially irreversible climate tipping points. Furthermore, methane mitigation is critical to keeping our long-term Paris Agreement goals within reach.

How does waste generate methane emissions?

Waste sector methane emissions stem from the breakdown of organic waste - food and yard waste, as well as paper, cardboard, and wood - in anaerobic (i.e., oxygen free) environments. When broken down by source, the waste sector is split into emissions from solid waste and wastewater. Solid waste emissions from landfills and dumps represent the majority of methane emissions from the sector. Here, organics decay slowly over decades, releasing what is commonly known as landfill gas (LFG), a combination of methane and carbon dioxide.

The amount of methane produced by a landfill is primarily based on the amount of organics in the waste stream. Globally, organic waste makes up about 65% of waste generated, with food and green waste as the largest share. But waste composition can vary widely between countries, generally depending on income level. In lower-income countries, food and green waste represent a much larger share of the waste stream. As countries develop, this percentage decreases as paper, plastics, and glass use become more common.

Source: Kaza et al. 2018

Global waste is growing

The World Bank estimates that by 2050 we will be generating 3.88 billion tonnes of waste each year, a 73% increase from 2020. As waste generation is tightly tied to population growth and economic development, the largest increases are projected to occur in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. And in much of the world, waste management practices and systems are poor or non-existent, which will lead to increasing emission of short-lived climate pollutants. In fact, methane emissions from waste are expected to increase by 13 megatons per year over the next decade alone.

Source: Kaza et al. 2018

Proven solutions are available to reduce methane from the waste sector

Fortunately, we have cost-effective solutions to reduce emissions from the waste sector today, with up to 60% of mitigation measures having low or negative costs. You may have seen the waste hierarchy before, or heard the phrase "reduce, reuse, recycle." These phrases are used to demonstrate waste management options in order of environmental preference, and stress that landfilling and disposal are a last resort option. We can use a slightly modified hierarchy to highlight methane mitigation strategies for solid waste:

Source: RMI, 2022

Food Waste Prevention involves reducing the amount of food that we consider to be "waste," and diverting it for use. In practice this can mean promoting "ugly" produce programs, revising food best-by and use-by dates so good food is not thrown away, linking large producers of food waste to food banks, and raising awareness of the importance of waste prevention, among a variety of other solutions. In addition to keeping usable food out of landfills, these actions help increase food security and lower upstream GHG emissions from food production. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals include a target to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer level and reduce food loss during production by 2030.

For example, São Paulo's Municipal Program to Combat Waste and Loss of Food collects food from markets that is good for consumption, but would otherwise become waste, and redistributes it to improve food security in the city. In 2019, the program collected 270 tons of food and distributed it to over 120,000 residents. The program was combined with São Paulo's Sustainable Fairs and Gardens Program which diverts the remaining organic market waste to composting facilities. Over 9,000 tons of organic waste have been diverted from landfills through these partnerships.

Organic Waste Diversion is the next step in keeping this waste out of landfills. Organic waste can be separated at the source by waste generators (i.e., keeping a separate bin for food waste in your kitchen) or at a facility designed for separating mixed municipal waste. Source separation by waste generators is the technically preferred option as it reduces contamination - bits of plastic or glass winding up in the waste - which is important for most treatment options. There are often other cultural and socioeconomic considerations that impact organic waste diversion program design. The two most common organic waste treatment options are composting and anaerobic digestion.
South Korea has one of the most efficient organic waste diversion programs in the world and recycles 95% of its food waste. Most Korean meals are accompanied by banchan - side dishes - that are rarely fully eaten and contribute to large quantities of food waste in the country. Korea has multiple laws to target food waste, including a 2005 ban on landfilling of food and a 2014 weight-based food collection and disposal program. Residents are required to either buy biodegradable bags for their food waste to offset the cost of recycling and treatment, or in urban areas they bring waste to communal bins equipped with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip reader and scale that weighs the waste and charges accordingly.

Dump Site Rehabilitation and Landfill Design & Operation is critical to capturing methane generated from organics that are not diverted, as well as waste already in landfills - waste disposal facilities designed to have environmental and human health control systems - and dumps, facilities which have little to no controls in place. Open dumps, present in much of the developing world, pose human and environmental health and safety risks. Though up-front costs are high, dumps can be redesigned to include environmental control systems, including covers that oxidize methane as it is released and LFG capture. Existing sanitary landfills with LFG capture systems can focus on maximizing collection and use of the generated gas.

Different waste solutions work in different regional and economic contexts

There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for improved waste management. However, examples of good policies and best practices to promote enhanced waste management and methane mitigation can be found in every region of the world. Examples of policies include:

India's Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 require that waste generators segregate waste into biodegradable, non-biodegradable, and domestic hazardous fractions. Biodegradable waste is then processed, treated, and disposed of through composting or bio-methanation.

Chile's National Organic Waste Strategy sets a target to recover 66% of municipal organic waste by 2040 through source separation. The strategy promotes food waste prevention through education, better governance structures, and improved technology. The strategy will be considered successful if, by 2040, Chilean citizens avoid food waste, organic waste generation, and separate unavoidable waste at source.

EU Landfill Directive and Waste Framework Directive work in tandem to reduce the total amount of waste that is landfilled, including bio-waste, through the encouragement of source separation and recycling of bio-waste. It also requires LFG collection and use (or flare) from landfills. The 2023 revision of the Waste Framework Directive is also considering a food waste reduction target to be implemented by 2030.

South Korea's suite of waste management rules create a system that focuses on waste reduction, recycling, and energy recovery. A volume-based waste fee for households has led to a 61% recycling rate, and a ban on direct landfilling of food waste and weight-based collection system is encouraging food waste reduction. Because of space constraints and pushback from residents, the 1995 Act on Promotion of Installation of Waste Disposal Facilities and Support for Adjacent Areas was passed to create support funds and communication channels with residents to plan for waste management projects over a set size.

Oregon's Landfill Gas Emissions Rule tightens permitting, data collection, and LFG requirements in the state. The rule creates a tiered system where active and closed landfills with: 1) greater than 200,000 tons of waste in place, 2) a calculated methane generation rate greater than 664 metric tons per year, and 3) measured concentrations of methane of 200 parts per million by volume or greater must install a gas collection system.

In designing these policies, each country must account for the primary goals of the waste management system, cultural considerations, budgetary constraints, and other major challenges they face. In regard to organic waste, policies must be designed in such a way as to avoid unhelpful incentives - like providing large incentives for LFG systems that disincentivize prevention and diversion programs. Waste management is also primarily implemented at the municipal level, and gaps between national ambition and local capacity are often a limitation to improving management practices.

CATF is working to help countries around the world prioritize the waste sector in methane mitigation plans and goals, a necessary step for many countries to meet Global Methane Pledge ambitions. We advocate for regulations to tighten controls on landfill methane emissions and policies to improve organic waste management, and provide capacity building support to highlight best practices for waste methane mitigation. We also support financial instruments and other solutions that can be utilized to scale-up mitigation and drastically reduce methane from solid waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How our trash contributes to climate change - and what we can do about it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The climate impacts of our trash are becoming harder to ignore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shein is officially the biggest polluter in fast fashion » Yale Climate Connections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The company nearly doubled its emissions in 2023, making it the biggest polluter in the industry.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fast Fashion: Why Current Donation/Second Hand Market Strategies Aren't Able to Manage the Problem

# data[].attributes.subject
Fast Fashion: Why Current Donation/Second Hand Market Strategies Aren't Able to Manage the Problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How 7.5 Million Pounds Of Donated Clothes End Up At A Market In Ghana Every Week | World Wide Waste

# data[].attributes.headline
Fast Fashion: The Problem With Polyester 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fast Fashion: The Problem With Polyester 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fossil fashion: the hidden reliance of fast fashion on fossil fuels • Changing Markets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This report reveals the hidden reliance of the fast fashion industry on fossil fuels. It also uncovers how the oil and gas industry are betting on production of plastic as a growing share of their revenue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fast Fashion: The Problem with Rayon and Viscose

# data[].attributes.subject
Fast Fashion: The Problem with Rayon and Viscose

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This fabric is hailed as ‘eco-friendly.’ The rainforest tells a different story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vast swaths of forest in Indonesia were chopped down through the early 2000s to make way for plantations for the production of viscose rayon and other goods.

# data[].attributes.headline
"We’re just waiting to die":  Cancer Town -Louisiana"

# data[].attributes.subject
"We’re just waiting to die":  Cancer Town -Louisiana"

# data[].attributes.headline
Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste

# data[].attributes.subject
Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To understand the impact landfilled food waste has on methane emissions, EPA developed the “Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste” report and the Avoided Landfilled Food Waste Methane Emissions Calculator.

# data[].attributes.headline
Food Waste and its Links to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Food Waste and its Links to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food Waste and its Links to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food loss and waste is estimated to be roughly one third of the food intended for human consumption in the United States. When food is discarded, all inputs used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, and storing discarded food are also wasted. Food loss and waste also exacerbates the climate change crisis with its significant greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint. Production, transportation, and handling of food generate significant Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions and when food ends up in landfills, it generates methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Fashion and Its Devastating Impacts on Forests Revealed - Earth Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, over 200 million trees are cut down to be transformed into textiles for clothing. This is fast fashion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Single Use Plastics: How Our Waste Has Increased

# data[].attributes.subject
Single Use Plastics: How Our Waste Has Increased

# data[].attributes.headline
Single Use Plastics: How Plastics in the Ocean impact CO2 levels

# data[].attributes.subject
Single Use Plastics: How Plastics in the Ocean impact CO2 levels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Single Use Plastics Hurt Our Oceans and Warm Our Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Experts are interviewed about the plastics crisis, plastic’s impact on our bodies and oceans, and what can be done to take action.

# data[].attributes.headline
Single Use Plastics: America's Contribution to the Issue & Why "Recycling" is Failing.

# data[].attributes.subject
Single Use Plastics: America's Contribution to the Issue & Why "Recycling" is Failing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic pollution does contribute a bit to climate change-and slowing the production of non-degradable plastics has other large benefits for natural ecosystems.

Over a century after the first fully synthetic plastic debuted, plastic waste is a major problem. Eight to 12 million tons of it enter global oceans annually, where it kills marine life, piles into enormous garbage patches, and crumbles into microplastics that resurface in drinking water. "We have plastic in our stomachs," says Christopher Noble, who is the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative's Director of Corporate Engagement and leads their Plastics and Environment Program. "And so does everybody else in the world."

Plastic also contributes to climate change: plastics are environmentally costly to make and dispose of, they emit greenhouse gases as they decompose, and some evidence shows that the tiniest bits damage zooplankton-critters that are critical in the ocean's ability to absorb carbon. ¹

Piles of plastic waste

Plastic is made with fossil fuels and comprises roughly 6% of global oil consumption. ² Humans discard huge amounts daily: more than 40% of all non-fiber plastic becomes packaging, most of which is single-use. ³ And once it's here, it sticks around. "Something from Amazon.com that was packaged one day ago, you throw the packaging out," says Noble. "That packaging was used for 24 hours and then is thrown into a landfill," where it might take decades to decompose.

The US produces more plastic waste than any other country. ⁴ Most of this waste, even if it was intended for recycling, goes to landfills, or is incinerated or exported-often to countries that don't have the infrastructure to prevent it from winding up in water systems. ⁵ Plastic pollution also comes from urban runoff, industrial debris, illegal dumping, particles from clothing and personal care products, and fishing and aquaculture industries, to name a few.

The plastic industry emits greenhouse gases at every stage, from materials extraction to incineration, and production is increasing. A 2019 report from the Center for International Environmental Law projects that the industry will release up to 1.34 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually by 2030 ⁶-about equal to the emissions of the entire continent of Africa today. ⁷ And the resulting plastic waste will continue releasing more emissions the longer it sits around. The most commonly used plastics have been shown to release the greenhouse gases ethylene and methane as they decompose, ⁸ the latter of which traps atmospheric heat at 25 times the rate of carbon dioxide over the course of a century.

How do we prioritize plastic vs. the climate?

Climate change and plastic pollution have many of the same root causes, says Noble, including over-consumption of natural resources and non-renewable energy, and insufficient recycling and reuse systems. And plastic pollution and climate change contribute to many of the same environmental problems, like biodiversity loss. Climate change also worsens plastic pollution's effects: spreading this waste farther as weather and natural hazards intensify, and weakening marine ecosystems so they're less able to withstand plastic pollution. ⁹

Focusing on which of these two global problems is worse "can sometimes discourage working broadly on these issues," cautions Noble. But to the extent we have to choose, he adds, climate change is the more urgent issue: "climate change might well be an existential threat, whereas plastic pollution is not."

Reducing plastic's environmental impact

Recycling, as it exists now, does little to curb plastic pollution. Less than 10% of discarded plastics are recycled, partially because many plastic products, like flexible films used in potato chip bags, are laminated with non-recyclable materials. ¹⁰ Recycling programs also vary between locales, making it hard to know which plastics are recyclable-and misleading labeling doesn't help. (For example, the three-arrow recycling triangle on plastic products doesn't necessarily mean that an item is recyclable in your area.)

Noble calls biodegradable plastics a "big hope" for reducing waste, but historically these options have hit cost and efficacy obstacles. "It's very challenging to create biodegradable plastics," Noble says. "Part of the benefit of plastic is that it is not biodegradable," producing products that will last as long as we care to use them or let them sit on a shelf.

Reducing plastics is vital, he adds, but doing so requires worldwide cooperation. Nearly 130 countries have plastic regulations, ranging from bans on certain types of plastics and plastic products, to laws mandating that producers ensure a certain rate of recycling or responsible disposal, ¹¹ but policies vary between nations and have limited efficacy as plastic consumption keeps rising.

Despite the challenges, there are movements toward a global shift. The UN Environment Programme, for example, is currently working to create an internationally-binding agreement focused on ending plastic pollution. ¹²

Without these types of legal incentives and disincentives motivating plastic producers and consumers to choose alternatives, says Noble, the problems won't stop. "Policy innovation and cooperation are needed at the international, national, and local levels."
Read more Ask MIT Climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Would stopping plastic pollution help with climate change? How do we do it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution does contribute a bit to climate change-and slowing the production of non-degradable plastics has other large benefits for natural ecosystems. Over a century after the first fully synthetic plastic debuted, plastic waste is a major problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
Single Use Plastics: Life Cycle of a Water Bottle

# data[].attributes.subject
Single Use Plastics: Life Cycle of a Water Bottle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What really happens to the plastic you throw away - Emma Bryce

# data[].attributes.headline
Single Use Plastics: Extent of the Issue...

# data[].attributes.subject
Single Use Plastics: Extent of the Issue...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Single-use plastic is wreaking havoc on the planet. Here's how you can reduce your impact | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic isn't just a pollution problem. It's a climate problem. Here's how you can do your part to reduce its impact.

# data[].attributes.headline
Best Practices for Solid Waste Management: A Guide for Decision-Makers in Developing Countries - Solid Waste Management and Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Best Practices for Solid Waste Management: A Guide for Decision-Makers in Developing Countries - Solid Waste Management and Climate Change

# data[].attributes.headline
Waste to Energy: How can we get the most from our waste?

# data[].attributes.subject
Waste to Energy: How can we get the most from our waste?

# data[].attributes.headline
What's the environmental impact of burning our rubbish? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What's the environmental impact of burning our rubbish? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the environmental impact of burning our rubbish? | BBC News

# data[].attributes.headline
Is grazing animals good for the environment? Regenerative animal agriculture, explained

# data[].attributes.subject
Is grazing animals good for the environment? Regenerative animal agriculture, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is grazing animals good for the environment? Regenerative animal agriculture, explained

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change and global warming vs agriculture | We know how #4

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change and global warming vs agriculture | We know how #4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change and global warming vs agriculture | We know how #4

# data[].attributes.headline
How can CO2 help agriculture in the face of climate change?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can CO2 help agriculture in the face of climate change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change - We are the PROBLEM & the SOLUTION (Animated Infographic)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change - We are the PROBLEM & the SOLUTION (Animated Infographic)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change - We are the PROBLEM & the SOLUTION (Animated Infographic)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Changing Rain Forests and Impact on Climate

# data[].attributes.subject
The Changing Rain Forests and Impact on Climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preparing Colombia’s cities for life amid changing forests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative Research Program Director Marcela Angel MCP ’18 has built an international program in natural climate solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
A new NASA Climate feature series examines some of the lesser-known, and often surprising, ways global climate change is affecting our world. First up: transportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planes, Shipping Lanes, and Automobiles - NASA Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new NASA Climate feature series examines some of the lesser-known, and often surprising, ways global climate change is affecting our world. First up: transportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View a printable version of our audio slide show on the link between rising sea surface temperature and more intense storms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New ‘NOVA’ Dives into an American Body of Water Warming 99% Faster Than the Global Ocean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Gulf of Maine is warming 99% faster than the global ocean. A new NOVA series dives in to show the effects of that warming. We spoke to a producer and acclaimed underwater photographer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nova’s New Docuseries Shows Impact Of Climate Change On Gulf Of Maine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using science, exploration, and natural history, NOVA’s Sea of Change docuseries vibrantly shows the impact of climate change on the Gulf of Maine’s marine ecosystems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ocean Heat Content | NASA Global Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is ocean warming?

Rising ocean temperatures are driving unprecedented changes in global marine ecosystems, sea levels, and weather patterns. As heat transforms the ocean, threats to food supplies, economies, and weather multiply, putting human and environmental health at risk.

The ocean is a vital part of Earth's climate system: It helps moderate climate and slow the impacts of global warming. Covering 70 percent of the planet, the ocean soaks up heat trapped in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Increasing ocean heat is closely linked to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, making the ocean an excellent indicator of how much Earth is warming. Since 1971, the ocean has absorbed 90 percent of the excess energy added to Earth's climate by burning fossil fuels and other human activities.

The ocean's surface layer, home to most marine life, takes most of this heat. As a result, the top 700 meters (2,300 feet) of the global ocean has warmed about 1.5°F since 1901. And scientists recently found that the rate of warming in the top 6,500 feet of the ocean over the past few decades was about 40 percent higher than previously estimated.

Water can hold more heat than land or air, so it warms more slowly, but this rate is still alarming. The ocean won't hold this heat forever. It will eventually be released, feeding back into the climate system and causing further warming.

Why is ocean warming important?

Even the seemingly slight increase of 1.5°F in ocean temperature represents an enormous amount of heat, one large enough to transform marine biodiversity, change ocean chemistry, raise sea levels, and fuel extreme weather. Earth is already experiencing the consequences of these changes, impacting property, lives, and livelihoods-and not just in coastal areas.

Rising ocean temperatures are connected to some weather extremes and can lead to more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfall, and snowstorms. Warmer sea surface temperatures influence weather patterns and shift precipitation, causing some regions to experience intense rainstorms and flooding and exacerbating drought conditions and wildfire risks in others.

Warmer ocean waters also contribute to rising sea levels, and this thermal expansion could be the biggest driver of sea level rise over long time scales. Because water becomes less dense and expands as it heats up, it occupies more space and causes sea levels to creep up. Polar ice sheets thin and erode in response, pushing levels even higher. Sea level rise has different rates and magnitudes in different places; scientists estimate sea level could rise at least 15 inches by 2100 in some areas, potentially displacing millions worldwide.

Marine life will suffer the most due to unprecedented ocean warming. Fish species now migrate north to find cooler temperatures and food sources, impacting communities and economies that depend on fishing. Rising ocean temperatures contribute to oxygen-depleted ocean dead zones in large coastal and open ocean areas, rendering them largely uninhabitable by marine life.

Hotter oceans can hold more carbon dioxide, which causes seawater to become more acidic. This phenomenon, known as ocean acidification, harms corals, clams, snails, and many other marine organisms, mainly by dissolving their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

Warmer ocean waters also encourage frequent, lengthy marine heatwaves, where temperatures can jump several degrees or more above average. These prolonged periods of heat wreak havoc on marine health and increase the risk of massive bleaching events on Australia's Great Barrier Reef and other sensitive coral ecosystems.

Is the ocean warming the same everywhere?

The ocean is warming unevenly, with rates varying according to the depth and region of the world.

Scientists use measurements from satellites, ships, and an array of tools and technology combined with historical records to understand how and where ocean temperatures are rising.

Their work reveals temperatures are rising throughout the ocean, but the surface down to about 10 feet is warming the most. Regional fast-warming hot spots include parts of the North Atlantic and Indian Ocean, and the Arctic and Southern Oceans, where hotter ocean temperatures contribute to ice sheets and glaciers melting.

As polar ice melts into the sea, the freshwater changes the density of seawater. Cold, salty water usually sinks, but when it's fresher and warmer, it changes ocean circulation patterns and heat distribution throughout the ocean.

The powerful currents that move and distribute heat throughout the ocean also drive uneven warming. When those currents carry warm water masses to cooler latitudes and deeper levels, those areas begin heating up.

How does ocean warming impact the weather?

Rising ocean temperatures are making some extreme weather events worse by supercharging storms and altering global weather patterns.

Warm surface waters provide energy for hurricanes and other tropical cyclones, increasing their frequency and severity. The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, which produced a record 30 named storms, may foreshadow future hurricane activity. The high winds, immense rainfall, and flooding associated with Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and Hurricane Florence in 2018 will likely become more common and damaging as the ocean heats up.

Weather patterns are changing due to warmer ocean temperatures because the ocean is key to the movement of water around the globe. Due to its enormous size, the ocean helps power weather by driving the planet's evaporation and precipitation cycles.

Higher sea surface temperatures increase evaporation and add additional moisture to the atmosphere over the oceans. This extra water vapor boosts the precipitation dumped by rainstorms and blizzards on coastal areas and inland locations.

While wetter areas will experience more precipitation, dry regions of the world will likely become drier due to the changes ocean warming causes to the water cycle. These arid conditions will cause areas like the southwestern United States to experience prolonged droughts and increased wildfire risks.

There may also be a link between warming Arctic waters and the polar vortex-icy blasts of cold air-over the United States and Europe. Scientists are examining whether the lack of sea ice due to warmer ocean temperatures weakens the jet stream, which usually keeps Arctic air in check and enables that air to plunge south instead.

How does ocean warming threaten marine life?

The majority of ocean life thrives in the ocean's surface layer, the part that's warming the fastest. Sensitive to even tiny temperature changes, marine organisms are quickly trying to adapt to a hotter ocean. Three threats may fundamentally change the sea and the life within it: ocean acidification, coral bleaching, and marine heatwaves.

Spurred by ocean warming, these hazards are altering critical ocean systems from primary productivity to the distribution of species. The impacts on fisheries and aquaculture threaten food security for millions and the global economies that depend on them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ocean Warming - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Increasing ocean heat is closely linked to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, making the ocean an excellent indicator of how much Earth is warming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Air pollution is the world's leading environmental cause of illness and premature death. Fine air pollution particles or aerosols, also known as fine particulate matter or PM 2.5, are responsible for 6.4 million deaths every year, caused by diseases such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, type 2 diabetes, and neonatal disorders. About 95% of these deaths occur in developing countries, where billions of people are exposed to outdoor and indoor concentrations of PM 2.5 that are multiple times higher than guidelines established by the World Health Organization. A World Bank report estimated that the cost of the health damage caused by air pollution amounts to $8.1 trillion a year, equivalent to 6.1% of global GDP.

Poor people, elderly people, and young children who come from poor families are the most affected and the least likely to be able to cope with the health impacts that come with air pollution. Global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic weaken the resilience of societies. Compounding this, exposure to air pollution is linked to increased incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions and mortality. In addition to health, air pollution is also linked to biodiversity and ecosystem loss, and has adverse impacts on human capital. Reducing air pollution, on the other hand, not only improves health but strengthens economies. A recent World Bank study found that a 20% decrease in PM 2.5 concentration is associated with a 16% increase in employment growth rate and a 33% increase in labor productivity growth rate.

A World Bank report estimated that the cost of the health damage caused by air pollution amounts to $8.1 trillion a year, equivalent to 6.1% of global GDP.
How is air pollution related to climate change?
Air pollution and climate change are two sides of the same coin, but they are typically addressed separately. They should be tackled jointly, with a focus on protecting peoples' health - particularly in low- and middle-income countries - to strengthen human capital and reduce poverty.

Air pollutants and greenhouse gases often come from the same sources, such as coal-fired power plants and diesel-fueled vehicles. Some air pollutants do not last long in the environment, notably black carbon - a part of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Other short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) include methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and ground-level or tropospheric ozone. SLCPs are far more potent climate warmers than carbon dioxide. Methane is a precursor of ground-level ozone, which according to the Climate and Clean air Coalition and Stockholm Environment Institute, kills about a million people each year, and is 80 times more potent at warming the planet than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Their relatively short lifespans, coupled with their strong warming potential, means that interventions to reduce SLCP emissions can deliver climate benefits in a relatively short time. If we address short-lived climate pollutants, we gain dual benefits: better air quality and improved health where we live, and the global benefit of mitigating climate change.

A World Bank study found that PM 2.5 from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal combustion or diesel-fueled vehicle emissions is among the most toxic types of PM 2.5. Particles from these sources are more damaging to health than particles from most other air pollution sources. Addressing these sources of PM 2.5 -- like coal combustion and traffic - would address the most toxic air pollution. Given that these sources are also key contributors to climate warming, tackling air pollution from these sources also mitigates climate change.

Air pollution and climate change are two sides of the same coin, but they are typically addressed separately. They should be tackled jointly, with a focus on protecting peoples' health - particularly in low- and middle-income countries - to strengthen human capital and reduce poverty.
What are some requirements for effectively addressing air pollution?
Measure it and monitor it. Many developing countries do not have even rudimentary infrastructure for measuring air pollution. A World Bank study found that there was only one PM 2.5 ground-level monitor per 65 million people in low-income countries, and one per 28 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa; in contrast, there is one monitor per 370,000 people in high-income countries.This is a serious issue, because you cannot properly manage what you do not measure. If you don't know how bad your problem is, you won't know whether anything you do to fix it is effective. Countries need to establish ground-level monitoring networks and operate and maintain them properly so they yield reliable air quality data.

Know the main sources of air pollution and their contributions to poor air quality. For example, in City A, transport may be the biggest contributor, but in City B, it could be something completely different, such as emissions from dirty cooking fuels seeping from homes into the outside environment. With this information you can target interventions appropriately to abate air pollution. There are certainly intuitive, no-regret steps cities and countries can take to tackle air pollution, such as shifting to clean buses or renewable energy. But if you want to address air pollution comprehensively, you need to understand what your own sources are.

Disseminate air quality data to the public. People have a right to know the quality of the air they're breathing. Disseminating this information exerts pressure on those who can make the needed changes. Air quality data should be easily accessible in formats that are widely understood so people can reduce their exposure to air pollution and protect vulnerable groups such as young children, the elderly, and people with health conditions that can be exacerbated by poor air quality.
What are some interventions that countries can implement to reduce air pollution?
Reducing air pollution may require physical investments or it may require policy reforms or both. Not every intervention fits every context. Interventions whose benefits (notably improved health) outweigh the costs should be selected. Part of our work at the World Bank is to incorporate climate change considerations into analysis so that the climate benefits of improving air quality can be taken into account in the decision-making process. A few examples of interventions to improve air quality in different sectors:

Energy: Change the energy mix to include cleaner, renewable energy sources and phase out subsidies that promote use of polluting fuels.

Industry: Use renewable fuels, adopt cleaner production measures, and install scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators in industrial facilities to filter particulates from emissions before they are released into the air.

Transport: Change from diesel to electric vehicles, install catalytic converters in vehicles to reduce toxicity of emissions, establish vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.

Agriculture: Discourage use of nitrogen-based fertilizers; improve nitrogen-use efficiency of agricultural soils; and improve fertilizer and manure management. Nitrogen-based fertilizers release ammonia, a precursor of secondary PM2.5 formation. Nitrogen-based fertilizers can also be oxidized and emitted to the air as nitrous oxide, a long-lived greenhouse gas.

Cooking and heating: Promote clean cooking and heating solutions including clean stoves and boilers.

Part of our work at the World Bank is to incorporate climate change considerations into analysis so that the climate benefits of improving air quality can be taken into account in the decision-making process.
What is the World Bank doing to help?
The World Bank has invested about $52 billion in addressing pollution in the past two decades. However, we need to scale this up. Some successful projects that address air pollution include:

In China, we supported a program in the Hebei region, the largest contributor to air pollution in the country. The overall result was a reduction in the concentration of PM 2.5 in the atmosphere by almost 40% between 2013 and the end of 2017. The program linked loan disbursements to tangible results. Hebei issued the most stringent industrial emission standards in the country, replaced diesel buses with electric buses, coal stoves with gas stoves, and improved the efficiency of fertilizer use in agriculture. The program also supported effective use of a continuous emission monitoring system to track and enforce compliance by all major industrial enterprises in the province. The project delivered about 5 million tons of CO2 equivalent emissions reductions per year through interventions such as the installation of new stoves in municipalities, and addition of a new clean energy bus fleet. The emissions reductions generated from the installation of 1,221,500 new stoves alone were equivalent to taking more than 860,000 passenger cars off the road each year.

In Peru, the World Bank is supporting a project to develop environmental information systems that includes expanding the country's air quality monitoring network to six new cities. The project is also developing new systems to disseminate information on environmental quality to the public.

In Egypt, we assessed the health impacts from environmental pollution, including the effects of ambient air pollution in Greater Cairo. We found that 19,200 people died prematurely and over 3 billion days were lived with illness in Egypt in 2017 as a result of PM 2.5 air pollution in Greater Cairo and inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene in all of Egypt. This analytical work has led to a project to reduce vehicle emissions, improve the management of solid waste, and strengthen the air and climate decision-making system in Greater Cairo.

In Vietnam, we are working with the rapidly growing city of Hanoi to simultaneously combat the issues of climate change and air pollution. We are supporting the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources to improve the Air Quality Monitoring Network and develop an understanding of emissions sources, as well as an Air Quality Management Plan for the city.

In Lao PDR, the World Bank program supported the government in establishing stringent ambient air quality standards, including a standard for annual average concentrations of PM 2. in line with the World Health Organization's air quality guideline value at the time. The program also supported the adoption of regulated procedures for sampling and analyzing PM 2.5 and PM ₁₀ in air, and other pollutants in water.

We need to tackle air pollution and climate change challenges jointly rather than separately with a focus on protecting peoples' health today, particularly in developing countries.
Can we expect better air quality in the future as countries decarbonize their economies?
First, we must continue to reduce poverty and meet the needs of poor people, whether through lower energy costs, ensuring cleaner air, or other means. With these goals in mind, we need to tackle air pollution and climate change challenges jointly rather than separately with a focus on protecting peoples' health today, particularly in developing countries. The health benefits of reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels can occur in the near term. However, the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would occur over a longer timeframe. If decarbonization efforts pay attention to non-CO ₂ pollutants as well, notably PM 2.5, we cannot only expect better air quality, but also health benefits in the short term.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Explainer: Climate Change and Air Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Air pollution is the world's leading environmental cause of illness and premature death. Fine air pollution particles or aerosols, also known as fine particulate matter or PM 2.5, are responsible for 6.4 million deaths every year, caused by diseases such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, type 2 diabetes, and neonatal disorders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Air pollutants have an impact on our planet's climate, but not all pollutants have the same effect. Some types of air pollution cause the climate to warm, while others have a temporary cooling effect that lasts a few days or weeks.

Some Air Pollutants Cause the Climate to Warm

Energy from the Sun reaches Earth's surface and is radiated back into the atmosphere as heat. Greenhouse gases prevent some of that heat from leaving the atmosphere. The recent increase in greenhouse gas pollution is trapping excess heat and causing the climate to warm.
Koshland Science Museum
Air pollution includes greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases cause the climate to warm by trapping heat from the Sun in the Earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are a natural part of Earth's atmosphere, but their increasing amounts in our atmosphere since the early 1900s are causing the climate to warm. The increase comes from vehicle exhaust, pollutants released from smokestacks at factories and power plants, emissions from agriculture, and other sources. Scientists predict that Earth will warm more this century than it did in the 20th century.

According to a NASA study, an increase in ozone pollution, or smog, is causing warming in the Arctic regions. Ozone in the troposphere is a greenhouse gas and also a health hazard. Ozone pollution created in the Northern Hemisphere is transported toward the Arctic during winter and spring months, which leads to warming. Ozone pollution has the greatest impact on the region where it originates, which means some areas are warming more than others. The Arctic is currently warming faster than any other region on Earth, partly because of ozone pollution, but also because of positive feedback loops, where warming melts snow and ice, which changes the Earth's surface and leads to more warming. The warming climate is causing drastic changes to Arctic ecosystems.

Some Air Pollutants Cause Cooling

Burning fossil fuels releases tiny particles into the atmosphere called aerosols. Most of these particles naturally get into the atmosphere through volcanoes, dust, or sea spray, while others enter the atmosphere as air pollution from cars, vehicles, and smokestacks. Aerosols have an impact on climate. While not all aerosols affect the atmosphere in the same way, they have a cooling effect overall.

Visible particulate pollution over Beijing, China can increase cloud cover and deflect energy from the Sun back into space.

Aerosols in the atmosphere can change the amount of solar energy reflected away from Earth. Some types of aerosols, such as sea salt particles from the ocean, reflect sunlight back out into space, which can help to cool the climate. Others, such as black carbon particles from burning wood or fossil fuels, absorb most of the sunlight that hits them, which leads to warming.

Aerosols also help clouds form, which has an impact on climate. The millions of tiny water droplets that make up a cloud each need a particle, like an aerosol, for the water to condense upon. Air pollutants that increase the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere can also cause more clouds to form. Scientists are still exploring the impacts of different kinds of clouds on climate, but in general low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back out to space, which has a cooling effect, and high clouds trap heat within the atmosphere, which has a warming effect.

Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for years, much longer than aerosols can stay in the atmosphere. Thus, the warming effect of greenhouse gases is larger than the cooling effect of aerosols. Computer models indicate that, worldwide, the tiny aerosols cause about half as much cooling as greenhouse gases cause warming.

Warming Affects Air Quality, Too

Air pollution is causing the climate to change, and climate change is also causing air quality to change. Because of climate warming, the Earth experiences more extreme weather, such as heat waves and drought, which can negatively impact air quality. Heat waves cause an increase in ground-level ozone pollution because the chemical reactions that create ozone in the atmosphere occur more often in hot temperatures.

Higher pollen concentrations and longer pollen seasons are influenced by the changing climate. Airborne allergens, like pollen, decrease air quality and cause health problems.

During heat waves, areas of high pressure create stagnant air that concentrates air pollutants in one area. Prolonged high temperatures due to climate warming often lead to drought conditions where forest fires, which release carbon monoxide and particulates, become more common. Dry, dusty air during periods of hot weather also increases the amount of particulate pollution.

On a related note, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that causes the climate to warm also causes plants to grow. Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide leads to an increase in the plants that cause allergies, which increases the amount of airborne allergen pollutants. The warming climate also extends the growing season in some areas, which increases the number of days with high pollen concentrations. Airborne allergens degrade both outdoor and indoor air quality and cause respiratory problems such as asthma and allergies. This establishes an unhealthy cycle where air pollution leads to climate warming, which then leads to more air pollution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Air pollutants have an impact on our planet's climate. Some pollutants cause the climate to warm, while others cause a temporary cooling effect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact of Air Pollution on Asthma Outcomes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by variable airflow obstruction, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and airway inflammation. Evidence suggests that air pollution has a negative impact on asthma outcomes in both adult and pediatric…

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation rates

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Change is Disrupting Air Travel

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Change is Disrupting Air Travel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change is Disrupting Air Travel | Climate Central

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aviation causes heat-trapping pollution — and the resulting warming is disrupting air travel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
84% of the world’s coral reefs hit by worst bleaching event on record | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harmful bleaching of the world’s coral has grown to include 84% of the ocean’s reefs in the most intense event of its kind in recorded history, the International Coral Reef Initiative announced Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
South Texas Developers Make a Sales Pitch to Sell Groundwater. Will Laredo Buy It? - Inside Climate News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Laredo has long sought a secondary water supply to supplement the Rio Grande. A development in Webb County could provide a solution—but one with a hefty price tag.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Hidden Climate Costs of Exporting US Liquefied Natural Gas - Inside Climate News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An exclusive Inside Climate News analysis found that a single year of greenhouse gas emissions from tankers carrying LNG from the United States more than cancels out the annual reductions achieved through driving all the electric vehicles currently on U.S. roads.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great article on  Global Shipping  - MIT just posted

# data[].attributes.subject
Great article on  Global Shipping  - MIT just posted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
with Madison Goldberg, MIT Climate Portal Writing Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ships rely on climate-polluting fuel oil to move huge volumes of cargo. New fuels like methanol and hydrogen, nuclear reactors, batteries, and route optimization are all being explored to curb that pollution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Recycling a solution - Sign into Newsela

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Recycling a solution - Sign into Newsela

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.