# data[].attributes.body
Participants were interviewed with 3 questions. How have you contributed (negatively) to climate change?

How have you tried to reduce your carbon emissions?

Are you eager to learn more?

The answers in general were as such:

With the first question all participants believed that they contributed negatively through transportation especially flying back to their home countries during the holiday or for travelling. Furthermore some participants stated the fact that they owned cars and would regularly use it for transportation. Some participants stated that they believe them eating meat is a major contributor to climate change, furthermore all participants believed that delivery, "Waimai" and takeaway were great contributors to plastic and garbage that are not recyclable. Finally all participants stated that energy usage while basically living is another major issue, such as electricity, water and heating/cooling.

Moving onto the second question all participants stated that they either avoid unnecessary flights or look for lower carbon footprint planes. Particularly in one case they stated that offsetting their carbon emission by paying more to the airline/company was one way in which they reduced the emission/ effect of the emissions of flying. In the case of transportation daily and car usage, participants stated that they result to low carbon emitting or public transport whenever possible. and often choosing to walk/bike when not needing a car. In a few cases participants have resulted to eating less meat or minimising meat consumption to reduce the carbon emission through a more "eco-friendly" diet. Finally all participants have resulted to minimising the usage of AC and lights when unnecessary or leaving a room to mninimise the consumption of energy unnecessarily.

The last questions show that all participants are willing to learn more about the problems of climate change and its solutions, with many believing that hey already have a good understanding of the problem. However the severity and rate of climate change was pointed out as one of the questions that participants wanted to know, to better understand how significant the problem actually is.

Overall the survey demonstrates how individuals are keen to learn more about the topic while being aware of their potential emissions and contributions to the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone believes that climate change exists as a problem.

Most think they know the issues relatively well.

Most people are concerned about deforestation of the Amazon, knowing its importance to the world. However people were mostly shocked when they were told that around 20% of the Amazon has been lost and over 70% of it needs to remain for the forest to remain intact and stable, which means we are on the edge of destroying the Amazon.

Most people believe that toxin accumulation in food and environment is an issue.

All participants think that some sort of prevention and law on hunting, and farming should be installed to ensure no over hunting. Most people think harm to Marine life is the major issue with plastic followed by accumulation in food and water.

The results does show that people are not completely well educated on climate change being unable to answer a lot of questions correctly, this suggests that awareness is there but more information on climate change is needed to be spread amongst people. Most people noticed some issues with climate change but not many felt the impact, this is likely due to all participants living in a less effected area of the globe and are amongst the more privileged groups of people.

SDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy this goal (picture above) was shown to be the single most important goal in the opinions of over 80% of participants with SDG 12 climate change coming in second.

Finally most people are willing to learn more about climate change believing that governments along with individuals should start taking actions in solving and stopping further worsening of the situation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted by

Peter Porter pushes back against consumer-culture in this uniquely un-poetic poem.

"He made me laugh, he made me think..."
Sean O'Brien, fellow poet and student of Porter.

Written in 1970, today's poem is both a product of and critique of a capitalist, consumer society where everything is up for sale; people are consumers first and human beings second. Australian by birth, Peter Porter lived much of his life in Britain, a country that, after the end of World War Two, experienced an economic boom - shops were full of people, shelves were full of stuff, and TV screens exhorted people to buy more, more and more. Purchasing-power, shopping-malls, conspicuous-consumption was (and arguably still is) the defining culture of the day. This was the golden age of advertising and the heyday of the salesman. Increasingly sophisticated marketing techniques were developed and an entire corporate language invented: 'brand,' 'cold-calling,' 'customer-satisfaction' and the like. Businessmen, middle-managers, data-analysts and market researchers replaced historians and philosophers as society's go-to experts. Men in smart suits would knock on the front door and ask buyers to fill out surveys so they could improve their products for the next year, season, or cycle. And this is where Peter Porter's poem comes in. Having worked in the marketing industry, he was au-fait with Britain's increasing consumer-culture outlook on life - and he didn't like it very much. His response is the poem A Consumer Report satirising the direction society is heading by stretching the idea of consumer-culture to its very extreme: Life itself is for sale:

The name of the product I tested is Life,
I have completed the form you sent me
and understand my answers are confidential.

I had it as a gift,
I didn't feel much while using it,
in fact I think I'd like to have been more excited.
It seemed gentle on the hands
but left an embarrassing deposit behind.
It was not economical
and I have used much more than I thought
(I suppose I have about half left
but it's difficult to tell) -
although the instructions are fairly large
there are so many of them
I don't know which to follow, especially
as they seem to contradict each other.
I'm not sure such a thing
should be put in the way of children -
It's difficult to think of a purpose
Also the price is much too high.
Things are piling up so fast,
after all, the world got by
for a thousand million years
without this, do we need it now?
(Incidentally, please ask your man
to stop calling me 'the respondent',
I don't like the sound of it.)
There seems to be a lot of different labels,
sizes and colours should be uniform
the shape is awkward, it's waterproof
but not heat resistant, it doesn't keep
yet it's very difficult to get rid of:
whenever they make it cheaper they seem
to put less in - if you say you don't
want it, then it's delivered anyway.
I'd agree it's a popular product,
it's got into the language; people
even say they're on the side of it.
Personally I think its overdone,
a small thing people are ready
to behave badly about. I think
we should take it for granted. If it's
experts are called philosophers or
market researchers or historians, we shouldn't
care. We are the consumers and the last
law makers. So finally, I'd buy it.
But the question of a 'best buy'
I'd like to leave until I get
the competitive product you said you'd send.

The poem's conceit is established in the first brief verse (a conceit is like a theme; it's the 'big idea' that underpins the entire poem, and is often presented as an extended metaphor): Life is just another product, designed in a boardroom, assembled in a factory, and available in a store near you. The poem's speaker, after testing this product, is asked to fill out a customer satisfaction survey, giving his opinions and providing a rating, presumably so the designers can use his suggestions to improve future iterations. The poem consists mostly of this report, delivered in the respondent's own words. It's actually a really clever idea that opens up all kinds of philosophical avenues for us to wander down, such as whether we deserve the lives we get or is it all simply down to chance. For example, the speaker says that he was given his version of life as a gift and that there are actually more competitive products available. Is he simply referring to his body - as in the way some people may be born in physically better health than others - or does he mean the experiences and opportunities of the life he was given? Some people may be born to a rich family, others poor; some of us are lucky enough to be born into safe and stable societies, while others are delivered in war-times or earthquake zones. Each birth guarantees a wildly different life experience. The poem reminds us that none of us have a choice ( If you say you don't want it, then it's delivered anyway) in where and when we are born, our genetic heritage, and who our families happen to be.

To establish his extended metaphor right off the bat, Porter sets up the poem with a little verse of only three lines that serves as a segue into the report itself. In this verse, he highjacks the language of marketing and advertising, presenting his poem in a very un-poetic register. The language is cold, dry, and uses jargon (language from a specific field is called jargon; as an industry-insider, Porter would have been more than familiar with this type of soulless marketing-speak). It feels like we're reading from a label or a disclaimer with a 'tick box' at the end: The name of the product I tested is... I have completed the form... I understand my answers are confidential. The poetry is deliberately lifeless, these phrases could have been cut'n'paste from any survey of this kind. The grammatical structures are boring and even predictable: I have... I tested... I understand... are basically subject + verb + object, the most mundane and uncreative of patterns. But this is the whole point: Porter is stretching the satire to breaking point to imply that, if life itself is approached as a commercial venture, it is drained of all the fun stuff - random experiences, loves and unexpected friendships, dreams, messy emotions - that make it truly worth living. The rest of the poem features a similar linguistic drabness: for example, after defining his topic in the first verse, thereafter the speaker repeatedly uses the word it to objectify life, as if such a vast, extraordinary, and complex concept can be reduced to a single, uninteresting word.

The second verse constitutes the rest of the poem and is presented in one long, unbroken column that is meant to resemble the kind of blank space on forms of this type (written in 1970, these things would always have been a physical form, not completed online). In this way the poems' long and thin shape (also called the poem's spatial form) represents its subject matter: a marketing survey. Porter writes in free verse, stripping his poem of rhythm and rhyme and leaving it purposely devoid of any other obvious poetic or aesthetic devices. Remember, his aim is to present language which is as mundane as possible. If life is a mere product put together on a production line, then all of life's processes - like this report - should have the same mechanical, lifeless quality. As a response to the encroachment of corporate and consumer values into every corner of society, the satire only works if it's as bland as this. Because the poem lacks many formal clues, there's a challenge to following the speaker's thoughts which are presented in something like a stream of consciousness, as if he's filling in the form at his work desk. It's not meant to feel crafted - whatever he happens to think of is the next comment on the report. There's no chronological organisation, his thoughts roam backwards and forwards, bumping into one another and sparking random adjacent ideas. After all, isn't that the way our minds work sometimes? It's just a little glimpse that maybe we're not all soulless-consumer-robots stuffing our faces with the next newest iPhones just yet... but more on that later. For now, you can trace the gist of his complaints because, while some lines run one into the next (using enjambment), he helpfully marks completed observations with a full stop. So, for once, you're better off reading the lines like prose rather than poetry (again, this is intentional). As a report on Life itself, its content could encompass - well, everything! But clearly the person filling out the form can't comment on every aspect of his life experience so far (he says I have about half left, so I'm guessing he has around forty years of accumulated experience, give or take) and we can assume he's summarising only his main concerns.

Once he gets going patterns do appear, giving the poem some internal structure. You can divide his comments into loose 'categories', each of which represent deeper, more philosophical worries that we might wonder about from time to time. The first category is 'What is life for?' otherwise known as 'The Meaning of Life Category.' You can put lines such as the instructions... there are so many of them and it's difficult to think of a purpose in this category. The extended metaphor of life being a product is so effective that almost every 'complaint' mirrors an existential or philosophical concern; for instance, the lack of a decent instruction booklet implies the lack of guidance in the speaker's life, the difficulty of navigating an increasingly media-saturated environment where it's hard to tell real from fake, good advice from bad, or even simply points to how many conflicting world views there are out there, and how to know who to listen to at any given time. His complaint that life shouldn't be put in the way of children is humorous (everyone was a child once, it's unavoidable!) but also points to how dangerous life can be, how easy it is to hurt oneself, or be hurt by others, or make the wrong choices when one is young. Why not pick any line and see if you can superimpose a genuine concern from your own experience, or philosophy, onto the poem in this manner. In order to convey these kinds of existential doubts in the speaker's mind, Porter has him ask rhetorical questions like, do we need it now? He reminds us that the world has been around for a thousand million years; our modern consumer cultures, which seem so important and permanent, are merely a blink of times' eye when thought about from this perspective. Another of his conclusions is that life is a small thing, again challenging our perception of the importance of human lives, especially when our favourite pastime seems to just be buying more and more stuff. A note of anger creeps into his report when he notes how people , accentuating this comment with plosive alliteration that is good at implying the release of negative emotion.

In the second 'Is It Worth It?' category he comments on the value of the product to the customer. In a pointed play on the idea that quality of life and money are inextricably bound up together, he notes: whenever they make it cheaper they seem to put less in. You can read this comment a couple of different ways; it seems to imply that some people's lives are metaphorically 'emptier' than others and might make you think of the phrase 'life is cheap'. Other comments don't refer to the monetary value of life, it was given as a gift remember, but suggest life is costly in more metaphorical ways. Through punning on the words price and economical, he suggests one pays through upsetting, stressful or difficult life experiences, disappointments, pains, let-downs, and the like. Much of the poem is couched in diction that's vaguely negative or worrisome: piling up so fast... so many of them... too much... it's difficult... and so on, reveal a sense that life lived in a modern, fast-paced society is discombobulating, overwhelming and distressing. Porter's speaker frequently uses negation ( not economical... I don't know... I'm not sure) to enhance this sense of general negativity towards and confusion about life.

'Complaints about the Body' is the third, and most humourous, category. Carrying each individual through a single life experience, and also the thing upon which the quality of that experience depends, the body functions as the centre of the extended metaphor in the poem; the physical aspect of the product under review is the speaker's own body and he's got lots to say about it's design flaws! You can place his funny comment about bodily excretions ( it... left an embarrassing deposit behind) in this category, along with it's waterproof, but not heat resistant, which brought a smile to my face. But, when the speaker confesses it's very difficult to get rid of, there's the edge of something darker at play here, as if he has experienced sadness so deep that life simply hasn't been worth living any more. He comments more than once on ageing ( I have used much more than I thought... it doesn't keep) and how, after our bodies begin to fail, we live half our lives weak and infirm. I'm not sure how i feel about his comment: the shape is awkward and sizes and colours should be uniform. It can be read as a joke and the idea that physical, racial, and other visual differences between people causes problems is up for discussion. I would argue, though, that intolerance and bigotry are the real causes of social division, rather than differences in size, shape and skin colour per se. Calling for a uniform human design would erase much of the wondrous variety that makes the world such a diverse and compelling place, and seems to run counter to the spirit of the poem. On the other hand, you can read ideas for this kind of 'quick-fix' to complex issues as part of the satire - it's a solution that might appeal in a shallow society where philosophers and historians have been replaced by market research analysts.

Behind the blandness of the corporate consumer's report is the niggling impression, though, that there's still a living, breathing human hiding somewhere underneath. When I describe the poem as 'lifeless' and 'soulless,' I'm actually describing the atmosphere (alternatively called mood) - which is defined as the feelings the poem generates in the reader; in this case, me. Tone (or tone of voice) is different; tone is the feelings and attitude of the poet or speaker, the unnamed respondent who's filling out the form. On the surface, whoever this person is adopts the kind of polite, reserved tone that many of us would use when interacting with an unknown administrator. That might make me feel bland and boring - but that doesn't mean the speaker's just a lifeless automaton. Think about when you've had to phone a customer service helpline, or conducted an interview, or some similar situation. The rules of polite society force us to don an inoffensive mask during such interactions. This is our speaker's go-to mode of address - but is it a defence mechanism? As a case in point, look at how often he uses the word seem or seemed as a way of being polite about something: it seemed gentle on the hands... they seem to contradict each other... there seems to be a lot of different labels... they seem to put less in... Ironically, the more he uses polite words to cover up his disappointment, the more we can hear how upset he truly is. There's real feeling striving to break through the superficial veneer. The same is true for the word think: I think I'd like to have been more excited... I think it's overdone... I think we should take it for granted... Overall, he seems a little jaded, reluctant to put himself forward, like life lived in the modern world has worn him down or taught him not to be too obtrusive. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any positive feedback in his report; I guess, I'd agree it's a popular product would count as positive, although it's hardly effusive praise. Often, though, there's a grouchy grumpiness in the speaker's tone of voice that at least characterises him as somebody real. Until the end of the poem, at least, he's placed in opposition to our corporate overlords, despite him saying I didn't feel much when I was using it which, to my mind, is blatantly ironic - even untrue.

Actually, on one or two occasions, the poem offers glimpses of a genuine and vivid soul behind the report, and implies he feels things a lot more deeply than he's letting on. Most obvious is the moment presented in brackets (or parentheses) when he breaks from compiling his report to directly address a senior company representative: (please ask your man to stop calling me 'the respondent', I don't like the sound of it.) For a split second, the speaker's polite and reserved tone threatens to boil over into something angry - he's pushing back against the faceless corporate entities who want to reduce everyone to nicely labelled cogs in their marketing machine. He's not a respondent - he's a real person! Dig carefully enough and you'll find other nuggets of real feeling amongst all the fools' gold: Things are piling up so fast is one, the price is much too high another, and I don't know which to follow a third - all moments where I can hear traces of distress and confusion in the speaker's voice. There's a noticeable transition in line 24 and again in line 42 when the speaker uses the word we rather than I. This subtle shift from the personal to the public voice implies the respondent starts speaking for others as well (he even uses the word people in line 37) as if there's a widespread groundswell of dissatisfaction with the modern world. Towards the end of the poem, he stridently declares: we are the consumers and the last law makers in the manner of an activist whipping up a crowd with a rallying cry or call to arms. In this line, he asserts himself defiantly and we are even given a touch of alliteration, , one of the poem's only poetic embellishments, to accentuate this moment of genuine anger against the commodification of our lives.

Which makes his final recommendation even more surprising. Because, immediately after this moment of defiance, the speaker goes right back to toeing the company line again. After such a litany of complaints and existential worries, he ends up reporting: So finally, I'd buy it. I don't know about you, but I felt a little let down by this sudden course-correction. This is intentional on Porter's part. In the modern world, consumer creep is so insidious and corporate power so all-pervasive that any alternative proposition as to how we could live differently, or live better, flickers like a guttering candle, blazing briefly... then gone. Himself a beneficiary of a consumer society, the speaker has unwittingly internalised its values, even ones he despises. The sudden turn at the end (the moment a shift in tone, perspective, or the direction of the argument occurs in a poem is the turn) is a pessimistic reminder that recognising problems with modern society is not the same as dealing with them. Words are just words without meaningful action and our speaker doesn't really want to bite the hand that's feeding him.

His final little protest then - refusing to give the product a ' best buy' rating - is an act of mere tokenism. He resists in this one detail because he knows he can get away with it, revealing the illusion of power that consumers enjoy. It's like when your parents tell you to turn off the music or the TV and, when you wait just that extra second longer to do what they ask, they don't say anything. They let you get away with the little things because you've already obeyed with the big things, which is all that really matters. The poem's speaker, the unwilling ' respondent' who responded anyway, already received and used his Life product, just as the vast majority of people eagerly and unquestioningly participate in and consume whatever society has to offer. The evidence is in the way he phrased his protest: instead of trying to smash the system, or refusing to fill out the report, he selfishly grabbed the tiny bit of power offered him to nudge himself a little higher in the system's hierarchy: If its experts are called philosophers or market researchers or historians, we shouldn't care. We are the consumers. Through a kind of metaphorical renaming, the speaker labelled himself a consumer. No one forced him to say that, but he did it anyway - implying that he's already a slave to market forces. In a clever loop composition, we are reminded of one of the poem's opening lines in which, on rereading, the compliance of the speaker seems ominously automatic, robotic in quite a sinister way: I have completed the form you sent me... No one forced him to, but he did it anyway...

At the end of the day, Porter fatalistically asks, what is the alternative? What choice do any of us really have?

Suggested poems for comparison:

Porter wasn't only an experimental poet. As his friend and former student Sean O'Brien once wrote: 'the vast body of his work contains poems of many kinds.' In this short example, Porter shows off his skills with meter and rhyme as well.

Duffy's poem also criticises the insidious creep of consumerism into all corners of society as a woman, who only goes out to buy an apple, can't stop shopping until that's literally all she does. Caution: explicit language.

Consumer-culture rose in Western societies after World War Two, but it wasn't invented then. Written around 1920, but not published until 1996, this poem describes a lady who works in a shop - and is gradually internalising the lifeless porcelain qualities of the dolls she sells.

Additional Resources

If you are teaching or studying A Consumer's Report at school or college, or if you simply enjoyed this analysis of the poem and would like to discover more, you might like to purchase our bespoke study bundle for this poem. It costs only £2 and includes:

Study Questions with guidance on how to answer in full paragraphs.

A sample 'Point-Evidence-Explanation-Analysis' paragraph to model analytical essay writing.

An interactive and editable powerpoint, giving line-by-line analysis of all the poetic and technical features of the poem.

An in-depth worksheet with a focus on exploring the extended metaphor in this poem.

A fun crossword quiz, perfect for a starter activity, revision or a recap - now with answers provided separately.

A four-page activity booklet that can be printed and folded into a handout - ideal for self study or revision.

4 practice Essay Questions - and one complete Model Essay for you to use as a style guide.

And... discuss!

Did you enjoy this breakdown of Peter Porter's poem? Were you also surprised when the speaker recommended buying the product of life? What do you think the 'competitive product' might be? Why not share your ideas, ask a question, or leave a comment for others to read below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Peter Porter pushes back against consumer-culture in this uniquely un-poetic poem. As an experiment, we used AI to illustrate this blogpost - what do you think? He made me laugh, he made me think...Sean O'Brien, fellow poet and student of Porter.

# data[].attributes.body
Majority of activists are women (Danica, 2021)

Inequality discredits opinions, and contributes to the lack of autonomy and decision/ policy-making regarding climate action

Limitations to education in many countries (such as Afghanistan), which also includes causes, impacts and solutions to climate change

Studies by Daggett: “intensive energy use and patriarchal imperialism are structures that develop together and reinforce each other” (Research Institute for Sustainability, 2023) https://www.rifs-potsdam.de/en/news/feminist-look-energy-transition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Feminist Look at the Energy Transition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The climate change crisis affects all of us-across every community and every continent, but it is the poorest among us-those who are least responsible for the problem-who suffer the most.

At Oxfam, we know that climate change, poverty, and inequality are linked. The impact of shifting weather patterns, droughts, flooding, and storms hits poor and marginalized communities first and worst, causing unpredictable growing seasons, crop failures, and sharp increases in food prices. People in low-and lower-middle-income countries are around five times more likely than people in high-income countries to be displaced by sudden extreme weather disasters; and long standing gender, racial and economic inequalities mean that historically marginalized communities are the hardest hit and most impacted by the climate crisis.

Climate change contributes to fragility and the risk of conflict and disaster. Climate-fueled disasters were the number one driver of internal displacement over the last decade - forcing an estimated 20 million people a year from their homes. Hunger is already increasing due to climate change. People are being forced from their livelihoods, homes and communities due to climate shocks and persistent climate stress-indigenous peoples being among those at greatest risk of displacement. Climate change increases the need for life-saving assistance and protection for those facing humanitarian disasters.

We also know that climate change has worsened global inequality. Across societies, the impacts of climate change affect women and men differently. Women and girls must walk further to collect water and fuel, and are often the last to eat. During and after extreme weather events, they are at increased risk of violence and exploitation. These inequalities can be seen in many other, often overlapping, dimensions too. And because Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities are more likely to live in poverty, they face these impacts while having fewer resources to respond to climate-induced natural disasters and adapt to changes in the climate.

Our collective response to combat climate change must not only address the climate impacts, but also deliver systemic transformation that centers environmental justice in order to address the climate crisis as well as economic, gender, and racial injustice. We are dedicated to working with these communities to prepare for disasters and build resilience to adapt and find long-term solutions to climate change.

Clenda Marisol Ramírez Pérez next to her corn plot. She lives with her 2 daughters and husband in the Community of Matazano, municipality of Jocotán, department of Chiquimula. Her husband is a day laborer but with very little chance of working. They have a small plot of corn that has not matured because of the drought. Pablo Tosco/Oxfam

Despite declines in carbon emissions in 2020 linked to decreased travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate crisis -which is driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere over time -has continued to grow. We need urgent and immediate action by rich countries and large corporations if we're going to begin to reverse this trend and protect the climate.

The poorest half of the world's population -3.5 billion people-is responsible for just 10 percent of carbon emissions, yet they are often the ones who suffer the worst. Wealthy countries and major polluting companies must commit to reduce their emissions in alignment with the Paris Climate Agreement to avoid further climate impacts that disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable who contributed the least to the problem. In the next decade we need to take bold actions to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The failure to act now will lead to even greater costs later. These costs will be measured not only in dollars and cents but in lives lost to hunger, disasters, and increased conflict

Empowering the most vulnerable

Scientists have been clear: climate change is already affecting every sector and region of our country, of our continent, of our planet. But it is the world's poorest and most vulnerable people -those who rely on rain to grow crops, live in fragile housing and who lack savings or insurance -who are hit the hardest, despite having contributed the least to the problem.

Adaptation is critical-particularly for small farmers who feed themselves and nearby communities and who are expected to play a critical role in global food security. Even with additional commitments to cut emissions, the impacts of climate change will continue to be felt by the world's poor for decades to come.

Wealthy countries must step up to do their fair share to enable the poorest and most vulnerable around the world to build resilience and thrive in the face of a changing climate, not just survive. This includes finance which is adequate, predictable, and accessible and commitments to respect and uphold the rights of impacted communities.

Addressing gender and racial injustice

When natural disasters strike, they hit marginalized communities first and worst. And as women make up an estimated 70 percent of those living below the poverty line, they are more likely to bear the heaviest burdens. According to the United Nations, 80 percent of people displaced by climate change are women. At the same time, women are often left out of the conversation about adapting to climate change, even though they are sometimes in the best position to provide solutions.

Communities of color are also disproportionately impacted by climate change. A history of exclusionary zoning practices against Black, Brown and Indigenous communities in the United States has denied them access to well-resourced and planned residential communities, which has made them more vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis. Globally, these communities are more likely to be in flood zones, or surrounded by toxic facilities that pollute the air they breathe. Without adequate resources, Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are more likely to be displaced from their homes and face greater challenges in rebuilding their lives after disaster strikes.

Local expertise and women's leadership is resourced to build resilience and shape solutions. The gendered impact of the climate crisis is reflected in the design, implementation and evaluation of the strategies intended to address it.

People are at the center of our approach to climate action. We strive to elevate the voices of indigenous peoples, farmers, pastoralists, and fishing communities to be heard in national deliberations over policy change. And we work to ensure that national-level development processes and investments promote resilience and prioritize communities in harm's way.

Oxfam is working with partners and climate change advocates to counteract the effects of climate change on communities facing marginalization and exclusion, and we are pushing for those most capable of addressing the climate crisis to move first and most ambitiously.

For over a decade, Oxfam has campaigned to raise awareness of the unequal effects of climate change and to urge global leaders to take action. We are proud to be an organization fighting climate change with allies to address the root causes and impacts of this crisis.

In our environmental and climate change work we:

Support small-scale farmers to adopt agricultural practices that will buffer them from the harmful effects of climate change.

Work to enhance international climate ambition and cooperation by supporting the implementation of the Paris Agreement and driving equitable climate finance investments.

Stand with indigenous and other communities advocating for their rights to land governance, water management, and food security where they are at risk from the drivers of deforestation and natural resource degradation.

Call for alternative, community-based energy systems and investments that shift away from harmful fossil fuels to clean, sustainable energy that respects, protects, and enhances poor people's livelihoods.

Advocate for national action to equitably reduce emissions of pollutants that contribute to the climate crisis and negatively affect human and crop health.

Call on elected officials to protect those most vulnerable to climate change and invest in equitable solutions to the climate crisis.

Story

Story

Politics of Poverty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change is a human-made disaster that is already reversing progress made in the fight against inequality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent decades, global economic growth has lifted millions out of extreme poverty and reduced inequalities between countries. But unmanaged climate change threatens to set back that progress by damaging poverty eradication efforts worldwide, and disproportionately affecting the poorest regions and people.

The evidence is mounting: a World Bank report estimated that an additional 68 to 135 million people could be pushed into poverty by 2030 because of climate change. Our own research shows that if the most dire projections of future economic damages in the current scientific literature hold true, climate change would reverse the gains of the past few decades and cause inequality between countries to rise again. Within countries, the impacts of climate change also risk worsening inequality.

At the same time, actions taken to curb warming could have an unwelcome effect on inequality, if climate policies prove too burdensome for poor countries. Such actions need to be complemented by measures to offset the costs on the poor and vulnerable across and within countries.

We view mitigating climate change as a necessary condition for sustainably improving living standards around the world. At the same time, we maintain that distributive and procedural justice must be at the forefront of every stage of environmental policymaking. In planning, development, and implementation, the effort to reduce emissions must be at the service of broader objectives of

development, such as poverty and inequality reduction, the creation of decent jobs, improvement of air quality, and improvement of public health.

Risk to health and livelihoods

Since the Industrial Revolution, emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activities have increased from a negligible level to more than 40 billion tons a year. As these emissions have accumulated in our atmosphere, they have increased the average annual temperature by about 1 degree Celsius compared with the pre-industrial era. Temperature increases have led to glaciers and ice caps melting, sea levels rising, and more frequent and extreme meteorological events, such as heat waves and droughts, with cascading effects on ecosystems, agricultural yields, human health, and livelihoods.

While the effects of climate change are global, and their projected impacts concern every area in the world, a wide scientific literature suggests that climate risks disproportionately affect the poorest countries and people, who are more exposed and more vulnerable to their impacts.

In the poorest economies, a large part of the population depends directly on activities that may be the most affected by climate change, notably, the agricultural, forestry, and fisheries sectors. People with the lowest incomes are the most likely to depend for their survival on resources provided by nature. Rising temperatures are exacerbating preexisting disparities in access to clean water and affordable food. Most of the time, the poorest populations do not benefit from insurance mechanisms or have access to basic health services, making them particularly vulnerable to any shock hitting their assets and income streams.

Rich countries and people

And it is the populations of these economies most vulnerable to climate change who contribute the least to the accumulation of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gas emissions today are mainly linked to the level of a nation's wealth: the richest countries represent only 16 percent of the world population but almost 40 percent of CO ₂ emissions. The two categories of the poorest countries in the World Bank classification account for nearly 60 percent of the world's population, but for less than 15 percent of emissions. On a per capita basis, emissions are about 20 metric tons of CO ₂-equivalent a person a year in the United States-approximately double the amount per person in the European Union or in China, and almost 10 times the amount in India.

This cross-country inequality is rooted in history: the contribution of the developed economies to global warming is greater than their share of current emissions because they have added to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for a longer period. For example, the contribution of the United States to cumulative emissions is 25 percent of the total, the European Union's 22 percent, China's 13 percent, and India's 3 percent.

Reducing inequalities

Without action to limit and adapt to climate change, its environmental impact will continue to amplify inequalities and could undermine development and poverty eradication. While inequality refers to differences in income or wealth across the whole range distribution, poverty concerns individuals below a given income threshold, or lacking access to basic needs. By hitting the poorest hardest, climate change risks both increasing existing economic inequalities and causing people to fall into poverty.

Limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C requires reaching net zero CO 2 emissions by 2050 and reducing global emissions by approximately 50 percent in 2030, compared with 2010 levels. Limiting the increase in temperature to 2°C means net zero CO ₂ emissions should be reached by 2070, and global emissions should be reduced by 25 percent by 2030. Every fraction of a degree counts because the impacts of climate change increase with rising temperature in a nonlinear way. For instance, while an increase of 1.5°C would expose 245 million people to a new or aggravated water shortage, this number becomes 490 million at +2°C.

The need is urgent for policies to transform rapidly and profoundly the way we use energy and transportation, produce and consume food as well as other goods, and shelter ourselves. The question is how to design these policies.

Mitigation efforts

Reducing emissions will ultimately limit climate change impacts and their unequal effects; however, mitigation policies must not neglect their own impacts on inequalities. As they affect energy or food prices, mitigation policies may also slow down progress in energy access and affect the poorest, who spend a higher share of income on these goods.

Thus, mitigation efforts should be shared fairly to ensure they serve the broader objectives of development, poverty and inequality reduction, improvement of air quality, health, and so forth. Given their greater historical contribution and greater ability to pay for mitigation, rich countries should pave the way by taking ambitious climate action. Financial transfers between countries can also reduce the burden of mitigation for poorer countries and increase participation in mitigation efforts.

Within regions and countries, policy design is key to making sure climate policies do not hurt the poorest. For instance, redistribution plans for the revenues generated by carbon prices can offset the negative impacts on poor people and even lead to net benefits for the poorest. Conversely, concerns about the regressive effects of policies have prevented strengthening existing carbon tax levels, for instance in France following the Yellow Vest movement. Other policies, such as investment in low-carbon technologies or building standards, can also have unequal effects on individuals, depending on their design.

Promoting adaptation and resilience

In parallel to reducing emissions, adaptation policies must be put in place to decrease the exposure of the most vulnerable populations to climate change impacts. This means devising rules regulating construction in risky areas, such as flood zoning, land entitlement, and building standards. The poorest communities must be provided with better health services and new insurance mechanisms.

As the poorest tend to be excluded from the decision-making process, there is always a risk of underinvestment in actions that would be particularly beneficial to them. Policies need to be tailored to ensure they do not impose undue financial constraints on those who have the fewest resources. Policymakers must guarantee that adaptation policies will actually benefit those most in need and will not be hijacked by the wealthiest or by political interests.

Another idea of interest is the creation of adaptation funds that would ensure technological transfers from rich countries, which produce most patents, to poorer ones.

Increasing countries' mitigation ambitions will be the main topic of the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) November 1-12. The success of those negotiations is a precondition to limiting inequality-exacerbating climate change. At the same time, careful attention to the equity and fairness of actions for vastly unequal countries will be key for the success of the negotiations themselves.

Jointly tackling climate change and inequality reductions requires paying attention to the intricate links between these issues. Limiting climate change is essential to reduce the risks it would impose, notably on the poorest. However, to design climate policies, the recognition that individuals and countries differ in their ability to mitigate emissions and to cope with climate change impacts is essential. Poorly designed policies risk amplifying existing inequalities, but just transitions to low carbon and more resilient economies can foster more equal societies.

This article is based on the paper "Influence of Climate Change Impacts and Mitigation Costs on Inequality between Countries" published in the journal Climatic Change in February 2020.

CÉLINE GUIVARCH is a researcher at the Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement in Nogent-sur-Marne, France.

NICOLAS TACONET is a researcher at the Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement in Nogent-sur-Marne, France.

AURÉLIE MÉJEAN is a researcher at the Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement in Nogent-sur-Marne, France.

# data[].attributes.headline
Using bacteria to combat microplastic accumulation

# data[].attributes.subject
Using bacteria to combat microplastic accumulation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists Found “Superworms” That Can Digest Plastic Using Powerful Gut Bacteria

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine a world where plastic waste doesn’t pile up in landfills or swirl endlessly in ocean currents but vanishes—eaten away by nature itself. It sounds like science fiction, yet researchers have uncovered a tiny creature with a remarkable talent: the Zophobas morio larva, better known as the superworm. Unlike ordinary insects, these resilient larvae don’t just chew through plastic—they digest it, breaking it down using a powerful community of gut bacteria. Every year, humans produce over 400 million tons of plastic, much of which lingers in the environment for centuries. Polystyrene, the material found in takeout containers and packing peanuts, is one of the worst offenders—virtually indestructible under normal conditions. But in the bellies of these unassuming worms, polystyrene transforms into something nature can reclaim. Scientists are now racing to understand the enzymes behind this process, unlocking a potential key to one of our most pressing environmental dilemmas. 🪱 Some ‘Superworms’ are eating plastic and digesting styrofoam!Scientists found they can survive entirely on styrofoam and even grow 🧑‍🔬Could these worms solve the #PlasticPollution crisis?Read more ⬇️https://t.co/kMl6jPKD6M$SPE #ClimateNews #Science— SavePlanetEarth (@SPE_ETH) June 18, 2022 The Superworm Discovery: A Natural Plastic Recycler In a world overwhelmed by plastic pollution, nature may have already provided an unexpected solution. Scientists studying Zophobas morio larvae—commonly known as superworms—have made a groundbreaking discovery: these tiny creatures don’t just nibble on plastic; they actively digest it. Unlike other insects that might chew through synthetic materials without actually breaking them down, superworms have a gut microbiome that enables them to consume and process polystyrene, one of the most environmentally persistent plastics. This remarkable ability opens the door to new possibilities for tackling plastic waste in ways previously thought impossible. A study conducted at the University of Queensland revealed that superworms can survive on a diet consisting entirely of polystyrene. Even more astonishingly, they gain energy from it, meaning their bodies don’t just pass the material through—they metabolize it. In controlled experiments, worms fed solely on polystyrene remained active, continued growing, and even gained weight, suggesting that the bacteria in their digestive tracts were successfully converting the plastic into useful biological compounds. This discovery challenges the assumption that plastics are virtually indestructible in nature and highlights the potential for biological organisms to play a role in breaking down what was once considered permanent waste. While scientists have previously identified bacteria capable of degrading plastics, superworms present an intriguing advantage: they offer a naturally evolved system for breaking down polystyrene efficiently. Instead of relying on slow bacterial breakdown processes in isolation, researchers can now examine how this biological system functions as a whole. By decoding the enzymes and microbial interactions responsible for this digestion, scientists hope to replicate and scale up nature’s own plastic-degrading technology—potentially turning this microscopic marvel into a powerful tool against plastic pollution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E9j3_vWkAI&pp=ygVVU2NpZW50aXN0cyBGb3VuZCDigJxTdXBlcndvcm1z4oCdIFRoYXQgQ2FuIERpZ2VzdCBQbGFzdGljIFVzaW5nIFBvd2VyZnVsIEd1dCBCYWN0ZXJpYQ%3D%3D The Science Behind Superworms’ Plastic Digestion At the heart of the superworm’s ability to digest plastic lies its gut microbiome—a complex community of bacteria working together to break down polystyrene into simpler, biodegradable compounds. Unlike mechanical shredding or chemical treatments that merely fragment plastic into smaller pieces, this process is true digestion, reducing plastic into components that can be further processed by nature. Understanding the biological mechanisms behind this transformation could hold the key to developing new, sustainable methods for plastic waste management. Scientists have identified specific enzymes within the superworm’s digestive system that are responsible for degrading polystyrene. These enzymes break the long-chain polymers of plastic into smaller molecules, which are then further processed by gut bacteria. Some of these microbes convert polystyrene into organic compounds and energy, allowing the worms to not only survive but actually thrive on what was once thought to be an indigestible material. This finding challenges traditional assumptions about plastic degradation and raises intriguing possibilities for harnessing microbial life to solve environmental problems. Research into these gut bacteria is ongoing, with scientists working to isolate and study the most effective plastic-degrading strains. By understanding how these microorganisms function, researchers hope to extract and replicate the enzymes responsible for breaking down plastic. This could lead to the development of bioengineered solutions that mimic the superworm’s digestive process—potentially creating microbial treatments or enzyme-based technologies capable of decomposing plastic waste at an industrial scale. If successful, this could revolutionize how we manage plastic pollution, offering a natural and efficient alternative to landfill accumulation and incineration. Harnessing Nature’s Wisdom: The Potential of Bacterial Enzymes Nature has always been an architect of ingenious solutions, and the superworm’s gut bacteria may be one of its most remarkable yet. While these worms have demonstrated an impressive ability to consume and break down plastic, the real breakthrough lies in their microbial enzymes—the molecular machinery responsible for dismantling polystyrene at a biochemical level. By isolating and harnessing these enzymes, scientists are exploring new ways to accelerate plastic degradation without relying on the worms themselves. The goal is to replicate and scale this natural process in controlled environments. Researchers are studying the most effective bacteria within the superworm’s gut, identifying the specific enzymes that convert polystyrene into usable byproducts. These enzymes, when extracted and optimized, could be used in bioreactors or even sprayed onto plastic waste to break it down far more efficiently than natural decomposition, which can take hundreds of years. Unlike mechanical or chemical methods that generate microplastics as a byproduct, biological degradation offers a cleaner, more sustainable alternative—one that aligns with the way ecosystems naturally recycle organic matter. This discovery is part of a larger trend in biotechnology, where scientists look to the natural world for solutions to human-made problems. From fungi that consume petroleum to bacteria engineered to eat ocean plastic, researchers are increasingly turning to the wisdom of nature to reverse the damage caused by industrial waste. Superworms and their gut microbes are just the latest example of how biology may hold the answers to challenges once considered insurmountable. By studying these natural recyclers, scientists are not only uncovering new methods for breaking down plastic but also gaining deeper insight into the intricate intelligence woven into the fabric of life itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjhgYdbZT5Q&pp=ygVVU2NpZW50aXN0cyBGb3VuZCDigJxTdXBlcndvcm1z4oCdIFRoYXQgQ2FuIERpZ2VzdCBQbGFzdGljIFVzaW5nIFBvd2VyZnVsIEd1dCBCYWN0ZXJpYQ%3D%3D The Intersection of Science and Nature: A Lesson in Biomimicry For centuries, nature has been the ultimate innovator, solving complex problems through evolution and adaptation. The discovery of superworms’ ability to digest plastic is more than just a scientific breakthrough—it is a testament to biomimicry, the practice of learning from nature to develop sustainable solutions. Just as birds inspired flight and spider silk led to advancements in material science, the digestive system of these tiny larvae could hold the blueprint for a revolutionary way to tackle plastic pollution. Biomimicry teaches us that the most effective technologies often already exist in the natural world. Unlike industrial methods of plastic disposal, which rely on incineration, chemical treatments, or landfill accumulation, the biological degradation observed in superworms presents a closed-loop, nature-based solution. By studying how these enzymes break down plastic efficiently, scientists are tapping into a system that has evolved over time—one that does not generate harmful byproducts or rely on non-renewable energy sources. This discovery underscores a larger truth: when humans work with nature rather than against it, sustainable solutions emerge organically. Beyond science, this finding invites a deeper reflection on humanity’s relationship with the planet. If a tiny worm can teach us how to break down one of the most stubborn pollutants on Earth, what other solutions might be hiding in the natural world, waiting to be uncovered? The answers may not lie in creating more artificial fixes, but in observing, understanding, and respecting the intelligence of nature itself. Superworms remind us that the key to solving our biggest environmental challenges may already exist beneath our feet, in places we have yet to explore. When Nature Holds the Key The discovery of superworms’ ability to digest plastic is a powerful reminder that nature often holds the solutions to humanity’s greatest challenges. While polystyrene has long been considered an environmental nightmare, these tiny larvae reveal a hidden biological process capable of breaking down one of the world’s most persistent pollutants. By unlocking the secrets of their gut bacteria, scientists are taking a crucial step toward developing sustainable, nature-inspired methods to combat plastic waste—ones that could transform how we think about recycling and waste management. This breakthrough is not just about worms; it is about redefining the way we approach environmental problems. Instead of relying on destructive methods like incineration or landfill disposal, we have the opportunity to work with nature, replicating its intricate systems to heal the planet. The enzymes in these superworms’ microbiomes could lead to bioengineered solutions capable of accelerating plastic decomposition on an industrial scale, offering hope in the face of an ever-growing plastic crisis. But beyond science, this discovery invites a shift in perspective—one that urges humanity to see nature not as something to exploit but as a wellspring of wisdom. If a tiny worm can break down one of the toughest materials we’ve created, what other overlooked organisms might be holding answers to the problems we struggle to solve? The solutions we seek may not always come from human ingenuity alone but from learning to observe, respect, and collaborate with the intelligence of the natural world. The superworm is a small creature with a big lesson. It reminds us that science and nature are not separate forces but intertwined elements of the same story. As researchers continue to decode the mysteries of these remarkable organisms, one thing is clear: the answers we seek may already exist in nature’s design, waiting for us to pay attention.

# data[].attributes.body
Microplastics are tiny plastic particles (<5 mm) from broken-down plastics or manufactured products (e.g., microbeads). They are a major environmental pollutant, affecting ecosystems and human health.

Relevance to IB Biology Spec Points

1. Ecology:

Food Webs: Ingested by organisms, causing biomagnification in higher trophic levels.

Energy Flow: Reduces energy transfer as organisms consume less food.

Biodiversity: Harms species (e.g., marine life) and disrupts ecosystems.

2. Human Impact:

Pollution: Persist in environments, adsorb toxins, and harm aquatic life.

Bioaccumulation: Accumulate in organisms, posing risks to predators, including humans.

3. Conservation:

Threaten biodiversity (e.g., coral reefs) and require strategies like reducing plastic use and improving waste management.

4. Human Health:

Found in food, water, and air; potential risks include toxicity and endocrine disruption.

5. Biotechnology:

Research into microorganisms/enzymes to degrade microplastics using genetic engineering.

# data[].attributes.body
3.6 billion people already live in areas highly susceptible to climate change: despite contributing minimally to global emissions, low-income countries and small island developing states (SIDS) are particularly susceptible to its impacts

Increasingly frequent extreme weather events (heatwaves, storms and floods), the disruption of food systems, increases in zoonoses and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases

(World Health Organization, 2023)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key facts

Climate change is directly contributing to humanitarian emergencies from heatwaves, wildfires, floods, tropical storms and hurricanes and they are increasing in scale, frequency and intensity.

Research shows that 3.6 billion people already live in areas highly susceptible to climate change. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone.

The direct damage costs to health (excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation) is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion per year by 2030.

Areas with weak health infrastructure - mostly in developing countries - will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.

Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy use choices can result in very large gains for health, particularly through reduced air pollution.

Overview

Climate change presents a fundamental threat to human health. It affects the physical environment as well as all aspects of both natural and human systems - including social and economic conditions and the functioning of health systems. It is therefore a threat multiplier, undermining and potentially reversing decades of health progress. As climatic conditions change, more frequent and intensifying weather and climate events are observed, including storms, extreme heat, floods, droughts and wildfires. These weather and climate hazards affect health both directly and indirectly, increasing the risk of deaths, noncommunicable diseases, the emergence and spread of infectious diseases, and health emergencies.

Climate change is also having an impact on our health workforce and infrastructure, reducing capacity to provide universal health coverage (UHC). More fundamentally, climate shocks and growing stresses such as changing temperature and precipitation patterns, drought, floods and rising sea levels degrade the environmental and social determinants of physical and mental health. All aspects of health are affected by climate change, from clean air, water and soil to food systems and livelihoods. Further delay in tackling climate change will increase health risks, undermine decades of improvements in global health, and contravene our collective commitments to ensure the human right to health for all.

Climate change impacts on health

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) concluded that climate risks are appearing faster and will become more severe sooner than previously expected, and it will be harder to adapt with increased global heating.

It further reveals that 3.6 billion people already live in areas highly susceptible to climate change. Despite contributing minimally to global emissions, low-income countries and small island developing states (SIDS) endure the harshest health impacts. In vulnerable regions, the death rate from extreme weather events in the last decade was 15 times higher than in less vulnerable ones.

Climate change is impacting health in a myriad of ways, including by leading to death and illness from increasingly frequent extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, storms and floods, the disruption of food systems, increases in zoonoses and food-, water- and vector-borne diseases, and mental health issues. Furthermore, climate change is undermining many of the social determinants for good health, such as livelihoods, equality and access to health care and social support structures. These climate-sensitive health risks are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, including women, children, ethnic minorities, poor communities, migrants or displaced persons, older populations, and those with underlying health conditions.
Figure: An overview of climate-sensitive health risks, their exposure pathways and vulnerability factors. Climate change impacts health both directly and indirectly, and is strongly mediated by environmental, social and public health determinants.
Although it is unequivocal that climate change affects human health, it remains challenging to accurately estimate the scale and impact of many climate-sensitive health risks. However, scientific advances progressively allow us to attribute an increase in morbidity and mortality to global warming, and more accurately determine the risks and scale of these health threats.

WHO data indicates 2 billion people lack safe drinking water and 600 million suffer from foodborne illnesses annually, with children under 5 bearing 30% of foodborne fatalities. Climate stressors heighten waterborne and foodborne disease risks. In 2020, 770 million faced hunger, predominantly in Africa and Asia. Climate change affects food availability, quality and diversity, exacerbating food and nutrition crises.

Temperature and precipitation changes enhance the spread of vector-borne diseases. Without preventive actions, deaths from such diseases, currently over 700 000 annually, may rise. Climate change induces both immediate mental health issues, like anxiety and post-traumatic stress, and long-term disorders due to factors like displacement and disrupted social cohesion.

Recent research attributes 37% of heat-related deaths to human-induced climate change. Heat-related deaths among those over 65 have risen by 70% in two decades. In 2020, 98 million more experienced food insecurity compared to the 1981-2010 average. The WHO conservatively projects 250 000 additional yearly deaths by the 2030s due to climate change impacts on diseases like malaria and coastal flooding. However, modelling challenges persist, especially around capturing risks like drought and migration pressures.

The climate crisis threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health and poverty reduction, and to further widen existing health inequalities between and within populations. It severely jeopardizes the realization of UHC in various ways, including by compounding the existing burden of disease and by exacerbating existing barriers to accessing health services, often at the times when they are most needed. Over 930 million people - around 12% of the world's population - spend at least 10% of their household budget to pay for health care. With the poorest people largely uninsured, health shocks and stresses already currently push around 100 million people into poverty every year, with the impacts of climate change worsening this trend.

Climate change and equity

In the short- to medium-term, the health impacts of climate change will be determined mainly by the vulnerability of populations, their resilience to the current rate of climate change and the extent and pace of adaptation. In the longer-term, the effects will increasingly depend on the extent to which transformational action is taken now to reduce emissions and avoid the breaching of dangerous temperature thresholds and potential irreversible tipping points.

While no one is safe from these risks, the people whose health is being harmed first and worst by the climate crisis are the people who contribute least to its causes, and who are least able to protect themselves and their families against it: people in low-income and disadvantaged countries and communities.

Addressing climate change's health burden underscores the equity imperative: those most responsible for emissions should bear the highest mitigation and adaptation costs, emphasizing health equity and vulnerable group prioritization.

Need for urgent action

To avert catastrophic health impacts and prevent millions of climate change-related deaths, the world must limit temperature rise to 1.5°C. Past emissions have already made a certain level of global temperature rise and other changes to the climate inevitable. Global heating of even 1.5°C is not considered safe, however; every additional tenth of a degree of warming will take a serious toll on people's lives and health.

WHO response

WHO's response to these challenges centres around 3 main objectives:

Promote actions that both reduce carbon emissions and improve health: supporting a rapid and equitable transition to a clean energy economy; ensuring that health is central to climate change mitigation policy; accelerating mitigation actions that bring the greatest health gains; and mobilizing the strength of the health community to drive policy change and build public support.

Build better, more climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable health systems: ensuring core services, environmental sustainability and climate resilience as central components of UHC and primary health care (PHC); supporting health systems to leapfrog to cheaper, more reliable and cleaner solutions, while decarbonizing high-emitting health systems; and mainstreaming climate resilience and environmental sustainability into health service investments, including the capacity of the health workforce.

Protect health from the wide range of impacts of climate change: assessing health vulnerabilities and developing health plans; integrating climate risk and implementing climate-informed surveillance and response systems for key risks, such as extreme heat and infectious disease; supporting resilience and adaptation in health-determining sectors such as water and food; and closing the financing gap for health adaptation and resilience.

Leadership and Raising Awareness: WHO leads in emphasizing climate change's health implications, aiming to centralize health in climate policies, including through the UNFCCC. Partnering with major health agencies, health professionals and civil society, WHO strives to embed climate change in health priorities like UHC and target carbon neutrality by 2030.

Evidence and Monitoring: WHO, with its network of global experts, contributes global evidence summaries, provides assistance to nations in their assessments, and monitors progress. The emphasis is on deploying effective policies and enhancing access to knowledge and data.

Capacity Building and Country Support: Through WHO offices, support is given to ministries of health, focusing on collaboration across sectors, updated guidance, hands-on training, and support for project preparation and execution as well as for securing climate and health funding. WHO leads the Alliance for Transformative Action on Climate and Health (ATACH), bringing together a range of health and development partners, to support countries in achieving their commitments to climate-resilient and low carbon health systems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHO fact sheet on climate change and health: provides key facts, patterns of infection, measuring health effects and WHO response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water Cycle | Songs For Kids | Sing Along | GoNoodle

# data[].attributes.body
Carbon Sequestration: The process by which carbon dioxide is captured from the atmosphere and stored in plants, soil, and other natural reservoirs.

Net Carbon Sink: An ecosystem that absorbs more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it releases, helping to reduce greenhouse gases.

(Revision Dojo, 2025b)

Examples: Boreal forests (taiga ecosystems), oceans, rainforests

Tipping points of climate change can shift these from net carbon sinks to net carbon sources

# data[].attributes.body
NASA's data from their missions showing the changes to Earth's ice sheets and rising sea levels

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn where climate change solutions begin and NASA’s role in adaptation and mitigation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Study on the control and mitigation of plastic pollution 

# data[].attributes.subject
Study on the control and mitigation of plastic pollution 

# data[].attributes.body
(1) regulation of production and consumption

(2) eco-design

(3) increasing the demand for recycled plastics

(4) reducing the use of plastics

(5) use of renewable energy for recycling

(6) extended producer responsibility over waste

(7) improvements in waste collection systems

(8) prioritisation of recycling

(9) use of bio-based and biodegradable plastics

(10) improvement in recyclability of e-waste

(Prata et al., 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Solutions and Integrated Strategies for the Control and Mitigation of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution is generated by the unsustainable use and disposal of plastic products in modern society, threatening economies, ecosystems, and human health. Current clean-up strategies have attempted to mitigate the negative effects of plastic…

# data[].attributes.body
Using rewilding to establish wildlife corridors and enhance ecosystem resilience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Mogollon Wildlife Corridor: A Big Step Toward Half Earth Low oblique aerial view of a morning thunderstorm over the Red Rock Secret Mountain Wilderness

# data[].attributes.headline
Positive feedback loop: melting permafrost 

# data[].attributes.subject
Positive feedback loop: melting permafrost 

# data[].attributes.body
Increase in temperatures --> ice melts --> darker surfaces (the ocean) are revealed --> more heat is absorbed --> more ice melts...

# data[].attributes.body
CO2:

1. Burning of Fossil Fuels

Coal, oil, and natural gas

Used in energy production, transportation, and industrial activities

Carbon stored in fossil fuels is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide

E.g.: Power plants, vehicles

2. Deforestation

Trees take in CO2 for photosynthesis

When forests are cleared for agriculture, urban development, or logging, carbon is released back into the atmosphere

E.g.: Clearing of tropical rainforests and savannas like the Amazon and the Cerrado respectively

3. Industrial Processes

Cement production (limestone heated to produce lime), manufacture of steel release CO2 as part of the chemical reactions

MH4:

1. Agriculture

Released during the digestive processes of ruminant animals (like cows, sheep, and goats) through enteric fermentation

Produced in manure management and rice paddies.

E.g.: Decomposition of manure stored in lagoons

2. Landfills

Decomposition of organic waste such as food, paper, and yard clippings

Breaks down anaerobically to produce methane

3. Fossil Fuel Extraction and Transport

Extraction, processing, and transportation of natural gas and oil.

Leaks in infrastructure or the flaring of gas during extraction processes.

E.g.: Fracking, and pipeline leakages

*Methane is less abundant than CO2, it is approximately 25 times more effective at trapping heat long-term

(Revision Dojo, 2025a)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Tragedy Of Deforestation | Climate Change: The Facts | BBC Earth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five climate change solutions under the spotlight at COP28

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world is well off track to limit warming to 1.5C, but there have been some encouraging steps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
(Scripps Institution Of Oceanography, 2023)

# data[].attributes.headline
Keeling curve - CO2 observations at Mauna Loa 

# data[].attributes.subject
Keeling curve - CO2 observations at Mauna Loa 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Easily create surveys and polls to collect customer feedback, measure employee satisfaction, and organize team events.

# data[].attributes.headline
Role of greenhouse gases in climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
Role of greenhouse gases in climate change

# data[].attributes.body
Graph shows increase in greenhouse gases after the industrial revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On This Page:

Earth's temperature is a balancing act

Earth's temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet's system. When incoming energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth system, Earth warms. When the sun's energy is reflected back into space, Earth avoids warming. When absorbed energy is released back into space, Earth cools. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth's energy balance, including:

These factors have caused Earth's climate to change many times.

Scientists have pieced together a record of Earth's climate, dating back hundreds of thousands of years (and, in some cases, millions or hundreds of millions of years), by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in Earth's orbit around the sun.

This record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20 th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.

The greenhouse effect causes the atmosphere to retain heat

When sunlight reaches Earth's surface, it can either be reflected back into space or absorbed by Earth. Once absorbed, the planet releases some of the energy back into the atmosphere as heat (also called infrared radiation). Greenhouse gases like water vapor (H ₂O), carbon dioxide (CO ₂), and methane (CH ₄) absorb energy, slowing or preventing the loss of heat to space. In this way, GHGs act like a blanket, making Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. This process is commonly known as the "greenhouse effect."

The role of the greenhouse effect in the past

Over the last several hundred thousand years, CO ₂ levels varied in tandem with the glacial cycles. During warm "interglacial" periods, CO ₂ levels were higher. During cool "glacial" periods, CO ₂ levels were lower. The heating or cooling of Earth's surface and oceans can cause changes in the natural sources and sinks of these gases, and thus change greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. These changing concentrations are thought to have acted as a positive feedback, amplifying the temperature changes caused by long-term shifts in Earth's orbit.

The recent role of the greenhouse effect

Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO ₂ and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth's surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

The main greenhouse gases

The most important GHGs directly emitted by humans include carbon dioxide (CO ₂), methane (CH ₄), nitrous oxide (N ₂ O), and several others. The sources and recent trends of these gases are detailed below.

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change. CO ₂ is absorbed and emitted naturally as part of the carbon cycle, through plant and animal respiration, volcanic eruptions, and ocean-atmosphere exchange. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, release large amounts of CO ₂, causing concentrations in the atmosphere to rise.

Atmospheric CO ₂ concentrations have increased by more than 40% since pre-industrial times, from approximately 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in the 18th century to over 400 ppmv in 2015. The monthly average concentration at Mauna Loa now exceeds 400 ppmv for the first time in human history. The current CO ₂ level is higher than it has been in at least 800,000 years.

Some volcanic eruptions released large quantities of CO ₂ in the distant past. However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports that human activities now emit more than 135 times as much CO ₂ as volcanoes each year.

Human activities currently release over 30 billion tons of CO ₂ into the atmosphere every year. The resultant build-up of CO ₂ in the atmosphere is like a tub filling with water, where more water flows from the faucet than the drain can take away.

For more information on the human and natural sources and sinks of CO ₂ emissions, and actions that can reduce emissions, see the Carbon Dioxide page in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions website.

Methane is produced through both natural and human activities. For example, natural wetlands, agricultural activities, and fossil fuel extraction and transport all emit CH ₄.

Methane is more abundant in Earth's atmosphere now than at any time in at least the past 800,000 years. Due to human activities, CH 4 concentrations increased sharply during most of the 20th century and are now more than two-and-a-half times pre-industrial levels. In recent decades, the rate of increase has slowed considerably.

For more information on CH ₄ emissions and sources, and actions that can reduce emissions, see EPA's Methane page in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions website. For information on how methane is impacting the Arctic, see the EPA report Methane and Black Carbon Impacts on the Arctic.

Nitrous oxide

Nitrous oxide is produced through natural and human activities, mainly through agricultural activities and natural biological processes. Fuel burning and some other processes also create N ₂O. Concentrations of N ₂ O have risen approximately 20% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, with a relatively rapid increase toward the end of the 20th century.

Overall, N ₂O concentrations have increased more rapidly during the past century than at any time in the past 22,000 years. For more information on N ₂O emissions and sources, and actions that can reduce emissions, see EPA's Nitrous Oxide page in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions website.

Other greenhouse gases

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and also the most important in terms of its contribution to the natural greenhouse effect, despite having a short atmospheric lifetime. Some human activities can influence local water vapor levels. However, on a global scale, the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature, which influences overall rates of evaporation and precipitation. Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.

Tropospheric , which also has a short atmospheric lifetime, is a potent greenhouse gas. Chemical reactions create ozone from emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from automobiles, power plants, and other industrial and commercial sources in the presence of sunlight. In addition to trapping heat, ground-level ozone is a pollutant that can cause respiratory health problems and damage crops and ecosystems.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆), together called F-gases, are often used in coolants, foaming agents, fire extinguishers, solvents, pesticides, and aerosol propellants. Unlike water vapor and ozone, these F-gases have a long atmospheric lifetime, and some of these emissions will affect the climate for many decades or centuries.

For more information on greenhouse gas emissions, see the Greenhouse Gas Emissions website, including an expanded discussion of global warming potentials and how they are used to measure the relative strengths of greenhouse gases. To learn more about actions that can reduce these emissions, see What You Can Do.

Other climate forcers

Particles and aerosols in the atmosphere can also affect climate. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels and biomass contribute to emissions of these substances, although some aerosols also come from natural sources such as volcanoes and marine plankton.

Black carbon (BC) is a solid particle or aerosol, not a gas, but it also contributes to warming of the atmosphere. Unlike GHGs, BC can directly absorb incoming and reflected sunlight in addition to absorbing infrared radiation. BC can also be deposited on snow and ice, darkening the surface and thereby increasing the snow's absorption of sunlight and accelerating melt. For information on how BC is impacting the Arctic, see EPA assessment Methane and Black Carbon Impacts on the Arctic.

Sulfates, organic carbon, and other aerosols can cause cooling by reflecting sunlight.

Warming and cooling aerosols can interact with clouds, changing a number of cloud attributes such as their formation, dissipation, reflectivity, and precipitation rates. Clouds can contribute both to cooling, by reflecting sunlight, and warming, by trapping outgoing heat.

For more information on greenhouse gas emissions, see the Greenhouse Gas Emissions website. To learn more about actions that can reduce these emissions, see What EPA is Doing and What You Can Do.

Changes in the sun's energy affect how much energy reaches Earth's system

Climate is influenced by natural changes that affect how much solar energy reaches Earth. These changes include changes within the sun and changes in Earth's orbit.

Changes occurring in the sun itself can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (during periods of stronger solar intensity) or cooling (during periods of weaker solar intensity). The sun follows a natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs in intensity, but the effect on Earth's climate is small.

Changes in the shape of Earth's orbit as well as the tilt and position of Earth's axis can also affect the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface.

The role of the sun's energy in the past

Changes in the sun's intensity have influenced Earth's climate in the past. For example, the so-called "Little Ice Age" between the 17th and 19th centuries may have been partially caused by a low solar activity phase from 1645 to 1715, which coincided with cooler temperatures. The "Little Ice Age" refers to a slight cooling of North America, Europe, and probably other areas around the globe.

Changes in Earth's orbit have had a big impact on climate over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, the amount of summer sunshine on the Northern Hemisphere, which is affected by changes in the planet's orbit, appears to drive the advance and retreat of ice sheets. These changes appear to be the primary cause of past cycles of ice ages, in which Earth has experienced long periods of cold temperatures (ice ages), as well as shorter interglacial periods (periods between ice ages) of relatively warmer temperatures.

Rates of Climate Change Have Varied Over Time

Click to learn about how rates of climate change have varied over time.

The recent role of the sun's energy

Changes in solar energy continue to affect climate. However, over the last 11-year solar cycle, solar output has been lower than it has been since the mid-20 th century, and therefore does not explain the recent warming of the earth. Similarly, changes in the shape of Earth's orbit as well as the tilt and position of Earth's axis affect temperature on very long timescales (tens to hundreds of thousands of years), and therefore cannot explain the recent warming.

Changes in reflectivity affect how much energy enters Earth's system

When sunlight reaches Earth, it can be reflected or absorbed. The amount that is reflected or absorbed depends on Earth's surface and atmosphere. Light-colored objects and surfaces, like snow and clouds, tend to reflect most sunlight, while darker objects and surfaces, like the ocean, forests, or soil, tend to absorb more sunlight.

The term albedo refers to the amount of solar radiation reflected from an object or surface, often expressed as a percentage. Earth as a whole has an albedo of about 30%, meaning that 70% of the sunlight that reaches the planet is absorbed. Absorbed sunlight warms Earth's land, water, and atmosphere.

Reflectivity is also affected by aerosols. Aerosols are small particles or liquid droplets in the atmosphere that can absorb or reflect sunlight. Unlike greenhouse gases, the climate effects of aerosols vary depending on what they are made of and where they are emitted. Those aerosols that reflect sunlight, such as particles from volcanic eruptions or sulfur emissions from burning coal, have a cooling effect. Those that absorb sunlight, such as black carbon (a part of soot), have a warming effect.

The role of reflectivity in the past

Natural changes in reflectivity, like the melting of sea ice, have contributed to climate change in the past, often acting as feedbacks to other processes.

Volcanoes have played a noticeable role in climate. Volcanic particles that reach the upper atmosphere can reflect enough sunlight back to space to cool the surface of the planet by a few tenths of a degree for several years. These particles are an example of cooling aerosols. Volcanic particles from a single eruption do not produce long-term change because they remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than GHGs.

The recent role of reflectivity

Human changes in land use and land cover have changed Earth's reflectivity. Processes such as deforestation, reforestation, desertification, and urbanization often contribute to changes in climate in the places they occur. These effects may be significant regionally, but are smaller when averaged over the entire globe.

In addition, human activities have generally increased the number of aerosol particles in the atmosphere. Overall, human-generated aerosols have a net cooling effect offsetting about one-third of the total warming effect associated with human greenhouse gas emissions. Reductions in overall aerosol emissions can therefore lead to more warming. However, targeted reductions in black carbon emissions can reduce warming.

References:
[1] USGCRP (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. [Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds.] U.S. Global Change Research Program. [2] IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [3] NRC (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Changes . National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earth's temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet's system. When incoming energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth system, Earth warms. When the sun's energy is reflected back into space, Earth avoids warming. When absorbed energy is released back into space, Earth cools.