Individual action on climate change

Individual action on climate change can include personal choices in many areas, such as diet, travel, household energy use, consumption of goods and services, and family size. Individuals can also engage in local and political advocacy around issues of climate change. People who wish to reduce their carbon footprint (particularly those in high income countries with high consumption lifestyles), can take "high-impact" actions, such as avoiding frequent flying and petrol fuelled cars, eating mainly a plant-based diet, having fewer children,[1][2] using clothes and electrical products for longer,[3] and electrifying homes.[4] Avoiding meat and dairy foods has been called "the single biggest way" an individual can reduce their environmental impact.[5] Excessive consumption is more to blame for climate change than population increase.[6] High consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact, with the richest 10% of people emitting about half the total lifestyle emissions.[7][8]

A demonstrator at the People's Climate March (2017)

Some commentators have argued that individual actions as consumers and "greening personal lives" are insignificant in comparison to collective action.[9] Others say that individual action leads to collective action, and emphasize that "research on social behavior suggests lifestyle change can build momentum for systemic change."[10] According to respondents to a 2022 survey, climate change is the second most pressing issue confronting Europeans. Over three-quarters of respondents (72%) believe that their individual actions can make a difference in tackling the climate issue.[11]

Suggested individual target amount
Part of a series on
Climate change and
society
Effects · Risk
Economics · Finance
Social issues · Ethics
Communication
Politics
Emissions of the richest 1% are more than twice that of the poorest 50%.[12] Compliance with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal would require the richest 1% to reduce emissions by at least 30 times, while per-person emissions of the poorest 50% could approximately triple.[12]
Though total CO2 emissions (size of pie charts) differ substantially among high-emitting regions, the pattern of higher income classes emitting more than lower income classes is consistent across regions.[13] The world’s top 1% of emitters emit over 1000 times more than the bottom 1%.[13]
Scaling the effect of wealth to the national level: richer (developed) countries emit more CO2 per person than poorer (developing) countries.[14] Emissions are roughly proportional to GDP per person, though the rate of increase diminishes with average GDP/pp of about $10,000.
See also: Climate change mitigation and Greenhouse gas emissions

As of 2021 the remaining carbon budget for a 50-50 chance of staying below 1.5 degrees of warming is 460 bn tonnes of CO2 or 11+1⁄2 years at 2020 emission rates.[15] Global average greenhouse gas per person per year in the late 2010s was about 7 tonnes[16] - including 0.7 tonnes CO2eq food, 1.1 tonnes from the home, and 0.8 tonnes from transport.[17] Of this about 5 tonnes was actual carbon dioxide.[18] To meet the Paris Agreement target of under 1.5 degrees warming by the end of the century, it is estimated that the annual carbon footprint per person required by 2030 is 2.3 tonnes.[19] As of 2020 the average Indian almost meets this target,[20] the average person in France[21] or China overshoots it, and the average person in the US and Australia vastly overshoots it. Per capita emissions also vary significantly within countries, with wealthier individuals creating more emissions.[22][23] A 2015 Oxfam report calculated that the wealthiest 10% of the global population were responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions.[24] According to a 2021 report by the UN, the wealthiest 5% contributed nearly 40% of emissions growth from 1990 to 2015.[25]

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report pointed out in 2022: "To enhance well-being, people demand services and not primary energy and physical resources per se. Focusing on demand for services and the different social and political roles people play broadens the participation in climate action."[26]: TS-98  The report explains that behavior, lifestyle, and cultural change have a high climate change mitigation potential in some sectors, particularly when complementing technological and structural change.[27]: 5–3 

Meaning of "lifestyle carbon footprint"
Further information: Carbon footprint

The carbon footprint was originally coined & popularized by the ad campaign Beyond Petroleum in 2004-2006, funded by British Petroleum (BP), for which other have accused them of popularizing to downplay their own culpability.[28][29]

A vast majority of people surveyed for the European Investment Bank Climate Survey say they are making efforts to reduce their contribution to climate change, but few are making radical lifestyle changes.

In 2008 the World Health Organization wrote that "Your 'carbon footprint' is a measure of the impact your activities have on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced through the burning of fossil fuels".[30] In 2019 the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in Japan defined "lifestyle carbon footprint" as "GHG emissions directly emitted and indirectly induced from the final consumption of households, excluding those induced by government consumption and capital formation such as infrastructure."[31]: v  However an Oxfam and SEI study in 2020 estimated per capita CO2 emissions rather than CO2-equivalent, and allocated all consumption emissions to individuals rather than just household consumption.[32] According to a 2020 review many academic studies do not properly explain the scope of the "personal carbon footprint" they study.[33]

Travel and commuting
See also: Car § Environmental impact, and Greenhouse gas emissions § Transport of people and goods

A comparison of travel options shows:

Walking and biking

Walking and biking emit little to no greenhouse gases and are healthy alternatives to driving or riding public transportation.[35] There are also increasing numbers of bike-sharing services in urban environments.[36] An individual can rent a bike for a period of time, reducing the financial burden of buying a personal bike and its associated environmental impact.[36]

Public transport

Reliable public transportation is one of the most viable alternatives to driving personal vehicles. While there are efficiency problems associated with public transportation (waiting times, missed transfers, unreliable schedules, energy consumption), they can be improved as funding and public interest increases and technology advances.[37] A case study from Auckland, New Zealand found that the global warming potential (GWP) of a bus system decreased by 5.6% when a system used increased efficiency methods compared to a system with no controls implemented.[37] In the early 21st century perception towards climate change influenced some people in rich countries to change their travel lifestyle.[38]

A 2022 survey found that 33% of car buyers in Europe will opt for a petrol or diesel car when purchasing a new vehicle. 67% of the respondents mentioned opting for the hybrid or electric version.[39][40] More specifically, it found that electric cars are only preferred by 28% of Europeans, making them the least preferred type of vehicle. 39% of Europeans tend to prefer hybrid vehicles, while 33% prefer petrol or diesel vehicles.[39][41] In the EU, only 13% of the total population do not plan on owning a vehicle at all.[39]

44% Chinese car buyers, on the other hand, are the most likely to buy an electric car, while 38% of Americans would opt for a hybrid car. 33% would prefer petrol or diesel, while only 29% would go for an electric car.[39][42]


Electric cars
Battery electric bus

There are many options to choose from when considering alternatives to personal car use, but the use of a personal vehicle may be necessary due to location and accessibility reasons.[43] The life cycle assessment of a vehicle evaluates the environmental impact of the production of the vehicle and its spare parts, the fuel consumption of the vehicle, and what happens to the vehicle at the end of its lifespan.[44] These environmental impacts can be measured in greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste produced, and consumption of energy resources among other factors.[45][44] Increasingly common alternatives to internal-combustion engines vehicles are electric vehicles (EVs), and hybrid-electric vehicles.[46] Electric cars emit less than gasoline cars.[47]

Some other alternatives to reducing emissions while driving a personal vehicle are planning out trips beforehand so they follow the shortest route and/or the route with the least amount of traffic.[48] Following a route with less traffic can reduce idling and waste less fuel.

Carpooling and ride-sharing services
Respondents to a climate survey, in favour of lowering speed limits on motorways.

Carpooling and ride-sharing services are also alternatives to personal transportation. Carpooling reduces the number of cars on the road, in turn reducing the amount of traffic and energy consumption. A 2009 study estimated that 7.2 million tons of green-house gas emissions could be avoided if one out of 100 vehicles carried one extra passenger.[49] Ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft could be viable options for transportation, but according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ride-share service trips currently result in an estimated 69% increase in climate pollution on average.[50] More pollution is generated as the amount of time and energy a ride-share driver spends between customers with no passengers increases.[50] There are also more vehicles on the road as a result of passengers who would have otherwise taken public transportation, walked, or biked to their destination.[50] Ride-sharing services can reduce emissions if they implement strategies like electrifying vehicles and increase carpooling trips.[50] In some cities, there are car-sharing services where the user can gain short-term access to a vehicle when other options are not available.[51]

Air transport
See also: Environmental impact of aviation

Air travel is one of the most emission-intensive modes of transportation.[52] The current most effective way to reduce personal emissions from air travel is to fly less.[53][54] New technologies are being developed to allow for more efficient fuel consumption and planes powered by electricity.[54]

Avoiding air travel and particularly frequent flyer programs[55] has a high benefit because the convenience makes frequent, long-distance travel easy, and high-altitude emissions are more potent for the climate than the same emissions made at ground level. Aviation is much more difficult to fix technically than surface transport,[56] so will need more individual action in future if the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation cannot be made to work properly.[57]

Flying is responsible for 5 percent of global warming.[58] Compared to longer flight routes, shorter flights actually produce larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions per passenger they carry and mile covered, so individuals may consider train travel instead but this can be more expensive due to aviation subsidies.[59] Airplanes contribute to damaging our environment since airplanes cause greater air pollution as they release carbon dioxide along with nitrogen oxides, which is an atmospheric pollutant. Tailpipe emissions lead to changes in the amounts of the greenhouse gases ozone and methane.[60] Avoiding night-flights may help, as contrails may account for over half of aviation's climate change impact.[61]

Climate change is a factor that 67% of Europeans consider when choosing where to go on holiday. 52% of Europeans, specifically 37% of people ages 30–64 and 25% of people aged above 65, state that in 2022 they will choose to travel by plane. 27% of young people claim they will travel to a faraway destination. More specifically, people under the age of 30 are more likely to consider climate implications of vacation spots and air travel.[62][63]

Home energy and landscaping
Solar panels on roof of a home to generate energy from a renewable energy source.

Reducing home energy use through measures such as insulation, better energy efficiency of appliances, cool roofs, heat reflective paints,[64] lowering water heater temperature, and improving heating and cooling efficiency can significantly reduce an individual's carbon footprint.[65] After home insulation and ventilation has been checked, replacing a failed gas boiler with a heat pump can be considered, especially in climates where both heating and cooling are required.[66]

In addition, the choice of energy used to heat, cool, and power homes makes a difference in the carbon footprint of individual homes.[67] Many energy suppliers in various countries worldwide have options to purchase part or pure "green energy" (usually electricity but occasionally also gas).[68] These methods of energy production emit almost no greenhouse gases once they are up and running.

Installing rooftop solar, both on a household and community scale, also drastically reduces household emissions, and at scale could be a major contributor to greenhouse gas abatement.[69][70]

Low energy products and consumption
Survey showing that heating, air conditioning and daily mobility are the areas where people believe their individual actions can have the greatest impact on reducing their carbon footprint. [71]

Labels, such as Energy Star in the US, can be seen on many household appliances, home electronics, office equipment, heating and cooling equipment, windows, residential light fixtures, and other products. Energy star is a program in the U.S. that promotes energy efficiency. When buying air conditioning the choice of coolant is important.[72]

Carbon emission labels describe the carbon dioxide emissions created as a by-product of manufacturing, transporting, or disposing of a consumer product. Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) "present transparent, verified and comparable information about the life-cycle environmental impact of products."[73] These labels may help consumers choose lower energy products.

Converting appliances such as stoves, water heaters and furnaces from gas to electric reduces emissions of CO2 and methane.[74]

Landscape and gardens

Plants process carbon dioxide to make organic molecules like cellulose, sugars, starches, plant proteins, and oils. Perennials keep a large proportion of those organic molecules for as long as they live, not releasing them until microorganisms decompose them after they die. Perennial plants like trees and shrubs contribute to the absorption of carbon dioxide from the air.[75][76]

Annual plants that die each year release almost all of the CO2 that they take in. Grass lawns that live over the winter but die back above ground can also soak up a share of carbon dioxide, reducing that greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, both organic and synthetic fertilizers are sources of NOx, and turfgrass lawns use 3 million tons of nitrogen-based fertilizer each year. That adds four to five tons of carbon to the atmosphere for every ton of nitrogen (660,000 tons of carbon dioxide/year). NOx is about 300 times more heat-absorbing than carbon dioxide.[77][78]

Soil microbes break down organic carbon into carbon dioxide. Reducing irrigation would slow the microbial activity of the soil and its production of carbon dioxide.[79] However, increased irrigation is required for lawn maintenance in areas that are becoming more arid due to climate change.

Turf grass lawns require herbicides that reduce ecological diversity while also polluting air, soil, and land.[80] Gas-powered lawnmowers and other power tools used for lawn maintenance produce carbon dioxide and methane, which are greenhouse gases.[81]

Lawns management methods like fertilizers and fossil fuel-powered lawn equipment may outweigh any carbon sequestration from the perennial grass lawn.[82] Reducing irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer, chemical pesticides, and using hand tools instead of power tools that use fossil fuels can all reduce the climate impact of lawns.[83]

Natural lawns promote pollination, require no fertilization, require less frequent mowing, promote diversity, and use less water.[84] There are many opportunities to plant trees and shrubs in the yard, along roads, in parks, and in public gardens. In addition, some charities plant fast-growing trees to help people in places with less tree coverage to restore the productivity of their lands.[85]

Individuals can also plant home vegetable gardens that provide locally grown food, native plant gardens that provide a diversity of species, and perennial trees and

European and American respondents to a survey in 2022 are found the most willing to change heating and cooling habits, while Chinese people are more willing to change everyday mobility habits. [86]

shrubs that develop sustainable carbon sequestration.[87]

Laundry and choice of clothing

Hanging laundry to dry saves energy that would have been used for heating, reducing clothing's carbon footprint.[88][89][90][91] Additionally, using a shorter, cold water wash cycle can conserve energy by as much as 66%.[92]

Purchasing well-made, durable clothing, and avoiding "fast fashion" is critical for reducing climate impact.[93][94][95] Some clothing is donated and/or recycled, meanwhile, the rest of the waste heads to landfills where they release "greenhouse gases".[96]

Hot water consumption

Domestic heated water using non-renewable resources such as gas contributes to significant global carbon dioxide emissions. As of 2020, most homes use gas or electric boilers to heat their water. Powering these boilers with renewable energy would reduce these emissions, although the cost of installation means this is not a universally viable option.[97] Turning off the water heater and using unheated water for laundry, bathing (weather permitting), dishes, and cleaning eliminates those emissions.

Demand reduction
See also: Climate change mitigation § Demand reduction

Less consumption of goods and services
Support for a ban on some products, sustainable consumption education and better recycling in the 2020–21 European Investment Bank Climate Survey

The production of many goods and services results in the emission of greenhouse gases as well as pollution. One way for individuals to decrease their environmental footprint is by consuming less goods and services. Decreasing the consumption of goods and services results in a lower demand, and lower supply (production) follows.[98] Individuals can prioritize shrinking the consumption of those goods and services whose production results in relatively high pollution levels. Individuals can also prioritize discontinuing the use of those goods and services that offer little to no real utility by "speaking with their money", since unpopular products neither satisfy consumer wants/needs nor the environment's; however, government subsidies may prove "boycott buying" to be futile in some cases, enabling the producer.[99][100][101]

A climate survey found that in 2021 42% of Europeans, specifically 48% of women and 34% of men, already invest in second-hand clothing rather than buying new ones. Populations aged 15 to 29, are found more likely to do so.[102][103] Education on sustainable consumption, specifically targeting children, is seen as a priority by 93% of Chinese citizens, 92% of EU, 88% of British citizens and 81% of Americans.[104][105]

The National Geographic Society has concluded that city dwellers can help with climate change if they (or we) simply "buy less stuff."[106]

Lloyd Alter suggests that one way to get a practical sense of embodied carbon is to ask, "How much does your household weigh?"[107]

For-profit companies usually promote and market their products as useful or needed to potential consumers, even when they in reality are harmful or wasteful to them and/or the environment. Individuals should be diligent in self-assessing and/or researching whether or not each product they purchase and consume is really of value to decrease consumption. If a gas stove or other type of stove needs to be replaced in a new house, then an electric stove is preferable. However, as cooking is usually a small part of household GHG emissions, it is generally not worth changing a stove simply for climate reasons.[108]

Using durable reusable containers such as lunchboxes, "single-use" grocery and produce bags (can be used as light-duty trash bags), Tupperware, as well as buying local produce, minimally packaged foods and general items, all reduce carbon emissions and pollution from the production of single use containers and packaging. These tactics mitigate GHG production by reducing demand for extra packaging and shipping of products.[109][110]

Low-carbon diet
Main article: Low-carbon diet
Example of a low-carbon dish: Vegan pho ingredients
See also: Environmental impact of meat production and Veganism § Environmental veganism

The world's food system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming greenhouse gases that humans generate each year[111] with the livestock sector alone contributing 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.[112] The 2019 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, endorsed by over 11,000 scientists from more than 150 countries, stated that "eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products, especially ruminant livestock, can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions."[1] The most common ruminant livestock are cattle and sheep.

Agriculture is very difficult to fix technically so will need more individual action[113] or carbon offsetting than all other sectors except perhaps aviation.[56]

Eating less meat, especially beef and lamb, reduces emissions.[114] A diet which is part of individual action on climate change is also good for health, averaging less than 15g (about half an ounce) of red meat and 250g dairy (about one glass of milk) per day.[115] The World Health Organization recommends trans-fats make up less than 1% of total energy intake: ruminant trans-fats are found in beef, lamb, milk and cheese.[116] In 2019, the IPCC released a summary of the 2019 special report which asserted that a shift towards plant-based diets would help to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Ecologist Hans-Otto Pörtner, who contributed to the report, said "We don't want to tell people what to eat, but it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect."[117]

Meats such as beef have a higher climate impact since cows release methane, a greenhouse gas that is more harmful in the short-term than carbon dioxide.[118]

Eating a plant-rich diet is listed as the #4 solution for climate change as modeled by Project Drawdown, based on avoided emissions from the production of animals and avoided emissions from additional deforestation for grazing land.[119]

A 2018 study indicated that one fifth of Americans are responsible for about half of the country's diet-related carbon emissions, due mostly to eating high levels of meat, especially beef.[120][121]

A 2022 study published in Nature Food found that if high-income nations switched to a plant-based diet, vast amounts of land used for animal agriculture could be allowed to return to their natural state, which in turn has the potential to sequester 100 billion tons of CO2 by 2100. In addition to mitigating climate change, other benefits of this transition would include improved water quality, restoration of biodiversity, and reductions in air pollution.[122][123]

A 2022 survey found that 62% of Europeans say they would be ready to pay somewhat more for food produced locally and sustainably - similar to Americans, at 60%, but 21% lower than Chinese respondents, at 83%. All income categories indicated being prepared to spend extra for food (60% of lower-income respondents, 61% of middle-income respondents, and 65% of higher-income respondents).[124]

Slightly over half of Europeans (51%) support reducing the amount of meat and dairy products people may buy to combat climate change (11% more than Americans, who support it at 40%, but far lower than Chinese people, who support it at 73%).[124]

A survey in 2022 found that to assist individuals make more sustainable food decisions, 79% of Europeans support labelling all food with their climate footprint (Americans support it at 62%, but Chinese respondents support it at 88%).[125] 62% of Europeans surveyed claim they would be willing to pay more for sustainable food.[125]

A 2023 paper published in Nature Food found that vegan diets reduce emissions, water pollution and land use by 75%, while also significantly reducing the destruction of wildlife and water usage.[126]

Family size
See also: Voluntary childlessness and Human population planning

Worldwide population growth is considered as a challenge for climate change mitigation.[127] Proposed measures include an improved access to family planning and access of women to education and economic opportunities.[128][129][130] Targeting natalistic politics involves cultural, ethical and societal issues. Various religions discourage or prohibit some or all forms of birth control.[131] Although having fewer children is arguably the individual action that most effectively reduces a person's climate impact, the issue is rarely raised, and it is arguably controversial due to its private nature. Even so, ethicists,[132][133] some politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,[134] and others[135][136][137][138] have started discussing the climate implications associated with reproduction. Researchers have found that some people (in wealthy countries) are having fewer children due to their beliefs that they can do more to slow climate change if they do not have children.[139]

An April 2020 study published in PLOS One found that, among two-adult Swedish households, those with children increased carbon emission in two ways, by adding to the population and by increasing their own carbon emissions by consuming greater quantities of meat and gasoline for transportation than their counterparts without children; an increase of some 25% more than the latter. According to one of the contributors to the study, University of Wyoming economist Linda Thunstrom, "If we're finding these results in Sweden, it's pretty safe to assume that the disparity in carbon footprints between parents and non-parents is even bigger in most other Western countries."[140]

Two interrelated aspects of this action, family planning and women and girl's education, are modeled by Project Drawdown as the #6 and #7 top potential solutions for climate change, based on the ability of family planning and education to reduce the growth of the overall global population.[141][142] In 2019, a warning on climate change signed by 11,000 scientists from 153 nations said that human population growth adds 80 million humans annually, and "the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity" to reduce the impact of "population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss." The policies they promote, which "are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates," would include removing barriers to gender equality, especially in education, and ensuring family planning services are available to all.[143][144]

In a 2021 paper it was said that "human population has been mostly ignored with regard to climate policy" and attribute this to the taboo nature of the issue given its association with population policies of the past, including forced sterilization campaigns and China's one-child policy. They take a different approach and argue that population policies can both advance social justice (such as by abolishing child marriage, expanding family planning services and reforms that improve education for women and girls) while at the same time mitigating the human impact on the climate and the earth system. They say that while overconsumption by the world's wealthy is responsible for 90% of GHG emissions, which can be redressed through eco-taxes, carbon pricing and other policies, the global human population of 7.7 billion contributes to climate change in many ways, including the consumption of natural resources and GHG emissions from transportation.[145][146] In 2022, a group of scientists urged families around the world to have no more than one child as part of the transformative changes needed to mitigate both climate change and biodiversity loss.[2]

However, older populations are sometimes less concerned about climate change.[147][148] Because climate change needs to be limited within the next few decades, having fewer children now might not make much difference.[149]

Others

Personal finance
Further information: Cryptocurrency § Environmental effects

Individuals can check whether the financial companies they are using are part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero,[150] and consider switching pensions, insurance and investments.[151]

Cryptocurrencies
Further information: Cryptocurrency § Environmental effects

Cryptocurrencies which are made by proof-of-work such as Bitcoin, are high carbon both because they use dirty electricity, such as electricity from Kazakhstan (some electricity in the United States used for Bitcoin mining is also dirty[152] but the gas might be burned anyway[153]) and because cryptocurrency mining uses hardware for only a short time before it becomes ewaste.[154][155] Individuals with such cryptocurrency can switch to proof of stake crypto such as Tezos or ethereum.[156]

Digital services
Further information: Streaming media § Greenhouse gas emissions, and Data center § Greenhouse gas emissions

Political advocacy
See also: climate movement
Country breakdown for people responding to the question "Do you think your own behavior can make a difference in tackling climate change?"


Impactful ways in the area of political advocacy that an individual can take include:[157] individual citizen participation in groups advocating for collective action in the form of political solutions, such as carbon pricing, meat pricing,[158] ending subsidies for fossil fuels[159] and animal husbandry,[160] and ending laws encouraging car use.[161]

Activist movements
Main article: Climate movement
Degrees of concern about the effects of climate change vary with political affiliation.[162]
Special Fossil of the Day Message to Japan

Climate change is a prevalent issue in many societies.[163] Some believe that some of the long-term negative effects of climate change can be ameliorated through individual and community actions to reduce resource consumption. Thus, many environmental advocacy organizations associated with the climate movement (such as the Earth Day Network) focus on encouraging such individual conservation and grassroots organizing around environmental issues.[164][165]

Many environmental, economic, and social issues find common ground in mitigation of climate change.[166][167] In the United States Citizens' Climate Lobby provides climate change solutions through bipartisan and national policy which aims to set a price on carbon at the national level.

To raise awareness of climate issues, activists organized a series of international labor and school strikes in late September 2019,[168] with estimates of total participants ranging between 6 and 7.3 million.[169][170]

A number of groups from around the world have come together to work on the issue of global warming. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from diverse fields of work have united on this issue. A coalition of 50 NGOs called Stop Climate Chaos launched in Britain in 2005 to highlight the issue of climate change.

The Campaign against Climate Change was created to focus purely on the issue of climate change and to pressure governments into action by building a protest movement of sufficient magnitude to effect political change.

Critical Mass is an event typically held on the last Friday of every month in various cities around the world wherein bicyclists and, less frequently, unicyclists, skateboarders, inline skaters, roller skaters and other self-propelled commuters take to the streets en masse. While the ride was founded in San Francisco with the idea of drawing attention to how unfriendly the city was to bicyclists, the leaderless structure of Critical Mass makes it impossible to assign it any one specific goal. In fact, the purpose of Critical Mass is not formalized beyond the direct action of meeting at a set location and time and traveling as a group through city or town streets.

One of the elements of the Occupy movement is global warming action.

Following environmentalist Bill McKibben's mantra that "if it's wrong to wreck the climate, it's wrong to profit from that wreckage,[171]" fossil fuel divestment campaigns attempt to get public institutions, such as universities and churches, to remove investment assets from fossil fuel companies. By December 2016, a total of 688 institutions and over 58,000 individuals representing $5.5 trillion in assets worldwide had been divested from fossil fuels.[172][173]

Groups such as NextGen America and Climate Hawks Vote are working in the United States to elect officials who will make action on climate change a high priority.

On 20 July 2020, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who was awarded a Portuguese rights award, pledged to donate the Gulbenkian Prize money of 1 million euros to organizations focused on the environment and climate change.[174]

A 2023 review study published in One Earth stated that opinion polls show that most people perceive climate change as occurring now and close by.[175] The study concluded that seeing climate change as more distant does not necessarily result in less climate action, and reducing psychological distancing does not reliably increase climate action.[175]

Reform of subsidies and taxes
See also: Energy subsidy § Impact of fossil fuel subsidies

Political advocacy can focus on removing those fossil fuel and other subsidies, and taxes which discourage individual action on climate change, for example:

  • Abolish a subsidy of kerosene because this subsidy discourages individuals switching to other fuels.[176]
  • Cutting farm subsidies for livestock because these subsidies could discourage individuals shifting to a plant based diet (as those subsidies artificially lowers the price of meat and dairy products):[177]
  • Rebalance the taxes and regulatory costs, which are currently higher for electricity than gas and thus discourage individuals from switching from gas boilers to heat pumps[177]
  • Abolish Turkey's free coal for poor families[178] at such a program discourages people from switching to natural gas in cities.
  • Redirecting the money which would have been spent as subsidies, together with any carbon tax, to form a carbon dividend in equal shares for everyone or for poor people to encourage individuals to take action as part of a just transition away from a high carbon lifestyle.[179]

However, sudden removal of a subsidy by governments not trusted to redirect it,[180] or without providing good alternatives for individuals, can lead to civil unrest. An example of this took place in 2019, when Ecuador removed its gasoline and diesel subsidies without providing enough electric buses to maintain service. The result was overnight fuel price hikes of 25–75 percent. The corresponding fare hikes for Ecuador's existing gas and diesel powered bus fleet were met with violent protests.[181]

Climate conversations
Respondents to a climate survey about reducing their home temperature to 19°C or less (from various countries).

"Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science".[182] The Yale Climate Communication Program recommends initiating "climate conversations" with more moderate individuals.[183][50] Once personal climate impacts and core values are understood, it may become possible to open a discussion of potential climate solutions which are consistent with those core values.[183][184]

Carbon Conversations is a "psychosocial project that addresses the practicalities of carbon reduction while taking account of the complex emotions and social pressures that make this difficult".[185] It was cited in The Guardian newspaper as one of the 20 best ideas to tackle climate change.[186]

Comparison of impacts of individual actions
Graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at the People's Climate March, in Washington DC on 29 April 2017.
A growing number of Europeans and Chinese respondents to a climate survey believe that their behavior can make a difference in tackling climate change.[187]

Public discourse on reducing one's carbon footprint overwhelmingly focuses on low-impact behaviors, and as of 2017, the mention of high-impact individual behaviors to impact climate was almost non-existent in mainstream media, government publications, K-12 school textbooks, etc.[128][135]

Media focus on low impact[188] rather than high impact behaviors is concerning for scientists. The most impactful actions for individuals may differ significantly from the popular advice for "greening" one's lifestyle. For instance, popular suggestions for individual actions include replacing a typical car with a hybrid, washing clothes in cold water, recycling, upgrading light bulbs which are all regarded as lower impact behaviors.

A few researchers have stated that some "recommended high-impact actions are more effective than many more commonly discussed options. For example, eating a plant-based diet saves eight times more emissions than upgrading light bulbs."[128][135] Recommended high-impact actions are around having fewer children,[189][190] living car-free, avoiding long distance flights and eating a plant-based diet. However, other publications state that "population is actually irrelevant to solving the climate crisis"[191]

Other researchers say that decarbonization need not mean a more austere lifestyle, and that the individual actions with the most impact are to electrify households, with for example electric cars and heating.[4]

Scientists argue that piecemeal behavioral changes like re-using plastic bags are not a proportionate response to climate change. Though being beneficial, these debates would drive public focus away from the requirement for an energy system change of unprecedented scale to decarbonise rapidly. Moreover, policy measures such as targeted subsidies, eco-tariffs, effective sustainability certificates, legal product information requirements, CO2 pricing,[192] emissions allowances rationing,[193][194] budget-allocations/labelling,[193] targeted product-range exclusions, advertising bans, and feedback mechanisms are examples of measures that could have a more substantial positive impact on consumption behavior than changes exclusively carried out by consumers and could address social issues such as consumers' inhibitive constraints of budgets, awareness and time.[195]

Controversies around significance

It has been argued that climate change is a collective action problem, specifically a tragedy of the commons, which is a political[196] and not individual category of problem.[197]

Some commentators have argued that individual actions as consumers and "greening personal lives" are insignificant in comparison to collective action, especially actions that hold the fossil fuel corporations accountable for producing 71% of carbon emissions since 1988.[9][198][199] The concept of a personal carbon footprint and calculating one's footprint was popularized by oil producer BP as "effective propaganda" as a way to shift their responsibility to "linguistically... remove itself as a contributor to the problem of climate change".[200] Others have shown that sometimes individual measures may effectively undermine political support for structural measures. In one example researchers found that "a green energy default nudge diminishes support for a carbon tax."[201]

Others say that individual action leads to collective action, and emphasize that "research on social behavior suggests lifestyle change can build momentum for systemic change."[10] Furthermore, if individuals shrink their consumption of fossil fuel products, fossil fuel corporations are incentivized to produce less, as the demand for their product would decrease.[202] In other words, each individual's consumption plays a role in the total supply of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases.

Misleading information on individual actions
See also: Climate change policy of the United States § Trump administration

In some countries media coverage of climate change reports only about the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather, but makes no mention of either individual or government actions which can be taken.[203]

The suggestion that eating a plant-based diet requires a person to become strictly vegetarian is also misinformation.[204] A plant-based diet focuses on consuming foods primarily from plants but does not eliminate all animal products like a vegan diet does.[205]

Climate change education, which became mandatory in Italy in 2019,[206] is completely absent in some countries, or fails to provide information on action that individuals can take.

See also

References
  1. Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M; Barnard, Phoebe; Moomaw, William R (November 5, 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088. hdl:1808/30278.
  2. Crist, Eileen; Ripple, William J.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Rees, William E.; Wolf, Christopher (2022). "Scientists' warning on population" (PDF). Science of the Total Environment. 845: 157166. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.845o7166C. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157166. PMID 35803428. S2CID 250387801. Our first action call is a direct, global appeal to all women and men to choose none or at most one child. Individuals, especially if they aspire to large families, may pursue adoption, which is a desirable and compassionate choice for children who are here and need to be cared for.
  3. "Six key lifestyle changes can help avert the climate crisis, study finds". the Guardian. 2022-03-07. Retrieved 2022-03-07.
  4. Adcock, Bronwyn (2022). "Electric Monaros and hotted-up skateboards : the 'genius' who wants to electrify our world". the Guardian. Retrieved 2022-02-06.
  5. Carrington, Damian (31 May 2018). "Avoiding meat and dairy is 'single biggest way' to reduce your impact on Earth". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
  6. "COP26: How can an average family afford an electric car? And more questions". BBC News. 2021-11-11. Retrieved 2021-11-12.
  7. "Emissions inequality—a gulf between global rich and poor – Nicholas Beuret". Social Europe. 2019-04-10. Archived from the original on 2019-10-26. Retrieved 2019-10-26.
  8. Westlake, Steve (11 April 2019). "Climate change: yes, your individual action does make a difference". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 2019-12-18. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  9. Lukacs, Martin (July 17, 2017). "Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals". The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 6, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
  10. Sparkman, Leor Hackel, Gregg (2018-10-26). "Actually, Your Personal Choices Do Make a Difference in Climate Change". Slate Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-07-23.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. "2022-2023 EIB Climate Survey, part 2 of 2: Majority of young Europeans say the climate impact of prospective employers is an important factor when job hunting". EIB.org. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  12. "Emissions Gap Report 2020 / Executive Summary" (PDF). United Nations Environment Programme. 2021. p. XV Fig. ES.8. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 July 2021.
  13. Cozzi, Laura; Chen, Olivia; Kim, Hyeji (22 February 2023). "The world's top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1%". iea.org. International Energy Agency (IEA). Archived from the original on 3 March 2023. "Methodological note: ... The analysis accounts for energy-related CO2, and not other greenhouse gases, nor those related to land use and agriculture."
  14. Stevens, Harry (1 March 2023). "The United States has caused the most global warming. When will China pass it?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 1 March 2023.
  15. "In-depth Q&A: The IPCC's sixth assessment report on climate science". Carbon Brief. 2021-08-09. Retrieved 2021-08-17.
  16. "EDGAR - Fossil CO2 and GHG emissions of all world countries, 2019 report - European Commission". edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2020-06-26. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
  17. Harrabin, Roger (2020-05-20). "Top 10 tips for combating climate change revealed". BBC. Archived from the original on 2020-05-21. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
  18. "Global CO2 emissions have been flat for a decade, new data reveals". Carbon Brief. 2021-11-04. Retrieved 2021-11-09.
  19. "COP26: Emissions of rich put climate goals at risk - study". BBC News. 2021-11-05. Retrieved 2021-11-07.
  20. "India urges G20 nations to bring down per capita emissions by '30". Hindustan Times. 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-08-17.
  21. "France: CO2 emissions 1970-2020". Statista. Retrieved 2021-08-17.
  22. "5 charts show how your household drives up global greenhouse gas emissions". PBS NewsHour. 2019-09-21. Archived from the original on 2020-01-15. Retrieved 2020-02-08.
  23. Harrabin, Roger (2020-03-16). "The rich are to blame for climate change". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-18. Retrieved 2020-03-18.
  24. "World's richest 10% produce half of carbon emissions while poorest 3.5 billion account for just a tenth". 2 December 2015. Archived from the original on 2020-10-19. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
  25. Harrabin, Roger (April 13, 2021). "World's wealthiest 'at heart of climate problem'". BBC. Retrieved August 20, 2021.
  26. IPCC (2022) Technical Summary. In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
  27. Patrick Devine-Wright, Julio Diaz-José, Frank Geels, Arnulf Grubler, Nadia Maïzi, Eric Masanet, Yacob Mulugetta, Chioma Daisy Onyige-Ebeniro, Patricia E. Perkins, Alessandro Sanches Pereira, Elke Ursula Weber (2022) Chapter 5: Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
  28. "ExxonMobil wants you to feel responsible for climate change so it doesn't have to". www.vox.com. 2021-05-13. Retrieved 2023-06-27.
  29. Solnit, Rebecca (2021-08-23). "Big oil coined 'carbon footprints' to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-06-27.
  30. "REDUCING YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT CAN BE GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH" (PDF).
  31. Akenji, Lewis; Lettenmeier, Michael; Koide, Ryu; Toivio, Viivi; Amellina, Aryanie (2019). 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Targets and options for reducing lifestyle carbon footprints. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Aalto University, and D-mat ltd. ISBN 978-4-88788-220-1.
  32. "Emissions Gap Report 2020: chapter 6: Bridging the gap – the role of equitable low-carbon lifestyles" (PDF).
  33. Heinonen, Jukka; Ottelin, Juudit; Ala-Mantila, Sanna; Wiedmann, Thomas; Clarke, Jack; Junnila, Seppo (2020-05-20). "Spatial consumption-based carbon footprint assessments - A review of recent developments in the field". Journal of Cleaner Production. 256: 120335. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120335. ISSN 0959-6526. S2CID 214015695.
  34. "Sustainable Mobility: Are Electric Scooters Eco-Friendly?". Youmatter. 2019-11-01. Retrieved 2021-08-17.
  35. Yang, Yong (2015-06-01). "Interactions between psychological and environmental characteristics and their impacts on walking". Journal of Transport & Health. 2 (2): 195–198. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2014.11.003. ISSN 2214-1405. PMC 4480794. PMID 26120558.
  36. Zhang, Yongping; Mi, Zhifu (2018-06-15). "Environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big data-based analysis". Applied Energy. 220: 296–301. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.101. ISSN 0306-2619. S2CID 115512847.
  37. Nesheli, Mahmood Mahmoodi; Ceder, Avishai (Avi); Ghavamirad, Farzan; Thacker, Scott (2017-03-01). "Environmental impacts of public transport systems using real-time control method". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 51: 216–226. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2016.12.006. ISSN 1361-9209.
  38. "Is 'green' the new black?". Archived from the original on 2011-05-26. Retrieved 2011-03-21.
  39. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 2 of 3: Shopping for a new car? Most Europeans say they will opt for hybrid or electric". EIB.org. Retrieved 2022-04-04.
  40. fm (2022-02-02). "Cypriots prefer hybrid or electric cars". Financial Mirror. Retrieved 2022-04-05.
  41. "Germans less enthusiastic about electric cars than other Europeans - survey". Clean Energy Wire. 2022-02-01. Retrieved 2022-04-05.
  42. Rahmani, Djamel; Loureiro, Maria L. (2018-03-21). "Why is the market for hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) moving slowly?". PLOS ONE. 13 (3): e0193777. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1393777R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193777. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5862411. PMID 29561860.
  43. Handy, Susan; Weston, Lisa; Mokhtarian, Patricia L. (2005-02-01). "Driving by choice or necessity?". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 39 (2–3): 183–203. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2004.09.002. ISSN 0965-8564. S2CID 154344700.
  44. Butt, Sarah; Shaw, Andrew (2009), "Pay More, Fly Less? Changing Attitudes to Air Travel", British Social Attitudes: The 25th Report, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 129–154, doi:10.4135/9780857024350.n6, ISBN 978-1-84860-639-5, retrieved 2021-05-15
  45. Mashayekh, Yeganeh; Jaramillo, Paulina; Samaras, Constantine; Hendrickson, Chris T.; Blackhurst, Michael; MacLean, Heather L.; Matthews, H. Scott (2012). "Potentials for Sustainable Transportation in Cities to Alleviate Climate Change Impacts". Environmental Science & Technology. 46 (5): 2529–2537. Bibcode:2012EnST...46.2529M. doi:10.1021/es203353q. PMID 22192244.
  46. Hawkins, Troy R.; Gausen, Ola Moa; Strømman, Anders Hammer (2012-09-01). "Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 17 (8): 997–1014. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0440-9. ISSN 1614-7502. S2CID 109391241.
  47. "A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars". International Council on Clean Transportation. Retrieved 2021-11-09.
  48. US EPA, OAR (2015-09-11). "What You Can Do to Reduce Pollution from Vehicles and Engines". US EPA. Retrieved 2021-05-05.
  49. Shaheen, Susan; Cohen, Adam; Bayen, Alexandre (2018-10-22). "The Benefits of Carpooling". doi:10.7922/G2DZ06GF. S2CID 132842014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  50. Anair, Don, Jeremy Martin, Maria Cecilia Pinto de Moura, and Joshua Goldman. 2020. Ride-Hailing’s Climate Risks: Steering a Growing Industry toward a Clean Transportation Future. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.
  51. Baptista, Patrícia; Melo, Sandra; Rolim, Catarina (2014-02-05). "Energy, Environmental and Mobility Impacts of Car-sharing Systems. Empirical Results from Lisbon, Portugal". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 111: 28–37. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.035. ISSN 1877-0428.
  52. "Which form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 2021-05-05.
  53. Gössling, Stefan; Hanna, Paul; Higham, James; Cohen, Scott; Hopkins, Debbie (2019). "Can we fly less? Evaluating the 'necessity' of air travel". Journal of Air Transport Management. 81: 101722. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.101722. S2CID 204435747.
  54. Slotnick, David. "Airlines are working to cut down on emissions to secure their future business model, but the technology to make a real impact is still years away". Business Insider. Retrieved 2021-05-05.
  55. "Behaviour change, public engagement and Net Zero (Imperial College London)". Committee on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  56. "Seven charts that explain what net zero emissions means for the UK". www.newscientist.com. Archived from the original on 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  57. "Carbon offsetting flights. A dangerous distraction. Helping Dreamers Do". responsibletravel.com. Archived from the original on 2019-09-18. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  58. "Air travel and climate change". David Suzuki Foundation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2020-11-24.
  59. "Why Flying Carbon Class to COP26 Is More Expensive Than Taking the Train". Time. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
  60. "Small cuts in air traffic would level off global heating caused by flying – study". the Guardian. 2021-11-04. Retrieved 2021-11-09.
  61. "Contrails: How tweaking flight plans can help the climate". BBC News. 2021-10-22. Retrieved 2021-11-09.
  62. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 2 of 3: Shopping for a new car? Most Europeans say they will opt for hybrid or electric". EIB.org. Retrieved 2022-04-04.
  63. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 1 of 3: Europeans sceptical about successfully reducing carbon emissions by 2050, American and Chinese respondents more confident". EIB.org. Retrieved 2022-03-30.
  64. "Guide to Solar-Reflective Paints for Energy-Efficient Homes". Educational Community for Homeowners (ECHO). 19 November 2013. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  65. "Using energy more efficiently". Committee on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 2019-12-24. Retrieved 2019-12-24.
  66. "The Outside/In[box]: What home heating system is best for the climate?". New Hampshire Public Radio. 2021-11-12. Retrieved 2021-11-12.
  67. "Behaviour change, public engagement and Net Zero (Imperial College London)". Committee on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
  68. "What is green gas? – Ecotricity". www.ecotricity.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2019-07-22. Retrieved 2019-07-22.
  69. "Distributed Solar Photovoltaics @ProjectDrawdown #ClimateSolutions". Project Drawdown. 2020-02-06. Retrieved 2021-11-20.
  70. Arif, Mashail S. (2013). "Residential Solar Panels and Their Impact on the Reduction of Carbon Emissions" (PDF). Retrieved 19 November 2021.
  71. Bank, European Investment (2023-06-05). The EIB Climate Survey: Government action, personal choices and the green transition. European Investment Bank. ISBN 978-92-861-5535-2.
  72. Segran, Elizabeth (2021-08-10). "ACs are bulky, loud, and terrible for the environment. Is there a better version in our future?". Fast Company. Retrieved 2021-11-12.
  73. "The International EPD® System". www.environdec.com. Archived from the original on 2019-12-11. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  74. Brady, Jeff (2021-10-07). "We need to talk about your gas stove, your health and climate change". NPR.org. Retrieved 2022-02-06.
  75. Oregon State University, OSU Extension Services (23 September 2022). "Through thoughtful practices, lawns can be climate-friendly". Ag - Community Horticulture/Landscape. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  76. Regents of the University of California, Davis (April 10, 2023). "Carbon Sequestration". Climate Change Terms and Definitions. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  77. Townsend-Small, Amy; Czimczik, Claudia (January 22, 2010). "Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf". Geophysical Research Letters. 37 (2) – via University of California, Irvine.
  78. Son, Jiahn (May 12, 2020). "Lawn Maintenance and Climate Change". ClimateAction@princeton.edu. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  79. Regents of the University of California, Davis (April 10, 2023). "Carbon Sequestration". Climate Change Terms and Definitions. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  80. Oregon State University (January 20, 2022). "Pesticides and the Environment". National Pesticide Information Center. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  81. Townsend-Small, Amy; Czimczik, Claudia (January 22, 2010). "Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf". Geophysical Research Letters. 37 (2) – via University of California, Irvine.
  82. Son, Jiahn (May 12, 2020). "Lawn Maintenance and Climate Change". ClimateAction@princeton.edu. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  83. Fountain, Henry; Kayson, Ronda (September 15, 2019). "One Thing You Can Do: Reduce Your Lawn". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-09-15. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  84. Parzyszek, Paul (May 23, 2022). "Natural Lawns: A Sustainable and Eco-Friendly Alternative to Grass". Wiki Education. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  85. Our Story. "Trees for the Future". Our Story. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  86. Bank, European Investment (2023-06-05). The EIB Climate Survey: Government action, personal choices and the green transition. European Investment Bank. ISBN 978-92-861-5535-2.
  87. Son, Jiahn (May 12, 2020). "Lawn Maintenance and Climate Change". ClimateAction@princeton.edu. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
  88. Berners-Lee, Mike; Clark, Duncan (2010-11-25). "What's the carbon footprint of … a load of laundry?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  89. "The Benefits of Using a Clothesline". Small Footprint Family™. 2009-08-10. Archived from the original on 2019-09-26. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  90. Geoghegan, Tom (2010-10-08). "High and dry". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2020-11-12. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  91. Hughes, Kathleen A. (2007-04-12). "To Fight Global Warming, Some Hang a Clothesline". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  92. Cotton, Lucy; Hayward, Adam S.; Lant, Neil J.; Blackburn, Richard S. (2020). "Improved garment longevity and reduced microfibre release are important sustainability benefits of laundering in colder and quicker washing machine cycles". Dyes and Pigments. 177: 108120. doi:10.1016/j.dyepig.2019.108120.
  93. Hurst, Nathan. "What's the Environmental Footprint of a T-Shirt?". Smithsonian. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  94. "The price of fast fashion". Nature Climate Change. 8 (1): 1. January 2018. Bibcode:2018NatCC...8....1.. doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0058-9. ISSN 1758-6798.
  95. Feather, Katie. "How The Fashion Industry Is Responding To Climate Change". Science Friday. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  96. Ro, Christine (March 27, 2020). "The hidden impact of your daily water use". BBC. Retrieved 2022-12-24.
  97. "Law of Supply and Demand". Simplicable. 2018-01-04. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  98. "U.S. dairy subsidies equal 73% of producer returns". realagriculture. 2018-02-09. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  99. "Pros and Cons of US Government Subsidies". Pros and Cons. 2019-02-24. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  100. de Rugy, Veronique (2015-03-24). "Subsidies Are the Problem, Not the Solution, for Innovation in Energy". Mercatus. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  101. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 2 of 3: Shopping for a new car? Most Europeans say they will opt for hybrid or electric". EIB.org. Retrieved 2022-04-04.
  102. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 1 of 3: Europeans sceptical about successfully reducing carbon emissions by 2050, American and Chinese respondents more confident". EIB.org. Retrieved 2022-03-30.
  103. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 1 of 3: Europeans sceptical about successfully reducing carbon emissions by 2050, American and Chinese respondents more confident". EIB.org. Retrieved 2022-03-30.
  104. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 3 of 3: The economic and social impact of the green transition". EIB.org. Retrieved 2022-03-30.
  105. Borunda, Alejandra (2019-06-11). "How can city dwellers help with climate change? Buy less stuff". National Geographic - Environment. Archived from the original on 2019-06-29. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  106. Alter, Lloyd (October 18, 2018). "How much does your household weigh?". TreeHugger. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  107. Wharton, Rachel (June 21, 2023). "Worried About Your Gas Stove? Here's What to Do". Wirecutter.
  108. Xanthos, Dirk; Walker, Tony R. (2017-05-15). "International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): A review". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 118 (1–2): 17–26. Bibcode:2017MarPB.118...17X. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048. ISSN 0025-326X. PMID 28238328. Archived from the original on 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  109. Schnurr, Riley E. J.; Alboiu, Vanessa; Chaudhary, Meenakshi; Corbett, Roan A.; Quanz, Meaghan E.; Sankar, Karthikeshwar; Srain, Harveer S.; Thavarajah, Venukasan; Xanthos, Dirk; Walker, Tony R. (2018-12-01). "Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 137: 157–171. Bibcode:2018MarPB.137..157S. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001. ISSN 0025-326X. PMID 30503422. S2CID 54522420. Archived from the original on 2021-01-19. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  110. Moskin, Julia; Plumer, Brad; Lieberman, Rebecca; Weingart, Eden; Popovich, Nadja (2019-04-30). "Your Questions About Food and Climate Change, Answered (Published 2019)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  111. Ripple, William J.; Smith, Pete; et al. (2013). "Ruminants, climate change and climate policy" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 4: 2–5. doi:10.1038/nclimate2081.
  112. "Avoiding meat and dairy is 'single biggest way' to reduce your impact on Earth". the Guardian. 2018-05-31. Retrieved 2021-04-25.
  113. Briggs, Nassos Stylianou, Clara Guibourg and Helen (2018-12-13). "Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?". Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-07-22.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  114. Gallagher, James (2019-01-17). "Meat, veg, nuts - a diet designed to feed 10bn". Archived from the original on 2019-10-06. Retrieved 2019-11-05.
  115. "Healthy diet". www.who.int. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-12-03.
  116. Schiermeier, Quirin (August 8, 2019). "Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet". Nature. Archived from the original on September 23, 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  117. "Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies". Archived from the original on 2020-11-15. Retrieved 2020-11-24.
  118. "Plant-Rich Diet". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Archived from the original on 2019-11-20. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  119. Chodosh, Sara (March 21, 2018). "One-fifth of Americans are responsible for half the country's food-based emissions". Popular Science. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  120. Heller, Martin C.; Willits-Smith, Amelia; Meyer, Robert; Keoleian, Gregory A.; Rose, Donald (March 2018). "Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self-selected US diets". Environmental Research Letters. 13 (4): 044004. Bibcode:2018ERL....13d4004H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aab0ac. ISSN 1748-9326. PMC 5964346. PMID 29853988.
  121. "How plant-based diets not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also increase carbon capture". Leiden University. Retrieved 14 February 2022.
  122. Sun, Zhongxiao; Scherer, Laura; Tukker, Arnold; Spawn-Lee, Seth A.; Bruckner, Martin; Gibbs, Holly K.; Behrens, Paul (January 2022). "Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend". Nature Food. 3 (1): 29–37. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5. ISSN 2662-1355. PMID 37118487. S2CID 245867412.
  123. "2022-2023 EIB Climate Survey, part 2 of 2: Majority of young Europeans say the climate impact of prospective employers is an important factor when job hunting". EIB.org. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  124. "2022-2023 EIB Climate Survey, part 2 of 2: Majority of young Europeans say the climate impact of prospective employers is an important factor when job hunting". EIB.org. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  125. Carrington, Damian (20 July 2023). "Vegan diet massively cuts environmental damage, study shows". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 July 2023.
  126. Laubichler, Manfred (November 3, 2022). "8 billion humans: How population growth and climate change are connected as the 'Anthropocene engine' transforms the planet". The Conversation. Retrieved November 5, 2022.
  127. Wynes, Seth; Nicholas, Kimberly A (12 July 2017). "The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions". Environmental Research Letters. 12 (7): 074024. Bibcode:2017ERL....12g4024W. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541. We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
  128. Carrington, Damian (12 July 2017). "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  129. Andrews, Robin George (2018-10-02). "Want to Stop Climate Change? Educate Girls and Give Them Birth Control". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  130. To the point of farce: a martian view of the hardinian taboo—the silence that surrounds population control Maurice King, Charles Elliott BMJ
  131. Conly, Sarah (2016). One child : do we have a right to more?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-020343-6.
  132. "Bioethicist: The climate crisis calls for fewer children". 12 September 2016. Archived from the original on 20 May 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  133. "We need to talk about the ethics of having children in a warming world". 11 March 2019. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  134. Perkins, Sid (July 11, 2017). "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about". Science. Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 29 March 2019.
  135. "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children". TheGuardian.com. 12 July 2017. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  136. "Population Matters: Climate change". 16 October 2018. Archived from the original on 15 May 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
  137. Bawden, Tom (April 26, 2019). "Save the planet by having fewer children, says environmentalist Sir Jonathan Porritt". i. Archived from the original on July 19, 2019. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  138. Schneider-Mayerson, Matthew (2021-03-28). "The environmental politics of reproductive choices in the age of climate change". Environmental Politics. 31: 152–172. doi:10.1080/09644016.2021.1902700. ISSN 0964-4016. S2CID 233666068.
  139. Cassella, Carly (April 25, 2020). "Becoming a Parent Makes You 25% Less Environmentally Friendly, New Research Finds". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on May 2, 2020. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
  140. "Family Planning". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Archived from the original on 2019-08-31. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  141. "Educating Girls". Drawdown. 2017-02-07. Archived from the original on 2019-10-14. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  142. Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M; Barnard, Phoebe; Moomaw, William R (November 5, 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088. hdl:1808/30278. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020. Retrieved November 8, 2019.
  143. Carrington, Damian (November 5, 2019). "Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on January 14, 2020. Retrieved November 8, 2019.
  144. Wolf, C.; Ripple, W.J.; Crist, E. (2021). "Human population, social justice, and climate policy". Sustainability Science. 16 (5): 1753–1756. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00951-w. S2CID 233404010.
  145. "Socially just population policies can mitigate climate change and advance global equity". Phys.org. April 28, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2021.
  146. "Yes, you can have kids and fight climate change at the same time". www.vox.com. 2023-01-24. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  147. Milfont, Taciano L.; Zubielevitch, Elena; Milojev, Petar; Sibley, Chris G. (2021-07-06). "Ten-year panel data confirm generation gap but climate beliefs increase at similar rates across ages". Nature Communications. 12 (1): 4038. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24245-y. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 8260718. PMID 34230472.
  148. "Analysis | Should you not have kids because of climate change? It's complicated". Washington Post. 2022-12-02. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  149. "COP26: 'Not blah blah blah', UN Special Envoy Carney presents watershed private sector commitment for climate finance". UN News. 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
  150. "What can I do about climate change? How to shrink your carbon footprint". Positive News. 2021-08-10. Retrieved 2021-08-10.
  151. "What's the Environmental Impact of Cryptocurrency?". Investopedia. Retrieved 2021-12-21.
  152. "Bitcoin miners help US oil producers cut flaring". Argus Media. 2021-10-08. Retrieved 2022-01-02.
  153. "Bitcoin emits as much carbon as Las Vegas, researchers say". CBS News. 13 June 2019. Archived from the original on 2020-02-21. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
  154. de Vries, Alex; Stoll, Christian (2021-12-01). "Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem". Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 175: 105901. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105901. ISSN 0921-3449. S2CID 240585651.
  155. "Decarbonising Crypto". Zumo. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
  156. Stern, Stefan (June 21, 2019). "Politicians must find solutions for the climate crisis. Not outsource it to us". The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 16, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
  157. Gabbatiss, Josh (January 4, 2019). "Government must consider meat tax to tackle climate change, says Caroline Lucas". The Independent. Archived from the original on July 13, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
  158. Irfan, Umair (May 17, 2019). "whopping $5.2 trillion: We can't take on climate change without properly pricing coal, oil, and natural gas. But it's a huge political challenge". Vox. Archived from the original on November 9, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
  159. Simon, David Robinson (September 1, 2013). Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much–and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter. U.S.A.: Conari Press. ISBN 978-1573246200.
  160. Shill, Gregory (July 9, 2019). "Americans Shouldn't Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It: The automobile took over because the legal system helped squeeze out the alternatives". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on July 14, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
  161. Saad, Lydia (20 April 2023). "A Steady Six in 10 Say Global Warming's Effects Have Begun". Gallup, Inc. Archived from the original on 20 April 2023.
  162. "A look at how people around the world view climate change". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
  163. "Act on Climate Change". Climate Generation: A Will Steger Legacy. Archived from the original on 2019-09-27. Retrieved 2019-04-03.
  164. "About Us". Earth Day Network. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
  165. "Sustainable Development: Linking economy, society, environment". oecd.org. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved August 30, 2016.
  166. Exchanges?, Comments and Reply. "Weather, Climate, and Society". American Meteorological Society.
  167. "Global Climate Strike → A Historic Week". Global Climate Strike → Sep. 20–27. Retrieved 2019-10-28.
  168. Taylor, Matthew; Watts, Jonathan; Bartlett, John (27 September 2019). "Climate crisis: 6 million people join latest wave of global protests". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
  169. "Global climate strike gathers 7.6m people". Hürriyet Daily News. 29 September 2019. Retrieved 30 September 2019.
  170. "The Case for Fossil-Fuel Divestment". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 2017-03-13. Retrieved 2017-02-05.
  171. "Commitments". Fossil Free. Retrieved 2017-02-05.
  172. Carrington, Damian (2016-12-12). "Fossil fuel divestment funds double to $5tn in a year". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-02-05.
  173. "Greta Thunberg donates million-euro rights prize to green groups". France 24. Retrieved 10 July 2020.
  174. van Valkengoed, Anne M.; Steg, Linda; Perlaviciute, Goda (21 April 2023). "The psychological distance of climate change is overestimated". One Earth. 6 (4): 362–391. Bibcode:2023OEart...6..362V. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2023.03.006. S2CID 258281951.
  175. Jacob, Shine (2019-10-06). "Subsidy on kerosene may go by FY21 as fuel consumption shifts to LPG". Business Standard India. Archived from the original on 2019-10-22. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  176. Rowlatt, Justin (2019-10-11). "'Only big changes' will tackle climate change". Archived from the original on 2019-10-16. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  177. "HOW TO DELIVER FREE COAL TO THE POOR FAMILIES? TURKEY CASE". Archived from the original on 2019-10-22. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  178. Elliott, Larry (2019-10-10). "Energy bills will have to rise sharply to avoid climate crisis, says IMF". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  179. "Here's why raising gas prices leads to violent protests like Ecuador's". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-10-14.
  180. "How not to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies". The Ecologist. Archived from the original on 2019-10-22. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  181. Goldberg, Matthew (July 9, 2019). "Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 116 (30): 14804–14805. Bibcode:2019PNAS..11614804G. doi:10.1073/pnas.1906589116. PMC 6660749. PMID 31285333. Archived from the original on 2019-11-16. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  182. Kirk, Karin (2018-04-03). "Finding common ground amid climate controversy". Yale Climate Connections. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  183. "Attaining Meaningful Outcomes from Conversations on Climate". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. 2019-11-26. Archived from the original on 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
  184. "About". Carbon Conversations. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
  185. Katz, Ian (2009). Twenty Ideas That Could Save the World
  186. Bank, European Investment (2022-04-20). The EIB Climate Survey 2021-2022 - Citizens call for green recovery. European Investment Bank. ISBN 978-92-861-5223-8.
  187. Nations, United. "Act Now". United Nations. Retrieved 2022-06-18.
  188. Wolf, C.; Ripple, W.J.; Crist, E. (2021). "Human population, social justice, and climate policy". Sustainability Science. 16 (5): 1753–1756. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00951-w. S2CID 233404010.
  189. "Socially just population policies can mitigate climate change and advance global equity". Phys.org. April 28, 2021. Retrieved November 6, 2021.
  190. Samuel, Sigal (2021-04-29). "A climate scientist explains why it's still okay to have kids". Vox. Retrieved 2021-11-06.
  191. Pieper, Maximilian; Michalke, Amelie; Gaugler, Tobias (2020). "Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 6117. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.6117P. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19474-6. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7738510. PMID 33323933.
  192. Marek, Ewelina; Raux, Charles; Engelmann, Dirk (1 October 2018). "Personal carbon allowances: Can a budget label do the trick?". Transport Policy. 69: 170–178. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.06.007. ISSN 0967-070X. S2CID 158976807.
  193. Swain, Frank. "Can rationing carbon help fight climate change?". BBC. Archived from the original on 2 December 2021. Retrieved 2 December 2021.
  194. Vanderheiden, Steve (2019). "Personal Carbon Trading and Individual Mitigation Accountability". Transformative Climates and Accountable Governance. Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability. Springer: 273–299. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97400-2_12. ISBN 978-3319973999. S2CID 169191162.
  195. Anomaly, Jonathan. "Political: Collective Action Problems". Khan Academy. Archived from the original on 13 July 2019. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  196. Kejun, Jiang (December 14, 2018). "Climate change is a problem of politics, not science". Euractiv. Archived from the original on July 13, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2019.
  197. Tallulah, Tegan (2018-01-10). "Individual vs Collective: Are you Responsible for Fixing Climate Change?". Resilience. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  198. Valle, Gaby Del (2018-10-12). "Can individual consumer choices ward off the worst effects of climate change? It's complicated". Vox. Archived from the original on 2019-12-29. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  199. Kaufman, Mark (13 July 2020). "The devious fossil fuel propaganda we all use". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2020-09-17. Retrieved 2020-09-17.
  200. Hagmann, David, Emily H Ho, und George Loewenstein. 2019. „Nudging out Support for a Carbon Tax“. Nature Climate Change 9(6): 484–89.
  201. "3.3 Demand, Supply, and Equilibrium", Principles of Economics, University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2016. This edition adapted from a work originally produced in 2012 by a publisher who has requested that it not receive attribution. Author removed at request, 2016-06-17, archived from the original on 2021-01-12, retrieved 2020-12-30
  202. "Climate change triggers extreme weather in Turkey". DailySabah. 12 September 2019. Archived from the original on 2019-10-01. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  203. "Myths and Misconceptions About Plant-Based Diets". National Kidney Foundation. 2018-08-18. Archived from the original on 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  204. "Plant-Based Diets". Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Archived from the original on 2021-01-19. Retrieved 2020-11-24.
  205. Bentson, Clark (November 7, 2019). "Italy makes climate change education compulsory". ABC News. Archived from the original on 2019-12-15. Retrieved 2019-12-09.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.