climate change resolution essay

November 26, 2007

10 Solutions for Climate Change

Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change

By David Biello

Mark Garlick Getty Images

The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change ? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called " wedges " for nations to utilize toward this goal—each of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels —there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.

Forego Fossil Fuels —The first challenge is eliminating the burning of coal , oil and, eventually, natural gas. This is perhaps the most daunting challenge as denizens of richer nations literally eat, wear, work, play and even sleep on the products made from such fossilized sunshine. And citizens of developing nations want and arguably deserve the same comforts, which are largely thanks to the energy stored in such fuels.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Oil is the lubricant of the global economy, hidden inside such ubiquitous items as plastic and corn, and fundamental to the transportation of both consumers and goods. Coal is the substrate, supplying roughly half of the electricity used in the U.S. and nearly that much worldwide—a percentage that is likely to grow, according to the International Energy Agency. There are no perfect solutions for reducing dependence on fossil fuels (for example, carbon neutral biofuels can drive up the price of food and lead to forest destruction, and while nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, it does produce radioactive waste), but every bit counts.

So try to employ alternatives when possible—plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power—and to invest in the change, be it by divesting from oil stocks or investing in companies practicing carbon capture and storage.

Infrastructure Upgrade —Buildings worldwide contribute around one third of all greenhouse gas emissions (43 percent in the U.S. alone), even though investing in thicker insulation and other cost-effective, temperature-regulating steps can save money in the long run. Electric grids are at capacity or overloaded, but power demands continue to rise. And bad roads can lower the fuel economy of even the most efficient vehicle. Investing in new infrastructure, or radically upgrading existing highways and transmission lines, would help cut greenhouse gas emissions and drive economic growth in developing countries.

Of course, it takes a lot of cement, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, to construct new buildings and roads. The U.S. alone contributed 50.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2005 from cement production, which requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Mining copper and other elements needed for electrical wiring and transmission also causes globe-warming pollution.

But energy-efficient buildings and improved cement-making processes (such as using alternative fuels to fire up the kiln) could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world and prevent them in the developing world.

Move Closer to Work —Transportation is the second leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (burning a single gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO 2 ). But it doesn't have to be that way.

One way to dramatically curtail transportation fuel needs is to move closer to work, use mass transit, or switch to walking, cycling or some other mode of transport that does not require anything other than human energy. There is also the option of working from home and telecommuting several days a week.

Cutting down on long-distance travel would also help, most notably airplane flights, which are one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and a source that arguably releases such emissions in the worst possible spot (higher in the atmosphere). Flights are also one of the few sources of globe-warming pollution for which there isn't already a viable alternative: jets rely on kerosene, because it packs the most energy per pound, allowing them to travel far and fast, yet it takes roughly 10 gallons of oil to make one gallon of JetA fuel. Restricting flying to only critical, long-distance trips—in many parts of the world, trains can replace planes for short- to medium-distance trips—would help curb airplane emissions.

Consume Less —The easiest way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions is simply to buy less stuff. Whether by forgoing an automobile or employing a reusable grocery sack, cutting back on consumption results in fewer fossil fuels being burned to extract, produce and ship products around the globe.

Think green when making purchases. For instance, if you are in the market for a new car, buy one that will last the longest and have the least impact on the environment. Thus, a used vehicle with a hybrid engine offers superior fuel efficiency over the long haul while saving the environmental impact of new car manufacture.

Paradoxically, when purchasing essentials, such as groceries, buying in bulk can reduce the amount of packaging—plastic wrapping, cardboard boxes and other unnecessary materials. Sometimes buying more means consuming less.

Be Efficient —A potentially simpler and even bigger impact can be made by doing more with less. Citizens of many developed countries are profligate wasters of energy, whether by speeding in a gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicle or leaving the lights on when not in a room.

Good driving—and good car maintenance, such as making sure tires are properly inflated—can limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle and, perhaps more importantly, lower the frequency of payment at the pump.

Similarly, employing more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners and other appliances, such as those rated highly under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, can cut electric bills while something as simple as weatherproofing the windows of a home can reduce heating and cooling bills. Such efforts can also be usefully employed at work, whether that means installing more efficient turbines at the power plant or turning the lights off when you leave the office .

Eat Smart, Go Vegetarian? —Corn grown in the U.S. requires barrels of oil for the fertilizer to grow it and the diesel fuel to harvest and transport it. Some grocery stores stock organic produce that do not require such fertilizers, but it is often shipped from halfway across the globe. And meat, whether beef, chicken or pork, requires pounds of feed to produce a pound of protein.

Choosing food items that balance nutrition, taste and ecological impact is no easy task. Foodstuffs often bear some nutritional information, but there is little to reveal how far a head of lettuce, for example, has traveled.

University of Chicago researchers estimate that each meat-eating American produces 1.5 tons more greenhouse gases through their food choice than do their vegetarian peers. It would also take far less land to grow the crops necessary to feed humans than livestock, allowing more room for planting trees.

Stop Cutting Down Trees —Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down . Timber harvesting in the tropics alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions and a source that could be avoided relatively easily.

Improved agricultural practices along with paper recycling and forest management—balancing the amount of wood taken out with the amount of new trees growing—could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.

And when purchasing wood products, such as furniture or flooring, buy used goods or, failing that, wood certified to have been sustainably harvested. The Amazon and other forests are not just the lungs of the earth, they may also be humanity's best short-term hope for limiting climate change.

Unplug —Believe it or not, U.S. citizens spend more money on electricity to power devices when off than when on. Televisions, stereo equipment, computers, battery chargers and a host of other gadgets and appliances consume more energy when seemingly switched off, so unplug them instead.

Purchasing energy-efficient gadgets can also save both energy and money—and thus prevent more greenhouse gas emissions. To take but one example, efficient battery chargers could save more than one billion kilowatt-hours of electricity—$100 million at today's electricity prices—and thus prevent the release of more than one million metric tons of greenhouse gases.

Swapping old incandescent lightbulbs for more efficient replacements, such as compact fluorescents (warning: these lightbulbs contain mercury and must be properly disposed of at the end of their long life), would save billions of kilowatt-hours. In fact, according to the EPA, replacing just one incandescent lightbulb in every American home would save enough energy to provide electricity to three million American homes.

One Child —There are at least 6.6 billion people living today, a number that is predicted by the United Nations to grow to at least nine billion by mid-century. The U.N. Environmental Program estimates that it requires 54 acres to sustain an average human being today—food, clothing and other resources extracted from the planet. Continuing such population growth seems unsustainable.

Falling birth rates in some developed and developing countries (a significant portion of which are due to government-imposed limits on the number of children a couple can have) have begun to reduce or reverse the population explosion. It remains unclear how many people the planet can comfortably sustain, but it is clear that per capita energy consumption must go down if climate change is to be controlled.

Ultimately, a one child per couple rule is not sustainable either and there is no perfect number for human population. But it is clear that more humans means more greenhouse gas emissions.

Future Fuels —Replacing fossil fuels may prove the great challenge of the 21st century. Many contenders exist, ranging from ethanol derived from crops to hydrogen electrolyzed out of water, but all of them have some drawbacks, too, and none are immediately available at the scale needed.

Biofuels can have a host of negative impacts, from driving up food prices to sucking up more energy than they produce. Hydrogen must be created, requiring either reforming natural gas or electricity to crack water molecules. Biodiesel hybrid electric vehicles (that can plug into the grid overnight) may offer the best transportation solution in the short term, given the energy density of diesel and the carbon neutral ramifications of fuel from plants as well as the emissions of electric engines. A recent study found that the present amount of electricity generation in the U.S. could provide enough energy for the country's entire fleet of automobiles to switch to plug-in hybrids , reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the process.

But plug-in hybrids would still rely on electricity, now predominantly generated by burning dirty coal. Massive investment in low-emission energy generation, whether solar-thermal power or nuclear fission , would be required to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And even more speculative energy sources—hyperefficient photovoltaic cells, solar energy stations in orbit or even fusion—may ultimately be required.

The solutions above offer the outline of a plan to personally avoid contributing to global warming. But should such individual and national efforts fail, there is another, potentially desperate solution:

Experiment Earth —Climate change represents humanity's first planetwide experiment. But, if all else fails, it may not be the last. So-called geoengineering , radical interventions to either block sunlight or reduce greenhouse gases, is a potential last resort for addressing the challenge of climate change.

Among the ideas: releasing sulfate particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption; placing millions of small mirrors or lenses in space to deflect sunlight; covering portions of the planet with reflective films to bounce sunlight back into space; fertilizing the oceans with iron or other nutrients to enable plankton to absorb more carbon; and increasing cloud cover or the reflectivity of clouds that already form.

All may have unintended consequences, making the solution worse than the original problem. But it is clear that at least some form of geoengineering will likely be required: capturing carbon dioxide before it is released and storing it in some fashion, either deep beneath the earth, at the bottom of the ocean or in carbonate minerals. Such carbon capture and storage is critical to any serious effort to combat climate change.

Additional reporting by Larry Greenemeier and Nikhil Swaminathan .

• General Assembly
• Second Committee

Resolutions on Protecting Global Climate, Eliminating Unilateral Economic Measures, among 16 Texts Approved as Second Committee Concludes Session

The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) today approved 16 resolutions and two decisions, voting on five of them, including one expressing profound alarm that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise globally, as it concluded its seventy-sixth session.

Further to the text, on “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of humankind”, the General Assembly would emphasize that mitigation and adaptation to climate change represent an immediate global priority.  It would urge Member States to adopt environment-responsive approaches to COVID-19 recovery by aligning investments and policies with international agreements to speed up transition to low-emission, climate-resilient, inclusive and sustainable economies.

Addressing that draft, China’s delegate noted that adverse effects of climate change are becoming increasingly visible, highlighting the need for urgent climate action to combat it.  The representative of Switzerland expressed regret that the resolution failed to faithfully reflect outcomes of the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, calling on parties who haven’t done so to submit nationally determined contributions for climate finance.

Among other environmental drafts was one on “Combating sand and dust storms”, by which the Assembly would recognize that these hazards, as well as unsustainable land management practices, pose serious challenges to the development of affected regions.  Recognizing that such storms have inflicted substantial economic, social and environmental damage to the world’s arid, semi-arid and dry subhumid areas in recent years, the Assembly would underscore the need to promptly address them.

The text was approved in a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Australia).

Several macroeconomic and financial drafts were approved, including one on “Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries”.  By its terms, the Assembly would urge the international community to adopt measures to eliminate the use of unilateral economic, financial or trade measures unauthorized by relevant United Nations organs, inconsistent with international law and the Charter of the United Nations and contravening basic principles of the multilateral trading system.

Speaking to that draft, the representative of the United States said sanctions are an effective, legitimate and peaceful tool for countering threats to peace and security, used against those who threaten human rights, undermine democracy or engage in criminal activities.  In contrast, the representative of Iran said unilateral coercive measures aiming to destroy a State’s economy constitute an act of war, passing the red line of terrorism and reaching crimes against humanity.

The text was approved in a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States), with 46 abstentions.

A further text on “Promotion of international cooperation to combat illicit financial flows and strengthening good practices on assets return to foster sustainable development” would have the Assembly call on countries to eliminate base erosion and profit shifting, ensuring that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, according to national and international laws and policies.

Addressing that text, Nigeria’s delegate said illicit financial flows undermine security and inhibit growth, stressing the need for transparency and a redesigned global architecture to tackle them.  Adding that such illicit flows need immediate action, she said evidence indicates that recovering and returning their proceeds could generate enough capital to finance the fight against climate change in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.

A draft was also approved on “Agricultural technology for sustainable development”, by which the Assembly would urge Member States, United Nations organizations and other stakeholders to improve development of sustainable agricultural technologies and their transfer to developing countries.  It would encourage international, regional and national efforts to strengthen capacity and foster using local know-how in developing countries, especially that of smallholder and family farmers.

The draft was approved in a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against (Syria), with 34 abstentions.

On that text, Qatar’s delegate, speaking for the Arab Group, said Israel’s submission of the draft, as an occupying authority, is an odious attempt to hide its crimes against Palestinian agriculture and people.  Syria’s representative similarly questioned Israel’s eligibility to submit the text, as it continues to hinder agriculture in the occupied Syrian Golan, confiscating land and prohibiting use of natural resources.

Slovenia’s delegate, speaking for the European Union, lauded the draft for addressing progress towards several Sustainable Development Goals, including “zero hunger”, responsible consumption, as well as production, and climate action.  The representative of Israel noted that agricultural production and distribution have suffered heavy blows since the onset of COVID-19, stressing that technology is vital in addressing these new realities.

Drafts were also approved on information and communication technologies (ICT); investments for sustainable development; external debt; financing for development update; Environment Assembly; tourism; biological diversity; science, technology and innovation; least developed countries; and coastal zone management.

Draft decisions were approved on the Committee’s work plan for the General Assembly’s seventy-seventh session and two upcoming meetings in 2022.

Also speaking were the representatives of Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, United Kingdom, Eritrea, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Canada (speaking also for Australia and New Zealand), Republic of Korea, France, Belarus, Guatemala, Japan, Turkey, Antigua and Barbuda, India, Chile, Guinea (for the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Russian Federation and Morocco.  The Observer for the State of Palestine also made a statement.

In addition, a statement was made by Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs Maria-Francesca Spatolisano.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) first took up a draft on “Information and communications technologies (ICT) for sustainable development” (document A/C.2/76/L.56), approving it without a vote as orally corrected, withdrawing a previous draft.

By that text, the General Assembly would recognize that a lack of access to affordable and reliable technologies and services remains a critical challenge in many developing countries.  All efforts should be deployed to reduce the price of ICT and broadband access, bearing in mind that deliberate interventions, including through research and development and technology transfer on mutually agreed terms, may be necessary to spur the development of lower-cost connectivity options.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would call upon all stakeholders to keep the goal of bridging digital divides an area of priority concern, put into effect sound strategies that contribute to the development of e-government and continue to focus on pro-poor ICT policies and applications, including access to broadband at the grass-roots level, with a view to narrowing the digital divides among and within countries and, in turn, build information and knowledge societies.

The representative of Switzerland said his country joined consensus on the draft, stressing that the enormous challenges in the digital area must be addressed without delay.  A digital arena managed by various actors must be inclusive, he said, expressing regret that the draft did not reflect this in a more representative manner.

The representative of the European Union , speaking in its capacity as observer, said the bloc joined consensus, noting that the world during COVID-19 has seen an increase in reliance on digital technology, which has provided an important lifeline for the continuity of work and service delivery.  However, this has not been enjoyed by all, she said, stressing that digital transformation must be harnessed for the resilient recovery of all, which was not adequately reflected in the resolution.

The representative of the United States emphasized that closing the digital divide is essential, stating that his country joined consensus on the draft.  Regarding operative paragraphs 19 and 32, he referred delegates to the general statement the United States made on 18 November.

Next, it turned to a text on “International financial system and development” (document A/C.2/76/L.21/Rev.1), approving it in a recorded vote of 169 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

By that text, the Assembly would stress the critical importance of a stable, inclusive and enabling global economic environment for the advancement of sustainable development, for the reliable and effective financing of development and for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, mobilizing public and private, as well as domestic and international resources.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would urge multilateral donors and invite the international financial institutions and regional development banks, within their respective mandates, to review and implement policies that support national efforts to ensure that a higher proportion of resources reach women and girls, particularly in rural and remote areas, and invites multilateral and regional development banks to agree on common indicators for analysing the gender impact of their lending.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said his country supports the 2030 Agenda and implementation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, but voted against the draft due to language that remains unchanged.  His country disagrees with references to increasing protectionism, unfair market distorting actions and lack of coherence in the international trading and monetary systems.  Moreover, the concessionality of assistance should be determined by the governing bodies of international institutions, he said, referring delegates to the United States statement of 18 November regarding the 2030 Agenda, illicit financial flows and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

The representative of France said he tried to vote in favour of the draft, but the ballot was not registered and should be recorded in the proceedings.

The representative of Iran said his country voted in favour of the draft, but due to references made to non-United Nations initiatives in operative paragraph 29, disassociates itself from that text.

The Committee then took up a draft on “External debt sustainability and development” (document A/C.76/L.55), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

By that text, the Assembly would emphasize the special importance of timely, effective, comprehensive and durable solutions to the debt problems of developing countries to promote their economic growth and development.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would stress the need to continue to assist developing countries in avoiding a build-up of unsustainable debt to reduce the risk of relapsing into another debt crisis, considering the challenges posed by the global economic environment and risks for debt sustainability in some developed and developing countries.

The representative of the United States said the draft is particularly timely, as the economic impact of COVID-19 has increased debt risks and set back recovery for various nations.  He added, however, that debt transparency is critical to maximize the benefit of relief and allow for fair burden sharing.  Also, he said it is outside the scope of the draft to express concern over contracts, referring delegates to his country’s statement on 18 November regarding debt service, trade, technology transfer and debt-related frameworks.

Following that, it acted on a text on “Promoting investments for sustainable development” (document A/C.2/76/L.58), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous draft.

By that text, the Assembly would note with concern that many of the least developed and small island developing States continue to be largely side-lined by foreign direct investment (FDI) that could help to diversify their economies, despite improvements in their investment climates.  It would also note with concern the gap in access to capital for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular for businesses led by women, young entrepreneurs and persons with disabilities.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would call upon the United Nations system and all relevant stakeholders to support the capacity-building of developing countries in their efforts to close the Sustainable Development Goals investment gaps, especially at the country programme level, and on the use of public finance to leverage private investment for projects benefiting sustainable development.

The representative of the United States said his country joined consensus on the draft, recognizing that FDI in developing countries is vital for sustainable development.  Regarding its position on cross-cutting issues mentioned in the text, he referred delegates to his country’s general statement of 18 November.

The Committee then turned to a text on “Follow-up to and implementation of the outcomes of the International Conferences on Financing for Development” (document A/C.2/76/L.59), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

By that text, the Assembly would emphasize the need to work towards the full and timely implementation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development.

Further to that draft, the Assembly would recognize that, in combating the negative impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to achieve a sustainable, inclusive and resilient recovery, a functioning global financial safety net, with a strong, quota-based and adequately resourced International Monetary Fund (IMF) at its centre, is important to support a global economic recovery.

The representative of the United States referred delegates to his country’s general statement of 18 November regarding the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

Next, it took up a draft on “Agricultural technology for sustainable development” (document A/C.2/76/L.20/Rev.1), approving it in a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against (Syria), with 34 abstentions.

By that text, the Assembly would urge Member States, relevant United Nations organizations and other stakeholders to strengthen efforts to improve the development of sustainable agricultural technologies and their transfer and dissemination under mutually agreed terms to developing countries, especially those least developed and encourage international, regional and national efforts to strengthen capacity and foster the utilization of local know-how in developing countries, especially that of smallholder and family farmers.

Further to that draft, the Assembly would encourage Member States, civil society and public and private institutions to develop partnerships to support financial and market services, including training, capacity-building, infrastructure and extension and rural advisory services.  It would also call for further efforts by all stakeholders to include smallholder farmers, in particular rural women and youth, in planning and in taking decisions about making appropriate sustainable agricultural technologies and practices accessible and affordable to them.

Before action, Qatar ’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said it had asked for a vote on the draft resolution and will abstain from voting as the “Group of 77” developing countries and China had submitted a draft resolution titled “agricultural technology, food security and nutrition” under agenda item 26, which is of the same substance.  Thus, the draft resolution submitted by Israel is a waste of United Nations resources, he said, adding that such submission by Israel, while it is an occupying authority, is odious conduct and an attempt to hide its crimes against Palestinian agriculture and the Palestinian people.  Stressing that Israel continues to destroy and waste the assets and resources of the Palestinian people, and has prevented the farming of land by Palestinians, he invited all States to abstain from voting.

Syria ’s representative said the main sponsor of the draft resolution is not morally eligible to submit the text, as it continues to hinder the capacity of the Syrian people in the occupied Syrian Golan to use agriculture, which is their only means of survival, confiscating agricultural land and prohibiting them from using natural resources.  Moreover, he said Israel continues to defy several resolutions which invite them to cease their nefarious practices that undermine all socioeconomic aspects of life.  Noting that several United Nations reports describe how Israeli policy saps agricultural development, he said the resolution defies the truth reflected in those reports and, in that regard, his delegation would vote against it.

After action, Slovenia ’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it had voted in favour of the resolution as it directly addresses progress towards several Sustainable Development Goals, namely those relating to “zero hunger”, responsible consumption and production, and climate action, among others.  Welcoming that the resolution highlights the impact of COVID‑19 on agriculture and food systems, she said recovery efforts present a unique opportunity to build back better and greener.

Israel ’s representative said that since the onset of COVID‑19, agricultural production and distribution have suffered heavy blows, causing food prices to rise increasing global hunger and poverty.  Meanwhile, as sea levels rise and weather becomes more extreme, climate change is destroying the future of farmers around the globe.  Noting that employing technology is an absolute necessity to address those new realities, he said the resolution provides an opportunity to focus on innovation and technology that can help countries around the world.  He said there are still Member States, such as Syria and Iran, who chose not to support the resolution out of antisemitism and contempt, as well as others who abstained from voting.  He expressed hope that in the future politics will be pushed aside, noting that today’s vote marks an important step towards solving global issues and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals.

The representative of Belarus said her delegation voted in favour of the resolution due to the importance of agricultural technology for sustainable development and ensuring food security, especially in the context of the pandemic.  Noting the importance of avoiding actions that could threaten food security, she said thoughtless sanctions and the use of unilateral economic restrictions against whole sectors of the economy linked to food are dragging populations of vulnerable countries to the brink of starvation.  Stressing that the use of sanctions is futile, counterproductive and must be stopped, she referred the Committee to her country’s statement delivered on 22 November under agenda item 26.

The representative of the United States said his country remains committed to promoting agricultural development as a means to achieving sustainable development and joins consensus on the resolution.  Regarding his country’s position on technology transfer and/or knowledge-sharing, he referred the Committee to his country’s general statement delivered on 18 November.

Iran ’s representative pointed out that his country did not vote in favour of or against the resolution because it does not recognize the “so-called” State of Israel.  Noting that “one of the participants” took others’ valuable time by misusing the Committee and raising baseless accusations, he requested the Chair to request that participant to respond to its own responsibilities under the agenda item.

Syria ’s representative said Israel, the occupying Power, has “no shame” to have the audacity to attack another Member State and accuse it of lies, while it pretends to be a peace-loving nation looking to help others in need.  The entire world has known the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian and Syrian people for decades, he said.

The observer for the State of Palestine , associating himself with the Arab Group, said Israel, the occupying Power, continues to exploit the Committee’s platform by hiding behind key sustainable development issues to cover up its dreadful acts against Palestinian agriculture.  Referring to both General Assembly and Security Council resolutions adopted in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said Israel has not respected any of them, adding that it is undermining the Palestinian economy and consolidating its apartheid regime over the Palestinian people.  Addressing the representative of Israel, he said “you cannot change the history”, as everything is written in the United Nations archives.

The Committee then took up a draft on “Sustainable tourism and sustainable development in Central America” (document A/C.2/76/L.24/Rev.1), approving it without a vote.

By that text, the Assembly would recognize the major role that sustainable tourism plays in the development of Central American countries, as an instrument of social inclusion that generates decent jobs and improves the quality of life of the population, aimed at achieving poverty eradication.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would call upon Member States and the tourism sector to take effective measures, in the context of sustainable tourism, including ecotourism initiatives, to promote the equal participation of women and the balanced participation of youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and local communities, at all levels and in decision-making processes in all areas, and to promote effective economic empowerment, mainly through decent job and income creation.

Speaking after action, Guatemala ’s representative said that her country, as pro tempore chair of the Central American Integration System, had submitted the resolution with the goal of further developing sustainable tourism, incentivizing economic growth, protecting biodiversity and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.  Given the region’s richness in majestic tourism locations, the resolution will serve as a benchmark for all stakeholders as they recover from the pandemic, especially those countries dependent on tourism.

Next, it turned to a text titled “Convention on Biological Diversity” (document A/C.2/76/L.54), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous draft.

By that text, the Assembly would urge parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to ensure the coherence and complementarity of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework with other existing or upcoming international processes, in particular regarding the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement and other related processes, frameworks and strategies.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would note with concern the findings of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and stress the urgent need to halt the global decline of biodiversity, which is unprecedented in human history, including its main indirect and direct drivers, in particular, changes in land and sea use, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution and invasion of alien species.

Speaking after action, the representative of the United States said his country remains actively engaged in the work of the Convention on Biological Diversity and supports its objectives.  Although it is not a party to the Convention, his country is following closely the process to negotiate the global biodiversity framework.  Further, he said the title of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity does not reflect well-defined consensus language or international principles.  Naming various declarations and agendas, he referred the Committee to his country’s general statement delivered on 18 November.

The representative of the European Union , in its capacity as observer, noting that it was joining consensus, said that protecting biodiversity is a prerequisite to building stronger economies and safeguarding well-being.  For that reason, the Union has pledged to double its external funding for biodiversity protection and conservation, particularly for the most vulnerable countries.  The international community must agree on an ambitious and transformative post-2020 global biodiversity framework in 2022, he said, pointing out that the pandemic has underscored the need to redefine mankind’s relationship with nature.

China ’s representative said the first stage of the Fifteenth Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Kunming.  China’s President attended the “summit” where he announced a contribution of RMB 1.5 billion to create a biodiversity fund of Kunming, a first set of national parks, and a policy system, including for carbon neutrality measures.  Going forward, China as host country and chair of the Conference will work with the rest of the international community to push for biodiversity restoration.  Referring to subsequent meetings that will take place in 2022, he said China will discharge earnestly its obligations as a host country to ensure the successful outcome of the second stage of the Conference.

Following that, the Committee acted on “Report of the United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)” (document A/C.1/76/L.53), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

By that text, the Assembly would express concern about findings of global environmental assessments indicating that, despite the availability of solutions to common environmental challenges, the planet is increasingly polluted, adversely affected by climate change, quickly losing its biodiversity and experiencing widespread environmental degradation.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would urge support for a sustainable, resilient and inclusive recovery from COVID-19 that protects the planet, stimulates sustainable consumption and production patterns, promotes the One Health approach, revitalizes economies, creates decent and sustainable jobs and makes real progress in eradicating poverty, while enhancing future resilience to similar challenges.

Speaking after action, the representative of the European Union , in its capacity as observer, said his bloc was pleased to join consensus and looks forward to the convening of the resumed meeting of the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly.  The resolution sends a strong message on the need to mainstream the environment in the United Nations system, and should mobilize Member States, the United Nations system, and other stakeholders in view of the important milestones ahead.  He called on the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly to launch negotiations of an intergovernmental instrument to end plastic pollution.  Looking ahead to the second part of the Fifteenth Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity as well as other environment-related events in 2022, he expressed hope that an ambitious post-biodiversity framework would be adopted.

The representative of the United States said his country strongly supports UNEP and its critical role in galvanizing action to solve many of the world’s environmental problems, adding that it was pleased to join consensus on the resolution.  Regarding the 2030 Agenda and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, he referred to his country’s statement of 18 November.

Next, the Committee turned to a text on “Combating sand and dust storms” (document A/C.2/76/L.36/Rev.1), approving it, as orally corrected, in a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Australia).

By that text, the Assembly would recognize that sand and dust storms, as well as unsustainable land management practices, can pose a serious challenge to the sustainable development of affected countries and regions.  Also recognizing that they have inflicted over the past few years substantial economic, social and environmental damage on inhabitants of the world’s arid, semi-arid and dry subhumid areas, especially in Africa and Asia, the Assembly would underscore the need to treat them and promptly take measures to address these challenges.

Speaking before action, Israel ’s representative, expressed regret about the call for a vote on the resolution, noting that the draft recalls a United Nations high-level event that had already taken place.  The language used does not reflect the language used in the modalities resolution for that event or the language used in the first resolution following the event.  It was especially disturbing that the language used is an attempt to rewrite history, deliberately misrepresenting a previously adopted resolution, she said, expressing hope that 2022 will allow the Committee to engage constructively on the resolution.

Speaking after action, the representative of the United States reiterated that the title of the Fifteenth Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity does not reflect well-defined consensus language or international principles.  He expressed regret that the compromise language regarding that text as reflected in other resolutions and agreed during negotiations was removed from the final text.  Regarding references to the 2030 Agenda, the Sendai Framework and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, he referred the Committee to his country’s general statement of 18 November.

The Committee then took up a draft on “Science, technology and innovation for sustainable development” (document A/C.2/76/L.60), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

By its terms, the Assembly would underscore the need to adopt science, technology and innovation strategies as integral elements of national sustainable development plans and strengthen knowledge-sharing on mutually agreed terms and collaboration, scaling up investment in these areas and enhancing technical, vocational and tertiary education and training.  Further, it would encourage Member States to strengthen and foster investment in research and development for environmentally sound technologies and promote the involvement of business and financial sectors in developing them.

Further to the text, the Assembly would call on Member States and the United Nations development system to strengthen their support for different science, technology and innovation partnerships with developing countries in primary, secondary and higher, vocational and continuing education, business opportunities for the private sector, and science, technology and innovation infrastructure.

The representative of the United States said his delegation joined consensus, but viewed a reference in preambular paragraph 18 to the Digital Cooperation Organization as representing only one example of multilateral activities outside of the United Nations system relevant to that paragraph.  As there are many other organizations doing similar work, the United States does not view the reference as a relevant example, nor does it elevate that organization over other regional organizations.  He also pointed out that the reference in operative paragraph 17 refers to “other relevant initiatives” as voluntary initiatives only.  Citing other paragraphs, he referred the Committee to the general statement delivered on 18 November.

The representative of the United Kingdom said her delegation joined consensus, but addressed Committee modalities, noting that time spent contesting procedure rather than engaging on substance took away Committee time and resources that could have otherwise addressed how science, technology and innovation affect sustainable development.  While pleased to see strong human rights language in that preambular paragraph, she expressed regret at the lack of greater emphasis on a multi-stakeholder approach.

The representative of the Republic of Korea joined consensus, acknowledging that the resolution recognizes the critical role of science, technology and innovation in building resilience to, combating and building back from the pandemic.  He welcomed the inclusion of a paragraph affirming that recognizing that human rights offline must apply online as well, expressing support for a human rights-based approach to digital technology.

The representative of Japan said her delegation joined consensus, and it is essential that the technology facilitation mechanism functions agilely to help all Member States learn and collaborate, but noted it is underfunded, with untapped potential.  She welcomed reference to “partnership in action” in operative paragraph 10 as a concrete recommendation.

Following that, the Committee took up a draft on “Follow-up to the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries” (document A/C.2/76/L.57), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

According to that draft, the Assembly would call on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to focus its analytical work on least developed countries, emphasizing productive capacities and measuring structural transformation.  It would also urge least developed countries and their development partners to use existing initiatives and programmes, such as World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions on duty-free and quota-free market access for least developed countries, preferential rules of origin and aid for trade.

The representative of the United States said his country is committed to supporting least developed countries, including through the ongoing Fifth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries negotiations.  He noted the United States does not accept language in operative paragraph 12 calling on countries to increase their official development assistance (ODA) commitments, as emphasis should be on all other forms of development finance.  He noted the terms “adequate” and “predictable” in operative paragraph 29 have no internationally agreed definitions, and more inclusive terms should be used.  He further referred the Committee to his country’s general statement of 18 November.

The representative of Canada , also speaking for Bangladesh, Co-Chairs of the Preparatory Committee bureau for the Fifth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, noted Committee negotiations took place under challenging circumstances.  She looked forward to resuming deliberations in support of the least developed countries during the next United Nations General Assembly session.

The representative of the United Kingdom said her delegation joined consensus, but expressed disappointment that Committee modalities were often challenged by deletions, treatment of language from an Economic and Social Council resolution as a source text and technical updates.  Those activities necessitated convening small groups on procedure rather than substance.  She expressed hope that Member States will seize a once in a decade opportunity to strengthen global partnerships, as it is critical that the most vulnerable are placed at the core of commitments.

The representative of the Turkey said that due to Committee modalities, delegates were unable to discuss any substantive issues, voicing hope for substantive discussions in 2022.

The Committee then turned to a text on “Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries” (document A/C.2/76/L.16/Rev.1), approving it in a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States) with 46 abstentions.

By its terms, the Assembly would urge the international community to adopt urgent and effective measures to eliminate the use of unilateral economic, financial or trade measures, unauthorized by relevant United Nations organs, inconsistent with international law or the Charter of the United Nations or which contravene basic principles of the multilateral trading system.

Further, the Assembly would call on the international community to condemn and reject the use of such measures as political and economic coercion against developing countries that impede full achievement of economic and social development.  It would also call on the international community to condemn and reject imposition of unilateral coercive economic measures inconsistent with international law and the Charter, which impede the capacity of targeted countries to respond efficiently to the pandemic and promote post-pandemic recovery.

The representative of the United States , speaking before the vote, said his delegation again opposed the resolution, as sanctions are an effective, legitimate and peaceful tool for countering threats to peace and security, used against those who threaten human rights, undermine democracy or engage in criminal activities.  The United States has applied them with specific goals in mind, including protecting the rule of law and human rights.  The country also works to minimize unintended consequences, as in tailoring sanctions on Syria and Venezuela, in view of the pandemic.  The United States is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to both countries, providing billions of dollars, and will continue to tailor sanctions to support the flow of legitimate humanitarian goods and assistance.  Sanctions are a legitimate way to achieve foreign policy, national security and international objectives, he noted, and the United States is not alone in that view.

The representative of Venezuela , speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, said unilateral coercive measures, be they economic or political, have become the preferred instrument of certain States to exert pressure on developing countries, and force the sovereign will of another State to obtain advantage over them.  They clearly run contrary to spirit and letter of Charter of the United Nations, he said, as these illegal measures attack sustainable development and are also an obstacle to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.  He reiterated that increasing recourse to unilateralism impacts the independence of States and their freedom of trade, economic development and efforts to fight the pandemic.  They impose pain and suffering on entire populations and should be lifted.

The representative of Slovenia , speaking on behalf of the European Union after the vote, lamented the difficult negotiation process.  The bloc abstained due to deterioration of the text compared to previous iterations, leading away from consensus.  She noted the Union believes restrictive measures are an important tool in fighting terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  States hold the primary responsibility to protect human rights.  Many transgressions are unacceptable and ending them is a key worldwide priority for the bloc.  She noted sanctions should respect the principles of international law, with measures imposed in that context.  She expressed regret that none of the bloc’s proposals were taken on board.  The European Union and its Member States are the leading donor of COVID-19 vaccines worldwide, including to States under sanctions.  She objected to several formulations in the text.

The representative of Cuba , associating himself with the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, noted the loss of access to international markets under unilateral coercive measures, and that a heightening of unilateral coercive measures against a number of countries attacks sovereignty and independence of States, and stymies national efforts at development.  Those initiatives aim to cause economic and political problems, with no distinction between Governments and populations, attacking the most vulnerable.  Cuba has been the victim of the most severe and prolonged coercive measures ever applied against any country, he stressed, causing $9.175 billion in damages from 2019 to 2020 alone.  Those measures have been tightened during pandemic, despite calls by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to lift them.  He noted the United States once again opposed the resolution, showing its disdain for developing countries.

The representative of Zimbabwe , associating herself with the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, said her delegation voted in favour of the draft, as unilateral coercive measures transgress international law.  Given their extraterritorial nature, they severely impede the socioeconomic advancement of developing countries.  Zimbabwe is still suffering under sanctions imposed some 20 years ago, she emphasized, impacting all sectors of its economy.  While sanctions are characterized as targeted, she noted, under the pandemic, their effects are more odious, calling for the immediate and unconditional lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe and other nations.

The representative of the United Kingdom , also speaking on behalf of Australia, Canada and Ukraine, said sanctions are a legitimate tool of foreign policy.  The Governments cited voted against the resolution for first time, after having long disagreed with its sentiment and abstaining in previous years.  She noted this year’s resolution mischaracterizes sanctions, with no mention that humanitarian exemptions can ensure that sanctions can avoid affecting food, medicine and other aid.  They are lawful, transparent and allow for due process protections, with no inconsistency with the Charter of the United Nations.

The representative of China said his delegation voted in favour of the draft.  With COVID-19 especially affecting developing countries, the international community must work with more urgency for momentum on development.  In recent years, some developing countries have experienced instability fuelled by external interference, he said, and unilateral coercive measures run contrary to the trend of the times and the Charter.  No country should coerce another, and the international community must eliminate unilateral or trade measures affecting developing countries.  Unilateral coercive measures and the bullying of certain countries do not help solve problems, he said, urging the relevant countries to immediately and completely abolish them.

The representative of Eritrea , associating herself with the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, welcomed the resolution, as it is deplorable to witness foreign policy conducted using unilateral coercive measures mainly against developing countries that pursue independence efforts.  Illegal unilateral coercive measures are packaged as targeted, she noted, as though they do not adversely affect States.  Whether targeted or not, they have no legitimacy, she said, urging those States imposing them to refrain, as “our realities are not those of yours.”

The representative of Iran , associating himself with the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, said unilateral coercive measures including sanctions are illegal under international law and the Charter, representing a clear violation of the right to self-determination.  Unilateral coercive measures aiming to destroy economy and living standards of a State constitute an act of war, as the effects are analogous.  Even if they do not affect humanitarian aid, as alleged by some States, he stressed excluding some States from the international banking system is harmful.  Imposing unilateral coercive measures, including illegal economic sanctions, including against some countries suffering under the pandemic, passes the redline of economic terrorism, reaching the level of crimes against humanity.

The representative of Sweden said she had intended to abstain, asking for that vote to be corrected or reflected in the report of the meeting.

Next, the Committee took up a draft on “Promotion of international cooperation to combat illicit financial flows and strengthening good practices on assets return to foster sustainable development” (document A/C.2/76/L.28/Rev.1), approving operative paragraph 3 in a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 41 against, with 7 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Turkey).

The Committee then approved the draft as a whole, without a vote.

By that text, the Assembly would call on all countries to work together to eliminate base erosion and profit shifting and ensure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, according to national and international laws and policies.

The Assembly would also call on countries to cooperate, according to applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements, in the areas of mutual legal and administrative assistance in tax matters, as well as the automatic exchange of financial account information.  Further it would stress that anti-corruption measures should be an integral part of national development policies and strategies.

The representative of the United States , speaking on operative paragraph 3, said fighting corruption is integral to development and security.  However, the language undermines constructive work, and his delegation disassociated itself from operative paragraph 3.  The United Nations Convention against Corruption is the appropriate venue for experts to consider confiscation and the proceeds from crimes, and the resolution undermines its work.  He expressed concern over the endorsement of the High-level Panel on International Financial Accountability, Transparency and Integrity, as the document was not approved by consensus and is not a United Nations document.  He also reiterated that some language undermines working against money laundering, corruption and other such crimes.  The resolution is not clear on which activities are in question, and does not pay enough attention to transparency, and his delegation does not believe asset recovery should be so directly coupled with sustainable development.  He referred the Committee to his country’s statement of 18 November regarding the term “illicit financial flows”.

The representative of the United Kingdom expressed disappointment that the resolution ended up with a paragraph vote containing language the delegation cannot accept.  Since 2006, the United Kingdom has frozen, confiscated or returned over £1.1 billion in assets stolen from developing countries.  It is not appropriate for the Committee to engage with Faculty Panel, she stated, as it has no official United Nations mandate.  She noted the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption will soon meet and is the correct forum for dealing with illicit financing.  She expressed hope that, when negotiating the resolution in 2022, the Committee can reach more consensus.

The representative of Liechtenstein said combating illicit financing has been a longstanding priority for his country, but his delegation disassociated from operative paragraph 3 in 2020 as the faculty panel is not endorsed by United Nations membership, and voted against it in 2021.  It is misleading that the resolution confuses asset recovery with asset return, he said, and his delegation will still advocate for the Convention on Corruption framework.  He encouraged the bi-annualization or tri-annualization of the resolution.

The representative of Canada , also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, expressed concern over future trends in negotiations on the resolution.  Those delegations abstained on operative paragraph 3 over concerns with the substance and process of negotiation.  He noted the recent addition of substantive elements, and request for a Secretary-General’s report on the resolution duplicates the request for the Convention on Corruption report.  Amendments to the draft were not technical updates and deserved further deliberation, he said, and the Committee could have achieved a better text with modalities respected.

The representative of Switzerland said that his country did not support all recommendations in operative paragraph 3, noting that the definition of illicit financial flows remains open.  Elements of corruption require different approaches, and instruments already exist.  Creating new coordination bodies will not help implement instruments, he said, and his delegation could not then support the text of operative paragraph 3.  A lack of consensus makes efforts in the future more difficult.

The representative of Nigeria said her delegation attaches great importance to “L.28/Rev.1”, as illicit financial flows undermine the security of nations and inhibit growth.  In addressing international financial flows, there is a need for transparency and integrity, and a redesigned global architecture to combat them, including establishing of an international ecosystem of laws and institutions.  The challenges require taking immediate action, and it was therefore disappointing to see the need for a vote on operative paragraph 3.  She expressed appreciation for the flexibility shown by the Group of 77 on the financial action task force referenced in the resolution, and lamented that fractures in the international community appear to be widening.  She noted that evidence indicates that recovery and returning proceeds of illicit financial flows of assets could generate enough capital to finance the fight against climate change in Sub Saharan Africa by 2030.

The representative of the Republic of Korea expressed regret that a wholly consensual outcome was not possible.  His delegation abstained on operative paragraph 3, while attaching significance to combating illicit financial flows.  However, he was not entirely satisfied with the paragraph’s contents for several reasons, noting concern over a vague reference to illicit financial flows, and stating there is no shortage of commitments, mechanisms or bodies tackling components of illicit financial flows, including tax, corruption and criminal activities.

The representative of Sweden said that her country intended to vote no on operative paragraph 3, asking that the record be corrected accordingly.

The representative of Slovenia , speaking on behalf of the European Union on resolution as a whole, said financial integrity is a priority for Sustainable Development Goals.  The bloc voted against operative paragraph 3, as the initiative was not as inclusive as hoped.  The Faculty Panel report only reflects the views of its members, who did not even agree amongst themselves, she noted.  Some language threatens to weaken support for existing bodies and instruments, she said, and the bloc disassociated itself from operative paragraph 3.

Following that, the Committee turned to a draft on “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of humankind” (document A/C.2/76/L.19/Rev.1), rejecting an amendment to paragraph 10 in a recorded vote of 84 against to 62 in favour, with 11 abstentions.  It decided to retain the paragraph in a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 51 against, with 9 abstentions (Antigua-Barbuda, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Haiti, Honduras, Maldives).

By that text, the Assembly would express profound alarm that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise globally, remains deeply concerned that all countries are vulnerable to adverse impacts of climate change and are already experiencing an increase in such impacts.  Noting that these include persistent drought, extreme weather events, land degradation, sea level rise, coastal erosion, ocean acidification and retreat of mountain glaciers, the Assembly would emphasize that mitigation of and adaptation to climate change represent an immediate and urgent global priority.

Further to the text, the Assembly would urge Member States to adopt a climate- and environment-responsive approach to COVID‑19 recovery, including by aligning investments and domestic policies with the 2030 Agenda, Paris Agreement goals and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to accelerate a transition to low-emission, climate-resilient, inclusive and sustainable economies.

Also by the text, the Assembly would stress the need to strengthen the global response to climate change by increasing countries’ abilities to adapt to its adverse effects, fostering resilience, accelerating full implementation of the 2030 Agenda and integrating appropriate measures into national policies, strategies and planning.  It would further stress the importance of mobilizing means of implementation from all sources, including adequate financial support for mitigation and adaptation, considering the specific needs and special circumstances of developing countries.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the European Union , speaking in its capacity as observer, said her bloc joined consensus on the draft, despite major deficiencies in the text.  Regarding operative paragraph 30, she expressed regret that progress made at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow was not fully reflected in the text, including provisions on transparency and climate finance.

The representative of the United States said the draft’s language in operative paragraph 10 deflects away from the key Sustainable Development Goals, urging Member States to vote yes for the amendment.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Antigua and Barbuda said his country hoped for consensus on the amendment to ensure that the agreed language in it is maintained, as the amendment was taken from the 2030 Agenda, stating that he abstained from the vote.

The representative of India stressed that developed countries must not neglect their obligations on climate financing, mitigation and adaptation to developing countries.  Regarding operative paragraph 10, she lamented that a nation used this to propagate its own agenda, noting that no constructive engagement was made on this paragraph.

The representative of Chile stressed that the outcomes of the Glasgow conference must be fully implemented, especially regarding climate finance and long-term finance, expressing regret that no consensus was achieved on this crucial matter.

The representative of China noted that the adverse effects of climate change are increasingly visible, stressing the urgency for climate action.  The Glasgow Climate Change Conference made positive progress, injecting new impetus into the Paris Agreement.  The international community should build on this momentum to promote climate mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner, with developed countries providing the funding.

The representative of Guinea , speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, called on all members of his to vote no to the amendment to operative paragraph 10.

Addressing the draft as a whole, the representative of the Russian Federation stressed the need to ensure consensus on climate issues and adherence to the Paris Agreement.  The text should have reflected forests and absorption of greenhouse gases more, he said, expressing regret that the draft failed to do this.

The representative of the United States said his country joined consensus on the draft, but expressed regret that it must disassociate from operative paragraph 10, which promoted a domestic priority of a Member State rather than the 2030 Agenda.  He also expressed disappointment in the final language, which failed to reflect the ambition and outcomes of the Glasgow Climate Change Conference.

The representative of the United Kingdom , noting the ambitious and balanced outcome from the Glasgow conference, stressed the importance of all nations coming together on critical steps to protect the climate.  The draft contains agreed language on finance and post-2025 finance goals, but fails to include fully updated language as contained in the Glasgow climate platform.

The representative of Switzerland expressed regret that the resolution failed to faithfully reflect the outcomes of the Glasgow conference, calling on parties who have not submitted nationally determined contributions to do so as soon as possible.  Stressing the need to make financial flows compatible with low emissions, he called on all to support the development of technology and policies to ensure a transition to low energy systems.

The representative of Canada , also speaking for Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and Australia, expressed disappointment that the Committee was unable to avoid a paragraph vote, stressing that countries must set aside their differences on climate issues.

The Committee then turned to a draft on “Strengthening cooperation for integrated coastal zone management for achieving sustainable development” (document A/C.2/76/L.38/Rev.1), approving it without a vote.

By that text, the Assembly would emphasize that coastal areas are an essential ecological and economic resource, noting that their management and planning, from a sustainable development perspective, need an integrated management approach.  It would call on Member States and other actors at the local, national, regional and international levels to address the problem of marine litter, including plastic litter and microplastics, which impacts coastal management.

Further to the text, the Assembly would call on Member States to reduce the level of pollution of coastal areas and protect marine ecosystems and coastal areas in the long term.  It would also call on them to develop partnerships allowing the exchange of good practices in integrated coastal zone management, marine spatial planning and the implementation of sustainable economic models and approaches, considering that international cooperation to implement marine spatial planning can contribute to the maintenance of ecosystem integrity and improve the economic profitability of marine management and the use of resources.

Morocco ’s representative, introducing the draft resolution, said the text is a strong illustration of how coastal economies can contribute to sustainable development and to a resilient recovery from COVID‑19.  The resolution aims to celebrate efforts made by all Member States, including those without coastal exposure in order to enhance their participation in global trade.  It also has enabled the interlinking of various pillars of international cooperation, including North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation.  He said his country has adopted a coastal law in 2015, followed by the establishment of a national commission on integrated coastal management, enabling considerable measures in areas such as energy efficiency, public transport and water management.  He invited Member States to approve the text by consensus, noting that the resolution is a collective effort for sustainable development.

After action, the representative of the European Union , in its capacity as observer, said his bloc welcomes the resolution, especially the call made therein to address the problem of marine litter and reduce the level of pollution in coastal areas.  He warned that without a change in approach, the amount of plastic that ends up in oceans could triple by 2040 to 29 million tons per year.  In that regard, he called upon the resumed session of the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly in February to launch negotiations of a much-needed intergovernmental instrument to end plastic pollution.  Referring to preambular paragraph 2, which was not open for negotiations in 2021, he said that, while his bloc joins consensus, the omnibus resolution on oceans and law of the sea is and should remain the authoritative source of any reference to the Convention on the Law of the Sea in resolutions of the General Assembly.  His bloc’s joining consensus in 2021 does not imply support for language in that preambular paragraph for other resolutions in the future.

Colombia ’s representative said his country’s commitment to strengthening cooperation for integrated coastal zone management is evidenced in his Government’s recent announcement at the twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of the extension of its protected marine areas in the East Pacific to 16 million hectares.  Noting that while Colombia joins consensus, he said that, with respect to preambular paragraph 2, his country had not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the provisions of which are not effective nor enforceable against Colombia.  As his country does not view that the convention represents the only legal framework regulating ocean activities, it expresses reservation to the reference to that instrument, which is included in the resolution.

The representative of the United States said his country strongly supports the sustainable use and management of coastal zones and marine ecosystems, as well as the launch of negotiations for a global legal instrument on ocean and plastic pollution, at the second session of the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly.  While his country joined consensus, regarding references to the 2030 Agenda and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, he referred the Committee to its statement delivered on 18 November.

Japan ’s representative said that while his delegation decided to join consensus, it regrets that the oral statement by the Secretariat in connection with operative paragraph 14 implying a proposed programme budget for 2023 was issued and circulated after the final informal consultations, without prior information sharing or discussion on the matter.  He expressed hope that important aspects, such as programme budgetary implications, would be discussed in detail during informal discussions among Member States for transparency purposes going forward.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that the topic is of particular interest to his country in its role as president of the twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and leader of the Global Ocean Alliance.  With respect to preambular paragraph 2, which was not open for negotiation or amendment, he said his country’s preferred language to refer to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is contained in a long-standing paragraph accepted in the Committee.  After reading that preferred language, he said his country does not consider that language in preambular paragraph 2 would be an appropriate basis for future negotiations.

Turkey ’s representative, said that while her country joins consensus and supports efforts to strengthen cooperation on coastal management, it is not a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  That convention is not the only legal framework that regulates all activities in the ocean and sea.  She said Turkey disassociates itself form references made in the resolution to that convention and those references should not be interpreted as a change in the legal position of her country on that matter.

Iran ’s representative said that while her country joins consensus, it is not a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and thus disassociates itself from all references made in the resolution to that convention, especially in preambular paragraph 2.

Morocco ’s representative, expressing appreciation for the consensus reached on the resolution, assured Japan’s representative that his comments had been taken into account and would also be taken into consideration in the future.

Next, the Committee took up a decision on “Draft programme of work of the Second Committee for the seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly” (document A/C.2/76/L.61), approving it without a vote, withdrawing a previous draft.

By that text, the Assembly would approve the Committee’s draft programme of work for its seventy-seventh session of the Assembly.  It would further invite the Second Committee Bureau at the seventy-seventh session, in preparing the draft programme of work and timetable of the Committee for the seventy-seventh session, to consider the provisional programme of work and timetable of the Committee as contained in document A/C.2/76/CRP.2. 

Speaking before action, the representative of the European Union , in its capacity as observer, said that a revitalized fit-for-purpose Committee is necessary to address new and emerging challenges.  Bound by this year’s modalities, her bloc had not attempted to make further progress on revitalization during negotiations on Committee resolutions.  However, it is of utmost importance to keep revitalization of the Committee on its agenda now and in the future, she said, adding that the June 2021 revitalization decision contains many important proposals that would serve as a good basis for progress.

Canada ’s representative, speaking also on behalf of Andorra, Australia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom, said the Committee must continue to adapt to current realities and challenges.  Their delegations had voiced strong concerns about resolutions that do not currently align with the landmark agreements of 2015, particularly the 2030 Agenda.  They had also expressed support to merge resolutions when appropriate, adapt the periodicity of resolutions and to actively consider co-authorship.  Noting that the Committee is at a turning point on revitalization, he said the same collaboration and discipline that allowed it to complete its work during the current session, could be used to ensure the Committee also delivers to Member States a sustainable, inclusive and resilient recovery towards achievement of the 2030 Agenda.

The representative of the United States said it was important to continue discussions on revitalization of the Committee, noting progress made over the last two years.  The Committee’s decision on revitalization in June contains important proposals that could serve as a good basis for further progress.  Noting that there are useful tools that the Committee could adopt to better focus its work, he suggested exploring the possibility of delegations submitting a justification for the introduction or continued consideration of resolutions, indicating how a resolution would support the work of the Committee.  Moreover, his delegation is open to considering creative ideas to ensure that the Committee delivers to all its citizens.

The Committee then took up a draft decision on its working methods, approving it without a vote.  The decision reads as follows:

“The General Assembly recalls its resolution 75/325 on “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”, in particular the provisions relating to working methods, as well as its decisions 75/548B and 73/537B on “Revitalization of the work of the Second Committee”, decides to convene up to two informal meetings of the Second Committee in early 2022 to discuss the working methods of the Committee, and requests the Bureau of the Committee to update the conference room paper on Second Committee working methods, following those discussions.”

The Committee then took up and concluded consideration of its item on “Programme planning”.

Closing Remarks

Maria-Francesca Spatolisano, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that, despite the limitations posed by the pandemic, the Committee had reached a clear agreement on its methods of work.  Recognizing the severe negative impacts of the pandemic on human health, safety and well-being, as well as on lives and livelihoods, the Committee had also provided relevant guidance to current global challenges, examples of which could be found in many of the resolutions it had recently approved.  Policy guidance on the challenges faced by groups of countries in special situations was also provided by the Committee, calling for the convening in 2024 of a fourth international conference on small island developing States, as well as deciding to hold the third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries, also in 2024.  As well, the Committee provided guidance on important topics, such as biological diversity, coastal zone management, and sustainable consumption and production patterns.  Noting the Committee’s efficient work during this session, she said the Department of Economic and Social Affairs remains committed to support the Second Committee, as it continues to advance the realization of the 2030 Agenda in the decade of action and delivery.

The Chair said that, given the challenges posed by the pandemic, the Committee had carefully prepared a set of modalities on how to engage with each other over the course of a few months and managed to ensure that its conclusions fell into place with those of the Twenty-Sixth United Nations Climate Change Conference.  Further, the Committee managed to respond to the guidance of the Secretary-General’s Food Systems Summit and agreed to start planning for reviewing the work on landlocked developing and small island developing States in 2024, she said, noting that those were not small accomplishments under difficult circumstances.  She expressed gratitude to the Bureau, noting that it was first all-women Bureau of the Second Committee in history.  She also thanked the facilitators and co-facilitators of resolutions, whose efforts brought together the views of all delegations in the 37 draft resolutions that the Committee had recently approved, as well as the United Nations Offices and the Secretariat for their support.  Finally, she thanked delegations for taking the guidance on modalities in stride and for their commitment to engaging efficiently, allowing the Committee to complete its work.

Facebook Twitter Email Print LinkedIn

Soaring temperatures in New York, July 2010. Photo by Eric Thayer/Reuters

The melting brain

It’s not just the planet and not just our health – the impact of a warming climate extends deep into our cortical fissures.

by Clayton Page Aldern   + BIO

In February 1884, the English art critic and polymath John Ruskin took the lectern at the London Institution for a pair of lectures on the weather. ‘The Storm-Cloud of the Nineteenth Century’ was his invective against a particular ‘wind of darkness’ and ‘plague-cloud’ that, in his estimate, had begun to envelope Victorian cities only in recent years. He had been taking careful meteorological measurements, he told a sceptical audience. He railed against the ‘bitterness and malice’ of the new weather in question; and, perhaps more importantly, about how it mirrored a certain societal ‘moral gloom’. You could read in us what you could read in the weather, he suggested.

July Thundercloud in the Val d’Aosta (1858) by John Ruskin. Courtesy Wikipedia

It was easy that February, and perhaps easy today, to disregard any alleged winds of darkness as the ravings of a madman. Clouds are clouds: even if Ruskin’s existed – which was a question of some contemporaneous debate – it would be untoward to imagine they bore any relationship with the human psyche. As Brian Dillon observed of the cloud lectures in The Paris Review in 2019, it can be hard to tell where Ruskin’s ‘bad weather ends and his own ragged, doleful mood begins.’ In 1886, Ruskin suffered a mental breakdown while giving a talk in Oxford. By the end of his life at the turn of the century, he was widely considered insane. His ramblings on meteorology and the human spirit aren’t exactly treated with the same gravitas as his books on J M W Turner.

And yet, for Ruskin, the clouds weren’t just clouds: they were juiced up by a ‘dense manufacturing mist’, as he’d noted in a diary entry. The plague-clouds embodied the miasma of the Industrial Revolution; the moral gloom was specifically that which arose from the rapid societal and environmental changes that were afoot. Ruskin’s era had seen relentless transformation of pastoral landscapes into industrial hubs. Everything smelled like sulphur and suffering. Soot-filled air, chemical and human waste, the clamour of machinery – these were more than just physical nuisances. They were assaults on the senses, shaping moods and behaviour in ways that were not yet fully understood.

Mining Area (1852-1905) by Constantin Meunier. Courtesy Wikipedia

Ruskin believed that the relentless pace of industrialisation, with its cacophony of tools and sprawling factories and environmental destruction, undermined psychological wellbeing: that the mind, much like the body, required a healthy social and physical environment to thrive. This was actually a somewhat new idea. (Isaac Ray, a founder of the American Psychiatric Association, wouldn’t define the idea of ‘mental hygiene’, the precursor to mental health, until 1893.) Instability in the environment, for Ruskin, begot instability in the mind. One reflected the other.

M ore than a century later, as we grapple with a new suite of breakneck environmental changes, the plague-clouds are again darkly literal. Global average surface temperatures have risen by about 1.1°C (2°F) since the pre-industrial era, with most of this warming occurring in the past 40 years. Ice is melting; seas are steadily rising; storms are – well, you know this story. And yet, most frequently, it is still a story of the world out there: the world outside of us. The narrative of climate change is one of meteorological extremes, economic upheaval and biodiversity losses. But perhaps it is worth taking a maybe-mad Ruskin seriously. What of our internal clouds? As the climate crisis warps weather and acidifies oceans and shatters temperature records with frightening regularity, one is tempted to ask if our minds are changing in kind.

Here are some of the most concerning answers in the affirmative. Immigration judges are less likely to rule in favour of asylum seekers on hotter days. On such days, students behave as if they’ve lost a quarter-year of education, relative to temperate days. Warmer school years correspond to lower rates of learning. Temperature predicts the incidence of online hate speech. Domestic violence spikes with warmer weather. Suicide , too.

In baseball, pitchers are more likely to hit batters with their pitches on hot days

But you already know what this feels like. Perhaps you’re more ornery in the heat. Maybe you feel a little slow in the head. It’s harder to focus and easier to act impulsively. Tomes of cognitive neuroscience and behavioural economics research back you up, and it’s not all as dire as domestic violence. Drivers honk their horns more frequently (and lean on them longer) at higher temperatures. Heat predicts more aggressive penalties in sport. In baseball, pitchers are more likely to hit batters with their pitches on hot days – and the outdoor temperature is an even stronger predictor of their tendency to retaliate in this manner if they’ve witnessed an opposing pitcher do the same thing.

In other words: it would appear the plague-clouds are within us, too. They illustrate the interconnectedness of our inner and outer worlds. They betray a certain flimsiness of human agency, painting our decision-making in strokes of environmental influence far bolder than our intuition suggests. And they throw the climate crisis into fresh, stark relief: because, yes, as the climate changes, so do we.

T he London Institution closed in 1912. These days, when you want to inveigh against adverse environmental-mind interactions, you publish a paper in The Lancet . And so that is what 24 mostly British, mostly clinical neurologists did in May 2024, arguing that the ‘incidence, prevalence, and severity of many nervous system conditions’ can be affected by global warming. For these researchers, led by Sanjay Sisodiya, professor of neurology at University College London in the UK, the climate story is indeed one of internal clouds.

In their survey of 332 scientific studies, Sisodiya and his colleagues show that climatic influence extends far beyond behaviour and deep into cortical fissures. Aspects of migraine, stroke, seizure and multiple sclerosis all appear to be temperature dependent. In Taiwan, report the authors, the risk of schizophrenia hospitalisation increases with widening daytime temperature ranges. In California , too, ‘hospital visits for any mental health disorder, self-harm, intentional injury of another person, or homicide’ rise with broader daily temperature swings. In Switzerland , hospitalisations for psychiatric disorders increase with temperature, with the risk particularly pronounced for those with developmental disorders and schizophrenia.

Outside the hospital, climate change is extending the habitable range of disease vectors like ticks, mosquitoes and bats, causing scientists to forecast an increased incidence of vector-borne and zoonotic brain maladies like yellow fever, Zika and cerebral malaria. Outside the healthcare system writ large, a changing environment bears on sensory systems and perception, degrading both sensory information and the biological tools we use to process it. Outside the realm of the even remotely reasonable, warming freshwater brings with it an increased frequency of cyanobacterial blooms, the likes of which release neurotoxins that increase the risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease).

Experiencing natural disasters in utero greatly increases children’s risk of anxiety, depression and ADHD

Indeed, recent studies suggest that climate change may be exacerbating the already substantial burden of neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. In countries with warmer-than-average climates, more intense warming has been linked to a greater increase in Parkinson’s cases and, as Sisodiya et al note, the highest forecasted rates of increase in dementia prevalence are ‘expected to be in countries experiencing the largest effects of climate change’. Similarly, short-term exposure to high temperatures appears to drive up emergency department visits for Alzheimer’s patients. The air we breathe likely plays a complementary role: in Mexico City, for example, where residents are exposed to high levels of fine particulate matter and ozone from a young age, autopsies have revealed progressive Alzheimer’s pathology in 99 per cent of those under the age of 30.

The risks aren’t limited to those alive today. In 2022, for example, an epidemiological study revealed that heat exposure during early pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk of children developing schizophrenia, anorexia and other neuropsychiatric conditions. High temperatures during gestation have long been known to delay neurodevelopment in rats. Other scientists have shown that experiencing natural disasters in utero greatly increases children’s risk of anxiety, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorders later in life. Such effects cast the intergenerational responsibilities of the Anthropocene in harsh new light – not least because, as Sisodiya and colleagues write, there is a tremendous ‘global disparity between regions most affected by climate change (both now and in the future) and regions in which the majority of studies are undertaken.’ We don’t know what we don’t know.

What we do know is that the brain is emerging, in study after study, as one of climate change’s most vulnerable landscapes.

It is a useful reorientation. Return to the horn-honking and the baseball pitchers for a moment. A focus on the brain sheds some potential mechanistic light on the case studies and allows us to avoid phrases like ‘wind of darkness’. Higher temperatures, for example, appear to shift functional brain networks – the coordinated behaviour of various regions – toward randomised activity. In extreme heat, scientists have taken note of an overworked dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), the evolutionarily new brain region that the neuroendocrinologist Robert M Sapolsky at Stanford University in the US calls ‘the definitive rational decider in the frontal cortex’. The dlPFC limits the degree to which people make impulsive decisions; disrupted dlPFC activity tends to imply a relatively heightened influence of limbic structures (like the emotionally attuned amygdala) on behaviour. More heat, less rational decision-making.

When extreme heat reaches into your mind and tips your scales toward violence, it is constraining your choices

The physicality of environmental influence on the brain is more widespread than the dlPFC – and spans multiple spatial scales. Heat stress in zebrafish, for example, down-regulates the expression of proteins relevant to synapse construction and neurotransmitter release. In mice, heat also triggers inflammation in the hippocampus, a brain region necessary for memory formation and storage. While neuroinflammation often plays an initially protective role, chronic activation of immune cells – like microglia and astrocytes – can turn poisonous, since pro-inflammatory molecules can damage brain cells in the long run. In people, hyperthermia is associated with decreased blood flow to this region. Psychologists’ observations of waning cognition and waxing aggression at higher temperatures makes a world of sense in the context of such findings.

The nascent field of environmental neuroscience seeks to ‘understand the qualitative and quantitative relationships between the external environment, neurobiology, psychology and behaviour’. Searching for a more specific neologism – since that particular phrase also encompasses environmental exposures like noise, urban development, lighting and crime – we might refer to our budding, integrative field as climatological neuroepidemiology. Or, I don’t know, maybe we need something snappier for TikTok. Neuroclimatology? Ecological neurodynamics?

I tend to prefer: the weight of nature.

The weight forces our hands, as in the case of the behavioural effects highlighted above. When extreme heat reaches into your mind and tips your scales toward violence, it is constraining your choices. By definition, impulsive decisions are rooted in comparatively less reflection than considered decisions: to the extent that a changing climate influences our reactions and decision-making, we should understand it as compromising our perceived free will. The weight of nature is heavy. It displaces us.

It is also a heavy psychological burden to carry. You are likely familiar with the notion of climate anxiety . The phrase, which tends to refer to a near-pathological state of worry and fear of impending environmental destruction, has never sat particularly well with me. Anxiety, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual , is usually couched in terms of ‘excessive’ worry. I’m not convinced there’s anything excessive about seeing the climatic writing on the wall and feeling a sense of doom. Perhaps we ought to consider the climate-anxious as having more developed brains than the rest of the litter – that the Cassandras are the only sane ones left.

I ’m not exactly joking. Neuroscience has begun to study the brains in question, and not for nothing. The midcingulate cortex, a central hub in the brain’s threat-detection circuitry, may hold some clues to the condition’s biological basis: in one 2024 study , for example, researchers at Northern Michigan University in the US found that people who reported higher levels of anxiety about climate change showed distinct patterns of brain structure and function in this region, relative to those with lower levels of climate anxiety – and irrespective of base levels of anxiety writ large. In particular, the climate-anxious brain appears to play host to a smaller midcingulate (in terms of grey matter), but one that’s functionally more connected to other key hubs in the brain’s salience network, a system understood to constantly scan the environment for emotionally relevant information. In the salience network, the midcingulate cortex works hand in hand with limbic structures like the amygdala and insula to prepare the body to respond appropriately to this type of information. In people with climate anxiety, this network may be especially attuned to signals of climate-related threats.

Rather than indicating a deficiency, then, a diminutive midcingulate might reflect a more efficient, finely honed threat-detection system. The brain is well known to prune redundant connections over time, preserving only the most useful neural pathways. Selective sculpting, suggest the Michigan researchers, may allow the climate-anxious brain to process worrisome information more effectively, facilitating rapid communication between the midcingulate and other regions involved in threat anticipation and response. In other words, they write, the climate-anxious midcingulate might be characterised by ‘more efficient wiring’.

This neural sensitivity to potential dangers could be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it may attune some people to the very real perils of the future. The midcingulate is critical for anticipating future threats, and meta-analyses have found the region to be consistently activated when people contemplate unpredictable negative outcomes. Given the looming spectre of climate catastrophe, a hair-trigger threat-detection system could be an adaptive asset.

Climate anxiety is not just a sociocultural phenomenon. It has a theoretically identifiable neural correlate

On the other hand, argue the researchers:

[T]he complexity, uncertainty, as well as temporal and geographical distance of the climate crisis, in addition to its global nature, may lead individuals to deprioritising the risks associated with climate change, or becoming overwhelmed and disengaged – a state sometimes referred to as ‘eco-paralysis’.

An overactive midcingulate has been implicated in clinical anxiety disorders, and the new findings suggest that climate anxiety shares some of the same neural underpinnings. (It’s important to recall that climate anxiety seems to be distinct from generalised anxiety, though, as the brain differences observed in the Michigan study couldn’t be explained by overall anxiety levels.)

Ultimately, while speculative, these findings suggest that climate anxiety is not merely a sociocultural phenomenon, but one with theoretically identifiable neural correlates. They provide a potential biological framework for understanding why some people may be more psychologically impacted by climate change than others. And they raise intriguing questions about whether the brains of the climate anxious are particularly well-suited for confronting the existential threat of a warming world – or whether they are vulnerable to becoming overwhelmed by it. In all cases, though, they illustrate that world reaching inward.

T here is perhaps a flipside to be realised here. A changing climate is seeping into our very neurobiology. What might it mean to orient our neurobiology toward climate change?

Such is the premise of a 2023 article in Nature Climate Change by the neuroscientist Kimberly Doell at the University of Vienna in Austria and her colleagues, who argue that the field is well positioned to inform our understanding of climate-adaptation responses and pro-environmental decision-making. In the decades since Ruskin shook his fists at the sky, environmental neuroscience has begun to probe the reciprocal dance between organisms and their ecological niches. We know now that the textures of modern environments – green spaces, urban sprawl, socioeconomic strata – all leave their mark on the brain. Climate change is no different.

Accordingly, argue Doell et al, scientists and advocates alike can integrate findings from neuroscience to improve communications strategies aimed at spurring climate action. They want to turn the tables, taking advantage of insights from neurobiology and cognitive neuroscience to more effectively design climate solutions – both within ourselves and for society as a whole.

The Anthropocene’s fever dream is already warping our wetware

We have models for this type of approach. Poverty research, for instance, has long implicated socioeconomic conditions with subpar health. In more recent years, neuroscience has reverse-engineered the pathways by which poverty’s various insults – understimulation, toxic exposures, chronic stress – can erode neural architecture and derail cognitive development. Brain science alone won’t solve poverty, yet even a limited understanding of these mechanisms has spurred research in programmes like Head Start, a family-based preschool curriculum that has been shown to boost selective attention (as evident in electrophysiological recordings) and cognitive test scores. While the hydra of structural inequity is not easily slain, neuroscientists have managed to shine some light on poverty’s neural correlates, flag its reversible harms, and design precision remedies accordingly. This same potential, argue Doell and her colleagues, extends to the neuroscience of climate change.

To realise this potential, though, we need to further understand how the Anthropocene’s fever dream is already warping our wetware. Social and behavioural science have begun cataloguing the psychological fallout of a planet in flux, but a neural taxonomy of climate change awaits. The field’s methodological and conceptual arsenal is primed for the challenge, but honing it will demand alliances with climate science, medicine, psychology, political science and beyond.

Some are trying. For example, the Kavli Foundation in Los Angeles, US, recognising a need for answers, last year put out a call for scientists to investigate how neural systems are responding to ecological upheaval. With a trial $5 million, the foundation aims to illuminate how habitat loss, light pollution and other environmental insults may be influencing the molecular, cellular and circuit-level machinery of brains, human and otherwise. The central question is: in a biosphere where change is the only constant, are neural systems plastic enough to keep pace, or will they be left struggling to adapt?

The first wave of researchers to take up Kavli’s challenge are studying a diverse array of creatures, each uniquely positioned to reveal insights about the brain’s resilience in the face of planetary disruption. Wolfgang Stein at Illinois State University in the US and Steffen Harzsch at University of Greifswald in Germany, for example, focus on crustaceans, seeking to understand how their neural thermal regulators cope with rising temperatures in shallow and deep waters. Another group has targeted the brains of cephalopods, whose RNA-editing prowess may be key to their ability to tolerate plummeting oxygen levels in their increasingly suffocating aquatic habitats. A third Kavli cohort, led by Florence Kermen at University of Copenhagen in Denmark, is subjecting zebrafish to extreme temperatures, scouring their neurons and glial cells for the molecular signatures that allow them to thrive – even as their watery world heats up.

These initial investments have sparked federal curiosity. In December 2023, the US National Science Foundation joined forces with Kavli, inviting researchers to submit research proposals that seek to probe the ‘modulatory, homeostatic, adaptive, and/or evolutionary mechanisms that impact neurophysiology in response to anthropogenic environmental influence’. We may not be in arms-race territory yet, but at least there’s a suggestion that we’re beginning to walk in the right direction.

T he brain, that spongy command centre perched atop our spinal cord, has always been a black box. As the climate crisis tightens its grip, and the ecological ground beneath our feet grows ever more unsteady, the imperative to pry it open and peer inside grows more urgent by the day. Already, we’ve begun to glimpse the outlines of a new neural cartography, sketched in broad strokes by the likes of Sisodiya and his colleagues. We know now that the brain is less a static lump of self-regulating tissue than it is a dynamic, living landscape, its hills and valleys shaped by the contours of our environment. Just as the Greenland ice sheet groans and buckles under the heat of a changing climate, so too do our synapses wither and our neurons wink out as the mercury rises. Just as rising seas swallow coastlines, and forests succumb to drought and flame, the anatomical borders of our brains are redrawn by each new onslaught of environmental insult.

But the dialogue between brain and biosphere is not a one-way street. The choices we make, the behaviours we pursue, the ways in which we navigate a world in crisis – all of these decisions are reflected back onto the environment, for good or for ill. So, I offer: in seeking to understand how a changing climate moulds the contours of our minds, we must also reckon with how the architecture of our thoughts might be renovated in service of sustainability.

Bit by bit, synapse by synapse, we can chart a course through the gathering plague-cloud

The cartographers of the Anthropocene mind have their work cut out for them. But in the hands of neuroscience – with its shimmering brain scans and humming electrodes, its gene-editing precision and algorithmic might – there is something approaching a starting point. By tracing the pathways of environmental impact to their neural roots, and by following the cascading consequences of our mental processes back out into the world, we might yet begin to parse the tangled web that binds the fates of mind and planet.

This much is clear: as the gears of the climate crisis grind on, our brains will be swept along for the ride. The question is whether we’ll be mere passengers, or whether we’ll seize the controls and steer towards something resembling a liveable future. The weight of nature – the immensity of the crisis we face – is daunting. But it need not be paralysing. Bit by bit, synapse by synapse, we can chart a course through the gathering plague-clouds. It was Ruskin, at a slightly more legible moment in his life, who offered: ‘To banish imperfection is to destroy expression, to check exertion, to paralyse vitality.’ Even if we somehow could, we ought not banish the alleged imperfections of environmental influence on the mind. Instead, we ought to read in them an intimate, vital relationship between self and world.

In this, climatological neuroepidemiology – young and untested though it may be – is poised to play an outsized role. In gazing into the black box of the climate-altered mind, in illuminating the neural circuitry of our planetary predicament, the field offers something precious: a flicker of agency in a world that often feels as if it’s spinning out of control. It whispers that the levers of change are within reach, lodged in the squishy confines of our crania, waiting to be grasped. And it suggests that, even as the weight of nature presses down upon us, we might yet find a way to press back.

Falling for suburbia

Modernists and historians alike loathed the millions of new houses built in interwar Britain. But their owners loved them

Michael Gilson

Computing and artificial intelligence

Mere imitation

Generative AI has lately set off public euphoria: the machines have learned to think! But just how intelligent is AI?

Anthropology

Your body is an archive

If human knowledge can disappear so easily, why have so many cultural practices survived without written records?

Helena Miton

Illness and disease

Empowering patient research

For far too long, medicine has ignored the valuable insights that patients have into their own diseases. It is time to listen

Charlotte Blease & Joanne Hunt

Seeing plants anew

The stunningly complex behaviour of plants has led to a new way of thinking about our world: plant philosophy

Stella Sandford

Sex and sexuality

Sexual sensation

What makes touch on some parts of the body erotic but not others? Cutting-edge biologists are arriving at new answers

David J Linden

A sunset lights a glacier in New Zealand's Fiordland National Park. Around the world, many glaciers are melting quickly as the planet warms.

• ENVIRONMENT

Are there real ways to fight climate change? Yes.

Humans have the solutions to fight a global environmental crisis. Do we have the will?

The evidence that humans are causing climate change, with drastic consequences for life on the planet, is overwhelming .

Experts began raising the alarm about global warming in 1979 , a change now referred to under the broader term climate change , preferred by scientists to describe the complex shifts now affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas , and a range of other impacts.  

Over 200 countries—193 countries plus the 27 members of the European Union—have signed the Paris Climate Agreement , a treaty created in 2015 to fight climate change on a global scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which synthesizes the scientific consensus on the issue, has set a goal of keeping warming under 2°C (3.6°F) and pursuing an even lower warming cap of 1.5 °C (2.7° F).

But no country has created policies that will keep the world below 1.5 °C, according to the Climate Action Tracker . Current emissions have the world on track to warm 2.8°C by the end of this century.  

Addressing climate change will require many solutions —there's no magic bullet. Yet nearly all of these solutions exist today. They range from worldwide changes to where we source our electricity to protecting forests from deforestation.  

The promise of new technology

Better technology will help reduce emissions from activities like manufacturing and driving.  

Scientists are working on ways to sustainably produce hydrogen, most of which is currently derived from natural gas, to feed zero-emission fuel cells for transportation and electricity.  

Renewable energy is growing, and in the U.S., a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources provide 20 percen t of the nation’s electricity.  

New technological developments promise to build better batteries to store that renewable energy, engineer a smarter electric grid, and capture carbon dioxide from power plants and store it underground or turn it into valuable products such as gasoline . Some argue that nuclear power—despite concerns over safety, water use, and toxic waste—should also be part of the solution, because nuclear plants don't contribute any direct air pollution while operating.

Should we turn to geoengineering?

While halting new greenhouse gas emissions is critical, scientists say we need to extract existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, effectively sucking it out of the sky.  

Pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is a type of geoengineering , a science that interferes with the Earth’s natural systems, and it’s a controversial approach to fighting climate change.

Other types of geoengineering involve spraying sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the air or blocking the sun with a giant space mirror. Studies suggest we don’t know enough about the potential dangers of geoengineering to deploy it.

Restoring nature to protect the planet  

Planting trees, restoring seagrasses, and boosting the use of agricultural cover crops could help clean up significant amounts of carbon dioxide .  

The Amazon rainforest is an important reservoir of the Earth’s carbon, but a study published in 2021, showed deforestation was transforming this reservoir into a source of pollution.  

Restoring and protecting nature may provide as much as   37 percent of the climate mitigation needed to reach the Paris Agreement’s 203o targets. Protecting these ecosystems can also benefit biodiversity, providing a win-win for nature .

Adapt—or else

Communities around the world are already recognizing that adaptation must also be part of the response to climate change . From flood-prone coastal towns to regions facing increased droughts and fires, a new wave of initiatives focuses on boosting resilience . Those include managing or preventing land erosion, building microgrids and other energy systems built to withstand disruptions, and designing buildings with rising sea levels in mind.

Last year, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law and was a historic investment in fighting and adapting to climate change.

( Read more about how the bill will dramatically reduce emissions. )

Recent books such as Drawdown and Designing Climate Solutions have proposed bold yet simple plans for reversing our current course. The ideas vary, but the message is consistent: We already have many of the tools needed to address climate change. Some of the concepts are broad ones that governments and businesses must implement, but many other ideas involve changes that anyone can make— eating less   meat , for example, or rethinking your modes of transport .

"We have the technology today to rapidly move to a clean energy system," write the authors of Designing Climate Solutions . "And the price of that future, without counting environmental benefits, is about the same as that of a carbon-intensive future."

Sarah Gibbens contributed reporting to this article.

Related Topics

• CLIMATE CHANGE
• ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
• AIR POLLUTION
• RENEWABLE ENERGY

You May Also Like

Another weapon to fight climate change? Put carbon back where we found it

Which cities will still be livable in a world altered by climate change?

Could seaweed be the 'fastest and least expensive' tool to fight climate change?

Listen to 30 years of climate change transformed into haunting music

Can we hack DNA in plants to help fight climate change?

• Interactive Graphic
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• The Big Idea
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions

• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental rights and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

1. Spread the word

Encourage your friends, family and co-workers to reduce their carbon pollution. Join a global movement like  Count Us In, which aims to inspire 1 billion people to take practical steps and challenge their leaders to act more boldly on climate. Organizers of the platform say that if 1 billion people took action, they could reduce as much as 20 per cent of global carbon emissions. Or you could sign up to the UN’s  #ActNow campaign on climate change and sustainability and add your voice to this critical global debate.

2. Keep up the political pressure

Lobby local politicians and businesses to support efforts to cut emissions and reduce carbon pollution.  #ActNow Speak Up  has sections on political pressure and corporate action - and Count Us In also has  some handy tips  for how to do this. Pick an environmental issue you care about, decide on a specific request for change and then try to arrange a meeting with your local representative. It might seem intimidating but your voice deserves to be heard. If humanity is to succeed in tackling the climate emergency, politicians must be part of the solution. It’s up to all of us to keep up with the pressure. 

3. Transform your transport

Transport accounts for around a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions and across the world, many governments are implementing policies to decarbonize travel. You can get a head start: leave your car at home and walk or cycle whenever possible. If the distances are too great, choose public transport, preferably electric options. If you must drive, offer to carpool with others so that fewer cars are on the road. Get ahead of the curve and buy an electric car. Reduce the number of long-haul flights you take. 

4. Rein in your power use

If you can, switch to a zero-carbon or renewable energy provider. Install solar panels on your roof. Be more efficient: turn your heating down a degree or two, if possible. Switch off appliances and lights when you are not using them and better yet buy the most efficient products in the first place (hint: this will save you money!). Insulate your loft or roof: you’ll be warmer in the winter, cooler in the summer and save some money too. 

5. Tweak your diet

Eat more plant-based meals – your body and the planet will thank you. Today, around 60 per cent of the world’s agricultural land is used for livestock grazing and people in many countries are consuming more animal-sourced food than is healthy. Plant-rich diets can help reduce chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.

The climate emergency demands action from all of us. We need to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and everyone has a role to play.

6. Shop local and buy sustainable

To reduce your food’s carbon footprint, buy local and seasonal foods. You’ll be helping small businesses and farms in your area and reducing fossil fuel emissions associated with transport and cold chain storage. Sustainable agriculture uses up to 56 per cent less energy, creates 64 per cent fewer emissions and allows for greater levels of biodiversity than conventional farming. Go one step further and try growing your own fruit, vegetables and herbs. You can plant them in a garden, on a balcony or even on a window sill. Set up a community garden in your neighbourhood to get others involved. 

7. Don’t waste food

One-third of all food produced is either lost or wasted. According to UNEP’s  Food Waste Index Report 2021 , people globally waste 1 billion tonnes of food each year, which accounts for around 8-10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Avoid waste by only buying what you need. Take advantage of every edible part of the foods you purchase. Measure portion sizes of rice and other staples before cooking them, store food correctly (use your freezer if you have one), be creative with leftovers, share extras with your friends and neighbours and contribute to a local food-sharing scheme. Make compost out of inedible remnants and use it to fertilize your garden. Composting is one of the best options for managing organic waste while also reducing environmental impacts.

8. Dress (climate) smart

The fashion industry accounts for 8-10 per cent of global carbon emissions – more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined – and ‘fast fashion’ has created a throwaway culture that sees clothes quickly end up in landfills. But we can change this. Buy fewer new clothes and wear them longer. Seek out sustainable labels and use rental services for special occasions rather than buying new items that will only be worn once. Recycle pre-loved clothes and repair when necessary.

9. Plant trees  

Every year approximately 12 million hectares of forest are destroyed and this deforestation, together with agriculture and other land use changes, is responsible for roughly 25 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. We can all play a part in reversing this trend by planting trees, either individually or as part of a collective. For example, the Plant-for-the-Planet initiative allows people to sponsor tree-planting around the world.

Check out this UNEP guide to see what else you can do as part of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration , a global drive to halt the degradation of land and oceans, protect biodiversity, and rebuild ecosystems. 

10. Focus on planet-friendly investments

Individuals can also spur change through their savings and investments by choosing financial institutions that do not invest in carbon-polluting industries. #ActNow Speak Up  has a section on money and so does  Count Us In . This sends a clear signal to the market and already many financial institutions are offering more ethical investments, allowing you to use your money to support causes you believe in and avoid those you don’t. You can ask your financial institution about their responsible banking policies and find out how they rank in independent research. 

UNEP is at the front in support of the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the global temperature rise well below 2°C, and aiming - to be safe - for 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. To do this, UNEP has developed a Six-Sector Solution . The Six Sector Solution is a roadmap to reducing emissions across sectors in line with the Paris Agreement commitments and in pursuit of climate stability. The six sectors identified are Energy; Industry; Agriculture & Food; Forests & Land Use; Transport; and Buildings & Cities.

• Clean fuels
• Energy Efficiency
• Sustainable Development

Further Resources

• 7 climate action highlights to remember before COP26
• Climate Action Note - data you need to know
• Emissions Gap Report 2021
• Food Waste Index 2021
• Act Now: the UN campaign for individual action
• Count Us In
• Food Loss and Waste Website

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

• Climate Change - A Global Issue
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• Research Guides

Major Reports

• A Global Issue
• At the United Nations
• Books & Journals
• Consulting the Experts
• Keeping up to date
• Data & Statistics
• AR6 - 6th IPCC Assessment Report / Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The main activity of the IPCC is to, at regular intervals, provide Assessment Reports of the state of knowledge on climate change. The IPCC is now in its sixth assessment cycle, in which it is producing the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) with contributions by its three Working Groups and a Synthesis Report, three Special Reports, and a refinement to its latest Methodology Report.

• Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023 / Climate Policy Initiative Date: 2023 Provides information about which sources and financial instruments are driving investments, and how much climate finance is flowing globally. The report aims to provide an updated picture on how, where, and from whom finance is flowing toward low-carbon and climate-resilient actions globally, and to improve understanding of how public and private sources of finance interact.

• << Previous: At the United Nations
• Next: Books & Journals >>
• Last Updated: May 6, 2024 4:22 PM
• URL: https://research.un.org/en/climate-change

Mobile Menu

• What is Arbitration?
• Arrangement on Interim Measures
• 2018 Administered Arbitration Rules
• Arbitrators
• Costs & Duration
• Tribunal Secretaries
• Tribunal Secretary Service
• Tribunal Secretary Training Programme
• Model Clauses
• 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules
• 2013 Administered Arbitration Rules
• 2008 Administered Arbitration Rules
• 2015 HKIAC Procedures for the Administration of Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
• 2005 HKIAC Procedures for the Administration of International Arbitration
• UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
• Rules as Appointing Authority 2019
• Rules as Appointing Authority 2013
• 2014 HKIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules
• 2012 HKIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules
• 1993 HKIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules
• Other HKIAC Rules
• Practice Notes
• 2024 Schedule of Fees
• Fee Calculator under the 2024 HKIAC Rules
• Fee Calculator under the 2018 HKIAC Rules
• 2018 Schedule of Fees
• 2015 Schedule of Fees
• Fee Calculator under 2015 Procedures for UNCITRAL Arbitration
• Fee Calculator under the 2013 HKIAC Rules
• 2013 Schedule of Fees
• Fee Calculator under the 2008 HKIAC Rules
• 2008 Schedule of Fees
• Administered Arbitration: Fee Calculator
• 2005 Procedure Fees
• 2014 Domestic Arbitration Rules Schedule of Fees
• Panel & List of Arbitrators
• Panel of Arbitrators for Financial Services Disputes
• Panel of Arbitrators for Intellectual Property Disputes
• Panel of Emergency Arbitrators
• Criteria & Application Procedure
• Application Form for Panels of Arbitrators
• E-Application Form for Panels of Arbitrators
• Guidelines for Renewal
• Complaints Against Arbitrators
• Removal of Arbitrators
• Code of Ethical Conduct
• Arbitrator Appointments and Confirmations
• Appointment of Experts
• Interim Measures Arrangement
• Sanctions Policy
• Case Connect
• Mediation in Hong Kong
• Hong Kong Mediation Council
• Family Mediation
• Appointment of Mediators
• HKIAC Panel of Mediators
• E-Application Form for Mediator
• HKIAC Mediation Rules
• Hong Kong Mediation Code
• Rules for Handling Complaints
• General Ethical Code
• Guidelines for Professional Practice of Family Mediators
• Domain Name Dispute Resolution Panel
• UDRP Decisions
• HKDRP Decisions
• CNDRP Decisions
• PHDRP Decisions
• Internet Keyword Decisions
• Wireless Keyword Decisions
• What is Adjudication?
• HKIAC Requirements for Adjudicators
• Adjudication Rules
• E-Application Form for Adjudicators
• Complaints Against Adjudicators
• Security of Payment Scheme
• Panel of Adjudicators
• Belt & Road
• Arbitration Supper Club
• Regional Ambassadors
• HK45 Essay Competition
• Virtual Hearings at HKIAC
• Book your virtual hearing at HKIAC
• HKIAC Guidelines for Virtual Hearings
• HKIAC Facilities - layout
• Booking Terms
• Enquire Now
• Authentication Services
• Fund Holding Services
• Assistance with Entry to Hong Kong
• Bilingual Transcription, Interpretation and Translation
• Testimonials
• Upcoming HKIAC Events
• Past Events

Event Highlights

• HKIAC Supporting Events
• Council Members and Committees
• Secretariat
• HKIAC Seoul Office
• HKIAC Shanghai Office
• Members' Benefits
• Annual Report
• Enforcement of Awards
• Asian Dispute Review - Journal

Search form

• Case Digest

Resolving Climate Change-Related Disputes through Alternative Modes of Dispute Resolution

Reporter: Reynold Orsua

Introduction

In his Address to the 66th United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2011, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated that -

“[w]e must connect the dots between climate change, water scarcity, energy shortages, global health, food security and women’s empowerment. Solutions to one problem must be solutions for all.”[1]

This statement encapsulates the ‘interconnected’ nature of the issue of climate change as it relates to other social issues. A co-related factor is the undeniable necessity of devising concrete actions and interdisciplinary approaches to address this issue. The continuing threat of climate change and its associated risks necessitate rapid transitions in activities having an environmental impact in order to contribute to the reduction of global temperatures by cutting down greenhouse gas emissions. This involves (inter alia) promoting renewable energy systems, achieving energy efficiency in business, industries and households, and the strict implementation of environmental regulations. Responsibility for addressing climate change must trickle down from State level to all key stakeholders in order to achieve the climate change goal set by the Paris Agreement 2015: to limit the increase in global temperature to below two degrees Celsius by comparison with pre-industrial levels through “nationally determined voluntary contributions” of State parties.

Based on the 2018 Global Sustainable Investment Review, sustainable investments in the major markets stood at US$30.7 trillion globally at the start of 2018, a 34% increase in two years.[2] Furthermore, even general investments and activities having environmental impacts are increasingly subjected to environmental regulations in a variety of jurisdictions that have enacted domestic laws to comply with their commitment under the Paris Agreement. The transition is also expected to have an impact on general commercial contracts in the sectors of energy, infrastructure, transport, agriculture and other land use and food production, as well as industry, including manufacturing and processing.[3] The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment reports that 2,252 climate laws and policies have been adopted so far by States and regional groupings worldwide.[4] These include laws providing incentives for renewable energy production in the form of feed-in tariffs and which regulate air and water quality and land use. These laws and policies can also require compliance with environmental standards that affect businesses and contracts.

With regard to investor-State dispute settlement, the inclusion of environmental language in international investment agreements, both bilateral and multilateral, is also gaining traction. The most progressive example of this is the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between Morocco and Nigeria,[5] which makes express reference to the right of State parties to regulate and introduce new measures relating to investments in their respective territories in order to address environmental concerns. The model BITs of the United States[6] and the Netherlands[7] likewise make reference to the reservation of regulatory rights of host States, showing an increasing awareness of the importance of environmental protection in international investments.

Dispute resolution mechanisms and climate change-related disputes

In light of increasing awareness of and efforts expended toward addressing climate change, appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve cases that may arise both from these initiatives and from activities related to the climate change agenda must inevitably be considered.  In this regard, the ICC Commission Report[8] has identified the following sources from which climate change-related disputes may arise:

(1)       contracts relating to the implementation of energy or other systems transition, mitigation or adaptation measures, in line with commitments under the Paris Agreement;

(2)       contracts without any specific climate-related purpose or subject-matter, but under which a dispute involves or gives rise to a climate or related environmental issue; and

(3)       submission or other specific agreements entered into to resolve existing climate change or related environmental disputes potentially involving impacted groups or populations.[9]

Admittedly, disputes arising under commercial contracts and investment treaty obligations are not the only possible forms of ‘climate change-related dispute’, since this term should be broadly interpreted and understood.  It therefore includes cases that may arise from the violation of domestic laws and regulations intended to address climate change, and their co-relative State-level criminal and civil penalties against persons, both natural and juridical. These cases will still have to go through the respective litigation systems of each State. Questions on the validity and constitutionality of certain governmental actions, even in relation to commercial contracts, can only be resolved through court litigation, given that nullification of public laws and regulations is within the exclusive jurisdiction of State courts.

These types of climate change-related dispute should not, however, diminish the promise of alternative modes of dispute resolution in relation to commercial contracts, both international and domestic, which are the more prevalent sources of disputes.  Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be the most acceptable and practical mechanism for resolving climate change-related disputes between parties who have shown a preference for a process in lieu of litigation. There is, therefore, greater reason for promoting ADR in resolving such disputes, particularly those arising under investment and cross-border commercial contracts.

In summary, the foregoing discussion confirms three main points with regard to climate change-related disputes.

Climate change is a multi-faceted issue that remains a pressing concern for States. As such, there is also a global expectation that States will contribute to addressing it.

Increasing awareness of the necessity of addressing climate change is expected to bring about (i) an upward trend in green investments and commercial contracts intended to comply with State commitments under the Paris Agreement, and (ii) an increase in the regulation of industries and activities having environmental and climate change impacts.

Climate change-related disputes will most likely stem from those investments and contracts having the greatest impacts, thus advancing climate change alleviation efforts, in addition to promoting domestic legal enforcement of laws and policies that are reserved exclusively to litigation, albeit within in a narrower scope.

While litigation remains a mode of resolving specific types of climate change-related dispute, including those cases enumerated by the ICC Commission Report, it may not be acceptable for many parties since it is incorporated within a national framework. This becomes an issue if one of the parties is a national, a domestic corporation or the State itself in the place where the litigation is conducted.  In addition to the issue of possible partiality, delays in litigation and the lack of expertise of national judges in technical and commercial matters, particularly in emerging economies, may also be reasons why parties shy away from litigation.

In any event, alternative modes of dispute resolution arguably fare worse than litigation in creating norm-setting pronouncements that may apply even to non-parties in cases falling within a specific national framework. The best example of this is the Urgenda case, in which the Netherlands Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch government was obliged to take measures to prevent climate change and to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.[10] However, even the judgment of a court in a case such as this still necessitates the adoption of specific strategies, such as encouraging investments and commercial activities that could result in types of climate change-related dispute being better addressed by ADR. In other words, the promise of litigation in relation to climate change-related disputes remains at a more ideal- and policy-based level when compared with the real and practical impact of ADR mechanisms. There is, therefore, sufficient room for ADR in resolving a wide range of climate change-related disputes.

Arbitration

In particular, arbitration as a private form of litigation remains a preferred mode of ADR worldwide. This mode has enjoyed increasing global acceptance and preference among States and private entities, particularly in cross-border matters. As early as 2015, the International Bar Association (IBA) Subcommittee on Arbitration reported that there had been a rise in the use of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in all regions.[11] More recently, the 2021 International Arbitration Survey[12] has shown that international arbitration remains the preferred mode of dispute resolution, either on a stand-alone basis or in conjunction with other alternative modes of dispute resolution. In relation to sectors or industries that may be the source of climate change-related disputes, the ICC Commission Report stated in 2019 that arbitration and ADR are well-established in resolving environmental disputes and that, since 2007, an average of three new environmental protection cases per year had been registered with the ICC, with up to six in some years.[13] It is also mentions that other arbitral institutions had published similar statistics.[14] Further, insofar as international investment agreements are concerned, the OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2012/02 reported that international arbitration had become a common feature of investment treaties, with only 6.5% of the treaties in their sample not having provided for international arbitration.[15] It is likewise expected that this level of popularity and acceptance will be replicated at the domestic level, owing to the promise and advantages of arbitration per se, particularly in developing countries with uncertain litigation frameworks.

The worldwide acceptability of arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution is mainly due to its flexibility. Parties are free to choose their arbitrators and may also opt to appoint experts in a specific climate change-related field.  In this regard, the Permanent Court of Arbitration maintains a list of environmental experts from which parties may choose their arbitrators.[16] This may not be the case in litigation, where judges are mainly ‘generalists’ and so may need training or the help of a neutral expert to understand technical matters and issues in order to resolve these cases properly. The flexibility of arbitration also extends to the ability of the parties to choose (inter alia) the seat, the procedure to be applied and the governing law(s).

Notably, arbitral institutions have also considered the increasing number of environment-related disputes and are working to maximise the availability of arbitration in resolving them. It should be noted that arbitration has a reputation for providing neutral arbitrators who are insulated from political pressure when compared with judges, who work within a governmental framework.

Arbitration generally seeks the prompt resolution of disputes by comparison with litigation, which may take more time as a result of procedural requirements and congested court dockets, particularly in developing countries. Arbitration likewise provides for urgent relief by way of interim measures of protection and emergency arbitration, which can address the need for time-sensitive resolution of a matter in a climate change-related dispute. Finally, it should be emphasised that foreign arbitral awards obtain recognition and enforcement in the 169 jurisdictions that have so far acceded to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958. This remains the most widely accepted instrument of its kind by comparison with the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019.

Mediation is also an alternative but non-judicial mode of dispute resolution that can be utilised in addressing climate change-related disputes. It can be a more flexible mode of resolving such disputes.  Parties may opt to appoint a mediator who is an expert on the specific matter involved in the dispute in order better to facilitate a mutually acceptable settlement agreement between and among the parties involved. The biggest obstacle, however, remains the willingness of parties to undergo this process, since they would most likely opt not to compromise once a dispute has arisen.

Mediation can be included, along with arbitration, as part of a multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism. Currently, parties remain likely to submit mediated settlement agreements to an arbitral tribunal in order to enforce them as arbitral awards. This is primarily because awards are more widely recognised and enforced under the New York Convention, as previously discussed. This is, however, a matter which the Singapore Mediation Convention 2018 seeks to address by providing for the direct enforceability of mediated settlement agreements along broadly similar lines to awards.[17]

The suitability of ADR

All this is not to say, however, that ADR is a panacea for all climate change-related disputes. It is recognised that costs and delays have sometimes been considered to be factors militating against arbitration, particularly when pitted against the litigation systems of developed nations. Furthermore, the confidentiality of arbitral and mediation proceedings has also been used to demonstrate lack of transparency compared to the publicised decisions of courts in litigation. This feature may, however, be viewed in a different perspective because it is in fact one of the reasons why parties prefer to arbitrate and mediate - that is, to control public disclosures. The applicability of and general preference of parties for ADR in commercial and investment contracts - particularly in the fields of energy, infrastructure, land use and the various industries in which climate change- related disputes would most likely arise - should be utilised and promoted.

The foregoing discussion shows the promise of ADR in addressing climate change-related disputes. While litigation has its own advantages and disadvantages, the use of ADR should be maximised, particularly in areas in which it is currently widely accepted.  Efforts should be made to promote and enhance its acceptability with the aim of efficiently and effectively resolving such disputes.

This is the winning article of the inaugural HK45 Essay Competition in 2021. This article was first published in the Asian Dispute Review, 2022, Volume 24, Issue 1 at pp. 28-34.

Click Newsletter Blog to go back. 

Upcoming Events

24 Jul 2024 Arbitration Insights: Legal and Broader Trends in Greater China and Indonesia Indonesia Book online

21 Oct 2024 to 25 Oct 2024 2024 Hong Kong Arbitration Week Hong Kong Book online

Phishing email alert!

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Every person, in every country in every continent will be impacted in some shape or form by climate change. There is a climate cataclysm looming, and we are underprepared for what this could mean.

Climate change is caused by human activities and threatens life on earth as we know it. With rising greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is occurring at rates much faster than anticipated. Its impacts can be devastating and include extreme and changing weather patterns and rising sea levels.

If left unchecked, climate change will undo a lot of the development progress made over the past years. It will also provoke mass migrations that will lead to instability and wars.

To limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre- industrial levels, emissions must already be decreasing and need to be cut by almost half by 2030, just seven years away. But, we are drastically off track from this target.

Urgent and transformative going beyond mere plans and promises are crucial. It requires raising ambition, covering entire economies and moving towards climate-resilient development, while outlining a clear path to achieve net-zero emissions. Immediate measures are necessary to avoid catastrophic consequences and secure a sustainable future for generations to come.

The climate crisis continues unabated as the global community shies away from the full commitment required for its reversal. 2010 – 2019 was the warmest decade ever recorded, bringing with it massive wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, floods and other climate disasters across continents.

Climate change is disrupting national economies and affecting lives and livelihoods, especially for the most vulnerable.

Between 2010 and 2020, highly vulnerable regions, home to approximately 3.3–3.6 billion people, experienced 15 x higher human mortality rates from floods, droughts and storms compared to regions with very low vulnerability.

What happens if you don’t take action?

If left unchecked, climate change will cause average global temperatures to increase beyond 3°C, and will adversely affect every ecosystem. Already, we are seeing how climate change can exacerbate storms and disasters, and threats such as food and water scarcity, which can lead to conflict. Doing nothing will end up costing us a lot more than if we take action now.

Solving the problem

To address climate change, we have to vastly raise our ambition at all levels. Much is happening around the world – investments in renewable energy have soared. But more needs to be done. The world must transform its energy, industry, transport, food, agriculture and forestry systems to ensure that we can limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C, maybe even 1.5°C. In December 2015, the world took a significant first step by adopting the Paris Agreement, in which all countries committed to take action to address climate change. However, more actions are critically needed in order to meet the targets.

Businesses and investors need to ensure emissions are lowered, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes economic and business sense as well.

Are we investing enough to combat climate change?

According to the UNFCCC, global climate finance flows reached an annual average of $803 billion in 2019–2020, a 12 per cent increase compared to prior years. However, this still falls short of the levels needed to limit warming, and fossil-fuel-related flows exceeded climate financing for adaptation and mitigation in 2020.

In 2019, at least 120 of the 153 developing countries had undertaken activities to formulate and implement National Adaptation Plans to enhance climate adaptation and resilience, an increase of 29 countries over the previous year. Furthermore, progress in meeting the 2020 disaster risk reduction target has been slow.

What can I do to help?

There are many things that each of us can do as individuals. To find out what you can do, go to: www.un.org/en/actnow

To read more about the UN’s efforts on climate change: un.org/climatechange

Facts and figures

Goal 13 targets.

• With a climate cataclysm looming, the pace and scale of current climate action plans are wholly insufficient to effectively tackle climate change. Increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events are already impacting every region on Earth. Rising temperatures will escalate these hazards further, posing grave risks.
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are essential in all sectors, beginning now and continuing throughout this decade. To limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre- industrial levels, emissions must already be decreasing and need to be cut by almost half by 2030, just seven years away.
• Urgent and transformative action is crucial, going beyond mere plans and promises. It requires raising ambition, covering entire economies and moving towards climate-resilient development, while outlining a clear path to achieve net-zero emissions. Time is running out, and immediate measures are necessary to avoid catastrophic consequences and secure a sustainable future for generations to come.

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023

13.1  Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

13.2  Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning

13.3  Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning

13.A  Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible

13.B  Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities

*Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

UN and climate change site

UN Framework on the Convention on Climate Change

World Meteorological Organization

UN Population Fund

UN Environment – Climate Change

Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change

FAO – Climate

Fast Facts: Climate Action

Infographic: Climate Action

Climate Action Summit 2019

With global emissions are reaching record levels and showing no sign of peaking, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on all leaders to come to New York on 23 September 2019 for the Climate Action Summit with concrete, realistic plans to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020, in line with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade, and to net zero emissions by 2050.

Read the Report of the Secretary-General on the outcomes of the Summit.

IPCC Climate Report 2022

The Working Group III report provides an updated global assessment of climate change mitigation progress and pledges, and examines the sources of global emissions. It explains developments in emission reduction and mitigation efforts, assessing the impact of national climate pledges in relation to long-term emissions goals.

Read more here

The Paris Agreement on climate change

The UN continues to encourage all stakeholders to take action toward reducing the impacts of climate change.

COP27: Egypt, 2022

From 6 to 18 November, Heads of State, ministers and negotiators, along with climate activists, mayors, civil society representatives and CEOs will meet in the Egyptian coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh for the largest annual gathering on climate action.

The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change –  COP27  – will build on the outcomes of  COP26  to deliver action on an array of issues critical to tackling the climate emergency – from urgently reducing greenhouse gas emissions, building resilience and adapting to the inevitable impacts of climate change, to delivering on the commitments to finance climate action in developing countries.

COP26: Glasgow, 2021

The UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26) brought together 120 world leaders and over 40,000 registered participants, including 22,274 party delegates, 14.124 observers and 3.886 media representatives. For two weeks, the world was riveted on all facets of climate change — the science, the solutions, the political will to act, and clear indications of action.

The outcome of COP26 – the  Glasgow Climate Pact  – is the fruit of intense negotiations among almost 200 countries over the two weeks, strenuous formal and informal work over many months, and constant engagement both in-person and virtually for nearly two years.

COP25: Madrid, 2019

The Madrid Climate Change Conference – COP25 – brought the world together to consider ways to strengthen the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Taking place from 2 to 16 December in Madrid, the Conference came at a time when new data shows the climate emergency is getting worse every day, and is impacting people’s lives everywhere, whether from extreme heat, air pollution, wildfires, intensified flooding or droughts. Read our blogs from the Conference here .

COP24: Katowice, 2018

At the end of COP24, countries stressed “the urgency of enhanced ambition in order to ensure the highest possible mitigation and adaptation efforts by all Parties,” and agreed on a set of guidelines for implementing the landmark 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement.

COP23: Bonn, 2017

The 2017 UN Climate Conference took place in Bonn, Germany, from 6-18 November. Leaders of national governments, cities, states, business, investors, NGOs and civil society gathered to speed up climate action to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

COP22: Marrakesh, 2016

High-Level Event Towards Entry into Force: 21 September, 2016

Recap of the High-Level Event Towards Entry into Force

Paris Agreement Signing Ceremony, 22 April 2016

To keep the global spotlight focused on climate change and build on the strong political momentum from Paris, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon invited representatives of all countries to sign  the Paris Agreement on climate change   at a special Ceremony at the United Nations Headquarters on 22 April.

COP21, 12 December 2015

The Paris Agreement was adopted by all 196 Parties to the  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  at  COP21 in Paris  on 12 December 2015. In the agreement, all countries agreed to work to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and given the grave risks, to strive for 1.5 degrees Celsius. Implementation of the Paris Agreement is essential for the achievement of the  Sustainable Development Goals , and provides a roadmap for climate actions that will reduce emissions and build climate resilience.

Paris Agreement – Frequently Asked Questions

What is the present status of the paris agreement on climate change.

The Paris Agreement on climate change officially entered into force on 4 November 2016, after 55 countries accounting for 55 per cent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions, deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval with the UN Secretary-General.

As of 28 September 2017, 166 countries have joined the Paris Agreement.

What is the next step towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement?

What are the most significant aspects about the new agreement.

The agreement provides a pathway forward to limit temperature rise to well below 2 degrees, maybe even 1.5. The agreement provides a mechanism to increase the level of ambition.

The Paris Agreement is an ambitious, dynamic and universal agreement. It covers all countries and all emissions, and is designed to last. This is a monumental agreement. It solidifies international cooperation for climate change. It provides a way forward.

The Paris Agreement sends a powerful signal to markets that now is the time to invest in the low emission economy. It contains a transparency framework to build mutual trust and confidence.

It will serve as an important tool in mobilizing finance technological support and capacity building for developing countries. And it will also help to scale up global efforts to address and minimize loss and damage from climate change.

Paris is a beginning—we now have to implement the Agreement. But we have taken a giant step forward.

Is this agreement really going to help?

The agreement is ambitious and it provides all the tools we need to address climate change, for reducing emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

The proof will be in the implementation, by governments, businesses and civil society.

What does the agreement require countries to do?

Countries officially submitted their own nationally determined climate actions. They have an obligation to implement these plans, and if they do, it will bend the curve downward in the projected global temperature rise.

The agreement not only formalizes the process of developing national plans, but also it provides a binding requirement to assess and review progress on these plans. This mechanism will require countries to continuously upgrade their commitments and ensure that there will be no backtracking.

This agreement is a clarion call from governments that they are ready for implementing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

What happens if a country doesn’t live up to its commitments? Would there be any enforcement?

There is no benefit to flouting the Agreement. Any short-term time gain will be short-lived. It will undoubtedly be overshadowed by negative reactions, by other countries, financial markets, and most important, by their citizens.

Developing countries stressed the need for equity and fairness. Does the Agreement provide that?

How can paris get us to the 2 degree—or even 1.5 degree goal.

We have an agreement and we have a chance now to reach our goal. We couldn’t say that without an agreement. The Paris Agreement will put us on a pathway to achieve the 2 degree goal or less. We did not expect to leave Paris with commitments to reach that goal, but rather, with a process that will get us there. And that is what the Agreement provides.

How are climate change and the Paris Agreement linked with the Sustainable Development Goals?

The Paris Conference featured thousands of climate action announcements that demonstrated how civil society and the private sector are moving forward to address climate change.

Why is it so urgent that we do something now?

We can limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees if we take action now. We need all countries and all sectors of society to act now—it is in the interests of everyone.

It is doable. Taking climate action now makes good economic sense. The more we delay, the more we pay. We can promote economic growth, eradicate extreme poverty, and improve people’s health and well-being by acting today.

Related News

Extreme heat increasingly disrupting child health, UNICEF warns

dpicampaigns 2024-08-14T08:00:00-04:00 14 Aug 2024 |

One in five children – or 466 million –  live in [...]

Indigenous Day celebrates ‘guardians of the environment’

dpicampaigns 2024-08-09T08:00:00-04:00 09 Aug 2024 |

As countries celebrate the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples on [...]

Zimbabwe faces worsening food crisis due to El Niño droughts

dpicampaigns 2024-08-07T08:00:00-04:00 07 Aug 2024 |

A new report from the UN aid coordination office (OCHA) [...]

Related Videos

Launch of secretary-general’s youth advisory group on climate change – 27 july.

Building on the climate action momentum, the Secretary-General will launch his Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change on 27 July to amplify youth voices and to engage young people in an open and transparent dialogue as the UN gears up to raise ambition and accelerate action to address the climate crisis.

ActNow Climate Campaign – Chef Grace Ramirez

Chef Grace Ramirez talks about sustainability and green hacks in support of the UN's ActNow climate campaign.

Angry Birds 2 PSA in support of the ActNow Climate Campaign

The Department of Global Communications is partnering with Sony Pictures Entertainment and the UN Foundation for a second time on an initiative to promote the Sustainable Development Goal 13 – take urgent action against climate change and its impacts.

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes: Update 2020 (2020)

Chapter: conclusion, c onclusion.

This document explains that there are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far. There remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure are expected.

Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage, and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven “geoengineering” solutions to counteract some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur. Each of these options has risks, attractions and costs, and what is actually done may be a mixture of these different options. Different nations and communities will vary in their vulnerability and their capacity to adapt. There is an important debate to be had about choices among these options, to decide what is best for each group or nation, and most importantly for the global population as a whole. The options have to be discussed at a global scale because in many cases those communities that are most vulnerable control few of the emissions, either past or future. Our description of the science of climate change, with both its facts and its uncertainties, is offered as a basis to inform that policy debate.

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals served as the primary writing team for the 2014 and 2020 editions of this document:

• Eric Wolff FRS, (UK lead), University of Cambridge
• Inez Fung (NAS, US lead), University of California, Berkeley
• Brian Hoskins FRS, Grantham Institute for Climate Change
• John F.B. Mitchell FRS, UK Met Office
• Tim Palmer FRS, University of Oxford
• Benjamin Santer (NAS), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• John Shepherd FRS, University of Southampton
• Keith Shine FRS, University of Reading.
• Susan Solomon (NAS), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Walsh, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
• Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Staff support for the 2020 revision was provided by Richard Walker, Amanda Purcell, Nancy Huddleston, and Michael Hudson. We offer special thanks to Rebecca Lindsey and NOAA Climate.gov for providing data and figure updates.

The following individuals served as reviewers of the 2014 document in accordance with procedures approved by the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences:

• Richard Alley (NAS), Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University
• Alec Broers FRS, Former President of the Royal Academy of Engineering
• Harry Elderfield FRS, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge
• Joanna Haigh FRS, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College London
• Isaac Held (NAS), NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
• John Kutzbach (NAS), Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin
• Jerry Meehl, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Pendry FRS, Imperial College London
• John Pyle FRS, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge
• Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
• Emily Shuckburgh, British Antarctic Survey
• Gabrielle Walker, Journalist
• Andrew Watson FRS, University of East Anglia

The Support for the 2014 Edition was provided by NAS Endowment Funds. We offer sincere thanks to the Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone Endowment for NAS Missions for supporting the production of this 2020 Edition.

F OR FURTHER READING

For more detailed discussion of the topics addressed in this document (including references to the underlying original research), see:

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019: Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [ https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2019: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259 ]
• Royal Society, 2018: Greenhouse gas removal [ https://raeng.org.uk/greenhousegasremoval ]
• U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 2018: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States [ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov ]
• IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C [ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15 ]
• USGCRP, 2017: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume I: Climate Science Special Reports [ https://science2017.globalchange.gov ]
• NASEM, 2016: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852 ]
• IPCC, 2013: Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group 1. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis [ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 ]
• NRC, 2013: Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18373 ]
• NRC, 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12877 ]
• Royal Society 2010: Climate Change: A Summary of the Science [ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science ]
• NRC, 2010: America’s Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12782 ]

Much of the original data underlying the scientific findings discussed here are available at:

• https://data.ucar.edu/
• https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu
• https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu
• https://ess-dive.lbl.gov/
• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
• https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
• http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu
• http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate. The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, produced the original Climate Change: Evidence and Causes in 2014. It was written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. This new edition, prepared by the same author team, has been updated with the most recent climate data and scientific analyses, all of which reinforce our understanding of human-caused climate change.

Scientific information is a vital component for society to make informed decisions about how to reduce the magnitude of climate change and how to adapt to its impacts. This booklet serves as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and others seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate-change science.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

What are the solutions to climate change?

Climate change is already an urgent threat to millions of lives – but there are solutions. From changing how we get our energy to limiting deforestation, here are some of the key solutions to climate change.

Climate change is happening now, and it’s the most serious threat to life on our planet. Luckily, there are plenty of solutions to climate change and they are well-understood.

In 2015, world leaders signed a major treaty called the Paris agreement  to put these solutions into practice.

Core to all climate change solutions is reducing greenhouse gas emissions , which must get to zero as soon as possible.

Because both forests and oceans play vitally important roles in regulating our climate, increasing the natural ability of forests and oceans to absorb carbon dioxide can also help stop global warming.

The main ways to stop climate change are to pressure government and business to:

• Keep fossil fuels in the ground . Fossil fuels include coal, oil and gas – and the more that are extracted and burned, the worse climate change will get. All countries need to move their economies away from fossil fuels as soon as possible.
• Invest in renewable energy . Changing our main energy sources to clean and renewable energy is the best way to stop using fossil fuels. These include technologies like solar, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal power.
• Switch to sustainable transport . Petrol and diesel vehicles, planes and ships use fossil fuels. Reducing car use, switching to electric vehicles and minimising plane travel will not only help stop climate change, it will reduce air pollution too.
• Help us keep our homes cosy . Homes shouldn’t be draughty and cold – it’s a waste of money, and miserable in the winter. The government can help households heat our homes in a green way – such as by insulating walls and roofs and switching away from oil or gas boilers to heat pumps .
• Improve farming and encourage vegan diets . One of the best ways for individuals to help stop climate change is by reducing their meat and dairy consumption, or by going fully vegan. Businesses and food retailers can improve farming practices and provide more plant-based products to help people make the shift.
• Restore nature to absorb more carbon . The natural world is very good at cleaning up our emissions, but we need to look after it. Planting trees in the right places or giving land back to nature through ‘rewilding’ schemes is a good place to start. This is because photosynthesising plants draw down carbon dioxide as they grow, locking it away in soils.
• Protect forests like the Amazon . Forests are crucial in the fight against climate change, and protecting them is an important climate solution. Cutting down forests on an industrial scale destroys giant trees which could be sucking up huge amounts of carbon. Yet companies destroy forests to make way for animal farming, soya or palm oil plantations. Governments can stop them by making better laws.
• Protect the oceans . Oceans also absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which helps to keep our climate stable. But many are overfished , used for oil and gas drilling or threatened by deep sea mining. Protecting oceans and the life in them is ultimately a way to protect ourselves from climate change.
• Reduce how much people consume . Our transport, fashion, food and other lifestyle choices all have different impacts on the climate. This is often by design – fashion and technology companies, for example, will release far more products than are realistically needed. But while reducing consumption of these products might be hard, it’s most certainly worth it. Reducing overall consumption in more wealthy countries can help put less strain on the planet.
• Reduce plastic . Plastic is made from oil, and the process of extracting, refining and turning oil into plastic (or even polyester, for clothing) is surprisingly carbon-intense . It doesn’t break down quickly in nature so a lot of plastic is burned, which contributes to emissions. Demand for plastic is rising so quickly that creating and disposing of plastics will account for 17% of the global carbon budget by 2050 (this is the emissions count we need to stay within according to the Paris agreement ).

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed, and to feel that climate change is too big to solve. But we already have the answers, now it’s a question of making them happen. To work, all of these solutions need strong international cooperation between governments and businesses, including the most polluting sectors.

Individuals can also play a part by making better choices about where they get their energy, how they travel, and what food they eat. But the best way for anyone to help stop climate change is to take collective action. This means pressuring governments and corporations to change their policies and business practices.

Governments want to be re-elected. And businesses can’t survive without customers. Demanding action from them is a powerful way to make change happen.

Will you help drive change with a regular gift today?

Imagine a future powered by renewable energy, where forests, oceans and people thrive. Now is the time for change. Your support can make a huge difference.

The fossil fuel industry is blocking climate change action

Major oil and gas companies including BP, Exxon and Shell have spent hundreds of millions of pounds trying to delay or stop government policies that would have helped tackle the climate crisis.

Despite the effects of climate change becoming more and more obvious, big polluting corporations – the ones responsible for the majority of carbon emissions – continue to carry on drilling for and burning fossil fuels.

Industries including banks, car and energy companies also make profits from fossil fuels. These industries are knowingly putting money over the future of our planet and the safety of its people.

What are world leaders doing to stop climate change?

With such a huge crisis facing the entire planet, the international response should be swift and decisive. Yet progress by world governments has been achingly slow. Many commitments to reduce carbon emissions have been set, but few are binding and targets are often missed.

In Paris in 2015, world leaders from 197 countries pledged to put people first and reduce their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris agreement has the aim of limiting global warming to well below 2ºC and ideally to 1.5°C.

If governments act swiftly on the promises they made in the Paris climate agreement, and implement the solutions now, there’s still hope of avoiding the worst consequences of climate change .

World leaders and climate negotiators meet at annual COPs – which stands for Conference of the Parties (the countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC).

At COPs and other climate talks, nations take stock of their ability to meet their commitments to reduce emissions.

Recently, talks have focused on climate finance – money to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and reduce emissions. Rich countries have pledged $100 billion in annual funding to help developing countries reduce emissions and manage the impacts of climate change. This is yet to materialise, and much more money is needed.

As the impacts of climate change are increasing, important talks have also started on “loss and damage” funding. This is money needed by worst-impacted countries to deal with extreme weather and other climate change impacts.

Global climate change activism

Around the world, millions of us are taking steps to defend our climate. People of all ages and from all walks of life are desperately demanding solutions to the climate emergency.

Over the years, Greenpeace has challenged oil companies chasing new fossil fuels to extract and burn. We’ve also called out the governments for their failure to act fast enough on the climate emergency. Greenpeace activists are ordinary people taking extraordinary action, to push the solutions to climate change.

Indigenous Peoples are most severely affected by both the causes and effects of climate change . They are often on the front lines, facing down deforestation or kicking out fossil fuel industries polluting their water supplies.

Communities in the Pacific Islands are facing sea level rises and more extreme weather. But they are using their strength and resilience to demand world leaders take quicker climate action.

For many of these communities, the fight against climate change is a fight for life itself.

Even in the UK, climate change is impacting people more severely. As a country with the wealth and power to really tackle climate change, it’s never been more important to demand action.

Beginner's guides

Renewable energy

Plastic pollution

Fossil fuels

Wildlife and biodiversity

Our website uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you agree to our privacy policy

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

• About YPCCC
• Yale Climate Connections
• Student Employment
• For The Media
• Past Events
• YPCCC in the News
• Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM)
• Publications
• Climate Opinion Maps
• Climate Opinion Factsheets
• Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY)
• Resources for Educators
• All Tools & Interactives
• Partner with YPCCC

Home / For Educators: Grades 6-12 / Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Filed under: backgrounders for educators ,.

Climate Explained, a part of Yale Climate Connections, is an essay collection that addresses an array of climate change questions and topics, including why it’s cold outside if global warming is real, how we know that humans are responsible for global warming, and the relationship between climate change and national security.

More Activities like this

Climate Change Basics: Five Facts, Ten Words

Backgrounders for Educators

To simplify the scientific complexity of climate change, we focus on communicating five key facts about climate change that everyone should know. 

Why should we care about climate change?

Having different perspectives about global warming is natural, but the most important thing that anyone should know about climate change is why it matters.  

External Resources

Looking for resources to help you and your students build a solid climate change science foundation? We’ve compiled a list of reputable, student-friendly links to help you do just that!  

Subscribe to our mailing list

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Explore Greyhound Nation

• Loyola Today

Our Future Is Now - A Climate Change Essay by Francesca Minicozzi, '21

Francesca Minicozzi (class of 2021) is a Writing/Biology major who plans to study medicine after graduation. She wrote this essay on climate change for WR 355/Travel Writing, which she took while studying abroad in Newcastle in spring 2020. Although the coronavirus pandemic curtailed Francesca’s time abroad, her months in Newcastle prompted her to learn more about climate change. Terre Ryan Associate Professor, Writing Department

Our Future Is Now

By Francesca Minicozzi, '21 Writing and Biology Major

 “If you don’t mind me asking, how is the United States preparing for climate change?” my flat mate, Zac, asked me back in March, when we were both still in Newcastle. He and I were accustomed to asking each other about the differences between our home countries; he came from Cambridge, while I originated in Long Island, New York. This was one of our numerous conversations about issues that impact our generation, which we usually discussed while cooking dinner in our communal kitchen. In the moment of our conversation, I did not have as strong an answer for him as I would have liked. Instead, I informed him of the few changes I had witnessed within my home state of New York.

Zac’s response was consistent with his normal, diplomatic self. “I have been following the BBC news in terms of the climate crisis for the past few years. The U.K. has been working hard to transition to renewable energy sources. Similar to the United States, here in the United Kingdom we have converted over to solar panels too. My home does not have solar panels, but a lot of our neighbors have switched to solar energy in the past few years.”

“Our two countries are similar, yet so different,” I thought. Our conversation continued as we prepared our meals, with topics ranging from climate change to the upcoming presidential election to Britain’s exit from the European Union. However, I could not shake the fact that I knew so little about a topic so crucial to my generation.

After I abruptly returned home from the United Kingdom because of the global pandemic, my conversation with my flat mate lingered in my mind. Before the coronavirus surpassed climate change headlines, I had seen the number of internet postings regarding protests to protect the planet dramatically increase. Yet the idea of our planet becoming barren and unlivable in a not-so-distant future had previously upset me to the point where a part of me refused to deal with it. After I returned from studying abroad, I decided to educate myself on the climate crisis.

My quest for climate change knowledge required a thorough understanding of the difference between “climate change” and “global warming.” Climate change is defined as “a pattern of change affecting global or regional climate,” based on “average temperature and rainfall measurements” as well as the frequency of extreme weather events. 1   These varied temperature and weather events link back to both natural incidents and human activity. 2   Likewise, the term global warming was coined “to describe climate change caused by humans.” 3   Not only that, but global warming is most recently attributed to an increase in “global average temperature,” mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans. 4

I next questioned why the term “climate change” seemed to take over the term “global warming” in the United States. According to Frank Luntz, a leading Republican consultant, the term “global warming” functions as a rather intimidating phrase. During George W. Bush’s first presidential term, Luntz argued in favor of using the less daunting phrase “climate change” in an attempt to overcome the environmental battle amongst Democrats and Republicans. 5   Since President Bush’s term, Luntz remains just one political consultant out of many politicians who has recognized the need to address climate change. In an article from 2019, Luntz proclaimed that political parties aside, the climate crisis affects everyone. Luntz argued that politicians should steer clear of trying to communicate “the complicated science of climate change,” and instead engage voters by explaining how climate change personally impacts citizens with natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. 6   He even suggested that a shift away from words like “sustainability” would gear Americans towards what they really want: a “cleaner, safer, healthier” environment. 7

The idea of a cleaner and heathier environment remains easier said than done. The Paris Climate Agreement, introduced in 2015, began the United Nations’ “effort to combat global climate change.” 8   This agreement marked a global initiative to “limit global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels,” while simultaneously “pursuing means to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.” 9    Every country on earth has joined together in this agreement for the common purpose of saving our planet. 10   So, what could go wrong here? As much as this sounds like a compelling step in the right direction for climate change, President Donald Trump thought otherwise. In June 2017, President Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement with his proclamation of climate change as a “’hoax’ perpetrated by China.” 11   President Trump continued to question the scientific facts behind climate change, remaining an advocate for the expansion of domestic fossil fuel production. 12   He reversed environmental policies implemented by former President Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel use. 13

Trump’s actions against the Paris Agreement, however, fail to represent the beliefs of Americans as a whole. The majority of American citizens feel passionate about the fight against climate change. To demonstrate their support, some have gone as far as creating initiatives including America’s Pledge and We Are Still In. 14   Although the United States officially exited the Paris Agreement on November 4, 2020, this withdrawal may not survive permanently. 15   According to experts, our new president “could rejoin in as short as a month’s time.” 16   This offers a glimmer of hope.

The Paris Agreement declares that the United States will reduce greenhouse gas emission levels by 26 to 28 percent by the year 2025. 17   As a leader in greenhouse gas emissions, the United States needs to accept the climate crisis for the serious challenge that it presents and work together with other nations. The concept of working coherently with all nations remains rather tricky; however, I remain optimistic. I think we can learn from how other countries have adapted to the increased heating of our planet. During my recent study abroad experience in the United Kingdom, I was struck by Great Britain’s commitment to combating climate change.

Since the United Kingdom joined the Paris Agreement, the country targets a “net-zero” greenhouse gas emission for 2050. 18   This substantial alteration would mark an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases from 1990, if “clear, stable, and well-designed policies are implemented without interruption.” 19   In order to stay on top of reducing emissions, the United Kingdom tracks electricity and car emissions, “size of onshore and offshore wind farms,” amount of homes and “walls insulated, and boilers upgraded,” as well as the development of government policies, including grants for electric vehicles. 20   A strong grip on this data allows the United Kingdom to target necessary modifications that keep the country on track for 2050. In my brief semester in Newcastle, I took note of these significant changes. The city of Newcastle is small enough that many students and faculty are able to walk or bike to campus and nearby essential shops. However, when driving is unavoidable, the majority of the vehicles used are electric, and many British citizens place a strong emphasis on carpooling to further reduce emissions. The United Kingdom’s determination to severely reduce greenhouse emissions is ambitious and particularly admirable, especially as the United States struggles to shy away from its dependence on fossil fuels.

So how can we, as Americans, stand together to combat global climate change? Here are five adjustments Americans can make to their homes and daily routines that can dramatically make a difference:

• Stay cautious of food waste. Studies demonstrate that “Americans throw away up to 40 percent of the food they buy.” 21   By being more mindful of the foods we purchase, opting for leftovers, composting wastes, and donating surplus food to those in need, we can make an individual difference that impacts the greater good. 22   
• Insulate your home. Insulation functions as a “cost-effective and accessible” method to combat climate change. 23   Homes with modern insulation reduce energy required to heat them, leading to a reduction of emissions and an overall savings; in comparison, older homes can “lose up to 35 percent of heat through their walls.” 24   
• Switch to LED Lighting. LED stands for “light-emitting diodes,” which use “90 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and half as much as compact fluorescents.” 25   LED lights create light without producing heat, and therefore do not waste energy. Additionally, these lights have a longer duration than other bulbs, which means they offer a continuing savings. 26  
• Choose transportation wisely. Choose to walk or bike whenever the option presents itself. If walking or biking is not an option, use an electric or hybrid vehicle which emits less harmful gases. Furthermore, reduce the number of car trips taken, and carpool with others when applicable. 
• Finally, make your voice heard. The future of our planet remains in our hands, so we might as well use our voices to our advantage. Social media serves as a great platform for this. Moreover, using social media to share helpful hints to combat climate change within your community or to promote an upcoming protest proves beneficial in the long run. If we collectively put our voices to good use, together we can advocate for change.

As many of us are stuck at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these suggestions are slightly easier to put into place. With numerous “stay-at-home” orders in effect, Americans have the opportunity to make significant achievements for climate change. Personally, I have taken more precautions towards the amount of food consumed within my household during this pandemic. I have been more aware of food waste, opting for leftovers when too much food remains. Additionally, I have realized how powerful my voice is as a young college student. Now is the opportunity for Americans to share how they feel about climate change. During this unprecedented time, our voice is needed now more than ever in order to make a difference.

However, on a much larger scale, the coronavirus outbreak has shed light on reducing global energy consumption. Reductions in travel, both on the roads and in the air, have triggered a drop in emission rates. In fact, the International Energy Agency predicts a 6 percent decrease in energy consumption around the globe for this year alone. 27   This drop is “equivalent to losing the entire energy demand of India.” 28   Complete lockdowns have lowered the global demand for electricity and slashed CO2 emissions. However, in New York City, the shutdown has only decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent. 29   This proves that a shift in personal behavior is simply not enough to “fix the carbon emission problem.” 30   Climate policies aimed to reduce fossil fuel production and promote clean technology will be crucial steppingstones to ameliorating climate change effects. Our current reduction of greenhouse gas emissions serves as “the sort of reduction we need every year until net-zero emissions are reached around 2050.” 31   From the start of the coronavirus pandemic, politicians came together for the common good of protecting humanity; this demonstrates that when necessary, global leaders are capable of putting humankind above the economy. 32

After researching statistics comparing the coronavirus to climate change, I thought back to the moment the virus reached pandemic status. I knew that a greater reason underlay all of this global turmoil. Our globe is in dire need of help, and the coronavirus reminds the world of what it means to work together. This pandemic marks a turning point in global efforts to slow down climate change. The methods we enact towards not only stopping the spread of the virus, but slowing down climate change, will ultimately depict how humanity will arise once this pandemic is suppressed. The future of our home planet lies in how we treat it right now. 

• “Climate Change: What Do All the Terms Mean?,” BBC News (BBC, May 1, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48057733 )
• Ibid. 
• Kate Yoder, “Frank Luntz, the GOP's Message Master, Calls for Climate Action,” Grist (Grist, July 26, 2019), https://grist.org/article/the-gops-most-famous-messaging-strategist-calls-for-climate-action
• Melissa Denchak, “Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know,” NRDC, April 29, 2020, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know)
• “Donald J. Trump's Foreign Policy Positions,” Council on Foreign Relations (Council on Foreign Relations), accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/election2020/candidate-tracker/donald-j.-trump?gclid=CjwKCAjw4871BRAjEiwAbxXi21cneTRft_doA5if60euC6QCL7sr-Jwwv76IkgWaUTuyJNx9EzZzRBoCdjsQAvD_BwE#climate and energy )
• David Doniger, “Paris Climate Agreement Explained: Does Congress Need to Sign Off?,” NRDC, December 15, 2016, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign )
• “How the UK Is Progressing,” Committee on Climate Change, March 9, 2020, https://www.theccc.org.uk/what-is-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/how-the-uk-is-progressing/)
• Ibid.  
• “Top 10 Ways You Can Fight Climate Change,” Green America, accessed May 7, 2020, https://www.greenamerica.org/your-green-life/10-ways-you-can-fight-climate-change )
• Matt McGrath, “Climate Change and Coronavirus: Five Charts about the Biggest Carbon Crash,” BBC News (BBC, May 5, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-52485712 )

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Research articles

Global warming decreases connectivity among coral populations

The authors develop a high-resolution model of coral larval dispersal for the southern Great Barrier Reef. They show that 2 °C of warming decreases larval dispersal distance and connectivity of reefs, hampering post-disturbance recovery and the potential spread of warm-adapted genes.

• Joana Figueiredo
• Christopher J. Thomas
• Emmanuel Hanert

Phenological mismatches between above- and belowground plant responses to climate warming

The authors conduct a meta-analysis to reveal mismatches in above- and belowground plant phenological responses to warming that differ by plant type (herbaceous versus woody). The work highlights a need for further research and consideration of under-represented belowground phenological changes.

• Huiying Liu
• Madhav P. Thakur

Near-term transition and longer-term physical climate risks of greenhouse gas emissions pathways

There is a balance in mitigation pathway design between economic transition cost and physical climate threats. This study provides a comprehensive framework to assess the near- and long-term risks under various warming scenarios globally and in particular regions.

• Ajay Gambhir
• Seth Monteith

Hysteresis of the intertropical convergence zone to CO 2 forcing

In idealized model experiments where CO 2 increases four-fold before returning to its original level, temperature and precipitation show almost linear responses to CO 2 forcing. In contrast, the response of the Intertropical Convergence Zone lags behind CO 2 changes, associated with delayed energy exchanges.

• Jong-Seong Kug
• Jongsoo Shin

Contextualizing cross-national patterns in household climate change adaptation

The context and motivation around adaptation are influenced by local culture and institutions. In the United States, China, Indonesia and the Netherlands, some factors (such as perceived costs) have similar influences on household adaptation to flooding, but others (such as flood experience) differ between countries.

• Brayton Noll
• Tatiana Filatova
• Alessandro Taberna

Ocean warming and accelerating Southern Ocean zonal flow

The remoteness and paucity of historic observations of the Southern Ocean limit understanding of the effects of climate change on circulation. Using observations, CMIP6 and eddy-resolving models, this Article shows that acceleration of its zonal flow emerged in recent decades as a result of uneven ocean warming.

• Jia-Rui Shi
• Lynne D. Talley

Cost and attainability of meeting stringent climate targets without overshoot

Current emissions scenarios include pathways that overshoot the temperature goals set out in the Paris Agreement and rely on future net negative emissions. Limiting overshoot would require near-term investment but would result in longer-term economic benefit.

• Keywan Riahi
• Christoph Bertram
• Behnam Zakeri

Net zero-emission pathways reduce the physical and economic risks of climate change

Mitigation pathways allowing for temperature overshoot often ignore the related climate and macroeconomic impacts. Net-zero pathways with limited overshoot could reduce low-probability high-consequence risks and economic loss.

• Laurent Drouet
• Valentina Bosetti
• Massimo Tavoni

Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation depend on strategic power plant retirements and pollution controls

Climate mitigation policies often provide health co-benefits. Analysis of individual power plants under future climate–energy policy scenarios shows reducing air pollution-related deaths does not automatically align with emission reduction policies and that policy design needs to consider public health.

• Guannan Geng
• Steven J. Davis

Climate action with revenue recycling has benefits for poverty, inequality and well-being

Climate policy analyses often ignore the possibility of progressive redistribution of carbon tax revenues and assume that mitigation cost will burden the poor in the short term. Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) estimation suggests such redistribution could reduce inequality, alleviate poverty and increase well-being globally.

• Mark Budolfson
• Francis Dennig
• Stéphane Zuber

Observed increases in extreme fire weather driven by atmospheric humidity and temperature

Climate change has led to increased fire activity in parts of the globe due to observed increases in fire weather extremes. These trends are driven predominantly by decreasing relative humidity and increasing temperature.

• Piyush Jain
• Dante Castellanos-Acuna
• Mike D. Flannigan

Climate and land-use changes reduce the benefits of terrestrial protected areas

The authors project future rates of temporal and spatial displacement of climate and land-use in protected areas (PAs), and show that more than one-quarter of the world’s PAs are highly threatened, with particular risk to PAs across tropical moist and grassland biomes.

• Ernest F. Asamoah
• Linda J. Beaumont
• Joseph M. Maina

Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being

Evaluation of mitigation actions often focuses on cost and overlooks the direct effects on well-being. This work shows demand-side measures have large mitigation potential and beneficial effects on well-being outcomes.

• Felix Creutzig
• Leila Niamir
• Diana Ürge-Vorsatz

A multi-model analysis of long-term emissions and warming implications of current mitigation efforts

Mitigation pathways tend to focus on an end temperature target and calculate how to keep within these bounds. This work uses seven integrated assessment models to consider current mitigation efforts and project likely temperature trajectories.

• Ida Sognnaes
• Glen P. Peters

Risk transfer policies and climate-induced immobility among smallholder farmers

Smallholder farmers will be impacted substantially by climate change and need to adapt. Agent-based modelling shows that interventions, particularly cash transfer paired with risk transfer mechanisms, lead to increased migration and uptake of cash crops, with higher income and lower inequality.

• Nicolas Choquette-Levy
• Matthias Wildemeersch
• Simon A. Levin

Climatic limit for agriculture in Brazil

Soybean and maize yields in the Amazon-Cerrado region of Brazil are dependent on water from rain. Warming and drying will make the climate less suitable for agricultural production; changes have already moved 28% of croplands out of their optimum climate space.

• Ludmila Rattis
• Paulo M. Brando
• Michael T. Coe

Anthropogenic emissions and urbanization increase risk of compound hot extremes in cities

Heat extremes threaten the health of urban residents with particularly strong impacts from day–night sustained heat. Observation and simulation data across eastern China show increasing risks of compound events attributed to anthropogenic emissions and urbanization.

A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change

Determining progress in adaptation to climate change is challenging, yet critical as climate change impacts increase. A stocktake of the scientific literature on implemented adaptation now shows that adaptation is mostly fragmented and incremental, with evidence lacking for its impact on reducing risk.

• Lea Berrang-Ford
• A. R. Siders
• Thelma Zulfawu Abu

Threatened salmon rely on a rare life history strategy in a warming landscape

Highlighting the importance of rare phenotypes in population persistence, the authors show that spring-run Chinook salmon late-migrant juveniles were critical for cohort success in drought and ocean heatwave years. Combined further warming and impassable dams threaten these late migrants’ survival.

• F. Cordoleani
• C. C. Phillis
• R. C. Johnson

Impact of high-speed rail on road traffic and greenhouse gas emissions

Intercity high-speed rail (HSR) can have large climate benefits with its high energy efficiency. This study explores the substitution effects of HSR on road traffic in China, which can be translated to an annual reduction of 14.76 million tons of CO 2 -equivalent emissions.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

American Humanist Association

Advocating progressive values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers, resolution on climate change.

Adopted by the Board of Directors August 21, 2017 | Washington, DC Resolution 2017-001

The Earth’s climate is experiencing destabilization, and our planet’s ability to sustain life as we know it is in crisis. Humanists must join others in leading efforts to reduce human activities causing climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and human induced, and the consensus is that we must stabilize global temperatures at the two degree Celsius target to prevent dangerous impacts to humans, flora, and fauna. The consequences of our actions—and inaction—regarding the destruction of our environment for ourselves and future generations mandate a naturalistic social responsibility inherent to humanist values.

WHEREAS human-generated greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion—exacerbated by unsustainable land use such as deforestation—are a leading cause of climate change, and

WHEREAS deforestation and wildfire suppression are making forests more vulnerable to fires and reducing the ability of forests to sequester and store carbon, and

WHEREAS industrial animal production for food is inefficient in terms of land and water usage and often harms the environment due to animal waste, chemical runoff, and bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and

WHEREAS glaciers melting at heightened rates have been and are resulting in rising sea levels, threatening coastal populations and ocean ecology, and

WHEREAS global warming has contributed directly and indirectly to the loss of biodiversity and the destruction of critical biomes, and

WHEREAS the corollaries of these same changes appear to cause shifts in precipitation, resulting in droughts around the globe, and the increase in other extreme weather events, like tsunamis and hurricanes, leading to food insecurity and famine, and decreased access to natural resources like potable water, and

WHEREAS climate change impacts everyone, already vulnerable populations globally will be disproportionately affected, exacerbating unemployment, displacement, and homelessness, and

WHEREAS drastic global climate change is a challenge facing all populations around the world;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION , in the pursuit of climate justice,

AFFIRMS its support for the development and proliferation of renewable sources of energy and fuel, particularly wind and solar, and

AFFIRMS its support of sustainable land use, forest conservation, and reforestation, and

AFFIRMS its support for personal and commercial transition toward a plant-based diet, and

AFFIRMS its support of the rights of indigenous peoples who inhabit some of world’s most intact and biodiverse forests, and

AFFIRMS where direct restrictions are insufficient, support for a price on climate-damaging substances and practices through carbon tax and other related disincentives, and

AFFIRMS political and financial incentives for a global industrial refitting of our power infrastructure away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable energy production and storage, and

AFFIRMS its support for international funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, and

AFFIRMS its support for efforts to keep fossil fuels underground, particularly in ecologically and culturally important areas, and

AFFIRMS its support for the validation of climate refugee status, and

AFFIRMS that access to clean and affordable water is necessary and important, and

AFFIRMS its support for a coordinated global effort to manage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As humanists, it is crucial that we recognize that the responsibility to create and maintain sustainable methods of living is a collective one. As humanists, we acknowledge the damage done to our environment has been caused by human action and constitutes an existential threat to humanity and many other species that have not already been wiped out. As humanists, we understand that only humans can save ourselves from the climate crises we have created.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION calls all humanists to take personal and collective action to save our planet.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Climate Change: Check Samples in 100, 250 Words

• Updated on  
• Sep 21, 2023

Writing an essay on climate change is crucial to raise awareness and advocate for action. The world is facing environmental challenges, so in a situation like this such essay topics can serve as s platform to discuss the causes, effects, and solutions to this pressing issue. They offer an opportunity to engage readers in understanding the urgency of mitigating climate change for the sake of our planet’s future.

Must Read: Essay On Environment  

Table of Contents

• 1 What Is Climate Change?
• 2 What are the Causes of Climate Change?
• 3 What are the effects of Climate Change?
• 4 How to fight climate change?
• 5 Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words
• 6 Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change is the significant variation of average weather conditions becoming, for example, warmer, wetter, or drier—over several decades or longer. It may be natural or anthropogenic. However, in recent times, it’s been in the top headlines due to escalations caused by human interference.

What are the Causes of Climate Change?

Obama at the First Session of COP21 rightly quoted “We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it.”.Identifying the causes of climate change is the first step to take in our fight against climate change. Below stated are some of the causes of climate change:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mainly from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy and transportation.
• Deforestation: The cutting down of trees reduces the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide.
• Industrial Processes: Certain manufacturing activities release potent greenhouse gases.
• Agriculture: Livestock and rice cultivation emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

What are the effects of Climate Change?

Climate change poses a huge risk to almost all life forms on Earth. The effects of climate change are listed below:

• Global Warming: Increased temperatures due to trapped heat from greenhouse gases.
• Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: Ice caps and glaciers melt, causing oceans to rise.
• Extreme Weather Events: More frequent and severe hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires.
• Ocean Acidification: Oceans absorb excess CO2, leading to more acidic waters harming marine life.
• Disrupted Ecosystems: Shifting climate patterns disrupt habitats and threaten biodiversity.
• Food and Water Scarcity: Altered weather affects crop yields and strains water resources.
• Human Health Risks: Heat-related illnesses and the spread of diseases.
• Economic Impact: Damage to infrastructure and increased disaster-related costs.
• Migration and Conflict: Climate-induced displacement and resource competition.

How to fight climate change?

‘Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority,’ says Bill Gates. The below points highlight key actions to combat climate change effectively.

• Energy Efficiency: Improve energy efficiency in all sectors.
• Protect Forests: Stop deforestation and promote reforestation.
• Sustainable Agriculture: Adopt eco-friendly farming practices.
• Advocacy: Raise awareness and advocate for climate-friendly policies.
• Innovation: Invest in green technologies and research.
• Government Policies: Enforce climate-friendly regulations and targets.
• Corporate Responsibility: Encourage sustainable business practices.
• Individual Action: Reduce personal carbon footprint and inspire others.

Essay On Climate Change in 100 Words

Climate change refers to long-term alterations in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, leading to global warming. The consequences of climate change are widespread and devastating. Rising temperatures cause polar ice caps to melt, contributing to sea level rise and threatening coastal communities. Extreme weather events, like hurricanes and wildfires, become more frequent and severe, endangering lives and livelihoods. Additionally, shifts in weather patterns can disrupt agriculture, leading to food shortages. To combat climate change, global cooperation, renewable energy adoption, and sustainable practices are crucial for a more sustainable future.

Must Read: Essay On Global Warming

Climate Change Sample Essay 250 Words

Climate change represents a pressing global challenge that demands immediate attention and concerted efforts. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This results in a greenhouse effect, trapping heat and leading to a rise in global temperatures, commonly referred to as global warming.

The consequences of climate change are far-reaching and profound. Rising sea levels threaten coastal communities, displacing millions and endangering vital infrastructure. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires, have become more frequent and severe, causing devastating economic and human losses. Disrupted ecosystems affect biodiversity and the availability of vital resources, from clean water to agricultural yields.

Moreover, climate change has serious implications for food and water security. Changing weather patterns disrupt traditional farming practices and strain freshwater resources, potentially leading to conflicts over access to essential commodities.

Addressing climate change necessitates a multifaceted approach. First, countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through the transition to renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency, and reforestation efforts. International cooperation is crucial to set emission reduction targets and hold nations accountable for meeting them.

In conclusion, climate change is a global crisis with profound and immediate consequences. Urgent action is needed to mitigate its impacts and secure a sustainable future for our planet. By reducing emissions and implementing adaptation strategies, we can protect vulnerable communities, preserve ecosystems, and ensure a livable planet for future generations. The time to act is now.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in Earth’s climate patterns, primarily driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

Five key causes of climate change include excessive greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, notably burning fossil fuels and deforestation. 

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on climate change that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

Hey there! I'm a content writer who turns complex ideas into clear, engaging stories. Think of me as your translator, taking expert knowledge and making it interesting and relatable for everyone.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Deadly Landslides in India Made Worse by Climate Change, Study Finds

Extreme rainfall made 10 percent heavier by human-caused climate change triggered landslides that killed hundreds, according to a new study.

By Austyn Gaffney

A sudden burst of rainfall on July 30 caused a cascade of landslides that buried hundreds of people in the mountainous Kerala region of southern India.

That downpour was 10 percent heavier because of human-caused climate change, according to a study by World Weather Attribution, a group of scientists who quantify how climate change can influence extreme weather. Nearly six inches, or 150 millimeters, of rain fell on soils already highly saturated from two months of monsoon and marked the third highest single-day rain event on record for India.

“The devastation in northern Kerala is concerning not only because of the difficult humanitarian situation faced by thousands today, but also because this disaster occurred in a continually warming world,” said Maja Vahlberg, a climate risk consultant at the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre. “The increase in climate-change-driven rainfall found in this study is likely to increase the number of landslides that could be triggered in the future.”

In a state that is highly prone to landslides, the Wayanad district is considered the riskiest part. As of Tuesday, at least 231 people had died and 100 remained missing.

The Kerala landslides were the second extreme landslide event in July, following one in Ethiopia that killed 257 people. July was the second-worst month on record, after July 2019, with 95 landslide events that caused 1,167 fatalities , according to data maintained by Dave Petley, the vice-chancellor of the University of Hull. Together, they caused roughly one-third of the more than 3,600 deaths resulting from some 429 fatal landslides recorded this year, Dr. Petley said in an email.

Already, 2024 is an outlier, Dr. Petley posted to The Landslide Blog on Tuesday . He wrote that he could “only speculate on the likely underlying reasons for this very high incidence of fatal landslides,” but “the most likely cause continues to be the exceptionally high global surface temperatures, and the resultant increase in high intensity rainfall events.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

You may opt out or contact us anytime.

Get More Zócalo

Eclectic but curated. Smart without snark. Ideas journalism with a head and heart.

Zócalo Podcasts

Why Journalists Shouldn’t Be Neutral on Climate Change

Calls to keep politics out of science reporting ignore a core responsibility: minimize harm.

Despite scientific consensus pointing to human-caused global warming, journalistic coverage of climate change tends to prioritize a “balance” of opinions—creating more harm than good. Journalist Perry Parks makes a case for a different way of reporting. Illustration by Elizabeth Sanduvete.

by Perry Parks | August 12, 2024

Can we, and should we, ever really be neutral? In a new series, Zócalo explores the idea of neutrality —in politics, sports, gender, journalism, and more. In this essay, journalism scholar Perry Parks makes the case for favoring evidence over equivalence when it comes to climate change.

Last year was the hottest summer on record in the Northern Hemisphere. Earth’s ocean surfaces were warmer in the first month of 2024 than any previously recorded January. And by the end of this year, global climate-related deaths since 2000 could exceed 4 million people, according to one estimate .

The immediacy and the stakes of human-driven climate change have never been clearer. Yet journalists reporting on climate-driven disasters are still pulling punches in their coverage. They often don’t explicitly invoke climate change in their reporting, and even more rarely do they identify the primary culprit behind it: the human consumption of fossil fuels, egged on by oil and gas companies that have long known better .

Journalists cherish their performance of neutrality when reporting on controversial issues. But this commitment to appearing “balanced”—even when one side is relying on evidence and the other is making things up—has come at a profound cost. It’s led major news outlets to cover what should be the science story of our time through the lens of politics, resulting in a delayed, diminutive planetary response to the once slowly, and now rapidly, accelerating climate emergency .

Journalistic neutrality posits that it’s possible to approach a news story without filtering choices through some system of values : about what’s right and wrong, true and false, important and trivial, “normal” and deviant. But this long-held reporting norm is a fallacy. Contemporary media critics such as Jay Rosen and Lewis Raven Wallace have aptly argued that all communication originates in “a view from somewhere”: We are inevitably influenced by our experiences, our families, our peers, and our moral commitments, and it’s more productive to recognize and acknowledge these commitments than to delude ourselves or (as journalists often do) over-represent views we find harmful just to demonstrate impartiality.

Right-wing actors have weaponized the fear of being labeled “biased” to manipulate reporting by insisting on “both sides” treatment that offers equally credulous depictions of crystal-clear science and cynical “skeptics.” Reporters who are believed to have crossed a line into opinion or “advocacy” can lose prestige, or even their jobs , by not adequately acquiescing to an elusive and idealized standard of neutrality. This has led journalists to violate their own sense of morality or legitimize movements of which they are rightfully skeptical in their coverage. Veteran environmental journalist Amy Westervelt has spoken about this on her groundbreaking “Drilled” podcast: “I myself have had editors remove mentions of climate science from a story about worsening wildfires because they don’t want to ‘make the story political.’”

A late-20th century campaign exploiting this neutrality norm through well-promoted pseudo-science and supporting rhetoric from fossil fuel-friendly politicians prompted journalists to waste years tepidly “balancing” empirical truths about rising climate risks against bad-faith claims that climate change was a “hoax” or conspiracy. Max Boykoff, a leading scholar in exposing these patterns, found in one study of climate coverage from 1995 to 2004 that journalists’ failures to clearly portray the scientific consensus “have led to the appearance of amplified uncertainty and debate, also then permeating public and policy discourse.”

Journalists now face an ethical choice that affects the fate of life on Earth: Do they stick with the vaunted value of “neutrality” and keep balancing good-faith climate communication with bad-faith, debunked denialism? Or do they cover the climate emergency as an increasingly urgent fact and mitigate the muddle that has plagued our public discourse?

Inspiration for an alternative path can be found in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics . This widely influential code, revised in 2014 by the century-old organization representing journalists in the U.S., offers four main principles: Seek Truth and Report It, Act Independently, Be Accountable and Transparent, and Minimize Harm.

In the context of climate change, the directive to minimize harm is the most overlooked. This tenet has guided journalists through many discrete cases where the safety, well-being, and privacy of individual news sources are at stake. Protecting a sexual assault victim’s identity, for instance, might mean being less transparent and delivering less truth than would naming that victim. In such cases, journalists generally err on the side of minimizing harm.

Yet because the mandate to minimize harm is narrowly interpreted to focus on individual sources and subjects, its highest potential is largely untapped. Journalists’ much broader obligation to minimize harm—by considering the safety and well-being of communities, societies, and the very planet that sustains life and journalistic work – has been almost entirely neglected.

Climate change is perhaps the most compelling case for applying a broader interpretation of the principle to minimize harm: favoring evidence over equivalence and making coverage choices that starkly clarify the stakes of continued inaction.

Scientists have recently warned that averting global catastrophe will require a radical restructuring of economic and social life on Earth — an astonishing statement that calls into question nearly every element of our daily lives. But while this warning was duly reported , it has barely interrupted the largely episodic nature of climate coverage in mainstream media, which continues to look from day to day as though we weren’t on the precipice of irrevocable disaster.

The historian Howard Zinn famously said, “ You can’t be neutral on a moving train .” As the train of humanity barrels toward a potentially unlivable world , anyone who’s not trying to slow it down might as well be driving it.

There’s only one way for journalists to minimize harm around climate change—and that’s to fight it.

Send A Letter To the Editors

Please tell us your thoughts. Include your name and daytime phone number, and a link to the article you’re responding to. We may edit your letter for length and clarity and publish it on our site.

(Optional) Attach an image to your letter. Jpeg, PNG or GIF accepted, 1MB maximum.

By continuing to use our website, you agree to our privacy and cookie policy . Zócalo wants to hear from you. Please take our survey !-->

No paywall. No ads. No partisan hacks. Ideas journalism with a head and a heart.

High-resolution meteorology with climate change impacts from global climate model data using generative machine learning

• Buster, Grant
• Benton, Brandon N.
• Glaws, Andrew
• King, Ryan N.

As renewable energy generation increases, the impacts of weather and climate on energy generation and demand become critical to the reliability of the energy system. However, these impacts are often overlooked. Global climate models (GCMs) can be used to understand possible changes to our climate, but their coarse resolution makes them difficult to use in energy system modelling. Here we present open-source generative machine learning methods that produce meteorological data at a nominal spatial resolution of 4 km at an hourly frequency based on inputs from 100 km daily-average GCM data. These methods run 40 times faster than traditional downscaling methods and produce data that have high-resolution spatial and temporal attributes similar to historical datasets. We demonstrate that these methods can be used to downscale projected changes in wind, solar and temperature variables across multiple GCMs including projections for more frequent low-wind and high-temperature events in the Eastern United States.

• Climate modelling
• Extreme weather
• Health and Security
• Temperature
• China energy
• Oil and gas
• Other technologies
• China Policy
• International policy
• Other national policy
• Rest of world policy
• UN climate talks
• Country profiles
• Guest posts
• Infographics
• Media analysis
• State of the climate
• Translations
• Daily Brief
• China Briefing
• Comments Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Global emissions
• Rest of world emissions
• UK emissions
• EU emissions
• Global South Climate Database
• Newsletters
• COP21 Paris
• COP22 Marrakech
• COP24 Katowice
• COP25 Madrid
• COP26 Glasgow
• COP27 Sharm el-Sheikh
• COP28 Dubai
• Privacy Policy

Attribution

• Geoengineering
• Food and farming
• Nature policy
• Plants and forests
• Marine life
• Ocean acidification
• Ocean warming
• Sea level rise
• Human security
• Public health
• Public opinion
• Risk and adaptation
• Science communication
• Carbon budgets
• Climate sensitivity
• GHGs and aerosols
• Global temperature
• Negative emissions
• Rest of world temperature
• Tipping points
• UK temperature
• Thank you for subscribing

Social Channels

Search archive.

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below. By entering your email address you agree for your data to be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy .

• Climate change made ‘monsoon downpour’ behind Kerala landslides 10% more intense

Multiple Authors

The “monsoon downpour” that triggered deadly landslides in Kerala’s Wayanad district last month was made 10% heavier by human-caused climate change, a new rapid attribution study says.

The landslides followed an “exceptional spell of monsoon rain” on 30 July. They have killed at least 230 people, with more than one hundred people still missing and rescue operations ongoing.

Analysis by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) service shows the rainfall that hit Wayanad on 30 July was the region’s third-heaviest period on record, surpassing even the extreme rainfall that led to flooding in Kerala in 2018.

The team of 24 researchers from India, Malaysia, US, Sweden, Netherlands and UK find that downpours of this intensity have already become 17% heavier in the last 45 years. 

In a world where average global temperatures are 2C above pre-industrial levels, they estimate that extreme single-day bursts of rainfall in Kerala could become a further 4% heavier, potentially leading to even more catastrophic landslides. 

The study also looks at other “mixed” factors that may have contributed to the high casualties and Wayanad’s “increased susceptibility” to landslides. These include a 62% loss of forest cover in the district and warnings that “failed to reach many people”. 

Slippery slope

Wayanad is a mountainous district in northern Kerala in India’s Western Ghats – a chain of mountains older than the Himalaya that runs parallel to the country’s western coast. 

With its high elevation and steep slopes – combined with a tendency to receive “prolonged” rainfall and widespread changes to its natural vegetation – Wayanad is highly landslide-prone. It is the most susceptible district to landslides in Kerala, which accounted for 59% of the country’s landslides over 2015-22.

From 22 June onwards, Wayanad saw “ nearly continuous ” monsoon rainfall, the WWA study says – with some areas recording over 1.8 metres of rain in just a month.

On 30 July, Wayanad witnessed what study author Dr Mariam Zachariah – a research associate at Imperial College’s London ’s Grantham Institute for Climate Change –  calls “an extreme burst” of more than 140mm of rain in a single day. This is equivalent to nearly a quarter of the rain London receives all year. This rain landed on loose, erodible soils already saturated by two months of monsoon rains. 

The first landslide that began at an altitude of 1,550 metres struck the village of Mundakkai at midnight on 30 July, followed by three more landslides within three hours, hitting the villages of Chooralmala and Attamala. 

Torrents of mud, water and rock buried several neighbourhoods, swept away victims and collapsed an arterial bridge, delaying rescue operations to the hardest-hit areas.

While state authorities say that the death toll at the time of writing is 231 , media reports suggest that the actual number of lives lost to the landslides is greater than 400 – disproportionately impacting migrant workers working in farms, holiday resorts and tea plantations.

In a press briefing, study author Prof Arpita Mondal from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay said the “scale of the event was so huge that the debris registered a flow of several kilometres”, adding that “body parts have been recovered from downstream rivers as far as tens of kilometres from the location of the landslides”.

The event, she says, was “particularly devastating to two villages – Mundakkai and Chooralmala”, with one official telling News Minute that “I don’t think the Chooralmala ward will exist anymore”.

Monsoon downpour

To put Wayanad’s intense rainfall into its historical context and determine how unlikely it was, the authors analysed a timeseries of one-day maximum rainfall during the June-to-September monsoon season, focusing on northern Kerala.

They find that 140mm of rainfall hit northern Kerala on 30 July 2024, ranking as the third heaviest one-day rainfall event in a record stretching back to 1901. 

The intensity of this rainfall surpassed even the “ torrential ” rainfall that hit large regions of Kerala in 2018 , killing more than 400 people and earning the title of Kerala’s “ worst floods in nearly a century ”.

The map below shows total rainfall on 30 July 2024 in northern Kerala, based on data from the Indian Meteorological Department . Dark blue indicates a high total daily rainfall and yellow indicates a low total. The study region is shown in red on the map. 

The authors find that in today’s climate, this intense one-day rainfall is a one-in-50 year event. 

Separately, using satellite observations, the authors find that heavy one-day rainfall events over northern Kerala have become about 17% more intense in the last 45 years, in which time the global climate has warmed by around 0.85C.

Attribution is a fast-growing field of climate science that aims to identify the “fingerprint” of climate change on extreme-weather events, such as heatwaves and droughts. 

In this study, the authors investigated the impact of climate change specifically on the heavy rainfall in northern Kerala on 30 July 2024. 

To conduct attribution studies , scientists use climate models to compare the world as it is today to a “counterfactual” world, without the 1.3C of human-caused warming. 

The authors find that climate change made the intense rainfall on 30 July around 10% more intense. 

This “may not sound like very much, but really, when you are looking at this amount of rainfall, that is a lot of extra rain”, Dr Claire Barnes , a research associate at Imperial College’s London ’s Grantham Institute for Climate Change , and author on the study, told the press briefing.

The authors note that Kerala is a mountainous region with “complex rainfall-climate dynamics” and explain that there is a high level of uncertainty in the model results. 

However, Zachariah told the press briefing that the study findings are “consistent with Clausius Clapeyron relationship”, which states that the air can generally hold around 7% more moisture for every 1C of temperature rise.

The authors also investigate how rainfall intensity might change as the planet continues to warm. They find that if the planet were to warm to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, rainfall intensity in northern Kerala is expected to become a further 4% more intense.

The study says that this increase in rainfall intensity is “likely to increase the potential number of landslides that could be triggered in the future”.

(These findings are yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, the methods used in the analysis have been published in previous attribution studies .)

Land-use change

The Western Ghats and their high-mountain tropical forest ecosystems are internationally recognised as a biodiversity hotspot and influence Indian monsoon weather patterns.

Wayanad is known for its dense forests and rich biodiversity , but it has also seen significant deforestation and land-use change. 

While heavy rainfall was “a trigger” for the devastating landslides, human intervention “has played an important role, there’s no doubt about it”, says Madhavan Rajeevan , India’s former Earth sciences secretary who was not involved in the study. He tells Carbon Brief:

“In many interviews with local people, they say that [large-scale] construction work was going on in the worst-hit areas. And that construction [was done] by removing the local [Indigenous people] staying in the forest. But the landslide doesn’t differentiate between rich and poor. If there was no substantial human intervention in that area for the last four or five years, I’m very sure this landslide would not have happened.”

Between 1950 and 2018, Wayanad lost 62% of its forest cover while land under tea plantations grew by 1,800% , according to one study. The district’s high slopes are also host to coffee, pepper, tea and cardamom plantations, as well as being dotted by luxury resorts .

At the same time, a rise in construction and quarrying for building stones in recent years has “raise[d] concerns” among scientists about the impacts on the stability of hill slopes in the area. 

On 31 July, the day after disaster struck, India’s climate ministry issued the sixth draft of a notification to classify parts of the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs), 14 years after experts had recommended curbs on development in the region.

Environmental lawyer Shibani Ghosh tells Carbon Brief that, to date, 72,000 square kilometres of the Western Ghats identified by these experts “do not even fall within the ambit of any proposed conservation scheme”.

While environmentalists still have “serious apprehensions” about the area that will be excluded from the Western Ghats ESA in the new draft, “had it been declared [even in its unsatisfactory form] by now, environmentally harmful activities would have been regulated, and perhaps the impact of these natural calamities would have been much less”, she adds. 

Rajeevan, additionally, points to how the monsoon has changed in Kerala. He says:

“We know that seasonal rainfall is very high in the west coast, it rains continuously for many days and many hours, but the amount used to be very small: in millimetres per hour. But recent studies are suggesting that these shallow clouds are changing into deep convective clouds that drop very heavy rain in a very short spell, and that could be attributed to warming over the Arabian Sea.” 

At the same time, forecasting is another issue that the study raises, drawing attention to the fact that warnings failed to reach many and impacts were not specifically spelt out. 

In the aftermath of the landslides, whether meteorological authorities warned of heavy rains became the subject of parliamentary debate . But Rajeevan points out that accurate rain warnings alone are not enough:

“Red alerts and yellow alerts for the whole state or a few districts do not translate into a landslide warning. A district collector cannot translate them or take a decision. The Geological Survey of India issued a warning, but it was not alarming and a sophisticated, real-time landslide alert system needs a lot of money. 

“The best solution is to identify and rehabilitate people living in landslide prone areas and to not trouble them by removing their forests.”

Climate change made the ‘supercharged’ 2024 Pantanal wildfires 40% more intense

Afghanistan’s ‘deadly’ early spring rainfall made twice as likely by El Niño

Drought behind Panama Canal’s 2023 shipping disruption ‘unlikely’ without El Niño

Climate change made west Africa’s ‘dangerous humid heatwave’ 10 times more likely

Expert analysis direct to your inbox.

Get a round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email. Find out more about our newsletters here .

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics