The Climate Book

Climate scientist Kevin Anderson writes that climate conferences have failed, largely because of misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry, which has led to continued fossil fuel use and the sense that affluence is deserved: “[W]e’ve convinced ourselves that we deserve our high salaries and accompanying carbon-rich lifestyles” (205). While climate change is widely acknowledged, people accept promises of reduced emissions as progress. CO₂ accumulates with time. Emission cuts are too slow, and focusing on negative emission sources, like reforestation or carbon-capturing, are ineffective. The priority should be stopping emissions.

While leaders agree that poor nations have a right to development, it is too late to ensure fairness, so humanity must find the “least unfair” path. High-emitting nations cannot claim ignorance, as scientists have been warning the public about climate change for decades, to no avail. The wealthy are more responsible for climate mitigation because they emit more, but most of those in charge of climate mitigation are wealthy, creating a conflict of interest. Climate change is becoming a public matter, but it is unknown whether that will meaningfully impact climate action.

Thunberg inspired climate journalist Alexandra Urisman Otto to switch from crime reporting to climate reporting. She spent months comparing scientific data to Sweden’s emission-cutting plans and found that, while Sweden reports their emissions as 50 million tonnes of CO₂, their actual emissions are around 150 million tonnes. If all nations are obscuring their emission numbers, scientists posit that the temperature will rise 2.5°C to 3°C even if the nations meet their climate goals. In another loophole, Sweden’s plans allow for 10 million tonnes of emissions after 2045—their target date for net zero emissions. Although the article won an award from Aftonbladet, these published findings went unnoticed. Otto asserts journalists have a responsibility to inform the public, but few journalists have learned the truth about climate change.

Thunberg discusses an Icelandic carbon-removal plant with the capacity to capture three seconds of yearly emissions. Around 20 such plants exist, but they use bioenergy, which is not included in emission reports. Some plants emit more than they remove. Thunberg denies the claim that there is not enough money to mitigate climate change, as $5.9 trillion was spent on fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, while in 2021, only 2% of the global budget went toward green energy. Leaders have failed and are continually investing in fossil fuel, and emissions are rising, with increased fire activity exacerbating the problem. Thunberg suggests that carbon-capture plants were designed to delay climate action. She states that the following essays examine other factors delaying action.

Author and environmentalist Bill McKibben asserts the importance of accurate calculations and notes that burning one gallon of gas produces 22 pounds of CO₂. Fossil fuels are like “concentrated sunshine.” Since they are nonrenewable, fossil fuels rise in price as they are depleted, while solar energy prices are dropping. However, multiple systems, like transportation, are based on fossil fuels, and those in the fossil fuel industry promote fossil fuel dependence by spreading disinformation and blocking climate action, although climate activists have made some progress.

Renewable energy sources, like sunlight and wind, are available everywhere, making them more accessible than fossil fuels. Energy use must be mitigated, and humans should be relying on the sun, not fossil fuels, for energy.

Glen Peters, a climatologist, notes that the use of renewable energy sources are rising but are unable to meet modern demands. While energy use has stabilized or is declining in wealthy nations, developing nations are expanding their energy use. Society has the means of speeding the transition to renewable energy; however, all energy production has environmental costs, so energy consumption must decline. Countries must enact relevant change instead of waiting for global agreements, and society must accept that some, like coal miners, may be affected by climate action, which should be addressed by government. Technology, policies, and behavioral changes, when compounded, can mitigate climate change.

In the subsection, “Fossil-free Energy Sources,” Peters notes the pros and cons of renewable energy sources. Solar power is low-cost and efficient but requires batteries and large spaces. Wind power is efficient and cost-effective, but windfarms disrupt the environment. Hydrogen fuel emits only water but is manufactured using fossil fuels, although the processes could use renewable energy. Hydro-power plants disrupt the environment. Nuclear-derived energy is reliable and low-carbon but is expensive, technical, and dangerous. Biomass energy is unclean, and though it is deemed renewable, regrowing old-growth forests can take centuries. Geothermal energy is low-carbon but produces other harmful emissions, like sulphur dioxide. Peters proposes that people should reduce energy consumption, increase product and building efficiency, and use local energy sources.

Ecologists Karl-Heinz Erb and Simone Gingrich write that forests can capture and store carbon, but people are harvesting trees. Some forests are expanding due to industrial monoculture forests, which are less efficient at capturing and storing carbon than natural forests, and by harvesting the wood, carbon is released. Harvesting forests is necessary, as wood is a valuable and eco-friendly resource, but use of wood should be limited to long-lasting products, and wealthy nations should reduce resource consumption. As regrowing forests takes a long time, the focus should be on forest preservation. The authors suggest harvesting and replacing monocultures with diverse species and allowing some trees to grow old.

Ecologist Niclas Hällström, researcher Jennie C. Stephens, and PhD candidate Isak Stoddard discuss geoengineering—the manipulation of Earth’s systems to alter the climate, such as by removing CO₂ from the atmosphere or by reflecting sunlight back into space. Such proposed actions, they argue, may be environmentally and socially dangerous. Spraying aerosols into the atmosphere is particularly dangerous, as it could interfere with precipitation and mask the greenhouse effect of CO₂. Implementation of geoengineering may exacerbate global inequality, and many are calling for the banning of geoengineering technology. Humanity should focus on sustainability.

Earth scientist Rob Jackson asserts that drawdown technology—the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere—results from failures to reduce emissions. Some drawdown activity will be necessary to keep the temperature rise below 1.5°C, especially if emissions are not adequately reduced, but such activities are expensive and complicated. Natural carbon capture can be preserved by improving land management practices, and billions more tons of emissions can be mitigated through adopting plant-based diets, restoring nature, and reducing the population. Natural carbon removal costs $10 per tonne of carbon stored.

BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, captures the carbon created while burning biofuels for energy and can cost $200 per tonne of carbon stored. Enhanced weathering—when certain rocks are crushed to encourage them to react with atmospheric CO₂—costs up to $250 per tonne of CO₂, and direct-air capture technology, which is still in development, may cost up to $600 per tonne of CO₂. Other greenhouse gases, including methane, will also need removal from the atmosphere, but that technology is not yet available. Jackson suggests equitably taxing carbon use to hold high-emitters accountable, and he argues not mitigating climate change will result in larger financial losses.

Thunberg quotes President G. H. W. Bush: “The American way of life is not up for negotiation. Period” (239). The rest of the Global North seems to agree, and annual emissions have risen 60% since Bush’s 1992 statement. People prefer to preserve their lifestyles over the climate, says Thunberg, but if leaders had acted earlier, lifestyles could have remained relatively unchanged. Humanity must choose between protecting the planet or protecting the wealthy minority.

Countries must distribute the remaining carbon budget equitably, and the highest-emitters must immediately reduce emissions. Instead of questioning what to do about climate change, people should focus on what needs to stop happening. Properly managed, the necessary lifestyle changes may give life more meaning than overconsumption could. The laws of physics demonstrate that humans cannot preserve both their lifestyles and the climate.

Sustainability scientist Alexander Popp writes that the land, which is necessary for survival and well-being, has been drastically altered by human infrastructure and agriculture. Diets are shifting toward animal-based and processed foods, leading to rises in human and domestic animal population and to increased croplands and pastures; agricultural distribution has expanded, leading to international trade. Forests and other ecosystems are exploited, and chemicals are widely used to support intensive agriculture. Some people have plenty and are prone to obesity, while others are undernourished. Agricultural practices degrade the land and pollute the water and the air, biodiversity is in rapid decline, and agriculture is responsible for one-fifth of global emissions.

Popp argues that humanity must balance environmental preservation with agricultural needs. Agriculture must become more efficient so some natural lands can be restored and humans can healthfully feed the growing population. Humans should adopt a primarily plant-based diet, which puts less strain on the land.

Michael Clark, an environmental scientist, writes that modern food systems severely harm the environment and provide poor nutrition. Plant-based foods have the lowest environmental impact, while animal-based foods have the highest because they require more resources and create more pollution. In-demand plant foods, like coffee and cocoa, have significant impacts, too, and agricultural methods can somewhat alter a food’s impact.

High-calorie and animal-based diets, perpetuated by wealthy nations, are increasing agricultural demands. Food systems must change to limit climate change and preserve biodiversity. While wealthy nations should reduce animal-based food consumption, some areas may need to increase theirs to promote health. If primarily plant-based diets were adopted by humanity, up to 70% of food-related emissions would cease, and altering agricultural processes and reducing food waste will also have a positive impact. Sustainable diets will likely improve human health.

Director of Programs at CGIAR Sonja Vermeulen writes that past agricultural systems were carbon sinks and can become so again with widespread diet changes and reduced food waste. Farmers have stopped capitalizing on the relationship between animals and crops, relying instead on chemical fertilizers that pollute the environment, with food transportation adding to agricultural emissions.

Vermeulen calls for a scientific approach to devising a better system. She suggests that natural areas be preserved and restored and notes the importance of decreasing demand and increasing efficiency. Potential solutions—increasing yields, farming organically, or employing ecological farming principles called agroecology—are not universal, and farmers must choose what works best for them. Agricultural modifications will help people mitigate and adapt to climate change and may address social issues, like promoting gender equality. Non-farmers can enact change by buying local and ethical foods, avoiding food waste, and eating mostly plant-based foods.

Sustainability researchers John Barrett and Alice Garvey discuss global industrialization, which produces over 30% of emissions and degrades and pollutes the environment. Heavy industries, like metal, chemical, and cement production, are the top emitters. Emissions are tracked as “territorial emissions” recorded by individual countries, but this process fails to incorporate global distribution, and wealthy nations reduce their territorial emissions by outsourcing production. The authors promote a consumption-based method of tracking emissions. While industrial processes have become more efficient, demand for materials offsets the improvements, and demand is expected to double by 2050. Lowering demand and decarbonizing industry are necessary for lowering emissions, but they argue developing countries should not be stopped from progressing.

Writer, analyst, and consultant Ketan Joshi argues that sustainability plans are often misleadingly optimistic, focusing on plans instead of actions. Public awareness on heavy industry is low. Heavy industry has high emissions, its machines are long-lived, its high-heat processes require fossil fuels, and supply chains obscure emissions.

Joshi suggests increasing supply-chain efficiency and replacing fossil fuels with electricity or hydrogen. While carbon-capturing and storage (CCS) can help, it is inefficient and expensive, so the focus should be on reducing consumption, which is the root cause of demand.

Alice Larkin, a climate scientist, argues transportation is important but has environmental implications: extensive resource use, pollution, and loss of biodiversity. So far, leaders have hesitated to alter transportation systems. Transportation methods vary depending on location and economic status, and such variations reflect who should be held accountable. In some areas, transportation emissions have risen, and international travel and shipping is not included in national emissions reporting. Air travel is many years away from being decarbonized, but there are multiple potential methods for reducing emissions from ships, such as reducing speed or using wind-propulsion technology. Lowering demand for travel and shipping could result in transformative changes that will reduce resource use and pollution while helping to mitigate climate change.

Transportation researchers Jillian Anable and Christian Brand argue that electrification cannot match the rising transportation demand. Ninety-five percent of transportation relies on fossil fuels, and vehicles are designed to last around 20 years, so phasing out gas-powered transportation will take decades. Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and other large vehicles—whether electric or not—are inefficient. The authors call for incentives to buy small electric cars and for the banning of SUV advertising and the taxing of SUV use.

Reliance on electrification ignores inequality, lack of access to energy, traffic issues, and car dependence. Lowering speed limits, promoting walking and cycling, instituting car-restricting policies, and making private and public transportation electric can mitigate emissions, as will lowering travel demands and improving city layouts. Virtual meetings and shared transportation can also lower travel demands, and the focus should be on transportation access rather than ownership. Such changes will have widespread benefits, increasing health, safety, and equality.

Citing the results of a survey Thunberg helped design, Thunberg states that people haven’t recognized the climate crisis and that they are not aware they lack awareness. Those with influential power also lack awareness, despite their access to information. If this assumption is wrong, it means such individuals are aware but careless. If leaders are doing their duty to inform the public, then the public are actively causing climate change, and if that is the case, humanity is doomed. However, Thunberg does not believe this is the case.

While people know something is wrong with the climate, they do not understand the facts. This is exacerbated by disinformation, manipulated reporting, vague solutions, and a mismatch between messages and behavior (e.g., climate spokespeople flying in private jets). Thunberg encourages spreading knowledge and awareness and also doing what one can to fight climate change.

Economic writer Annie Lowrey notes that although responsibility for climate change is often placed on governments, industries, and companies, consumerism is the root cause. Individuals or families cannot make a significant difference, but the sum of individual actions creates demand. The rising middle-class increases consumption rates; this does not mean poverty should be accepted, and Lowrey states that those in poverty deserve improved circumstances.

Consumerism is extreme in the US, where home sizes are increasing and the average person has 300,000 possessions (282). Although society pushes eco-friendly purchases, buying nothing is better—“a person would have to use an organic cotton tote every single day for half a century to offset the impact of its production” (283). Individuals can inspire others, which can cumulatively impact consumer preference and further inspire government action.

Mike Berners-Lee, a carbon footprint researcher, declares that emissions are a result of consumer demands; some are direct, like car emissions, while others are indirect, such as production emissions. Globalization complicates the supply chain and obscures emissions, and advertising manipulates people into buying more.

Berners-Lee recommends practicing skepticism and reducing exposure to harmful messaging. He advises pausing and analyzing the urge to buy something and suggests people repair or share items and improvise instead of buying something new. When buying, consider the underlying emissions, research products and brands, and select high-quality products designed to last or purchase items second-hand. Reduce animal-based food purchases and avoid food waste and over-packaged or air-freighted foods.

Berners-Lee argues advertising is unethical and encourages markets to consider a career change. He asks producers to adopt sustainable practices and urges retailers to buy from ethical producers. He says that by reducing consumption, people can have more freedom: “[W]e can get off the treadmill of having to earn more to spend more” (289).

Urban development specialist Silpa Kaza describes waste as a universal issue, noting that waste systems generate high emissions and that poor practices contribute to health, environmental, and economic issues, particularly in low-income areas. Emissions arise through decomposition, mismanagement of organic wastes, faulty incineration practices, and high disposal rates. Poor waste management, like open burning or dumping, contributes to pollution, flooding, and landslides, and problems may increase as populations rise and developing countries advance.

Kaza suggests reducing plastic use, implementing waste management reform, and taking a circular approach in which waste is reused or recycled, though specific practices will vary due to local needs.

Campaigner Nina Schrank acknowledges the growing movement against single-use plastics, noting food and beverage companies are held accountable for the disposable plastic market. Such companies, which reused packaging in the past, blame pollution on irresponsible consumers.

Around 470 billion plastic soft-drink bottles are produced each year, and producers cite recycling as the solution. Schrank calls this messaging an example of greenwashing, or presenting false claims of eco-friendliness. Recycling is good in principle, but most plastic—91%—is not recycled and the recycling narrative allows for continued consumption. Dumped plastic pollutes land and oceans; plastic in landfills breakdown into microplastics, which leech into the wind, water, and soil, and burning plastic waste produces toxic gases and remains. Many wealthy nations export plastic waste to countries with mismanaged waste systems.

Plastic contributes to climate change as it’s made from petrochemicals—a fossil fuel product—and plastic production, use, and disposal releases greenhouse gases. Plastic production is expected to double by 2040. The Global Plastics Treaty (2024) is supposed to reform plastic systems. Schrank suggests resuming reusable, sustainable packaging.

Thunberg calls for immediate societal change, arguing that leaders and the media could act but choose not to. Instead, they push sustainable purchases, prioritize maintaining the economic system, obscure emissions, and create loopholes, like offsetting emissions through reforestation, which cannot offset the rising emissions.

If countries maintain the status quo and only fulfill their current climate plans, the global temperature will rise at least 3.2°C by 2100. Leaders must convey the truth, and humans must reach real zero—not net zero—emissions: Net zero legitimizes loopholes and ignores global inequality, Thunberg claims. Thunberg refuses to compromise and encourages others to join her, arguing nature does not care about political negotiations.

Economist Nicholas Stern writes that, despite warnings from experts and agreements to lower emissions, emissions are rising. Between 1990 and 2020, emissions rose 46%, and the global economy increased 146%, although some countries, like the UK, lowered their emissions during this time period. The gross-domestic product or GDP, the most common economic measurement, measures economic activities without consideration for health, well-being, or the environment. Stern says it’s possible and crucial to mitigate climate change and support an economy that considers health, education, the environment, and income. To do so requires radical changes to consumption and production. Most economic analyses fail to consider future generations, to grasp the scale of climate change, and to recognize alternative technologies and energy sources, but some economists are starting to factor such concepts into their analyses.

Activist Sunita Narain discusses the importance of climate justice, asserting that pre-industrial nations have a right to life-improving developments and noting that poor individuals suffer from climate change caused by wealthier nations. The Paris Agreement ignores past emissions and the idea that those suffering from but not contributing to climate change be recompensed. It provides voluntary universal recommendations rather than mandatory guidelines based on historic emissions. Even if industrialized nations meet their emissions goals, they will still sequester 70% of the carbon budget in 2030. Wealthy nations should invest in developing nations so these nations can implement low-carbon development. Natural environments in developing nations should be viewed as carbon sinks rather than as extractable resources.

Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel argues that capitalism is causing climate change and that as GDP grows, energy becomes more difficult to decarbonize and resource use grows more unsustainable. The Global North drives this consumption while the Global South suffers the consequences. The Global North often extracts resources from the Global South, perpetuating inequality and colonialism. Scientists reject that GDP can be separated from environmental impacts and argue decarbonization is progressing too slowly.

Wealthy nations do not need continued growth; high standards of living are possible with less energy and resource use than wealthy individuals use. Production should decline, and a new economy based on well-being should emerge—a process referred to as degrowth. While available jobs would decline, this can be mitigated by reducing work demands, sharing labor, investing in public jobs programs, providing universal access to basic needs, and taxing wealth. While such changes are necessary, Hickel warns that those who benefit from massive inequality will fight to maintain the status quo.

Author Amitav Ghosh describes the Indonesian island Ternate that was colonized and exploited for clove trees and that is now peppered by ruins and dying clove trees that have succumbed to climate change. Ghosh interviewed a Ternate prince who argued his people should not have to reduce their emissions because they deserve to advance. Many share his opinion, viewing historical injustice as more pressing than the climate crisis. Some argue limiting emissions in the Global South will perpetuate inequality, while many in the Global North feel limiting emissions infringes upon rights. Ghosh says that such nationalism impedes climate action yet is not discussed during climate conferences.

A perception gap has emerged between the exploitative Global North and oppressed Global South, Ghosh argues. While leaders discuss equitable actions during multilateral governing negotiations, they often practice geopolitics, which preserves hierarchal relationships. Since the Global South is mimicking the living standards of the Global North, Ghosh suggests that lifestyle changes in the Global North would change global aspirations regarding the living standard.