23 Facts You Need To Know About The Planetary Crisis

1. Planetary Boundaries 

Earth is finite and its limits can't be pushed 

Scientists define 'planetary boundaries' across 9 interdependent systems¹ and processes that regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth. When these boundaries are crossed, we jeopardise the interactions of land, ocean, atmosphere and life that together provide conditions for the survival of humans. 
Today, 6 out of these 9 limits have already been crossed.² 
“We are crossing key boundaries in the Earth’s natural system, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and increasing levels of pollution in the air, soil, water and oceans. Climate and environmental hazards, shocks and stresses are already having devastating impacts on the well-being of children globally. As these boundaries are breached, so too is the delicate natural balance that human civilization has depended upon to grow and thrive."³

2. Ecosystem Tipping Points 

These are critical thresholds that, when crossed, lead to large and often irreversible changes in the system towards a new state. In other words, once these thresholds have been reached, there is no turning back. Examples include the proper circulation of the atmosphere, the size of the ice sheet and glaciers,² the existence of ocean currents like the Gulf Stream, or the size and integrity of the rainforest.³Crossing tipping points can precipitate world-scale and abrupt changes to the environment: instead of evolving in a linear and progressive way, systems collapse, “unexpectedly”.⁴ This leads into the unknown. 
For example, it is now too late to prevent the disappearance of the Arctic’s summer sea ice which will precipitate a now unavoidable increase in extreme weather. Diminishing snow and ice levels, especially in the summer and autumn months has reduced the Arctic’s “Albedo effect”- its ability to reflect sunrays back into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the oceans and causes the earth’s surface to heat up.⁵ We have already reached this “tipping point” meaning that an ice-free summer in the Arctic is now inevitable by the 2030s. No reduction in emissions will prevent this from happening so we must prepare to adapt to the inevitable consequences which include profound and now irreversible changes for the climate.^{6 7}

3. Net Zero 

The world has a ''NET ZERO'' objective: what does it mean? 

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in 2015 and entered into force in November 2016. Its goal is to keep the increase in the global average temperature to below 1.5°C above preindustrial levels (the initial goal was 2°C).¹ If warming remains below this “defense line”, most regions could potentially avoid the most extreme and irreversible climate effects that would occur with a 2ᐤC increase.² To meet this goal, greenhouse gasses emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach ''net zero'' by 2050.³ Net zero is not no emissions, it is when we stop digging a deeper hole: all greenhouse gasses are emitted and absorbed in similar proportions.⁴ This means building an economy and societies that emit no more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than are permanently removed and stored each year. Although the rate of CO2 emissions has slowed in recent decades, these gradual changes are nowhere close to the reductions needed to limit warming to 1.5°C as set out in the Paris Agreement.⁵ To reach net zero as rapidly as possible, we need to start decarbonising the economy and our lives, especially the lives of the richest (i.e., highest polluters) on the planet.

4. Carbon Budgets 

To reach net zero, we must balance the global “carbon budget” 

For millennia, humans’ impact on CO2 levels remained relatively stable and sustainable at around 280ppm as our emissions were balanced out by the earth’s CO2 absorption systems. However, the rapid surge in CO2 emissions caused by humans since the Industrial Revolution has thrown the Earth’s previously sustainable CO2 emission and absorption cycle out of joint. Fossil fuel burning since 1850 has generated nearly 1.5 trillion metric tons of CO2 pollution which cannot be absorbed by the Earth’s CO2 reservoirs, resulting in rapid global warming and a rise in climate-related extreme weather events.¹ While North America and Europe contributed the bulk of these historical emissions, China and India have also become critical contributors in recent years and are now both among the top three carbon emitters - along with the USA - despite both facing significant climate-related risks and extreme weather events.^{2 3 4} 
Moreover, the levels of CO2 the Earth is capable of absorbing have shrunk because humans are also irreparably damaging many of the carbon sinks and absorption systems that are vital for keeping even pre-industrial CO2 levels steady. Global land-use changes have affected almost a third (32%) of land in just six decades (1960-2019).⁵ These changes include the destruction of vital carbon sinks such as tropical forests⁶ and peatlands which cover just 3% of the Earth’s surface but store 30% of all land-based carbon.⁷ 
Humans are blowing past the Earth’s carbon budget. In other words, we emit a CO2 “surplus” into the atmosphere that the Earth is incapable of absorbing which is exacerbating the greenhouse effect and warming global temperatures towards uninhabitable levels. To return to a balanced carbon budget, we need to drastically reduce our CO2 output and protect and restore our forests, wetlands, oceans and other carbon reservoirs.
 

5. Warming Effects 

6. Biosphere Crisis

7. Mass Extinction 

8. Oceans

9. Water Security

10. Global Food Systems

The global food system might be the most important lever to act upon to reduce the crisis, and eating animals has the greatest impact. 

It’s recently been estimated that the global food system altogether is responsible for between one quarter¹ and one third of greenhouse gas emissions,^{2 3} second only to the energy sector,⁴ and is the underlying reason that beyond 24,000 of the 28,000 plant and animal species are at risk of extinction.⁵ Specifically, our appetite for meat is destroying the planet. 80 billion land animals are raised and killed for meat every year - a number that doesn't even account for all the sea animals.⁶ Raising livestock for human consumption is the leading cause of biodiversity loss; uses 70% of agricultural land; is the leading cause of deforestation; generates 15% of all GHG emissions; is the number one source of methane (methane alone is the cause of over 25% of global warming⁷), and contributes significantly to water pollution. ⁸ 

Other negative externalities include a significant health cost⁹ - especially chronic diseases which increase when eating meat -, as well as farmers’ debts,¹⁰ loss of identity,¹¹ and high suicide rates in the animal factory farming sector.¹² This sector is also a significant contributor to antimicrobial resistance (e.g., 80% of antibiotics imported by the US are used for industrial animals¹³) because animals’ living conditions don't allow animals to survive without it. Antimicrobial resistance in animals creates drug-resistant pathogens which pose a risk to human health by making infections harder to treat and surgery much riskier.¹⁴ It also increases the risk of the next pandemic: most viruses monitored as dangerous today are related to animals, with particular concern over fears of zoonotic diseases¹⁵ (e.g., new versions of avian and swine flus). This risk is further compounded by human-induced ecosystem changes and the warming climate which have increased the geographical spread of vector-borne diseases such as malaria, Zika virus, dengue fever and Lyme disease.¹⁶ One study estimated that over half of the world’s population are now at risk for dengue fever with this figure expected to grow as a result of climate change and land-use change.¹⁷

Most of the 80 billion animals slaughtered for consumption per year are chickens.¹⁹ Yet, the environmental impact of cows is far greater due to the amount of land cattle and dairy farming requires. In fact, the protein and energy efficiency of all animals, especially cows, is extremely low in comparison to plants. The land used to grow crops to feed animals is not available to feed humans directly. On average, it takes 100 times more land to produce an animal calorie than a plant calorie, and 40 times more land to produce an animal protein than a plant protein.²⁰ To produce a calorie of beef, 98% of the calories sent as input to raise the animal are lost.²¹ This is not an affordable cost when the risk of hunger is on the rise and the availability of energy is threatened. Using this land to grow energy and calory-efficient crops for direct human consumption rather than animal feed will significantly improve global food security and markedly lower GHG emissions from food production.²²

Eating plants is by far better for the planet than eating local food. For most foods, transport is not a significant share of the carbon emissions.²³ Instead, what type of food you eat determines your ecological burden, and animal products top the list along with chocolate and coffee. Unfortunately, the global trend of meat consumption and production is skyrocketing. China is by far the biggest producer, followed by the US.²⁴ In Asia, meat production has increased 15-fold since 1961.²⁵ FAO predicts that to meet future demands based on the current trend, the world will need to double the number of animals by 2050.²⁶ This would lead to an absolute ecological disaster and the disappearance of most wildlife on Earth.

Phasing out animal agriculture represents “our best and most immediate chance to reverse the trajectory of climate change”.²⁷ As of now, High Income Countries would need to reduce their consumption of meat by at least 75% to meet the Paris Agreement.²⁸ Evidence consistently suggests that plant-based diets promote human and planetary health²⁹ and would free up 75% of world’s arable land.²⁷ According to one study, the worldwide phase-out of animal agriculture, combined with a global switch to a plant-based diet, would effectively halt the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gasses for 30 years³⁰ and give humanity more time to end its reliance on fossil fuels.³¹ However, the massive environmental burden of animal agriculture is largely absent from political discussions and COP, and a taboo topic in many parts.³² This has led to a disconnect between meat eaters, many of whom are in favor of climate action, and the environmental impact of their diet. Consumers are either unaware of this impact, or dismiss or downplay it as they are unwilling to adapt their diets accordingly.³³ Meat and dairy industries also craft public perceptions of what a healthy diet requires, with meat and dairy products as an essential part. ³⁴

11. Industrial Agriculture

12. Air Pollution

13. Timelines and Politics

Climate change is occurring along a different, non-linear, longer timeline, partly predetermined, which doesn’t match current political cycles and dynamics.

When it comes to the planetary crises, the normal ways of thinking don't work anymore. The past won't guide the future because climate change is different: it is systemic, non-linear, and it has already partly been determined in the past. While some consequences of our GHG emissions may be felt instantaneously, most others will take decades or more to emerge.¹ Because of this non-linear time lag between our actions and the bulk of their effects on the climate and environment, it is hard for humans to fully comprehend the consequences of our actions and the timeline over which these consequences will play out.² The future consequences of our past actions are “locked in” and will materialise over decades.³ Predictions for the next 10 years are not guesses, they will mostly happen; they are largely the result of emissions from previous years which have not yet shown their effects. Regardless of what we do from now on, we’ve already accumulated enough GHGs in the atmosphere to keep trapping heat and warming the earth for at least a few decades.⁴ Preventative actions today will only see results in a more distant future and with a similar time lag to harmful activity.⁵ We cannot « stop » the crisis, but with radical systemic changes in the way we think, act and make decisions, we can slow it down. 

Our current political, social and economic systems strugglle to tackle such a longterm, non-linear crisis. Effective policies that cut emissions now to prevent damaging consequences decades into the future are difficult to implement given that the positive results of such policies are far removed from our current political timeframes while the high up-front cost of such actions will impact the population today.⁶ In liberal democracies, short-term election cycles mean that elected officials are often “single-minded seekers of re-election” who “pay attention to the near future rather than the longer-term time horizon of issues such as climate change whose full effects may not be felt for decades.”⁷ Yet authoritarianism has proven no better than democratic environmentalism at producing good outcomes, as these governments are also focused on short-term goals.⁸ 

The projected CO2 emissions from all the fossil fuel-producing infrastructure that already and currently exists is more than we are allowed to burn if we want to meet the 1.5°C target.⁹ Yet, companies and governments continue to grant permits for new large prospecting and extraction projects in pursuit of short-term profit and growth. The scale and pace of change needed is unprecedented, and the crisis is threatening our very existence as a species, but for many politicians and businesses, choosing harmful short-termist policies is a matter of (politically or financially) surviving the next few months or years, without much thought for what their decisions will mean in a few decades or centuries.¹⁰ Adopting “long termism” beliefs within our political systems will increase consideration and support for pro-climate policies and underline our responsibilities to future generations in decision-making.¹¹

All populations of the world are in the same boat because the environmental systems affected by the crisis are global. It doesn’t matter where greenhouse gasses are emitted, they affect everyone. More than ever, decisions made by each single government (especially of the largest economies) will impact everybody else. Which means that the current decline of multilateralism is bad news. Most environmental issues, such as access to and sourcing of minerals needed for building new technologies, or the enforcement of international regulations, are highly geopolitical. But more than anything, climate change is about energy, and energy is political power. It is a guarantee of consumption and standards of living for populations, and of domination over other countries for governments. Unfortunately, countries historically and increasingly deploy non-cooperative strategies (e.g., economic war, proxy wars across the world, conflicts over controls of resources, etc.), when the world needs solidarity and cooperation.

There are critical questions related to justice and colonialism at the heart of the problem.

The IPPC recognises that ''historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism'' are amongst the factors that drive the significantly varying vulnerability of ecosystems and people to climate.¹ Along these lines, many scientists recognise the colonial roots of issues such as deforestation, desertification, or the development of single-crop agricultural models over diversified and local production systems, which create or worsen climate related emergencies such as wildfires, food crises and forced displacements.² 

In the current context, various forms of neocolonialism are at the core of the path forward suggested by the global community. The Global North is responsible for almost the entirety of cumulative carbon emissions (92% of emissions up to 2015).³ Global North countries have exploited the most energy and resources (including extracting them from the South) and in doing so are the most at fault for the current problems.⁴ Many also depict the exporting of different types of waste to developing countries for storage and treatment as a colonial form of pollution.⁵ Having built their wealth on fossil fuels, countries of the Global North, through climate action plans that fail to consider the unequal historical responsibility for both the environmental and uneven economic impact of colonialism, are striving for “sustainability” and green policies within their borders by outsourcing the ecological impact of this transition to countries of the Global South.^{6 7} Policies like carbon border taxes punish developing countries for following the western model of using fossil fuels to develop themselves despite being pushed into this growth model by western development organizations and aid policies until just a few years ago.^{8 9} 

Under new green development frameworks promoted by Global North organisations such as The World Bank¹⁰ and the OECD’s DAC group,¹¹ countries of the Global South must find a way to “leapfrog a long fossil-powered development path”¹² in the face of high vulnerability to climate change, despite the fact that their systems make them radically less likely to respond to, and cope with the climate crisis and related vulnerabilities.¹³ Finally, Global North nations are now using their power and influence to strike deals and secure sourcing and exploitation of Global South nations' resources for their green agendas, in particular, to manufacture advanced technologies (e.g., lithium for batteries) which they will later sell back to less advanced countries.¹⁴ If these green technologies are to be used as part of the green transition, just global frameworks on the extraction of these natural resources are required to ensure that countries of the Global South are much more closely involved in, and see equitable compensation for the process.¹⁵

Climate change is deeply intertwined with global patterns of inequality and is making poverty worse.

Emissions are related to inequitable wealth distribution. Most of the economic growth in recent decades has been captured by the wealthiest and climate change is largely due to the lifestyles of the richest. The richer people are, the more they consume, the more they emit GHGs and cause temperatures to rise. Between 1990 and 2015, estimates say that the richest 1% of the world’s population was responsible for more than twice as much carbon emissions as the poorest 50% of humanity.¹ The estimated average carbon footprint of the world’s richest 1% could be up to 175 times larger than that of someone in the poorest 10%.² Overall, since 1990, 50% of people who emit the least are responsible for 10% of emissions and 10% of people who emit the most are responsible for 50% of emissions.³ Moreover, researchers argue that ''the concentration of political and economic power that accompanies the concentration of wealth plays an important role in increasing environmental degradation and preventing pro-environmental actions.''⁴

Yet, the poorest and most vulnerable people bear the brunt of impacts while contributing the least to the crisis. Human costs are and will be concentrated in poor countries, because most of them are already naturally warmer, but also because their systems are less resilient to shocks and their economies offer less margin for adaptation. By 2030, these poorest countries will bear a burden of annual adaptation costs of $300 billion⁵ (this is only for health and deaths, the real number is likely higher). The hundreds of millions of projected climate refugees will largely be amongst the poorest as well.⁶ The crisis is also driving up harmful practices, such as child marriage, amongst vulnerable populations.⁷ 

At the level of countries, up until 1950, more than half of historical CO2 emissions were emitted by Europe. But now, the United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date - it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions.⁸ Europe and North America, who combined have produced 62%⁹ of global cumulative emissions despite encompassing only about 18% of the global population,¹⁰ have a moral responsibility to be exemplary and reach net zero as quickly as possible. Yet, countries are not homogenous. The poorest people in any country are far from polluting as much as the wealthiest. In each country, certain social groups are particularly vulnerable to crises, for example, female-headed households, children, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and ethnic minorities, landless tenants, migrant workers, displaced persons, sexual and gender minorities, older people, and other socially marginalized groups.¹¹ The root causes of their vulnerability lie in a combination of their geographical locations; their financial, socioeconomic, cultural, and gender status; and their access to resources, services, decision-making power, and justice. 

The climate crisis accelerates the consequences of equity gaps already widening in recent years.¹² These facts are critical to keep at the forefront of the debate on what 'fair' climate policies are. Given the disproportionately high environmental impact of rich populations, it is vital to work with these populations to drastically reduce their carbon footprints and consequently make a significant dent in global emissions.¹³ Wealth provides rich populations with a financial buffer that allows them to adapt much more easily than poorer populations to the lifestyle changes necessary for meaningful climate action. For example, richer populations can better afford to buy more expensive “green” products and services¹⁴ and are more supportive of climate action because they can afford to be.¹⁵ Small changes that could be manageable for richer populations, largely based in the Global North, could make the difference between life and death in the Global South. Climate action must accompany economic justice - making poor people richer and redistributing wealth in a more equitable and just manner. The redefinition of global, national and local governance in public and private sectors alike is at the heart of the solution.

The money needed to combat the crises is available, it just needs to be accessible to those who need it most 

A common critique of calls for meaningful climate action is that the green transition will cost too much and will disproportionately affect poorer people.¹ As the effects of climate change are felt around the world, in particular in the least developed countries most at risk from rising sea levels, desertification and extreme weather events, the need for investment in adaptation, resilience building and loss and damages increases. However, climate action has so far been chronically underfunded by the global financial system² . Adaptation finance needs are 10-18 times as great as current international adaptation investment. Failure to address this gap will inevitably lead to greater climate impacts and subsequent loss and damage underlining the importance of both public and private investment in climate adaptation.³

 The money needed for funding climate action is available but the current system of development finance is wholly inadequate for the challenge facing us and must be reformed to make funding accessible to those people and initiatives who need it most.⁴ The poorest countries in the world are borrowing money at high interest rates to adapt to climate change they did not cause and then have to handle unsustainable debt payments and surcharges by creditors in developed countries who have caused and then insulated themselves from the worst effects of climate change. This is neither fair nor effective in promoting sustainable economic development and leaves these countries with less money to help their own people. Proposed reforms such as those suggested under the Barbados-led “Bridgetown Initiative” include unlocking an additional $1 trillion in funds from world development banks for climate resilience, creating a ‘Global Climate Mitigation Trust’ and establishing grants and loans with the lowest interest rates for countries investing in climate mitigation measures.^{5 6} 

Global political cooperation and commitment is required to collect and effectively distribute the money required to fund an effective and just green transition. Tax evasion and an endless number of tax loopholes which make it easier for companies and the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share remain prevalent throughout the world.⁷ Currently, tax havens collectively cost governments between $500 billion and $600 billion a year.⁸ Unfortunately, a global minimum tax of 15% on multinationals, which had been agreed upon by 140 countries and territories in 2021 has been “dramatically weakened by a growing list of loopholes,” drastically lowering the revenue generated by the agreement.⁹ Moreover, despite the richest 1% of the world’s population owning 43% of all global financial assets¹⁰ and capturing double the income of the bottom 99% since 2020,¹¹ the world’s 2700+ billionaires have effective tax rates equivalent to 0%-0.5% of their wealth.¹² A global minimum tax on billionaires of 2% coupled with a (loophole-free) global minimum corporation tax of 15% could fund the estimated $500 billion a year needed to address the challenges of climate change in developing countries.¹³ 

Broader corrective taxes such as a carbon tax, nitrogen-fertiliser tax¹⁴ or a single-use plastic tax¹⁵ allow governments to incorporate the environmental costs of carbon based products into their price thereby discouraging their use and providing revenue that can then be used to finance the green transition.¹⁶ For much of the population, carbon-based products remain cheaper than “green” alternatives. This “Green Premium” is a result of the higher costs of making a product the “clean way” as well as the artificially low price of carbon-based products.¹⁷ Thus, these levies are meant to “correct” the price of environmentally harmful products to accurately reflect their true cost to society and the damage they inflict on the environment.

Such measures must be designed to ensure that the poorest and most marginalised populations are not disproportionately burdened. ‘Fuel poor’ households are the most reliant on carbon-based products and services due to their artificially low prices and the high up-front cost of switching to cleaner alternatives and thus would be disproportionately affected by an increase in price from corrective taxes.¹⁸ To address this disparity, some of the revenue generated from corrective taxes could be used to subsidise the cost of the transition for poorer households.¹⁹ 

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres openly criticised the "grotesque greed" of oil and gas companies and their financial backers and urged governments globally to "tax these excessive profits" to support the most vulnerable people.²⁰ “The godfathers of climate chaos – the fossil-fuel industry – rake in record profits and feast off trillions in taxpayer-funded subsidies,” he said. “It is a disgrace that the most vulnerable are being left stranded, struggling desperately to deal with a climate crisis they did nothing to create."^{21 22}

The planetary crisis agenda is plagued by fake solutions promoted to continue business as usual.

Finance-related and technology-based myths are regularly used by industries, lobbies and politicians as decoys to keep denying that our lives cannot be the same anymore. These “weak sustainability” solutions are banking on assurances that hypothetical technologies are “just around the corner” and will substitute for ecosystem services that are threatened by climate change without the need for deep rooted transformation of our global economic, social and governance systems. The ''terraforming'' narrative makes regular comebacks to let people believe humanity will have the time and ability to transfer to another planet.¹ Geoengineering solutions² promise to dim the sun or improve the atmosphere by sending chemicals into space - ignoring the dramatic consequences on Earth.³ More credible and powerful is the carbon offsets industry which promises to invest financial contributions in environmental projects around the world in order to balance out people’s and companies' emissions. Yet studies found that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by the biggest global certifier are worthless and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.⁴ 

Along the same lines, the tree-planting efforts promised by Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni and BP to compensate their business would cover an enormous amount of land,⁵ when the IPCC warns that such large-scale afforestation could increase food prices by about 80 percent by 2050, pushing millions more people into hunger.⁶ Calculations show that even if we maximise the amount of vegetation all land on Earth could hold, there aren’t enough trees in the world to offset our current global emissions and there never will be.⁷ Compensation and offsetting pledges are red herrings to avoid discussing the reduction of emissions. Similarly, the promise of a ''green aviation'' based on biofuels hides the untenable competition for land use it would create against food production and biodiversity conservation when experts and researchers agree that only the reduction of the number of flights can decarbonise aviation.⁸ The carbon capture approach is also an empty promise the fossil fuel economy is bidding on. Carbon capture is far from being doable at scale (only at selective points for high-emission industries such as steel and cement) and doesn’t eliminate all other negative impacts, including social ones, of current models.^{9 10} Finally, developed countries regularly publish emission rates which hide indirect emissions from goods produced abroad and later imported, or ''cloud'' activities.¹¹ 

Denial, lies, and disinformation are actively generated by those who benefit financially from the current system.¹² As youth climate activists put it: ''Every time you hear someone say that our problems can be solved by businessdriven technological progress, you ought to be cautious – isn’t that, what for the most part caused them in the first place? Every time a technology is presented as the “easy” solution, we ought to ask: who is promoting it?''¹³

For consumers attempting to buy sustainably produced products and services and lower their carbon footprint, manipulated figures, deliberately misleading labels, a lack of transparency and false offsetting promises have made it nearly impossible to make environmentally conscious purchases without copious amounts of research. For several years now, environmental promises have been invading shelves, online marketplaces and advertising with little to no evidence of genuine commitments and actions. Widespread greenwashing makes it ever more difficult to distinguish between companies taking meaningful steps towards lowering their ecological footprint and those attempting to manipulate their consumer base with false promises, manipulated figures and small, inadequate gestures.¹⁴ One of the latest inaction tactics are ‘discourses of climate delay’ which accept the existence of climate change but justify inaction or inadequate efforts. ‘’In contemporary discussions on what actions should be taken, by whom and how fast, proponents of climate delay would argue for minimal action or action taken by others. They focus attention on the negative social effects of climate policies and raise doubt that mitigation is possible."¹⁵

Recycling’s capacity is limited. Rethinking product design, reducing waste and reusing materials are important for reducing our ecological impact.

Despite labels declaring plastic products “100% recyclable” or “made with recycled material,” less than 10% of plastic waste is actually recycled.¹ In fact, no plastic packaging in the US meets the threshold (a recycling capacity of 30%) to be credibly called “recyclable.”² The vast majority of supposedly recyclable plastic is either incinerated, ends up in landfill or as pollution in our streets, fields, rivers, lakes and oceans.³ Those who use and discard this waste often do it in good faith, and do not see or feel the adverse effects of this pollution which is instead shipped to developing countries where the 50 largest landfill sites impact the daily lives of 64 million people, emitting greenhouse gasses, harming local wildlife and contaminating soil and groundwater.⁴ In spite of this abysmal environmental track record, plastic production and use is forecast to double over the next 20 years, and quadruple by the early 2050s. ⁵

Paper, aluminum and glass recycling rates fare better, and unlike “recyclable” plastic can be recycled multiple times. However, paper still accounts for over a quarter of total waste at landfills⁶ while 7 million tons of aluminium⁷ and approximately 79% of glass is thrown away each year.⁸ Although digital technologies play an ever more prominent role in our daily lives, E-waste recycling systems have not caught up with the vast increase in production and use. Only 22.3% of E-waste was recycled in 2022 with the rest left to landfills where it poses a high risk of soil and water pollution from heavy metals.⁹

Recycling labels are incoherent and inconsistent, often deliberately so to confuse consumers into purchasing supposedly “green” products that are cheaper to produce but will never be recycled.¹⁰ For the small percentage of products that are actually recycled, the recycling process involves substantial amounts of energy, much of it generated from fossil fuels.¹¹ Some forms of recycled plastic contain toxic chemicals generated in the recycling process which make them unfit for many consumer uses and pose a health risk to workers, their families, nearby residents and consumers including children.^{12 13} Focusing on hypothetical breakthroughs in recycling technology that have yet to come to fruition and the expansion of recycling services worldwide will not adequately address the problem. We should instead focus on the other two “Rs”: Reuse and Reduce. Reducing waste and reusing products that would otherwise be discarded will significantly cut our levels of consumption, our carbon footprint and our ecological impact. This requires a significant shift in our values away from coveting the new, towards viewing waste as a valuable commodity and seeing the value in the used and the durable.

Renewable energy alone will not meet current energy demands.

Energy has historically been renewable: wind has powered boats and mills for centuries; wood was used by blacksmiths. It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution and the widespread adoption of coal and a few decades later, oil and gas that our energy consumption became unsustainable and harmful to our environment on a massive scale. “Renewable” sources of energy including hydroelectric, geothermal, solar and wind power have existed in some form for decades, but development and expansion was slow while fossil fuels reigned supreme in the 20th and early 21st century. Although investment in clean energy sources is picking up around the world, renewables made up only 30.2% of the world’s electricity generation mix in 2023.¹ Development of clean energy, even at today’s rapid pace, is not enough to halt the climate crisis. While shifting to clean energy sources is vital, we must also drastically reduce our energy consumption if we are to achieve a level of clean, sustainable energy use that will mitigate future impacts. Technological advances in improving energy efficiency will only get us so far. We must also change our lifestyles to be more aware of the energy we use on a day-to-day basis and reduce our use as much as possible. Behavioral changes encouraged or mandated at government, local and community levels through policy, financial incentives and social pressure can be effective in reducing energy consumption.^{2 3 4 5} 

Energy production comes at both a financial and environmental cost that consumers must factor in when using it. Abundant and cheap energy is a distortion of the realities of energy production. For example, governments of the world offered $7 Trillion dollars of subsidies to the fossil industries in 2023, freeing consumers from consumers over $5 trillion of environmental costs teh same year⁶ . 

Although fossil fuels are by far the most environmentally damaging form of energy production, clean energy sources also have adverse environmental impacts. Clean energy production including wind, solar and hydroelectricity can harm the environment through mining materials for production technologies like wind turbines and solar cells; disrupting local wildlife in the region where energy plants are set up or contributing to pollution through the poorly managed disposal of defunct equipment.⁷ Increasing awareness of the costs of energy production can help reduce consumption.^{8 9} 

The debate around the use of nuclear energy remains contentious and its future role in addressing the world’s energy needs remains in question. Although nuclear energy has reduced global CO2 emissions by over 60 gigatonnes in the past 50 years¹⁰ as nuclear power plants produce no carbon emissions, concerns over the disposal of nuclear waste as well as safety, health and security risks at power plants¹¹ have repeatedly halted or delayed its widespread adoption. Scientists argue that “unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve”¹²with some claiming that a nuclear-free green transition is in fact impossible.¹³ 

Unless we rapidly and drastically increase clean energy production; improve clean energy storage and transportation technologies; and significantly curb our energy use, renewables alone will provide nowhere near enough power to maintain our current standards of living without a significant investment in nuclear power production.¹⁴ However, two in five nuclear plants operate on the coast leaving them and the 516 million people within an 80km radius of them highly vulnerable to accidents triggered by climate-change induced sea level rise.¹⁵ If nuclear power is to be pursued as part of the solution to our current unsustainable energy production and consumption levels, massive investment is needed to “climate-proof” existing and future power plants as well as for research on nuclear waste solutions and to work to address the many legitimate concerns relating to health, safety and security.

The environmental impact of digitalisation and the ICT sector is rapidly growing.

Despite tech proponents hailing technological advancements and digitalisation as the key to a green future, the adverse impact of the use of digital technologies on the environment is substantial and has been largely downplayed by big tech companies.¹ Much of ICT’s current and projected environmental impact comes from “invisible” sources such as data use and storage. Information on every photo taken, video streamed, email sent and file saved is digitally stored somewhere - most commonly on a server in one of the thousands of data centres around the world.² In order to store the data of billions of users,³ these centres require an estimated 200 terawatt hours of energy per year, more than the national consumption of Iran⁴ and almost 1% of the world’s electricity demand.⁵ Watching online videos generates approximately 300 million tons of CO2 per year with streaming services producing the same level of carbon emissions as Chile.⁶ Data centres also require immense amounts of water, enough to fill 120,000 Olympic sized swimming pools per year,⁷ to cool down servers and prevent overheating, and for electricity production. This intensive water use exacerbates regional water stress including in regions already subject to drought.⁸

As digitalisation and internet use expand, the demand for data centres and their subsequent energy use has skyrocketed, increasing the environmental impact of the ICT sector. Although tech companies are making efforts to control the energy consumption by ensuring data centres are both “ultra” energy efficient and reliant on clean energy production, the expected increase in demand, including from the rise of AI makes managing ICT’s future energy consumption a serious concern.⁹ In spite of its many potential uses in the green transition,¹⁰ the high-energy use of AI models has further escalated the electricity consumption of data centres. The training of a single language model can produce a carbon footprint equivalent to around 300,000kg of carbon dioxide emissions.¹¹ In comparison to search engines such as Google, AI platforms like ChatGPT require an additional 10TWh of electricity per year, increasing the already soaring carbon emissions from data centres.¹²

Reducing data usage is necessary to reduce the world’s ballooning digital carbon footprint.¹³ Up to 90% of the data created and stored on energyhungry servers is not reused or accessed again, becoming “digital waste”¹⁴ that is responsible for extensive energy wastage.¹⁵ The approximately 120 trillion spam emails sent each year create 36 million tons of CO2 emissions annually. About 3.6 billion trees would need to be planted each year to offset the pollution from spam emails alone.¹⁶ To avoid emissions spiraling out of control as data usage continues to grow exponentially, we need to better manage and reduce our digital footprint by reducing our data usage and deleting redundant data.

E-waste also accounts for a significant amount of IT’s environmental impact, generating 580 million metric tons of CO2 in 2020¹⁷ and contributing to land and water pollution. An industry-wide culture and business model built upon frequently replacing rather than repairing devices generates approximately 62 million metric tons of E-waste annually with this number expected to increase to over 80 million tons by 2030¹⁸ if we are to carry on with our current consumption patterns. Tech firms continue to design devices that need to be replaced frequently and are difficult to recycle. This “throw away” culture also incentivises continually high levels of device production. 160,000 laptops are disposed of everyday in the EU alone and for every new laptop having to be made in replacement, an average of 316kg of CO2 is created, 190,000 liters of water is used and 1,200kg of earth and rock is mined.¹⁹ Similarly, smartphones generated approximately 146 million tons of CO2 in 2022 with the bulk of these emissions (83%) coming from manufacturing, shipping and first-year usage.²⁰ In all, 100 billion tons of raw materials are extracted each year, often under violent and exploitative circumstances for the production of digital devices.²¹ 

Children could be exposed to hazardous chemicals (lead, mercury, cadmium, persistent organic pollutants) in e-waste when not managed properly. The main routes of children’s exposure are through ingestion of food, water, breast milk, soil, and dust, as well as dust-contaminated objects such as toys and surfaces; inhalation of particles and aerosol gases and particulate matter from open burning; dermal exposure to corrosive chemicals; and transplacental exposure. Due to children’s physiological and behavioural attributes, children are uniquely vulnerable to the health impacts of ewaste, such as neurodevelopmental and cognitive, endocrine disruption, fetal growth and development, bone, liver, heart, lung, kidney damage, and immune system suppression.^{22 23}

Despite declining trust in institutions, public recognition of climate change and support for climate action is growing; but climate change education is vital for action to be effective.

As evidence of climate change has mounted to the point of irrefutability in the past few decades, public acceptance of humanity’s role in the crisis has too become overwhelming. While just over half of respondents in a 1992 international survey viewed climate change as “a very serious problem,”¹ a 2023 report found that 93% of respondents across 14 countries believe that climate change “poses a serious and imminent threat to the planet.”² These figures vary greatly across world regions with almost 39% of people in East Asia and the Pacific and 32% of North Americans believing that global warming is caused mostly by “natural patterns in the Earth’s environment” rather than human activity in 2019 compared to just 18% of people in Latin America and the Caribbean where man-made climate change is more widely accepted (78%). A further 6% of the global population remain convinced that global warming does not exist.³

However, growing belief in the climate crisis does not correlate with trust in governments and institutions to take effective action to combat the crisis. In a 2023 international survey only 50% of respondents trust governments to “do what is right when it comes to climate change.”⁴ Equally concerning are the falling levels of trust in the information provided by climate scientists,⁵ government leaders and the media⁶ on the planetary crises in several world regions.⁷ Unsurprisingly, concern over the climate crisis and low trust in institutions to take action has led to high levels of “climate pessimism” - over 55% of respondents are “worried about climate change and… not hopeful we can overcome its challenges.”⁸

In spite of this climate pessimism and distrust in government, national governments are still considered the most impactful group in addressing climate change and 80% of people across 77 countries want stronger climate action from their world leaders.⁹ Young people in particular are overwhelmingly (86%) hopeful that humans can reduce most of the effects of climate change.¹⁰ Majorities in most countries (upwards of 70%) are prepared to adapt their lifestyles to help address global climate change¹¹ but require adequate support to make the necessary changes. High costs, lack of institutional support, inadequate availability of green alternatives and a lack of information are all cited as significant barriers to adopting a “climate-friendly lifestyle.”¹²

Despite decades of warnings from climate scientists, the “knowledge gap” between lay people and experts on the severity of climate change and what actions can most effectively mitigate the crisis remains a substantial barrier to climate action. A 2021 UNESCO study of 46 national education plans found that more than half of curricula made no mention of climate change and only 19% made reference to biodiversity.¹³ This inadequate climate change education is reflected in a 2023 UNICEF-Gallup poll which found that only half of young people aged between 15-24 in 55 countries were able to identify the correct definition of climate change.¹⁴ The knowledge gap is particularly prominent in low and lower-middle income countries.¹⁵ Incorporating climate change education (CCE) into schools and improving knowledge of the multiple planetary crisis facing us among all generations could make a significant impact in efforts to fight climate change.¹⁶

Climate action is still possible even in communities with high levels of climate denial, skepticism and apathy. Climate denialism is correlated with political affiliation, level of education, carbon intensity of the regional economy and lower income levels leaving these communities vulnerable to climate related shocks as they remain unprepared to take steps to increase their resilience.¹⁷ However, studies have shown that highlighting economic, health or social benefits of climate action can increase support for pro-environmental actions among these groups.¹⁸ More specifically, when attempting to work with deniers on pro-environmental actions, focusing on how climate actions can promote a better society can be an effective method of engaging with and gaining the support of such communities.¹⁹ Often, climate skeptics hold pro-environmental views on certain topics and can be engaged on efforts to prevent deforestation and curb pollution which can in turn be linked to support for renewable energy solutions as solutions to poor air quality.²⁰

Young people's anxieties about the climate intersect with other mental health challenges, particularly in environments where access to support and services is limited.

Eco-anxiety, defined as a chronic concern about environmental decline, is increasingly discussed among young people who feel particularly vulnerable to the effects of the climate and ecological crisis. While not responsible for these challenges, young people, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, face heightened fears about their future. This anxiety, though not yet proven to directly cause widespread mental disorders, is reported as a significant concern. A 2021 survey found that nearly 60% of 16-25 year-olds felt "very worried" or "extremely worried" about climate change, especially in countries like the Philippines and India, where climate impacts are already being felt.¹ Eco-anxiety can serve as both a source of stress and a motivator for action, with many young people expressing a desire for meaningful proenvironmental engagement and activism. Providing young people with the resources and knowledge to act on these concerns can transform ecoanxiety into a catalyst for positive change, rather than a driver of emotional distress.^{2 3 4}

Planetary Boundaries

1. The 9 planetary boundaries | Planetary International
2. Planetary Boundaries | Stockholm Reslience Centre 
3. The Climate Crisis is a Child Rights Crisis | UNICEF

Image 1: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

Ecosystem Tipping Points  

1. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate | IPCC 
2. Too late now to save Arctic summer ice, climate scientists find | The Guardian
3. What are Tipping Points in the Climate Crisis? | Earth.org 
4. The quiet crossing of ocean tipping points - PMC (nih.gov) 
5. Albedo effect – Norsk Polarinstitutt 
6. Observationally-constrained projections of an ice-free Arctic even under a low emission scenario | Nature Communications.
7. Too late now to save Arctic summer ice, climate scientists find | The Guardian 

Image 2: https://earth.org/what-are-tipping-points-in-the-climate-crisis/

Net Zero 

1. The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC
2. Explained: The 1.5 C climate benchmark | MIT News
3. SDG Goal 13 | UN 
4. Transcript: Ezra Klein Interviews Jesse Jenkins - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
5. The Global Carbon Budget 

Image 3: https://climatenexus.org/international/ipcc/comparing-climate-impacts-at-1- 5c-2c-3c-and-4c/

Carbon Budgets

1. The Global Carbon Budget | Climate Central
2. Vulnerability rankings | ND-GAIN Index
3. China vows to adapt better to climate change as risks soar | Reuters
4. This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters | WRI
5. Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated | Nature
6. Tropical rain forests as carbon sinks | ScienceDirect
7. Global Wetlands | The Economist Impact

Image 4: https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/

Warming Effects

1. Climate Change | WHO
2. ‘More likely than not’ world will soon see 1.5 degree Celsius of warming, World Meteorlogical Organisation says | Reuters
3. Global temperature rise could see billions live in places where human life doesn’t flourish, study says | CNN
4. UNICEF Report: A Threat to Progress
5. Relationship between season of birth, temperature exposure, and later life wellbeing- Isen et al | Pub Med
6. Weather shocks, climate change and human health- Meierrieks | Science Direct
7. What happens if the 1.5C target for global heating is missed? | Cop28 | The Guardian
8. Transcript: Ezra Klein Interviews Jesse Jenkins | The New York Times (nytimes.com)
9. Climate Change Could Cause More Annual Deaths Than Infectious Disease by 2100 | EPIC UChicago

Image 5: UN

Biosphere Crisis

1. Environmental Degradation Facts | The World Counts
2. Global Wetland Outlook | Ramsar
3. Environmental Degradation Facts | The World Counts
4. ibid
5. Facts about the nature crisis | UNEP - UN Environment Programme
6. New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding | Nature
7. Biodiversity Crisis Affects Billions Who Rely on Wild Species, Researchers Say | The New York Times 

Image 6: https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation 
Image 7: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/2/infographic-how-wetlands-canhelp-fight-climate-change-interactive

Mass Extinction

1. We Should Be Talking about the Capitalocene | TDR | Cambridge Core
2. Mass Extinction - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
3. What is the sixth mass extinction and what can we do about it? | Stories | WWF
4. Modern ‘Sixth Mass Extinction’ Event Will Be Worse Than First Predicted: Report | Forbes
5. What is the sixth mass extinction and what can we do about it? | Stories | WWF
6. More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends - Finn - 2023 - Biological Reviews | Wiley Online Library
7. ibid 
8. What is the sixth mass extinction and what can we do about it? | Stories | WWF 

Image 8: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-species-per-taxonomicgroup-which-have-decreasing-stable-increasing-or_fig1_370779150

Oceans

1. Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov
2. 2025 UN Ocean Conference | Department of Economic and Social Affairs
3. How is climate change impacting the world’s ocean | United Nations
4. If our oceans die, we die | Captain Paul Watson | TEDxNoosa - YouTube
5. How is climate change impacting the world’s ocean | United Nations
6. Canicules marines : les océans brûlent aussi | HelloPlanet.tv
7. Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov
8. Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse | The Guardian
9. Unexplored Oceans | Ocean Wise 

Image 9: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climatechange-ocean-heat-content 
Image 10: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climatechange-ocean-heat-content

Water Security

1. Water Security for all | UNICEF
2. The climate-changed child | UNICEF
3. Water Scarcity- UN Water
4. The Hidden Water in Everyday Products - Water Footprint Calculator
5. Cleaning up couture: what’s in your jeans? | UNEP
6. Our water footprint: understanding Europe’s hidden water use | Euronews
7. The water needed to have Italians eat pasta and pizza | University of Twente 
8. Your morning cup of coffee contains 140 litres of water | World Economic Forum
9. Water Use and Stress - Our World in Data 
10. National Water Footprint Explorer | Water Footprint
11. The water footprint: water’s invisible trade - We Are Water
12. Is Seasonal Households’ Consumption Good for the Nexus Carbon/Water Footprint? | The Spanish Fruits and Vegetables Case
13. The water footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries | Ecological Economics
14. How can virtual water trade reshape water stress pattern? A global evaluation based on the metacoupling perspective - ScienceDirect
15. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) | UNICEF
16. More than twenty million children suffering in the Horn of Africa as drought internsifies | UNICEF
17. Mortality patterns in Somalia: retrospective estimates and scenario-based forecast | Reliefweb
18. Human-induced climate change increased drought severity in Horn of Africa | UNU
19. UNICEF Report: A Threat to Progress
20. Water scarcity | UNICEF
21. The climate-changed child | UNICEF
22. Water Scarcity | Threats | WWF
23. The climate-changed child | UNICEF
24. Water scarcity | UNICEF
25. How water shortages are brewing wars | BBC
26. Agreements hold water: Reasons to scale up transboundary cooperation—now! | World Bank
27. The role of transboundary cooperation | UNESCO 

Image 11: The climate-changed child | UNICEF
Image 12: The climate-changed child | UNICEF

Global Food System

1. Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions | Our World in Data
2. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: building the evidence base | IOPscience
3. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions | Nature Food
4. What You Need to Know About Food Security and Climate Change | The World Bank
5. Facts about the nature crisis | UNEP
6. Meat and Dairy Production | Our World in Data
7. Animal Agriculture Is The Missing Piece In Climate Change Media Coverage | Faunalytics
8. Animal agriculture is choking the Earth and making us sick. We must act now | James Cameron and Suzy Amis Cameron | The Guardian
9. ibid
10. How the U.S. Poultry Industry Is Crushing Contract Chicken Farmers | Sentient Media
11. The Human Cost of Chicken Farming - The Atlantic
12. What kills the agricultural worker? A systematic review on suicide | Rural Remote Health
13. Antibiotics Overuse in Animal Agriculture: A Call to Action for Health Care Providers - PMC
14. Antimicrobial resistance-WHO
15. A Threat to Progress | UNICEF
16. The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue | Nature
17. Zoonoses—The One Health Approach | CDC Yellow Book 2024
18. Meat and Dairy Production | Our World in Data
19. Industrial Animal Agriculture’s Large Footprint on Global Land | Plant Based Foods Institute
20. Meat and Dairy Production | Our World in Data
21. Industrial Animal Agriculture’s Large Footprint on Global Land-PBFInstitute
22. You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local | Our World in Data
23. Global meat production, 1961 to 2021 | Our World in Data
24. Meat and Dairy Production | Our World in Data
25. Livestock's Long Shadow | FAO
26. New model explores link between animal agriculture and climate change | Stanford News
27. Meat consumption must fall by at least 75 percent | ScienceDaily
28. Plant-Based Dietary Patterns for Human and Planetary Health | PMC
29. If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares Z Our World in Data
30. New model explores link between animal agriculture and climate change | Stanford News
31. ibid
32. Animal Agriculture Is The Missing Piece In Climate Change Media Coverage | Faunalytics
33. Consumer Attitudes Towards Environmental Concerns of Meat Consumption: A Systematic Review | PMC
34. Food lobbies, the food pyramid, and U.S. nutrition policy | Int J Health Serv 

Image 13: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local 
Image 14: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Industrial Agriculture

1. Soil Health is Affected by Industrial Agriculture | FoodPrint
2. FAO warns 90 per cent of Earth’s topsoil at risk by 2050 | UN News
3. Crop genetic erosion: understanding and responding to loss of crop diversity - Khoury - 2022 | New Phytologist
4. Just a Few Species Make Up Most of Earth's Food Supply. And That's a Problem | Smithsonian
5. Agroecology as a transformative approach to tackle climatic, food, and ecosystemic crises | ScienceDirect
6. Overview | Agroecology Knowledge Hub | FAO
7. Growing Stronger: The Sustainable Roots of Indigenous Agriculture | Article | EESI 

Image 15: The 12 crops and animals that feed us

Air Pollution 

1. State of Global Air Report 2024
2. ibid
3. Air Pollution | Our World in Data
4. New study uncovers 'dual threat' of air pollution, affecting heart and mental health: 'Public health strategies are urgently needed' | The Cooldown
5. Air Pollution | Our World in Data
6. Air pollution: A threat to children's rights | UNICEF
7. ibid
8. More than 90% of the world’s children breathe toxic air every day | WHO
9. State of Global Air Report 2024
10. 2023 World Air Quality Report | IQAir
11. State of Global Air Report 2024
12. Extreme air pollution from residential solid fuel burning | Nature Sustainability
13. What You Need to Know About Climate Change and Air Pollution | World Bank
14. Best Ways To Reduce Air Pollution & Tackle Climate Change Together | World Economic Forum
15. Black carbon | Climate & Clean Air Coalition
16. Air pollution and climate change: two sides of the same coin | UNEP
17. Air pollution, ecosystems and biodiversity | UNECE
18. Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires | UNEP
19. Increasing risk over time of weather-related hazards to the European population: a date-driven prognostic study | Science Direct
20. UNICEF Report: A Threat to Progress
21. Air pollution and climate change: two sides of the same coin | UNEP
22. The terrible paradox of air pollution and climate change | VOX
23. What You Need to Know About Climate Change and Air Pollution | World Bank
24. Best Ways To Reduce Air Pollution & Tackle Climate Change Together | World Economic Forum
25. Clean Air Fund and YouGov Air Pollution and COVID-19 Survey Results | Clean Air Fund
26. UN General Assembly declares access to clean and healthy environment a universal human right | UN News
27. The emergence of a right to clean air: Transforming European Union law through litigation and citizen science Z Misonne
28. See for example- https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3161 
29. Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah: High Court action over girl's pollution death | BBC 

Image 16: https://www.stateofglobalair.org/resources/report/state-global-air-report2024 
Image 17: https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution

Timelines and Politics 

1. Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Briefing Note
2. Climate Change is a Moral Crisis. But Our Political System Doesn't Treat It That Way | TIME
3. The Time Lag of Climate Change | Earth.org
4. ibid
5. Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation | Nature Communications
6. The perils of short-termism: Civilisation’s greatest threat | BBC
7. Climate Change as a Political Problem - Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Initiative | UPenn
8. Are dictatorships better than democracies at fighting climate change? 
9. Existing fossil fuel extraction would warm the world beyond 1.5 °C | IOPscience
10. The perils of short-termism: Civilisation’s greatest threat | BBC
11. The case for longtermism: concern for the far future as a catalyst for pro-climate action | Nature 

Climate Change and Colonialism

1. Summary For Policymakers | IPCC
2. How Colonialism Spawned and Continues to Exacerbate the Climate Crisis | Columbia Climate School
3. Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary | The Lancet
4. Understanding climate colonialism | FairPlanet
5. How Colonialism Spawned and Continues to Exacerbate the Climate Crisis | Columbia Climate School
6. How the EU Green Deal Perpetuates Climate Colonialism | Earth.Org
7. Climate colonialism and the EU’s Green Deal | Al Jazeera
8. Carbon border taxes are unjust | MIT Technology Review
9. The Compound Injustice of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) | Ethics, Policy and Environment
10. Green, Resilient and Inclusive Development (GRID) | The World Bank
11. DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation | OECD
12. Hannah Richie, Not the End of the World : How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet
13. It is unfair to push poor countries to reach zero carbon emissions too early | Brookings
14. Transcript: Ezra Klein Interviews Robinson Meyer | The New York Times
15. How renewables corporations are exploiting the Global South | New Internationalist 

Image 18: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions

Climate, Poverty and Inequality

1. Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity | Oxfam International
2. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019 | Nature Sustainability
3. Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity | Oxfam International
4. Knight, Kyle W., Juliet Schor, and Andrew Jorgenson. “Wealth inequality and carbon emissions in high-income countries”, 2017
5. Developing Countries Could Face Annual Adaptation Costs of $300 Billion by 2030, Secretary-General Warns in Message to Climate Vulnerable Finance Summit | UN
6. 11 Facts About the Injustice of the Climate Crisis (and 6 That Show There's Still Hope) | Global Citizen
7. Child Marriage and Environmental Crises: An Evidence Brief | UNFPA
8. Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions? | Our World in Data
9. ibid
10. Population by world region adding the population of Turkey as per the GHG emissions per capita statistic | Our World in Data
11. Social Dimensions of Climate Change | World Bank
12. Climate change and inequality | Oxfam
13. Emissions Gap Report 2020 | UNEP
14. The cost of sustainable products | Deloitte Insights
15. Economic uncertainty puts pressure on sustainable behavior change | Deloitte Insights 

Image 19: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Image 20: https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf

Climate Finance 

TBD 

1. Debunking myths: why the green transition is affordable (as well as necessary) | positivemoney.eu
2. As climate impacts accelerate, finance gap for adaptation efforts at least 50% bigger than thought | UNEP
3. COP28: How the "Financial Gap" is Hindering Adaptation to Climate Change | AFD - Agence Française de Développement
4. Least developed countries: Global financial system must urgently address climate and development needs | UNCTAD
5. What Is the Bridgetown Initiative? What to Know About the Game - Changing Plan for Climate Finance | Global Citizen
6. Explainer: What is the 'Bridgetown Initiative' asking for at Paris financial summit? | Reuters
7. Effective tax rates of multinational corporations: Country-level estimates | PLOS
8. The True Cost of Global Tax Havens | IMF.
9. Tax evasion report 2024 | Tax Observatory EU
10. Inequality Inc. Executive Summary | Oxfam
11. Survival of the Richest: How we must tax the super-rich now to fight inequality | Oxfam
12. Tax evasion report 2024 | Tax Observatory EU
13. Corrective taxes for pollution control: An application of the environmental pricing and standards systems to agriculture | ScienceDirec
14. Plastic Tax in Italy: What Distributors of Plastic Packaging Need to KnowDeutsche Packaging | Deutsche Recycling
15. How can taxes be designed to discourage socially harmful behaviour?-IFS
16. Introducing the Green Premiums | Bill Gates
17. Fossil fuel subsidies need to go – but what about the poorer people who rely on cheap energy? | The Conversation
18. ibid
19. Fuel Subsidy Reform in Developing Countries: Direct Benefit Transfer of LPG Cooking Gas Subsidy in India | CGdev
20. U.N. chief urges tax on 'grotesque greed' of oil, gas companies | Reuters
21. ‘Godfathers of climate chaos’: UN chief urges global fossil-fuel advertising ban The Guardian
22. The potential of wealth taxation to address the triple climate inequality crisis | Nature Climate Change 

Image 21: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01891-2/figures/1

Fake Solutions 

1. Terraforming Mars means erasing the Red Planet’s history. | Slate
2. Geoengineering Is Not a Quick Fix for the Climate Crisis, New Analysis Shows | Scientific American
3. Climate myth #7: Technology will save us | Youngfoee
4. Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows | The Guardian
5. 'Net zero’ carbon targets are dangerous distractions from the priority of cutting emissions says new Oxfam report | Oxfam
6. Climate Change and Land-IPCC
7. There aren’t enough trees in the world to offset society’s carbon emissions – and there never will be | The Conversation
8. Pathways to net-zero emissions from aviation | Nature Sustainability
9. It’s time to accept carbon capture has failed – here’s what we should do instead | The Conversation
10. Carbon capture has a long history. Of failure | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
11. Hiding greenhouse gas emissions in the cloud | Nature Climate Change
12. Oil companies discourage climate action, study says | Harvard Gazette
13. Climate myth #7: Technology will save us | Youngfoee
14. What is greenwashing and why is it a problem? | Euronews
15. Discourses of climate delay | Global Sustainability | Cambridge Core 

Image 22: https://www.leolinne.com/-discourses-of-climate-delay/english 
Image 23: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forestcarbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

Recycling

1. A Whopping 91 Percent of Plastic Isn’t Recycled-National Geographic
2. 2022 UPDATE | Greenpeace
3. Plastics and the circular economy | Ellen McArthur Foundation
4. The World’s most Polluted Places | ARS
5. The New Plastics Economy | The Ellen McArthur Foundation
6. Paper Waste Facts | The World Counts
7. Top 25 recycling facts and statistics for 2022 | World Economic Forum
8. Glass recycling – Current market trends | recovery
9. E-waste collected for recycling worldwide 2010-2022, by region | Statista
10. A Global Mapping and Assessment of Standards, Labels and Claims on Plastic Packaging | One Planet Label
11. Limited climate benefits of global recycling of pulp and paper | Nature Sustainability
12. Data Article A dataset of organic pollutants identified and quantified in recycled polyethylene pellets | ScienceDirect
13. Dangerous chemicals found in recycled plastics, making them unsafe for use – experts explain the hazards | The Conversation 

Image 24: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/plastics-and-the-circulareconomy-deep-dive

Renewable Energy

1. Renewables 2023- Executive summary | IEA
2. Behavioural Change- Energy System | IEA
3. Effectiveness of behavioural interventions to reduce household energy demand: a scoping review - IOPscience
4. A multi-country meta-analysis on the role of behavioural change in reducing energy consumption and Co2 emissions in residential buildings | Nature Energy
5. How Behavioral Interventions Can Reduce the Climate Impact of Energy Use | Cell
6. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion | IMF
7. A critical review on environmental impacts of renewable energy systems and mitigation strategies: Wind, hydro, biomass and geothermal | ScienceDirect
8. Reducing global energy demand is key to cutting emissions | World Economic Forum
9. Empowering people to act: How awareness and behaviour campaigns can enable citizens to save energy during and beyond today’s energy crisis – Analysis | IEA
10. Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System – Analysis - IEA
11. Nuclear Energy - Greenpeace USA
12. MIT Energy Initiative study reports on the future of nuclear energy | MIT
13. Net Zero Isn’t Possible Without Nuclear Power - Bloomberg
14. Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power - Science in the News | Harvard
15. Nuclear energy isn’t a safe bet in a warming world – here’s why | The Conversation 

Image 25: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

The internet and IT 

1. Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds | Environment | The Guardian
2. Data centers worldwide by country 2024 | Statista
3. Internet and social media users in the world 2024 | Statista
4. How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world’s electricity | Nature
5. The environmental cost of AI | Verdict
6. Climate Crisis: The unsustainable use of online video | The Shift Project
7. A Circular Economy for the Data Centre Industry: Using Design Methods to Address the Challenge of Whole System Sustainability in a Unique Industrial Sector | Sustainability
8. The Climate Costs of Big Tech - AI Now Institute
9. How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world’s electricity | Nature
10. AI for Climate Action: Technology Mechanism supports transformational climate solutions | UNFCCC
11. The carbon impact of artificial intelligence | Nature Machine Intelligence
12. The Environmental cost of AI | Verdict
13. How to reduce your digital carbon footprint | World Economic Forum
14. The environmental cost of the internet and your data - Keep New Zealand Beautiful
15. What is the Environmental Cost of AI? | Sustainability Magazine
16. Alarm bells ring over environmental cost of digitalization | UNCTAD
17. Disentangling the worldwide web of e-waste and climate change co-benefits | ScienceDirect
18. Global e-waste - statistics & facts | Statista
19. How the tech industry can tackle the e-waste crisis head on | Circular Online
20. Environmental impact of smartphones | Deloitte Insights
21. How the tech industry can tackle the e-waste crisis head on | Circular Online
22. Children and digital dumpsites: e-waste exposure and child health | PAHO/WHO
23. Electrical and electronic waste | UNICEF 

Image 26: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/newsinsights/trending/HyvwuXMO9YgqHfj7J6tGlA2 
Image 27: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117

Public Opinion

1.  How the tech industry can tackle the e-waste crisis head on | Circular Online
2. International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century | Capstick
3. 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Climate Change | Edelman Trust
4. Which country has the most climate skeptics? | World Economic Forum
5. 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Climate Change | Edelman Trust
6. Which country has the most climate skeptics? | World Economic Forum
7. 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Climate Change | Edelman Trust
8. Which country has the most climate skeptics? | World Economic Forum
9. The Peoples' Climate Vote 2024 | UNDP
10. In Response to Climate Change, Citizens in Advanced Economies Are Willing To Alter How They Live and Work | Pew Research
11. 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Climate Change | Edelman Trust
12. Learn for our planet: a global review of how environmental issues are integrated in education | UNES
13. Only half of young people able to identify correct definition of climate change | UNICEF, Gallup
14. The other climate crisis | The Changing Childhood Project | UNICEF x Gallup
15. Unleashing the creativity of teachers and students to combat climate change: An opportunity for global leadership | Brookings
16. The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States | Nature
17. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers | Nature
18. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers | Nature
19. Pro-Environmental Views of Climate Skeptics | Sage Journals
20. Generational differences in climate-related beliefs, risk perceptions and emotions in the UK | Nature 

Image 28: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/climate-science-global-warmingmost-sceptics-country/ 
Image 29: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206266

Climate and Mental Health

1. Young people’s climate anxiety revealed in landmark survey | Nature
2. Climate anxiety: What predicts it and how is it related to climate action? | ScienceDirect
3. From Eco-Anxiety to Eco-Optimism | UNICEF USA
4. ‘Eco-anxiety’: fear of environmental doom weighs on young people | The Guardian 

Image 30: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02582-8