Why does it matter?
When change in the climate happens remotely, at a distance from us and over many years, our own behaviour may seem unrelated to events. Even when events get closer to home, maybe even affect us directly, our personal efforts may feel worthless. But each of us is one of many who are making efforts to combat the climate crisis. We just need to increase our numbers so that together we can have a very big impact both on emissions and on systemic changes.
The different sections below focus on areas with a large share of the annual greenhouse gas emissions and our contribution to those emissions. The sections also identify further impacts associated with these sectors, such as loss of forests, reduced food availability, pollution and water shortages. These impacts exacerbate the direct effects of global warming.
Each section is cross-referenced to the corresponding section containing actions and pledges in What Can I do?
collapse all ▲
Waste: why does food waste matter to the climate? ▼
Food’s environmental costs
Food production is responsible for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, and uses a large share of the land and water resources. This is often at the expense of other needs, such as preserving forests and wetlands to combat climate change. The section Why are plant-based foods better for our planet? below provides more detail.
Wasted food and environmental impacts
We waste about a third of all food produced, and about 40% of that is wasted by retailers and consumers in industrialized nations.1
The amount wasted by consumers alone is almost as large as the total net food production of sub-Saharan Africa.2
So all the greenhouse gases released in producing the wasted food have been without benefit, and could have been avoided. The land and water used to grow the food could also have been used for other needs, such as saving forests to combat climate change. And we could have avoided some of the pollution of waterways.
Wasted food reduces the efficiency of food production
Land and water resources are limited, so we need to maximize the food we get from a given resource, but without compromising the food quality or harming the environment. But by wasting food, we feed fewer people using those resources. So wasting food reduces the efficiency of food production, thereby placing more pressure on resources.
However, It is even more important now to increase efficiency: the population is growing, and climate impacts, such as droughts, floods and pests, are causing reduced yields and crop failures.3 These impacts are likely to worsen as we approach 1.5°C of warming. The regions worst affected tend to be those where people are already on low incomes, and so are the least able to withstand the impacts. Local food losses are already increasing hunger in drought-prone parts of Africa.4
Wasted food can increase food prices and affect access to food globally
When food is lost or wasted by us in our own country, it can affect the availability and price of food elsewhere in the world when that food is traded internationally.5 This can increase the number of undernourished people who cannot afford enough nutritious food.6 So by reducing food losses we could bring down prices, and make food more affordable worldwide.
When we, as consumers, stop wasting food, the benefits are more than just our financial gain. To pledge to take action now click So how can we reduce waste?
Close section ▲Energy: what our electricity has to do with the climate ▼
We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions rapidly to slow down warming and to avoid much worse impacts of the climate crisis. For more information go to How Bad is it? Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, are the main contributors to these emissions, and they are also used in generating our electricity. In 2019, emissions from electricity generation were about 30% of total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions globally.1 So electricity generation is a prime target for reducing emissions.
How do we reduce emissions from electricity generation?
There are a few ways to reduce emissions from our electricity.
We can replace fossil fuels with low-carbon energy sources that produce no emissions (i.e renewable sources), or very low emissions (nuclear). Renewable sources include, solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydropower and geothermal. These technologies already exist so the transition to renewables only requires implementation.
We can also accelerate the transition from fossil fuels even more by lowering electricity consumption.2 This means that we need less energy to meet demand, and less time to build up enough renewable sources, so it shortens the time we are reliant on fossil fuels.
Despite the need for rapid progress, it is a mixed picture with little progress in reducing emissions from electricity
The share of carbon-intense fossil fuel sources relative to low-carbon sources has barely changed since 2000, with fossil fuels retaining a 63% share in 2019.3
A welcome development is that renewable sources have increased by 7% since 2000, but a roughly corresponding decrease in nuclear sources means that the overall share of clean low-emission sources is mainly unchanged (dashed lines in Figure 1). We see a decline in the share of both coal and oil, but these are offset by the share of gas increasing. So the fossil fuel share of electricity generation has changed by only about 1% since 2000.
We might expect a slight decline in emissions over this period since coal is more carbon-intense than gas.4
However, emissions continued to increase as can be seen in Figure 2. This is in part due to an increase of over 40% in electricity use per person between 2000 and 2018.5 So there is not much progress in reducing consumption either.
To make an impact on emissions from electricity generation, therefore, we need to increase the share of renewables in our electricity supply. Each of us can have an impact on this. To see what actions we can take, follow this link So what can we do?
Finance: what has our money to do with the climate? ▼
It was agreed at the Paris Climate Summit of 2016 that we need to drastically cut emissions to stay within 1.5°C of warming, and we need to do it urgently. However, in the section How bad is it? it is shown that we are continuing to increase our greenhouse gas emissions and are rapidly heading towards 1.5°C.
Banks increase fossil fuel finance and investments
Unfortunately many of our traditional banks worldwide have not played their part in tackling the climate crisis. Most have instead continued to invest as heavily as before in fossil fuels, and collectively they have actually increased their investments every year since the Paris agreement in 2016.1
Money in our bank accounts supports the financing of fossil fuels
By giving our custom to these banks through savings, current accounts, investments or loans, we are indirectly financing and supporting their banking choices. And these choices might include many more things we do not agree with.5 Ironically, most of these banks also have policies that aim to act with social and environmental responsibility. So we cannot rely on policy statements to decide on a good place for our money.
Unfortunately, the worst offending banks also tend to be the traditional banks with the largest share of customers.6 So the majority of us throughout the world are supporting these choices.
There is a better place for our money: a new era in banking
It is not inevitable that our money contributes to harm. A collection of banks and cooperatives across the world have formed an alliance (The Global Alliance for Banking Values (GABV)). Their aim is to make a positive change in the banking system and how it serves the needs of people and their communities. You can find out more about how our money can be a force for good, and where to find an ethical bank in your region of the world, by following the link to the alliance in the action section.
To find a better home for your money, and use your consumer power to help the climate, follow this link Switch to fossil-free ethical banking.
Why transport matters to the climate ▼
The state of greenhouse gas emissions from transport
Transport accounts for about a quarter of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels (which is the major source of CO2 emissions).1
In 2018, almost half of these emissions came from road passenger vehicles, and almost a third came from transporting goods for us.2 The remainder is primarily from aviation and shipping.
These transport emissions have not been decreasing, despite the urgent need to reduce them: they have increased by around 1.9% a year on average between 2000 and 2018.1
Road traffic is a also a major source of air pollutants (such as nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter PM2.5). Air pollution is linked to many diseases and exacerbates lung conditions such as asthma, especially in vulnerable people including children and the elderly.
Road transport
There have been some efficiency improvements in transport, but in road transport they have been offset by two main trends. The improvements include the growth of electric cars, as well as electric buses in cities across the world, and improved fuel economy. Set against that is the increased demand for bigger and heavier vehicles (large sports utility vehicles (SUVs)), which consume more fuel. The other trend is an increase in online purchases combined with fast deliveries, such as same-day and next-day, which can increase road freight.1
During COVID-19 restrictions, the transport situation changed drastically and in the first quarter of 2020 transport was down on average by around 50% globally over the previous year.3 Air pollution also plummeted in many regions. For instance, over Chinese cities it was down by about 40%, and it was down 20-38% in Western Europe and the U.S compared to the same period in 2019.4
Some of the measures introduced to stop the spread of COVID-19, such as homeworking, have already changed our behaviour and lifestyle. We need to continue many of these changes if we can, and we need to find new ways to reduce emissions. With passenger vehicles (and road freight) contributing so much to emissions, everyone is needed to play a part in reducing emissions. Together we can make a big impact on the significant emissions from road transport.
To see what actions we can take, go to Pledge options for road transport.
Air transport
Air traffic contributes about 2.5% of CO2 emissions, but 3.5% of warming.5 While it is not as big as other contributing sectors, most of these emissions are produced by just a small percentage of the global population, and the majority of the world’s population do not fly at all.6
Even a single short flight, such as between London and Rome, can form a large share of a person’s total yearly emissions. Such a flight is equivalent to the total emissions over a year of a person living in a part of the poorer half of the world, such as Somalia or Ethiopia.7
For frequent flyers, emissions from flying dominate an individual’s annual contribution to global warming. The emissions of one frequent flyer amount to the annual emissions not just of one person, but of tens or hundreds of people living in lower-income countries, such as on the African continent.8
Yet it is those in the poorer countries who suffer the most from the impacts of warming and the emissions of others. Already poor, many lose their crops in subsistence farming, some lose their homes and livelihoods and some are permanently displaced. Others sustain injuries from violent storms or succumb to diseases from flood waters, and many lose their lives.9
It is tempting to think we can continue to fly in the belief that damage from our flight can be undone by purchasing carbon credits to offset our emissions. But carbon offset schemes have a history of failing to remove the required emissions, and they can be open to misuse and abuse.10 A recent report found that 85% (or more) of the offsets of one scheme did not remove any additional CO2 from the air.11 The bad news is that airlines are also relying on offsets to achieve their net zero targets.12
warming from air traffic
If we are serious about doing what we can to help people and our planet, and doing it quickly, there is no real substitute for reducing all unnecessary flights. Offsets and other removal technologies would then be available for emissions that are hard to avoid and those already in the air. Even if an offset did work, two-thirds of the warming from air travel comes from non-CO2 elements, mainly contrails (water vapour), which are not covered by the Paris Agreement.14
Finally, no country is required to include international flights in their emission targets, which are part of their NDCs. Although there is an international body that aims to regulate international flights, their main requirement is to use offsets to reduce emissions,16 which, as we saw, may be totally ineffective.
Emissions from the airline industry may, therefore, go unabated unless we do what we can. So if you want to reduce your flights, or already have, then please pledge here: Air transport: pledge to fly less.
Why are plant-based foods better for our planet? ▼
Why plants? Plants contribute a lower share of greenhouse gases, they release less of the more potent gas methane, and they use much less land and water compared to animal products, as we shall see. Since food production is responsible for over a quarter of global emissions, using more plant foods provides a means of slowing the rate of warming.
Types of plant and animal products ▼
Plant-based foods include pulses, grains, vegetables, fruit and nuts. Pulses include beans, lentils and peas, and grains include buckwheat, quinoa, millet, barley, wheat and oats. Animal products include meat (such as chicken, pork, lamb and beef), fish, cheese, milk and eggs.
Pulses, and many grains, are a low-fat source of protein, vitamins and minerals. Plant products are also cheaper, so good for those of us who need good nutrition without the expense.
Livestock farming uses more of the limited land and water resources ▼
We need to make the best use of our resources if we are to meet everyone’s needs for food.7 By 2050 it is estimated there will be an extra 2 billion people.8
However, when we compare plant and livestock farming, we find that producing plant foods is a more efficient use of land and water: Livestock take up about three-quarters (77%) of the land used for global farming.9 Livestock also use far more water than plant-based foods for each tonne of food or gram of protein produced.10 But we saw earlier that livestock provide far less of our energy and protein needs globally.
Why does it matter how much water we use? Despite some areas having heavy rainfall and floods, some cities in the world in recent years have experienced water crises. This is where they have been close to Day Zero (when the taps just run dry).
About one quarter of the world’s population live in regions where most of their available water (more than 80%) is being withdrawn each year from lakes and underground sources. This makes them highly vulnerable to droughts.16 So it is really important to limit water withdrawals for agriculture: currently irrigation for agriculture is responsible for about 70% of all freshwater used.17
Why does it matter how much land we use? We are on the limits of the habitable land available to us, and producing our food uses up a large share.11 Already vast expanses of forest are being cut down or burnt to make way for agriculture.12
The forests help remove greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global warming. So by removing the forests we are removing a crucial natural process for combating climate change.13 The change of use from forest to agriculture also often has the effect of degrading soils, so that they can become unusable.14 The land may then change from a sink to a source of emissions, which increases warming.15
So by growing more plant products, we can provide plenty of food, and use less of each resource. Both of these are key elements in lowering food prices. This can help many people who are at present unable to afford nutritious food and, as a result, are hungry or undernourished.18
Close section ▲
So what can we do?
There are solutions but they require major transformations in both food production and our diets.
The efficiency of food production – how much food we get per unit of land and water – needs to be increased, but without harming the environment. In particular, this needs to be done without compromising our ability to combat and adapt to climate change. It’s important not to expand our use of land and water, or degrade them by harmful methods in intensive (industrial) agriculture.19
It is estimated that if animal products were excluded from our diets, the land no longer required for food production, which is about three quarters of it (77%), could remove an additional 8.1GtCO2eq of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year.20 This would result from the growth of natural vegetation (forests and grasslands) and accumulating carbon stores in the soil.
As individuals we can play a huge role in lowering emissions, increasing the accessibility of food for all, reducing harmful impacts, and making more land and water available where it is needed. We can do this if we switch to a mainly plant-based diet, with few animal products.
Click here to see what action can be taken
Close section ▲