The United Nations specialised agency, World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has cautioned the world against climate change that elevates the danger of water-related disasters such as floods. It also warned that the number of people to be affected by water shortages is likely to rise in near future. According to the WMO's latest report titled 'The State of Climate Services 2021: Water', nearly 3.6 billion people worldwide have insufficient access to water for approximately one month each year in 2018, and this figure is estimated to surge to five billion by 2050.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the federal government is not doing enough to fight climate change, according to a new poll that shows limited public awareness about a sweeping new law that commits the U.S. to its largest ever investment to combat global warming.
1111l
Democrats in Congress approved the Inflation Reduction Act in August, handing President Joe Biden a hard-fought triumph on priorities that his party hopes will bolster prospects for keeping their House and Senate majorities in November’s elections.
Biden and Democratic lawmakers have touted the new law as a milestone achievement leading into the midterm elections, and environmental groups have spent millions to boost the measure in battleground states. Yet the poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that 61% of U.S. adults say they know little to nothing about it.
While the law was widely heralded as the largest investment in climate spending in history, 49% of Americans say it won’t make much of a difference on climate change, 33% say it will help and 14% think it will do more to hurt it.
The measure, which passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber, offers nearly $375 billion in incentives to accelerate expansion of clean energy such as wind and solar power, speeding the transition away from fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas that largely cause climate change.
Fetterman, Oz meet for highly anticipated Pa. Senate debate
Fla. Gov. DeSantis refuses to commit to serving full term
Jan. 6 trial delayed after Oath Keepers' leader gets COVID
Biden's midterm 'closing argument': Look at the alternative
Combined with spending by states and the private sector, the law could help shrink U.S. carbon emissions by about two-fifths by 2030 and chop emissions from electricity by as much as 80%, advocates say.
Michael Katz, 84, of Temple, New Hampshire, said he thinks Biden has “done an amazing amount of work” as president. “I’m sort of in awe of what he’s done,? said Katz, a Democrat and retired photographer. Still, asked his opinion of the Inflation Reduction Act, Katz said, “I’m not acquainted with” it.
After learning about the law’s provisions, Katz said he supports increased spending for wind and solar power, along with incentives to purchase electric vehicles.
Katz said he supports even stronger measures — such as restrictions on rebuilding in coastal areas damaged by Hurricane Ian or other storms — but doubts they will ever be approved.
“People want their dreams to come true: to live near the ocean in a big house,? he said.
Leah Stokes, an environmental policy professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said she was not surprised the climate law is so little known, despite massive media coverage when it was debated in Congress, approved and signed by Biden.
The law was passed during the summer, when people traditionally pay less attention to news, “and it takes time to explain it,? especially since many of the law’s provisions have not yet kicked in, Stokes said.
Biden and congressional Democrats “delivered in a big way on climate,? she said, but now must focus on helping the public understand the law and “winning the win.?
Meredith McGroarty, a waitress from Pontiac, Michigan, said she knew little about the new law but supports increased climate action. “I have children I’m leaving behind to this world,? she said.
McGroarty, 40, a Democrat, urged Biden and other leaders to talk more about the climate law’s “effects on normal, everyday people. Let us know what’s going on a little more.?
Americans are generally more likely to support than oppose many of the government actions on climate change included in the law, the poll shows. That includes incentives for electric vehicles and solar panels, though relatively few say they are inclined to pursue either in the next three years.
About half of Americans think government action that targets companies with restrictions is very important, the poll shows, while about a third say that about restrictions on individuals. A majority of Americans, 62%, say companies’ refusal to reduce energy use is a major problem for efforts to reduce climate change, while just about half say people not willing to reduce their energy use is a major problem.
Slightly more than half also say it’s a major problem that the energy industry is not doing enough to supply power from renewable sources such as wind and solar, and about half say the government is not investing enough in renewable energy.
Overall, 62% of U.S. adults say the government is doing too little to reduce climate change, while 19% say it’s doing too much and 18% think it’s doing the right amount.
Democrats are more likely than others to think the federal government is doing too little on climate: 79% say that, compared to 67% of independents and 39% of Republicans. About three-quarters of Black and Hispanic Americans think there’s too little action, compared to about half of white Americans.
And about three-quarters of adults under 45 think there’s too little action on climate, significantly higher than the roughly half of those older who think that.
Robert Stavins, a professor of energy and economic development at the Harvard Kennedy School, said it makes sense for the government to step in to promote renewable energy on a large scale.
“Individual action is not going to be sufficient in 10 or even 20 years,” he said. “You need government policies to create incentives for industry and individuals to move in a carbon-friendly direction.?
Americans want to own a car, “and they are not going to buy one that’s expensive,? Stavins said, so government needs to lower costs for electric vehicles and encourage automakers to produce more EVs, including widespread availability of charging stations. Biden has set a goal to install 500,000 charging stations across America as part of the 2021 infrastructure law.
On renewable energy, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults say offshore wind farms should be expanded, and about 6 in 10 say solar panel farms should be expanded. Biden has moved to expand offshore wind and solar power as president.
Americans are divided on offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Around a third say such drilling should be expanded, while about as many say it should be reduced; another third say neither.
Republicans were more likely than Democrats to be in favor of expanding offshore drilling, 54% to 20%.
___
The poll of 1,003 adults was conducted Sep. 9-12 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.
Individual action on climate change can include personal choices in many areas, such as diet, travel, household energy use, consumption of goods and services, and family size. Individuals can also engage in local and political advocacy around issues of climate change. People who wish to reduce their carbon footprint, can take 'high-impact' actions, such as avoiding frequent flying and petrol fuelled cars, eating mainly a plant-based diet, having fewer children, using clothes and electrical products for longer, and electrifying homes. Avoiding meat and dairy foods has been called 'the single biggest wa'y an individual can reduce their environmental impact. Excessive consumption is more to blame for climate change than population increase. High consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact, with the richest 10% of people emitting about half the total lifestyle emissions.
Some commentators have argued that individual actions as consumers and 'greening personal lives' are insignificant in comparison to collective action. Others say that individual action leads to collective action, and emphasize that 'research on social behavior suggests lifestyle change can build momentum for systemic change.' According to respondents to a 2022 survey, climate change is the second most pressing issue confronting Europeans. Over three-quarters of respondents believe that their individual actions can make a difference in tackling the climate issue.
As of 2021 the remaining carbon budget for a 50-50 chance of staying below 1.5 degrees of warming is 460 bn tonnes of CO2 or 11+1/2 years at 2020 emission rates. Global average greenhouse gas per person per year in the late 2010s was about 7 tonnes - including 0.7 tonnes CO2eq food, 1.1 tonnes from the home, and 0.8 tonnes from transport. Of this about 5 tonnes was actual carbon dioxide. To meet the Paris Agreement target of under 1.5 degrees warming by the end of the century, it is estimated that the annual carbon footprint per person required by 2030 is 2.3 tonnes. As of 2020 the average Indian almost meets this target, the average person in France or China overshoots it, and the average person in the US and Australia vastly overshoots it. Per capita emissions also vary significantly within countries, with wealthier individuals creating more emissions. A 2015 Oxfam report calculated that the wealthiest 10% of the global population were responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions. According to a 2021 report by the UN, the wealthiest 5% contributed nearly 40% of emissions growth from 1990 to 2015.
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report pointed out in 2022: 'To enhance well-being, people demand services and not primary energy and physical resources per se. Focusing on demand for services and the different social and political roles people play broadens the participation in climate action.':?TS-98? The report explains that behavior, lifestyle, and cultural change have a high climate change mitigation potential in some sectors, particularly when complementing technological and structural change.:?5–3?
Meaning of 'lifestyle carbon footprint' Further information: Carbon footprint The carbon footprint was originally coined & popularized by the ad campaign Beyond Petroleum in 2004-2006, funded by British Petroleum, for which other have accused them of popularizing to downplay their own culpability.
A vast majority of people surveyed for the European Investment Bank Climate Survey say they are making efforts to reduce their contribution to climate change, but few are making radical lifestyle changes. In 2008 the World Health Organization wrote that 'Your 'carbon footprint' is a measure of the impact your activities have on the amount of carbon dioxide produced through the burning of fossil fuels'. In 2019 the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in Japan defined 'lifestyle carbon footprint' as 'GHG emissions directly emitted and indirectly induced from the final consumption of households, excluding those induced by government consumption and capital formation such as infrastructure.':?v? However an Oxfam and SEI study in 2020 estimated per capita CO2 emissions rather than CO2-equivalent, and allocated all consumption emissions to individuals rather than just household consumption. According to a 2020 review many academic studies do not properly explain the scope of the 'personal carbon footprint' they study.
Travel and commuting See also: Car § Environmental impact, and Greenhouse gas emissions § Transport of people and goods A comparison of travel options shows:
Walking and running are among the least environmentally harmful modes of transportation. Cycling follows walking and running as having a low impact on the environment. Public transport such as electric buses, metro and electric trains generally emit less greenhouse gases than cars per passenger. Escooters can also be a low-impact form of transportation if they have long lifetimes. Cars: Using an electric car instead of a gasoline or diesel car helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Walking and biking Walking and biking emit little to no greenhouse gases and are healthy alternatives to driving or riding public transportation. There are also increasing numbers of bike-sharing services in urban environments. An individual can rent a bike for a period of time, reducing the financial burden of buying a personal bike and its associated environmental impact.
Public transport Reliable public transportation is one of the most viable alternatives to driving personal vehicles. While there are efficiency problems associated with public transportation, they can be improved as funding and public interest increases and technology advances. A case study from Auckland, New Zealand found that the global warming potential of a bus system decreased by 5.6% when a system used increased efficiency methods compared to a system with no controls implemented. In the early 21st century perception towards climate change influenced some people in rich countries to change their travel lifestyle.
A 2022 survey found that 33% of car buyers in Europe will opt for a petrol or diesel car when purchasing a new vehicle. 67% of the respondents mentioned opting for the hybrid or electric version. More specifically, it found that electric cars are only preferred by 28% of Europeans, making them the least preferred type of vehicle. 39% of Europeans tend to prefer hybrid vehicles, while 33% prefer petrol or diesel vehicles. In the EU, only 13% of the total population do not plan on owning a vehicle at all.
44% Chinese car buyers, on the other hand, are the most likely to buy an electric car, while 38% of Americans would opt for a hybrid car. 33% would prefer petrol or diesel, while only 29% would go for an electric car.
Electric cars
Battery electric bus There are many options to choose from when considering alternatives to personal car use, but the use of a personal vehicle may be necessary due to location and accessibility reasons. The life cycle assessment of a vehicle evaluates the environmental impact of the production of the vehicle and its spare parts, the fuel consumption of the vehicle, and what happens to the vehicle at the end of its lifespan. These environmental impacts can be measured in greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste produced, and consumption of energy resources among other factors. Increasingly common alternatives to internal-combustion engines vehicles are electric vehicles, and hybrid-electric vehicles. Electric cars emit less than gasoline cars.
Some other alternatives to reducing emissions while driving a personal vehicle are planning out trips beforehand so they follow the shortest route and/or the route with the least amount of traffic. Following a route with less traffic can reduce idling and waste less fuel.
Carpooling and ride-sharing services
Respondents to a climate survey, in favour of lowering speed limits on motorways. Carpooling and ride-sharing services are also alternatives to personal transportation. Carpooling reduces the number of cars on the road, in turn reducing the amount of traffic and energy consumption. A 2009 study estimated that 7.2 million tons of green-house gas emissions could be avoided if one out of 100 vehicles carried one extra passenger. Ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft could be viable options for transportation, but according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ride-share service trips currently result in an estimated 69% increase in climate pollution on average. More pollution is generated as the amount of time and energy a ride-share driver spends between customers with no passengers increases. There are also more vehicles on the road as a result of passengers who would have otherwise taken public transportation, walked, or biked to their destination. Ride-sharing services can reduce emissions if they implement strategies like electrifying vehicles and increase carpooling trips. In some cities, there are car-sharing services where the user can gain short-term access to a vehicle when other options are not available.
Air transport See also: Environmental impact of aviation Air travel is one of the most emission-intensive modes of transportation. The current most effective way to reduce personal emissions from air travel is to fly less. New technologies are being developed to allow for more efficient fuel consumption and planes powered by electricity.
Avoiding air travel and particularly frequent flyer programs has a high benefit because the convenience makes frequent, long-distance travel easy, and high-altitude emissions are more potent for the climate than the same emissions made at ground level. Aviation is much more difficult to fix technically than surface transport, so will need more individual action in future if the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation cannot be made to work properly.
Flying is responsible for 5 percent of global warming. Compared to longer flight routes, shorter flights actually produce larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions per passenger they carry and mile covered, so individuals may consider train travel instead but this can be more expensive due to aviation subsidies. Airplanes contribute to damaging our environment since airplanes cause greater air pollution as they release carbon dioxide along with nitrogen oxides, which is an atmospheric pollutant. Tailpipe emissions lead to changes in the amounts of the greenhouse gases ozone and methane. Avoiding night-flights may help, as contrails may account for over half of aviation's climate change impact.
Climate change is a factor that 67% of Europeans consider when choosing where to go on holiday. 52% of Europeans, specifically 37% of people ages 30–64 and 25% of people aged above 65, state that in 2022 they will choose to travel by plane. 27% of young people claim they will travel to a faraway destination. More specifically, people under the age of 30 are more likely to consider climate implications of vacation spots and air travel.
Home energy and landscaping
Solar panels on roof of a home to generate energy from a renewable energy source. Reducing home energy use through measures such as insulation, better energy efficiency of appliances, cool roofs, heat reflective paints, lowering water heater temperature, and improving heating and cooling efficiency can significantly reduce an individual's carbon footprint. After home insulation and ventilation has been checked, replacing a failed gas boiler with a heat pump can be considered, especially in climates where both heating and cooling are required.
In addition, the choice of energy used to heat, cool, and power homes makes a difference in the carbon footprint of individual homes. Many energy suppliers in various countries worldwide have options to purchase part or pure 'green energ'y. These methods of energy production emit almost no greenhouse gases once they are up and running.
Installing rooftop solar, both on a household and community scale, also drastically reduces household emissions, and at scale could be a major contributor to greenhouse gas abatement.
Low energy products and consumption Labels, such as Energy Star in the US, can be seen on many household appliances, home electronics, office equipment, heating and cooling equipment, windows, residential light fixtures, and other products. Energy star is a program in the U.S. that promotes energy efficiency. When buying air conditioning the choice of coolant is important.
Carbon emission labels describe the carbon dioxide emissions created as a by-product of manufacturing, transporting, or disposing of a consumer product. Environmental Product Declarations 'present transparent, verified and comparable information about the life-cycle environmental impact of products.' These labels may help consumers choose lower energy products.
Converting appliances such as stoves, water heaters and furnaces from gas to electric reduces emissions of CO2 and methane.
Landscape and gardens Plants process carbon dioxide to make organic molecules like cellulose, sugars, starches, plant proteins, and oils. Perennials keep a large proportion of those organic molecules for as long as they live, not releasing them until microorganisms decompose them after they die. Perennial plants like trees and shrubs contribute to the absorption of carbon dioxide from the air.
Annual plants that die each year release almost all of the CO2 that they take in. Grass lawns that live over the winter but die back above ground can also soak up a share of carbon dioxide, reducing that greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, both organic and synthetic fertilizers are sources of NOx, and turfgrass lawns use 3 million tons of nitrogen-based fertilizer each year. That adds four to five tons of carbon to the atmosphere for every ton of nitrogen. NOx is about 300 times more heat-absorbing than carbon dioxide.
Soil microbes break down organic carbon into carbon dioxide. Reducing irrigation would slow the microbial activity of the soil and its production of carbon dioxide. However, increased irrigation is required for lawn maintenance in areas that are becoming more arid due to climate change.
Turf grass lawns require herbicides that reduce ecological diversity while also polluting air, soil, and land. Gas-powered lawnmowers and other power tools used for lawn maintenance produce carbon dioxide and methane, which are greenhouse gases.
Lawns management methods like fertilizers and fossil fuel-powered lawn equipment may outweigh any carbon sequestration from the perennial grass lawn. Reducing irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer, chemical pesticides, and using hand tools instead of power tools that use fossil fuels can all reduce the climate impact of lawns.
Natural lawns promote pollination, require no fertilization, require less frequent mowing, promote diversity, and use less water. There are many opportunities to plant trees and shrubs in the yard, along roads, in parks, and in public gardens. In addition, some charities plant fast-growing trees to help people in places with less tree coverage to restore the productivity of their lands.
Individuals can also plant home vegetable gardens that provide locally grown food, native plant gardens that provide a diversity of species, and perennial trees and shrubs that develop sustainable carbon sequestration.
Laundry and choice of clothing Hanging laundry to dry saves energy that would have been used for heating, reducing clothing's carbon footprint. Additionally, using a shorter, cold water wash cycle can conserve energy by as much as 66%.
Purchasing well-made, durable clothing, and avoiding 'fast fashion' is critical for reducing climate impact. Some clothing is donated and/or recycled, meanwhile, the rest of the waste heads to landfills where they release 'greenhouse gases'.
Hot water consumption Domestic heated water using non-renewable resources such as gas contributes to significant global carbon dioxide emissions. As of 2020, most homes use gas or electric boilers to heat their water. Powering these boilers with renewable energy would reduce these emissions, although the cost of installation means this is not a universally viable option. Turning off the water heater and using unheated water for laundry, bathing, dishes, and cleaning eliminates those emissions.
Demand reduction See also: Climate change mitigation § Demand reduction Less consumption of goods and services
Support for a ban on some products, sustainable consumption education and better recycling in the 2020–21 European Investment Bank Climate Survey The production of many goods and services results in the emission of greenhouse gases as well as pollution. One way for individuals to decrease their environmental footprint is by consuming less goods and services. Decreasing the consumption of goods and services results in a lower demand, and lower supply follows. Individuals can prioritize shrinking the consumption of those goods and services whose production results in relatively high pollution levels. Individuals can also prioritize discontinuing the use of those goods and services that offer little to no real utility by 'speaking with their mone'y, since unpopular products neither satisfy consumer wants/needs nor the environment's; however, government subsidies may prove 'boycott buying' to be futile in some cases, enabling the producer.
A climate survey found that in 2021 42% of Europeans, specifically 48% of women and 34% of men, already invest in second-hand clothing rather than buying new ones. Populations aged 15 to 29, are found more likely to do so. Education on sustainable consumption, specifically targeting children, is seen as a priority by 93% of Chinese citizens, 92% of EU, 88% of British citizens and 81% of Americans.
The National Geographic Society has concluded that city dwellers can help with climate change if they simply 'buy less stuff.'
Lloyd Alter suggests that one way to get a practical sense of embodied carbon is to ask, 'How much does your household weigh?'
For-profit companies usually promote and market their products as useful or needed to potential consumers, even when they in reality are harmful or wasteful to them and/or the environment. Individuals should be diligent in self-assessing and/or researching whether or not each product they purchase and consume is really of value to decrease consumption. If a gas stove or other type of stove needs to be replaced in a new house, then an electric stove is preferable. However, as cooking is usually a small part of household GHG emissions, it is generally not worth changing a stove simply for climate reasons.
Using durable reusable containers such as lunchboxes, 'single-use' grocery and produce bags, Tupperware, as well as buying local produce, minimally packaged foods and general items, all reduce carbon emissions and pollution from the production of single use containers and packaging. These tactics mitigate GHG production by reducing demand for extra packaging and shipping of products.
Low-carbon diet Main article: Low-carbon diet
Example of a low-carbon dish: Vegan pho ingredients See also: Environmental impact of meat production and Veganism § Environmental veganism The world's food system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming greenhouse gases that humans generate each year with the livestock sector alone contributing 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. The 2019 World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, endorsed by over 11,000 scientists from more than 150 countries, stated that 'eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products, especially ruminant livestock, can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions.' The most common ruminant livestock are cattle and sheep.
Agriculture is very difficult to fix technically so will need more individual action or carbon offsetting than all other sectors except perhaps aviation.
Eating less meat, especially beef and lamb, reduces emissions. A diet which is part of individual action on climate change is also good for health, averaging less than 15g of red meat and 250g dairy per day. The World Health Organization recommends trans-fats make up less than 1% of total energy intake: ruminant trans-fats are found in beef, lamb, milk and cheese. In 2019, the IPCC released a summary of the 2019 special report which asserted that a shift towards plant-based diets would help to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Ecologist Hans-Otto Portner, who contributed to the report, said 'We don't want to tell people what to eat, but it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.'
Meats such as beef have a higher climate impact since cows release methane, a greenhouse gas that is more harmful in the short-term than carbon dioxide.
Eating a plant-rich diet is listed as the 4 solution for climate change as modeled by Project Drawdown, based on avoided emissions from the production of animals and avoided emissions from additional deforestation for grazing land.
A 2018 study indicated that one fifth of Americans are responsible for about half of the country's diet-related carbon emissions, due mostly to eating high levels of meat, especially beef.
A 2022 study published in Nature Food found that if high-income nations switched to a plant-based diet, vast amounts of land used for animal agriculture could be allowed to return to their natural state, which in turn has the potential to sequester 100 billion tons of CO2 by 2100. In addition to mitigating climate change, other benefits of this transition would include improved water quality, restoration of biodiversity, and reductions in air pollution.
A 2022 survey found that 62% of Europeans say they would be ready to pay somewhat more for food produced locally and sustainably - similar to Americans, at 60%, but 21% lower than Chinese respondents, at 83%. All income categories indicated being prepared to spend extra for food.
Slightly over half of Europeans support reducing the amount of meat and dairy products people may buy to combat climate change.
A survey in 2022 found that to assist individuals make more sustainable food decisions, 79% of Europeans support labelling all food with their climate footprint. 62% of Europeans surveyed claim they would be willing to pay more for sustainable food.
Family size Globe icon. The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this section, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new section, as appropriate. Unbalanced scales.svg The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. See also: Voluntary childlessness and Human population planning Worldwide population growth is considered as a challenge for climate change mitigation. Proposed measures include an improved access to family planning and access of women to education and economic opportunities. Targeting natalistic politics involves cultural, ethical and societal issues. Various religions discourage or prohibit some or all forms of birth control. Although having fewer children is arguably the individual action that most effectively reduces a person's climate impact, the issue is rarely raised, and it is arguably controversial due to its private nature. Even so, ethicists, some politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others have started discussing the climate implications associated with reproduction. Researchers have found that some people are having fewer children due to their beliefs that they can do more to slow climate change if they do not have children.
An April 2020 study published in PLOS One found that, among two-adult Swedish households, those with children increased carbon emission in two ways, by adding to the population and by increasing their own carbon emissions by consuming greater quantities of meat and gasoline for transportation than their counterparts without children; an increase of some 25% more than the latter. According to one of the contributors to the study, University of Wyoming economist Linda Thunstrom, 'If we're finding these results in Sweden, it's pretty safe to assume that the disparity in carbon footprints between parents and non-parents is even bigger in most other Western countries.'
Two interrelated aspects of this action, family planning and women and girl's education, are modeled by Project Drawdown as the 6 and 7 top potential solutions for climate change, based on the ability of family planning and education to reduce the growth of the overall global population. In 2019, a warning on climate change signed by 11,000 scientists from 153 nations said that human population growth adds 80 million humans annually, and 'the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrit'y to reduce the impact of 'population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss.' The policies they promote, which 'are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates,' would include removing barriers to gender equality, especially in education, and ensuring family planning services are available to all.
In a 2021 paper it was said that 'human population has been mostly ignored with regard to climate polic'y and attribute this to the taboo nature of the issue given its association with population policies of the past, including forced sterilization campaigns and China's one-child policy. They take a different approach and argue that population policies can both advance social justice while at the same time mitigating the human impact on the climate and the earth system. They say that while overconsumption by the world's wealthy is responsible for 90% of GHG emissions, which can be redressed through eco-taxes, carbon pricing and other policies, the global human population of 7.7 billion contributes to climate change in many ways, including the consumption of natural resources and GHG emissions from transportation. In 2022, a group of scientists urged families around the world to have no more than one child as part of the transformative changes needed to mitigate both climate change and biodiversity loss.
However, older populations are sometimes less concerned about climate change. Because climate change needs to be limited within the next few decades, having fewer children now might not make much difference.
×