Carbon emissions come largely from industry, transportation, and household electricity. While we can all do our part by reducing our energy use, this will not stop climate change. We cannot shut down coal plants or redesign public transportation systems individually, but we can all make some lifestyle changes to help the environment. For example, we can opt to buy electric cars instead of gas-powered ones, or eat a plant-based diet.
Be politically active to reduce climate change
While individual behavior is key to reducing climate change emissions, system-level changes are necessary to limit global warming to safe levels. Government policy is a key tool for system-level changes, including legislation, regulations, and standards. However, collective action is difficult to achieve in a democracy, and in the U.S., where we're known for our individualist culture, this task can seem impossible. Luckily, it is not impossible - and it may be the most effective tool in fighting climate change.
One way to be politically active to reduce climate change is to write and tweet to your representatives about your concerns. You can also take action by urging Congress to pass a carbon cap and make polluters pay for their emissions. Other ways to fight global warming are to protect public lands and stop offshore drilling. Another way to be politically active is to change your lifestyle. Consider making the switch to solar power, wind energy, or another renewable energy source.
It is critical to take action on climate change now. Unfortunately, people is resisting action on the issue despite mounting evidence. David Wallace-Wells paints a bleak picture of a future where whole parts of the world are too hot to live. Food shortages will become chronic, whole countries will drown, and air will be even dirtier. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
As much as possible, citizens can make a difference by making climate change their top priority. Vote for political parties that promise strong action on the issue. Usually, parties with a specialized "green" focus are more proactive on this issue. Likewise, those who can't vote can join global movements or show their support by attending rallies. A few young activists have even gone so far as to challenge governments on the issue.
Build taller, denser cities
A recent paper by CU Boulder researchers challenges the conventional view of the future of cities. They argue that tall buildings make better use of space, reduce operational energy use, and allow us to have more people per square meter of land. These advantages are also necessary to protect human health. But the trade-off between public health and climate change must be addressed. The paper offers a clear path to address both concerns.
Cities are different from rural areas in aerodynamic terms. Because they lack vegetation and other materials that can absorb rain, they are like virtual deserts. This lack of evapotranspiration increases the amount of sensible heat that urban centers emit. In North America and Europe, tall buildings can create a "tall canyon" effect, trapping radiant energy. In a study, doubling the density of a city could reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent and residential energy use by 33 percent.
However, it may be difficult to achieve the goal of building taller and denser cities, since high-rise cities create higher carbon emissions. According to the study, high-rise buildings are better for the environment, but not without consequences. Buildings with higher density can increase city's density, but they also cause more carbon emissions. Aside from generating more carbon, high-rise buildings create hidden carbon during construction, refurbishment, demolition, and maintenance. To reduce emissions in cities, these hidden emissions must be considered.
The government's report on housing density released in 2021 called on municipal leaders to overcome local opposition and implement policies that protect the environment. While the President's report emphasized the benefits of higher housing density, San Diego's plans for Golden Hill and North Park fall short of their climate change goals. The city also wants half of its residents to drive to work by 2035. Achieving the latter goal would have major implications for the climate and housing crises.
Eat a plant-based diet
A recent report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we must shift to a plant-based diet to reduce our carbon footprint. Eating a plant-based diet is one of the biggest opportunities for climate change mitigation. The report also recommends governments cut down on meat consumption. Many animal producers store far more carbon than humans do. By reducing meat consumption, the world can feed more people on less land.
The dietary recommendations have become controversial in many circles, with governments unwilling to regulate meat and dairy consumption. Perhaps a combination of meat industry influence and a lack of popular support is behind the hesitation. Still, there is some evidence that governments can act on this issue. The most visible examples of government action are dietary guidelines. Despite these recommendations, many people fail to follow them. But what are the benefits of switching to a plant-based diet?
Eating a plant-based diet reduces emissions, improves your health, and engages agricultural land in carbon sequestration. This diet also decreases chronic disease and reduces damage to freshwater resources and ecosystems. A plant-based diet also reduces the need to raise billions of animals on factory farms. It reduces animal suffering, preserves farmland, and engages agricultural land in carbon sequestration.
While many benefits of a plant-based diet include better health, less anxiety, and lower noncommunicable disease rates, it's unlikely to have a major impact on our climate targets. But it is important to note that a significant shift in global diets is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement's climate targets. So why not consider a shift to a plant-based diet and try it out?
Mitigation
While we all have an obligation to reduce our carbon footprint, we must also be aware of the fact that our actions may have little effect unless we change our behavior system-wide. In addition to individual changes, we can also influence the behaviour of corporations and governments. Individuals can make changes by voting and becoming politically active. They can also make use of alternative energy sources like solar panels and windmills. These are all important steps towards solving the climate problem.
The main goal of climate change mitigation is to reduce the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, and to increase the amount of carbon dioxide sinks. The goal is to limit human interference with the climate system and stabilize greenhouse gas levels, allowing ecosystems to naturally adapt to climate change and ensuring that food production is not threatened. It also allows economic development to continue in a sustainable manner. But, what do we do to reduce our carbon footprint?
One simple step is to cut out meat. Raise livestock produces huge amounts of methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. Therefore, cutting out meat and reducing the amount of red meat we eat can help reduce our carbon footprint. One study conducted at Carnegie Mellon University suggests that we switch to eating dairy instead of red meat. And don't forget to use less plastic! Lastly, if you can't avoid plastic bags, use recycled paper bags and reuse them for utensils and cleaning products.
If we really want to limit climate change, we must stop using fossil fuels. And if we cannot eliminate fossil fuels, we should make the transition to alternative energy sources. Renewable energy sources are a better alternative to oil. If we want to stabilize the temperature of the planet, we must become a carbon-neutral society where we take as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we emit. To get there, we must implement substantial changes in energy technology, infrastructure, and collective actions by individuals.
Adaptation
Adaptation is an approach to mitigating the risks of climate change through changes to human infrastructure and behaviours. Some of these measures may be planned in advance, while others may be put in place spontaneously in response to local pressure. Large-scale adaptation measures may include building sea-level rise defences, increasing the surface area of roads to accommodate hotter temperatures, and improving soil fertility to withstand drought. Adaptation may also involve behavioural shifts, such as conserving forests, growing different crops, or buying flood insurance.
Adaptation can take many forms, including behavioural changes and the adoption of new technologies and processes. In India and Costa Rica, small-scale farmers have begun to use climate-smart practices to produce more food and withstand changing climate conditions. Water-stressed communities are using drip irrigation and sprinklers to mitigate the effects of climate change. Developing nations, such as Kiribati, are strengthening their fisheries management and stepping up early warning systems to cope with climate-related disasters.
Various studies have found that simple adaptations can mitigate some of the adverse effects of climate change, while some are positive. Agricultural studies in Modena, Italy, found that simple changes to planting times could change the results of negative impacts to neutral or even positive ones. In contrast, most adaptation benefits are gained under moderate warming conditions. Moreover, the study's findings are based on a number of assumptions, including full capacity to implement adaptations and the absence of other factors that may be associated with climate change.
Adaptation investment can generate multiple benefits, including a triple dividend for society. Not only does it reduce future losses, it also promotes economic growth, improves productivity, and fosters innovation. As an added bonus, many of these adaptive measures generate multiple benefits, generating dividends without any adverse effects. Furthermore, they can improve social benefits such as increased social security after a natural disaster. By incorporating climate change into national budgets and planning, it is possible to reduce the economic costs associated with climate change.
