solution to climate change essay

A sunset lights a glacier in New Zealand's Fiordland National Park. Around the world, many glaciers are melting quickly as the planet warms.

• ENVIRONMENT

Are there real ways to fight climate change? Yes.

Humans have the solutions to fight a global environmental crisis. Do we have the will?

The evidence that humans are causing climate change, with drastic consequences for life on the planet, is overwhelming .

Experts began raising the alarm about global warming in 1979 , a change now referred to under the broader term climate change , preferred by scientists to describe the complex shifts now affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems. Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas , and a range of other impacts.  

Over 200 countries—193 countries plus the 27 members of the European Union—have signed the Paris Climate Agreement , a treaty created in 2015 to fight climate change on a global scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which synthesizes the scientific consensus on the issue, has set a goal of keeping warming under 2°C (3.6°F) and pursuing an even lower warming cap of 1.5 °C (2.7° F).

But no country has created policies that will keep the world below 1.5 °C, according to the Climate Action Tracker . Current emissions have the world on track to warm 2.8°C by the end of this century.  

Addressing climate change will require many solutions —there's no magic bullet. Yet nearly all of these solutions exist today. They range from worldwide changes to where we source our electricity to protecting forests from deforestation.  

The promise of new technology

Better technology will help reduce emissions from activities like manufacturing and driving.  

Scientists are working on ways to sustainably produce hydrogen, most of which is currently derived from natural gas, to feed zero-emission fuel cells for transportation and electricity.  

Renewable energy is growing, and in the U.S., a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources provide 20 percen t of the nation’s electricity.  

New technological developments promise to build better batteries to store that renewable energy, engineer a smarter electric grid, and capture carbon dioxide from power plants and store it underground or turn it into valuable products such as gasoline . Some argue that nuclear power—despite concerns over safety, water use, and toxic waste—should also be part of the solution, because nuclear plants don't contribute any direct air pollution while operating.

Should we turn to geoengineering?

While halting new greenhouse gas emissions is critical, scientists say we need to extract existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, effectively sucking it out of the sky.  

Pulling carbon out of the atmosphere is a type of geoengineering , a science that interferes with the Earth’s natural systems, and it’s a controversial approach to fighting climate change.

Other types of geoengineering involve spraying sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the air or blocking the sun with a giant space mirror. Studies suggest we don’t know enough about the potential dangers of geoengineering to deploy it.

Restoring nature to protect the planet  

Planting trees, restoring seagrasses, and boosting the use of agricultural cover crops could help clean up significant amounts of carbon dioxide .  

The Amazon rainforest is an important reservoir of the Earth’s carbon, but a study published in 2021, showed deforestation was transforming this reservoir into a source of pollution.  

Restoring and protecting nature may provide as much as   37 percent of the climate mitigation needed to reach the Paris Agreement’s 203o targets. Protecting these ecosystems can also benefit biodiversity, providing a win-win for nature .

Adapt—or else

Communities around the world are already recognizing that adaptation must also be part of the response to climate change . From flood-prone coastal towns to regions facing increased droughts and fires, a new wave of initiatives focuses on boosting resilience . Those include managing or preventing land erosion, building microgrids and other energy systems built to withstand disruptions, and designing buildings with rising sea levels in mind.

Last year, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law and was a historic investment in fighting and adapting to climate change.

( Read more about how the bill will dramatically reduce emissions. )

Recent books such as Drawdown and Designing Climate Solutions have proposed bold yet simple plans for reversing our current course. The ideas vary, but the message is consistent: We already have many of the tools needed to address climate change. Some of the concepts are broad ones that governments and businesses must implement, but many other ideas involve changes that anyone can make— eating less   meat , for example, or rethinking your modes of transport .

"We have the technology today to rapidly move to a clean energy system," write the authors of Designing Climate Solutions . "And the price of that future, without counting environmental benefits, is about the same as that of a carbon-intensive future."

Sarah Gibbens contributed reporting to this article.

FREE BONUS ISSUE

Related topics.

• CLIMATE CHANGE
• ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
• AIR POLLUTION
• RENEWABLE ENERGY

You May Also Like

Another weapon to fight climate change? Put carbon back where we found it

Which cities will still be livable in a world altered by climate change?

Could seaweed be the 'fastest and least expensive' tool to fight climate change?

Listen to 30 years of climate change transformed into haunting music

How the historic climate bill will dramatically reduce U.S. emissions

• Environment
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Paid Content
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Climate Change – Problems and Solutions Essay

Natural causes of climate change, man-made causes of climate change, the potential impact of global warming, the current impact of global warming, possible solutions to global warming, current implication of global warming solutions.

Global warming is an increasing concern in the world caused by the excessive release of greenhouse gases. It is causing a devastating impact on the environment and affecting the quality of life. Natural causes are difficult to control since they are sometimes beyond human capabilities. However, effort should be made to manage certain situations such as forest fires by responding effectively to put them off. Moreover, human activities can influence natural disasters particularly when they interfere with natural processes. Flooding may occur because of activities such as agricultural activities, urban development, deforestation, hydroelectric power, and the destruction of wetlands. Inappropriate mining can create permanent landscape modifications such as drying up of oceans while building dams can trigger earthquakes.

Humans have played a great role in climate change particularly global warming because of engaging in activities that affect the environment. Failure to prioritize environmental issues and not being concerned about the impact of human activities on the environment has continued degrading natural resources. Effective regulations should be established to hinder activities that cause the generation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The time has come when every nation should start prioritizing environmental issues more than other factors such as economic and social.

Global warming is likely to cause a severer impact if sufficient measures are not taken to address the problem. The potential impact could affect the quality of life in a great way and cause more suffering to humans. Increasing deserts would affect the availability of food and water resulting in the development of new diseases and hunger. The potential impact could be the reduction of human and animal population, as the world becomes a harsh environment. Drying up sources of water and flooding the other areas would kill many animals and interfere with important activities such as mating.

Global warming is causing devastating effects, and worsening many disasters such as droughts, storms, and heatwaves. The warmer climate tends to retain, collect and then drop more water influencing the weather patterns to change where dry areas become drier and wet areas wetter (Price et al., 2020). The problem increases stress on the ecosystem following water shortages, pest and weed invasions, and salt invasions.

The rising cases of drought following the shortage of rainfall are threatening the lives of many people living in those regions. Extended dry seasons affect the availability of food to both humans and animals. On the other hand, rising sea levels along the coast have displaced people forcing them to move to higher regions. This is increasing pressure for resources as people move to settle in other areas. Moreover, some parts of the world such as the Midwest are experiencing extreme hot events and temperatures are likely to worsen unless sufficient measures are taken to address the problem. Extreme temperature increases health risks and influences the development of new ailments that were not common in the past.

Everybody has a role to place in the elimination of the global warming problem in the world. It is important to avoid cutting trees and reduce the utilization of energy to protect the environment. Small energy-saving practices such as unplugging gadgets, switching off lights, and using public transport can have a great impact on the reduction of global warming.

The current solutions focusing on the reduction of global warming have brought many beneficial changes and remedies. Many organizations have been developed to enhance innovation and technology in the innovation of eco-friendly machines. For instance, there has been increased investment in solar and wind energy in an attempt to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Many states have launched campaigns to educate the public on the importance of environmental conservation to create a favorable environment for future generations. People have started changing their behaviors and actions to reduce their carbon footprint.

Kweku, D., Bismark, O., Maxwell, A., Desmond, K., Danso, K., Oti-Mensah, E., Quachie, A., & Adormaa, B. (2018). Greenhouse effect: Greenhouse gases and their impact on global warming. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 17(6), 1-9. Web.

Price, M., Rowntree, L., Lewis, M., Wyckoff, W. (2020). Globalization and diversity (6th ed.). Pearson.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 30). Climate Change – Problems and Solutions. https://ivypanda.com/essays/climate-change-problems-and-solutions/

"Climate Change – Problems and Solutions." IvyPanda , 30 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/climate-change-problems-and-solutions/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Climate Change – Problems and Solutions'. 30 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Climate Change – Problems and Solutions." October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/climate-change-problems-and-solutions/.

1. IvyPanda . "Climate Change – Problems and Solutions." October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/climate-change-problems-and-solutions/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Climate Change – Problems and Solutions." October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/climate-change-problems-and-solutions/.

• Mongol Invasions of the 13th Century
• Environmental Marine Ecosystems: Biological Invasions
• The Mongol Invasions of Japan
• Germanic Invasions and the Fall of the Roman Empire
• Man-Made and Technological Disasters
• Man-Made Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
• Indian Invasions and Colonization of America
• Islamic Revolution and American Invasions
• Flooding and Mitigation Measures
• Global Warming and Man-Made Carbon Dioxide Factor
• Global Warming Challenges and Potential Solutions
• Global Warming and Role of International Actors
• Effects of Global Warming on Marine Life
• “What to Make of a Warming Plateau”
• Impact of Global Climate Change on Malaria

Donate to Defend Our Planet

Drilling on public lands, mass wildlife extinctions, worsening climate change—our planet is in crisis. Help us fight back and your gift will be matched $1 for $1.

What Are the Solutions to Climate Change?

Some solutions are big and will require billions in investment. Some are small and free. All are achievable.

Bundei Hidreka (left), a member of the Orissa Tribal Women's Barefoot Solar Engineers Association, holds up a solar lantern in Tinginaput, India.

Abbie Trayler-Smith/DFID, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

• Share this page block

Thinking about climate change can be overwhelming. We’ve been aware of its causes for decades now, and all around us, we bear witness to its devastating effects on our communities and ecosystems.

But the good news is that we now know exactly what it will take to win the fight against climate change, and we’re making measurable, meaningful progress. Game-changing developments in clean energy, electric vehicle technology, and energy efficiency are emerging every single day. And countries—including Canada , China , India , and the United States —are coordinating and cooperating at levels never seen before in order to tackle the most pressing issue of our time.

The bottom line: If the causes and effects of our climate crisis are clearer than ever, so are the solutions.

Ending our reliance on fossil fuels

Greater energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transportation, sustainable buildings, better forestry management and sustainable agriculture, conservation-based solutions, industrial solutions, technological solutions, our choices.

The single-most important thing that we can do to combat climate change is to drastically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels . The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas in our buildings, industrial processes, and transportation is responsible for the vast majority of emissions that are warming the planet —more than 75 percent, according to the United Nations. In addition to altering the climate , dirty energy also comes with unacceptable ecological and human health impacts.

We must replace coal, oil, and gas with renewable and efficient energy sources. Thankfully, with each passing year, clean energy is making gains as technology improves and production costs go down. But according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C , in order to meet the goal of reducing global carbon emissions by at least 45 percent below 2010 levels before 2030—which scientists tell us we must do if we’re to avoid the worst, deadliest impacts of climate change—we must act faster.

There are promising signs. Wind and solar continue to account for ever-larger shares of electricity generation. In 2021, wind and solar generated a record 10 percent of electricity worldwide. And modeling by NRDC has found that wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear could account for as much as 80 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of this decade . (We can also fully realize our clean energy potential if we invest in repairing our aging grid infrastructure and installing new transmission lines.) While this transformation is taking place, automakers—as well as governments—are preparing for a future when the majority of vehicles on the road will produce zero emissions.

Technicians from Solaris Energy carry out the first-annual servicing and cleaning on a heat pump that was installed into a house originally built in the 1930s, in Folkestone, United Kingdom.

Andrew Aitchison / In pictures via Getty Images

Energy efficiency has been referred to as “the first fuel”; after all, the more energy efficient our systems are, the less actual fuel we have to consume, whether rooftop solar energy or gas power. Considered this way, efficiency is our largest energy resource. As the technology harnessing it has advanced over the past 40 years, efficiency has contributed more to the United States’s energy needs than oil, coal, gas, or nuclear power.

What’s more, energy efficiency strategies can be applied across multiple sectors: in our power plants, electrical grids, factories, vehicles, buildings, home appliances, and more. Some of these climate-friendly strategies can be enormously complex, such as helping utility companies adopt performance-based regulation systems , in which they no longer make more money simply by selling more energy but rather by improving the services they provide. Other strategies are extraordinarily simple. For example, weatherproofing buildings, installing cool roofs , replacing boilers and air conditioners with super-efficient heat pumps , and yes, switching out light bulbs from incandescent to LED can all make a big dent in our energy consumption.

Transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy is the key to winning the fight against climate change. Here are the most common sources of renewable energy —and one source of decidedly nonrenewable energy that often gets included (falsely) in the list.

Engineer Steve Marchi and his team perform a final review of rooftop solar panels as part of the solar expansion project at the Wayne National Forest Welcome Center, in Ohio.

Alex Snyder/Wayne National Forest

Solar energy

Solar energy is produced when light from the sun is absorbed by photovoltaic cells and turned directly into electricity. The solar panels that you may have seen on rooftops or at ground level are made up of many of these cells working together. By 2030, at least one in seven U.S. homes is projected to have rooftop solar panels, which emit no greenhouse gases or other pollutants, and which generate electricity year-round (in hot or cold weather) so long as the sun is shining. Solar energy currently accounts for just under 3 percent of the electricity generated in the United States—enough to power 18 million homes —but is growing at a faster rate than any other source. By 2035, it could account for as much as 40 percent of electricity generation. From 2020 through 2026, solar will account for more than half of new electricity generation worldwide.

What to do when the sun doesn’t shine, you might ask. Alongside the boom in solar has been a surge in companion battery storage: More than 93 percent of U.S. battery capacity added in 2021 was paired with solar power plants. Battery storage is key to the clean energy revolution—and adapting to a warming world. Not only are batteries important at night when the sun isn’t out, but on hot days when homes draw a lot of electricity to power air conditioners, battery storage can help manage the energy demand and control the threat of power failures.

Turbines on Block Island Wind Farm, located 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island, in the Atlantic Ocean

Dennis Schroeder/NREL, 40481

Wind energy

Unlike solar panels, which convert the sun’s energy directly into electricity, wind turbines produce electricity more conventionally: wind turns the blades of a turbine, which spin a generator. Currently, wind accounts for just above 9 percent of U.S. electricity generation, but it, like solar, is growing fast as more states and utilities come to recognize its ability to produce 100 percent clean energy at a remarkably low cost. Unsurprisingly, states with plenty of wide-open space—including Kansas , Oklahoma , and Texas —have huge capacity when it comes to wind power, but many analysts believe that some of the greatest potential for wind energy exists just off our coasts. Offshore wind even tends to ramp up in the evenings when home electricity use jumps, and it can produce energy during the rainy and cloudy times when solar energy is less available. Smart planning and protective measures , meanwhile, can ensure we harness the massive promise of offshore wind while limiting or eliminating potential impacts on wildlife.

Svartsengi geothermal power plant in Iceland

Daniel Snaer Ragnarsson/iStock

Geothermal and hydroelectric energy

Along with sunlight and wind, water—under certain conditions—can also be a source of renewable energy. For instance, geothermal energy works by drilling deep underground and pumping extremely hot water up to the earth’s surface, where it is then converted to steam that, once pressurized, spins a generator to create electricity. Hydroelectric energy uses gravity to “pull” water downward through a pipe at high speeds and pressures; the force of this moving water is used to spin a generator’s rotor.

Humans have been harnessing heat energy from below the earth’s surface for eons—just think of the hot springs that provided warmth for the people of ancient Rome. Today’s geothermal plants are considered clean and renewable so long as the water and steam they bring up to the surface is redeposited underground after use. Proper siting of geothermal projects is also important, as recent science has linked some innovative approaches to geothermal to an increased risk of earthquakes.

Hydroelectric plants, when small-scale and carefully managed, represent a safe and renewable source of energy. Larger plants known as mega-dams, however, are highly problematic . Their massive footprint can disrupt the rivers on which people and wildlife depend .

Biomass energy

With very few exceptions, generating electricity through the burning of organic material like wood (sourced largely from pine and hardwood forests in the United States), agricultural products, or animal waste—collectively referred to as biomass —does little to reduce carbon emissions, and in fact, does far more environmental harm than good. Unfortunately, despite numerous studies that have revealed the true toll of this form of bioenergy , some countries continue to buy the biomass industry’s false narrative and subsidize these projects. Attitudes are changing but, given the recent wood pellet boom, there is a lot more work to be done.

A new electric bus on King Street in Honolulu, on June 16, 2021

Marco Garcia for NRDC

Transportation is a top source of greenhouse gases (GHG), so eliminating pollution from the billions of vehicles driving across the planet is essential to achieving net-zero global emissions by 2050, a goal laid out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement .

In 2021, electric vehicles (EVs) accounted for less than 8 percent of vehicle sales globally; by 2035 , however, it’s estimated that they’ll account for more than half of all new sales. Governments around the world aren’t just anticipating an all-electric future; they’re bringing it into fruition by setting goals and binding requirements to phase out the sale of gas-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. That year, 2035, is expected to mark a turning point in the adoption of EVs and in the fight against climate change as countries around the world—as well as numerous automakers—have announced goals to phase out gas-powered cars and light trucks. This shift will also benefit our grid: EVs are like a “ battery on wheels ” and have the potential to supply electricity back to the network when demand peaks, helping to prevent blackouts.

It’s also critical that we consider all of the different ways we get around and build sustainability into each of them. By increasing access to public transportation—such as buses, ride-sharing services, subways, and streetcars—as well as embracing congestion pricing , we can cut down on car trips and keep millions of tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere every year. And by encouraging zero-emission forms of transportation, such as walking and biking, we can reduce emissions even more. Boosting these alternate forms of transportation will require more than just talk. They require funding , planning, and the building out of supportive infrastructure by leaders across the local, state, and national levels.

To address the full set of impacts of the transportation sector, we need holistic and community-led solutions around things like land-use policies and the way we move consumer goods. Communities closest to ports , truck corridors, rail yards, and warehouses are exposed to toxic diesel emissions and face a high risk of developing acute and chronic public health diseases. Like all climate solutions, long-lasting change in the transportation sector requires building the power of historically marginalized communities.

An Association for Energy Affordability (AEA) worker installs a new energy-efficient window at an apartment in the South Bronx, New York City.

Natalie Keyssar for NRDC

The energy used in our buildings—to keep the lights on and appliances running; to warm them and cool them; to cook and to heat water—makes them the single-largest source of carbon pollution in most cities across the United States. Making buildings more energy efficient, by upgrading windows and adding insulation to attics and walls, for example, will bring these numbers down. That’s why it’s all the more important that we raise public awareness of cost- and carbon-saving changes that individuals can make in their homes and workplaces, and make it easier for people to purchase and install energy-efficient technology, such as heat pumps (which can both heat and cool spaces) and certified appliances through programs like Energy Star in the United States or EnerGuide in Canada.

Beyond the measures that can be taken by individuals, we need to see a dedication from private businesses and governments to further building decarbonization , which simply means making buildings more efficient and replacing fossil fuel–burning systems and appliances with clean-powered ones. Policy tools can help get us there, including city and state mandates that all newly constructed homes, offices, and other buildings be outfitted with efficient all-electric systems for heating, cooling, and hot water; requirements that municipalities and states meet the latest and most stringent energy conservation standards when adopting or updating their building codes would also be impactful. Indeed, many places around the world are implementing building performance standards , which require existing buildings to reduce their energy use or carbon emissions over time. Most important, if these changes are going to reach the scale needed, we must invest in the affordable housing sector so that efficient and decarbonized homes are accessible to homeowners and renters of all incomes .

Nicolas Mainville joins a canoe trip with youth from the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi on a river in Waswanipi Quebec, Canada, which is part of the boreal forest.

Nicolas Mainville/Greenpeace

Some of our strongest allies in the fight against climate change are the trees, plants, and soil that store massive amounts of carbon at ground level or underground. Without the aid of these carbon sinks , life on earth would be impossible, as atmospheric temperatures would rise to levels more like those found on Venus.

But whenever we clearcut forests for timber or rip out wetlands for development, we release that climate-warming carbon into the air. Similarly, the widespread overuse of nitrogen-based fertilizers (a fossil fuel product) on cropland and generations of industrial-scale livestock farming practices have led to the release of unprecedented amounts of nitrous oxide and methane, powerful greenhouse gases, into our atmosphere.

We can’t plant new trees fast enough to replace the ones we clearcut in carbon-storing forests like the Canadian boreal or the Amazon rainforest —nor can rows of spindly young pines serve the same function as old-growth trees. We need a combination of responsible forestry policies, international pressure, and changes in consumer behavior to put an end to deforestation practices that not only accelerate climate change but also destroy wildlife habitat and threaten the health and culture of Indigenous communities that live sustainably in these verdant spaces. At the same time, we need to treat our managed landscapes with as much care as we treat wild ones. For instance, adopting practices associated with organic and regenerative agriculture —cover crops, pesticide use reduction, rotational grazing, and compost instead of synthetic fertilizers—will help nurture the soil, yield healthier foods, and pay a climate dividend too.

A school of fish swimming through a mangrove forest in the Caribbean Sea, off Belize

Intact ecosystems suck up and store vast amounts of carbon: Coastal ecosystems like wetlands and mangroves accumulate and store carbon in their roots; our forests soak up about a third of annual fossil fuel emissions; and freshwater wetlands hold between 20 and 30 percent of all the carbon found in the world’s soil. It’s clear we’re not going to be able to address climate change if we don’t preserve nature.

This is one reason why, along with preserving biodiversity, climate experts are calling on global leaders to fully protect and restore at least 30 percent of land, inland waters, and oceans by 2030 , a strategy endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. To help us reach that goal, we must limit industrial impacts on our public lands and waters, continue to protect natural landscapes, support the creation of marine protected areas, uphold bedrock environmental laws, and follow the lead of Indigenous Peoples, many of whom have been faithfully and sustainably stewarding lands and waters for millennia .

Emissions rise from the Edgar Thomson Steel Works, a steel mill in the Braddock and North Braddock communities near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Getty Images

Heavy industry—the factories and facilities that produce our goods—is responsible for a quarter of GHG emissions in the United States and 40 percent globally, according to the EPA. Most industrial emissions come from making a small set of carbon-intensive products: basic chemicals, iron and steel, cement, aluminum, glass, and paper. (Industrial plants are also often major sources of air and water pollutants that directly affect human health.)

Complicating matters is the fact that many industrial plants will stay in operation for decades, so emissions goals for 2050 are really just one investment cycle away. Given these long horizons for building and retrofitting industrial sites, starting investments and plans now is critical. What would successfully decarbonized industrial processes look like? They should sharply reduce heavy industry’s climate emissions , as well as local pollution. They should be scalable and widely available in the next decade, especially so that less developed nations can adopt these cleaner processes and grow without increasing emissions. And they should bolster manufacturing in a way that creates good jobs.

Technology alone won’t save us from climate change (especially not some of these risky geoengineering proposals ). But at the same time, we won’t be able to solve the climate crisis without researching and developing things like longer-lasting EV batteries , nonpolluting hydrogen-based solutions , and reliable, safe, and equitable methods for capturing and sequestering carbon . Because, while these tools hold promise, we have to make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. For instance, we can take actions to reduce local harms from mining lithium (a critical component of electric vehicle batteries), improve recycling opportunities for solar cells, and not use carbon capture as an excuse to pollute. To accelerate research and development, funding is the critical third leg of the stool: Governments must make investing in clean energy technologies a priority and spur innovation through grants, subsidies, tax incentives, and other rewards.

A protester rings a bell in front of P&G’s headquarters in Cincinnati; the company’s toilet paper brand, Charmin, uses wood pulp from virgin trees in Canada's boreal forest.

Finally, it should go without saying that we, as individuals, are key to solving the climate crisis—not just by continuing to lobby our legislators and speak up in our communities but also by taking climate actions in our daily lives . By switching off fossil fuels in our homes and being more mindful of the climate footprint of the food we eat, our shopping habits, how we get around, our use of plastics and fossil fuels, and what businesses we choose to support (or not to support), we can move the needle.

But it’s when we act collectively that real change happens—and we can do even more than cut down on carbon pollution. Communities banding together have fought back fracking , pipelines , and oil drilling in people’s backyards . These local wins aren’t just good news for our global climate but they also protect the right to clean air and clean water for everyone. After all, climate change may be a global crisis but climate action starts in your own hometown .

We have a responsibility to consider the implications of our choices—and to make sure that these choices are actually helping to reduce the burdens of climate change, not merely shifting them somewhere else. It’s important to remember that the impacts of climate change —which intersect with and intensify so many other environmental, economic, and social issues—fall disproportionately on certain communities, namely low-income communities and communities of color. That’s why our leaders have a responsibility to prioritize the needs of these communities when crafting climate policies. If those on the frontlines aren’t a part of conversations around climate solutions, or do not feel the benefits of things like cleaner air and better job opportunities, then we are not addressing the roots of the climate crisis.

This NRDC.org story is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the story was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the story cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can’t resell the story in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can’t republish our material wholesale or automatically—you need to select stories individually; you can’t republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should drop us a note to let us know when you’ve used one of our stories.

We need climate action to be a top priority in Washington!

Tell President Biden and Congress to slash climate pollution and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Urge President Biden and Congress to make equitable climate action a top priority in 2024

Related stories.

How to Find Relief During Summer Heat Waves in the City

What Are the Causes of Climate Change?

How to Ditch the Biggest Fossil Fuel Offenders in Your Life

When you sign up, you’ll become a member of NRDC’s Activist Network. We will keep you informed with the latest alerts and progress reports.

November 26, 2007

10 Solutions for Climate Change

Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change

By David Biello

Mark Garlick Getty Images

The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change ? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called " wedges " for nations to utilize toward this goal—each of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels —there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.

Forego Fossil Fuels —The first challenge is eliminating the burning of coal , oil and, eventually, natural gas. This is perhaps the most daunting challenge as denizens of richer nations literally eat, wear, work, play and even sleep on the products made from such fossilized sunshine. And citizens of developing nations want and arguably deserve the same comforts, which are largely thanks to the energy stored in such fuels.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Oil is the lubricant of the global economy, hidden inside such ubiquitous items as plastic and corn, and fundamental to the transportation of both consumers and goods. Coal is the substrate, supplying roughly half of the electricity used in the U.S. and nearly that much worldwide—a percentage that is likely to grow, according to the International Energy Agency. There are no perfect solutions for reducing dependence on fossil fuels (for example, carbon neutral biofuels can drive up the price of food and lead to forest destruction, and while nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, it does produce radioactive waste), but every bit counts.

So try to employ alternatives when possible—plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power—and to invest in the change, be it by divesting from oil stocks or investing in companies practicing carbon capture and storage.

Infrastructure Upgrade —Buildings worldwide contribute around one third of all greenhouse gas emissions (43 percent in the U.S. alone), even though investing in thicker insulation and other cost-effective, temperature-regulating steps can save money in the long run. Electric grids are at capacity or overloaded, but power demands continue to rise. And bad roads can lower the fuel economy of even the most efficient vehicle. Investing in new infrastructure, or radically upgrading existing highways and transmission lines, would help cut greenhouse gas emissions and drive economic growth in developing countries.

Of course, it takes a lot of cement, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, to construct new buildings and roads. The U.S. alone contributed 50.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2005 from cement production, which requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Mining copper and other elements needed for electrical wiring and transmission also causes globe-warming pollution.

But energy-efficient buildings and improved cement-making processes (such as using alternative fuels to fire up the kiln) could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world and prevent them in the developing world.

Move Closer to Work —Transportation is the second leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (burning a single gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO 2 ). But it doesn't have to be that way.

One way to dramatically curtail transportation fuel needs is to move closer to work, use mass transit, or switch to walking, cycling or some other mode of transport that does not require anything other than human energy. There is also the option of working from home and telecommuting several days a week.

Cutting down on long-distance travel would also help, most notably airplane flights, which are one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and a source that arguably releases such emissions in the worst possible spot (higher in the atmosphere). Flights are also one of the few sources of globe-warming pollution for which there isn't already a viable alternative: jets rely on kerosene, because it packs the most energy per pound, allowing them to travel far and fast, yet it takes roughly 10 gallons of oil to make one gallon of JetA fuel. Restricting flying to only critical, long-distance trips—in many parts of the world, trains can replace planes for short- to medium-distance trips—would help curb airplane emissions.

Consume Less —The easiest way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions is simply to buy less stuff. Whether by forgoing an automobile or employing a reusable grocery sack, cutting back on consumption results in fewer fossil fuels being burned to extract, produce and ship products around the globe.

Think green when making purchases. For instance, if you are in the market for a new car, buy one that will last the longest and have the least impact on the environment. Thus, a used vehicle with a hybrid engine offers superior fuel efficiency over the long haul while saving the environmental impact of new car manufacture.

Paradoxically, when purchasing essentials, such as groceries, buying in bulk can reduce the amount of packaging—plastic wrapping, cardboard boxes and other unnecessary materials. Sometimes buying more means consuming less.

Be Efficient —A potentially simpler and even bigger impact can be made by doing more with less. Citizens of many developed countries are profligate wasters of energy, whether by speeding in a gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicle or leaving the lights on when not in a room.

Good driving—and good car maintenance, such as making sure tires are properly inflated—can limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle and, perhaps more importantly, lower the frequency of payment at the pump.

Similarly, employing more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners and other appliances, such as those rated highly under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, can cut electric bills while something as simple as weatherproofing the windows of a home can reduce heating and cooling bills. Such efforts can also be usefully employed at work, whether that means installing more efficient turbines at the power plant or turning the lights off when you leave the office .

Eat Smart, Go Vegetarian? —Corn grown in the U.S. requires barrels of oil for the fertilizer to grow it and the diesel fuel to harvest and transport it. Some grocery stores stock organic produce that do not require such fertilizers, but it is often shipped from halfway across the globe. And meat, whether beef, chicken or pork, requires pounds of feed to produce a pound of protein.

Choosing food items that balance nutrition, taste and ecological impact is no easy task. Foodstuffs often bear some nutritional information, but there is little to reveal how far a head of lettuce, for example, has traveled.

University of Chicago researchers estimate that each meat-eating American produces 1.5 tons more greenhouse gases through their food choice than do their vegetarian peers. It would also take far less land to grow the crops necessary to feed humans than livestock, allowing more room for planting trees.

Stop Cutting Down Trees —Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down . Timber harvesting in the tropics alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions and a source that could be avoided relatively easily.

Improved agricultural practices along with paper recycling and forest management—balancing the amount of wood taken out with the amount of new trees growing—could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.

And when purchasing wood products, such as furniture or flooring, buy used goods or, failing that, wood certified to have been sustainably harvested. The Amazon and other forests are not just the lungs of the earth, they may also be humanity's best short-term hope for limiting climate change.

Unplug —Believe it or not, U.S. citizens spend more money on electricity to power devices when off than when on. Televisions, stereo equipment, computers, battery chargers and a host of other gadgets and appliances consume more energy when seemingly switched off, so unplug them instead.

Purchasing energy-efficient gadgets can also save both energy and money—and thus prevent more greenhouse gas emissions. To take but one example, efficient battery chargers could save more than one billion kilowatt-hours of electricity—$100 million at today's electricity prices—and thus prevent the release of more than one million metric tons of greenhouse gases.

Swapping old incandescent lightbulbs for more efficient replacements, such as compact fluorescents (warning: these lightbulbs contain mercury and must be properly disposed of at the end of their long life), would save billions of kilowatt-hours. In fact, according to the EPA, replacing just one incandescent lightbulb in every American home would save enough energy to provide electricity to three million American homes.

One Child —There are at least 6.6 billion people living today, a number that is predicted by the United Nations to grow to at least nine billion by mid-century. The U.N. Environmental Program estimates that it requires 54 acres to sustain an average human being today—food, clothing and other resources extracted from the planet. Continuing such population growth seems unsustainable.

Falling birth rates in some developed and developing countries (a significant portion of which are due to government-imposed limits on the number of children a couple can have) have begun to reduce or reverse the population explosion. It remains unclear how many people the planet can comfortably sustain, but it is clear that per capita energy consumption must go down if climate change is to be controlled.

Ultimately, a one child per couple rule is not sustainable either and there is no perfect number for human population. But it is clear that more humans means more greenhouse gas emissions.

Future Fuels —Replacing fossil fuels may prove the great challenge of the 21st century. Many contenders exist, ranging from ethanol derived from crops to hydrogen electrolyzed out of water, but all of them have some drawbacks, too, and none are immediately available at the scale needed.

Biofuels can have a host of negative impacts, from driving up food prices to sucking up more energy than they produce. Hydrogen must be created, requiring either reforming natural gas or electricity to crack water molecules. Biodiesel hybrid electric vehicles (that can plug into the grid overnight) may offer the best transportation solution in the short term, given the energy density of diesel and the carbon neutral ramifications of fuel from plants as well as the emissions of electric engines. A recent study found that the present amount of electricity generation in the U.S. could provide enough energy for the country's entire fleet of automobiles to switch to plug-in hybrids , reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the process.

But plug-in hybrids would still rely on electricity, now predominantly generated by burning dirty coal. Massive investment in low-emission energy generation, whether solar-thermal power or nuclear fission , would be required to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And even more speculative energy sources—hyperefficient photovoltaic cells, solar energy stations in orbit or even fusion—may ultimately be required.

The solutions above offer the outline of a plan to personally avoid contributing to global warming. But should such individual and national efforts fail, there is another, potentially desperate solution:

Experiment Earth —Climate change represents humanity's first planetwide experiment. But, if all else fails, it may not be the last. So-called geoengineering , radical interventions to either block sunlight or reduce greenhouse gases, is a potential last resort for addressing the challenge of climate change.

Among the ideas: releasing sulfate particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption; placing millions of small mirrors or lenses in space to deflect sunlight; covering portions of the planet with reflective films to bounce sunlight back into space; fertilizing the oceans with iron or other nutrients to enable plankton to absorb more carbon; and increasing cloud cover or the reflectivity of clouds that already form.

All may have unintended consequences, making the solution worse than the original problem. But it is clear that at least some form of geoengineering will likely be required: capturing carbon dioxide before it is released and storing it in some fashion, either deep beneath the earth, at the bottom of the ocean or in carbonate minerals. Such carbon capture and storage is critical to any serious effort to combat climate change.

Additional reporting by Larry Greenemeier and Nikhil Swaminathan .

Responding to the Climate Threat: Essays on Humanity’s Greatest Challenge

A new book co-authored by MIT Joint Program Founding Co-Director Emeritus Henry Jacoby

From the Back Cover

This book demonstrates how robust and evolving science can be relevant to public discourse about climate policy. Fighting climate change is the ultimate societal challenge, and the difficulty is not just in the wrenching adjustments required to cut greenhouse emissions and to respond to change already under way. A second and equally important difficulty is ensuring widespread public understanding of the natural and social science. This understanding is essential for an effective risk management strategy at a planetary scale. The scientific, economic, and policy aspects of climate change are already a challenge to communicate, without factoring in the distractions and deflections from organized programs of misinformation and denial. 

Here, four scholars, each with decades of research on the climate threat, take on the task of explaining our current understanding of the climate threat and what can be done about it, in lay language―importantly, without losing critical  aspects of the natural and social science. In a series of essays, published during the 2020 presidential election, the COVID pandemic, and through the fall of 2021, they explain the essential components of the challenge, countering the forces of distrust of the science and opposition to a vigorous national response.  

Each of the essays provides an opportunity to learn about a particular aspect of climate science and policy within the complex context of current events. The overall volume is more than the sum of its individual articles. Proceeding each essay is an explanation of the context in which it was written, followed by observation of what has happened since its first publication. In addition to its discussion of topical issues in modern climate science, the book also explores science communication to a broad audience. Its authors are not only scientists – they are also teachers, using current events to teach when people are listening. For preserving Earth’s planetary life support system, science and teaching are essential. Advancing both is an unending task.

About the Authors

Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He served as convening lead author for multiple chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through 2014 and was vice-chair of the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Henry Jacoby is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, Emeritus, in the MIT Sloan School of Management and former co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is focused on the integration of the natural and social sciences and policy analysis in application to the threat of global climate change.

Richard Richels directed climate change research at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). He served as lead author for multiple chapters of the IPCC in the areas of mitigation, impacts and adaptation from 1992 through 2014. He also served on the National Assessment Synthesis Team for the first U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Ben Santer is a climate scientist and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow. He contributed to all six IPCC reports. He was the lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report which concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. He is currently a Visiting Researcher at UCLA’s Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science & Engineering.

Access the Book

View the book on the publisher's website  here .

Order the book from Amazon  here . 

Related Posts

E4: an introduction to hydrogen energy (re-air).

Understanding the Future of Critical Raw Materials for the Energy Transitio...

Using deep learning to image the Earth’s planetary boundary layer

Q&A: Claire Walsh on how J-PAL’s King Climate Action Initiative tackles t...

MIT Climate News in Your Inbox

What can we do to slow or stop global warming?

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to stopping or slowing global warming, and each individual, business, municipal, state, tribal, and federal entity must weigh their options in light of their own unique set of circumstances.  Experts say  it is likely many strategies working together will be needed. Generally speaking, here are some examples of mitigation strategies we can use to slow or stop the human-caused global warming ( learn more ):

• Where possible, we can switch to renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind energy) to power our homes and buildings, thus emitting far less heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.
• Where feasible, we can drive electric vehicles instead of those that burn fossil fuels; or we can use mass transit instead of driving our own cars.
• Where affordable, we can conserve energy by better insulating our homes and buildings, and by replacing old, failing appliances with more energy-efficient models.
• Where practicable, we can counterbalance our annual carbon dioxide emissions by investing in commercial services that draw down an equal amount of carbon out of the atmosphere, such as through planting trees or  carbon capture and storage  techniques.
• Where practical, we can support more local businesses that use and promote sustainable, climate-smart practices such as those listed above.
• We can consider placing an upper limit on the amount of carbon dioxide we will allow ourselves to emit into the atmosphere within a given timeframe.

Note that NOAA doesn’t advocate for or against particular climate policies. Instead, NOAA’s role is to provide data and scientific information about climate, including how it has changed and is likely to change in the future depending on different climate policies or actions society may or may not take. More guidance on courses of action can be found in the National Academy of Sciences' 2010 report, titled  Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change . Also learn more  here,   here,  and  here .

Thanks to low friction between train wheels and tracks, and level train tracks with gradual turns, trains have high energy efficiency. Photo from National Park Service Amtrak Trails and Rails .

Stabilizing global temperature near its current level requires eliminating all emissions of heat-trapping gases or, equivalently, achieving a carbon-neutral society in which people remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as they emit. Achieving this goal will require substantial societal changes in energy technologies and infrastructure that go beyond the collective actions of individuals and households to reduce emissions.

We value your feedback

Help us improve our content

Related Content

News & features, after sandy: changes and choices, national climate assessment: states and cities are already reducing carbon emissions to save lives and dollars, improving models for wind energy, maps & data, land - terrestrial climate variables, climate forcing, precipitation - 1991-2020 monthly average, teaching climate, toolbox for teaching climate & energy, climate youth engagement, young voices for the planet film series, climate resilience toolkit, climate science for water professionals, carbon balance, alaska and the arctic.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

• About YPCCC
• Yale Climate Connections
• Student Employment
• For The Media
• Past Events
• YPCCC in the News
• Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM)
• Publications
• Climate Opinion Maps
• Climate Opinion Factsheets
• Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY)
• Resources for Educators
• All Tools & Interactives
• Partner with YPCCC

Home / For Educators: Grades 6-12 / Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Filed under: backgrounders for educators ,.

Climate Explained, a part of Yale Climate Connections, is an essay collection that addresses an array of climate change questions and topics, including why it’s cold outside if global warming is real, how we know that humans are responsible for global warming, and the relationship between climate change and national security.

More Activities like this

Climate Change Basics: Five Facts, Ten Words

Backgrounders for Educators

To simplify the scientific complexity of climate change, we focus on communicating five key facts about climate change that everyone should know. 

Why should we care about climate change?

Having different perspectives about global warming is natural, but the most important thing that anyone should know about climate change is why it matters.  

External Resources

Looking for resources to help you and your students build a solid climate change science foundation? We’ve compiled a list of reputable, student-friendly links to help you do just that!  

Subscribe to our mailing list

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Climate solutions do exist. These 6 experts detail what they look like

Researchers say protecting mangroves that soak up carbon is a great climate solution. But they caution against programs that slap carbon offsets onto it as those offsets can be hard to verify.

Marie Hickman / Getty Images

Scientists say there's a lot we can still do to slow the speed of climate change. But when it comes to "climate solutions", some are real, and some aren't, says Naomi Oreskes , historian of science at Harvard University. "This space has become really muddied," she says.

So how does someone figure out what's legit? We asked six climate scholars for the questions they ask themselves whenever they come across something claiming to be a climate solution.

A big climate solution is an obvious one

It may sound basic, but one big way to address climate change is to reduce the main human activity that caused it in the first place: burning fossil fuels.

Scientists say that means ultimately transitioning away from oil, coal and gas and becoming more energy efficient. We already have a lot of the technology we need to make this transition, like solar, wind, and batteries, Oreskes says.

"What we need to do right now is to mobilize the technologies that already exist, that work and are cost competitive, and that essentially means renewable energy and storage," she says.

Think about who's selling you the solution

It's important to think about both who's selling you the climate solution and what they say the problem is, says Melissa Aronczyk , professor of media at Rutgers University.

"People like to come up with solutions, but to do that, they usually have to interpret the problem in a way that works for them," she says.

Oreskes says pay attention when you see a "climate solution" that means increasing the use of fossil fuels. She says an example is natural gas, which has been sold as a " bridge fuel " from coal to renewable energy. But natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and its production, transport and use release methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide.

"I think we need to start by looking at what happens when the fossil fuel industry comes up with solutions, because here is the greatest potential for conflict of interest," Aronczyk says.

A solution may sound promising, but is it available and scalable now?

Sometimes you'll hear about new promising technology like carbon removal, which vacuums carbon dioxide out of the air and stores it underground, says David Ho , a professor of oceanography at University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Ho researches climate solutions and he says ask yourself: is this technology available, affordable, or scalable now?

"I think people who don't work in this space think we have all these technologies that are ready to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, for instance. And we're not there," Ho says.

While new technologies can sound tempting as climate solutions, scientists say not all of them are available or scalable now. That's why scientists argue for mobilizing technologies that already exist and are affordable, like renewable energy.

STRINGER / AFP via Getty Images

If it's adding emissions, it's not a climate solution

These days all kinds of companies, from airlines to wedding dress companies , might offer to let you buy "carbon offsets" along with your purchase. That offset money could do something like build a new wind farm or plant trees that would - in theory - soak up and store the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of taking a flight or making a new dress.

But there are often problems with regulation and verification of offsets , says Roberto Schaeffer , a professor of energy economics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. "It's very dangerous, very dangerous indeed," he says.

He says with offsets from forests, it's hard to verify if the trees are really being protected, that those trees won't get cut down or burned in a wildfire.

"You cannot guarantee, 'Okay, you're gonna offset your dress by planting a tree.' You have no guarantee that in three years time that tree is gonna be there," he says.

If you make emissions thinking you're offsetting them, and the offset doesn't work, that's doubling the emissions, says Adrienne Buller , a climate finance researcher and director of research at Common Wealth, a think tank in the United Kingdom, "It's sort of like doubly bad."

If a solution sounds too easy, be skeptical

Many things sold as carbon offsets - like restoring or protecting forests - are, on their own, great climate solutions, Buller says. "We need things like trees," she says, "To draw carbon out of the atmosphere."

The problem is when carbon markets sell the idea that you can continue emitting as usual and everything will be fine if you just buy an offset, Buller says. "It's kind of a solution that implies that we don't have to do that much hard work. We can just kind of do some minor tweaks to the way that we currently do things," she says.

Schaeffer says there is a lot of hard work in our future to get off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy sources. "So people have to realize there is a price to pay here. No free lunch."

It's not all about business. Governments must play a role in solutions, too

We often think of businesses working on climate solutions on their own, but that's often not the case , says Oreskes. Government often plays a big role in funding and research support for new climate technology, says June Sekera, a visiting scholar at The New School who studies public policy and climate.

And governments will also have to play a big role in regulating emissions, says Schaeffer, who has been working with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 25 years.

That's why all the scholars NPR spoke with for this story say one big climate solution is to vote.

Schaeffer points to the recent election in Brazil, where climate change was a big campaign issue for candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Lula won, and has promised to address deforestation , a big source of Brazil's emissions.

There's no one solution to climate change - and no one can do it alone

Aronczyk wants to make one thing clear: there is no one solution to climate change.

"We're human beings. We encounter a problem, we wanna solve that problem," Aronczyk says, "But just as there is no one way to describe climate change, there's no one way to offer a solution."

Climate solutions will take different forms, Sekera says. Some solutions may slow climate change, some may offer us ways to adapt.

The key thing, Aronczyk says, is that climate solutions will involve governments, businesses, and individuals . She says: "It is an all hands on deck kind of a situation."

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

OPB’s First Look newsletter

Streaming Now

Planet Money/How I Built This

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR's Climate Week: A Search For Solutions

Climate solutions are necessary. so we're dedicating a week to highlight them.

Julia Simon

Wind turbines are seen in Big Spring, Texas. Humans are driving global warming; that means humans can find solutions to change our trajectory. Brandon Bell/Getty Images hide caption

Climate change is here. And this week, NPR is doing something new. We're dedicating an entire week to focus on the search for climate solutions, with stories across our network.

Why we're focusing on climate solutions

We've just emerged from a brutal summer. Heat waves across the U.S. and the world. Fires across Canada . In Maui, the deadliest wildfire in the U.S. in a century. Hurricanes. Melting polar ice. Ocean heat waves killing coral . When I talk with people about climate change, I often hear hopelessness. Like we've already lost. People just throw up their hands. What do you say to that?

I'm Julia Simon, NPR's climate solutions reporter. I know that things are bad right now. But what if we reframe the conversation? With climate change, it's not like this is a meteor hurtling toward Earth and there's nothing we can do about it.

Climate solutions do exist. These 6 experts detail what they look like

Humans are driving global warming. And that means we humans can find solutions to change our trajectory. We already have many solutions.

Now is not the time to back away from the challenge. Robert Bullard, professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University, equates this moment to when the U.S. faced past injustices, like slavery.

"I push back against any individuals or organizations that will say, 'Well, we can't do anything about this challenge.' We can do something about it. But it would mean that we have to make up our minds that this is a challenge that we must address on a societal basis and on a global basis," he says. "We should not and cannot accept climate change as the norm."

How we define climate solutions

Broadly speaking, climate solutions are things that reduce greenhouse gases — like solar and wind energy combined with batteries. Energy efficiency. Land use is key too, like reducing deforestation. Individuals can play a role also — for example, eating less meat.

But we have to remind folks that solutions are not all on individuals. A lot of solutions come down to companies and governments.

For example, last year President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act — the most significant piece of climate policy in U.S. history .

Governments can set the agenda for climate policy. We saw this in Brazil; the current president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is cracking down on deforestation in the Amazon . Under his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's deforestation was surging. So some advocates see voting as a powerful climate solution.

Trees and other plants help keep cities cooler. In New York City, scientists are working to understand how to maximize the benefits of urban green spaces. Here, residents gather in Brooklyn Bridge Park on a hot summer night. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Adapting to our warming planet is also a climate solution

We will need to rebuild infrastructure for rising sea levels and new rainfall patterns. Adapting to climate change doesn't mean we're giving up — adaptation is a necessary part of reducing the harms of climate change. Also, planting trees in warming cities provides shade and cools us down. And trees store planet-heating carbon dioxide.

There's a word — "co-benefits." Ways that curbing greenhouse gases might make life better too. If we replace coal- and gas-fired power plants with renewables, we reduce greenhouse gases that warm our planet. But we also end up reducing other kinds of air pollution and make cities better for our lungs. Disadvantaged communities bear the brunt of pollution, so reducing fossil fuels would help communities of color.

Seaweed is mucking up beaches. This robot could stop it — and fight climate change

There's an equity component to climate solutions.

Climate solutions should not be repeating inequities and injustices of the past. As we make more batteries and electric vehicles, for example, how do we ensure that mining for the key metals in those technologies is done ethically? How do we avoid mining that pollutes water or grabbing land from Indigenous communities?

And we have to remember that some individuals and companies are more responsible for climate change than others. So how do we hold them accountable? This summer in Montana, 16 young plaintiffs won a climate lawsuit arguing against the state's development of fossil fuels. Last month, California filed suit against several of the world's biggest oil companies. These cases could have major implications across the United States. Accountability can be a climate solution too.

• climate solutions
• climate change

Greenpeace UK

• Email signup
• Donate/Join

What are the solutions to climate change?

Climate change is already an urgent threat to millions of lives – but there are solutions. From changing how we get our energy to limiting deforestation, here are some of the key solutions to climate change.

Climate change is happening now, and it’s the most serious threat to life on our planet. Luckily, there are plenty of solutions to climate change and they are well-understood.

In 2015, world leaders signed a major treaty called the Paris agreement  to put these solutions into practice.

Core to all climate change solutions is reducing greenhouse gas emissions , which must get to zero as soon as possible.

Because both forests and oceans play vitally important roles in regulating our climate, increasing the natural ability of forests and oceans to absorb carbon dioxide can also help stop global warming.

The main ways to stop climate change are to pressure government and business to:

• Keep fossil fuels in the ground . Fossil fuels include coal, oil and gas – and the more that are extracted and burned, the worse climate change will get. All countries need to move their economies away from fossil fuels as soon as possible.
• Invest in renewable energy . Changing our main energy sources to clean and renewable energy is the best way to stop using fossil fuels. These include technologies like solar, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal power.
• Switch to sustainable transport . Petrol and diesel vehicles, planes and ships use fossil fuels. Reducing car use, switching to electric vehicles and minimising plane travel will not only help stop climate change, it will reduce air pollution too.
• Help us keep our homes cosy . Homes shouldn’t be draughty and cold – it’s a waste of money, and miserable in the winter. The government can help households heat our homes in a green way – such as by insulating walls and roofs and switching away from oil or gas boilers to heat pumps .
• Improve farming and encourage vegan diets . One of the best ways for individuals to help stop climate change is by reducing their meat and dairy consumption, or by going fully vegan. Businesses and food retailers can improve farming practices and provide more plant-based products to help people make the shift.
• Restore nature to absorb more carbon . The natural world is very good at cleaning up our emissions, but we need to look after it. Planting trees in the right places or giving land back to nature through ‘rewilding’ schemes is a good place to start. This is because photosynthesising plants draw down carbon dioxide as they grow, locking it away in soils.
• Protect forests like the Amazon . Forests are crucial in the fight against climate change, and protecting them is an important climate solution. Cutting down forests on an industrial scale destroys giant trees which could be sucking up huge amounts of carbon. Yet companies destroy forests to make way for animal farming, soya or palm oil plantations. Governments can stop them by making better laws.
• Protect the oceans . Oceans also absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which helps to keep our climate stable. But many are overfished , used for oil and gas drilling or threatened by deep sea mining. Protecting oceans and the life in them is ultimately a way to protect ourselves from climate change.
• Reduce how much people consume . Our transport, fashion, food and other lifestyle choices all have different impacts on the climate. This is often by design – fashion and technology companies, for example, will release far more products than are realistically needed. But while reducing consumption of these products might be hard, it’s most certainly worth it. Reducing overall consumption in more wealthy countries can help put less strain on the planet.
• Reduce plastic . Plastic is made from oil, and the process of extracting, refining and turning oil into plastic (or even polyester, for clothing) is surprisingly carbon-intense . It doesn’t break down quickly in nature so a lot of plastic is burned, which contributes to emissions. Demand for plastic is rising so quickly that creating and disposing of plastics will account for 17% of the global carbon budget by 2050 (this is the emissions count we need to stay within according to the Paris agreement ).

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed, and to feel that climate change is too big to solve. But we already have the answers, now it’s a question of making them happen. To work, all of these solutions need strong international cooperation between governments and businesses, including the most polluting sectors.

Individuals can also play a part by making better choices about where they get their energy, how they travel, and what food they eat. But the best way for anyone to help stop climate change is to take collective action. This means pressuring governments and corporations to change their policies and business practices.

Governments want to be re-elected. And businesses can’t survive without customers. Demanding action from them is a powerful way to make change happen.

Take action

For seven years, a government ban has blocked new onshore wind farms in England – the cheapest, cleanest energy going. With a global energy crisis and sky-high energy bills, now's the time for change. Add your name to tell Rishi Sunak to end the ban on new onshore wind projects in England.

Please fill out all required fields

Thanks for signing

If you can, please chip in to help make this campaign a success.

You don’t have to leave your email address or phone number, but if you do, we’ll use these to keep you updated on how you can get involved through petitions, campaigning, volunteering and donating. You can  opt out at any time . We take the security of your data seriously. Your information is safe and secure with us – read our  privacy policy

The fossil fuel industry is blocking climate change action

Major oil and gas companies including BP, Exxon and Shell have spent hundreds of millions of pounds trying to delay or stop government policies that would have helped tackle the climate crisis.

Despite the effects of climate change becoming more and more obvious, big polluting corporations – the ones responsible for the majority of carbon emissions – continue to carry on drilling for and burning fossil fuels.

Industries including banks, car and energy companies also make profits from fossil fuels. These industries are knowingly putting money over the future of our planet and the safety of its people.

What are world leaders doing to stop climate change?

With such a huge crisis facing the entire planet, the international response should be swift and decisive. Yet progress by world governments has been achingly slow. Many commitments to reduce carbon emissions have been set, but few are binding and targets are often missed.

In Paris in 2015, world leaders from 197 countries pledged to put people first and reduce their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris agreement has the aim of limiting global warming to well below 2ºC and ideally to 1.5°C.

If governments act swiftly on the promises they made in the Paris climate agreement, and implement the solutions now, there’s still hope of avoiding the worst consequences of climate change .

World leaders and climate negotiators meet at annual COPs – which stands for Conference of the Parties (the countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC).

At COPs and other climate talks, nations take stock of their ability to meet their commitments to reduce emissions.

Recently, talks have focused on climate finance – money to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and reduce emissions. Rich countries have pledged $100 billion in annual funding to help developing countries reduce emissions and manage the impacts of climate change. This is yet to materialise, and much more money is needed.

As the impacts of climate change are increasing, important talks have also started on “loss and damage” funding. This is money needed by worst-impacted countries to deal with extreme weather and other climate change impacts.

Global climate change activism

Around the world, millions of us are taking steps to defend our climate. People of all ages and from all walks of life are desperately demanding solutions to the climate emergency.

Over the years, Greenpeace has challenged oil companies chasing new fossil fuels to extract and burn. We’ve also called out the governments for their failure to act fast enough on the climate emergency. Greenpeace activists are ordinary people taking extraordinary action, to push the solutions to climate change.

Indigenous Peoples are most severely affected by both the causes and effects of climate change . They are often on the front lines, facing down deforestation or kicking out fossil fuel industries polluting their water supplies.

Communities in the Pacific Islands are facing sea level rises and more extreme weather. But they are using their strength and resilience to demand world leaders take quicker climate action.

For many of these communities, the fight against climate change is a fight for life itself.

Even in the UK, climate change is impacting people more severely. As a country with the wealth and power to really tackle climate change, it’s never been more important to demand action.

Keep exploring

What can I do to stop climate change?

Individuals can make changes to their lives to reduce their personal carbon footprint. But it’s more important to persuade decision-makers in governments and businesses to drive emissions reductions on a much larger scale. This is the best way to stop climate change getting worse.

What is the UK doing about climate change?

All countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. So how’s the UK doing?

Renewable energy: a beginner's guide

Clean renewable energy is a vital tool for tackling climate change. Discover how it works and understand the advantages of wind, solar and water power.

Environmental justice, explained

The environmental crisis doesn't affect everyone equally. Often the worst impacts fall on those who are already most exploited by people in power. The fight for environmental justice is about addressing this unfairness, and making sure green solutions don't add to the problem.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 22 April 2024

Developing countries can adapt to climate change effectively using nature-based solutions

• Sergio Villamayor-Tomas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5170-1718 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Alexander Bisaro 4 ,
• Kevin Moull   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5776-4314 5 ,
• Amaia Albizua   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8381-5288 6 , 7 ,
• Isabel Mank 5 ,
• Jochen Hinkel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7590-992X 4 ,
• Gerald Leppert   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-8604-2127 5 &
• Martin Noltze 5  

Communications Earth & Environment volume  5 , Article number:  214 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1238 Accesses

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change adaptation
• Environmental studies
• Sustainability

Evidence on the effectiveness of climate change adaptation interventions in low- and middle-income countries has been rapidly growing in recent years, particularly in the agricultural and coastal sectors. Here we address the question of whether results are consistent across intervention types, and risk reduction versus development-related outcomes using a systematic review of 363 empirical observations published in the scientific literature. Generally, we found more evidence of risk reduction outcomes in the coastal sector than in the agricultural sector, and more evidence of development-related outcomes in the agricultural sector. Further, results indicate that nature-based solutions have the strongest positive effects for both the coastal and agricultural sectors. Social/behavioural interventions in the coastal sector show negative effects on development-related outcomes that will need to be further tested. Taken together, our results highlight the opportunity for development and climate adaptation practitioners to promote adaptation interventions with co-benefits beyond risk reduction, particularly in the case of nature-based solutions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Empowering citizen-led adaptation to systemic climate change risks

An assessment of community-based adaptation initiatives in the Pacific Islands

A global assessment of actors and their roles in climate change adaptation

Introduction.

Sustainable Development Goals connect policies addressing climate change adaptation with complementary benefits for poverty reduction, economic stability and or public health, and highlight the need of interventions that cut across those priorities, particularly in in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) 1 , 2 . Support for the right interventions, however, has so far been hindered by a typically fragmented understanding of their effectiveness among other factors. To address this gap, our study systematically reviews the evidence (i.e., quantitative studies that are accessible online) on the effectiveness of climate change adaptation interventions in LMICs in light of different outcomes.

Evidence gap maps (EGMs) and systematic reviews can inform policy makers and practitioners by synthesizing evidence 3 . There is increasing global evidence on the effectiveness of adaptation interventions in LMICs (including small island developing states, or SIDS), particularly in the agricultural and coastal sectors 4 , 5 , 6 . Evidence in the agricultural sector includes case studies, experiments, quasi-experiments, and reviews focusing on interventions that target farmer behaviour, agricultural productivity, and livelihood resilience 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 . In the coastal sector, the evidence-base includes case studies and experiments focusing on interventions such as NbS to prevent economic damages or reduce livelihood vulnerability, among others 12 , 13 . Increasingly common among all these studies is the recognition of interactions between climate change interventions and risk reduction on the one hand and development priorities on the other 14 , 15 , 16 .

Despite the growing evidence, an integrative synthesis of adaptation effectiveness does not exist, and information remains scattered across studies and types of interventions and outcomes. Existing syntheses have focused on the state-of-the-art 5 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , metrics 21 , planning 22 , 23 , financing 24 , responses 17 , 25 , 26 , or specific types of interventions and/or outcomes 27 . Also, syntheses have not tended to distinguish between industrialized and LMICs or sectors and/or focused only on effective interventions 28 .

Major questions to be addressed concern the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability and policy coherence of adaptation interventions, particularly in developing country contexts 5 , 29 . This paper aims to address some of these gaps through the following research question: to what extent different types of climate change adaptation interventions in the agricultural and coastal sectors are effective in achieving risk-reduction and development outcomes in LMICs?

In addressing the above question our study contributes to two scholarly debates. First, we contribute to the debate of whether it is more effective that interventions target climate protection (here hazards or exposure), or sustainable development more largely (here social vulnerability and adaptive capacity) 5 . Second, we contribute to the debate around the effectiveness of different types of interventions, including the distinction between hard (technological and infrastructure-based) versus soft (behavioural or institutional) interventions 30 and the growing interest in Nature-based Solutions (NbS) due to their potential cost-effectiveness and multiple benefits across contexts 31 .

Based on a systematic review of 363 empirical observations published in the scientific literature, we find that adaptation interventions can be effective with regard to both risk reduction and development-related outcomes. That said, we find more evidence of risk reduction outcomes in the coastal sector and of development-related outcomes in the agricultural sector. NbS is the only intervention that has positive effects across all outcome categories in both sectors. Evidence is most clear about the contribution of NbS to reducing immediate risks and impacts from climate change in the coastal sector, and promoting economic benefits in the agricultural sector. In the agricultural sector, evidence is also robust about the positive effects of informational/educational and infrastructural interventions and points to the need to explore more systematically their interactions. Also importantly, the study also reveals that interventions can not only fail to achieve expected effects but also have negative effects. This is particularly the case of social/behavioural interventions in the coastal sector when assessed against development-related outcomes.

Distribution of studies across sectors, geographies, intervention types and outcome categories

The number of studies varied substantially between the two sectors. The agricultural sector had four times the number of studies (84 studies with 266 observations) compared to the coastal sector (19 studies with 97 observations). However, the number of observations (evidence linking an intervention with an outcome) per study was much higher in the coastal sector compared to the agricultural sector (5.1 versus 3.2 observations per study on average, respectively).

In the coastal sector, most authors referred to a specific threat (e.g., storms, see level rise) and did not frame their study as related to development but still contained in formation about development-like outcomes. Alternatively, most of the agricultural sector studies both referred to a specific threat (e.g., droughts, floods) and to development. The studies were geographically dispersed (see Fig.  1 ). The majority of studies were located in China (18 studies), followed by multi-country studies (17), India (13), Pakistan (6), Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Kenya (each 4). From a sectoral perspective, studies were regionally concentrated: 32% of the studies in the coastal sector were conducted in South Asia, and 11 to 16% each in East Asia and the Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin-America and the Caribbean. In the agricultural sector, studies in South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa were much more prominent (each 24 to 27%) compared to those based in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Sources: Country layer obtained from Natural Earth—Free vector and raster map data at 1:10 m, 1:50 m, and 1:110 m scales (naturalearthdata.com). Studies grouped by region based on WDI - The World by Income and Region (worldbank.org). Map elaborated with QGIS 3.4.2.

The distribution of intervention types differed by sector and outcome categories (Table  1 ). Most of the observations (and studies) in the coastal sector were NbS (38 observations, 7 studies) and social/behavioural interventions (30, 4 studies). The studies in the agricultural sector were more evenly distributed and covered all the intervention types. This was expected and was partially a result of the larger number of studies in the agricultural (84) compared to the coastal sector (19).

Effectiveness of adaptation interventions by sectors

Overall, there were considerably more positive than negative effects reported across all interventions, outcomes, and sectors. However, positive effects were more frequent in the agricultural sector as compared to the coastal sector, and effects also varied by intervention type (Fig.  2 ). Figure  2 presents the effect size and direction (positive versus negative) of the seven different adaptation interventions by the two sectors.

- - - = large significative negative (−3), - - = small/ medium sig. neg. (−2), - = very small sig. neg./ negligible (−1), 0 = neutral/ not sig. (0), + = very small sig. positive/ negligible (1), + + = small/ medium sig. pos. (2), + + + = large sig. pos. (3). a results of reviewed studies in the agricultural sector. b results of reviewed studies in the coastal sector.

In the coastal sector (Fig.  2a ), NbS were noticeably associated with positive effects (29 positive against 9 neutral/negative observations). Social/behavioural interventions were more associated with neutral or negative effects (17 neutral/negative against 13 positive observations). However, most of the negative/neutral effects came from one single study on the effects of relocation of the population away from coastal areas and small islands 32 . Technological interventions were also mostly associated with negative effects (3 out of 4 observations). However, this was only reported by one single study.

In the agricultural sector (Fig.  2b ), most of the interventions showed positive effects (69% of all observations), although there were also neutral (~19%) and negative effects (~12%). Technological and informational interventions showed mostly positive effects (~75% of all observations in each group of interventions). Alternatively, financial and social/behavioural interventions showed a fair number of negative effects (representing 19% and 22% of all observations within each group, respectively).

Strength of effects by intervention type and outcome category

Table  2 displays the strength of effects based (means) for each pair of intervention type and outcome category, for the two sectors. As shown, we found substantial evidence of effects on both the risk reduction-related (climate hazard and exposure) and development-related (social/economic vulnerability and enabling environment) outcomes in both sectors. That said, evidence is more evenly distributed in the coastal than in the agricultural sector, where most of the evidence informs about development related outcomes (only 23% informs about risk reduction).

In the coastal sector, evidence suggests that interventions at large tend to be more positive with regard to risk-reduction than with development-related outcomes, but this varies across intervention types. Discounting missing data (i.e., variables for which studies did not have information), there were positive mean effects across at least two of the outcomes for NbS, built infrastructure, informational, and institutional interventions (Table  2 ). Mean effects were particularly high for institutional (2.0 mean positive effect) and built infrastructure (1.5) interventions, although the number of observations for these interventions was low.

NbS were more positive in reducing the risk of climate-related hazard and exposure (1.2 mean positive effect), than in decreasing social or economic vulnerability (0.8) or contributing to the enabling environment (0.7). Forest cover, for example, has been shown to protect property and human lives across coastal districts in West Bengal 33 .

Technological financial, and social/behavioural interventions showed negative mean effects for development-related outcomes in the coastal sector (Table  2 ). Technological interventions showed negative mean effects when they targeted social or economic vulnerability (−2.0 negative mean effect) and the enabling environment (−0.5). Financial interventions showed negative mean effects when they targeted the enabling environment (−0.5). Social/behavioural interventions showed negative mean effects when targeting social or economic vulnerability (−0.7) but positive mean effects when reducing the risk of climate hazard and exposure (0.6).

Social or economic vulnerability concentrated most of the negative effects. Most of these came from a single study 32 . The study explores the impact of the relocation of people from flood-prone coastal areas and islands on livelihoods using survey data from 130 households in Bangladesh. It finds that relocation has negative effects on living conditions as well as negative effects on risk reduction including food security or access to drinking-water. Conversely, the effects on risk reduction were mostly positive. The evidence on these effects came from multiple studies and a diversity of interventions, including migration, livelihood transformation, and participation in community development. Evidence from 1003 individuals across Nigeria has shown that participation in community development significantly reduces the risk of flood impacts to the household 34 .

In the agricultural sector, all intervention types with the exception of Technological interventions (due to missing data) had positive mean effects across all outcome categories, although in varying degrees (Table  2 ). Informational interventions showed considerable positive mean effects across all outcomes. As mentioned above, development-related outcomes (i.e., social or economic vulnerability) were most frequently studied. Indigenous knowledge, for example, has been found to have significant positive effects on the accuracy of accounts of past droughts among farmers in Eastern Africa 35 .

Built infrastructure and NbS also showed relatively high positive mean effects when targeting decreased social or economic vulnerability. Research in China has shown, for example, that households investing in irrigation infrastructure can obtain higher yields than otherwise in the advent of droughts 36 ; and global meta-analyses have confirmed that intercropping improves agricultural yield stability 9 .

Social/behavioural and financial interventions that targeted social or economic vulnerability showed the lowest mean effects among all interventions in the agricultural sector. Evidence from 700 livestock farmers from all four major provinces of Pakistan, for example, has shown that those resorting to migration (i.e., in search of water and fodder) as a climate change adaptation strategy tend to have lower milk production and income compared to those who did not migrate 37 . Similarly, data from 266 municipalities in the state of Bahia, Brazil, has shown that access to markets and credits can lead to significant decreases in agricultural and livestock production 38 .

Contextual conditions

Importantly enough, interventions do not occur in a vacuum; ideally, their effects need to be “controlled for” a variety of other influential aspects. A considerable amount of the studies reviewed consisted of multivariate regression analysis and highlighted some of those other influential aspects (i.e., covariates). In the coastal sector, the effectiveness of “Nature based” solutions such as mangroves to protect population from floods can hold while controlling for population density, elevation, distance from rivers or warning measures 39 . In the agricultural sector the effectiveness of “Informational/educational” interventions like extension services in promoting resilience against droughts and floods can hold regardless farmers’ wealth, education, marital status, institutional participation, size of cultivated land, number of farm plots, technological improvements, access to information or savings 40 . Further research shall delve deeper and more systematically into the study of covariates.

Effectiveness of combinations of interventions

We assessed the contribution of combinations of adaptation interventions on their effectiveness. Independent of the sector, 61% of the reviewed studies applied a single intervention. Specifically, in the coastal sector single interventions were most common (74% of the studies), while only 7% of the studies tested three interventions (Fig.  3 ). Given the small sample size for the coastal sector ( N  = 19 studies), the evidence on the effect of combined interventions needs to be taken with caution. Conversely, in the agricultural sector, every third study combined three or more interventions. When three or more interventions were combined, the proportion of significant positive effects was only slightly higher compared to single or double interventions (Fig.  3 ).

positive (blue colour), neutral (yellow colour) and negative (red colour) effects across cases with 1, 2 and 3 or more simultaneous interventions.

At large, our data show that adaptation interventions can be effective with regard to both risk reduction and development-related outcomes. That said, we found more evidence of risk reduction outcomes in the coastal sector than in the agricultural sector, and vice-versa. Also, in the coastal sector, the evidence points to potential trade-offs between risk reduction and development-related outcomes for some intervention types that will need to be further tested. More robust is the evidence about the positive effects of interventions across outcomes in the agricultural sector, illustrating the fine line existing between climate risk-reduction and development in this sector 41 , 42 , 43 .

NbS showed positive effects across all outcome categories in both sectors. This is consistent with current literature arguing that NbS produce multiple co-benefits, i.e., improve economic, social and environmental outcomes, while also contributing substantially to the reduction of climate-related risks 5 , 44 . Previous systematic reviews have shown that nearly two thirds of the NbS studied reduced negative climate impacts 45 . Yet, 80% of the evidence was derived from developed countries in the Global North. Our findings broaden the evidence base on NbS, specifically with regard to their effectiveness in LMICs. Previous research has also identified a lack of evidence on the effects of NbS on socio-economic and developmental outcomes 31 , 45 . Here, we were able to provide some of that evidence, in particular on the positive effects of crop diversification, water conservation and coastal habitat restoration on crop yields, food security and poverty reduction, respectively 9 , 33 . These findings also align with the claims that NbS and associated agro-ecological practices can enhance land ecosystem services and ensure sustainable land use systems in the agricultural sector 46 , 47 .

In the agricultural sector, informational interventions (e.g., early warning, farmer schools, extension services) were the only intervention with clearly positive effects on both risk reduction and development-related outcomes. This confirms the importance of perceptions and learning in environments impacted by climate change. Informational interventions can not only empower households and communities 48 , but also allow governments and non-governmental organizations to understand farmer perceptions and how they influence their decision-making and risk-taking 49 . These interventions also question preconceptions, assumptions, and beliefs about the food system, which can result in paradigm shifts and new opportunities for transformational development 50 . Also, our results about the positive effects of technological and built-infrastructure interventions (e.g., investments in water infrastructure to improve crop yields, and transitions from dryland to irrigation cultivation) to reduce social or economic vulnerability echoes previous findings about the importance of effective water management for development in the Global South 51 , 52 .

A number of key messages for development practitioners, governments and NGOs can be drawn from our results. First, although interventions may have multiple effects, there are still patterns linking types of interventions and outcomes; thus, there is an opportunity for policymakers and practitioners to tailor their interventions to optimize the outcomes those interventions are most effective with. Some dyads of interventions and outcomes showed indeed more robust results than others (i.e., NbS and hazard and exposure reduction in the coastal sector; and informational interventions and social or economic vulnerability in the agricultural sector). Second, policy makers should assess the effects of their interventions in conjunction with other influential factors. As shown in the results, there is a variety of influential factors (covariates in statistical terms) that intervention assessments need to control for. Ultimately, those factors inform about the scope conditions under which the effects of interventions could be maximized. Third, there is also the possibility that negative effects occur 53 ; policy makers should be avid to detect these and make corrections early enough in the implementation process.

As further research, our analysis suggests the need to move beyond the debates on individual intervention effectiveness (e.g., hard versus soft, green versus grey interventions) and focus instead on finding synergies between interventions and combinations of interventions 31 , 54 . Implementing multiple interventions in parallel could more effectively target individual and multiple climate risks, reach adaptation outcomes, and create synergies than if they were implemented individually. In our study, combinations of interventions had only slightly more positive effects than single interventions in the agricultural sector. That said, most of those combinations included NbS and technological and social and behavioural interventions 37 , 55 , 56 . Further research is needed to explore whether combinations of certain types of interventions have stronger effects than other combinations or than the interventions alone.

Finally, it is instrumental for enhancing the evidence-base for adaptation policy and programmes, to conduct more primary research closing existing gaps and reduce uncertainties for decision makers. This is particularly the case for the coastal sector, which has relatively little evidence compared to the agricultural sector, and for long-term, development-related outcomes. Moreover, the increasing complexity of development interventions, other particularities such as non-linearity of intervention outcomes or shifting baselines in the context of climate change, as well as the demand for transformational change and adaptive management, are calling for further investments into integrated systems of monitoring, rigorous evaluation and learning capacities 29 , 57 . By the same token, intervention effectiveness assessments need to further include individual, household and community qualitative data, to ensure benefits reach those most at risk or in need in the long term.

Following the IPCC reports 53 , we conceptualize climate risks as the interaction of climate hazards with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems. Interventions of climate change adaptation can reduce and manage these risks as well as contribute to longer term development outcomes. Thus, we classify outcomes into three categories depending on how risk reduction versus development-oriented they are 5 . The categories include:

The reduction of climate hazard and exposure of individuals or communities. An example would be the protection and restoration of mangroves to reduce the risk of coastal flooding.

The reduction of social or economic vulnerability of individuals or communities. An example would be irrigation techniques that reduce the vulnerability of farmers to water scarcity. This category also includes increasing adaptive capacity (i.e., reducing future vulnerability). For example, farmers that diversify their livelihoods or learn about new cropping techniques are less vulnerable to future climate impacts.

The contribution to the enabling environment , including environmental, socioeconomic or institutional improvements at the system-level. Examples are disaster risk programmes or livelihood programmes.

Also, we follow previous research to classify interventions into seven types 5 , 58 (Table  3 ).

Literature debates

Our analysis contributes to two scholarly debates. First, we contribute to the debate of whether it is more effective that interventions target climate protection (here hazards or exposure), or sustainable development more largely (here social vulnerability and adaptive capacity) 5 . In the terminology used before the IPCC’s Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), this debate was often casted into the terms “outcome vulnerability” versus “contextual vulnerability” 59 , 60 . While this debate is not new, it remains unresolved and has direct implications for the distribution of development finance through, e.g., the Green Climate Fund 61 . While some commentators advocate for climate-risk oriented criteria for funding allocation, others, particularly from developing countries, argue for a broader development framing of adaptation. While it is not possible to resolve this debate conceptually, empirical contributions regarding the relative effectiveness of interventions addressing protection versus sustainable development capacity can advance the practical side of this debate.

Complementarily, we contribute to the debate around the effectiveness of different types of interventions. Some commentators have argued that a focus on hard (technological and infrastructure-based) interventions, may pay insufficient attention to governance and social barriers that are better addressed by soft (behavioural or institutional) interventions 30 . Scholars have, for example, pointed to the lack of clear organizational responsibilities for adaptation at higher levels of governance 62 , conflicts and trade-offs arising from other sectoral policies 63 and complexity and routines of government organizations 64 , and interplay between private and public responsibilities 65 as barriers to adaptation. Thus, assessing adaptation effectiveness requires considering a broad range of adaptation intervention types 58 .

The debate over hard versus soft interventions has in recent years taken on the role of NbS. There is growing interest in NbS as promising adaptation measures in a range of settings, due to their potential cost-effectiveness and multiple benefits 31 . Globally, the IUCN has recently developed a Global Standard on NbS 66 . while NbS for adaptation are particularly emphasized in both the EU Adaptation Strategy 67 and the EU Green Deal 68 . However, whether NbS can facilitate sustainable development better than other infrastructure-based solutions is still debated 31 , 45 , 69 , 70 .

A debate this study does not contribute directly but deserves also to be mentioned is the top-down bias of effectiveness assessments and the need to further integrate community perceptions, and locally understood social and economic processes that play a critical role in experiences of ‘effective’ interventions 71 . Our study builds indeed on many studies that have been carried out by outsiders with predefined understandings of effectiveness. This limitation is related to the quantitative nature of the studies reviewed.

This systematic review selected studies that were already included in an evidence gap map (EGM) on adaptation, which is one of the most up-to-date and comprehensive databases on the effectiveness of adaptation interventions in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) 5 . The EGM followed the systematic map protocol, which followed guidelines set out by the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation 72 , and included quantitative or mixed-methods studies and systematic reviews in the analysis. The inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis were adapted from previous research 5 following the PICOS standard (Table  4 ).

In a previous study 5 , we systematically searched databases of peer-reviewed literature (Web of Science, Scopus, 3ie database and CEE library) and grey literature from several organisational websites for studies on climate change adaptation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). All literature that had an English abstract and was written in English, Spanish, French or German was included. This yielded a sample of 13,121 studies. The sample was narrowed down by excluding books, book sections and conference proceedings and screening abstract and tiles following several exclusion criteria. Importantly for our purpose, all studies that did not report on the effectiveness of an adaptation intervention were excluded. This yielded a final set of 463 studies (Fig.  4 ), which is published as an interactive EGM at the website of the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) 29 .

Interventions 1 and 3 refer to NbS and technological interventions.

In the previous study 5 , we categorized studies into four sectors of (i) Water, (ii) Forestry, fishing and agriculture, (iii) Land-use and built environment, and (iv) Society, economy and health. Since we focused only on the coastal and agricultural sectors, we excluded 152 studies from their database that did not match these two sectors. We focused on the agricultural and coastal sectors for several reasons. The agricultural sector, along with the forest sector are most directly related with development in LMICs due to the importance of rural areas and the primary sector for those countries’ economies. The forestry sector is critical for climate change mitigation, but the impact of climate change on forest activities has been less documented than in the agricultural sector. The coastal sector has been pioneering in studies of climate change and additionally allowed us to capture intervention effects in urbanized areas. Also, interventions in the coastal sector have tended to target risk reduction outcomes, so by including those interventions we are able to widen the diversity of outcomes studied (the agricultural sector tends to include development-related outcomes).

We also excluded primary or non-review studies on NbS or technological interventions in the agricultural sector, and studies which did not have sufficient data for coding. Primary studies on NbS or technological interventions in the agricultural sector were excluded due to the disproportionately large number of systematic reviews for these interventions, which we included in the review. This led to a final batch of 103 included studies, 19 and 84 of which belonged to the coastal and agricultural sectors, respectively (Fig.  4 ; see also  Supplementary References ).

The included studies were coded into a comprehensive coding matrix, which included information about: author, publication year, country, study design, sector, intervention type, outcome category, and effects direction and size, among other variables (see coding book below). We employed a rigorous qualitative consensus approach 73 to ensure the reliability of our coding. This involved clear coding guidelines, regular communication among coders and iterative discussions to reach agreement. The coding included two stages. First, all three coders coded 6 studies collaboratively until agreement reached saturation; all coders coded the same study and discussed their codes, one study after the other, until coders reached a similar understanding of the variables (i.e., until coders had the same codes of the intervention type, outcome, and effects direction and size variables for two studies in a row). Then, the database of studies was split among the coders and each of them coded her/his batch independently. Questions at this stage were nevertheless solved collaboratively. This strategy enabled us to maintain a high level of coding consistency, enhancing the validity of our study’s findings. The database had a hierarchical design: one study could include multiple observations, which were the combination of one intervention and one effect of this intervention in an outcome. Table  5 includes the final number of studies and observations per sector.

To measure effects, we looked at the direction and size of effects (“Effects direction” and “Effect size” variables), and the statistical significance of the findings. Direction was coded as positive, neutral or negative. Neutral was coded when the effects were not significant, or the author explicitly mentioned that there were no effects. Effect size was coded via an ordinal scale (“small”, “medium”, “high”) whenever the effects direction was positive or negative 74 . Coding effect sizes required translating the quantitative measures such as means, non-parametric tests, regression coefficients into our ordinal scale. Whenever authors complemented quantitative metrics with qualitative comments about the size we used the latter. In the studies where authors did not qualify effects as being “small”, “medium” or “high” we assumed that the size of the effects was “medium”. The only exception to this rule were observations where the metric value was very small (this was the case for <0.1 beta regression coefficients, mean differences, average treatment effects, and <5% percentage differences between the intervention and control groups).

The data was checked for several issues: (1) typos: although many variables included fixed response options others (e.g., country) did not; (2) incongruencies: in our coding book, the coding of some variables depended on the coding of other variables (for example, if the “Effects direction” variable was coded as “neutral”, then the “Effects size” variable had to be coded as “NA”); and blank cells: “No information” and “Not Applicable” values were coded as “33” and “99”. Thus, the dataset should not contain blank cells. Also, “Effects direction” and “Effects size” were recoded into “Effects direction 7-point” with the following values: large significant negative =−3, small/ medium sig. neg. =−2, very small sig. neg./negligible =−1, neutral/ not sig. =0, very small sig. pos./ negligible =1, small/ medium sig. pos. =2, large sig. pos. =3.

Out of the 103 studies of the database, 11 contained more than 5 observations per study (marked with an asterisk in Supplementary Table  1 ) and 9 of them contained more than 3 observations about one intervention and outcome type indicating the same effects direction (marked with two asterisks in Supplementary Table  1 ). Although many observations from single studies may be less generalizable, our unit of analysis was the case and not the study and we weighted all observations equally.

Data limitations

The systematic review faced several methodological limitations that may inform future studies. First, there was the potential for a sample bias in the included studies. The keyword search included only terms in English, and thus excluded potentially relevant articles in other languages. Second, included studies were mostly quantitative studies. Thus, adaptation interventions that are more prone for qualitative evaluations (e.g., informational and institutional interventions or interventions targeting the enabling environment) are likely underrepresented. Also, the lack of qualitative data prevented us from questioning definitions of effectiveness and identifying patterns in the causal mechanisms that connect interventions and outcomes. Although this was not part of our objective, it is an important area of research in the field. Qualitative assessments can not only be particularly effective at capturing the impact of multiple-hazard risks 75 but have also been accepted as a necessary source of rich data in integrated environmental assessment by the IPCC, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment regional and national studies 76 .

Third, there was the potential for publication bias. This review included only 19 studies from the coastal sector, which in turn covered mostly observations about NbS and social/behavioural interventions. This clustering of intervention types in the coastal sector may be due to the low implementation costs of these interventions compared to infrastructure interventions (e.g., building sea walls or transport infrastructure) specifically in and for LMICs. Infrastructure interventions may be underrepresented also because there tend to be fewer ex-post impact evaluations and more ex-ante predictive and modelling studies, the latter providing no indication of effectiveness. More generally, few studies indicated interventions having negative outcomes. This apparently positive-results publication bias is of potentially major concern.

Fourth, a general issue in extracting the data was that some studies do not label interventions as adaptation interventions, making it difficult to identify them in the literature 77 . This may be specifically the case for technical interventions in the coastal context, as these are often reported in coastal engineering journals without reference to climate change or adaptation. Relatedly, many studies are not explicit about specific climate change threats like droughts, floods, increases in temperature, or climatic variability. This complicated their link to intervention types and outcome categories. While some interventions like financial aid or certain infrastructure solutions may well apply to short term hazards, other interventions like institutional reforms or certain NbS may be more suitable for longer term changes 78 .

Relatedly, just half of the studies in the agricultural sector and 60% in the coastal sector included multilevel regression analyses, pointing to a variety of influential factors (i.e., covariates) other than the interventions that would need further consideration. Studies in the coastal sector, for example, have shown the importance of controlling the effectiveness of mangroves to protect population for aspects such as population density, elevation, distance from rivers or warning measures 39 . And, in the agricultural sector, studies have illustrated how resilience against droughts and floods can be explained by “Informational/educational” interventions like extension services, as well as other factors like farmers’ wealth, education, marital status, institutional participation, size of cultivated land, number of farm plots, technological improvements, access to information or savings 40 .

Last, the review was bound by the methodological challenge of coding a wide diversity of studies. Adaptation is highly heterogeneous involving a range of different actors, activities, scales and sectors and is thus subject to a ‘dependent variable problem’, whereby studies of adaptation effectiveness often measure very different aspects and therefore require very careful definitions of contexts, interventions and outcomes 17 , 79 . We partially coped with this challenge by classifying interventions and outcomes into categories and coding effect sizes via an ordinal scale. Given the large heterogeneity of studies and outcomes, however, a more rigorous quantitative meta-analysis was not possible. Lack of information in the reviewed studies prevented the systematic coding of social, economic, institutional and biophysical contexts in which the interventions were implemented as well as potential barriers and limits to adaptation, even though these may considerably influence the effectiveness of adaptation interventions.

Data availability

The data used to create all figures is available online ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24638403 ; URL: https://figshare.com/s/f88bb9b51e160380e1b3 ). See also Supplementary Table  1 for a synthesis of the database. The full dataset of the study can be accessed at the Digital Documents Repository CORA RDR of the Autonomous University of Barcelona ( https://doi.org/10.34810/data1149 ) 81 . The dataset contains categorical, ordinal and interval variables and is contained in an Excel file. There are no accession codes. The original Evidence Gap database can be accessed at the website of the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation ( https://egmopenaccess.3ieimpact.org/evidence-maps/adaptegmieu ).

Bennich, T., Weitz, N. & Carlsen, H. Deciphering the scientific literature on SDG interactions: a review and reading guide. Sci. Total Environ. 728 , 138405 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visbeck, M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534 , 320–322 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

White, H. & Waddington, H. Why do we care about evidence synthesis? An introduction to the special issue on systematic reviews. J. Dev. Effect 4 , 351–358 (2012).

Klöck, C. & Nunn, P. D. Adaptation to climate change in small island developing states: a systematic literature review of academic research. J. Environ. Dev. 28 , 196–218 (2019).

Doswald, N. et al. Evidence Gap and Intervention Heat Maps of Climate Change Adaptation in Low-and Middle-Income Countries . DEval Discussion Paper 2/2020. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11654.45127 (2020).

Leppert, G. et al. Evaluation of Interventions for Climate Change Adaptation: Instruments for Managing Residual Climate Risks (DEval, 2021).

Adu, M. O., Yawson, D. O., Armah, F. A., Abano, E. E. & Quansah, R. Systematic review of the effects of agricultural interventions on food security in northern Ghana. PLoS One 13 , e0203605 (2018).

Magombeyi, M. S., Taigbenu, A. E. & Barron, J. Effectiveness of agricultural water management technologies on rainfed cereals crop yield and runoff in semi-arid catchment: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Agricult. Sustain. 16 , 418–441 (2018).

Raseduzzaman, M. & Jensen, E. S. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 91 , 25–33 (2017).

Zhao, X. et al. Crop yields under no-till farming in China: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 84 , 67–75 (2017).

Dinar, A., Hassan, R., Mendelsohn, R. & Benhin, J. Climate Change and Agriculture in Africa: Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies (Routledge, 2012).

Nazarnia, H., Nazarnia, M., Sarmasti, H. & Wills, W. O. A systematic review of civil and environmental infrastructures for coastal adaptation to sea level rise. Civil Eng. J. 6 , 1375–1399 (2020).

Toimil, A., Losada, I. J., Nicholls, R. J., Dalrymple, R. A. & Stive, M. J. F. Addressing the challenges of climate change risks and adaptation in coastal areas: a review. Coast. Eng. 156 , 103611 (2020).

McNamara, K. E. et al. An assessment of community-based adaptation initiatives in the Pacific Islands. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 628–639 (2020).

Constenla-Villoslada, S., Liu, Y., Wen, J., Sun, Y. & Chonabayashi, S. Large-scale land restoration improved drought resilience in Ethiopia’s degraded watersheds. Nat. Sustain. 5 , 488–497 (2022).

Barbour, E. J. et al. The unequal distribution of water risks and adaptation benefits in coastal Bangladesh. Nat. Sustain. 5 , 294–302 (2022).

Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D. & Paterson, J. Are we adapting to climate change? Glob. Environ. Change 21 , 25–33 (2011).

McNamara, K. E. & Buggy, L. Community-based climate change adaptation: a review of academic literature. Local Environ. 22 , 443–460 (2016).

Walker, W. E., Haasnoot, M. & Kwakkel, J. H. Adapt or perish: a review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability 5 , 955–979 (2013).

Roggero, M., Bisaro, A. & Villamayor-Tomas, S. Institutions in the climate adaptation literature: a systematic literature review through the lens of the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. J. Inst. Econ. 14 , 423–448 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Arnott, J. C., Moser, S. C. & Goodrich, K. A. Evaluation that counts: a review of climate change adaptation indicators & metrics using lessons from effective evaluation and science-practice interaction. Environ. Sci. Policy 66 , 383–392 (2016).

Mimura, N. et al. Adaptation planning and implementation. Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects 869–898. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379.020 (2015).

Wilby, R. L. et al. A review of climate risk information for adaptation and development planning. Int. J. Climatol 29 , 1193–1215 (2009).

Bisaro, A. & Hinkel, J. Mobilizing private finance for coastal adaptation: a literature review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9 , e514 (2018).

Berrang-Ford, L., Pearce, T. & Ford, J. D. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg. Environ. Change 15 , 755–769 (2015).

Adger, N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16 , 268–281 (2006).

Sudmeier-Rieux, K. et al. Scientific evidence for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. Nat. Sustain. 4 , 803–810 (2021).

Owen, G. What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic review of the literature. Glob. Environ. Change 62 , 102071 (2020).

Noltze, M., Köngeter, A., Mank, I., Moull, K. & Rauschenbach, M. Evaluation of Interventions for Climate Change Adaptation. Synthesis Report (DEval, 2023).

Biesbroek, G. R., Termeer, C. J. A. M., Klostermann, J. E. M. & Kabat, P. Rethinking barriers to adaptation: Mechanism-based explanation of impasses in the governance of an innovative adaptation measure. Glob. Environ. Change 26 , 108–118 (2014).

Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosoph. Trans. R. Soc. B 375 , 20190120 (2020).

Mallick, B. & Sultana, Z. Livelihood after relocation—evidences of Guchchagram project in Bangladesh. Soc. Sci. 6 , 76 (2017).

Bhattacharjee, K. & Behera, B. Does forest cover help prevent flood damage? Empirical evidence from India. Glob. Environ. Change 53 , 78–89 (2018).

Ajibade, I. et al. Assessing the bio-psychosocial correlates of flood impacts in coastal areas of Lagos, Nigeria. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 58 , 445–463 (2015).

Leclerc, C. et al. Indigenous past climate knowledge as cultural built-in object and its accuracy. Indigenous past climate knowledge as cultural built-in object and its accuracy. Ecol. Soc. 18 , 22 (2013).

Wang, Y. J., Huang, J. K. & Wang, J. X. Household and community assets and farmers’ adaptation to extreme weather event: the case of drought in China. J. Integr. Agric. 13 , 687–697 (2014).

Rahut, D. B. & Ali, A. Impact of climate-change risk-coping strategies on livestock productivity and household welfare: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Heliyon 4 , e00797 (2018).

Gori Maia, A., et al. Climate change and adaptive strategies in agriculture: assessing the impacts on small farmers in the Brazilian Sertão https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.236255 (2016).

Das, S. & Vincent, J. R. Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 7357–7360 (2009).

Boka, G. T. Measuring Resilience to Climate Change in Ethiopian (African Development Bank, 2017).

Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 699–703 (2018).

Diwakar, V. & Lacroix, A. Climate shocks and poverty persistence: Investigating consequences and coping strategies in Niger, Tanzania, and Uganda. Sustain. Dev. 29 , 552–570 (2021).

Hertel, T. W. & Rosch, S. D. Climate change, agriculture, and poverty. Appl. Econ. Perspect Policy 32 , 355–385 (2010).

Ruangpan, L. et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: a state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20 , 243–270 (2020).

Chausson, A. et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Chang Biol. 26 , 6134–6155 (2020).

Keesstra, S. et al. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610–611 , 997–1009 (2018).

Fund, A. Agroecology: A Nature-based Food System-NBS Proposal from the AgroEcology Fund. UN Secretary General Climate Action Summit (2019).

Phuong, L. T. H. et al. Using a social learning configuration to increase Vietnamese smallholder farmers’ adaptive capacity to respond to climate change. Local Environ. 23 , 879–897 (2018).

Eitzinger, A., Binder, C. R. & Meyer, M. A. Risk perception and decision-making: do farmers consider risks from climate change? Clim. Change 151 , 507–524 (2018).

Jagustović, R. et al. Better before worse trajectories in food systems? An investigation of synergies and trade-offs through climate-smart agriculture and system dynamics. Agric. Syst. 190 , 103131 (2021).

Sowers, J. et al. Climate change, water resources, and the politics of adaptation in the Middle East and North Africa. Clim. Change 104 , 599–627 (2010).

Mukheibir, P. Water resources management strategies for adaptation to climate-induced impacts in South Africa. Water Resour. Manag. 22 , 1259–1276 (2008).

Pörtner, H.-O. eds. et al. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2022).

Waaswa, A., Oywaya Nkurumwa, A., Mwangi Kibe, A. & Ngeno Kipkemoi, J. Climate-Smart agriculture and potato production in Kenya: review of the determinants of practice. Clim. Dev. 14 , 75–90 (2021).

Khanal, U., Wilson, C., Hoang, V.-N. & Lee, B. Farmers’ adaptation to climate change, its determinants and impacts on rice yield in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 144 , 139–147 (2018).

Mapfumo, P., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Mtambanengwe, F., Chikowo, R. & Giller, K. E. Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. Environ. Dev. 5 , 6–22 (2013).

Whitfield, S. et al. Exploring temporality in socio-ecological resilience through experiences of the 2015–16 El Niño across the Tropics. Glob. Environ. Change 55 , 1–14 (2019).

Biagini, B., Bierbaum, R., Stults, M., Dobardzic, S. & McNeeley, S. M. A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Glob. Environ. Change 25 , 97–108 (2014).

McGray, H., Hammill, A., Bradley, R., Schipper, L. & Parry, J.-E. Weathering the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and Development Vol. 57 (World Resources Institute Washington, 2007).

Obrien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L. P. & Schjolden, A. N. E. Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim. Policy ( Earthscan ) 7 , 73–88 (2007).

Hultman, N., Lou, J. & Hutton, S. A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM). Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 053002 (2020).

Storbjörk, S. It takes more to get a ship to change course’: barriers for organizational learning and local climate adaptation in Sweden. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 12 , 235–254 (2010).

Torhan, S. et al. Tradeoffs and synergies across global climate change adaptations in the food‐energy‐water nexus. Earths Future 10 , e2021EF002201 (2022).

Stojanovic, T. & Barker, N. Improving governance through local coastal partnerships in the UK. Geogr. J. 174 , 344–360 (2008).

Urwin, K. & Jordan, A. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Glob. Environ. Change 18 , 180–191 (2008).

IUCN. Guidance for Using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling Up of Nature-Based Solutions (IUCN, 2020).

European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Regions. Forging a climate-resilient Europe - the new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. COM(2021) 82 final (2021).

European Environmental Agency (EPA). The European Environment—State and Outlook 2020 Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe (Publications Office of the European Union, 2019).

DeLonge, M. & Basche, A. Managing grazing lands to improve soils and promote climate change adaptation and mitigation: a global synthesis. Renew. Agricult. Food Syst. 33 , 267–278 (2018).

Gedan, K. B., Kirwan, M. L., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E. B. & Silliman, B. R. The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Clim. Change 106 , 7–29 (2011).

Gotham, K. F. & Campanella, R. Coupled vulnerability and resilience: the dynamics of cross-scale interactions in post-Katrina New Orleans. Ecol. Soc. 16 , (2011).

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management , version 5.1. (eds Pullin, A. S., Frampton, G. K., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G.) www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors (2022).

Cascio, M. A., Lee, E., Vaudrin, N. & Freedman, D. A. A team-based approach to open coding: considerations for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods 31 , 116–130 (2019).

Creutzig, F. et al. Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nat. Clim. Change 12 , 36–46 (2022).

Gallina, V. et al. A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: consequences and challenges for a climate change impact assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 168 , 123–132 (2016).

Rounsevell, M. D. A. & Metzger, M. J. Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 , 606–619 (2010).

Hofmann, M. E., Hinkel, J. & Wrobel, M. Classifying knowledge on climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in Europe for informing adaptation research and decision-making: A conceptual meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change. 21 , 1106–1116 (2011).

Schoon, M. L. & Cox, M. E. Understanding disturbances and responses in social-ecological systems. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25 , 141–155 (2011).

Dupuis, J. & Biesbroek, R. Comparing apples and oranges: the dependent variable problem in comparing and evaluating climate change adaptation policies. Glob. Environ. Change 23 , 1476–1487 (2013).

Eriksen, M. B. & Frandsen, T. F. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 106 , 420 (2018).

Villamayor-Tomas, S., Bisaro, A., Albizua, A. & Hinkel, J. Adaptation interventions developing countries database. https://doi.org/10.34810/data1149 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is part of an evaluation of interventions for climate change adaptation by the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval). We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor-in-chief for insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Sergio Villamayor-Tomas acknowledges support from the Ayuda de Consolidación Investigadora of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CNS2022-136063). Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the University of Barcelona (ICTA-UAB). This work also contributes to the ‘María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence’ (CEX2019-000940-M).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus UAB, 08193, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain

Sergio Villamayor-Tomas

Ostrom Workshop, Indiana University, 513 N Park Ave, Bloomington, IN, 47408, USA

Thaer-Institute, Humboldt University, Invalidenstraße 42, 10099, Berlin, Germany

Global Climate Forum, Neue Promenade 6, 10178, Berlin, Germany

Alexander Bisaro & Jochen Hinkel

German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval), Fritz-Schäffer-Str. 26, 53113, Bonn, Germany

Kevin Moull, Isabel Mank, Gerald Leppert & Martin Noltze

Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Parque Científico de UPV/EHU, Leioa, Spain

Amaia Albizua

Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU), Juan Ibáñez de Santo Domingo, 1, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Sergio Villamayor-Tomas, Alexander Bisaro, Kevin Moull, Amaia Albizua, Isabel Mank, Jochen Hinkel, Gerald Leppert, Martin Noltze; data collection: Sergio Villamayor-Tomas, Alexander Bisaro, Kevin Moull, Amaia Albizua, Isabel Mank, Jochen Hinkel, Gerald Leppert, Martin Noltze; analysis and interpretation of results: Sergio Villamayor-Tomas, Alexander Bisaro, Kevin Moull, Amaia Albizua, Isabel Mank, Jochen Hinkel, Gerald Leppert, Martin Noltze; draft manuscript preparation: Sergio Villamayor-Tomas, Alexander Bisaro, Kevin Moull, Amaia Albizua, Isabel Mank, Jochen Hinkel, Gerald Leppert, Martin Noltze.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergio Villamayor-Tomas .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Earth & Environment thanks Luca Cetara and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Alessandro Rubino and Aliénor Lavergne. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Villamayor-Tomas, S., Bisaro, A., Moull, K. et al. Developing countries can adapt to climate change effectively using nature-based solutions. Commun Earth Environ 5 , 214 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01356-0

Download citation

Received : 18 April 2023

Accepted : 29 March 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01356-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

About . Click to expand section.

• Our History
• Team & Board
• Transparency and Accountability

What We Do . Click to expand section.

• Cycle of Poverty
• Climate & Environment
• Emergencies & Refugees
• Health & Nutrition
• Livelihoods
• Gender Equality
• Where We Work

Take Action . Click to expand section.

• Attend an Event
• Partner With Us
• Fundraise for Concern
• Work With Us
• Leadership Giving
• Humanitarian Training
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Donate . Click to expand section.

• Give Monthly
• Donate in Honor or Memory
• Leave a Legacy
• DAFs, IRAs, Trusts, & Stocks
• Employee Giving

Ten solutions to climate change that will actually make a difference

Jun 20, 2022

At this point we need solutions bigger than any one person. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

There are a lot of differing opinions on whether it's too late to climate change — and, if it's not the best way of going about it. Some say recycling is useless and that individual action means nothing against the larger policy reforms that need to happen. This is, in part, true — although you should absolutely still be recycling. But it doesn’t tell the whole story, and it doesn’t help those who are currently on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Here, we break down 10 solutions to climate change that will actually make a difference — and how you can help make them all a reality.

Stand with the people most affected by climate change

1. shift to renewable energy sources in all key sectors.

The United Nations identified a six-sector solution to climate change, focusing on actions that can be taken by the energy, industry, agriculture, transportation, nature-based solutions, and urban planning. If all of these actions are completed, the UN Environment Programme estimates we could reduce global carbon emissions by 29 to 32 gigatonnes, thereby limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5º C.

One key element of this plan is shifting to renewable energy sources, both at home and at work. “We have the necessary technology to make this reduction by shifting to renewable energy and using less energy,” the UNEP writes of our personal energy consumption (generally, fossil fuels power our homes, keeping the lights on, our rooms warm, and Netflix streaming). But the energy usage of the industrial sector also plays a key role: Addressing issues like methane leaks and switching at large scale to passive or renewable energy-based heating and cooling systems could reduce industrial carbon emissions by 7.3 gigatonnes every year.

2. Reduce food loss and waste and shift to more sustainable diets

There are a few different ways that climate change and hunger go hand-in-hand. Whether it’s kale or Kobe beef, producing food accounts for some measure of greenhouse gasses. In 2021, the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated we consumed more meat than ever before . By 2050 this will, by some estimates, increase greenhouse gas emissions from food production by 60%. Likewise, many farmers use nitrous-based fertilizers to grow more crops, more quickly to meet demand.

It’s important to reduce food waste at every step of the food system . For us as consumers, we can commit to eating what we buy and composting what we don’t get to in time. We can also switch our focus to plant-based and other sustainable diets, supporting farms that use organic fertilizers and making beef and other meat products the exception rather than the rule at the dinner table.

3. Halt deforestation and commit to rebuilding damaged ecosystems

The rapid deforestation of the Earth, especially over the last 60 years, has contributed to climate change, creating “heat islands” out of land that would normally be protected by trees and other flora from overheating. Simply put, this has to stop. There are actions each of us can take as individuals to help halt this—going paperless and buying recycled paper products, planting trees or supporting organizations that do this (like Concern ), and recycling.

But change has to happen at a larger scale here. Illegal logging happens both in the United States and abroad. Last year, world leaders committed to halting this and other harmful practices by 2030 as part of COP26. You can help by holding your own elected leaders to account.

4. Embrace electric vehicles, public transport, and other non-motorized options for getting around

The carbon savings on junking your current car in favor of an electric model are basically nullified if you aren’t seriously in the market for a new vehicle. However, mass adoption of electric vehicles and public transport — along with walking, biking, skating, and scooting — is key to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions from fuel-based motor vehicles.

This is another issue you can raise with elected officials. Earlier this year, for example, you may remember hearing that President Biden had been encouraging the US Postal System to adopt electric vans as part of its new fleet. This didn’t come to pass , but it’s changes like these — changes beyond any one person’s transportation method — that need to happen. You can call on your representatives to support these switchovers for delivery vehicles, cab and taxi fleets, ambulances, and other auto-centric services. Or, if your city or town lacks decent public transportation or enough bike lanes or sidewalks to make those alternatives to driving, lobby for those.

5. Subsidize low-carbon alternatives for urban planning

In tandem with low-carbon alternatives for public transportation, governments need to commit to similar measures with our growing cities. New buildings mean a new opportunity to reward green design methods that help to decrease the strain on urban resources, whether they’re apartments or entertainment venues. (Fun fact: The Stavros Niarchos Cultural Center in Athens runs almost entirely off of solar panels during the bright and sunny summer months. ) In cities like New York, we’ve seen the toll that excessive power use can take through rolling blackouts and brown-outs, especially in the summer months. Changes to public infrastructure that reduce our reliance on the power grid will help to keep the system from becoming untenably overloaded.

6. Strengthen resilience and climate adaptation methods in MAPA communities

So far, we’ve looked at solutions to climate change that can take place within our own homes and communities. However, these only go so far to mitigate the damage that the climate crisis has already inflicted on a large portion of the world. The most affected people and areas (MAPAs) are largely in the Global South. Many are located in low-income countries without the resources or infrastructure to respond and adapt to climate disasters, even as they become more frequent and destructive.

Countries like the United States and organizations responding to the climate crisis must support MAPA communities, particularly the most vulnerable, in developing and carrying out strategies specific to context and designed to bolster resilience where it’s needed most. Often these communities know what needs to be done to mitigate the effects of climate change, and they simply need to be supported with access to additional research and meteorological data, new technologies, and funding.

What we talk about when we talk about resilience

The word “resilience” has taken on new meanings and contexts in recent years, but at Concern it still has a specific definition relating to our emergency and climate response. Here’s what we mean when we use it.

7. Address poverty and other inequalities that increase vulnerability

The tem MAPA can also apply to individuals within a community. Women, disabled people, children, the elderly, people living in poverty, indigenous peoples, and LGBTQIA+ people are among those who are most likely to be hit harder by climate change because of preexisting societal marginalization. This is why it’s critical that they also have a seat at the decision-making table when it comes to solutions to climate change within their own communities. Ending poverty and the other systemic inequalities that give some people greater access to resources than others will help to offset some of the greatest threats posed by the climate crisis.

8. Invest in disaster risk reduction (DRR)

Disaster Risk Reduction (otherwise known as DRR) protects the lives and livelihoods of communities and individuals who are most vulnerable to disasters or emergencies. Whether the crisis is caused by nature or humans (or a combination of both), DRR limits its negative impact on those who stand to lose the most.

We can’t undo much of climate change’s impact so far, but we can help the communities who are hit hardest by these impacts to prepare for and respond to these emergencies once they strike.

9. Commit to fair financing and climate justice

Of course, DRR strategies and other resilience, adaptation, and mitigation practices cost money. Money that the countries most affected by climate change often lack. As part of a global commitment to climate justice , countries with the highest carbon footprints should be making restitution to those countries with lower footprints, countries that tend to be more vulnerable to global warming.

Countries like the United States must increase investments in disaster prevention and DRR strategies, such as early warning and response systems, forecast-based financing mechanisms, and adapted infrastructure. What’s more, these funds need to be made rapidly dispersible and flexible so that when emergency strikes, they can be accessed more quickly. Additional investment to prevent conflicts over the use of natural resources will also help countries facing both fragile political systems and a high risk for climate-related disasters.

Project Profile

Responding to Pakistan's Internally Displaced (RAPID)

RAPID is a funding program that allows Concern to quickly and efficiently deliver aid to people displaced by conflict or natural disaster.

10. Guarantee these changes in the long-term via policy reform

Few of the solutions listed above are not sustainable without policy reform. You can help by encouraging your elected officials to consider the above points, and to support bills that incorporate one or more of these solutions to climate change, many of which are currently being written and shared at the local and national levels.

Smart climate policy will prioritize people over corporations, consider the framework of climate justice — including land and water rights of indigenous peoples and rural communities, address the intersectional effects of climate change on hunger, poverty, and gender equality, and enforce regulatory frameworks and standards that commit people and institutions to honoring these new standards. Bold and aggressive action must be taken if we’re to reach the goal of not exceeding 1.5º C and mitigating the current effects of climate change by 2030. But it’s not a lost cause yet. It’s on all of us to now support those actions that are needed most.

Support Concern's climate response

Solutions to Climate Change in Action

Ten countries with water stress and scarcity — and how we're helping

Climate Smart Agriculture: Back to the basics to fight climate change and hunger

Ten of the countries most affected by climate change

Sign up for our newsletter.

Get emails with stories from around the world.

You can change your preferences at any time. By subscribing, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Search the United Nations

• What Is Climate Change
• Myth Busters
• Renewable Energy
• Finance & Justice
• Initiatives
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Paris Agreement
• Climate Ambition Summit 2023
• Climate Conferences
• Press Material
• Communications Tips

Renewable energy – powering a safer future

Energy is at the heart of the climate challenge – and key to the solution.

A large chunk of the greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth and trap the sun’s heat are generated through energy production, by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and heat.

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change , accounting for over 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

The science is clear: to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, emissions need to be reduced by almost half by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050.

To achieve this, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and invest in alternative sources of energy that are clean, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and reliable.

Renewable energy sources – which are available in abundance all around us, provided by the sun, wind, water, waste, and heat from the Earth – are replenished by nature and emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air.

Fossil fuels still account for more than 80 percent of global energy production , but cleaner sources of energy are gaining ground. About 29 percent of electricity currently comes from renewable sources.

Here are five reasons why accelerating the transition to clean energy is the pathway to a healthy, livable planet today and for generations to come.

1. Renewable energy sources are all around us

About 80 percent of the global population lives in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels -- that’s about 6 billion people who are dependent on fossil fuels from other countries, which makes them vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and crises.

In contrast, renewable energy sources are available in all countries, and their potential is yet to be fully harnessed. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 percent of the world’s electricity can and should come from renewable energy by 2050.

Renewables offer a way out of import dependency, allowing countries to diversify their economies and protect them from the unpredictable price swings of fossil fuels, while driving inclusive economic growth, new jobs, and poverty alleviation.

2. Renewable energy is cheaper

Renewable energy actually is the cheapest power option in most parts of the world today. Prices for renewable energy technologies are dropping rapidly. The cost of electricity from solar power fell by 85 percent between 2010 and 2020. Costs of onshore and offshore wind energy fell by 56 percent and 48 percent respectively.

Falling prices make renewable energy more attractive all around – including to low- and middle-income countries, where most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from. With falling costs, there is a real opportunity for much of the new power supply over the coming years to be provided by low-carbon sources.

Cheap electricity from renewable sources could provide 65 percent of the world’s total electricity supply by 2030. It could decarbonize 90 percent of the power sector by 2050, massively cutting carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change.

Although solar and wind power costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 then pre-pandemic levels due to general elevated commodity and freight prices, their competitiveness actually improves due to much sharper increases in gas and coal prices, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).

3. Renewable energy is healthier

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 99 percent of people in the world breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and more than 13 million deaths around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes, including air pollution.

The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs , about $8 billion a day.

Switching to clean sources of energy, such as wind and solar, thus helps address not only climate change but also air pollution and health.

4. Renewable energy creates jobs

Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs : while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs.

In addition, energy-related industries would require a further 16 million workers, for instance to take on new roles in manufacturing of electric vehicles and hyper-efficient appliances or in innovative technologies such as hydrogen. This means that a total of more than 30 million jobs could be created in clean energy, efficiency, and low-emissions technologies by 2030.

Ensuring a just transition , placing the needs and rights of people at the heart of the energy transition, will be paramount to make sure no one is left behind.

5. Renewable energy makes economic sense

About $7 trillion was spent on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2022, including through explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels.

In comparison, about $4 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 – including investments in technology and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The upfront cost can be daunting for many countries with limited resources, and many will need financial and technical support to make the transition. But investments in renewable energy will pay off. The reduction of pollution and climate impacts alone could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per year by 2030.

Moreover, efficient, reliable renewable technologies can create a system less prone to market shocks and improve resilience and energy security by diversifying power supply options.

Learn more about how many communities and countries are realizing the economic, societal, and environmental benefits of renewable energy.

Will developing countries benefit from the renewables boom? Learn more here .

What is renewable energy?

Derived from natural resources that are abundant and continuously replenished, renewable energy is key to a safer, cleaner, and sustainable world. Explore common sources of renewable energy here.

Why invest in renewable energy?

Learn more about the differences between fossil fuels and renewables, the benefits of renewable energy, and how we can act now.

Five ways to jump-start the renewable energy transition now

UN Secretary-General outlines five critical actions the world needs to prioritize now to speed up the global shift to renewable energy.

What is net zero? Why is it important? Our net-zero page explains why we need steep emissions cuts now and what efforts are underway.

• What is climate change?

Our climate 101 offers a quick take on the how and why of climate change. Read more.

How will the world foot the bill? We explain the issues and the value of financing climate action.

Climate issues

Learn more about how climate change impacts are felt across different sectors and ecosystems.

It’s time to stop burning our planet, and start investing in the abundant renewable energy all around us." ANTÓNIO GUTERRES , United Nations Secretary-General

Facts and figures

• Causes and effects
• Myth busters

Cutting emissions

• Explaining net zero
• High-level expert group on net zero
• Checklists for credibility of net-zero pledges
• Greenwashing
• What you can do

Clean energy

• Renewable energy – key to a safer future
• What is renewable energy
• Five ways to speed up the energy transition
• Why invest in renewable energy
• Clean energy stories
• A just transition

Adapting to climate change

• Climate adaptation
• Early warnings for all
• Youth voices

Financing climate action

• Finance and justice
• Loss and damage
• $100 billion commitment
• Why finance climate action
• Biodiversity
• Human Security

International cooperation

• What are Nationally Determined Contributions
• Acceleration Agenda
• Climate Ambition Summit
• Climate conferences (COPs)
• Youth Advisory Group
• Action initiatives
• Secretary-General’s speeches
• Press material
• Fact sheets
• Communications tips

• Show search

Perspectives

Natural Solutions to Climate Change

November 21, 2017

By Justin Adams, Executive Director, Tropical Forest Alliance

In response to climate change, land is key. Today, agriculture, forestry, and other land uses account for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse-gas emissions. But adopting sustainable land management strategies could provide more than one-third of the near-term emission reductions needed to keep warming well below the target—2°C above pre-industrial levels—set by the Paris climate agreement.

Conservation organizations like mine have long been working to balance the interaction between people and nature. But only recently have we fully grasped just how important land-use management is in addressing climate change. With the development of remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and biogeochemical modeling, we can better forecast outcomes, and develop strategies to manage and minimize adverse consequences.

Some of the most promising ways to mitigate climate change are what we call “natural climate solutions”: the conservation, restoration, and improved management of land, in order to increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse-gas emissions in landscapes worldwide. The full potential of these solutions is detailed in a new study produced by my organization, the Nature Conservancy, and 15 other leading institutions.

Among the most important natural climate solutions is protecting “frontier forests”—pristine woodlands that serve as natural carbon sinks. Intact tropical and northern forests, as well as savannas and coastal ecosystems, store huge amounts of carbon accumulated over centuries. When these areas are disturbed, carbon is released. Preservation of frontier habitats also helps regulate water flows, reduces the risk of flooding, and maintains biodiversity.

Forests Can Absorb Carbon Quicker Than We Thought

Related reading.

New research shows that letting forests regrow on their own could be a secret weapon to fighting climate change.

GET THE RESULTS ›

Reforestation is another important natural solution. Globally, an estimated  two billion hectares  (4.9 billion acres) of land has been  deforested or degraded . Because trees are the best carbon-capture-and-storage technology the world has, reversing these numbers would bring a significant reduction in global carbon levels. We  estimate  that the world could capture three gigatons of CO2 annually—equivalent to taking more than 600 million cars off the roads—simply by planting more trees.

A third category of natural solution is agricultural reform. From field to fork, the food sector is a major contributor to climate change through direct and indirect emissions, and by its often-negative effects on soil health and deforestation. Recognizing these risks, 23 global companies—including Nestlé, McDonald’s, Tesco, and Unilever—recently signed a commitment to halt deforestation in Brazil’s Cerrado savanna. The region, which covers a quarter of the country, has come under growing pressure from production of beef,  soy , and other commodities, together with the associated infrastructure.

As the Cerrado pledge demonstrates, when governments and businesses come together to address land-use challenges, the impact is potent. Natural climate solutions have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by an estimated 11.3 billion tons a year – equal to a complete halt in burning oil, according to our study. 

One recent study  calculated that if Brazil reached zero deforestation by 2030, it would add 0.6% of GDP, or about $15 billion, to its economy. Communities also reap secondary benefits—such as rural regeneration, improved food and water security, and coastal resilience – when natural climate solutions are implemented.

Yet, despite the data supporting better land-use decision-making, something isn’t adding up. In 2016, the world witnessed a dramatic  51% increase in forest loss , equivalent to an area about the size of New Zealand. We need to buck this trend now, and help the world realize that land-use planning is not simply a conservation story.

Nature’s Make or Break for Climate Change

Research shows nature could provide one third of the emission reductions needed to tackle climate change.

READ ABOUT NATURE'S POTENTIAL

Some countries are moving in the right direction. The Indian government, for example, has set aside $6 billion  for states to invest in forest restoration. In Indonesia, the government created a dedicated agency to protect and restore peatlands, bogs, and swamp-like ecosystems that have immense CO 2 storage capabilities.

But they are the exceptions. Of the 160 countries that committed to implementing the Paris climate agreement, only 36 have specified land-use management in their emissions-reduction strategies.

Overcoming inertia will not be easy. Forests, farms, and coasts vary in size, type, and accessibility. Moreover, the lives of hundreds of millions of people are tied to these ecosystems, and projects that restore forest cover or improve soil health require focused planning, a massive undertaking for many governments.

One way to get things moving, especially in the agricultural sector, would be to remove or redirect subsidies that encourage excessive consumption of fertilizers, water, or energy in food production. As Indian government officials reminded their peers during a World Trade Organization meeting earlier this year, meaningful agricultural reforms can begin only when rich countries reduce the “ disproportionately large ” subsidies they give their own farmers.

Supporting innovation and entrepreneurship can also help power change. New processes and technologies in landscape planning, soil analysis, irrigation, and even alternative proteins such as plant-based meat are making agriculture and land use more sustainable. Similarly, changes in the construction industry, which is turning to more efficiently produced products like cross-laminated timber (CLT), can help reduce carbon pollution.

Finally, financing options for natural climate solutions must be dramatically increased. While payments to conserve forests are starting to flow under the UN’s REDD+ program , and the Green Climate Fund has committed $500 million for forest protection payments, total public investment in sustainable land use remains inadequate. According to the Climate Policy Initiative , public financing for agriculture, forestry, and land-use mitigation attracted just $3 billion in 2014, compared to $49 billion for renewable energy generation and $26 billion for energy efficiency.

At the UN climate change meeting that just concluded in Bonn, Germany, global leaders reaffirmed that the world cannot respond adequately to rising temperatures if governments continue ignoring how forests, farms , and coasts are managed. Now that there is a firm consensus, governments must act on it.

Originally Posted on  Project Syndicate December 22, 2017 View Original

Related Reading

Nature’s Make or Break Potential for Climate Change

This study shows we’ve been underestimating nature’s role in tackling climate change.

There is a Forgotten Solution to Climate Change That We Must Invest In: Nature

We have forgotten the role nature can play in mitigating climate change.

A Natural Path for U.S. Climate Action

The United States could mitigate a fifth of its emissions through conservation and land management.

Global Insights

Check out our latest thinking and real-world solutions to some of the most complex challenges facing people and the planet today.

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes: Update 2020 (2020)

Chapter: conclusion, c onclusion.

This document explains that there are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far. There remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure are expected.

Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage, and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven “geoengineering” solutions to counteract some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur. Each of these options has risks, attractions and costs, and what is actually done may be a mixture of these different options. Different nations and communities will vary in their vulnerability and their capacity to adapt. There is an important debate to be had about choices among these options, to decide what is best for each group or nation, and most importantly for the global population as a whole. The options have to be discussed at a global scale because in many cases those communities that are most vulnerable control few of the emissions, either past or future. Our description of the science of climate change, with both its facts and its uncertainties, is offered as a basis to inform that policy debate.

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals served as the primary writing team for the 2014 and 2020 editions of this document:

• Eric Wolff FRS, (UK lead), University of Cambridge
• Inez Fung (NAS, US lead), University of California, Berkeley
• Brian Hoskins FRS, Grantham Institute for Climate Change
• John F.B. Mitchell FRS, UK Met Office
• Tim Palmer FRS, University of Oxford
• Benjamin Santer (NAS), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• John Shepherd FRS, University of Southampton
• Keith Shine FRS, University of Reading.
• Susan Solomon (NAS), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Walsh, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
• Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Staff support for the 2020 revision was provided by Richard Walker, Amanda Purcell, Nancy Huddleston, and Michael Hudson. We offer special thanks to Rebecca Lindsey and NOAA Climate.gov for providing data and figure updates.

The following individuals served as reviewers of the 2014 document in accordance with procedures approved by the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences:

• Richard Alley (NAS), Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University
• Alec Broers FRS, Former President of the Royal Academy of Engineering
• Harry Elderfield FRS, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge
• Joanna Haigh FRS, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College London
• Isaac Held (NAS), NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
• John Kutzbach (NAS), Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin
• Jerry Meehl, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Pendry FRS, Imperial College London
• John Pyle FRS, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge
• Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
• Emily Shuckburgh, British Antarctic Survey
• Gabrielle Walker, Journalist
• Andrew Watson FRS, University of East Anglia

The Support for the 2014 Edition was provided by NAS Endowment Funds. We offer sincere thanks to the Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone Endowment for NAS Missions for supporting the production of this 2020 Edition.

F OR FURTHER READING

For more detailed discussion of the topics addressed in this document (including references to the underlying original research), see:

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019: Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [ https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2019: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259 ]
• Royal Society, 2018: Greenhouse gas removal [ https://raeng.org.uk/greenhousegasremoval ]
• U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 2018: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States [ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov ]
• IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C [ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15 ]
• USGCRP, 2017: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume I: Climate Science Special Reports [ https://science2017.globalchange.gov ]
• NASEM, 2016: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852 ]
• IPCC, 2013: Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group 1. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis [ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 ]
• NRC, 2013: Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18373 ]
• NRC, 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12877 ]
• Royal Society 2010: Climate Change: A Summary of the Science [ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science ]
• NRC, 2010: America’s Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12782 ]

Much of the original data underlying the scientific findings discussed here are available at:

• https://data.ucar.edu/
• https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu
• https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu
• https://ess-dive.lbl.gov/
• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
• https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
• http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu
• http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate. The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, produced the original Climate Change: Evidence and Causes in 2014. It was written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. This new edition, prepared by the same author team, has been updated with the most recent climate data and scientific analyses, all of which reinforce our understanding of human-caused climate change.

Scientific information is a vital component for society to make informed decisions about how to reduce the magnitude of climate change and how to adapt to its impacts. This booklet serves as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and others seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate-change science.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Browser does not support script.

• LSE Research for the World Strategy
• LSE Expertise: Global politics
• LSE Expertise: UK Economy
• Find an expert
• Research for the World magazine
• Research news
• LSE iQ podcast
• Research films
• LSE Festival
• Researcher Q&As

Impact case study

An economic solution to climate change that could save trillions.

  Thank you to the Grantham Research Institute of the LSE for their hard work behind the scenes. Christiana Figueres Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Research by

Professor Simon Dietz

Department of geography and environment, prof. sam fankhauser, director, grantham research institute on climate change and the environment.

LSE research helped governments worldwide put a price on carbon that could curb harmful emissions and save $1 trillion annually

What was the issue?

Amid rising concern over the impact of climate change, policymakers have been looking at ways to reduce carbon emissions.

''For economists the problem is that polluters are not required to bear the full cost of the pollution they create in terms of the costs to wider society.''

Economists have argued that putting a “price” on carbon, so that polluters are forced to take into account the negative effects of their harmful emissions, must be a core element of an economically efficient strategy to curb these emissions.

However, the pricing of carbon emissions is by no means an easy or straightforward undertaking. The approaches to such pricing are numerous, complex and competing, making it particularly challenging for policymakers, many with only a layperson's understanding, to decide on an optimal approach.

The stakes are huge. Estimates suggest that the cost savings from an economically efficient policy intervention could be as high $1 trillion a year globally.

What did we do?

Many countries such as the UK use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate new spending and regulations. The original approach used to price a ton of emissions was the so-called “social cost of carbon” - the economic value of the damage caused by an extra ton of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006) estimated the total cost of climate change to be equivalent to a one-off, permanent 5-20% loss in global average (mean) per-person spending in today’s money. The cost of each extra ton of carbon emitted today was estimated to be around $312.

Researchers at LSE's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, led by Associate Professor Simon Dietz, subsequently updated the economic modelling that they had produced for the Stern Review.

They showed that the social cost of carbon that had been used in the Stern Review had a high level of uncertainty. They concluded that the most robust measure of the price of carbon for cost-benefit analysis should be the cost of cutting each extra ton of emissions.

Professor Sam Fankhauser and colleagues also looked at the specific tools being proposed to impose a price on carbon, such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade. The latter was an approach in which governments set a limit or "cap" on certain types of emissions and polluting companies could sell or "trade" the unused portion of their limits to companies that were struggling to comply.

The researchers examined important design elements of cap-and-trade systems. These included: how to bank and borrow emissions permits and how this process interacted with other markets, taxes and subsidies; and ways to keep the permit price from rising too high or falling too low.

They also documented how carbon pricing policies had been implemented across the world so that countries could learn about what other jurisdictions were doing and become aware of good ideas and practices being tested elsewhere.

“Thank you to the Grantham Research Institute of the LSE for their hard work behind the scenes.”

 - Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

What happened?

The research has influenced both the policy thinking as well as the design and substance of carbon pricing legislation in the UK and elsewhere in the world.

Carbon pricing in the UK

In 2009 the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) changed its guidance on the price of carbon for cost-benefit analysis, from using the social cost of carbon to using the marginal cost of cutting emissions, as the LSE research had proposed.

DECC's report cited Dietz, who had been one of six independent peer-reviewers of the interim guidance produced in 2007. He was employed as a consultant by DECC for the preparation of the new guidance in 2008/2009.

This change in carbon pricing was expected to increase the likelihood that the UK government would meet its statutory obligation per the Climate Change Act of reducing overall emissions by at least 26% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

Carbon pricing worldwide

The research has also had an impact on legislation to introduce new carbon pricing policies in Australia, China, Mexico and South Korea, all of which have adopted new measures or are in the process of doing so.

The United Nations has referred to the Grantham research as contributing to the prospects for an international agreement on climate change.

The research was also used as the basis of discussions between UK and EU legislators and China’s chief negotiator, Minister Xie Zhenhua, in the House of Commons in October 2011 when the two sides examined examples of “good practice”.

The researchers have worked closely with GLOBE International, a global forum of parliamentarians. Their research fed directly into an international policy paper that aimed to help national legislators understand the nuts and bolts of carbon markets as they draft their own country-specific legislation.

The LSE team also provided direct advice on a particular technical point of the Australian trading scheme related to the treatment of carbon offsets (credits that can be earned by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in one location that can offset pollution elsewhere).

Search all impact case studies.

Related content

Designing a global agreement on climate change finance, ensuring the best science-based predictions of climate change, using philosophy to improve dutch climate change and sustainability policies, helping the palestinian territory adapt to climate change.

New scientific interventions are here to fight climate change. But they aren’t silver bullets

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Behind a chain-link fence in a corner of San Joaquin County sits one of California’s — and perhaps the world’s — best hopes for combating climate change.

Here at the nation’s first commercial direct air capture facility , towering trays of limestone mineral powder are working round-the-clock to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Robots skitter and whir around the 40-foot-tall columns, which are part of a multi-step process that will ultimately convert the CO2 to concrete, rendering the planet-warming compound into nothing more harmful than a stone.

“We need to do this all around the world,” said Vikrum Aiyer, head of public policy for Heirloom, the California-based company that owns and operates the facility. The good news, he said, is that “CO2 removed anywhere is CO2 removed everywhere.”

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

The idea for their carbon-removal technology was born in the wake of a 2018 special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels will require transformative innovations in energy, land, urban and industrial systems that go beyond national pledges to cut back on emissions.

The 1.5-degree limit is an internationally agreed-upon benchmark intended to prevent the worst effects of climate change. But the planet is already beginning to experience the effects of that warming, including worsening wildfires, simmering oceans, extreme heat waves, prolonged droughts, crop shortages and species loss. Last year was the planet’s hottest on record so far , with the global average temperature hovering around 2.67 degrees — or 1.48 degrees Celsius — warmer than the late 1800s.

While reducing the use of fossil fuels is the surest way to prevent that warming from getting worse, Aiyer and many other experts, researchers and public officials are converging around the notion that scientific intervention will be necessary.

“We need to move fast, and we need more lawmakers to not move at the speed and scale of government, but rather at the speed and scale of our children’s generation, and the next generation, depending on it,” he said.

World & Nation

The planet is dangerously close to this climate threshold. Here’s what 1.5°C really means

Every bit of planetary warming will have impacts beyond those already occurring, including biodiversity loss, longer heat waves and extreme rainfall.

Feb. 1, 2024

The government is getting on board — as is Silicon Valley. The Tracy facility is capable of capturing 1,000 tons of CO2 per year, which will be stored for centuries in concrete that is already being used to build bridges, roads and other local infrastructure. The company makes a profit by selling carbon removal credits to buyers such as Microsoft, Stripe and Klarna, which are investing heavily in the technology .

But it will take a lot more than 1,000 tons of annual CO2 removal to make a dent in global warming: Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 425 parts per million and counting . To truly make a difference will require carbon removal at the gigaton scale, or billions of tons each year, according to the IPCC.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded $50 million to Heirloom and its partners to develop what will become a massive, million-ton direct air capture facility in Louisiana. The funding was part of a larger $1.2-billion investment into direct air capture technologies announced by the Biden administration last year.

Several Los Angeles startups are also getting into the carbon removal game, including Captura , a company working to remove CO2 from the upper ocean, and Avnos , a company whose technology produces water while capturing carbon. Avnos also recently secured funding from the Department of Energy.

The hope is that operating such projects around the country and the world will not only stop global warming, but eventually help reverse it, said Christian Theuer, Heirloom’s policy communications manager.

“You halt it by getting to net zero, by not putting out any new CO2 emissions into the atmosphere,” Theuer said as he circled the towers in Tracy. “Then you can move into the negative emissions territory, where you’re cleaning up legacy pollution that is already warming the planet.”

Climate & Environment

Column: Biden’s State of the Union address should give us hope on climate

At least a little bit.

March 12, 2024

But direct air capture is only one of the many ways scientists, policymakers and researchers are hoping to alter the planet’s worrisome trajectory. Solar radiation modification — a form of geoengineering designed to artificially cool the planet — is also being seriously studied as a solution.

There are many forms of solar radiation modification, including a concept known as marine cloud brightening, which uses sea salt particles to increase the reflectivity of clouds in order to reflect more sunlight away from Earth. A program run by the University of Washington recently initiated a test of the concept off the coast of San Francisco.

But perhaps the most promising — or at least the most studied — geoengineering solution is known as stratospheric aerosol injections.

The basic idea is to manually re-create the process of volcanic eruptions, which cool the planet by spewing sulfur and other particles into the stratosphere, temporarily blocking sunlight. Researchers already know from studying volcanoes that this infusion of sulfur creates a planetary cooling effect that can last two or three years.

That and other forms of solar radiation modification are gaining so much attention that last year, the White House released a congressional report on the matter that not only considers its feasibility, but also outlines the urgent need for a framework to govern its research.

Solar radiation modification “offers the possibility of cooling the planet significantly on a timescale of a few years,” the report says. “Such cooling would tend to reverse many of the negative consequences of climate change, albeit with ramifications which are now poorly understood.”

Indeed, such a concept carries many potential benefits as well as potential risks, according to Chris Field, director of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Field led a major National Academies of Sciences report on solar geoengineering that is reflected in the White House’s findings.

“We have a pretty solid understanding that injecting aerosols in the stratosphere would make the average temperature cooler, but you would want to do a lot more than that if you were serious about a deployment of this stuff,” Field said. “You would want to know about the regional effects and you would want to know about the possibility of any unintended consequences outside the climate system. You’d also want to know a lot about what kinds of strategies you would have in place to make this governable.”

Last year, a company called Make Sunsets made headlines when it began testing stratospheric aerosol injections by releasing sulfur-filled weather balloons from a launch site in Mexico. The move generated considerable opposition from the scientific community, which said it was too soon to conduct such experiments without more guardrails. An open letter signed by more than 110 physical and biological scientists in the wake of the incident affirmed “the importance of proceeding with responsible research.”

Part of the reason for concern is that when sulfur dioxide leaves the stratosphere and sinks into the lower atmosphere, it can potentially fall as acid rain. That doesn’t mean the concept isn’t worth studying, but it does mean transparency about funding, research and results must be made available for broad discussion, Field said.

“If it doesn’t have a certain level of public trust — especially in the world’s developing countries — there is essentially no way that it could be deployed and sustained over an extended period,” he said. He added that it is not really possible to design a stratospheric deployment that is limited to one part of the world’s geography, meaning that any injections would have global implications.

Critically, Field and other experts said geoengineering should not take the place of decarbonization, or efforts to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions around the world. California has committed to reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 .

“There’s no world in which solar geoengineering is a solution to climate change — it’s kind of a Band-Aid so that we don’t experience the full range of impacts of the climate change that’s still there,” Field said. “And it’s really important to recognize that, because it’s just a Band-Aid, we really don’t want it to take attention away from decarbonization.”

Biden administration revs up plans to transition from gas-powered vehicles to EVs

A U.S. EPA rule would require car manufacturers to increase sales of electric vehicles while cutting carbon emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles.

March 20, 2024

While direct air capture and aerosol injections do show potential, there are other concepts for cooling the planet that have garnered some interest — or at least raised some eyebrows.

A Southern California-based organization called the Planetary Sunshade Foundation has posited that the best solution to climate change isn’t here on Earth, but rather in outer space, where a massive sail-like structure could reflect sunlight away from the planet.

“We are on track to continue to see significant increases in global temperature, and so solar radiation modification will continue to be talked about more and more,” said Morgan Goodwin, the foundation’s executive director. “And the planetary sunshade, we believe, is the sustainable, long-term way of doing solar radiation modification.”

The sail — or more likely, the collection of sails — would need to measure approximately 580,000 square miles in size to offset 1 degree Celsius of warming, Goodwin said. It would need to be located at the Lagrange 1 Point in space, nearly 1 million miles from Earth — a location where the gravitational pull of the sun and Earth would essentially pin the object in place.

The design requirement calls for a material that is thin, light and capable of blocking sunlight. Basically “aluminum foil,” Goodwin said.

The result would be shading that is diffuse and spread out evenly across the entire globe. The amount of solar shading — about 1% — would be less than what most people can perceive on Earth, and its effect would be less than what some high-altitude clouds already have on sunlight, he said.

The concept is similar to a solar sail spacecraft, forms of which have already been deployed in space. A proposed NASA solar cruiser mission would fly a large solar sail to the Lagrange 1 Point, though the project has stalled due to lack of funding. Goodwin said the Sunshade Foundation is advocating for that mission to fly, and for the U.S. government and other agencies to consider their technological proposals.

“There’s so much energy and so many resources in the space sector, and part of what we’re saying is that the space sector can play a role as part of the climate solution,” he said.

But like other climate adaptation solutions, there are potential downsides. For one, such a project would be large and expensive, and would require constant upkeep and maintenance when meteorites and space debris impact the sails. What’s more, there are unknown unknowns, such as whether even a small percentage of sunlight reduction could affect photosynthesis and have an adverse impact on agricultural crops.

But the idea is more “sustainable and responsible” than other forms of solar radiation modification, Goodwin said, although he stressed that it, too, should not take the place of emissions-reduction efforts.

“I feel much more hopeful about the future knowing that I can help advance this and help make this a reality, and give us all a much better shot,” he said. “You know, the future is far from certain, and it will be far stranger than we imagined.”

For the record:

10:32 a.m. April 22, 2024 An earlier version of this article said Heirloom’s Tracy, Calif., facility is 50,000 square feet. It is 15,000 square feet.

Back on Earth, the limestone towers are already up and running in Heirloom’s 15,000-square-foot direct air capture facility in Tracy.

The process there involves heating limestone in a massive kiln, which turns it into a mineral powder that is spread onto the towering stacks of trays. The powder acts like a sponge for CO2 — pulling it from the air and hardening into a crust. Once saturated, it is returned to the kiln where the CO2 is extracted, and the cycle begins again.

The extracted CO2 is transported off site where Heirloom’s partner, CarbonCure Technologies , injects it into recycled water that is used to make concrete that is now being used throughout Bay Area infrastructure.

“Once it’s in that concrete, it’s not going back into the atmosphere,” Theuer said of the CO2. “It’s permanently a part of that product. Even if in some scenario you blew up the building associated with it, it would still stay embedded amid the rubble and wouldn’t reenter the atmosphere. It’s now a stone.”

Toward a more sustainable California

Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The process is different than carbon capture, which involves capturing CO2 at the source where it is emitted. Carbon capture plays a role in the state’s cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows companies to buy and sell their unused credits. That program has seen mixed results, with some critics saying it ultimately enables more pollution and creates more allowances for emissions .

As a commercial operation, Heirloom sells its carbon offsets to a voluntary market at a rate of $600 to $1,000 per net ton, and the company says it does not take investments from oil and gas businesses. Already, some fossil fuel companies have shown interest in direct air capture technology, including at least seven oil and gas producers that have invested in, or are working to develop, direct air capture projects.

Aiyer said he is closely watching Senate Bill 308 , new legislation in California that would create a framework by which the state government approves standards for carbon removal. It would also compel heavy emitters in the state to account for their emissions through offset purchases or removals, among other measures.

But there are potential downsides to direct air capture, including its high energy costs, which could limit the technology’s ability to expand. The Heirloom facility and many others run on 100% renewable energy, including wind and solar power, but experts say fusion and geothermal energy could be potential sources for such technology in the future.

And while concrete storage is currently the best available option for carbon sequestration in the U.S., cement is a known contributor to fossil fuel emissions . Heirloom officials said they anticipate transitioning to underground storage wells in the future, pending permitting approval from the Environmental Protection Agency. Geologic storage is already used in parts of Europe, and there are at least 506 billion tons of accessible pore space for permanent CO2 storage in the U.S., they said.

What’s more, the interest from Big Oil has met with broader concerns that carbon removal, geoengineering and other climate change solutions could have the unintended consequence of enabling society to continue its reliance on fossil fuels. If these tools can clean CO2 or cool the planet, the logic goes, then the use of gas-guzzling cars, smog-producing products, and oil and gas drilling can continue as usual.

It’s a refrain many working in the climate adaptation space have heard before. Still, the steady hum of progress has given even those most entrenched in the battle against global warming some semblance of optimism for the future.

“These technologies — whether it is our pathway of direct air capture or other carbon removal technologies — should not be a fig leaf for additional fossil fuel expansion,” Aiyer said. “We need to make sure that we are reducing our reliance on emissions and fossil fuel production, and we need to do these removals.”

L.A.’s water supplies are in good shape. But is the city ready for the next drought?

Current conditions are promising, but L.A. must maintain its ethos of conservation and prepare for an inevitable return to dry times ahead, LADWP officials say.

April 15, 2024

More to Read

California wants to harness more than half its land to combat climate change by 2045. Here’s how

April 22, 2024

Opinion: Cement is a big part of the carbon problem. It doesn’t have to be

Feb. 12, 2024

Will storing CO2 in old oil fields slow global warming? First California plan nears approval

Jan. 14, 2024

Hayley Smith is an environment reporter for the Los Angeles Times, where she covers the many ways climate change is reshaping life in California, including drought, floods, wildfires and deadly heat.

More From the Los Angeles Times

L.A. supervisors oppose plan to eradicate Catalina deer by shooting them from helicopters

April 27, 2024

Southern California woman pleads guilty in $150-million counterfeit postage scheme

Person stabbed after argument spills out of L.A. Metro bus, police say

April 26, 2024

Accomplice in shooting death of 6-year-old Aidan Leos pleads guilty, sentenced to time served

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Xi Thinks China Can Slow Climate Change. What if He’s Right?

By Jacob Dreyer

Mr. Dreyer, an editor and writer who focuses on the Chinese political economy and science, wrote from Shanghai.

At first glance, Xi Jinping seems to have lost the plot.

China’s president appears to be smothering the entrepreneurial dynamism that allowed his country to crawl out of poverty and become the factory of the world. He has brushed aside Deng Xiaoping’s maxim “To get rich is glorious” in favor of centralized planning and Communist-sounding slogans like “ ecological civilization ” and “ new, quality productive forces ,” which have prompted predictions of the end of China’s economic miracle.

But Mr. Xi is, in fact, making a decades-long bet that China can dominate the global transition to green energy, with his one-party state acting as the driving force in a way that free markets cannot or will not. His ultimate goal is not just to address one of humanity’s most urgent problems — climate change — but also to position China as the global savior in the process.

It has already begun. In recent years, the transition away from fossil fuels has become Mr. Xi’s mantra and the common thread in China’s industrial policies. It’s yielding results: China is now the world’s leading manufacturer of climate-friendly technologies, such as solar panels , batteries and electric vehicles . Last year the energy transition was China’s single biggest driver of overall investment and economic growth, making it the first large economy to achieve that.

This raises an important question for the United States and all of humanity: Is Mr. Xi right? Is a state-directed system like China’s better positioned to solve a generational crisis like climate change, or is a decentralized market approach — i.e., the American way — the answer?

How this plays out could have serious implications for American power and influence.

Look at what happened in the early 20th century, when fascism posed a global threat. America entered the fight late, but with its industrial power — the arsenal of democracy — it emerged on top. Whoever unlocks the door inherits the kingdom, and the United States set about building a new architecture of trade and international relations. The era of American dominance began.

Climate change is, similarly, a global problem, one that threatens our species and the world’s biodiversity. Where do Brazil , Pakistan , Indonesia and other large developing nations that are already grappling with the effects of climate change find their solutions? It will be in technologies that offer an affordable path to decarbonization, and so far, it’s China that is providing most of the solar panels , electric cars and more. China’s exports, increasingly led by green technology, are booming, and much of the growth involves exports to developing countries .

From the American neoliberal economic viewpoint, a state-led push like this might seem illegitimate or even unfair. The state, with its subsidies and political directives, is making decisions that are better left to the markets, the thinking goes.

But China’s leaders have their own calculations, which prioritize stability decades from now over shareholder returns today. Chinese history is littered with dynasties that fell because of famines, floods or failures to adapt to new realities. The Chinese Communist Party’s centrally planned system values constant struggle for its own sake, and today’s struggle is against climate change. China received a frightening reminder of this in 2022, when vast areas of the country baked for weeks under a record heat wave that dried up rivers , withered crops and was blamed for several heatstroke deaths.

China’s government knows that it must make this green transition out of rational self-interest or risk joining the Soviet Union on history’s scrap heap, and is actively positioning itself to do so. It is increasingly led by people with backgrounds in science, technology and environmental issues. Shanghai, the country’s largest city and its financial and industrial leading edge, is headed by Chen Jining, an environmental systems expert and China’s former minister of environmental protection. Across the country, money is being poured into developing and bringing to market new advances in things like rechargeable batteries and into creating corporate champions in renewable energy .

To be clear, for Mr. Xi, this green agenda is not purely an environmental endeavor. It also helps him tighten his grip on power. In 2015, for instance, the Central Environmental Inspection Team was formed to investigate whether provincial leaders and even agencies of the central government were adhering to his green push, giving him another tool with which to exert his already considerable power and authority.

At the same time, locking in renewable energy sources is a national security issue for Mr. Xi; unlike the United States, China imports almost all of its oil, which could be disrupted by the U.S. Navy in choke points like the Malacca Strait in the event of war.

Mr. Xi’s plan — call it his Green Leap Forward — has serious deficiencies. China continues to build coal-fired power plants , and its annual greenhouse-gas emissions remain far greater than those of the United States, though American emissions are higher on a per-capita basis. China’s electric vehicle industry was built on subsidies , and the country may be using forced labor to produce solar panels. Those are serious concerns, but they fade into the background when Pakistan floods or Brazil wants to build an E.V. factory or South Africa desperately needs solar panels for a faltering energy grid.

American politics may be inadvertently helping China gobble up global market share in renewable energy products. When the United States — whether for national security or protectionist reasons — keeps Chinese companies like Huawei out of the American market or rolls up the welcome mat for electric vehicle makers like BYD or companies involved in artificial intelligence or self-driving cars, those businesses must look elsewhere.

President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act , aimed at tackling climate change, has put the United States on a solid path toward carbon neutrality. But America’s decentralization and focus on private innovation means government policy cannot have quite the same impact that it can in China.

So it is crucial for Americans to recognize that, for most of the world, perhaps for all of us, China’s ability to provide low-cost green technology is, on balance, great news. All of humanity needs to move toward renewables at a huge scale — and fast. America still leads in innovation, while China excels in taking frontier science and making its application in the real world cost-effective. If American politicians, investors and businesses recognize that climate change is humanity’s biggest threat, that could open pathways for diplomacy, collaboration and constructive competition with China that benefit us all.

Together, China and the United States could decarbonize the world. But if Americans don’t get serious about it, the Chinese will do it without them.

And if the United States tries to obstruct China, by way of corporate blacklists, trade or technology bans or diplomatic pressure, it will end up looking like part of the climate problem. That happened earlier this month when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, during a visit to China, urged officials here to rein in green technology exports that the United States says are hurting American companies.

Mr. Xi won’t completely toss out the polluting manufacturing-for-export economic model that has served China so well, nor does he seem ready to halt construction of coal plants. Both are considered necessary for economic and energy security until the green transition is complete. But they are now only a means to an end. The endgame, it seems, is to reach carbon neutrality while dominating the industries making that possible.

Much like how the United States showed up late for World War II, China’s clean-tech companies are latecomers, piggybacking on technology developed elsewhere. But history rewards not necessarily who was there first but who was there last — when a problem was solved. Mr. Xi seems to discern the climate chaos on the horizon. Winning the race for solutions means winning the world that comes next.

Jacob Dreyer is an American editor and writer focused on the intersection of the Chinese political economy and science. He lives in Shanghai.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .