Major company’s such as Zara, Starbucks, Coca Cola etc. claim to be more environmentally friendly than they in fact are. In order to avoid facing repercussions for their negligence. This creates a false narrative that they are not causing as much damage to the environment as originally thought. Even in my community we see green washing within what our schools invest in for scholarship money. So a small group of students including myself have started a discussion about divestment, and making sure the company’s we invest in are environmentally friendly. In order to enact true change we need to know what we are dealing with first, and Green washing is preventing that.

Greenwashing is a huge issue, especially for big companies who want to flaunt being environmentally friendly so people will be more willing to buy from them. The Federal Trade Commision website has a great guide for criteria for consumers who are looking to buy from a genuinely green company. It also makes it easy for companies to understand what practices they need to change in order to be more friendly to the planet. If anyone is interested in this info, it can be found at: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/ … een-guides

I totally agree with this. I think its so sad how companies such as the ones you mentioned above are lying to people. It also sucks that people think they are doing good by supporting those brands that are claiming to be green but instead of helping make the CO2 levels better, its just getting worse. I am glad that there has been something created that lets people know what companies really are green. Even though websites like this exist, so many people still do not realize that they are being lied to and may go on forever buying from these brands. I hope that your websites as well as others can continue to have awareness being spread about them so that as many people as possible can help limit their CO2 levels.

Over the past semester, I have learned a lot about what contributes to global warming. I learned what greenhouse gases actually are and what the greenhouse effect is. Most importantly I learned how this all connects back to me. During this assignment, I saw how each individual decision I make even if it is only choosing between a plastic or glass bottle makes an impact on our environment.

Nuclear energy has an almost net zero impact on the environment in a way most other alternatives to natural gas and oil do not. Reactors generate power through fission, which is the name for the process of splitting uranium atoms and using the resulting heat to create steam. The steam spins a turbine that generates electricity. According to the US Nuclear Energy Institute, through nuclear power the United States avoided 471 million metric tons of harmful emissions. Nuclear energy also is a very land-efficient way of producing power; a 1,000 megawatt facility requires less than one square mile of land to operate, opposed to wind farms which reportedly require 360 times more space. This almost insignificant footprint is just another reason why more reactors are being built in higher populated areas, this is just a short list of reasons why I believe further investment in nuclear power can only lead to the benefit and meet humanity’s growing needs for further power sources.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fiss … difference
https://www.nei.org/resources/statistic … r-industry
https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-need … ear-plants

Climate change disproportionately effects marginalized communities particularly within the black community  “ Black or African Americans are 40% more likely than non-Black Americans and non-African Americans to currently live in areas with the highest projected increases in mortality rates due to climate-driven changes in extreme temperatures.” -EPA When we are talking about the effects of Climate change we need to talk about who it is effecting the most, and sadly it will often not be the people that have cause the most environmental harm. In order to make real social change we need to make environmental change as well, to neglect climate change as an issue will effect minorities disproportionately so if you are about social change you must work on  environmental change as well.

Doing things as simple as composting, turning off lights when you're not home, recycling, taking quicker showers, and carpooling or riding a bike or walking can help the environment. these are all easy and not very time-consuming lifestyle choices that you can make that can help save our earth. Obviously, there are larger problems than plastic straws in the world but every little thing can help.

Dear BigCmanCrago, i agree that we must make these small changes in our own lifestyles, and even though it may not seem like it's making a big deference, if everyone does it, it will.  I know this to be true because I used to use the opposite argument, that if i buy and throw away just one or two recyclable bottles, its not that big a deal. If I take 30 minute showers just this week, it wont really matter. Yet its when everyone in the world thinks like this that we have a problem. We must shift our our mindsets together to start thinking about the little things, and thinking about our future.

I think osker makes a very good point. It can be easy to forget about the other eight billion people we share a planet with, often using the excuse “what difference can one person make?”. And sure, one person who chooses not to recycle couldn’t have less of an impact, but when hundreds, thousands, millions of people decide that its no longer their responsibility, well you can imagine the problems that would come with that. It is imperative that we do not keep a solitary mindset, as climate change is not a battle we are fighting alone.

I agree that these small actions make the environment around us a better place, but what will these actions do for our planet in the long run if not promoted? What is the point of putting ourselves through more work to act sustainably if it only benefits our egos? I understand that taking actions like carpooling and taking short showers takes away from our carbon emission, but these actions will not have a large impact on our planet if there are very few making an effort. This is why I believe that we, as students, must find ways to promote our healthy lifestyles as much as possible. Although much debated, one citizen acting sustainably and keeping it to themselves will not have an impact on climate change or global warming. If change is desired, we should be actively looking for ways to promote our healthy and sustainable ideas to many others.

There are a lot of sad things happening around the world, and unfortunately, they are usually what make the news and get lots of publicity as opposed to the good changes and actions happening. This can lead to hopeless or anxious feelings about climate change that cause some people to stop trying to fight climate change. It is important to be aware of the good and innovative things happening in the world as well as the bad.

#climatechange is gonna save the planet everyone!

Except its not. It may, on the rare occasion, educate others and encourage them to take action, but the post itself is not enough. We like and follow, but do we take the time to learn about the topic and what needs to be done in to help. Social media is helping us convince ourselves that we are “doing our part”, and I think that many of us struggle to find reassurance, scared that we too are a part of the problem. But we soon become so enveloped in this fear are that we neglect our duties of a citizen of planet earth. It is important that as we move forward with climate change that we remember that a repost is not a solution, it is simply a bandaid stuck on top of a problem that has become to real.

We don't all have the resources to do big things to save our planet, like spending money on electric cars, or buying expensive heating systems that use electricity instead of gas. And that is totally fine because there is so many more different ways we can help our planet, for example: recycling and composting, when you recycle it reduces the amount of garbage that would have been sent to the landfills. Or just putting your left over scraps in a bin thats only for compostable things, that reduces so much waste that we would mix with garbage and put and put in our landfill. Other simple things we can do are: Talking to people about this topic, turning off lights when leaving rooms, taking more transit or carpooling, bringing reusable bags to the grocery store. And all those small things can help reduce the affect us humans have on the climate.

I completely agree. Nobody's forcing you to change your home's heating or invest in new cars, but so many easy things can reduce our carbon footprints. One example is taking shorter showers. Instead of taking your time and using the water for 20 minutes, you can easily reduce down to 10 minutes by going at a normal pace and using the water for a small amount of time. Another thing is powering down your laptop. If it goes into sleep mode, it's still using battery and it's technically still on. Constantly leaving it on can also cause it to have a shorter life. These are two examples of things that don't require you to spend money or make huge changes in your daily life. I think everybody needs to consider opportunities like this to lower our carbon footprints.

Oil & fossil fuels are some of the biggest contributors to pollution and our global ecological footprint, so why don’t we stop using them? There is no true answer because there are too many unknown variables. Although I am confident in the belief that through innovation we can find an alternative what if we don’t, can we really continue to rely on oil & fossil fuels until we pollute the earth beyond repair? What would we be able to do without our main source of energy? Oil fuels every industry within our lives, transportation (which already affects every other industry), medicine, the production of electricity, etc. Without oil, we would essentially be back to the days when electricity wasn’t a thing. So my question is, what is the answer, what if we never find another way to harvest enough energy from resources besides fossil fuels?
    Personally, I think that right now we should focus on innovation so that we can solve these problems, however, if we were to assume that we can’t or we are incapable of doing so I think that we should begin to slow down oil production and begin to rely on more environmentally friendly resources until we can become stable off of just these resources.

I think that us cutting off oil wouldn't be possible, because the use of cars every day, machines in factories, heating in buildings are a few things we can't live without. People with gas cars might not be able to afford electric cars, people using machines in factories are needed for jobs, and heating in buildings / houses are needed so people don't freeze. Therefor we need oil in our every days life to life and survive.

The average human will produce less carbon during their entire lifetime than a large company produces every day. The capitalistic society we live in is the cause of our pollution, the system needs to change if we want to keep our planet.

It may not be the system to change but how we run it. Government laws can be used to force companies to abide by strict protocols for emictions, waste, and the materials that products are made up of.

ddoust25, I don't think you realize how much our society relies on the large companies of the world, the computer you used to make that statement is in your hand because of large companies. if all large companies where abolished it would send the world into a spiral, there would be no easy fashion of transferring knowledge without internet, planes, cars or motorized boats all being produced by large companies. I agree that large companies are a large part of pollution but there are other waysto reduce help their environmental footprint then what you are suggesting. if you want the world to go back to the dark ages then by all means end capitalism.

Not all of the Carbon in the atmosphere is human caused. Animals respirate and die, which is the natural cycle of life, volcanoes erupt, and carbon leaks in through cracks in the earth, however, before the industrial revolution, there was a balance of plants taking in carbon and animals respirating carbon/dying. We as humans, for the last ~150 years, have totally disrupted the carbon cycle, rendering it unbalanced and causing the temperatures to heat up. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of emissions, followed by vehicular and household emissions.

Because of the Carbon in the atmosphere, we have dodged an Ice Age which should have happened, and because of that the earth has avoided the "ice age extinction", but we have caused our own extinction for the plentitude of species of the world.

Developing countries need to build up, and thus they must find the cheapest way of generating energy and means of construction. Concrete accounts for ~8% of the global CO2 emissions, which countries use for construction.

At the end of the day, unless some big political change or a new ground-breaking discovery happens overnight, then it won't be over just yet.

It is already too late to get back what we have lost, but we can still save the future.

Please refer and watch this video by Kurzgesagt to learn more.

Thank you for taking your time to read this and feel free to criticize me in the comments.

Thank you very much for this information, I never knew that the built-up carbon prevented an Ice Age. CO2 emissions have helped us of course, but the amount that has built up means that all the radiation coming from the troposphere is causing some pretty horrible environmental changes. Global warming has gone too far, and while we do need greenhouse gasses to survive in a hospitable environment, it has just become too much.

Thank you so much for this information! I was under the impression that humans nearly 100% of the time were the leading cause for climate change, air pollution, global warming, etc., but now I see that animals and other living organisms are also fairly prominent causes to the global CO2 emissions.

I knew that humans had disrupted the cycle of climate change, but I had no idea that we had dodged an ice age because of it. Do you have the source for the information of the ice age? I would also like to thank you for your incredibly informative and well put together post if you do end up reading this comment after 2 years since your posted. I also would like to know more about how concrete contributes so much and if switching to roman concrete would make a difference, you have inspired me to search for more information. Thank you for the amazing and thought provoking post; also I am also a big fan of Kurzgesagt, so its cool to interact with someone else who knows who they are.

Nature must be protected so that we can breathe fresh air, drink and swim in clean water, enjoy the beauty of filelds, meadows and forests. We must protect it not only for ourselves, but also for future generations, foe animals, birds, and fish living on our planet. Nature must not perish.

I agree that people should protect nature so that other living creatures can survive. Moreover, I think that a lot of people don’t realize just how much nature affects us, too. Nature is the beginning of all things we need to survive. Like you said, it allows us to breathe, but it also gives us the food we eat, the water we drink, and it provides us with numerous mental health benefits.

I agree that protecting nature is important because they play a big role in supporting our ecosystem. It provides the basic things we use to survive, like the air we breath, the food we eat, and the water we drink.

this is so well said! if it weren't for nature, life here on earth wouldn't exist to begin with. all these gifts nature has provided for us make the planet worth living, and not only us humans, but almost every living organism here relies entirely on nature. .

Yes! Very well said! Nature is very important, it brings life to this planet and it helps us live and thrive. Without nature, we wouldn't be here living and breathing. There's so much to learn on this planet, we must do everything we can to preserve it for future generations.

I agree with you! More often than not people overlook the effects that their actions have on the world around them. When it comes to innovation, we instead look at the ways that things could benefit and make things easier for us as opposed to how making our lives easier can make other lives harder. I also agree with you on the fact that we also need to protect nature for ourselves, in negatively impacting nature, we can negatively affect ourselves just the same.

I agree! We must protect nature! We depend on nature. Nature provides us with food and everything needed to live healthy lives. We protect wildlife and biodiversity by protecting nature also. I believe that we must also preserve the beauty of nature.

Nature is very important because it provides us with food, water and everything else needed to live healthy lives. Even the air we breathe is part of nature. We need to protect nature in order to protect wildlife and biodiversity. We need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. We can also take action by going to volunteer in cleanups such as beach cleanups. We can also plant trees to increase biodiversity. Furthermore, I believe that we need to educate more people to take similar actions to protect nature.

I agree with you completely, nature is important and we have to protect it otherwise we will all die,

I agree, it is very important to protect nature because it is the base for all living things, and without a healthy environment, nothing can be alive.

I believe it is quite obvious that nature is important, and all of you commenting 'I agree, nature is very important', followed by the reasoning for nature being important, is quite irritating. All you're doing is saying 'I care too!'. It doesn't do a damned thing. Another thing you are doing is wasting your time writing why you care, instead of ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING TO SAVE NATURE!!!

camden so real for that one, it's a total echo chamber.  Thread should be titled "how to protect nature" so that we'd get some ideas with actual substance.  The problem is I feel like our whole system is promoting this fake treehugging culture and saying "stop climate change" because that's sexy and trendy, meanwhile people putting actual conservation efforts that deserve funding forward are getting overshadowed by bigger voices.  I also think the best way to separate those two demographics is to stop pushing and forcing people to care, like how the people from my school are being forced to type and respond in this forum.  Most, if not all of us are going to turn around tomorrow and forget about everything we said because we don't actually care about the environment, we care about following instructions.  It's admirable that these people want our generation to care about the issue because of how dire it is but at the same time if the climate change discussion gets too overcrowded it all just turns into a wall of noise and we don't accomplish anything, we waste time and resources and we all die anyway because we were too busy talking instead of taking action.  I don't know if you're aware that earth is gonna be pretty much all out of top soil in 60 years or less.  It's already the beginning of the end.

Camden2005, I think you need to calm down because if you really, genuinely think that a bunch of high schoolers are going go out and do something to save nature, when most of us don't have cars, money, or any of the other resources to do this, you have to be actually crazy. People don't have time to do anything because of homework, sports, and clubs that take up their whole days, don't get mad at them for that.

Takoyama, This activity was supposed to be about sharing your perspective to other people. Yes all of us care about our grades, but that doesn't mean at least some of us care about the environment too.

Greenwashing is a false claim that deceives consumers into believing that a company's products are environmentally friendly. I have started to recognize this more in society. Numerous fast fashion companies such as H&M, Zara, Forever 21, and others give people the illusion that they are shopping sustainably. However, this is simply a marketing tactic created so that people would not feel guilty purchasing items from these companies. They say that they are ethical when it comes to the production of low-cost fashion items. However,  that is far from the truth. Fast fashion brands seem to only care about profit. They exploit cheap laborers in developing countries, use large amounts of water and oil and dump extra toxic waste in local rivers ad streams, disturbing thousands of people's water sources. The concept of greenwashing also occurs quite a lot in the food industry. Many processed, packaged foods are labeled "healthy and ethically produced."  These are also exemplification unsustainable claims.

As an employee of a Grocery Store, I can confirm greenwashing in the food industry. Many labels such as Fair trade and certified naturally grown often mislead consumers. Fair trade is supposed to show a product that was produced without child labor but often you see product from India and China with those labels (Which are notorious for using child labor). As well, Naturally Grown only requires 75% of a grocery product to be organic which can also be misleading.

I was looking for something on greenwashing cause I think it's a really overlooked issue that should be taken more seriously, unfortunately it doesn't look like this post from almost 3 years ago got very much attention.  Somehow we need to hold these corporations accountable for blatantly lying about something with such serious repercussions.

Over time the human population has been increasing drastically.  100 years ago the population was only at 2 Billion or less. Now in 2023 the current population of the earth is at 8 billion people! That is 4x more people than 100 years ago. This is how the population has changed over the century. We will never know when we will hit our carrying capacity but for now our world will still grow exponentially. Eventually we will have to see a decline in our population.

The human population has been growing since the 15th century in Europe and its been growing ever since.  The population continues growing but at a slower rate. The human population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2058, if the population continues to grow, ( which is predicted to grow) the humans will out compete other species, which can lead to a lot of animals going extinct. The planet will no longer be  able to sustain the growing population and we will end up reaching the carrying capacity. As our population grows other populations of other species will drop, we will end up killing them all. As humans it is our responsibility to look after the other species that we are out competing.

I feel that the habitable space on earth is slowly shrinking by the day and we should try to manage or expand it. I suggest that our trash should be sent towards the sun via newton's law of inertia so that the landfills can be emptied and repurposed into habitable space.

Over the past few hundred years, our population has increased almost tenfold. in 1800, there was around 1 billion people on earth. now, just over 200 years later, we have 8 billion. this is the largest curve of growth among any large species, and it has not ended yet. we are expected to reach 10 billion by 2058, which is only 35 years away, and even then we arent expected to stop. if we keep going the way we are, the planet will not be able to sustain all of us, and our numbers will come at the cost of other species, as we take more and more space, we will end up weeding them out of their homes and, ultimately, killing them all off. how can we, as a species, keep going the way we are and not end up killing off all other species?

It is commonly known that electric cars are better for the environment than gasoline powered cars. What some people may not know is that electric cars actually emit more carbon dioxide in production than gas powered cars do. However, this has a benefit, as electric powered cars tend to release about 60-68% less greenhouse gas emissions than gas powered cars.

In my biology class an experiment of sorts was conducted where everybody who took the class calculated their carbon footprint and recorded them on a shared document for everyone to see. I myself found that I had a relatively high carbon footprint compared to my classmates, the biggest contributor being transportation. After discussing with some of my classmates with similar results we debated how we affected our environment and how it affected us. I myself have a large family, some of which live across the country. My family and I want to see our family, however, what cost does this have? Some of my other classmates with large transportation emissions discussed how they have families that live in a whole different continent and visit them near annually, facing the same dilemma. No matter what mode of transportation there is, whether it be flight, driving, or some other way, it produces many greenhouse gases. Do we sacrifice ourselves for our impact? How can we reduce our carbon footprint?

How could you go about changing your carbon footprint.

Some quick ways to change your carbon footprint would be to stop buying water in plastic, walk or ride a bike for some short distances, to turn off lights when not in use, use cold water cycle for washing clothes, keep stuff out of a landfill by selling stuff to thrift stores, and to carpool or use public transport

Many businesses get away with decisions that are ultimately bad for the environment because they still get money from it. This is because there are consumers that are still buying their products. How can consumers make decisions about what they buy in order to minimize their effect on the environment?

To reduce the impact on the environment, consumers could buy food with recyclable packaging. For example, they can buy food with cardboard and glass packaging, instead of plastic ones. Thus, they can reduce plastic consumption and learn how to make efficient and environmentally friendly purchases.

I agree, with the amount of plastic packaging out there it all adds up and eventually will be too much. We have control over what we are buying and we can take even more control by buying things that are packaged with glass and or cardboard.

As the solutions are listed, the implementation of the solutions need to be listed as well. How would we get people to look for products with recyclable packaging? How would we get people to actually recycle the recyclable products? Solving the problem is not simply coming up with solutions, rather finding ways to implement said solutions.

A study has been shown noting that what you eat heavily correlates to your emissions. Researchers at the University of Sheffield tested the Co2 Emissions of 60,000 Japanese households and came to the conclusion that "the more sweets, alcohol, and food from restaurants, the higher the household carbon footprint." Additionally, livestock produces 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions. Taking all this data into account is quite important since the direct effects of human carbon emissions have caused heavy climate change. If humans were to indulge in less red meat, candy, and alcohol, this could help take a step towards reducing the carbon footprint. The next time you eat, take this into account! Change is necessary to reduce this warming world.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020 … ouseholds/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cow-b … hange-that

I find your statement quite interesting. Pertaining to humans eating an abundance of red meat, I recently watched a documentary on how red meat used to be considered a delicacy during the time of hunter gatherers, and how in today's society the amount of red meat being consumed is correlates with the deteriorating human condition and climate change.

The study's findings underscore the undeniable link between our dietary choices and carbon emissions, emphasizing the significance of personal decisions in the fight against climate change. It's a stark reminder that what we eat isn't just about personal health but has far-reaching environmental implications. The statistics regarding the livestock industry's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions serve as a wake-up call. To make a real impact on reducing our carbon footprint and addressing the challenges posed by climate change, we should all seriously consider making more sustainable food choices and support broader systemic changes. It's a shared responsibility, and this study highlights the urgency of taking action to combat the warming world we face.

Recycling is the action of converting wastes such as plastics, glass bottles, and jars, into reusable material. The act of recycling is portrayed as a practice that works and helps out the environment, but in actuality, the method of recycling is only partly successful. With this post I seek to prove that recycling isn't an efficient method of helping our polluted environment, and we must find a better way of dealing with our plastic problem.   

Contention One: Waste Sorting
According to a U.C. Santa Barbera study, only 34% of recyclable material is correctly sorted in the United States. Through that same study it was found that over 74% of material, regardless of categorization, was dumped into landfill. These statistics show that despite the ability to recycle, there aren't enough people who are correctly sorting their waste correctly to allow the processes of recycling to work. Of that 34% of correctly sorted recyclable material, 25% has been contaminated according to a Columbia Study. With all of these obstructions in place, only a small amount of material that is placed in the recycling bin is truly put through the process of recycling.

Contention Two : The Recycling Process
Energy plants in the United States are a contributor to pollution and air contamination. According to a Human Rights Watch study on how recycling plants impact the environment, they found that "Untreated wastewater from recycling facilities are likely contaminated with toxic pollutants that can harm people and biodiversity. Plastic melting facilities emit volatile organic compounds . . . Toxic chemicals, including carcinogens and VOCs, pollute air both inside facilities and in areas near recycling facilities" (Human Rights Watch 2022, See Sources for Link). Further research shows that these practices happen not only in the United States, but in other countries, showing that the damage that recycling plants cause is worldwide.

Contention Three : Remnants of Recycling
Despite recycling plants breaking down plastics and metals, only a minor part of recyclable wastes are truly repurposed. For example, an NPR funded research study, only 5% of recyclable plastics are reused. The rest of these plastics are thrown into landfill by recycling companies such Waste Management (WM). That 5% of recycled plastic is turned into plastic bags that further taint our environment, and can no longer be recycled.

Sources:
U.C. Santa Barbera Study https://www.dfss.ucsb.edu/sites/default … ctices.pdf

Colombia Study
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/ … g-america/

Human Rights Watch on Climate Change
https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/09/21/i … odiversity.

NPR Study on Results of Recycling
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/11311310 … 20landfill.

Very Interesting, and I mostly agree with what you wrote. You briefly mentioned that the process for recycling plastics is not infinite, and I would like to further explain. A majority of plastics that are technically classified as ‘recyclable’ aren’t fully recyclable. For example, polystyrene (plastic #6), better known as foam, isn’t recyclable at many major recycling facilities (https://sanjoserecycles.org/guide/foam- … lystyrene/), and even when it can, the recycling process is very inefficient. It can also very easily blow into the environment where it leeches harmful chemicals that damages wildlife and the environment. Additionally, PET plastic (plastic #1) has many unique categories that can’t be recycled together, and requires more plastic to be added each time it is recycled, meaning that more plastic is being produced, completely defeating the supposed purpose of recycling. Only 9% of waste enters the recycling process, and even less ends up actually being recycled. In my opinion, the only solution is to stop the companies that produce this plastic, either via a boycott, governmental regulations, or some other means.

Sources: A brief read-through of the sources listed in the previous post and; https://www.rainbowrecycling.org/what-p … 20recycled.  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … al/661141/  https://sanjoserecycles.org/guide/1-plastic-pet/ https://sanjoserecycles.org/guide/foam- … lystyrene/

Hello -

I recently completed the Carbon Footprint Calculator and found that my yearly output is extremely high (around 28000kg). For context - I flew a total of 16 plane trips last calendar year, this is because my father has been traveling around the world for long periods of time and thus I have been visiting him. I understand that the obvious solution would be to reduce the amount of trips I take, yet I already stretch them quite far apart (5-7 Months, yet I have included layovers in my calculation along with a few trips from 2021.). Does anyone have an idea that would help reduce my carbon footprint while still haven’t the opportunity to visit my Dad?

Thanks .

Hello fellow student. I am extremely concerned by your carbon footprint. Since planes are so bad maybe try riding a horse instead of flying.

?

I think traveling in planes in definitely a big contributor to climate change and our carbon emissions. I unfortunately, will be traveling a couple times this year and i wish there were other ways to travel the world without creating more carbon. I think since multiple people travel together, it makes the amount of carbon were putting into the environment more justified.

Hello fellow student, While your carbon footprint is higher than most it is important to put everything into perspective. You should certainly make an effort to reduce travel and to take more direct routes if possible, but in then end in our highly industrialized world there is little you can do when it becomes necessary for you to travel internationally. And remember where most of the emissions come from, 100 of the largest corporations create over 70% of a the carbon emissions in the world, so if there is truly nothing you can do to avoid the travel in the first place there is no need to feel too guilty.

Recently I have chosen to buy peanut butter that is packaged in glass jars instead of plastic ones. With the plastic jar I usually recycled it. With the glass jar I can reuse it to drink out of.

Hello, I completely agree with you, we must now promote the use of glass or wood so that we can leave future generations a clean and safe planet. Indeed, plastics pollute the fauna and flora which has a direct impact on our lives but also on those of our animals. Thus, there are several alternatives including the use of glass as you said or other biodegradable materials which will allow us to do recycling. In my case, I prefer to take a gourd to go to school instead of every day buy a new bottle of water.

Hello, I also agree and I use metal straws when drinking coffee in the morning, and I also try my best to not use a plastic water bottle every day and reuse them for 2 days.

Hello! I love this idea! As someone that eats a lot of peanut butter and is passionate about the environment, this is a great idea. I also believe it is important to bring your own portable mug or bottle to coffee shops. Opposed to continually getting a plastic cup that will end up in a landfill.

This is a great idea! Coming from a family that is highly against using plastic containers (even if we do we try to reuse those too) i think the peanut butter from glass jars would be a great idea. It also help with purchasing like cups or containers because you could turn the jars into those things easily. Just takes a quick wash. I also feel like we could change many other things from plastic to glass, or even metal if you’re worried about glass breaking too often.

This is such a cool thread! Personally, at my house, we use those Mason jars to drink out of. Those things survive a long time and you can reuse them for virtually forever. But we also use them as storage containers. For example, instead of buying granola from the store, we bake it and then store it in one of the giant Mason jars.

Great idea I'm glad there are so many people in the world who care about the environment

Same, I use my glass jars as small birdhouses that the birds can make a nest in,

Swapping plastic containers with glass ones is a really good step into becoming more eco-friendly and it doesn't even require that much effort, so almost everyone should be able to do that. Moreover, glass containers are more hygienic, and easier to reuse or recycle into something better, something that you will get more use out of.

I agree that we should limit the amount of plastic items we buy, and try to buy glass ones instead, as they are much better for the environment! We can also stop buying plastic water bottles and use our glass or metal water bottles instead And, we can replace plastic straws with paper or metal straws.

My family often keeps the jars we get for jam, and use it for storing other things. The stuff that we usually end up putting in there is generally spices of some kind. Glass jars also make good containers for water when you paint, so that’s often a use. I saw someone here saying that they made birdhouses out of jars, which is a really cool idea! It sounds interesting to try.

I agree that glass containers are better for the environment than plastic ones, for many reasons. It is much easier to recycle them, they tend to be more durable and therefore better sorted to reuse, and they do not break down into micro plastics that harm sea animals. My family always tries to buy packaged food in glass whenever we can, but sometimes it just isn’t possible. Either there is no option in glass, or the sustainable option is much more expensive. It’s the system that needs changing in this case, for example the rules in place surrounding food packaging. Otherwise, the situation will not significantly improve.

There's an entire subforum on here about ocean acidification and the ramifactions that has, but equally important and significantly less talked about is the decline of insect populations. Maybe it's because we just don't like bugs as much as we like sea turtles, but the ecological impact is going to be severe.

Personally, the contrast between my childhood memories and what I see now is astonishing. A few years after I moved to the house I live in now, around 2007-2008, I can remember huge amounts of black swallowtail and cloudless sulphur butterflies, and keeping some of the caterpillars in a jar inside to watch them pupate and hatch. But this year I can only remember seeing maybe three or four swallowtails, and only a couple of the cloudless sulphurs. We would get swarms of lovebugs in October, literally thousands in the air and of every available surface, but I only saw a few handfuls last year. I have only seen one carpenter bee so far this spring. We don't have to clean the windsheilds or grills of our car anymore. There are even fewer roaches and palmetto bugs at night.

I know this is a global issue, but the personal impact is just so stark.

Here's an article without a paywall if anyone isn't acquainted with this already: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/201 … -look.html

I'm in a subtropical region of the US, what is it like elsewhere?

You make a really good point about the impact on the insects. They’re a really important part of ecosystems, so the effect that their decline will have spans even larger. I personally am not as interested in insects as I am in other organisms, but they play a huge role in food chains and things like pollination. The decrease in diversity you’ve mentioned also sounds really concerning too, with much less of the insects that you were used to seeing before.

When I was calculating my carbon footprint thru the advanced carbon footprint calculator, there was a question about how much data do you use in a month on your phone and that intrigued me because I never thought of data affecting my carbon footprint? Like does the amount of energy it takes to “make” a gb of data affects your carbon footprint? A source I found “Honey Mobile” said this about mobile data, “using 1GB of data uses 0.3kg of CO2”

That's really interesting, this is the first time I myself though about how our daily data usage could unknowingly contribute to our carbon footprint. I think this widens the conversation about how we could be even more sustainable in our day to day lives.

Since the beginning of the conflict currently afflicting Ukraine began I have been concerned about the ecological ramifications of another meltdown occurring at one of Ukraine's few remaining nuclear power plants. It should be apparent that this is not a good thing environmentally speaking.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.market … 1646352432

A delegation of the International Atomic Energy Agency led by Rafael Grossi, director general of the agency, left today for the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. I hope it will change the situation for the better

That could pose a significant threat, however, it is a very unlikely scenario given today's circumstances, contact a team of experts among your local professionals to make sure you get fast help

Nuclear power plant meltdown is damaging, but there are many preparations in place in the scenario it does melt down. If one did go down, it would likely be due to an attack by Russia, which is unlikely since it would put them in international trouble.

We all know that Biodiversity contributes a lot to the formation of our natural system, but how is this related to the emission of Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse gases? I remember that I used to read a report about chain effects in ecosystems. An Invasive species of algae occupied a major water body and emerged as a prevailing species here. It consumes most of the oxygen contained within the water. This led to the suffocation of many fish and waterborne animals. The water also became acid because too much CO2 emitted by the algae dissolved into it and reduced the capacity for it to absorb greenhouse gasses, which indirectly led to global warming. Are there other examples of this kind of event?

When you think of the people mainly responsible for climate change, who do you think of? I think of the big companies that extract fossil fuels from the ground, or cut down forests to make more space for cattle and other agriculture; But we can’t put all the blame on them. It is also on us, whether we want to accept it or not. Without us, these companies would have no power because no one would be buying their products and therefore they wouldn’t be making any money. All these companies care about is how much money they make, so if we stop supporting them they will stop. We have hit a point where small things like recycling aren't going to be enough to make a big enough change to stop the Impacts of climate change. We need to change the big things, we are in more control of them than we realize. As much as I wish they would, we all know that these companies aren’t going to take responsibility for their actions, which is why we need to take responsibility for ours. Before we fight against these companies and blame them for what they are doing wrong, we need to think about how our actions tie in. I’m not trying to defend them, because what they’re doing is wrong and they should admit that instead of denying it; but how can you protest against deforestation, and fossil fuel extraction, but still use gas to fuel your car, electricity in your home or continue to eat meat at every meal? I know that we won't be able to change right away, it will take time and it won't be easy, but we need to start looking for more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives to our everyday lifestyle. When we have done that then we will hold all the power against these companies.

K-Gauthier, I totally share your frustration and agree that we need to simultaneously think about how our own actions contribute to climate change, how companies have an especially large impact here (much laerger than  any individual) and that we need to put all kinds of pressure on these companies to change their ways.  Yes, this starts with making sure that we vote with our wallets, as it were, by not buying things from companies we support.  And then expanding these actions to others (e.g., sharing our views like you are doing here on this website!), and actions that might influence policies of local governments on up to national and international decision making.  We are the only ones who can make a difference here, so we can't give up.  Best, Jason

This is a very in-depth and educated analysis! I definitely agree that the power of the consumer is much greater than that of the business as long as we can work together. A company’s main goal is to make money, so as long as they’re doing that, they won’t stop. The only way to stop these types of companies is to show that doing this won’t make them money. The only way to do that is to not give them our business.

That's a great analysis of the current situation, and I think that we are already on the path towards this future. We have several renewable resources, such as wind, solar, and hydro, and we aren't there yet, but we are getting there with solar increasing it's efficiency, and new technology to put wind in the ocean and coastal regions so that there is constant wind blowing, I think that we can all look forward to a better future. However, there should be something that we as the consumer, and that the government can do. The government should hand out subsides, and have tax cuts for the companies that have renewable energy sources. Along with that I think that there should be more choice for consumers, so that instead of how it is today, where each neighborhood has just one supplier of gas and electricity, we should have more than one company, so that the consumer can select the one that is using renewables, as renewable energy is often cheaper than traditional coal powerplants as well. I know that this cannot all happen at once, and that it is easier said than done, but it is possible, and with government and consumer backing it could very well happen in newer communities.

I agree, humans actions have a big affection to climate change and how companies have a large impact as well. Humans can stop certain habits and that can help putting an end to the non-eco-friendly companies. Reducing energy consumption, choosing sustainable supplies, reducing waste, are all sorts of actions that can help fight climate change. If everyone does these things, the world could make a difference and that is what we want.

One of the major contributors to global warming is excess methane from livestock. Besides eating less meat, what are some other ways we can reduce methane emissions from livestock?

Greenhouse gases and carbon emissions can come from both individual houses and company-owned factories. While companies generally have a greater impact, the individual can generally control their own carbon footprint better than they can that of large corporations. What is the level of responsibility of each? Should there be a balance between individual and corporate responsibility? Should an individual focus more on their own carbon footprint or work to bring down that of bigger contributors?

When I was calculating my carbon footprint thru the advanced carbon footprint calculator there was a question on how much often do you eat organic foods and this intrigued me because how does organic foods affect carbon footprint, does it affect less/more on your carbon footprint than non-organic foods? Like does organic foods need less/more resources to grow than non-organic foods? A source I found “ABC science news” said this about organic foods “Organic food crops mostly produce less CO2 emissions, but they also have smaller yields. Making up the difference in yield pushes organic emissions above non-organic.”

When I was calculating my carbon footprint thru the advanced carbon footprint calculator there was a question that said how many hours in a day do you use major home electronics like stereo, this made me wonder, does streaming music online make more/less carbon than playing music on a cd or something similar?                                                                                                   A source I found “phys.org” said this about streaming online music. The greenhouse gases produced by recorded music were 136m kg in 1988 and 200 to over 350m kg in 2016.

It's a harsh term to call ourselves and I apologize, but it seems appropriate in this context. We've been taking things from the Earth and slowly killing it, not giving enough back. But there are a lot of good people in this world who want to help restore Earth's resources and find a balance between man and nature. This planet is very special, we shouldn't let it die so soon.

I agree I think we should do better to preserve the earth instead of treating it so poorly

Although it is natural, too many greenhouse gases can have a negative impact on our planet. For example, in the Arctic, the ice is melting at a concerning rate due to the earth getting warmer. Unfortunately, it's being caused by us. Humans increased the greenhouse gas rate to about 90% in 1970. This is very concerning, plus, the arctic plays an important role on keeping this planet livable. Without it, temperatures would rise even more and we'd all be unable to live on Earth. Hopefully, soon we'll be able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions on this planet and keep life going for future generations.

Many people don't actually realize how detrimental buying from retailers can be. A lot of the cheap-and sometimes not so cheap- accessible clothing we buy in malls and online use unsustainable labor practices, such as wasting valuable fabric that used a lot of emissions in being created. The textile industry produces nearly 1.2 billion tons of CO2 emissions! Also, a lot of clothing that is still quality is thrown away in the landfill instead of being reused or given to someone who is not as fortunate! If you want to learn more about this, here's a good article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0058-9

I agree, the textile industry is not environmentally friendly. To help solve this problem be sure to use or buy as many second-hand clothes and shoes as possible.

Totally agree and not to mention some big fashion designers use fox fur which is a huge threat to fox population.

I agree, so many people buy huge amounts of clothing at cheap prices and create so many emissions, just to give them away in a few months.

I agree as well the fast-fashion industry is bad for the environment. We should buy the clothing we need from second hand stores and donate our clothes when they are still in decent condition (if they are not in great condition(stiches coming undone, rips/tear,...) then if you have decent sewing skills you could even fix them or alter them so you or someone else can keep wearing them) to those second hand stores or even use something called freecycle or something similar to donate clothes for free. That way instead of them sitting around in a thrift store and eventually being thrown away someone who needs it can get it for free.
Also did you know that clothes used to be so much more durable and long lasting, for example tights which now break at one touch used to be able to tow a truck.

Something else to think about with this topic is the harm the making of these cheap clothing items have on the enviroment. In a news story today posted by CBC (a respected news station in Canada) they identified high levels of harmful chemicals like lead in clothing sold by cheap fast fashion online shops. We have to think about not just the harm that these chemicals are doing to the people wearing this clothing but also to the harm that it's doing to the people making the clothes (often low wage employees touching and breathing in toxins) and the effect on the environment (like the rivers the chemicals are being washed into and the landfills extra fabric is being dumped in.)

I approve and support!  Many people buy clothes from the fashion industry without realizing that there are far too many clothing items in the consumer's closet.

In history climate change has been due to natural occurrences, but this kind of climate change is different. This kind of climate change is due to our impacts. It's different because in history it occurred at a much slower speed and gave time for plants and animals to adapt. This kind of climate change is happening at a speed that plants and animals can't adapt, and is injuring the environment.

how long do you think it'll take to solve climate change, and will it be solved or will we all die?

Maybe. I think it's too late to prevent climate change, but we can still slow it down.

Eco-friendly materials, furnishings, and other green building techniques are becoming very popular. More homeowners are considering how their home construction affects their health, their energy consumption, and the environment. This has led to a trend among builders and homeowners who now use more sustainable and green construction materials and methods in new buildings and home renovations. ¿What Do you think about this?

I think that people caring more about how their home gets built and what furniture used in there would help them while also the environment. I found a site where they have eco friendly houses that are really cool. https://www.homestratosphere.com/types- … dly-homes/ .I feel like more people should live in more eco friendly homes.

I think this is very beneficial to the environment. More people should build sustainably and eco-friendly. This looks like a building wave of the future, and I am glad people are moving in this direction.

Das ist ein toller Trend! Kürzlich las ich über den Bau eines Kasinos, für den ein See trockengelegt werden musste. Da fragt man sich: Warum? Online-Casinos sind jetzt sehr beliebt, ich selbst spiele in einem https://www.slotozilla.com/de/freispiele . Es ist genau wie ein normales Casino, nur dass es manchmal cooler ist: Sie geben Ihnen Freispiele als Bonus. Warum also die Natur zerstören und töten?

I see the humans with extreme pessimist point of view i blame them for the extinction of several thousand animal species and they caused the global warming by raising animals producing electricity ect...

Give some examples please.

over fishing
Cars
Deforestation
Petrol extraction
Wars
Over hunting

trash in our oceans
having to save animals because of our stupid decisions
the fact we have to have breeding programs for almost extinct animals because of us
elephant ivory black market
and more......

Ok, human are bad, then what? I don't think this kind of thought leads us to any practical solution. So beyond discussing about whether human are bad or not we rather have to focus on our current problemes.

Our biggest problem is that our governements that have the power to help stop the global warming but they just care to watch their computer and having a nice sofa on he wich they can put their ass on.

This is a difficult topic for a lot of people, but I have to say I agree with you on this. Humans have done far more damage to the planet than any other force in its entire history (maybe except for events like the Chicxulub impact that killed most things 65 million years ago).

You are right about humans doing a ton of horrible things in our history. But I think that it is more important to focus on what we can do to make up for those mistakes, rather than dwell in the past. All of the bad things that you mentioned are issues that many people are dedicating their lives to solving. Even though humans are ruining this planet we have also done many amazing things. The bad outweighs the good obviously, but we can learn from both the bad and the good.

I agree! Humans don't care about planet earth, and we should not be polluting our planet. We should be taking care of our planet, because if we don't reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, we will eventually destroy animal's lives and our lives too.

The only problem is that if the humans change everything to natural energy and it produces 4 times less than the fossil fuel so it will occupy 4 times the spaces involved in fossil uels industry that meanig more cutting down trees. But fossil fuels pollute a lot more than natural fuels and destroying those places will be even more plluting. Third of all even if all the people on earth say to change it will cost an enormity to the governement eradicating those factories so the removal can only be done little by little. Thank you for your attention zenone2.
If you want to contact me my email is m.sassi26@ejm.org

we need to stop using fossil fuels

Jayarr you have to develop yur statement a bit

We can reduce home energy

Developement of idea daaaa

I agree with you that humans harm our planet. But in my opinion, humans are not that bad anymore. Right now people are doing their best to improve the environment. Many eco supportive programs are being created, different companies change their products and the number of cars and rubbish has greatly decreased. The attitude is changing. I hope that our environmental problems will improve soon.

People all over the world talk of green and economical growth and ecologie but have the same bad ideas that brought us in this mess !!????

I don't think humans are bad. The things we are doing are bad. But develop more about your statement.

Humans can be in some aspects badddd. BUt , if ur a fellow human. How would u feel??? Taking actions are not a joke, please elaborate pon ur point @Zenone.

I agree that not all humans are bad. Sure they have done some things to harm our planet, but they have also done so many things to help our planet such as starting organizations like 4ocean.

I do agree that some human are bad, but we are also humans. I think we should not be blaming ourselves but instead reflect on we can do better to make a world a better place. : ) For example what others said above, maybe we can think of changing everything into natural energy and not using fossil etc... (sorry for the bad grammar)

I agree on some parts. I understand how more than 500 species has gone extinct because of humans but I don't think that humans are bad just because of the things you stated a lot of people are fighting against climate change so not all humans are bad. And if you want to fight against climate change we should start using more eco friendly products.

I agree with this sentiment to a degree, as it is very clear that not all people are ignorant to the ecological needs of our world, but is is incredibly sad to see the lengths at which corporations will pollute our world to make profits.

Yes humans are bad. People make lots of fossil fuels, waste lots of food, cut down way to many trees, and force tons of animals to extinction. We have been killing lots of animals that are almost extinct. This can mess up the carbon cycle and in the long term start something very bad. Something like a mass extinction.

Do you think that there are any differences between the carbon footprints of warmer and colder regions, and if so, why do you think that this might be so?

Hi Franklin! Yes, I think thet carbon footprints bentween warmer and colder regions are different, this because for example in colder regions people use more warming instruments, also in warmer regions people use more green veicles like bikes.

Yes, I think there are differences between colder and warmer regions, because in warmer regions people are more likely to walk or ride bicycles, on the contrary in colder regions people use more cars and other things to warm up

Bycatch is a dangerous practice that has led to a decrease in marine biodiversity. Bycatch is the unintentional catch of any marine wildlife by fisheries. If a fishing boat went out to catch Tuna but caught several sharks, the sharks would be considered bycatch. For this reason, bycatch is almost always tossed overboard as waste. Most marine creatures do not survive this process. Each year, 300,000 small whales and dolphins are killed due to bycatch. Hundreds of thousands of fish, turtles, and seabirds are killed due to this gruesome practice. Bycatch is the biggest threat to the survival of many marine species.
https://www.fishforward.eu/en/project/by-catch/

From doing the carbon footprint calculator I’ve found that my flight across the country released a huge amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. At first I thought that flying is just a bad option for traveling but then I realized that driving the same distance probably is even worse. Anyone know if it would be better for the environment to drive instead of fly?

I, too, was also very disappointed to see just how much travel contributes to my carbon footprint. Now, whether driving or flying is better generally depends on the  circumstance. For example, the less people on a plane, the less greenhouse gases are produced per person. However, I did find an article that said this; “a study by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute states the energy intensity of car transportation is on average 57% higher than air transports...because they consume more energy to transport the same amount of passengers.” But this also depends on the type of car and the amount of people in it.

We all know these corporations won't change. They will preach about climate change all they can and asking us to save the climate while they sit there and do nothing. We all know that they are the problem but they want us to change. I mean don't get me wrong we could help in some ways but the earth's getting hotter faster than we can cool it because of corporations. Should we introduce new laws to help the climate? If so what?

I fully agree with you about how corporations will not change, however I feel like laws would be too far. While the fossil fuel industry is cheap for the corporations, it is also cheap for the consumer. The transition between reliance on coal and oil to reliance on solar panels and wind turbines would most likely make electricity very expensive for some people who need it.

I believe that people leave too much carbon footprint.Therefore, we need to approach to this issue more wisely and try to leave carbon footprint as little as possible.Don’t forget about ecology.

I agree with you

The world will be a better place if: we produce less house hold and industrial waste, perform waste water treatment, use clean anergy sources and protect and restore lands and forests

The small details we tend to forget; here are some small ways to reduce your carbon footprint.
- Eat low on the food chain. As you move up in the food chain 90% of energy is released in heat. If you eat lower you will reduce that waste.
- If you are going to fly, fly nonstop since landings and takeoffs use more fuel and produce more emissions.
- Keep the tires on your car properly inflated and get regular tune-ups. When your car’s tires are low on pressure, it has to work harder to move from point A to point B, wasting gas and increasing emissions in the process.
- Consume less. Simply buying less stuff is a good route to lower emissions

i've never thought about this before but i absolutely will now!Lots of people don't realise that things as simple as this can have a pretty big affect on their footprints.

I agree with you and I don' think people realize how big of a difference it would make if something like every person had a vegetarian meal once a week. Something so small would make a big difference if everyone did it which people need to be shown.

I agree, the least we could do to help with climate change is make these little simple changes in our lives. Yes these ideas would definitely make a large impact on your personal carbon footprint! If everyone in the world were to do this it would be great. There are many other options to reducing your carbon footprint, like; not buying the new iPhone as soon as it comes out, not buying new clothes and giving away your old clothes to friends and family or just people who need them. These are all great and very simple ways to reduce your own carbon footprint.

Believe it or not, agricultural by-products, such as meat, poultry, vegetables, contribute more to global warming than transport fuel burning. Around four hundred twenty billion liters of methane is produced daily by the 1.4 billion cows on Earth. Even though methane dissipates faster than CO2, it is 28 times as potent to the warming of the Atmosphere. So EAT MORE MEAT..... 

I think eating meat is good, but you should have a more balanced diet. And here's a video to help you learn more about eating meat.

oh wow i thought that it would be better to eat less meat so that their are less animals being killed but i guess thats a good point to maybe eat more meat and have a balanced diet

oh wow i thought that it would be better to eat less meat so that their are less animals being killed but i guess thats a good point to maybe eat more meat and have a balanced diet

I personally dot eat meat and think that eating meat is fine but in my opinion the way we are mass producing meat is very bad for the environment. The video i linked has some really good meat substitutes and info about how meat can be bad for the environment.

Something we can do to do less pollution and have a better world and here are soem examples and a video
less throwing trash in the ocean
less carbon dioxide

Something we can do to do less pollution and have a better world and here are soem examples and a video
less throwing trash in the ocean
less carbon dioxide

This is a very interesting fact to take into consideration but because of supply and demand, The more animals we eat the more animals there will be. I believe that by limiting our diet and reducing the amount of meat we eat in our day to day lives, we can lessen the demand for meat products and in turn, reducing the effects the agricultural industry has on our planet. 

Eating a little bit of meat isn't bad, but the way we're currently producing meat is really bad for the environment. The amount of animals on this planet that we somehow own or care for is a whopping 60%. crazy isn't it? another thing to think about is that the amount of land in the USA that livestock are taking up is 41%, that's about 800 million acres. now that doesn't mean you have to stop eating meat, just try to eat less.

The person who started this post chain had their first facts correct. Yes animal agriculture produces more carbon than the whole transportation system. Also most of rainforest deforestation was to make space for grazing fields for cows, and the worlds cow population consumes 45 billion gallons of water and 135 billion pounds of food daily, so if you think of all the carbon that goes into produce all of that grain for the cows, that must be a huge amount. So why would eating more meat be good for the environment when it produces so much carbon, and causes all kinds of deforestation all over the world? Also if all the feed we are currently feeding to cows goes to people who are going hungry because their food is used for animal agriculture, wouldn't that be better? So in my opinion all of the facts point to eating LESS meat.

Yes, I totally agree, eating less meat would definitely be better for the environment. There's lots of data supporting this idea as well. Animal agriculture actually makes up for 51% or more of greenhouse gas emissions. like you said a lot of deforestation is happening just to raise cows. Eating less meat would lower the demand for it. Less demand means less production of meat, which means less cows releasing greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

You have a great point but thats not the case. If we eat more cows thats just making the problem right now worse because the more we eat them the more cows there will be. And the more cows there is the more resources we need in order to feed them. Also eating too much meat is unhealthy so it's important for you to have a balanced and healthy diet, not just eating animals put more green in your foods.

I respect your opinion but I disagree. We shouldn’t eat more meat. Since the only reason why there’s so many of those animals is since their forced to. If they were locked in cages to be fed un healthy things, forced to make baby animals and being killed that takes about 2 months of shower water to make one pound of meat. So if we stop fixing animals to do all that and just let them roam and help gardens so DONT EAT MEAT

I understand that in your point of view if we eat more meat then there will be less cows which means less methane released into the atmosphere by them but...that's not true. If we eat more meat there will be a higher demand on meat in the animal agricultural industry and more cows will be bred. With more cows bred more methane will keep on being released and more water will be used for cow feed. This is the cycle that has been going on for over a hundred years. As you said, four hundred twenty billion litres of methane is released daily by the 1.4 billion cows on the earth, and if we ate more meat those four hundred twenty billion litres of methane would increase. In the end what we should actually do is EAT LESS MEAT. If we become more plant-based eaters the demand of cows and meat will decrease, therefore methane emissions caused by animal agriculture will also decrease. If you want to learn more than I recommend watching this documentary https://g.co/kgs/fdJKqp

I never knew that meat, poultry and vegetables contribute more to climate change then transport fuel burning. This is mind blowing to hear because eating meat is very popular all across the world. Your facts and data sparked a light in me to eat less meat. Also, the 1.4 billion cows in our earth do not help with this issue. I now know the harms of eating meat and now can educate people about this issue.

Testing to see if I can edit & delete a post

no, unfortunately, that is not currently possible.  I have been meaning to
look into the documentation for the forum software we use to see if we can set something like that up.

In the meantime, I (as admin) am the only one who can manually edit or delete posts.

Il mio pensiero e quello di ridurre l'anidride carbonica nell'atmosfera, perché come tutti sappiamo l'anidride carbonica nell'atmosfera inquina e per fare questo ci sono delle soluzioni, ovvero rendere un mondo più sostenibile e responsabile. Altre soluzioni sono: Anzichè usare l'auto possiamo usare la bici o andare a piedi nei luoghi vicini, fare la raccolta differenziata, non buttare i mozziconi di sigaretta a terra.

According to UNHCR, an average of 20 million people are displaced from their homes by natural disasters. Examples of natural disasters that cause the wreckage of homes and safety are droughts, fires, floods, and extreme weather conditions. These are all caused by climate change. Greenhouse gases are rising in the atmosphere, caused mostly by human activity, which unbalances the natural system of keeping the Earth habitual. The more our carbon footprint increases, the more natural disasters are bound to happen. Fires in California are becoming more and more common, with 52,113 taking place last year. Those fires caused the destruction of homes and the homelessness of families, much like the flood in Florida did, caused by a concerningly huge hurricane. If the world fails to reduce the uses of greenhouse gases, especially carbon, the lives and integrity of citizens will become more and more threatened by these disasters.

We do a lot as my students will let you know soon...

At the cafeteria, we eat organic, local food when it's possible, vegeterian meals are available

We sort out our waste at the cafeteria

When we connect on the school computers we can use Ecosia a search engine and the more we use it
the more trees are planted

There is a vegetable garden maintained by some students, called the sustainable development ambassadors. They make Jam, lemonade, and herbal teas for example. We can buy these products and the money goes to the students.

In Renaudeau we have a vegetable garden maintained by some students, called the sustainable development ambassadors.

There is a vegetable garden maintened by some strudents, called the sustainable development abassadors

We have a vegetable garden maintened by some students, called the sustainable development ambassaadors.

The lights in the new building are automatics

In our highschool, there is a partnership with an association for the protection of birds (LPO), so we have insects hotels, birds houses and there is a pond with frogs and toads

Our lights in one of our buildings are automatic

When we connect on the school computers we can use Ecosia a search engine and the more we use it
the more trees are planted

There are birdhouses, insect hotels and a pond with frogs and toads.

There are differents colors of bins in the corridors

The lights in the new building are automatics

There are differents colors of bins in the corridors

when we connect on the school's computers, we can use Ecosia, a search engine, and the more we use it the more they are planted

there are solar panels and we buy green electricity from a supplier

there is an incentive at machines to encourage students to bring back plastic cups so that they can be recycled.

At Renaudeau there are solar panels and we buy green electricity from a supplier

At the cafetaria, we eat seasonal fruit and eat food more local than possible.

Some students have volunteered to become sustainable development ambasador, to create project, propose initiatives, to encourage others students to be more eco-friendly and to learn about eco-systems, environmental issues...

We can buy these products and the money goes to the students association that sponsors the garden too

There are differents colors of bins in the corridors.

there are more and more green plants in classroom

in order to pollute less, sorting bins are in almost every corridors of the high school for the students to sort out their trash

There are different bins in the corridor, to help along the sorting in the high school.

There is a partenership with an association for the protection of birds, so we have insect hotels, bird houses, and there is a pond with frogs and toads

there are solar panels and we buy green electricity from a supplier

There are solar panels and we buy green electricity from a supplier.

A vegetable garden has been put in place in order to eat more local and for the high school to make some money over it

some students have volunteeredto become sustainable development ambassadors, to create projects ,propose iniatives ,to encorage other students to be more eco-friendly and to learn about eco-sustems,environmental issues etc...

some students have volunteeredto become sustainable development ambassadors, to create projects ,propose iniatives ,to encorage other students to be more eco-friendly and to learn about eco-sustems,environmental issues etc...

We can buy our products from the vegetable garden and the money goes to the students' association that sponsors the garden too

Our project is to re-green the high school by favouring the development of biodiversity instead of tar and concrete. For instance, there are more and more green plants in classroom.

When we connect on the school's computers, we can use Ecosia, it's a search engine and more we use it, the more trees are planted on the earth.

In my high school we have a certification called E3D. This means that we are a high school that takes care of the environment. For example, at the cafeteria, we eat organic and local food when it is possible, vegeterian meals ares available. In addition, some students have volunteered to became stainable development ambassadors to create projects and proposes initiative like the use of Ecosia in our computer. And when we use it, tress ares planted.

Most of the students don't think about clogging up our planet.
So many people think that world pollution is a myth that will  never happen. And what does that mean? Our World is  in danger, but only a small part of humanity knows that and tries to change. Other people only aggravate the situation. Everyone should talk about it, everyone should know about it, thats not a joke. People need to unite and try to 'fix' that situation on the Earth or we can live on closing our eyes and losing our Home.

Power and money are two factors that will always counter the effort to reduce to Global Warming. 3rd and 2nd World countries want to develop and industrialize while 1st world countries want to continue their hegemony. This never ending completion will continue the drive of industry and continue the warming of the world.

I’d like to pose an interesting debatable question here: If every human on Earth were to disappear, how would this affect the global climate? Would it become better, and if so, how long would that take? I personally think that the natural environment would eventually return to a stable state, but the damage that we’ve caused is bad enough that it might take several hundreds or even thousands of years to do so.

This is a more complicated question then most people think. It would be very damaging in the first month or so, but obviously benefitable in the long run. there would be permanent things that will almost never go away, sure as mount Rushmore. Here is an interesting video to watch on this subject.

From the carbon calculator, I learned that there are many ways that I can reduce my own carbon footprint in my own everyday life ranging from transportation to home appliance use. Although it can sometimes feel futile to add sustainable practices in our everyday lives when a majority of these emissions are coming from sectors that we don't have control over, I think that we all should try to make our best attempt even if the difference isn't so large.

You predicted that your footprint would be about the same as the average person in
California, United States, and higher than the average human.

Based on your input, your total footprint is 22,432 kgs of CO2 per year, compared to
an average of 9,727 kgs for California, United States, and 3791 kg (= 8358 lb) worldwide.

We as a global community need to work on cleaning up our acts and lowering our carbon footprints. However, this needs to be actively supported and encouraged by our governments. I would like to pose a couple of questions: how big a role do you think that governments should play in enforcing more environment-friendly policies on individual citizens, and should this be accomplished through mainly negative reinforcement (ie fines and bans on environmentally unsafe practices) or positive reinforcement (ie lowering prices on eco-friendly food and fuel costs and a reward system for those with lower carbon footprints)?

dang thats deep

I feel like that is one of the trade-offs when you live in a democracy like the United States. The government overall cannot play any part and tell you how much carbon waste you can or cannot exert. Doing so would void the constitution and would get rid of the best part and main attraction of our country.

I agree with you and I feel like governments need to play a larger part in Climate Change prevention due to the fact that it is an issue that we will see most likely impacting us in our lifetime. The government should play a large role unless people are able to begin being more eco friendly on a mass scale all over the world. I believe that people respond better to positive reinforcement so I feel as though that would be the best way to go about as well as creating new infrastructure that helps to push eco friendly ideas.

While every day citizens definitely need to be held accountable for their contributions to climate change, it is not the most efficient way to stop the climate crisis. The government should not weigh in on its citizens contributions to climate change before they take action on the large corporations that are currently playing the biggest role in the destruction of our planet. The government must address industrial emissions before the blame is put on the people. When our leaders finally learn to care about our planet over the economy, we can begin to secure our future. Until then, I would encourage every day people to do the best that they can when it comes to reducing their carbon footprint by reducing their intake of meat, recycling, reducing air travel and much more! Every person must do their own research and hold our leaders accountable for their immense role in the current climate crisis.

I agree with you the government should do more for citizens , for exemple :
- government requires to buy more electric cars !

I agree with you the government should do more for citizens , for exemple :
- government requires to buy more electric cars !

Although i do think a spotlight needs to be put on better informing everyday citizens on how to reduce their carbon footprint, i do agree strongly that large corporate companies are the ones who need to be dealt with by the government first. Yes there are things we can do as individuals, such as reducing our use of single use plastic, however its large companies producing them in the first place, and consumers who are put at fault for it. These large corporations need to be addressed by the government on their contributions to climate change and polluting our environment, because as consumers, we dont have other more ethical sources to support a lot of the time. The government systems need to realize that if we continue in a society where the economy is valued over the ecosystem, we wont have much of an ecosystem for very much longer.