Governments across the globe are funding record-breaking crisis packages to cope with the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. Is this the time to fund greener, more climate-friendly industries and investments?
Industrial Ecology programme
Omega-3 fatty acids are essential components of healthy diets for both humans and fish. The dramatic increase in fish farming worldwide has boosted the demand for omega-3 fatty acids so much that today’s supply can’t meet demand. Reducing waste and finding new sources can help.
Combatting global warming will require major changes in land use, a new climate change report says. One important change could be decreasing the amount of land used to produce livestock — which means that people would have to eat less meat.
Lifestyle changes can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and help protect nature. While some actions offer great potential, some aren’t as effective as we think and may even require more land and water, such as shifting to renewable energy.
We can do a lot to save the climate by switching from coal to natural gas. And we can shelve concerns about the negative climate impact of methane emissions from gas production, say researchers.
As much as 20 per cent of jet fuel burned in Norway in 2030 could be biofuel made from the country’s forest residues. This alone could cut greenhouse gas emissions from Norway’s aviation sector by 17 per cent.
Our carbon emissions are much higher than are needed for us to have happy, healthy lives. But cutting these emissions requires us to think differently about how we measure growth and progress.
Food demand is growing as people get bigger. Feeding a population of 9 billion in 2050 will require much more food than previously calculated.
The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.
Lakes choked with algae and marine “dead zones” result from too many nutrients in the water. The traditional culprit is agriculture, which relies on fertilizer to boost plant growth. But the production of consumer goods, like clothing, is also a major — and growing — contributor.
Global climate change is already affecting the globe, as demonstrated by the shrinking polar ice cap, melting glaciers and cities in the grips of longer, more intense heat waves. Now a team of researchers has conducted a radical thought experiment on how extreme land use changes could influence future climate.
A new database gives researchers — and potentially policymakers — the ability to see how global trade affects environmental impacts.
Many see cities as the new front lines of the climate change fight. Identifying the mayors and city councils in cities with the biggest carbon footprints, and the most power to make big changes, could mobilize a wave of reinforcements.
One of the key ways to combat global climate change is to boost the world’s use of renewable energy. But even green energy has its environmental costs. A new approach describes just how hydropower measures up when it comes to land use effects.
The gift-giving season is upon us, and perhaps you’re wondering how to give gifts that won’t wreck the climate. Help is on the way.
A series of first-ever maps shows regional-scale differences in carbon footprints in the EU. The maps can help guide local and regional policies designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Production of electricity is responsible for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and demand is poised to rise as underserved populations connect to the grid, and electronics and electric vehicles proliferate. So stopping global warming will require a transformation of electricity production. But it is important to avoid various environmental pitfalls in this transition, researchers say.
Scientists and policymakers rely on complex computer simulations called Integrated Assessment Models to figure out how to address climate change. But these models need tinkering to make them more accurate.
We don’t have to snuff out species when we eat a hamburger or buy a tee-shirt— if we know how our consumption affects endangered and threatened species.
A new model creates global hot spot maps to illuminate how what we buy pollutes the planet and where. The idea is to help governments, industries and individuals target areas for cleanup.
You won’t make big cuts in your environmental impact by taking shorter showers or turning out the lights. The real environmental problem, a new analysis has shown, is embodied in the things you buy.
With Norway as a case study, a first-ever effort to quantify the benefits of recycling food waste versus preventing it shows prevention is the best policy. But Norway continues to invest significant funds in biogas facilities for food waste recycling.
Policymakers, industry and government officials will have to invest US $2.5 trillion for electricity generation over the next 20 years. A new report presents the environmental costs and benefits linked to different renewable energy sources, and makes one thing abundantly clear: anything is better than coal.