main difficulty in solving environmental problems

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

Sam Altman thinks AI will change the world. All of it.

Categorical thinking can lead to investing errors

How storytelling helps data-driven teams succeed

Credit: Stephen Sauer

Ideas Made to Matter

Climate Change

The 5 greatest challenges to fighting climate change

Kara Baskin

Dec 27, 2019

Climate change: Most of the world agrees it’s a danger, but how do we conquer it? What’s holding us back? Christopher Knittel, professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management, laid out five of the biggest challenges in a recent interview.

CO2 is a global pollutant that can’t be locally contained

“The first key feature of climate change that puts it at odds with past environmental issues is that it’s a global pollutant, rather than a local pollutant. [Whether] I release a ton of CO2 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or in London, it does the same damage to the globe,” Knittel said. “Contrast that with local pollutants, where if I release a ton of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide in Cambridge, the majority of the damage stays near Cambridge.”

Thus, CO2 is far harder to manage and regulate.

For now, climate change is still hypothetical

The damage caused by most climate change pollutants will happen in the future. Which means most of us won’t truly be affected by climate change — it’s a hypothetical scenario conveyed in charts and graphs. While we’d like politicians and voters to be moved by altruism, this isn’t always the case. In general, policymakers have little incentive to act.

“People [who stand to be] most harmed by climate change aren’t even born yet. Going back to the policymaker’s perspective, she has much less of an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because those reductions are going to benefit voters in the future and not her current voters,” Knittel said.

There’s no direct link to a smoking gun

Despite the global threat from climate-altering pollutants, it’s hard for scientists to link them to a specific environmental disaster, Knittel said. Without a definitive culprit, it’s easier for skeptics to ignore or explain away climate change effects.

Developing countries contribute to a large share of pollution

Simply put, this isn’t their top priority.

“We’re asking very poor countries that are worried about where their next meal is coming from, or whether they can send their kids to school, to incur costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to benefit the world. And that’s a tough ask for a policymaker inside of a developing country,” he said.

Modern living is part of the problem

It’s a tough pill to swallow, but modern conveniences like electricity, transportation, and air conditioning contribute to climate change, and remedies potentially involve significant sacrifice and lifestyle change.

“Although we’ve seen great strides in reductions in solar costs and batteries for electric vehicles, these are still expensive alternatives. There is no free lunch when it comes to overcoming climate change,” Knittel warned.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times  recently, Knittel said, “If an evil genius had set out to design the perfect environmental crisis … those five factors would have made climate change a brilliant choice. But we didn’t need an evil genius. We stumbled into it on our own.”

Read next — Climate experts: Clean tech is here, now we need people power

Related Articles

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The five biggest threats to our natural world … and how we can stop them

From destructive land use to invasive species, scientists have identified the main drivers of biodiversity loss – so that countries can collectively act to tackle them

• Read more on the Cop15 talks to negotiate new UN targets to protect biodiversity in the coming decade
• 1 Changes in land and sea use
• 2 Direct exploitation of natural resources
• 3 The climate crisis
• 4 Pollution
• 5 Invasive species

T he world’s wildlife populations have plummeted by more than two-thirds since 1970 – and there are no signs that this downward trend is slowing. The first phase of Cop15 talks in Kunming this week will lay the groundwork for governments to draw up a global agreement next year to halt the loss of nature. If they are to succeed, they will need to tackle what the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) has identified as the five key drivers of biodiversity loss: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of natural resources; climate change; pollution; and invasion of alien species.

Changes in land and sea use

Clearing the US prairies: ‘On a par with tropical deforestation’

“It’s hidden destruction. We’re still losing grasslands in the US at a rate of half a million acres a year or more.”

Tyler Lark, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, knows what he is talking about. Lark and a team of researchers used satellite data to map the expansion and abandonment of land across the US and discovered that 4m hectares (10m acres) had been destroyed between 2008 and 2016.

Large swathes of the United States’ great prairies continue to be converted into cropland, according to the research, to make way for soya bean, corn and wheat farming.

Changes in land and sea use has been identified as the main driver of “unprecedented” biodiversity and ecosystem change over the past 50 years. ​​ Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions.

North America’s grasslands – often referred to as prairies – are a case in point. In the US, about half have been converted since European settlement , and the most fertile land is already being used for agriculture. Areas converted more recently are sub-prime agricultural land, with 70% of yields lower than the national average, which means a lot of biodiversity is being lost for diminishing returns.

“Our findings demonstrate a pervasive pattern of encroachment into areas that are increasingly marginal for production but highly significant for wildlife,” Lark and his team wrote in the paper , published in Nature Communications.

Boggier areas of land, or those with uneven terrain, were traditionally left as grassland, but in the past few decades, this marginal land has also been converted. In the US, 88% of cropland expansion takes place on grassland, and much of this is happening in the Great Plains – known as America’s breadbasket – which used to be the most extensive grassland in the world.

What are the five biggest threats to biodiversity?

According to the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity there are  five main threats  to biodiversity. In descending order these are: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of natural resources; climate change; pollution and invasive species. 

1. For terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, land-use change has had the largest relative negative impact on nature since 1970.  More than a third of the world’s land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production. Alongside a doubling of urban area since 1992, things such as wetlands, scrubland and woodlands – which wildlife relies on – are ironed out from the landscape. 

2. The direct exploitation of organisms and non-living materials, including logging, hunting and fishing and the extraction of soils and water are all  negatively affecting ecosystems .   In marine environments, overfishing is considered to be the most serious driver of biodiversity loss. One quarter of the world’s commercial fisheries are overexploited, according to a 2005  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . 

3. The climate crisis is dismantling ecosystems at every level. Extreme weather events such as tropical storms and flooding are destroying habitats. Warmer temperatures are also changing the timing of natural events – such as the availability of insects and when birds hatch their eggs in spring. The distribution of species and their range is also changing. 

4. Many types of pollution are increasing. In marine environments, pollution from agricultural runoff (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) do huge damage to ecosystems. Agricultural runoff causes toxic algal blooms and even  "dead zones"  in the worst affected areas. Marine plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, affecting at least 267 species.

5. Since the 17th century, invasive species have  contributed to 40%  of all known animal extinctions. Nearly one fifth of the Earth’s surface is at risk of plant and animal invasions. Invasive species change the composition of ecosystems by outcompeting native species. 

Hotspots for this expansion have included wildlife-rich grasslands in the “prairie pothole” region which stretches between Iowa, Dakota, Montana and southern Canada and is home to more than 50% of North American migratory waterfowl, as well as 96 species of songbird. This cropland expansion has wiped out about 138,000 nesting habitats for waterfowl, researchers estimate.

These grasslands are also a rich habitat for the monarch butterfly – a flagship species for pollinator conservation and a key indicator of overall insect biodiversity. More than 200m milkweed plants, the caterpillar’s only food source, were probably destroyed by cropland expansion, making it one of the leading causes for the monarch’s national decline .

The extent of conversion of grassland in the US makes it a larger emission source than the destruction of the Brazilian Cerrado , according to research from 2019 . About 90% of emissions from grassland conversion comes from carbon lost in the soil, which is released when the grassland is ploughed up.

“The rate of clearing that we’re seeing on these grasslands is on par with things like tropical deforestation, but it often receives far less attention,” says Lark.

Food crop production globally has increased by about 300% since 1970 , despite the negative environmental impacts.

Reducing food waste and eating less meat would help cut the amount of land needed for farming, while researchers say improved management of existing croplands and utilising what is already farmed as best as possible would reduce further expansion.

Lark concludes: “I think there’s a huge opportunity to re-envision our landscapes so that they’re not only providing incredible food production but also mitigating climate change and helping reduce the impacts of the biodiversity crisis by increasing habitats on agricultural land.” PW

Direct exploitation of natural resources

Groundwater extraction: ‘People don’t see it’

From hunting, fishing and logging to the extraction of oil, gas, coal and water, humanity’s insatiable appetite for the planet’s resources has devastated large parts of the natural world.

While the impacts of many of these actions can often be seen, unsustainable groundwater extraction could be driving a hidden crisis below our feet, experts have warned, wiping out freshwater biodiversity, threatening global food security and causing rivers to run dry.

Farmers and mining companies are pumping vast underground water stores at an unsustainable rate, according to ecologists and hydrologists. About half the world’s population relies on groundwater for drinking water and it helps sustain 40% of irrigation systems for crops .

The consequences for freshwater ecosystems – among the most degraded on the planet – are under-researched as studies have focused on the depletion of groundwater for agriculture.

But a growing body of research indicates that pumping the world’s most extracted resource – water – is causing significant damage to the planet’s ecosystems. A 2017 study of the Ogallala aquifer – an enormous water source underneath eight states in the US Great Plains – found that more than half a century of pumping has caused streams to run dry and a collapse in large fish populations. In 2019, another study estimated that by 2050 between 42% and 79% of watersheds that pump groundwater globally could pass ecological tipping points, without better management.

“The difficulty with groundwater is that people don’t see it and they don’t understand the fragility of it,” says James Dalton, director of the global water programme at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). “Groundwater can be the largest – and sometimes the sole – source in certain types of terrestrial habitats.

“Uganda is luxuriantly green, even during the dry season, but that’s because a lot of it is irrigated with shallow groundwater for agriculture and the ecosystems are reliant on tapping into it.”

According to UPGro (Unlocking the Potential of Groundwater for the Poor), a research programme looking into the management of groundwater in sub-Saharan Africa, 73 of the 98 operational water supply systems in Uganda are dependent on water from below ground. The country shares two transboundary aquifers: the Nile and Lake Victoria basins. At least 592 aquifers are shared across borders around the world.

“Some of the groundwater reserves are huge, so there is time to fix this,” says Dalton. “It’s just there’s no attention to it.”

Inge de Graaf, a hydrologist at Wageningen University, who led the 2019 study into watershed levels, found between 15% to 21% had already passed ecological tipping points, adding that once the effects had become clear for rivers, it was often too late.

“Groundwater is slow because it has to flow through rocks. If you extract water today, it will impact the stream flow maybe in the next five years, in the next 10 years, or in the next decades,” she says. “I think the results of this research and related studies are pretty scary.”

In April, the largest ever assessment of global groundwater wells by researchers from University of California, Santa Barbara, found that up to one in five were at risk of running dry. Scott Jasechko, a hydrologist and lead author on the paper, says that the study focuses on the consequences for humans and more research is needed on biodiversity.

“Millions of wells around the world could run dry with even modest declines in groundwater levels. And that, of course, has cascading implications for livelihoods and access to reliable and convenient water for individuals and ecosystems,” he says. PG

The climate crisis

Climate and biodiversity: ‘Solve both or solve neither’

In 2019, the European heatwave brought 43C heat to Montpellier in France. Great tit chicks in 30 nest boxes starved to death, probably because it was too hot for their parents to catch the food they needed, according to one researcher . Two years later, and 2021’s heatwave appears to have set a European record, pushing temperatures to 48.8C in Sicily in August. Meanwhile, wildfires and heatwaves are stripping the planet of life.

Until now, the destruction of habitats and extraction of resources has had a more significant impact on biodiversity than the climate crisis. This is likely to change over the coming decades as the climate crisis dismantles ecosystems in unpredictable and dramatic ways, according to a review paper published by the Royal Society.

“There are many aspects of ecosystem science where we will not know enough in sufficient time,” the paper says. “Ecosystems are changing so rapidly in response to global change drivers that our research and modelling frameworks are overtaken by empirical, system-altering changes.”

The calls for biodiversity and the climate crisis to be tackled in tandem are growing. “It is clear that we cannot solve [the global biodiversity and climate crises] in isolation – we either solve both or we solve neither,” says Sveinung Rotevatn, Norway’s climate and environment minister, with the launch in June of a report produced by the world’s leading biodiversity and climate experts. Zoological Society of London senior research fellow Dr Nathalie Pettorelli, who led a s tudy on the subject published in the Journal of Applied Ecology in September, says: “The level of interconnectedness between the climate change and biodiversity crises is high and should not be underestimated. This is not just about climate change impacting biodiversity; it is also about the loss of biodiversity deepening the climate crisis.”

Writer Zadie Smith describes every country’s changes as a “local sadness” . Insects no longer fly into the house when the lights are on in the evening, the snowdrops are coming out earlier and some migratory species, such as swallows, are starting to try to stay in the UK for winter. All these individual elements are entwined in a much bigger story of decline.

Our biosphere – the thin film of life on the surface of our planet – is being destabilised by temperature change. On land, rains are altering, extreme weather events are more common, and ecosystems more flammable. Associated changes, including flooding , sea level rise, droughts and storms, are having hugely damaging impacts on biodiversity and its ability to support us.

In the ocean, heatwaves and acidification are stressing organisms and ecosystems already under pressure due to other human activities, such as overfishing and habitat fragmentation.

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) landmark report showed that extreme heatwaves that would usually happen every 50 years are already happening every decade. If warming is kept to 1.5C these will happen approximately every five years.

The distributions of almost half (47%) of land-based flightless mammals and almost a quarter of threatened birds, may already have been negatively affected by the climate crisis, the IPBES warns . Five per cent of species are at risk of extinction from 2C warming, climbing to 16% with a 4.3C rise.

Connected, diverse and extensive ecosystems can help stabilise the climate and will have a better chance of thriving in a world permanently altered by rising emissions, say experts. And, as the Royal Society paper says: “Rather than being framed as a victim of climate change, biodiversity can be seen as a key ally in dealing with climate change.” PW

The hidden threat of nitrogen: ‘Slowly eating away at biodiversity’

On the west coast of Scotland, fragments of an ancient rainforest that once stretched along the Atlantic coast of Britain cling on. Its rare mosses, lichens and fungi are perfectly suited to the mild temperatures and steady supply of rainfall, covering the crags, gorges and bark of native woodland. But nitrogen pollution, an invisible menace, threatens the survival of the remaining 30,000 hectares (74,000 acres) of Scottish rainforest, along with invasive rhododendron, conifer plantations and deer.

While marine plastic pollution in particular has increased tenfold since 1980 – affecting 44% of seabirds – air, water and soil pollution are all on the rise in some areas. This has led to pollution being singled out as the fourth biggest driver of biodiversity loss.

In Scotland, nitrogen compounds from intensive farming and fossil fuel combustion are dumped on the Scottish rainforest from the sky, killing off the lichen and bryophytes that absorb water from the air and are highly sensitive to atmospheric conditions.

“The temperate rainforest is far from the sources of pollution, yet because it’s so rainy, we’re getting a kind of acid rain effect,” says Jenny Hawley, policy manager at Plantlife, which has called nitrogen pollution in the air “the elephant in the room” of nature conservation. “The nitrogen-rich rain that’s coming down and depositing nitrogen into those habitats is making it impossible for the lichen, fungi, mosses and wildflowers to survive.”

Environmental destruction caused by nitrogen pollution is not limited to the Scottish rainforest. Algal blooms around the world are often caused by runoff from farming, resulting in vast dead zones in oceans and lakes that kill scores of fish and devastate ecosystems. Nitrogen-rich rainwater degrades the ability of peatlands to sequester carbon, the protection of which is a stated climate goal of several governments. Wildflowers adapted to low-nitrogen soils are squeezed out by aggressive nettles and cow parsley, making them less diverse.

About 80% of nitrogen used by humans – through food production, transport, energy and industrial and wastewater processes – is wasted and enters the environment as pollution.

“Nitrogen pollution might not result in huge floods and apocalyptic droughts but we are slowly eating away at biodiversity as we put more and more nitrogen in ecosystems,” says Carly Stevens, a plant ecologist at Lancaster University. “Across the UK, we have shown that habitats that have lots of nitrogen have fewer species in them. We have shown it across Europe. We have shown it across the US. Now we’re showing it in China. We’re creating more and more damage all the time.”

To decrease the amount of nitrogen pollution causing biodiversity loss, governments will commit to halving nutrient runoff by 2030 as part of an agreement for nature currently being negotiated in Kunming. Halting the waste of vast amounts of nitrogen fertiliser in agriculture is a key part of meeting the target, says Kevin Hicks, a senior research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute centre at York.

“One of the biggest problems is the flow of nitrogen from farming into watercourses,” Hicks says. “In terms of a nitrogen footprint, the most intensive thing that you can eat is meat. The more meat you eat, the more nitrogen you’re putting into the environment.”

Mark Sutton, a professor at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, says reducing nitrogen pollution also makes economic sense.

“Nitrogen in the atmosphere is 78% of every breath we take. It does nothing, it’s very stable and makes the sky blue. Then there are all these other nitrogen compounds: ammonia, nitrates, nitrous oxide. They create air and water pollution,” he says. He argues that if you price every kilo of nitrogen at $1 (an estimated fertiliser price), and multiply it by the amount of nitrogen pollution lost in the world – 200bn tonnes – it amounts to $200bn (£147bn) every year.

“The goal to cut nitrogen waste in half would save you $100bn,” he says. “I think $100bn a year is a worthwhile saving.” PG

• Invasive species

The problem for islands: ‘We have to be very careful’

On Gough Island in the southern Atlantic Ocean, scores of seabird chicks are eaten by mice every year. The rodents were accidentally introduced by sailors in the 19th century and their population has surged, putting the Tristan albatross – one of the largest of its species – at risk of extinction along with dozens of rare seabirds. Although Tristan albatross chicks are 300 times the size of mice, two-thirds did not fledge in 2020 largely because of the injuries they sustained from the rodents, according to the RSPB .

The situation on the remote island, 2,600km from South Africa, is a grisly warning of the consequences of the human-driven impacts of invasive species on biodiversity. An RSPB-led operation to eradicate mice from the British overseas territory has been completed, using poison to help save the critically endangered albatross and other bird species from injuries they sustain from the rodents. It will be two years before researchers can confirm whether or not the plan has worked. But some conservationists want to explore another controversial option whose application is most advanced in the eradication of malaria : gene drives.

Instead of large-scale trapping or poisoning operations, which have limited effectiveness and can harm other species, gene drives involve introducing genetic code into an invasive population that would make them infertile or all one gender over successive generations. The method has so far been used only in a laboratory setting but at September’s IUCN congress in Marseille, members backed a motion to develop a policy on researching its application and other uses of synthetic biology for conservation.

“If a gene drive were proven to be effective and there were safety mechanisms to limit its deployment, you would introduce multiple individuals on an island whose genes would be inherited by other individuals in the population,” says David Will, an innovation programme manager with Island Conservation , a non-profit dedicated to preventing extinctions by removing invasive species from islands. “Eventually, you would have either an entirely all male or entirely all female population and they would no longer be able to reproduce.”

Nearly one-fifth of the Earth’s surface is at risk of plant and animal invasions and although the problem is worldwide, such as feral pigs wreaking havoc in the southern United States and lionfish in the Mediterranean , islands are often worst affected. The global scale of the issue will be revealed in a UN scientific assessment in 2023.

“We have to be very careful,” says Austin Burt, a professor of evolutionary genetics at Imperial College London, who researches how gene drives can be used to eradicate malaria in mosquito populations. “If you’re going after mice, for example, and you’re targeting mice on an island, you’d need to make sure that none of those modified mice got off the island to cause harm to the mainland population.”

In July, scientists announced they had successfully wiped out a population of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes using a gene drive in a laboratory setting, raising the prospect of self-destructing mosquitoes being released into the wild in the next decade.

Kent Redford, chair of the IUCN Task Force on Synthetic Biology who led an assessment of the use of synthetic biology in conservation, said there are clear risks and opportunities in the field but further research is necessary.

“None of these genetic tools are ever going to be a panacea. Ever. Nor do I think they will ever replace the existing tools,” Redford says, adding: “There is a hope – and I stress hope – that engineered gene drives have the potential to effectively decrease the population sizes of alien invasive species with very limited knock-on effects on other species.” PG

Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

• Biodiversity
• The road to Cop15
• Endangered species
• Endangered habitats
• Climate crisis
• Conservation

Most viewed

Yale Environment Review (YER) is a student-run review that provides weekly updates on environmental research findings.

How and why environmental issues are neglected.

Understanding how and why people fail to recognize the importance of future environmental problems can be used to tailor responses to environmental information problems

By Liz Thomas • July 21, 2013

Original Paper: Jari Lyytimäkia, Petri Tapiob, Timo Assmutha. "Unawareness in environmental protection: The case of light pollution from traffic". Land Use Policy 29:3. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.002

In the future, the world will face many new environmental problems, yet the scientific and policy research community will not necessarily recognize these problems as they come up. Which agendas environmental scientists and policymakers advance depends on many factors, including media attention and socioeconomic and historical dynamics. The identity and the values of the agenda-setters influence which issues are emphasized and which are neglected—purposely or unintentionally. Prioritizing environmental information is made even more difficult since the state of the environment is constantly changing and new scientific findings are constantly coming to light. The issues that do gain recognition may often be informed by outdated or incorrect data, even when more up to date environmental information may exist.

False awareness: a person believes that all the information is accessible and that he has it, even when the information that he has may be insufficient, outdated, or misunderstood. In the case of lighting, a person may think he knows all there is to know about lighting because it is a common aspect of his life—not something that he would question. Many people have not experienced true darkness and perceive artificial lighting to be the norm. The team speculates that because artificial lights have become ubiquitous, scientists have not researched their negative impacts at the same rate as their benefits, even though research on their negative impacts indicate potentially serious problems. One possible solution to this problem is disproving people's inclinations to think of lighting as harmless with numerical estimates, such as the International Energy Agency's estimate that global carbon dioxide emissions from lighting are two-thirds that of motor vehicles.

Deliberate unawareness: People do not find an environmental topic to be important, and thus do not seek out more information on the problem. Even when the problem starts to become a topic of interest, people purposefully set aside the facts.  As light pollution starts to become a topic of interest, people may find that changes to address light pollution are too radical and stressful to address. Scientists and practitioners can potentially address this kind of unawareness by framing their arguments in ethical and emotional terms.

Concealed awareness: An actor purposefully omits information and is unable or unwilling to share it with others. This kind of awareness may be motivated by financial issues or a benevolent attempt to secure the public good. Actors may be unable to share information because of a lack of resources or opportunities. For scientists studying lighting, the light-positive paradigm may inhibit scientists from sharing their concerns about light pollution. A critical, open-minded campaign can encourage people to share factual information.

You might like these articles that share the same topics

The policies and measures aiming at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) have proliferated, resulting in varying interpretations of "safeguards". Now that REDD+ is maturing, direct trade-offs between monetized emissions reductions and social and biodiversity values call for more explicit regulations in this approach to climate change mitigation.

Local leaders must prepare for sea-level rise and coastal disaster management. Besides property damage, issues of social justice will arise because minorities, the poor, and the most vulnerable people are at greater risk than others.

Scientists explore how entrepreneurs and decision makers can make or break how a national park benefits a community

Many conservationists and land planners look to property tax policy to encourage private landowners to keep their land undeveloped. While property tax can hold back the conversion of rural land to some extent, its impact is limited.

• Show search

Speak Up For Nature: Your Guide to Environmental Issues in 2022

Follow this guide on conservation issues and act for your planet.

October 04, 2020

How to Use This Guide

The past couple of years have been a difficult and humbling reminder that no matter where you live, your life is connected to the health of the natural world. When we degrade our planet, we make it more difficult for nature to provide the food, water and air we all rely on.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are better, smarter paths rooted in science and in nature’s resilience. The more we speak up about these paths to our leaders, the more positive change we can make.

The first step is to start building your understanding of top environmental and conservation issues. No, you don’t need to be able to recite the Clean Water Act by heart.

Dig into the topics in this guide until you’re comfortable with them. Then, take one (or more) of these actions...

5 Things You Can Do

• Talk About These Issues

Let your friends and family know what's important to you and why...maybe they'll join you in speaking up next time! Here's how to talk about climate change.

• Contact Your Local Leaders

Local, state and federal, ask your elected leaders to support the things you care about. They are there to represent you, and they can't do it if you don't talk to them. Learn who's representing you in your state.

• Contact Congress

Weigh in on critical, timely issues. You can call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or send messages on a range of issues through our Action Center.

• Take Our Pledge

Your voice can make a difference. Every single action you take in your community can have a real impact on how we meet the needs of our Earth and everyone on it. Add your voice.

Share Your Thoughts

Use this guide to inform your social network and encourage them to speak up with us. There's power in numbers! You can start by sharing this message!

Climate Change

The science is clear: the more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the warmer it gets. The warmer it gets, the higher our seas, the more intense our storms, the less ice in our Arctic and the more stresses on wildlife. Worse, we're running out of time.

The good news? We know what we need to do and how to do it.

It comes down to switching to cleaner energy like solar, protecting and restoring natural places that can store more carbon, updating our electric grid (which is older than the TV) , and inventing the next great technology.

We put people on the moon. We made supercomputers that fit in your pocket. We are fully capable of doing all of these things, and doing them in time.

5 Ways to Speak Up

• Share this Guide on Twitter

We can do these things if we make it known that we believe in the promise of clean energy, not only to lessen the impacts of climate change but to support jobs and economic growth.

Take action and speak up for climate solutions today. Start with these 5 actions.

Want to Dig Deeper?

Smart climate policy : Reinventing how we generate, transport and use energy resources.

Choosing Clean Energy : New technologies, better choices and lower costs.

Natural Climate Solutions : Conservation, restoration and management of natural lands to reduce emissions.

Grid modernization : Improve reliability and efficiency of our power and reduce costs.

Climate Change FAQs : The best information at hand about climate change's challenges and solutions, from scientists at The Nature Conservancy.

Protecting Our Nation's Land & Water

Back in 1977, conservation and recreation made up 2.5% of the federal government's total budget. Today, it's less than 1%. This doesn't make any sense given that our need for healthy land, clean water and open spaces has dramatically increased as our population has grown. 

We’ve had some policy wins (thank you, Great American Outdoors Act) , but our usage demands of lands far outpace the resources coming into them. National and state parks alone host around 1 billion visits each year.

That's hikers, hunters and anglers, but also people going to weddings, reunions and summer camp. Throw in city parks with the baseball games and soccer tournaments and visitor numbers go through the roof. 

Outside of being awe-inspiring, public lands clean our water and our air, and they protect us from coastal storms and heavy rains. They also have a massive positive impact on our economy . Outdoor recreation (often on public lands) generates $887 billion in annual consumer spending, directly supporting 7.6 million jobs.

It’s time to better care for the lands that care for us…but how?

There are plenty of ways to put money back into our lands and waters, if we make the right choices today. There's infrastructure investments that include wetlands and trees, not just levees and seawalls .  There's tax reforms that incentivize private investment in restoring wetlands and forests or donating land for conservation. But, we need to let our elected officials know this is where we want our money to go. 

Take action and speak up for our protecting our lands and waters today. Start with these 5 actions.

Want to dig deeper?

Land and Water Conservation Fund : Standing up for America’s premier conservation program.

Tropical Forest Conservation Act : Protecting tropical forests and biodiversity.

Water management systems : Ensuring sustainable water supplies during drought.

Modernizing fishing data : Using technology to build sustainable fisheries.

Investments in nature : Supporting strong conservation funding and policies.

International conservation funding : Protecting natural resources abroad through U.S. programs.

Tax incentives : Reforming tax policy to incentivize investments in conservation.

Reduce Risks to Communities from Natural Disasters

Stay up to date.

Sign up for our monthly Nature News newsletter:

For the past several years, we've seen more frequent, more intense natural disasters ravage communities across the globe. How many “once-in-a-lifetime” disasters must we encounter…in our lifetimes? And what can we do about it?

Because climate change has made these disasters more intense, we have to prevent the worst warming from happening. And, we have to better protect our communities. To do both of those things, we can turn to nature as a part of the solution. Yes, nature!

Healthy forests filter water and can reduce the risk of megafires. Sand dunes, marshes and reefs naturally protect our coasts from the storm surge that arrives with a hurricane. You might be thinking, I see forests and sand dunes all the time, don't we have enough? 

One key word with forests is "healthy." We’ve suppressed natural fires in some forests, making them unhealthy tinderboxes. And while we may have some sandy coastlines, we’ve bulldozed our natural sand dunes and oyster reefs that were our first line of defense for our coasts. 

Nature can bounce back if we give it the chance. Just like we must invest in bridges and roads, we must invest in restoring forests and sand dunes. Nature IS infrastructure. Nature IS investment. Nature IS a solution.

And the best part is while nature reduces risk for us, it also cleans our water and air, gives wildlife a home and gives us great parks to visit. We need to ensure consideration of nature and nature-based solutions in community infrastructure projects. 

Take action and speak up for our natural infrastructure today. To get started, follow our 5 Ways to Speak Up. 

Transportation bill : Advancing nature-based solutions to infrastructure challenges

Natural infrastructure : Protecting communities from storms

Disaster relief funding : Increasing resilience when rebuilding after disasters

National Flood Insurance Program : Planning for floods to reduce risk

Water Resources Development Act : Managing waterways to benefit people and nature

Safeguarding Core Environmental Laws

Before Congress passed environmental laws in the 1960s and 1970s, our air was more polluted than ever and rivers had so many pollutants that they actually caught fire.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle decided that our health and the health of our natural places were basic values. They worked together to create laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and others.

Air and water in this country dramatically improved. Species came back from the brink. And generations of Americans have benefited.

Our country’s successful, bipartisan environmental laws are increasingly under attack. Many proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act have no basis in science and would erode the laws’ fundamental protections. 

Take action and speak up for core environmental protections today. To get started, follow our 5 Ways to Speak Up. 

Foundational environmental laws : Protecting critical conservation policies that keep our water clean and our lands healthy.

Greater sage grouse :   Actions to save an iconic Western bird would also reduce threats for people

Sign Our Pledge :  Contact your elected officials and speak up for nature.  

Advancing Clean Energy

Humanity has been burning fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and natural gas) at an accelerated rate for around 140 years. Scientists have known for many decades that these forms of energy emit greenhouse gases that are unnaturally warming the planet. In 2018, fossil fuels were responsible for 93% of human-caused carbon emissions in the U.S.

Transitioning to clean energies like wind and solar would make an enormous difference in helping the planet avoid the worst effects of climate change, such as extreme droughts, stronger storms and crippling coastal flooding. And yet, renewables make up less than 10% of the nation's energy mix. 

Over the last decade, the cost of solar has dropped 92% and wind turbines by nearly 50%.  In most parts of the U.S., new renewable energy costs less than coal. The time is right to make the switch.

To quicken and ease this transition, we need to make our power system more reliable by modernizing our century-old electric grid and advancing energy storage. And we need to put those turbines and panels in smart places. We don't need to knock down more forest and prairie; there's enough land already developed to meet our clean energy needs 17 times over.

The benefits of a clean energy shift go way beyond stopping climate change. The shift gives us cleaner air, more consumer choices and more jobs.

Take action and speak up for clean energy today. Start with these 5 actions.

Smart Climate Change Policy : Creating a low-carbon future that benefits everyone.

Modernizing Our Electrical Grid

Our electric grid is the physical network that sends power to our homes and businesses by connecting them in real time to energy plants scattered around the country. This network, much of which is over 75 years old, wasn't built for the technologies our climate-threatened future depends on, like scattered wind turbines and rooftop solar panels. 

It's also not efficient or reliable enough for our needs. It doesn’t take a natural disaster to shut the power off. Currently, something as small as a squirrel can cause an outage that ripples into a larger blackout. 

Technological advances like the internet allow utilities and consumers to relay real time info about energy supply, demand and cost. This is a trove of useful information but its value is held back by infrastructure older than the television. We can build a modernized electrical grid that turns that information into smarter, more efficient choices that let cleaner energy sources shine.

Small changes to how and when we use energy can save us money and make a huge dent in the carbon emissions that cause climate change. 

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates they need an additional $100 billion to fully modernize the grid. That's a lot of money, but those upgrades would save consumers $2 trillion over the next 20 years.

With the current grid causing economic losses of roughly $150 billion a year, there’s never been a better time to start. Let’s bring cutting-edge technology to the grid so it pollutes less, lowers costs for customers and creates jobs.

Take action and speak up for smarter energy today. To get started, follow our 5 Ways to Speak Up. 

We no longer need to choose between abundant energy and a cleaner environment. A renewable energy revolution is happening across the United States. Learn what this means.

Your Voice is Critical

If you have a voice, you have a choice. And together, our voices are powerful. Speak up for nature, and for us all.

The Ocean Has Issues: 7 Biggest Problems Facing Our Seas, and How to Fix Them

• California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Treehugger / Hilary Allison

• Conservation
• Overfishing
• Shark Finning
• Ocean Acidification
• Dying Coral Reefs
• Mercury Pollution
• Plastic Soup

The oceans are among the biggest resources for life on earth, but they're also our biggest dumping grounds. That kind of paradox could give anyone an identity crisis. We seem to think we can take all the goodies out, put all our garbage in, and the oceans will happily tick away indefinitely. However, while it's true the oceans can provide us with some amazing eco-solutions like alternative energy, our activities place undue stress on these vast bodies of water. Here are the seven biggest problems, plus some light at the end of the tunnel.

1. Overfishing Is Draining the Life From the Water

Overfishing is negatively impacting our oceans. It can cause the extinction of certain species while threatening the survivability of any predators that depend on those species as a source of food.   By depleting food sources in such large quantities, we leave less for others, to the point where some marine animals actually starve.   Reduction of fishing to ensure sustainable levels is necessary if at risk species are to recover at all.

There is much to be desired in the ways we fish. First, we humans use some pretty destructive methods in how we pull catches, including bottom trawling, which destroys sea floor habitat   and scoops up many unwanted fish and animals that end up being tossed aside. We also pull far too many fish to be sustainable, pushing many species to the point of being listed as threatened and endangered.  

Of course, we know why we overfish: There are a lot of people who like to eat fish, and a lot of it! Simply put, the more fish, the more money fishermen make. However, there are also less obvious reasons explaining why we overfish, including but not limited to our promotion of certain marine species over others for their purported health benefits.

In order keep the oceans' fisheries healthy, we not only have to know which species can be sustainably eaten, but also how best to catch them. It's our job as eaters to question restaurant servers, sushi chefs, and seafood purveyors about the sources of their fish, and read labels when we buy from store shelves.

2. The Oceans' Most Important Predators Being Killed...But Just for the Fins

Overfishing is an issue that extends beyond familiar species like bluefin tuna and orange roughy. It's also a serious issue with sharks. At least 100 million sharks are killed each year for their fins. It is a common practice to catch sharks, cut off their fins, and toss them back into the ocean where they are left to die. The fins are sold as an ingredient for soup. And the waste is extraordinary.

Sharks are top-of-the-food-chain predators, which means their reproduction rate is slow. Their numbers don't bounce back easily from overfishing. On top of that, their predator status also helps regulate the numbers of other species. When a major predator is taken out of the loop, it's usually the case that species lower on the food chain start to overpopulate their habitat, creating a destructive downward spiral of the ecosystem.

Shark finning is a practice that needs to end if our oceans are to maintain some semblance of balance. Luckily, a growing awareness around the unsustainability of the practice is helping to lower the popularity of shark fin soup.

3. Ocean Acidification Sending Us Back 17 Million Years

Ocean acidification is no small issue. The basic science behind acidification is that the ocean absorbs CO 2 through natural processes, but at the rate at which we're pumping it into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels, the ocean's pH balance is dropping to the point where some life within the oceans are having trouble coping.  

According to NOAA , it is estimated that by the end of this century, surface levels of the oceans could have a pH of about 7.8 (in 2020 the pH level is 8.1). "The last time the ocean pH was this low was during the middle Miocene, 14-17 million years ago. The Earth was several degrees warmer and a major extinction event was occurring."

Freaky, right? At some point in time, there is a tipping point where the oceans become too acidic to support life that can't quickly adjust. In other words, many species are going to be wiped out, from shellfish to corals and the fish that depend on them.

4. Dying Coral Reefs and A Scary Downward Spiral

Keeping the coral reefs healthy is another major buzz topic right now. A focus on how to protect the coral reefs is important considering coral reefs support a huge amount of small sea life, which in turn supports both larger sea life and people, not only for immediate food needs but also economically.

Rapid warming of the ocean surface is a primary cause of coral bleaching, during which corals lose the algae that keep them alive.   Figuring out ways to protect this "life support system" is a must for the overall health of the oceans.

5. Ocean Dead Zones Are Everywhere, and Growing

Dead zones are swaths of ocean that don't support life due to hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen. Global warming is a prime suspect for what's behind the shifts in ocean behavior that cause dead zones. The number of dead zones is growing at an alarming rate, with over 500 known to exist, and the number is expected to grow.  

Dead zone research underscores the interconnectedness of our planet. It appears that crop biodiversity on land could help prevent dead zones in the ocean by reducing or eliminating the use of fertilizers and pesticides that run off into the open ocean and are part of the cause of dead zones.   Knowing what we dump into the oceans is important in being aware of our role in creating areas of lifelessness in an ecosystem upon which we depend.

6. Mercury Pollution Going from Coal to Oceans to Fish to Our Dinner Table

Pollution is running rampant in the oceans but one of the scariest pollutants is mercury because, well, it ends up on the dinner table. The worst part is mercury levels in the oceans are predicted to rise. So where does the mercury come from? You can probably guess. Mainly coal plants. In fact, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, coal and oil- fired power plants are the largest industrial source of mercury pollution in the country.   And, mercury has already contaminated water bodies in all 50 states, let alone our oceans. The mercury is absorbed by organisms on the bottom of the food chain and as bigger fish eat bigger fish, it works its way back up the food chain right to us, most notably in the form of tuna.  

You can calculate how much tuna you can safely eat , and while the though that calculating your fish intake to avoid poisoning is really depressing, at least we're aware of the dangers so that we can, hopefully, straighten up our act.

7. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch a Swirling Plastic Soup You Can See from Space

One more depressing one before we move on to something fun and exciting. We certainly can't ignore the giant patches of plastic soup the size of Texas sitting smack dab in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

Taking a look at the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" (which is actually several areas of debris in the North Pacific) is a sobering way to realize there is no "away" when it comes to trash, especially trash that lacks the ability to decompose.   The patch was discovered by Captain Charles Moore, who has been actively vocal about it ever since.

Luckily, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has gotten a lot of attention from eco-organizations, including Project Kaisei , which launched the first clean-up effort and experimentation, and David de Rothschild   who sailed a boat made of plastic out to the patch to bring awareness to it.

Geoengineering Our Oceans: What We Do and Don't Know About New Technologies

Now for that light at the end of the tunnel, though some may call it a very dim light, the issue of geoengineering. Ideas have been floated such as dumping limestone in the water to balance out the pH levels of the ocean and to counter the effects of all that CO2 we pump into the air.   Back in 2012 we watched as iron filings were dumped into the ocean to see if that'd help spur a large algae bloom and suck up some CO 2 .   It didn't. Or rather, it didn't do what we expected it to do.

This is a really controversial area, mainly because we don't know what we don't know.   Though that doesn't stop many scientists from saying we have to give it a try.

Research has helped to lay out what some of the risks are in terms of consequences, and in terms of what's just a plain old dumb idea.   There are quite a few ideas floating around that claim will save us from ourselves - from ocean iron fertilization   to fertilizing trees with nitrogen, from biochar to carbon sinks. But while these ideas hold a seed of promise, they also each hold a sizable nugget of controversy that may or may not keep them from coming seeing the light of day.

Sticking To What We Do Know - Conservation

Of course, good old fashioned conservation efforts will also help us out. Though, looking at the big picture and the extent of the effort required, it might take a lot of gumption to stay optimistic. But optimistic we should be!

It's true that conservation efforts are lagging, but that doesn't mean they're non-existent. Records are even being set for how much marine area is being conserved. It's all just a head nod if we don't implement and enforce the regulations we create, and get even more creative with them. But when we look at what can happen for our oceans when conservation efforts are taken to the max, it's well worth the energy.

Sumaila, U. Rashid and Travis C. Tai. " End Overfishing and Increase the Resilience of the Ocean to Climate Change ."  Frontiers in Marine Science , vol. 7, July 2020, doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00523

Grémillet, David, et al.  " Starving Seabirds: Unprofitable Foraging and Its Fitness Consequences in Cape Gannets Competing With Fisheries in the Benguela Upwelling Ecosystem ."  Mar Biol,  vol. 163, 2016, doi:10.1007/s00227-015-2798-2

Oberle, Ferdinand K.J., et al. " Deciphering the Lithological Consequences of Bottom Trawling to Sedimentary Habitats on the Shelf ." Journal of Marine Systems , vol. 159, 2016, pp. 120-131., doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2015.12.008

Van Houtan, Kyle S, et al. “ Coastal Sharks Supply the Global Shark Fin Trade .”  Biology Letters,  vol. 16, no. 10, 2020, p. 20200609., doi:10.1098/rsbl.2020.0609

Yokoi, Hiroki, et al. " Impact of Biology Knowledge on the Conservation and Management of Large Pelagic Sharks ." Scientific Reports , vol. 7, no. 1, 2017, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09427-3

" Ocean Acidification ." National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .

Sully, Shannon, et al. " A Global Analysis of Coral Bleaching Over the Past Two Decades ." Nature Communications , vol. 10, no. 1, 2019, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09238-2

Breitburg, Denise, et al. " Declining Oxygen in the Global Ocean and Coastal Waters ." Science , vol. 359, no. 6371, 2018, doi:10.1126/science.aam7240

" Nutrient Pollution: The Sources and Solutions: Agriculture ." Environmental Protection Agency .

" Mercury and Air Toxic Standards: Cleaner Power Plants ." United States Environmental Protection Agency .

Blum, Joel, et al. " Methylmercury production below the mixed layer in the North Pacific Ocean ."  Nature Geoscience,  vol. 6, 2013, pp. 879–884., doi:10.1038/ngeo1918

" What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch ?" National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service .

de Rothschild, David. Plastiki: Across the Pacific on Plastic: An Adventure to Save Our Oceans . Chronicle Books. 2011.

Caldeira, Ken et al. " The Science of Geoengineering ." Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences , vol. 41, no. 1, 2013, pp. 231-256., doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548

Burns, Wil, and Charles R. Corbett. " Antacids for the Sea? Artificial Ocean Alkalinization and Climate Change ." One Earth , vol. 3, no. 2, 2020, pp. 154-156., doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.016

Lin, Albert. " Geoengineering: Imperfect Yet Perhaps Important Options For Addressing Climate Change ." Handbook Of U.S. Environmental Policy , 2020, pp. 373-388., doi:10.4337/9781788972840.00036

Emerson, David. " Biogenic Iron Dust: A Novel Approach to Ocean Iron Fertilization as a Means of Large Scale Removal of Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere ."  Frontiers In Marine Science , vol. 6, 2019, doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00022

• Marine Biome: Types, Plants, and Wildlife
• How Does Mercury Get in Fish?
• Understanding the Sustainable Seafood Industry
• What Is Squalene? Why Is It Controversial?
• 10 Stunning Plants and Sea Creatures on the Ocean Floor
• 11 Incredible Facts About Bull Sharks
• Are Orcas Endangered? Conservation Status and Threats
• Where Are Earth's Largest Nature Reserves?
• 7 Reasons Why We're Lucky to Have Sharks
• 11 Endangered Species That Are Still Hunted for Food
• What Is Ocean Acidification?
• Why the Humphead Wrasse Is Endangered
• Are Bluefin Tuna Endangered? Conservation Status and Outlook
• 'Seaspiracy' Film Reveals Destruction of Marine Life by Overfishing and Pollution
• What Are Ocean Dead Zones? Definition, Causes, and Impact
• Why Are Coral Reefs Dying? And What You Can Do to Help Save Them

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Roger Ware Brockett, 84

Providing community support

A change of mind, heart, and soul

Eyes on tomorrow, voices of today.

Candice Chen ’22 (left) and Noah Secondo ’22.

Photos by Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer

Alvin Powell

Harvard Staff Writer

Harvard students share thoughts, fears, plans to meet environmental challenges

For many, thinking about the world’s environmental future brings concern, even outright alarm.

There have been, after all, decades of increasingly strident warnings by experts and growing, ever-more-obvious signs of the Earth’s shifting climate. Couple this with a perception that past actions to address the problem have been tantamount to baby steps made by a generation of leaders who are still arguing about what to do, and even whether there really is a problem.

It’s no surprise, then, that the next generation of global environmental leaders are preparing for their chance to begin work on the problem in government, business, public health, engineering, and other fields with a real sense of mission and urgency.

The Gazette spoke to students engaged in environmental action in a variety of ways on campus to get their views of the problem today and thoughts on how their activities and work may help us meet the challenge.

Eric Fell and Eliza Spear

Fell is president and Spear is vice president of Harvard Energy Journal Club. Fell is a graduate student at the Harvard John H. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Spear is a graduate student in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology.

FELL:   For the past three centuries, fossil fuels have enabled massive growth of our civilization to where we are today. But it is now time for a new generation of cleaner-energy technologies to fuel the next chapter of humanity’s story. We’re not too late to solve this environmental challenge, but we definitely shouldn’t procrastinate as much as we have been. I don’t worry about if we’ll get it done, it’s the when. Our survival depends on it. At Harvard, I’ve been interested in the energy-storage problem and have been focusing on developing a grid-scale solution utilizing flow batteries based on organic molecules in the lab of Mike Aziz . We’ll need significant deployment of batteries to enable massive penetration of renewables into the electrical grid.

SPEAR: Processes leading to greenhouse-gas emissions are so deeply entrenched in our way of life that change continues to be incredibly slow. We need to be making dramatic structural changes, and we should all be very worried about that. In the Harvard Energy Journal Club, our focus is energy, so we strive to learn as much as we can about the diverse options for clean-energy generation in various sectors. A really important aspect of that is understanding how much of an impact those technologies, like solar, hydro, and wind, can really have on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. It’s not always as much as you’d like to believe, and there are still a lot of technical and policy challenges to overcome.

I can’t imagine working on anything else, but the question of what I’ll be working on specifically is on my mind a lot. The photovoltaics field is at a really exciting point where a new technology is just starting to break out onto the market, so there are a lot of opportunities for optimization in terms of performance, safety, and environmental impact. That’s what I’m working on now [in Roy Gordon’s lab ] and I’m really enjoying it. I’ll definitely be in the renewable-energy technology realm. The specifics will depend on where I see the greatest opportunity to make an impact.

Photo (left) courtesy of Kritika Kharbanda; photo by Tiera Satchebell.

Kritika Kharbanda ’23 and Laier-Rayshon Smith ’21

Kharbanda is with the Harvard Student Climate Change Conference, Harvard Circular Economy Symposium. Smith is a member of Climate Leaders Program for Professional Students at Harvard. Both are students at Harvard Graduate School of Design.

KHARBANDA: I come from a country where the most pressing issues are, and will be for a long time, poverty, food shortage, and unemployment born out of corruption, illiteracy, and rapid gentrification. India was the seventh-most-affected country by climate change in 2019. With two-thirds of the population living in rural areas with no access to electricity, even the notion of climate change is unimaginable.

I strongly believe that the answer lies in the conjugality of research and industry. In my field, achieving circularity in the building material processes is the burning concern. The building industry currently contributes to 40 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, of which 38 percent is contributed by the embedded or embodied energy used for the manufacturing of materials. A part of the Harvard i-lab, I am a co-founder of Cardinal LCA, an early stage life-cycle assessment tool that helps architects and designers visualize this embedded energy in building materials, saving up to 46 percent of the energy from the current workflow. This venture has a strong foundation as a research project for a seminar class I took at the GSD in fall 2020, instructed by Jonathan Grinham. I am currently working as a sustainability engineer at Henning Larsen architects in Copenhagen while on a leave of absence from GSD. In the decades to come, I aspire to continue working on the embodied carbon aspect of the building industry. Devising an avant garde strategy to record the embedded carbon is the key. In the end, whose carbon is it, anyway?

SMITH: The biggest challenges are areas where the threat of climate change intersects with environmental justice. It is important that we ensure that climate-change mitigation and adaptation strategies are equitable, whether it is sea-level rise or the increase in urban heat islands. We should seek to address the threats faced by the most vulnerable communities — the communities least able to resolve the threat themselves. These often tend to be low-income communities and communities of color that for decades have been burdened with bearing the brunt of environmental health hazards.

During my time at Harvard, I have come to understand how urban planning and design can seek to address this challenge. Planners and designers can develop strategies to prioritize communities that are facing a significant climate-change risk, but because of other structural injustices may not be able to access the resources to mitigate the risk. I also learned about climate gentrification: a phenomenon in which people in wealthier communities move to areas with lower risks of climate-change threats that are/were previously lower-income communities. I expect to work on many of these issues, as many are connected and are threats to communities across the country. From disinvestment and economic extraction to the struggle to find quality affordable housing, these injustices allow for significant disparities in life outcomes and dealing with risk.

Lucy Shaw ’21

Shaw is co-president of the HBS Energy and Environment Club. She is a joint-degree student at Harvard Business School and Harvard Kennedy School.

SHAW: I want to see a world where climate change is averted and the environment preserved, without it being at the expense of the development and prosperity of lower-income countries. We have, or are on the cusp of having, many of the financial and technological tools we need to reduce emissions and environmental damage from a wide array of industries, such as agriculture, energy, and transport. The challenge I am most worried about is how we balance economic growth and opportunity with reducing humanity’s environmental impact and share this burden equitably across countries.

I came to Harvard as a joint degree student at the Kennedy School and Business School to be able to see this challenge from two different angles. In my policy-oriented classes, we learned about the opportunities and challenges of global coordination among national governments — the difficulty in enforcing climate agreements, and in allocating and agreeing on who bears the responsibility and the costs of change, but also the huge potential that an international framework with nationally binding laws on environmental protection and carbon-emission reduction could have on changing the behavior of people and businesses. In my business-oriented classes, we learned about the power of business to create change, if there is a driven leadership. We also learned that people and businesses respond to incentives, and the importance of reducing cost of technologies or increasing the cost of not switching to more sustainable technologies — for example, through a tax. After graduate school, I plan to join a leading private equity investor in their growing infrastructure team, which will equip me with tools to understand what makes a good investment in infrastructure and what are the opportunities for reducing the environmental impact of infrastructure while enhancing its value. I hope to one day be involved in shaping environmental and development policy, whether it is on a national or international level.

Photo (left) by Tabitha Soren.

Quinn Lewis ’23 and Suhaas Bhat ’24

Both are with the Student Climate Change Conference, Harvard College.

LEWIS:   When I was a kid, I imagined being an adult as a future with a stable house, a fun job, and happy kids. That future didn’t include wildfires that obscured the sun for months, global water shortages, or billionaires escaping to terrariums on Mars. The threats are so great and so assured by inaction that it’s very hard for me to justify doing anything else with my time and attention because very little will matter if there’s 1 billion climate refugees and significant portions of the continental United States become uninhabitable for human life.

For whatever reason, I still feel a great deal of hope around giving it a shot. I can’t imagine not working to mitigate the climate crisis. Media and journalism will play a huge role in raising awareness, as they generate public pressure that can sway those in power. Another route for change is to cut directly to those in power and try to convince them of the urgency of the situation. Given that I am 22 years old, it is much easier to raise public awareness or work in media and journalism than it is to sit down with some of the most powerful people on the planet, who tend to be rather busy. At school, I’m on a team that runs the University-wide Student Climate Change Conference at Harvard, which is a platform for speakers from diverse backgrounds to discuss the climate crisis and ways students and educators can take immediate and effective action. Also, I write about and research challenges and solutions to the climate crisis through the lenses of geopolitics and the global economy, both as a student at the College and as a case writer at the Harvard Business School. Outside of Harvard, I have worked in investigative journalism and at Crooked Media, as well as on political campaigns to indirectly and directly drive urgency around the climate crisis.

BHAT:   The failure to act on climate change in the last few decades, despite mountains of scientific evidence, is a consequence of political and institutional cowardice. Fossil fuel companies have obfuscated, misinformed, and lobbied for decades, and governments have failed to act in the best interests of their citizens. Of course, the fight against climate change is complex and multidimensional, requiring scientific, technical, and entrepreneurial expertise, but it will ultimately require systemic change to allow these talents to shine.

At Harvard, my work on climate has been focused on running the Harvard Student Climate Conference, as well as organizing for Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard. My hope for the Climate Conference is to provide students access to speakers who have dedicated their careers to all aspects of the fight against climate change, so that students interested in working on climate have more direction and inspiration for what to do with their careers. We’ve featured Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, members of the Sunrise Movement, and the CEO of Impossible Foods as some examples of inspiring and impactful people who are working against climate change today.

I organize for FFDH because I believe that serious institutional change is necessary for solving the climate crisis and also because of a sort of patriotism I have for Harvard. I deeply respect and care for this institution, and genuinely believe it is an incredible force for good in the world. At the same time, I believe Harvard has a moral duty to stand against the corporations whose misdeeds and falsification of science have enabled the climate crisis.

Libby Dimenstein ’22

Dimenstein is co-president of Harvard Law School Environmental Law Society.

DIMENSTEIN:   Climate change is the one truly existential threat that my generation has had to face. What’s most scary is that we know it’s happening. We know how bad it will be; we know people are already dying from it; and we still have done so little relative to the magnitude of the problem. I also worry that people don’t see climate change as an “everyone problem,” and more as a problem for people who have the time and money to worry about it, when in reality it will harm people who are already disadvantaged the most.

I want to recognize Professor Wendy Jacobs, who recently passed away. Wendy founded HLS’s fantastic Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, and she also created an interdisciplinary class called the Climate Solutions Living Lab. In the lab, groups of students drawn from throughout the University would conduct real-world projects to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The class was hard, because actually reducing greenhouse gases is hard, but it taught us about the work that needs to be done. This summer I’m interning with the Environmental Defense Fund’s U.S. Clean Air Team, and I anticipate a lot of my work will revolve around the climate. After graduating, I’m hoping to do environmental litigation, either with a governmental division or a nonprofit, but I also have an interest in policy work: Impact litigation is fascinating and important, but what we need most is sweeping policy change.

Candice Chen ’22 and Noah Secondo ’22

Chen and Secondo are co-directors of the Harvard Environmental Action Committee. Both attend Harvard College.

SECONDO: The environment is fundamental to rural Americans’ identity, but they do not believe — as much as urban Americans — that the government can solve environmental problems. Without the whole country mobilized and enthusiastic, from New Hampshire to Nebraska, we will fail to confront the climate crisis. I have no doubt that we can solve this problem. To rebuild trust between the U.S. government and rural communities, federal departments and agencies need to speak with rural stakeholders, partner with state and local leaders, and foreground rural voices. Through the Harvard College Democrats and the Environmental Action Committee, I have contributed to local advocacy efforts and creative projects, including an environmental art publication.

I hope to work in government to keep the policy development and implementation processes receptive to rural perspectives, including in the environmental arena. At every level of government, if we work with each other in good faith, we will tackle the climate crisis and be better for it.

CHEN: I’m passionate about promoting more sustainable, plant-based diets. As individual consumers, we have very little control over the actions of the largest emitters, massive corporations, but we can all collectively make dietary decisions that can avoid a lot of environmental degradation. Our food system is currently very wasteful, and our overreliance on animal agriculture devastates natural ecosystems, produces lots of potent greenhouse gases, and creates many human health hazards from poor animal-waste disposal. I feel like the climate conversation is often focused around the clean energy transition, and while it is certainly the largest component of how we can avoid the worst effects of global warming, the dietary conversation is too often overlooked. A more sustainable future also requires us to rethink agriculture, and especially what types of agriculture our government subsidizes. In the coming years, I hope that more will consider the outsized environmental impact of animal agriculture and will consider making more plant-based food swaps.

To raise awareness of the environmental benefits of adopting a more plant-based diet, I’ve been involved with running a campaign through the Environmental Action Committee called Veguary. Veguary encourages participants to try going vegetarian or vegan for the month of February, and participants receive estimates for how much their carbon/water/land use footprints have changed based on their pledged dietary changes for the month.

Photo (left) courtesy of Cristina Su Liu.

Cristina Su Liu ’22 and James Healy ’21

More like this.

How Earth Day gave birth to environmental movement

The culture of Earth Day

Spirituality, social justice, and climate change meet at the crossroads

Liu is with Harvard Climate Leaders Program for Professional Students. Healy is with the Harvard Student Climate Change Conference. Both are students at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

HEALY:   As a public health student I see so many environmental challenges, be it the 90 percent of the world who breathe unhealthy air, or the disproportionate effects of extreme heat on communities of color, or the environmental disruptions to the natural world and the zoonotic disease that humans are increasingly being exposed to. But the central commonality at the heart of all these crises is the climate crisis. Climate change, from the greenhouse-gas emissions to the physical heating of the Earth, is worsening all of these environmental crises. That’s why I call the climate crisis the great exacerbator. While we will all feel the effects of climate change, it will not be felt equally. Whether it’s racial inequity or wealth inequality, the climate crisis is widening these already gaping divides.

Solutions may have to be outside of our current road maps for confronting crises. I have seen the success of individual efforts and private innovation in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic, from individuals wearing masks and social distancing to the huge advances in vaccine development. But for climate change, individual efforts and innovation won’t be enough. I would be in favor of policy reform and coalition-building between new actors. As an overseer of the Harvard Student Climate Change Conference and the Harvard Climate Leaders Program, I’ve aimed to help mobilize Harvard’s diverse community to tackle climate change. I am also researching how climate change makes U.S. temperatures more variable, and how that’s reducing the life expectancies of Medicare recipients. The goal of this research, with Professor Joel Schwartz, will be to understand the effects of climate change on vulnerable communities. I certainly hope to expand on these themes in my future work.

SU LIU:  A climate solution will need to be a joint effort from the whole society, not just people inside the environmental or climate circles. In addition to cross-sectoral cooperation, solving climate change will require much stronger international cooperation so that technologies, projects, and resources can be developed and shared globally. As a Chinese-Brazilian student currently studying in the United States, I find it very valuable to learn about the climate challenges and solutions of each of these countries, and how these can or cannot be applied in other settings. China-U.S. relations are tense right now, but I hope that climate talks can still go ahead since we have much to learn from each other.

Personally, as a student in environmental health at [the Harvard Chan School], I feel that my contribution to addressing this challenge until now has been in doing research, learning more about the health impacts of climate change, and most importantly, learning how to communicate climate issues to people outside climate circles. Every week there are several climate-change events at Harvard, where a different perspective on climate change is addressed. It has been very inspiring for me, and I feel that I could learn about climate change in a more holistic way.

Recently, I started an internship at FXB Village, where I am working on developing and integrating climate resilience indicators into their poverty-alleviation program in rural communities in Puebla, Mexico. It has been very rewarding to introduce climate-change and climate-resilience topics to people working on poverty alleviation and see how everything is interconnected. When we address climate resilience, we are also addressing access to basic services, livelihoods, health, equity, and quality of life in general. This is where climate justice is addressed, and that is a very powerful idea.

Share this article

You might like.

Memorial Minute — Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Harvard Allston Partnership Fund awards grants to 26 Allston-Brighton nonprofits

Choosing Harvard took LyLena Estabine down an uncertain path. The former student co-president has no regrets.

Epic science inside a cubic millimeter of brain

Researchers publish largest-ever dataset of neural connections

Excited about new diet drug? This procedure seems better choice.

Study finds minimally invasive treatment more cost-effective over time, brings greater weight loss

How far has COVID set back students?

An economist, a policy expert, and a teacher explain why learning losses are worse than many parents realize

10 Environmental Problems and Solutions in 2023

September 6, 2022

Graham Sawrey

There are so many environmental problems we face today, and they all have to be addressed. But which environmental issues demand our attention now?

We’ll discuss 10 environmental problems and solutions that we can work on now to change our collective future for the better!

10 Environmental Problems and Solutions

Want to know even more? Check out our List of Environmental Issues Examples where we discuss the 30 biggest threats earth faces today for a more in-depth understanding of environmental problems.

Here are the top 10 environmental issues that require immediate attention for the health of our planet and our own survival.

• Climate Change
• Water Pollution
• Air Pollution
• Natural Resource Depletion
• Waste Management
• Urban Sprawl
• Energy Consumption
• Environmental Degradation
• Deforestation
• Recycling Inefficiencies

We’ll discuss these top 10 environmental problems in detail and offer some real-world solutions to each one.

There is no magic bullet solution for the environmental issues we face. The real solution will come when individuals choose to make decisions in favor of the earth’s welfare .

When billions of us combine a lot of small actions they add up to a big impact on the earth.

1. Climate Change

Climate change is a massive topic. Inside this topic are all the subtopics and environmental problems that add up to climate change.

Climate change is the term we use to refer to the changing atmospheric conditions that affect life on earth.

• Global warming
• The greenhouse effect
• Increased saturation of atmospheric carbon dioxide
• Polar ice melt
• Rising seawater levels
• Ozone layer depletion

These things are intertwined and many of them have the same root cause – the main one is the burning of fossil fuels.

However, along with increased carbon dioxide output from fossil fuels, there are mainly CFCs and halons though other substances also destroy ozone molecules.

These substances are found in aerosols, refrigerants (like air conditioners) and other machinery. CFCs are banned, but other ozone-destroying chemicals are still in use.

Depletion of the ozone layer allows more UVB rays to get through the atmosphere which has a warming effect in the atmosphere of the globe. This changes weather patterns and climate expectations everywhere.

Climate Change Solutions

The solutions to climate change involve viewing the world differently than we currently do as a global culture.

We view the world as something to use. We want to get as much as we can while it’s available. This is causing us to use things we don’t need, create waste, and deplete our resources too fast.

Here are a few things we can do to help combat climate change.

• Drive less often and less far. If there is an option to walk, ride a bike, carpool, or use public transportation then use those options first to help decrease your carbon footprint.
• Reuse things instead of throwing them away. Americans seem to view recyclables as the way forward but they have limitations. They help us to reuse existing resources, but an even better choice is to choose reusable items every chance we get.
• Aim for zero waste. Think about it before you buy. Choose to invest your money in things that will last a long time and can be reused or upcycled instead of thrown away. The world is awash in used cheap clothing, single-use plastics, and cheap appliances that are recyclable yet sit in filthy heaps.
• Get involved. Too many people like to talk about climate change and even yell about climate change but don’t do anything to solve it. Work to increase recycling facilities in your area, educate your community about reusables, and plant native species in your town.
• Get Renewable Energy. Renewable energy is a must. Buying an EV car isn’t enough because plugging into a fossil fuel electric grid just perpetuates the problem. Investigate your own chain of energy and opt for the cleanest energy you can afford.

Climate change is a real environmental issue and it’s full of uncertainties. One thing we know is that the decisions we make today can have a major impact on the quality of life on planet earth in the future.

2. Water Pollution

Water pollution includes marine pollution and freshwater pollution. Let’s take a look at both.

Marine pollution is largely caused by nitrogen that washes away from inland soils and drains into the ocean water.

The excess nitrogen creates algae blooms that prevent sunlight and oxygen from penetrating into the ocean water.

This creates a hypoxic environment called a “dead zone” where fish, crustaceans, and sea mammals can’t live. Mobile marine animals leave the area. Immobile marine life dies.

This is the primary cause of our loss of coral reefs around the globe.

Marine pollution also takes the form of trash and recyclables that wash into the ocean and form massive flotillas of rubbish .

Freshwater pollution refers to the pollution of inland water like rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. We rely on these bodies of water for our drinking water, but they are quickly becoming too polluted to drink.

Freshwater pollution also happens due to nitrogen in the water , but it can also be the result of things people do.

• Trash that ends up in the water
• Sewer treatment plant releases (treated and untreated)
• Dirty stormwater runoff
• Pharmaceuticals, detergents, and other things people put in the water system
• Heavy metals like lead and mercury

Some of these things we can’t avoid, but a lot of it is preventable.

Water Pollution Solutions

The effects of pollution could be minimized and possibly healed if we began to consciously make decisions that will protect our watershed instead of polluting it.

• Farmers can use cover crops to fix nitrogen in the soil . It’s an investment, not an overnight fix, but it will make the biggest impact on the health of the oceans and will eventually eliminate dead zones.
• Homeowners can use as little culinary water as possible for watering outdoor plants. Try xeriscaping to save water. Install rain barrels to collect free water to use on outdoor plants and trees.
• Dispose of medicines, motor oil, household chemicals, and paint in the proper facilities so they stay out of the watershed.
• Eat organic as much as you can. This isn’t fail-proof, but most organic farms rely on natural sources of nitrogen rather than synthetic nitrogen to increase crop yields.
• Be happy with imperfect produce. There is a massive global cost to get those perfect fruits and vegetables. They’re treated with pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to make them lovely. Go natural to encourage farmers who want to save the planet.
• Enjoy water sports without a motor. You can greatly reduce your own impact on inland water supplies by enjoying muscle-powered water sports that don’t introduce oils, gasoline, and exhaust particulates into the water supply.

Think about how you’re using our precious water resources. Clean water is so easy to get in developed countries that we tend to forget the watershed it comes from.

That watershed needs our protection to continue to provide us with the clean water we need to survive.

3. Air Pollution

Air pollution is what we call the suspended particulates that become part of the atmospheric gases that we breathe.

We’re not running out of oxygen. The earth has plenty of oxygen. The problem is that the concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing disproportionately and it’s pretty much all our fault.

There is a natural carbon dioxide cycle that we have with all of the plants on the planet. We naturally produce carbon dioxide, and they breathe it in and convert it to oxygen.

In a natural state, this would be in perfect balance.

However, when we burn fossil fuels we pump massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that can’t be offset by the plants in the world.

Furthermore, the carbon dioxide is mixed with a slurry of carcinogens and toxins like methane, formaldehyde, phosphorus, styrene, and more.

Curious to see the full list? The EPA has a list of 188 air pollutants . Nobody benefits from breathing in these compounds.

Air pollution affects everything – us, plants, animals, all water on the planet, and marine fish and mammals.

Air pollution causes and effects have to be clearly understood to really grasp the solutions that we have to implement to clear the air.

Air Pollution Solutions

The biggest solution we can implement is the switch to clean alternative energy sources because fossil fuels are the biggest polluters on the planet.

However, we have to be clear that there isn’t a totally clean energy solution .

• Solar panels are made with coal and require toxic waste disposal when they’re decommissioned.
• Wind turbines have some recyclable parts but the huge fiberglass parts end up in landfills. One of the pros of wind energy is that wind turbines produce zero-cost electricity for about 10 years.
• Nuclear energy pros and cons are hotly debated. It’s a dependable and safe energy source that produces zero carbon emissions . However, uranium mining and disposal cause major environmental hazards.
• One of the advantages of biomass electricity that it creates fewer carbons than fossil fuels. However, biomass production is resulting in deforestation .

Having said all that, we still have to choose these alternative energy sources over straight-up fossil fuel consumption.

Fossil fuels are the dirtiest sources of energy that we have and they contribute the most to the dirty air that we suffer from around the world.

• Limit your time on the road. Vehicle emissions are responsible for most of the dirty air that’s found in cities and communities around the world.
• Turn off the lights and turn down the heat. Electricity usage is directly tied to fossil fuel consumption for powering the electrical grid in many areas.
• Help plant trees. You can plant native tree species in your own town to help clean the air.
• Contribute to rainforest reforestation projects that aim to help strengthen the world’s clean air and biodiversity.
• Choose reusable items and avoid using plastics as much as possible. Manufacturing single-use items contribute a lot to air pollution.

Reducing dependence on fossil fuels will go the farthest in clearing the air around the world.

4. Natural Resource Depletion

The world is full of natural resources. A natural resource is anything that we can use to live or make something from.

Some natural resources examples include:

• Fossil fuels

The world is full of natural resources that we use to enable life as we know it. Natural resources feed us, give us electricity, wire our laptops, and keep us hydrated.

The problem is not all natural resources are renewable . Coal, natural gas, uranium, gold, and even salt are natural resources we depend on but once they’re used up we have no more.

This is why we have to focus on stewarding our renewable natural resources.

• Keeping our water clean
• Collecting sunlight for energy
• Ensuring that fisheries are not over-harvested
• Keeping soil as clean as possible – avoiding the use of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers
• Managing timber stands wisely so that we aren’t using more trees than we can replenish in several decades.

When we overuse our natural resources we get a short-term payoff but a long-term loss.

For example, establishing reservoirs in the southwest was a good idea 90 years ago. It allowed the development of desert areas.

However, as communities expand across arid areas under the assumption that established water sources will be reliable, the water sources are being used faster than they can naturally replenish.

Natural Resource Depletion Solutions

One of the main natural resources that we’re depleting is fossil fuel. It is not only going away, but it’s also ruining our planet as we use it for fuel and energy.

Switching to cleaner energy sources is a non-negotiable for solving our climate crisis, but we also have to focus on decreasing our need for energy .

Here are some good ways to decrease your own energy demand so we use fewer natural resources to produce electricity.

• Use less air conditioning in the summer. Willingness to be a little warm will go a long way toward decreasing your contribution to air pollution.
• Use less heat in the winter. Wear a sweater and some slippers instead of cranking up the heat.
• Get up and go to bed with the sun. This is harder in the winter, but by adjusting your waking and sleeping schedule to be more in tune with the sun you’ll feel better and use less electricity in the morning and at night.
• Help to plant trees. Again, replenishing the world’s forests help ensure that our air is healthy and that we have timber stands ready to harvest in the future.
• Waste less food. This doesn’t mean cleaning your plate. This means putting less on it in the first place. Food waste begins at the store and it can end there too.
• Eat whole foods. Whole, natural foods don’t require processing. This means that there isn’t a ton of electricity and fossil fuels going into the production of what you eat. Whole foods are better for the environment and better for your body.
• Refill your water bottle. The majority of single-use plastics that are wandering around in the environment are plastic water bottles. Get a sturdy reusable bottle and refill it. You can keep thousands of water bottles out of the waste stream in your lifetime.

By focusing on sustainability we can help to reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources and help to conserve the resources that we have so they last longer.

5. Waste Management

Waste management has come a long way in the last decade, but it has a long way to go in certain areas of the United States.

According to the EPA, the total waste production in the United States averages out to 4.9 pounds per person per day . This includes all sorts of trash that is binned and collected.

• Recyclables (plastic, paper, glass)
• Landfill items that can’t be recycled
• Grass clippings
• Electronics
• Appliances, etc.

50% of the waste stream goes into landfills .

About 32% of the waste collected in the United States gets recycled or composted .

Nearly 12% gets burned as “biomass” to generate electricity.

Around 6% of the waste is food waste that gets treated in other ways. It might be used in animal feed, turned into fertilizer, used in the creation of biochemicals, or other methods of disposal or reuse.

It’s clear that the US has made a concerted effort to deal with waste streams. The problem is that the amount of waste generated per person is growing drastically.

In 1980 each person generated about 3.66 pounds per day. In 2018 that figure had risen to 4.9 pounds per day. This is the trend that we must change.

Worldwide waste production equals about 1.63 pounds per person with the bulk of that waste being generated in highly developed countries.

Though developing countries don’t tend to generate nearly as much waste per person, they don’t have any safe waste disposal infrastructure which leads to the creation of massive open dumps .

All landfills emit tons of greenhouse gases – mostly methane and carbon dioxide. This is another major contributor to global warming.

While recycling efforts in the United States and elsewhere have produced great results, the recycling waste stream produces much more material than can be currently recycled – ending in waste.

Waste Management Solutions

Waste management must be solved worldwide, but the only thing we can affect is our own consumption and waste patterns.

If each of us becomes wiser consumers we can have a dramatic impact on the waste streams and the carbon emissions from them.

• Waste stops at the store. We can’t impact how much production waste there is unless we stop supporting it with our money. Less demand equals less production.
• Choose reusables. The best purchases are things that can be used hundreds of times before they’re broken or used up.
• Choose recyclables. The recycling stream is quickly outpacing available recycling facilities, so this still isn’t the best choice, though it’s better than throwing things in the landfill.
• Don’t buy more food than you can eat. Some areas have food composting programs, but when food is thrown away it also releases greenhouse gases. Don’t fill your garbage can with food. Reduce your waste and compost food waste if you can. That will also help increase soil health.
• Lobby for recycling. There are billions of dollars being spent on United States “infrastructure.” Citizens need to raise awareness of the need for more and bigger recycling centers so the United States can process its own rubbish.
• Lobby for action. Certain landfills are known as “super emitters.” If local authorities and national politicians will focus on cleaning up the emissions from these sites it will make a huge difference.

In the case of waste streams, part of the responsibility lies with municipal governments to handle waste more cleanly.

The other part of the responsibility lies with the citizens. We are the ones generating the waste. We can all do our part to cut down on our own waste as much as possible.

6. Urban Sprawl

Urban sprawl is the term used to describe the way that cities spread from an urban center into widening suburban neighborhoods. Dwellings go from high-density to low-density, taking up more land.

Urban sprawl is characterized by land use and natural resource consumption .

Undeveloped land that was farmland, ranchland, native plants and soil, or forest is paved over for low-density housing and new strip malls, grocery stores, and restaurant chains.

Here are key takeaways you should know about Urban Sprawl.

• These sprawling areas greatly tax the water supply in the area because the new parks, city strips, lawns, and gardens have to be watered continuously to keep their nice appearance.
• Urban sprawl is a major contributor to the carbon emissions from vehicles . People must commute from sprawling areas into the downtown area for work and school. This increases time on the road. In the worst cases, these vehicles idle while they’re stuck in traffic.
• Urban sprawl creates a need for additional garbage processing resources, greenspace planning, freshwater wells, water treatment plants, waste treatment plants, power plants, substations, and more.

Many of these things aren’t bad, and urban sprawl is often the natural outflow of living in a prosperous area .

It can also be a sign that the municipal government is not keeping the urban areas clean and safe.

Regardless, it is a style of living that uses many more resources than a high-density urban lifestyle.

Some cities including the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and Los Angeles are experiencing increasing urban density as more residents refurbish downtown areas to make them desirable neighborhoods.

Urban Sprawl Solutions

There aren’t any surefire solutions to urban sprawl. The fact is that people move away from urban areas for many reasons – not all of which can be solved.

Here are a few things that local governments can do to encourage people to adopt a high-density housing lifestyle in urban areas.

• Keep residents safe. When people and businesses don’t feel safe in an area they move. Most of the time they choose to move into a suburban or rural area that feels safer. When cities put the safety of residents first they enjoy the prosperity that a thriving urban core brings.
• Focus on key infrastructure. Garbage services, stormwater runoff, sewage treatment, and traffic controls make a big difference in the quality of life in urban areas. When the urban areas feel dirty and congested people move out of the city.
• Encourage community spirit. Cities that find ways to involve citizens in city life enjoy a much higher sense of community pride. This benefits everyone because people who take pride in their community work harder to keep it clean and safe.
• Keep taxes fair. Many people choose to live outside of municipal boundaries because property taxes are much lower in unincorporated areas. Cities that cut fiscal waste can also keep property taxes lower while providing excellent city services.

Over time cities can turn urban life into a desirable living situation for many, diminishing the exodus to outlying areas and helping to curb the rapidity of urban sprawl.

7. Energy Consumption

Our overall high energy consumption is the main contributor to climate change because 61% of the electricity generated in the United States is from burning fossil fuels.

So, on top of burning fossil fuels to commute from sprawling communities, we are also burning fossil fuels to charge our EV cars , keep the air conditioners running, and keep the lights on.

There is no denying the negative impact that our high energy consumption has on the planet, but we also rely on it for our highly technological way of life.

For example, let’s take a look at data centers . The world relies on data centers.

They serve all of your cloud storage, social media content, online shopping, virtual worlds, game streaming, on-demand entertainment, and remote workflows.

Right now, data centers alone consume about 2% of all the energy generated in the United States, and that number is growing as data centers pop up everywhere to handle cloud storage needs.

We can’t just stop feeding data centers because we rely on them for work, data storage, and socialization. Younger generations are more dependent on data center capacity and speed than ever before .

That’s just one example of an energy consumer that we can’t just shut down to save the planet. So we have to look at home to decrease energy consumption .

Energy Consumption Solutions

As with most solutions to our global environmental crisis, the answer begins at home.

• Shut off the lights and opt for sunshine. Even small amounts of wattage saved add up to big savings for the planet.
• Keep appliances clean. Did you know that vacuuming your refrigerator condenser will help it to run less often and cool more efficiently? Keep the dryer clean too so it can dry clothing faster and use less energy.
• Accept a little discomfort. Instead of running the heat and air conditioning to keep yourself at the ideal temperature, let it fluctuate up and down to save energy.
• Reduce energy use during peak hours. 7am to 10pm are peak energy hours for most of the country during most of the year. It’s hard to cut down on energy usage during waking hours, but if you can you’ll save a lot of energy and cut down on your bill too.
• Invest in solar panels. Even a couple of solar panels can really help offset your energy usage. Many utility companies around the United States are taking advantage of government incentives and may be able to install your solar system for free!
• Buy into renewable energy. Many energy companies offer programs where subscribers can buy into renewable energy projects. The electricity from renewables costs a bit more, but by buying in you allow your energy provider to buy into renewable and burn fewer fossil fuels.

There are dozens of ways we can all think of to save a little energy here and there. From riding a bike to eating fresh foods we can help decrease the amount of energy it takes to power our lives.

8. Environmental Degradation

Environmental degradation occurs when human activities change the environment for the worse.

Environmental Degradation Definition

Environmental degradation is the destruction or deterioration of the quality of natural resources and habitats including soil, water, air, and wildlife .

Degradation primarily happens through pollution, over-harvesting, and erosion.

Here are some examples of environmental degradation .

• Strip mining
• Urban sprawl
• Overfishing
• Marine pollution
• Air pollution

Environmental degradation is inevitable because we have to use the land for food production, energy production, and dwellings, but we can do a lot to help preserve the quality of the land.

Environmental Degradation Solutions

There are a number of thing we can do to help reduce the amount of environmental degradation that happens as a result of our own needs and wants.

• Replant native trees and plants . Much environmental degradation occurs because native plants are stripped away for development. Replanting exposed soil helps to replenish minerals, nitrogen, habitats, and stop erosion.
• Curb energy consumption. Again we come back to energy use. The majority of the air pollution in the United States is caused by energy consumption and transportation.
• Plan travel wisely. Instead of making lots of small trips, try to consolidate trips in the car to cut down on air pollution.
• Invest in alternative energy. Alternative energy sources also cause soil degradation because of the raw materials that have to be mined to make them and soil disruption from placement. However, it is much less pollutive to the air than fossil fuels.
• Eat whole foods. Responsible farming and ranching helps to replenish soils through crop rotation and the use of nitrogen-fixing cover crops. However, America’s insatiable appetite for snack foods creates a high demand for irresponsibly grown crops. Eating whole foods is much better for the earth.
• Invest in urban revitalization. If you’re a renter it can be hard to find an urban dwelling. However, if you’re an invester, consider revitalizing downtown industrial areas for housing instead of developing low-density suburban housing.

Humans aren’t responsible for all types of environmental degradation, but we contribute a lot to it. We can also help clean up our habits and use fewer resources that result in habitat destruction.

9. Deforestation

Deforestation happens when trees are stripped away or burned away. It can be human-caused or the result of a natural disaster.

Sometimes humans and nature work together to create deforestation. Examples include when a hydroelectric dam bursts due to catastrophic rainfall, or a volcano like Mt. Saint Helens flattens a forest.

Human-caused deforestation is two-fold. Sometimes managed forests owned by timber companies are stripped and then replanted. This happens for lumber and to create biomass for power plants.

While habitat loss and environmental degradation are heartbreaking, the trees will regrow within a few decades. However, the animals and birds must shift from place to place to survive.

On the other hand, forest fires caused by human activity will deforest an area that may not ever recover. Habitat loss is sometimes permanent .

Deforestation Solutions

The most obvious solution to deforestation is to replant trees in areas that are logged or burned for any reason. Replanting with native species is a must.

The second solution to deforestation is to decrease the demand for paper products and lumber. Choose things that are reusable as much as possible.

The alternative to lumber is steel which creates a different problem because it requires mining and uses non-renewable resources .

However, steel can be recycled forever. One of the benefits of recycling steel is that the recycled steel is just as strong and pure as virgin steel.

So while the recycled steel industry can’t keep up with the need for new steel, as more steel is recycled for construction purposes we should see it gradually relieve some of the need for lumber.

10. Recycling Inefficiencies

The final huge environmental problem that we must solve domestically is our recycling inefficiencies.

Most Americans don’t realize that our recycling system is strained and largely broken because we don’t recycle our trash at home.

The story of US recycling is a long one that’s full of problems, even from the beginning. China used to handle the bulk of our recycling, but it is so polluted that they banned it in 2018.

Now America’s recycling waste is shipped to developing countries like Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia where it is piled waiting to be sorted and recycled into usable materials.

The problem is that anywhere from 20 to 70% of our recyclables end up in a landfill overseas or are burned. This is an outrage that has sparked a lot of discussions but it needs to be addressed at home.

Here are the reasons our recycling is not being recycled.

• People are putting contaminated items into recycling bins. Dirty recyclables can cause an entire load of recyclables – several tons – to be dumped in a landfill.
• People include non-recyclables in recycling bins. This wishful recycling is a major cause for discarding entire loads of recyclables. It’s too expensive to go through and sort it all back out, so it all gets put in the dump.
• The United States isn’t processing recyclables. The United States doesn’t have a federal recycling program and has been dependent on other countries to handle our waste. Now they don’t want it, so we’re stuck with it. We have to implement a recycling program and do it ourselves to succeed.
• Recycling is expensive. Cities used to sell their recycling as a type of raw material and make money from it. Now that global market has dried up and cities are having to pay to get rid of recyclables. That means tons of it are going into the landfill instead of being recycled.
• There are too many types of plastic. Plastic is a particular problem because there are so many types and not all are recyclable. Even though there is a number and a recycling symbol on the bottom doesn’t mean it’s accepted for recycling.

All of this is discouraging because those of us who recycle carefully realize that in spite of us our clean, sorted recyclables might still be ending in a landfill.

Recycling Solutions

The keys to our recycling disaster are expensive, and we have to play the long game to win.

• Education. Educate the public about what’s happening to recyclables and why. When people understand why they can’t throw grocery bags or plastic wrap in with clean water bottles they’ll stop doing it.
• Federal Investment. The federal government needs to invest in recycling centers that can turn US recyclable waste into clean, usable materials. It’s an expensive solution but the only one that can turn the situation around long-term.
• Business Investment. One of the major recycling benefits is that businesses can create packaging and goods with recycled materials. This will help to create a circular market for recyclables in the US economy.
• Reduction. The US must turn away from consumerism and focus on sustainability. As long as we buy into the consumerist culture of getting as much as possible, the waste problem will continue to grow.

We can help at home by ensuring that our recyclables are clean and generating less of a need for recycling by decreasing our dependence on single-use items.

It would also be helpful to limit plastic production to only types that are safe to use and can be recycled.

The benefits of recycling clothes and textiles can’t be overstated. Engaging in this circular economy saves money, eliminates fabric waste, and turns fabric into a renewable resource!

Causes of Environmental Problems

The causes of environmental problems usually come back to excess consumption . As the human population expands we are also collectively demanding more resources per person.

Humans want to use more energy, more precious metals, more water, more food, and more luxurious items like fashionable clothing and multiple vehicles.

All of these demands can be met, but only by expending more of the earth’s natural resources. Metals and fossil fuels are non-renewable so as demand increases the price goes up and the supply goes down.

The key to so many of our major environmental problems is to decrease personal consumption.

Why are environmental problems common in developing countries?

Good question and the answer comes back to excess consumption . Many developing countries receive our excess clothing, recyclables, and used goods.

They develop a market around these used goods, but there is simply too much. It ends up in massive waste piles because many of the goods we discard are low-quality and non-recyclable.

Developing countries lack the infrastructure to deal with polluted water, overflowing landfills, and piles of unused recyclables so they stay in the environment creating health and environmental hazards.

One example is electronics recycling. While we all want to reap the benefits of recycling electronics , when they’re sent overseas for recycling the results are dangerous.

“Informal” recyclers are exposed to extremely high levels of neurotoxins and carcinogens as they break down e-waste by hand to recover gold, silver, copper, and other precious metals.

Instead of exposing the poor to these hazardous materials we should be doing the recycling at home and helping to develop a clean recycling industry abroad.

Final Thoughts

We’ve discussed 10 global environmental problems, and most of them center around the demands of the economically developed world.

The problems we face on planet earth can seem overwhelming, but they aren’t. We can solve them beginning with our own buying and consumption habits .

We can become involved in clean-up efforts in our own communities. We can lobby for domestic recycling plants.

We can help educate our own community members about why recycling is important and why it’s vital to do it right.

What do you think about these environmental problems and solutions? Do you have more ideas for how we can help to solve these environmental problems? Let us know in the comments below!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Managing Environmental and Sustainability Challenges

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 March 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Brian W. Head 2  

17k Accesses

1 Citations

Wicked problems and robust debates abound in environmental policy at local, national and global levels. Over several decades, governments have responded with policies to mitigate industrial pollution, slow the rapid depletion of scarce natural resources and protect biodiversity and ecological systems. The precautionary principle has been invoked to seek thorough assessment of environmental risks before approving economic development projects and technological innovations that might damage ecological assets and human health. Scientific researchers and community groups have lobbied for strong measures to protect biodiversity and promote resilient eco-systems. Resistance to reform has generally been led by conservative parties, corporate media networks and large business firms in traditional industry sectors. Policies for environmental protection have been developed by most national governments, in conjunction with international agreements that encourage collective action. The toolkit of policy instruments has expanded, including regulatory standards and market-based incentives. The role of scientific expertise in providing policy advice on environmental issues has been vital, but controversial. The chapter explores how science interacts with other sources of knowledge and opinion among practitioners and stakeholders. Climate change policy is analysed as an example of interconnected wicked problems, along with brief references to other environmental issues.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

• Science credibility
• Climate change policy
• Precautionary principle
• Adaptive management
• Sustainable development

Introduction

The challenges inherent in effectively managing sustainability crises and wicked problems have provoked an array of responses in both political and scholarly networks, ranging from malaise, paralysis and denial through to committed advocacy for particular solutions. In academic networks, these challenges have stimulated an increase in problem-oriented cross-disciplinary work—on the basis that the big issues demand a large pool of informed analysis that takes account of diverse perspectives. Many new academic journals have been launched to address these fast-growing fields. But many scientists and other scholars are wary of stepping outside the core themes of their discipline. For example, in the field of public management and public governance, Christopher Pollitt criticised the (limited) extent to which his research colleagues were prioritising the ‘grand challenges’ of the modern era, and especially the wicked problem of climate change. Pollitt drew attention to many aspects of climate change that warranted public management research, including multi-stakeholder collaborations, making and implementing agreements, long-term planning capability, policy evaluation and public opinion studies (Pollitt, 2015, p. 184).

On the other hand, the policy sciences have engaged in extensive analysis of environmental policy agendas and the development of new policy instruments (Kettl, 2002). Public policy scholars have analysed the evolution of environmental awareness and advocacy among citizens, stakeholders and the media, and have described how environmental improvement goals became incorporated into governmental policy agendas at local, national and international levels. The historical evolution of problem awareness and policy action has varied in different countries, but some broad patterns can be discerned in how these issues developed. To over-simplify, three main focal areas of environmental concern emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, generated by the pressures of population growth and global demands for economic development. These three focal concerns were the need to reduce all forms of industrial pollution, the need to manage scarce natural resources and the need to protect and nurture biodiversity and ecological systems. These problems were initially tackled by local and provincial leaders and advocacy groups, but the broad scale and the political and legal complexities required the involvement of national governments. National governments were more likely to have the resources, information, policy tools and legal authority to undertake regulatory actions. New units of government were established to monitor environmental standards and promote desired outcomes (Rinfret & Paul, 2019, Ch. 2). An increasing number of community organisations, research centres and think tanks in each country became involved in advancing environmental knowledge and in lobbying for policy improvements (Ascher et al., 2010, pp. 30–34).

Large-scale cross-border problems at an international scale, in turn, have required the involvement of global and regional organisations and networks. Environment programs were established in the United Nations (UN), the European Commission and other international bodies, creating opportunities for negotiating international environmental agreements on a host of topics from biodiversity protection to climate change mitigation. The Montreal Protocol agreement in 1987 to phase out dangerous industrial gases (CFCs) that were destroying the ozone layer is regarded as a relatively successful concerted initiative to reverse the known and urgent risk of ozone depletion (Albrecht & Parker, 2019). Other international agreements have been more contentious and had mixed results, such as strategies to protect endangered species and to limit global warming. The increasing scale and ambition of UN strategic goals is evident in the Sustainable Development Goals 2015–2030, which encompass 17 interconnected areas including water, energy, food, resource use, climate change, land and marine ecosystems, and a host of human development issues aimed at reducing inequalities and promoting peace ( https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs ). Policymakers and scholars have recognised that the ‘wicked’ dimensions of environmental policymaking (complexity, uncertainty and values divergence) require policymakers and researchers to use multi-level approaches for problem analysis, policy design and program implementation. According to Meuleman (2021), public governance should prioritise ‘mission-oriented’ governance for designing and implementing SDG goals, rather than relying on the ‘efficiency’ focus of NPM managerialism.

Integrated Policy Planning or Pluralist Innovation?

Most analysts suggest that large-scale environmental and natural resources problems are so complex that they benefit from processes that promote policy integration and policy coherence. As noted in Chapter 3 , there are strong arguments supporting governance processes that connect multiple stakeholders and service providers. These mechanisms include joined-up government, cross-sectoral collaboration and conflict-reduction processes. Many authors (e.g. Davies et al., 2015; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 2003; Renn & Schweizer, 2009) claim that ‘inclusive’ processes are necessary for the governance of complex risks, in order to enhance the knowledge base, explore uncertainties and accommodate the diversity of value perspectives. Inclusive processes would be required to manage the difficult choices and trade-offs that emerge across goals, values and social constituencies. They note that several types of inclusive processes for discussion and decision are available in democratic societies, and that selecting an appropriate process should take account of the types of issues under consideration and the configuration of stakeholders.

On the other hand, while dialogue among stakeholders and government agencies is generally supported for addressing wicked problems, the quest for ‘integrated’ policy strategies has been disputed by other groups of researchers (Candel, 2017, 2021). The critics argue that the ideal of ‘integration’ is a normative position as well as an empirical argument for coordination and interconnected policies. Policy integration, according to the critics, presumes that decision-makers can attain comprehensive knowledge of both problems and solutions, leading towards optimal outcomes—in other words, a holistic approach is presumed to produce ‘one best solution’. The alternatives promoted by critics of integration are more pluralistic and decentred. For example, the polycentric self-organising tradition pioneered by Elinor Ostrom argues there are no overarching ‘panaceas’ (Ostrom, 2007), and that progress can be achieved through a multitude of locally negotiated initiatives in specific communities. This approach has been applied in analysing diverse case studies, ranging from initiatives to protect scarce natural resources (e.g. local communities managing fisheries, forestry and water resources) through to climate change adaptation measures. Polycentric approaches, according to Ostrom, ‘facilitate achieving benefits at multiple scales’, and also facilitate ‘experimentation and learning from experience with diverse policies’ (Ostrom, 2010, p. 550). Ostrom argued that while the pursuit of international goals and enhanced coordination are indeed important, local and immediate actions are crucial for policy momentum and for achieving positive gains:

Given the failure to reach agreement at the international level on efficient, fair, and enforceable reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, continuing to wait without investing in efforts at multiple scales may defeat the possibilities of significant abatements and mitigations in enough time to prevent tragic disasters. (Ostrom, 2012, p. 354)

Another decentred approach that rejects the quest for rational ‘optimal’ solutions is anchored in the cultural theory of Mary Douglas and her colleagues (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Thompson et al., 1990). Cultural theory claims there will always be diversity in citizens’ perspectives about issues, and diversity in their preferences for action. This is because social preferences are grounded in four different ways of thinking (worldviews) about social order and social change: hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism and fatalism (Verweij & Thompson, 2006, p. 3). These alternative ways of perceiving the world are frames or lenses which broadly shape people’s preferences about social arrangements and their approach to how problems should be managed. Cultural theory argues that these four perspectives are entrenched, and therefore it is sensible for policy-makers to support a pluralist approach that sustains a range of ‘clumsy’ and ‘messy’ solutions—this approach seeks to avoid privileging any one of the four perspectives over the others. Policymakers can work with a variety of policy processes and a mix of policy instruments that take account of these different preferences of citizens. In other words, tackling complex problems requires flexible combinations of approaches to problem-solving (Ney & Verweij, 2015; Verweij & Thompson, 2006). More generally, psychologists have argued that effective communication and persuasion should recognise the key values and terminology associated with the various cultural worldviews, and therefore frame policy arguments in ways that align with such orientations (Kahan & Braman, 2006). Steven Ney sums up the cultural divergence perspective by linking it to problem framing. He suggests that groups of individuals ‘use frames to tell plausible and convincing stories … they are selective accounts and specific interpretations of messy issues. Each story then is potentially contestable by someone who looks at the same problems through the perceptual lens of a different frame and comes to divergent conclusions’ (Ney, 2009, p. 180). Numerous studies have shown that problem frames and narratives communicated by experts and political leaders are regarded as more credible when aligned with the views of citizens, and framing is more influential in reinforcing views than in changing them (Lachapelle et al., 2014).

Science and the Construction of Environmental Policy Issues

Environmental challenges are the meeting place between science, politics and complex social-ecological systems. Scientific networks and institutions had already recognised the ‘human causes’ of major environmental changes by the 1970s, when the UN Environment Program commenced its work and many governments began to establish environment protection agencies. Calls for policy change became more frequent and urgent in the 1980s (Brundtland, 1987; National Research Council, 1992). In reviewing some decades of experience, Selman noted that despite greater scientific knowledge and the roll-out of diverse environmental programs, progress in achieving improved outcomes was likely to be patchy and iterative:

In practice, despite enormous amounts of dedication and inspiration, environmental planning only ever achieves partial success. This is due to the ‘wickedness’ of environmental issues, deriving not only from their technical complexity, but also from the multiple arenas where they are contested and debated. As capacities are built to overcome one barrier, another one arises; as progress is made towards sustainability, so the finishing line recedes. (Selman, 1999, pp. 168–169)

All environmental issues have a very strong reliance on scientific information about trends, causes and impacts. Scientific findings are used by policymakers and stakeholders to support their analysis of problems, assess the severity of impacts and evaluate possible options for improvement. However, as shown in many case studies, while science is a necessary ingredient in the consideration of environmental policy issues, the framing, scoping and prioritising of issues is always political and often controversial. The construction of competing causal stories is a central feature of policy debate, along with processes for stakeholder and citizen ‘voices’ to be heard. Green community organisations and advocates of participatory democracy are concerned that civil society organisations might be excluded if environmental ‘modernisation’ leads to the ‘scientisation’ of environmental decision-making, e.g., through over-reliance on technocratic metrics and trade-offs. For green activists, citizens and social movements must be involved to express their own values and contribute to local solutions (Bäckstrand, 2003; Fischer, 2017). Champions of civic collaboration and citizen science argue that this approach can help to generate significant improvements in addressing wicked problems such as climate change, extreme poverty, pandemics, health inequalities and natural disasters (Hodgkinson et al., 2021).

Science optimists hope that, despite political disputes about problem framing, scientific knowledge can make major differences in decision-making, especially when science is complemented by practical lessons drawn from stakeholder experience of ‘what works’. But scientific knowledge of trends, causes and impacts is not sufficient to shape difficult environmental issues. Drawing on the management and leadership literature, Heifetz (1994, p. 76) distinguished among three situations: first, where there is clarity about both the nature of the problem and the likely solution; second, where the nature of the problem is clearly discerned, but the solutions are not—typically leading to further investigation and discussion; and third, situations where both the problem definition and the solution are unclear, requiring extensive discussion and debate over time. In short, some issues are more likely to become ‘wicked’ when the quality and coherence of the knowledge base interact with the conflicting perspectives and values of stakeholders (Alford & Head, 2017, p. 403). Balint and colleagues suggest that distinguishing between different problem-types is fundamental for constructing effective environmental policies and natural resource management programs. Decision-makers can better appreciate the diverse challenges of policy development if the range of stakeholder values has been mapped and if the knowledge base available to governmental and other stakeholders has been assessed as relatively robust or as requiring major improvements (Balint et al., 2011, p. 10). Different forms of cooperation and collaboration will be required to develop environmental policy strategies, taking account of these dynamics around problem framing, knowledge and values.

Weible (2008) summarised the policy studies literature by arguing that expert-based information tends to be used in three ways: instrumental, learning and political uses. However, these three uses are likely to occur in different ways across various policy fields. These patterns will depend especially on two sets of factors—(1) the degree of openness/closure (e.g., closed sub-systems with a few powerful participants generally exhibit a higher level of agreement on problems and approaches); and (2) the gap between adversarial positions in contested policy spaces (e.g., differences can be amplified by partisans selectively relying on aligned experts). In some circumstances, there may be opportunities for developing shared knowledge (e.g. the experience with natural resources management) and for reducing conflict through collaborative forums (Weible, 2008, pp. 627–8). However, a study of joint knowledge production in Dutch water management found that alignment between experts and policy bureaucrats was more likely to occur than with other groups of stakeholders. According to that study (Edelenbos et al., 2011, p. 683), the three groups—experts, bureaucrats and other stakeholders—use ‘different norms and criteria for knowledge production, ranging from scientific validity (experts), policy usefulness (bureaucrats) and social validity (stakeholders)’. In most research on policy debates, it has been found that expert knowledge is harnessed to reinforce or legitimate the existing beliefs of participants rather than generate policy learning or new perspectives. Empirical studies have shown how patterns of usage are linked to institutional structures affecting policy, the nature and origin of the information, the value placed on knowledge and the dynamics of policy conflict (Heikkila et al., 2020, p. 536).

The scholarly literature on the utilisation of scientific research in policymaking generally presumes that best-available evidence should be used to inform policy debates (Head, 2010b, 2016). This literature places a high premium on the perceived quality and relevance of expert knowledge. However, most decision-makers, stakeholders and the general public are unfamiliar with the rigorous methods of scientific research. Importantly, they are much more interested in the sources of policy-related information and the implications of the policy narratives. This leads to a strong focus on the reputation and perceived independence of particular experts. The classic article by Cash and colleagues outlines a threefold schema:

… scientific information is likely to be effective in influencing the evolution of social responses to public issues to the extent that the information is perceived by relevant stakeholders to be not only credible , but also salient and legitimate . In the sense used here, credibility involves the scientific adequacy of the technical evidence and arguments. Salience deals with the relevance of the assessment to the needs of decision makers. Legitimacy reflects the perception that the production of information and technology has been respectful of stakeholders’ divergent values and beliefs, unbiased in its conduct, and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests. Our work shows these attributes are tightly coupled, such that efforts to enhance any one normally incur a cost to the others. (Cash et al., 2003, p. 8086, emphasis in original)

This perspective assumes that the perceived quality of scientific research findings is very important. However, this approach tends to overlook the significance of cultural cognition research about the polarised use of expertise, as demonstrated in the climate debate. For example, Kahan (2016) shows that ‘politically motivated reasoning’ serves to filter information in ways that reinforce pre-existing beliefs. Expert knowledge is not perceived as neutral; sources identified as agreeing with the proponent are seen as more trustworthy. In a similar manner, this cherry-picking bias is explained by Jones (2011) through cultural cognition theory, arguing that the difficulties of persuading citizens about the challenges and responses to climate change are not open to rational solutions. These disagreements cannot be resolved simply through ‘more science’.

The appropriate roles for scientists in social and environmental policy debates and in provision of policy advice have been long discussed by scholars and commentators (Ezrahi, 1980, p. 118; Owens, 2016). Even when scientists largely agree on what counts as reliable knowledge, they are divided about their appropriate roles in advising policymakers on the mix of required policies and highest priority investments. These tensions have been evident in the reception of the scientific work of the International Panel on Climate Change whose reports include both scientific modelling and a summary of implications for policymakers (IPCC, 2018, 2021). While most agree that scientific findings should be taken into account, the view that scientific knowledge can and should shape policymaking is strongly resisted. According to one critic: ‘We are asking science to do the impossible: to arrive at scientifically coherent and politically unifying understandings of problems that are inherently open, indeterminate and contested’ (Sarewitz, 2017).

Roger Pielke (2007) has argued that scientists should beware of crossing the line from objective analysis to policy advocacy, because policy preferences do not follow tightly from scientific findings—except in narrow technical matters where there are no trade-offs or value choices at stake. Most scientific advice should take the form of providing objective responses to questions and providing options analysis where requested by authoritative decision-makers (the ‘honest broker’ role). Pielke warns that scientists who choose to become policy advocates will risk undermining their own scientific credibility, and they should campaign on the basis of explicit values rather than pretend to be espousing pure science. Most commentators in science policy now recognise the nexus between values, politics and science, and accept that a science-first approach is unrealistic (Weber et al., 2017; Weible & Moore, 2010).

Scientific advice is commonly associated in the public mind with expert advisory bodies and policy development processes. There are numerous examples of researchers being invited to be members of expert panels or making expert submissions to inquiries. The purposes, composition and longevity of such expert advisory bodies vary widely (OECD, 2015; Owens, 2012). Government agencies often create specialised units that employ skilled researchers, who do not necessarily undertake new or original research but who can be crucial in translating governmental and external research findings as part of the briefing process for senior executives, ministers and legislators. In some policy fields, expert standing committees (usually with a majority of external members) may provide advice on quality standards, risk parameters, cost-effectiveness and so on. Ad hoc expert bodies may be formed to respond rapidly to contemporary crises; the most formal of these are public inquiries or royal commissions. Legislative committees also undertake inquiries on a range of social, environmental and technical topics, and usually consider the submissions of experts and stakeholders concerning current and emerging policy challenges.

Scientific analysis and advice inform the policy advisory process rather than determine the strategic direction of environmental policy and the selection of specific regulatory instruments. Scientific knowledge is fundamental for assessing the nature of risks and harms (problem definition), and thus for assigning higher priority and urgency to the issue (agenda-setting). In many areas of environmental concern, the findings of scientific research and evaluation have been consolidated into standards and performance metrics that are useful for practitioners. For example, in relation to biodiversity conservation and the vital role of nature reserves for protecting wilderness and habitat, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has produced standards and principles for the effective planning and management of World Heritage areas, national parks and other conservation areas (IUCN, 2017).

While the knowledge base for environmental issues has continued to grow in depth and breadth, with some issues being thoroughly researched, many other issues suffer from lack of significant long-term research and evaluation. This is especially the case with emergent challenges driven by biotechnologies and novel resource extraction technologies. International organisations and science networks help to improve the knowledge base by sharing and comparing information. For policy scholars, research into public debates about contested priorities and policy choices can demonstrate the extent to which stakeholders agree about the quality and coherence of reliable knowledge, and the extent to which the competing policy narratives are framed by fundamental conflicts in values and stakeholder interests.

Managing Risks—Precaution, Resilience and Environmental Standards

An important threshold question in environmental policy is whether governments should take a precautionary approach to managing environmental risks. This is especially important when knowledge of causes and impacts is uncertain and incomplete (Martuzzi & Tickner, 2004; Ravetz, 2004). There have been fierce disputes about the circumstances in which precaution should be invoked to constrain or hinder technical innovations and commercial investments. The onus of proof concerning the risks of technical and commercial innovation could be allocated in either of two directions—either to support commercial business interests (i.e., innovation is supported and encouraged unless there is robust evidence of harm) or to support environmental integrity and health (i.e., innovations are not licensed unless the balance of harms and benefits has been carefully assessed as favourable or unless appropriate conditions and regulations have been implemented). The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992 declared (Principle 15):

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The precautionary principle has been invoked to minimise harm in a wide range of situations. Examples include regulatory restrictions on the use of novel technologies (such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, or new pharmaceutical drugs in medical therapy); and licences or approvals have been withheld for industrial projects that could cause irreversible harm to ecological systems. Business lobbyists argue that entrepreneurs should be encouraged to invest in innovation and that the onus should be on regulators to prove the probability of serious harm. By contrast, the precautionary principle is more conservative than permissive. High-risk threats to human health and natural systems should not be authorised unless scientific research demonstrates there are no long-term adverse impacts (Metz & Ingold, 2017; Stirling, 2008; Van Asselt & Vos, 2006). Political lobbying on where to draw the line in particular cases has been intense.

In situations of rapid change or crisis that threatens natural assets, the question arises about whether the policy goal should be modest or ambitious—for example, is the goal simply to avoid further harmful deterioration in ecological conditions, or is the goal to ‘restore’ the previous superior level of the ecological system? Another approach, which also eschews restoration, is to identify the few remaining areas of relatively ‘intact’ or pristine ecological systems and to urge highest priority for preserving and protecting such areas (Plumptre et al., 2021). The environmental science literature canvasses debate about which standards of environmental integrity should be pursued in various situations, while increasingly accepting that policy decisions will be highly political and will be shaped by arguments about balance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

The ecological ‘resilience’ literature tends to argue that high standards of environmental protection are required, but that ‘restoration’ is not a realistic possibility within an evolving set of systems and sub-systems (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Resilience is generally understood as the capacity of a system to ‘absorb disturbance’ and reorganise in ways that retain its functions and structures and interactions (Walker & Salt, 2006). The UN Disaster Risk Reduction group defines resilience as follows:

Resilience is the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and function. ( https://www.undrr.org/terminology )

This scholarly literature emphasises the importance of understanding adaptive relationships within social-ecological systems, taking account of the ‘robustness’ of sub-systems and their ‘nested’ levels of interaction (Anderies et al., 2013). The related literature on ‘adaptive governance’ for social-ecological resilience (Chaffin et al., 2014) highlights the importance of building skills and capacities at every level to respond effectively to changes in complex systems. There is a key role for social learning by stakeholders, scientists, decision-makers and their networks.

Another strand in resilience literature has examined the capacity of communities to recover from disasters and from entrenched environmental crises. The central focus is how to support and strengthen ‘adaptive capacity, self-organisation and agency’ at the level of local communities and their wider networks (Berkes & Ross, 2013; Goldstein, 2012). The concept of resilience has also been taken up in studies of public administration and policymaking. The OECD (2014) has highlighted the relevance of this conceptual literature for a deeper understanding of how governments could use risk management and adaptive management in addressing dynamic and turbulent situations. Others have cautioned against over-emphasising flexibility and adaptive capacity at the expense of other important public sector values such as stability, predictability, reliability and efficiency (Duit, 2016).

Wicked Dimensions of Environmental Policymaking

Environmental policy analysis and the political debates on environmental policymaking have recognised the fundamental importance of complexity, uncertainty and stakeholder disagreement. Many researchers have described the ‘wicked’ features of environmental case studies—whether in food and agriculture, biodiversity, land management, resource extraction, climate change, air and water quality, renewable energy and so on. Environmental policy research highlights both the enduring challenge of wicked problems, and the enduring significance of ‘wickedness’ as a frame for policy analysis (e.g. Durant & Legge, 2006; Turnpenny et al., 2009). For some scientists there is continued disappointment that politics seems to prevail over scientific knowledge. However, other researchers have emphasised that in democracies it is necessary to build trust through transparent processes to mediate differences in goals and perspectives, working across the boundaries of science, stakeholder interests and political processes (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003).

Researchers suggest the importance of both the vertical dimension of public authority and the horizontal dimension of inclusive dialogue. Taking this dual approach, researchers suggest that unpacking the intractable or intransigent nature of the problems would require wide discussion through networks and collaborative forums. Pahl-Wostl and colleagues have argued that a structured analytical framework is a necessary element for inclusive analysis of the complex and multi-facetted aspects of environment policy coordination (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2020). Such an approach would facilitate identification of multiple pathways that could lead to an improvement (or a decline). On the other hand, analysis and engagement are not enough; effective interventions to tackle the substantive problems would additionally require strong governmental regulation, coordination and leadership (Crowley et al., 2020; Peters, 2019).

Complexities abound, owing to the different levels or scales of behaviour (e.g. local, regional, global, cross-border issues); the interconnections between various socio-economic and ecological issues (e.g. power, poverty and resource use); and the large number of organisations and institutions that play a role in policy debate and program implementation. Many types of uncertainty also abound (Bammer & Smithson, 2008), posing challenges for understanding the nature and impact of the problems and for designing or negotiating appropriate policy responses. Van Bueren et al. (2003) interrogated the nuances of wicked environmental issues in terms of the varying effects of cognitive, strategic and institutional uncertainties. Actors with divergent perspectives have difficulty in working together. The conclusion was that the uncertainties underlying and shaping wicked problems can be reduced only through network-based ‘cooperation’, thereby ‘enhancing and intensifying interactions between stakeholders’ (2003, pp. 193–194, 211). Dewulf and Biesbroek (2018) developed a detailed schema for classifying types of uncertainty. On one dimension, they distinguish between uncertainties arising from knowledge gaps, conflicting values and frames of stakeholders, and the underlying ‘unknowns' concerning the behaviour of complex systems. On a second dimension, they focus on processes for debate and decision, identifying three related uncertainties about the rules of the game, the likely tactics of other actors and the concrete content of policy choices.

Brugnach and colleagues argue that a focus on reducing knowledge gaps is not enough, and that it is essential to recognise the importance of multiple frames through which stakeholders understand the problem and possible solutions (Brugnach et al., 2011). Uncertainty should be not seen as primarily about ‘the facts’ but as embedded in the divergent interpretations, relationships and sense-making of the various participants:

because it is from this understanding that problems and solutions emerge. Under this view, solutions do not exclusively consist of eliminating or reducing uncertainty, but of reframing the problems as such so that they convey a different meaning. (Brugnach et al., 2008, p. 1)

The future-oriented policy sciences, which assist in setting realistic goals for climate response policy, have to absorb difficult pressures to maintain their credibility and relevance. On the one hand, reliable long-term forecasts are needed to underpin incentives for investment in low-emissions technologies; but on the other hand, uncertainties about the pace and direction of change require flexibility and rapid adjustments to new information (Nemet et al., 2017).

Climate Change as a Wicked Policy Arena

The argument that we have entered the era of the Anthropocene—where industrial activities are undermining the planetary systems on which human societies depend—is intended to galvanise urgent action to arrest the deterioration of natural assets, by ensuring that governments and citizens take responsibility for inclusive remedial action at every level (Biermann, 2014; Ison et al., 2018; Lövbrand et al., 2020). The argument is that the pace, scale and depth of change have intensified, leading to cascading negative impacts on interconnected systems (Hom & Penn, 2021). The recent wave of declarations that all societies are facing a climate emergency is intended to galvanise strategic priorities to focus on avoiding future catastrophe; but the political rhetoric of climate emergency could also spark further polarisation and resistance (Patterson et al., 2021). Political leadership is required to ensure that ecological system goals are prioritised. In the past, policymaking on major issues has involved trade-offs between social, economic and environmental objectives, with economic interests generally dominant. Climate change has become the major crisis that highlights these concerns about re-thinking priorities and managing competing objectives. The large and rapid nature of planetary change could even increase the political difficulties of shifting priorities towards environmental goals (Dryzek & Pickering, 2019, p. 98).

The planetary scale of the Anthropocene perspective has also encouraged techo-engineering proposals to ‘save the planet’ (Lomborg, 2010), including solar heat shields, the capture and storage of industrial emissions, and various initiatives for genetic reengineering of plants and animals. However, while some of these proposals may prove to be technically feasible, the environmental and ethical dimensions of identifying and managing the associated risks have not been canvassed (Reynolds, 2021).

There are several reasons why climate change response policy can be termed a field of ‘wicked problems’ (Head, 2014). Firstly, the climate change challenges are actually a series of linked problems, none of which can be resolved in isolation. The interconnections between the UN Sustainable Development Goals illustrate these crucial inter-dependencies. Progress in one field may depend on parallel progress elsewhere, and negative developments in one area may undermine initiatives in other fields. Spillover or ripple effects are common. For example, a transition away from fossil fuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but threats to biodiversity would be exacerbated if the ‘solution’ is to clear old-growth forests in order to expand the farming of crops that produce bio-fuels (Portner et al., 2021). Rural areas are often the subject of competing land uses, some of which involve competing forms of legitimacy, such as the overlay of commercial interests in areas formerly governed through traditional entitlements. Sayer et al. (2013) have suggested some procedural principles, including adaptive management and inclusive participation, which could assist in large-scale processes for reconciling agriculture, conservation and other competing land uses.

Secondly, future-oriented estimates of the costs and benefits of specific interventions—directed at tackling climate change and promoting sustainable development—are likely to be diverse, uncertain and shift over time and place. Policy responses need to account for both short-term and long-term trajectories and adapt to the constantly changing contexts. Thirdly, the risks and impacts are simultaneously local, regional and global. This multi-level diversity makes the understanding of impacts, and the choice of adaptive responses, very difficult. The underlying systemic causes can manifest in specific local symptoms (such as famine and crop failures during cycles of drought or flood devastation in large river-delta cities). Fourthly, despite the solidity of the scientific knowledge base, key findings have been hotly contested in public debate, with scepticism and denial being promoted by some industry sectors, especially in relation to the extent of climate change and the human contribution to causality. Hence, fifthly, the allocation of responsibilities and the ‘ownership’ of change leadership has remained unresolved, and the urgency of change has been widely resisted by particular governments, corporations and political groups. This is true both within each country (industries, localities) and across groups of countries (developed, developing, small, large, etc.). In a polycentric system of governance, there are opportunities for both separate and joined-up initiatives. For example, in the absence of policy leadership by the US national government, 25 state governments formed the US Climate Alliance, which encourages policy innovation and investment to advance the agendas of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Sixthly, there are significant equity issues and moral concerns around impacts and burden sharing. These conflicting perspectives reinforce the polarisation of policy debates. Examples include the argument that poor and vulnerable populations will suffer more from the harmful impacts of climate change; that poor nations should receive special incentives and assistance to make the necessary transitions; and that future generations should not suffer as a result of current inaction and selfishness. Finally, the impetus to prioritise climate action has been slowed in the wake of the global financial crisis and the global pandemic crisis; in particular, a resurgence of economic nationalism and protectionism has hindered international collective action, exacerbated by government leaders having a reduced appetite for shouldering further adjustment costs.

Taken together, these ‘nested’ problems constitute what Garnaut (2008) has called a ‘diabolical’ challenge for science and for politics, and what Lazarus (2009) called a ‘super-wicked’ problem for political and legislative resolution. In the same vein, Levin and colleagues asserted that the ‘super-wicked’ nature of climate change policy has produced a ‘tragic’ impasse, because ‘time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution; the central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent; and, partly as a result, policy responses discount the future’ (Levin et al., 2012, p. 123). Psychological research has shown that discounting the future is common. Citizens and legislators generally prefer the current (and familiar) array of benefits/rewards over the likely costs of mitigating future (but unknown) harms through substantial policy reforms and major behavioural changes. This cognitive process of ‘discounting’ future risks is likely to undermine the rational cost/benefit proposition that any further delay in substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will generate massive additional costs for remediation that will confront future leaders, stakeholders and citizens (Giddens, 2011; Stern, 2007).

Given that global warming is linked to the scale and composition of industrialisation, the pace of global industrial development has been massive. For example, the consumption of energy in India doubled between 2000 and 2020 and 80% of its energy production utilised carbon-intensive sources (IEA, 2021, p. 11). China recently accounted for half of global coal consumption and 29% of global energy-related carbon emissions (Zhou et al., 2020).

The debate on climate response policy has highlighted the differences between those who deny there is a major problem, those who seek incremental policy adjustments, and those who urge rapid and ambitious transformations. In many cases, the policy action has focused on small tangible steps to manage the symptoms of a broader evolving crisis. Examples include changes in building codes to ensure that urban infrastructure can better withstand storms, floods, fires and other natural disasters; and increased investment in emergency response capabilities. The more ambitious strategies aim at rapid reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases through a mix of incentives, standards and regulations that facilitate transition to new technologies and industry practices. Dewulf (2013) found major differences in policy framing between the mitigation and adaptation perspectives. Mitigation strategies prioritise the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. the goal of ‘zero net emissions’ and phasing out ‘carbon-polluting’ industries), whereas adaptation strategies focus on adjusting to the likely ongoing effects of climate extremes and natural disasters. Dewulf also found that the framing of perceived threats from climate change was sometimes presented as ‘external’ security threats (e.g. the influx of displaced persons or ‘climate refugees’) rather than focusing on the need to protect the health, well-being and livelihoods of citizens. Adaptation policies have become more readily accepted as mainstream priorities because they are seen as practical necessities in the face of tangible disruptions caused by droughts, fires, storms and floods (Adger et al., 2009; Schipper & Burton, 2009; Wise et al., 2014). By contrast, emissions reduction (or mitigation) strategies have been seen as more challenging and have been strongly resisted by incumbent industries and conservative political groups.

Substantive differences on climate policy are evident between those who champion technocratic engineering solutions (e.g., projects to deflect solar radiation or facilities to capture and bury carbon emissions), and those who seek a mix of regulatory and behavioural incentives to foster renewable energy and low-emissions industrial processes. Lomborg (2016) has argued that government leaders’ pledges in 2014–2015 to reduce emissions by over 30% by 2030 would not only be expensive, but would fail to reverse global warming this century. Industry-friendly economists (and critics of ‘alarmist’ green politicians) have generally rejected carbon pricing schemes, instead recommending investment in technical projects, geo-engineering and energy R&D (Lomborg, 2010, pp. 381, 395). More recently, however, Lomborg has argued that carbon pricing could actually be a useful policy instrument for nudging economic change, but that the main thrust should remain with R&D for technology innovation, together with very large investments in adaptation measures for urban infrastructure and food security (Lomborg, 2020).

Climate policy preferences are tied to how people perceive the problems and their affinities with various styles of thinking. Policy research consistently shows that preferred solutions tend to be shaped by the way that problems are framed or constructed, including the way that values are mobilised by leaders and stakeholders (Peters, 2005). The framing of a complex set of issues like climate change occurs at several levels. The cognitive dimension is primarily about science, knowledge and policy ideas; the communicative dimension focuses on how messages are circulated, challenged or reinforced; the organisational or institutional dimension centres on embedded practices, rules and routines, and capacities for implementation; and the political dimension is about power, crisis management and political leadership to defend or change policies and practices. Framing of climate change response strategies should recognise these four dimensions. In doing so, policy actors need to understand the values and concerns of the public—communication with diverse stakeholder audiences needs to be nuanced and use appropriate language. The research on effective science communication has been radically revised in the light of environmental debates (Corner & Clarke, 2017; Lakoff, 2010; Turnpenny, 2012), and increasingly recognises the diversity of values across multiple audiences (Jamieson et al., 2017), as foreshadowed in theories of political-cultural segmentation. There is some evidence that framing the policy reform issues in economic terms can often be more persuasive than relying on the credibility of climate science projections (Cann, 2021).

Using Collaborative Approaches for Environment Policy

Democracies usually display a pluralistic divergence of viewpoints. Because it is not possible to resolve environmental policy disputes through ‘more science’, policy leadership and engagement processes need to take account of divergent interests at local and regional levels, and across industry sectors. Many areas of environmental policy and natural resource management have been regarded as wicked problems whose levels of complexity and conflict can only be managed effectively through drawing upon collaborative approaches (DeFries & Nagendra, 2017; Head et al., 2016).

Critics of contemporary policymaking argue that the standard managerialist approaches of modern government, along with the ‘technocratic scientisation of public policy’, cannot effectively address the wicked social, economic and ecological issues of modern societies (Fischer, 2003; Frame & Brown, 2008). Performance metrics and standards are vital, but multi-stakeholder discussion processes are necessary to articulate and mediate the differences in values that underlie policy disagreements. Ideally this could lead to constructing a better-informed basis for broad agreement on longer-term goals and medium-term policy initiatives.

Policy and planning processes for environment and natural resources have shifted over time towards higher levels of engagement and cooperation with stakeholders at local and regional levels. To take an example that has been thoroughly researched in the USA, the regulation of watersheds (or river basins) was traditionally the responsibility of specific functional agencies, but the planning arrangements have gradually been opened up to multiple stakeholders and the general public. This shift was partly due to pressures from stakeholders and partly due to the persistence of underlying problems such as water quality, biodiversity conservation and protection of coastal areas. The involvement of stakeholders led to a variety of more cooperative arrangements for managing water and natural resources (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Moreover, the emergence of network organisations has enabled the rise of knowledge-brokering functions, which increase the flows of information relevant to specific environmental issues (Michaels, 2009). Stakeholder involvement has also been championed in the emerging environmental research literature on co-production and co-design (Miller & Wyborn, 2020).

Experience with more inclusive and networked models in some issue-areas has been encouraging (Goldsmith & Kettl, 2009), but many practical difficulties have emerged in attempting to use more inclusive approaches for tackling complex interconnected problems (Koontz & Thomas, 2006). On the one hand, improving dialogue between conflicting stakeholders has been seen as ‘good politics’, but on the other hand, it was less certain that positive environmental outcomes were being achieved. Paul Sabatier’s research team raised some tough issues:

Many of the “solutions” reached in collaborative stakeholder settings may be good political compromises, but they do not really solve the environmental or socioeconomic problems plaguing a watershed. Conversely, many negotiated solutions may be appropriate from a physical environmental standpoint, but they may leave out key stakeholders who will pursue other avenues of blocking implementation. Many collaborative efforts create policies that rely on voluntary cooperation without any formal legal enforcement mechanisms, which often creates considerable doubt about the likelihood of policy implementation. (Sabatier et al., 2005, pp. 5–6)

Thus, watershed management forums were sometimes criticised for being politically symbolic arrangements which distracted attention from ongoing water management problems. At the same time, however, inclusive processes provided the opportunity for addressing the social interaction dimension of complex problems. Sabatier’s team reviewed the evidence about factors that facilitate the formation of more collaborative arrangements and increase the likelihood of producing positive results. While recognising that the US institutional and political culture is different from elsewhere, they suggested that multi-stakeholder agreements are more likely to be successful when there is a pressing need to overcome gridlock or stalemate; when all major stakeholders are included; and decisions are made through consensus. The convenor would ideally be a ‘respected, knowledgeable and neutral’ person, and network members should stay personally involved and committed to long-term discussion (Sabatier et al., 2005, p. 197). Building trust and respect among network members is always seen as important, but there are also practical benefits in finding the ‘right’ mix of membership (Ansell et al., 2020).

There is a large literature on ‘collaborative’ governance and the benefits of organisations working across sectoral boundaries (Weber & Khademian, 2008). Collaborative processes may contribute to better information and lead to innovative solutions (Ansell & Torfing, 2014; Sørensen & Torfing, 2021). The modern literature on interactive governance and stakeholder engagement confirms the empirical trend towards cross-sectoral relationships and interdependence, and there is an increasing number of research studies exploring the conditions under which partnerships and network forums can be successful (Douglas et al., 2020). But inclusive discussion in the policymaking process has arguably fallen short of fully ‘collaborative’ approaches. This is because, unlike cooperation and coordination, full collaboration requires genuine power-sharing (Keast et al., 2004), and such devolution of power has been a step too far for most public agencies.

Two important caveats have emerged. Firstly, collaboration is not just about achieving consensus; effective problem-solving and effective program management require a clear focus on goals and strategic directions. Secondly, while stakeholders in industry and community are crucial, the overarching role of public authority remains vital for effective problem-solving and implementation (Crowley et al., 2020; Pierre & Peters, 2005; Torfing et al., 2012). In addition to their regulatory and coordination roles, government agencies are also vital for monitoring trends, and adjusting the flow of policy advice as circumstances evolve; these roles are required for responding to slow-onset deterioration in environmental conditions (Tosun & Howlett, 2021).

One of the processes recommended for enhancing the sharing of knowledge and developing shared goals is the use of mediation and dispute resolution techniques. This is a specialised area of professional skills. It is widely seen as valuable for managing and mitigating social and environmental conflicts (Lewicki et al., 2003; O’Leary & Bingham, 2003; O’Leary et al., 2004). The argument is that wicked problems can be better managed (though not magically cured) by exploring and mediating divergent perspectives through a process of dialogue and deliberation. This process can also facilitate consideration of the inherently difficult choices about priorities and trade-offs.

The other major process that can empower and complement collaborative forums is the mobilisation of governmental administrative resources. For example, public sector coordination is generally necessary to focus organisational effort on the strategic goals enunciated by government leaders, who in some cases might build on the agreements forged in multi-stakeholder forums. Whole-of-government approaches and ‘joined-up’ government strategies are often needed to align the resources of diverse agencies to the announced priorities of government. Inter-agency coordination through ‘joined-up’ government is a common challenge for addressing many complex problems. The broader challenge is to establish effective cross-sectoral arrangements to bridge the vast divide between public sector agencies and the various non-government spheres represented by business, community and research organisations (Torfing et al., 2012). Framework agreements can provide a useful instrument for harnessing the activities of key actors within government, across levels of government and across other sectors. For example, in the European Union, complex environmental issues have been tackled through agreements such as the Water Framework Directive in 2000, which established principles for integrated water basin management but allowed flexibility in implementation according to local contexts. Similarly, the EU Waste Framework Directive in 2008 laid out targets for waste reduction and resource recovery while recognising the need for local variations.

In conclusion, the toolkit of environmental policy instruments has expanded greatly, taking into account the wide variety of issues, their locations, and the capacities of governments and other policy actors. Legislation to establish environmental agencies, regulatory standards and data-bases for monitoring and evaluation have significantly increased capability and awareness. Over time, business entrepreneurs have developed new technologies for green transitions, and governments have experimented with pricing, taxation and market-based incentives to leverage pro-environment behaviour. The innovation agenda is further discussed in later chapters.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Political Science, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia

Brian W. Head

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian W. Head .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Head, B.W. (2022). Managing Environmental and Sustainability Challenges. In: Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0_5

Published : 03 March 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-94579-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-94580-0

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The World's Plastic Pollution Crisis Explained

Much of the planet is swimming in discarded plastic, which is harming animal and possibly human health. Can it be cleaned up?

Conservation

Children Play among Plastic

While plastic pollution is a worldwide problem it is most obvious in less-wealthy African and Asian nations, like the Philippines. Here, children play among plastic waste on the shore of Manila Bay.

Photograph by Randy Olson

Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues, as rapidly increasing production of disposable plastic products overwhelms the world’s ability to deal with them. Plastic pollution is most visible in less-wealthy Asian and African nations, where garbage collection systems are often inefficient or nonexistent. But wealthy nations, especially those with low recycling rates, also have trouble properly collecting discarded plastics. Plastic trash has become so ubiquitous it has prompted efforts to write a global treaty negotiated by the United Nations. How Did this Happen? Plastics made from fossil fuels are just over a century old. Production and development of thousands of new plastic products accelerated after World War II to the extent that life without plastics would be unimaginable today. Plastics revolutionized medicine with life-saving devices, made space travel possible, lightened cars and jets—saving fuel and lessening pollution —and saved lives with helmets, incubators , and equipment for clean drinking water. The conveniences plastics offer, however, led to a throw-away culture that reveals the material’s dark side: Today, single-use plastics account for 40 percent of the plastic produced every year. Many of these products, such as plastic bags and food wrappers, are used for mere minutes to hours, yet they may persist in the environment for hundreds of years. Plastics by the Numbers Some key facts:

• Half of all plastics ever manufactured have been made in the last 15 years.
• Production increased exponentially, from 2.3 million tons in 1950 to 448 million tons by 2015. Production is expected to double by 2050.
• Every year, about 8 million tons of plastic waste escapes into the oceans from coastal nations. That’s the equivalent of setting five garbage bags full of trash on every foot of coastline around the world.
• Plastics often contain additives making them stronger, more flexible, and durable. But many of these additives can extend the life of products if they become litter, with some estimates ranging to at least 400 years to break down.

How Plastics Move around the World Most of the plastic trash in the oceans, Earth’s last sink, flows from land. Trash is also carried to sea by major rivers, which act as conveyor belts, picking up more and more trash as they move downstream . Once at sea, much of the plastic trash remains in coastal waters. But once caught up in ocean currents, it can be transported around the world. On Henderson Island, an uninhabited atoll in the Pitcairn Group isolated halfway between Chile and New Zealand, scientists found plastic items from Russia, the United States, Europe, South America, Japan, and China. They were carried to the South Pacific by the South Pacific gyre , a circular ocean current. Microplastics Once at sea, sunlight, wind, and wave action break down plastic waste into small particles, often less than half a centimer (one-fifth of an inch) across. These so-called microplastics are spread throughout the water column and have been found in every corner of the globe, from Mount Everest, the highest peak, to the Mariana Trench, the deepest trough . Microplastics are breaking down further into smaller and smaller pieces. Plastic microfibers (or the even smaller nanofibers), meanwhile, have been found in municipal drinking water systems and drifting through the air. Harm to Wildlife Millions of animals are killed by plastics every year, from birds to fish to other marine organisms. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by plastics. Nearly every species of seabird eats plastics. Most of the deaths to animals are caused by entanglement or starvation. Seals, whales, turtles, and other animals are strangled by  abandoned fishing gear or discarded six-pack rings. Microplastics have been found in more than 100 aquatic species, including fish, shrimp, and mussels destined for our dinner plates. In many cases, these tiny bits pass through the digestive system and are expelled without consequence. But plastics have also been found to have blocked digestive tracts or pierced organs, causing death. Stomachs so packed with plastics reduce the urge to eat, causing starvation. Plastics have been consumed by land-based animals, including elephants, hyenas, zebras, tigers, camels, cattle, and other large mammals, in some cases causing death. Tests have also confirmed liver and cell damage and disruptions to  reproductive systems , prompting some species, such as oysters, to produce fewer eggs. New research shows that larval fish are eating nanofibers in the first days of life, raising new questions about the effects of plastics on fish populations. Stemming the Plastic Tide Once in the ocean, it is difficult—if not impossible—to retrieve plastic waste. Mechanical systems, such as Mr. Trash Wheel, a litter interceptor in Maryland’s Baltimore Harbor, can be effective at picking up large pieces of plastic, such as foam cups and food containers, from inland waters. But once plastics break down into microplastics and drift throughout the water column in the open ocean, they are virtually impossible to recover. The solution is to prevent plastic waste from entering rivers and seas in the first place, many scientists and conservationists—including the National Geographic Society—say. This could be accomplished with improved waste management systems and recycling, better product design that takes into account the short life of disposable packaging, and reduction in manufacturing of unnecessary single-use plastics.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Top Environmental Challenges Facing the World in 2023

• Editor Desk
• June 28, 2023
• Environment

In 2023, the world continues to face significant environmental challenges that require immediate attention and action. These challenges, stemming from human activities and natural processes, threaten the delicate balance of our ecosystems and the well-being of all life on Earth. This article explores the top environmental challenges of 2023, providing a detailed explanation of each issue and highlighting the keywords frequently searched by concerned individuals.

I. Climate Change:

Climate change remains one of the most pressing environmental challenges in 2023. The Earth’s average temperature is rising due to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. The consequences include more frequent and intense heatwaves, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems and biodiversity . International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions and transitioning to renewable energy sources.

II. Loss of Biodiversity:

The loss of biodiversity poses a significant threat to ecosystems and the well-being of humanity. Human activities, including deforestation, pollution, overfishing, and habitat destruction, have led to the extinction of numerous species. This loss disrupts ecosystem functions, reduces resilience, and limits the availability of essential resources. Conservation initiatives, protected areas, and sustainable practices are crucial for preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecological balance.

III. Water Scarcity:

Water scarcity is a growing concern in many regions of the world, affecting both humans and ecosystems. Population growth, climate change, and unsustainable water management practices contribute to the depletion of freshwater resources. Additionally, water pollution from industrial and agricultural activities further exacerbates the problem. Improving water management, promoting water conservation, and implementing sustainable agricultural practices are vital for addressing water scarcity and ensuring access to clean water for all.

IV. Air Pollution:

Air pollution continues to be a significant environmental challenge, particularly in densely populated areas and industrial regions. Emissions from vehicles, power plants, industrial processes, and burning fossil fuels contribute to the presence of harmful pollutants in the air. The consequences of air pollution include respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced air quality, and negative impacts on ecosystems. Adopting cleaner technologies, promoting renewable energy , and implementing stricter emission regulations are essential steps in combating air pollution.

V. Deforestation:

Deforestation, driven by agricultural expansion, logging, and urbanization, poses a severe threat to global ecosystems. The loss of forests not only reduces carbon sequestration but also disrupts habitats, exacerbates climate change, and impairs water cycles. Efforts to combat deforestation involve promoting sustainable land use practices, protecting forests, and supporting reforestation initiatives.

Key Takeaways:

The environmental challenges facing the world in 2023 are diverse and interconnected. Addressing these challenges requires a combination of global cooperation, policy changes, sustainable practices, and individual actions. By focusing on climate change, loss of biodiversity, water scarcity, air pollution, and deforestation, we can work towards a sustainable and resilient future for the planet and its inhabitants.

What is climate change?

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in weather patterns caused by the increase in greenhouse gases, primarily from human activities. It leads to rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, and environmental disruptions.

Why is biodiversity loss a concern?

Biodiversity loss refers to the extinction of species, which disrupts ecosystems and reduces resilience. It affects vital services like pollination, nutrient cycling, and disease control, posing a threat to human well-being and the balance of nature.

How does water scarcity impact us?

Water scarcity occurs when the demand for water exceeds its availability. It affects agriculture , public health, and ecosystems. Sustainable water management practices, conservation efforts, and reducing pollution are key to addressing this issue.

What are the health effects of air pollution?

Air pollution can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, especially in areas with high levels of particulate matter and pollutants. Breathing clean air is essential for maintaining good health and well-being.

Why is deforestation a problem?

Deforestation involves the clearing of forests for agriculture, logging, and urbanization. It contributes to climate change, disrupts habitats, and threatens biodiversity. Forest conservation and reforestation efforts are critical for ecosystem restoration.

What can individuals do to help the environment?

Individual actions matter. You can reduce your carbon footprint by conserving energy, using public transportation or biking, supporting sustainable products, practicing recycling, and raising awareness about environmental issues in your community.

Share this:

How 5 Cities Shape Sustainable Urban Futures? Passive Cooling Revolution

• December 18, 2023

• Global Warming

What Is The Impact of Rising Sea Levels on The Pacific Island?

• December 13, 2023

• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• Climate Change
• Policy & Economics
• Biodiversity
• Conservation

Get focused newsletters especially designed to be concise and easy to digest

• ESSENTIAL BRIEFING 3 times weekly
• TOP STORY ROUNDUP Once a week
• MONTHLY OVERVIEW Once a month
• Enter your email *
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

15 Biggest Environmental Problems of 2024

While the climate crisis has many factors that play a role in the exacerbation of the environment, some warrant more attention than others. Here are some of the biggest environmental problems of our lifetime, from deforestation and biodiversity loss to food waste and fast fashion.

1. Global Warming From Fossil Fuels

2023 was the hottest year on record , with global average temperatures at 1.46C above pre-industrial levels and 0.13C higher than the eleven-month average for 2016, currently the warmest calendar year on record. The year was marked by six record-breaking months and two record-breaking seasons.

What’s more, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have never been so high . After being consistently around 280 parts per million (ppm) for almost 6,000 years of human civilisation, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now well above 420 ppm, more than double what they were before the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Rick Spinrad, the steady annual increase is a “direct result of human activity,” mainly from the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation but also from cement manufacturing, deforestation , and  agriculture .

This is undoubtedly one of the biggest environmental problems of our lifetime: as greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the sun’s heat, leading to global warming.

Increased emissions of greenhouse gases have led to a rapid and steady increase in global temperatures, which in turn is  causing catastrophic events all over the world – from Australia and the US experiencing some of the most devastating bushfire seasons ever recorded, locusts swarming across parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, decimating crops, and a heatwave in Antarctica that saw temperatures rise above 20C for the first time. S cientists are constantly warning that the planet has crossed a series of tipping points that could have catastrophic consequences, such as  advancing permafrost melt in Arctic regions, the Greenland ice sheet melting at an unprecedented rate, accelerating sixth mass extinction , and increasing deforestation in the Amazon rainforest , just to name a few.

The climate crisis is causing tropical storms and other weather events such as hurricanes, heatwaves and flooding to be more intense and frequent than seen before. However, even if all greenhouse gas emissions were halted immediately, global temperatures would continue to rise in the coming years. That is why it is absolutely imperative that we start now to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, invest in renewable energy sources, and phase our fossil fuels as fast as possible.

You might also like: The Tipping Points of Climate Change: How Will Our World Change?

2. Poor Governance

According to economists like Nicholas Stern, the climate crisis is a result of multiple market failures .

Economists and environmentalists have urged policymakers for years to increase the price of activities that emit greenhouse gases (one of our biggest environmental problems), the lack of which constitutes the largest market failure, for example through carbon taxes, which will stimulate innovations in low-carbon technologies.

To cut emissions quickly and effectively enough, governments must not only massively increase funding for green innovation to bring down the costs of low-carbon energy sources, but they also need to adopt a range of other policies that address each of the other market failures. 

A national carbon tax is currently implemented in 27 countries around the world , including various countries in the EU, Canada, Singapore, Japan, Ukraine and Argentina. However, according to the 2019 OECD Tax Energy Use report, current tax structures are not adequately aligned with the pollution profile of energy sources. For example, the OECD suggests that carbon taxes are not harsh enough on coal production, although it has proved to be effective for the electricity industry. A carbon tax has been effectively implemented in Sweden ; the carbon tax is U$127 per tonne and has reduced emissions by 25% since 1995, while its economy has expanded 75% in the same time period. 

Further, organisations such as the United Nations are not fit to deal with the climate crisis: it was assembled to prevent another world war and is not fit for purpose. Anyway, members of the UN are not mandated to comply with any suggestions or recommendations made by the organisation. For example, the Paris Agreement , a historic deal within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), says that countries need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly so that global temperature rise is below 2C by 2100, and ideally under 1.5C. But signing on to it is voluntary, and there are no real repercussions for non-compliance. Further, the issue of equity remains a contentious issue whereby developing countries are allowed to emit more in order to develop to the point where they can develop technologies to emit less, and it allows some countries, such as China, to exploit this. 

3. Food Waste

A third of the food intended for human consumption – around 1.3 billion tons – is wasted or lost. This is enough to feed 3 billion people. Food waste and loss account for approximately one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions annually ; if it was a country, food waste would be the third-largest emitter  of greenhouse gases, behind China and the US. 

Food waste and loss occurs at different stages in developing and developed countries; in developing countries, 40% of food waste occurs at the post-harvest and processing levels, while in developed countries, 40% of food waste occurs at the retail and consumer levels. 

At the retail level, a shocking amount of food is wasted because of aesthetic reasons; in fact, in the US, more than 50% of all produce thrown away in the US is done so because it is deemed to be “too ugly” to be sold to consumers- this amounts to about 60 million tons of fruits and vegetables. This leads to food insecurity , another one of the biggest environmental problems on the list. 

You might also like: How Does Food Waste Affect the Environment?

4. Biodiversity Loss

The past 50 years have seen a rapid growth of human consumption, population, global trade and urbanisation, resulting in humanity using more of the Earth’s resources than it can replenish naturally. 

A 2020 WWF report found that the population sizes of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians have experienced a decline of an average of 68% between 1970 and 2016. The report attributes this biodiversity loss to a variety of factors, but mainly land-use change, particularly the conversion of habitats, like forests, grasslands and mangroves, into agricultural systems. Animals such as pangolins, sharks and seahorses are significantly affected by the illegal wildlife trade, and pangolins are critically endangered because of it. 

More broadly, a recent analysis has found that the sixth mass extinction of wildlife on Earth is accelerating. More than 500 species of land animals are on the brink of extinction and are likely to be lost within 20 years; the same number were lost over the whole of the last century. The scientists say that without the human destruction of nature, this rate of loss would have taken thousands of years. 

In Antarctica, climate change-triggered melting of sea ice is taking a heavy toll on emperor penguins and could wipe out entire populations by as early as 2100 , according to 2023 research.

You might also like: The Remarkable Benefits of Biodiversity

5. Plastic Pollution

In 1950, the world produced more than 2 million tons of plastic per year . By 2015, this annual production swelled to 419 million tons and exacerbating plastic waste in the environment. 

A report by science journal, Nature, determined that currently, roughly 14 million tons of plastic make their way into the oceans every year, harming wildlife habitats and the animals that live in them. The research found that if no action is taken, the plastic crisis will grow to 29 million metric tons per year by 2040. If we include microplastics into this, the cumulative amount of plastic in the ocean could reach 600 million tons by 2040.

Shockingly, National Geographic found that 91% of all plastic that has ever been made is not recycled, representing not only one of the biggest environmental problems of our lifetime, but another massive market failure. Considering that plastic takes 400 years to decompose, it will be many generations until it ceases to exist. There’s no telling what the irreversible effects of plastic pollution will have on the environment in the long run. 

You might also like: 8 Shocking Plastic Pollution Statistics to Know About

6. Deforestation

Every hour, forests the size of 300 football fields are cut down. By the year 2030, the planet might have only 10% of its forests; if deforestation isn’t stopped, they could all be gone in less than 100 years. 

The three countries experiencing the highest levels of deforestation are Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia. The Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest – spanning 6.9 million square kilometres (2.72 million square miles) and covering around 40% of the South American continent – is also one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems and is home to about three million species of plants and animals . Despite efforts to protect forest land, legal deforestation is still rampant, and about one-third of global tropical deforestation occurs in Brazil’s Amazon forest, amounting to 1.5 million hectares each year . 

Agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, another one of the biggest environmental problems appearing on this list. Land is cleared to raise livestock or to plant other crops that are sold, such as sugar cane and palm oil . Besides for carbon sequestration, forests help to prevent soil erosion, because the tree roots bind the soil and prevent it from washing away, which also prevents landslides. 

You might also like: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

7. Air Pollution 

One of the biggest environmental problems today is outdoor air pollution .

Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that an estimated 4.2 to 7 million people die from air pollution worldwide every year and that nine out of 10 people breathe air that contains high levels of pollutants. In Africa, 258,000 people died as a result of outdoor air pollution in 2017, up from 164,000 in 1990, according to UNICEF . Causes of air pollution mostly comes from industrial sources and motor vehicles, as well as emissions from burning biomass and poor air quality due to dust storms. 

According to a 2023 study, air pollution in South Asia – one of the most polluted areas in the world – cuts life expectancy by about 5 years . The study blames a series of factors, including a lack of adequate infrastructure and funding for the high levels of pollution in some countries. Most countries in Asia and Africa, which together contribute about 92.7% of life years lost globally due to air pollution, lack key air quality standards needed to develop adequate policies. Moreover, just 6.8% and 3.7% of governments in the two continents, respectively, provide their citizens with fully open-air quality data.

In Europe, a recent report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) showed that more than half a million people living in the European Union died from health issues directly linked to toxic pollutants exposure in 2021.

More on the topic: Less Than 1% of Global Land Area Has Safe Air Pollution Levels: Study

8. Melting Ice Caps and Sea Level Rise

The climate crisis is warming the Arctic more than twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. Today, sea levels are rising more than twice as quickly as they did for most of the 20th century as a result of increasing temperatures on Earth. Seas are now rising an average of 3.2 mm per year globally and they will continue to grow up to about 0.7 metres by the end of this century. In the Arctic, the Greenland Ice Sheet poses the greatest risk for sea levels because melting land ice is the main cause of rising sea levels.

Representing arguably the biggest of the environmental problems, this is made all the more concerning considering that last year’s summer triggered the loss of 60 billion tons of ice from Greenland, enough to raise global sea levels by 2.2mm in just two months . According to satellite data, the Greenland ice sheet lost a record amount of ice in 2019: an average of a million tons per minute throughout the year, one of the biggest environmental problems that has cascading effects. If the entire Greenland ice sheet melts, sea level would rise by six metres .

Meanwhile, the Antarctic continent contributes about 1 millimetre per year to sea level rise, which is one-third of the annual global increase. According to 2023 data, the continent has lost approximately 7.5 trillion tons of ice since 1997 . Additionally, the last fully intact ice shelf in Canada in the Arctic recently collapsed, having lost about 80 square kilometres – or 40% – of its area over a two-day period in late July, according to the Canadian Ice Service .  

Sea level rise will have a devastating impact on those living in coastal regions: according to research and advocacy group Climate Central, sea level rise this century could flood coastal areas that are now home to 340 million to 480 million people , forcing them to migrate to safer areas and contributing to overpopulation and strain of resources in the areas they migrate to. Bangkok (Thailand), Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), Manila (Philippines), and Dubai (United Arab Emirates) are among the cities most at risk of sea level rise and flooding.

You might also like: Two-Thirds of World’s Glaciers Set to Disappear by 2100 Under Current Global Warming Scenario

9. Ocean Acidification

Global temperature rise has not only affected the surface, but it is the main cause of ocean acidification . Our oceans absorb about 30% of carbon dioxide that is released into the Earth’s atmosphere. As higher concentrations of carbon emissions are released thanks to human activities such as burning fossil fuels as well as effects of global climate change such as increased rates of wildfires, so do the amount of carbon dioxide that is absorbed back into the sea. 

The smallest change in the pH scale can have a significant impact on the acidity of the ocean. Ocean acidification has devastating impacts on marine ecosystems and species, its food webs, and provoke irreversible changes in habitat quality . Once pH levels reach too low, marine organisms such as oysters, their shells and skeleton could even start to dissolve. 

However, one of the biggest environmental problems from ocean acidification is coral bleaching and subsequent coral reef loss . This is a phenomenon that occurs when rising ocean temperatures disrupt the symbiotic relationship between the reefs and algae that lives within it, driving away the algae and causing coral reefs to lose their natural vibrant colours. Some scientists have estimated coral reefs are at risk of being completely wiped by 2050. Higher acidity in the ocean would obstruct coral reef systems’ ability to rebuild their exoskeletons and recover from these coral bleaching events. 

Some studies have also found that ocean acidification can be linked as one of the effects of plastic pollution in the ocean. The accumulating bacteria and microorganisms derived from plastic garbage dumped in the ocean to damage marine ecosystems and contribute towards coral bleaching.

10. Agriculture 

Studies have shown that the global food system is responsible for up to one-third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, of which 30% comes from livestock and fisheries. Crop production releases greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide through the use of fertilisers . 

60% of the world’s agricultural area is dedicated to cattle ranching , although it only makes up 24% of global meat consumption. 

Agriculture not only covers a vast amount of land, but it also consumes a vast amount of freshwater, another one of the biggest environmental problems on this list. While arable lands and grazing pastures cover one-third of Earth’s land surfaces , they consume three-quarters of the world’s limited freshwater resources.

Scientists and environmentalists have continuously warned that we need to rethink our current food system; switching to a more plant-based diet would dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of the conventional agriculture industry. 

You might also like: The Future of Farming: Can We Feed the World Without Destroying It?

11. Food and Water Insecurity

Rising temperatures and unsustainable farming practices have resulted in increasing water and food insecurity.

Globally, more than 68 billion tonnes of top-soil is eroded every year at a rate 100 times faster than it can naturally be replenished. Laden with biocides and fertiliser, the soil ends up in waterways where it contaminates drinking water and protected areas downstream. 

Furthermore, exposed and lifeless soil is more vulnerable to wind and water erosion due to lack of root and mycelium systems that hold it together. A key contributor to soil erosion is over-tilling: although it increases productivity in the short-term by mixing in surface nutrients (e.g. fertiliser), tilling is physically destructive to the soil’s structure and in the long-term leads to soil compaction, loss of fertility and surface crust formation that worsens topsoil erosion.

With the global population expected to reach 9 billion people by mid-century, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) projects that global food demand may increase by 70% by 2050 . Around the world, more than 820 million people do not get enough to eat. 

The UN secretary-general António Guterres says, “Unless immediate action is taken, it is increasingly clear that there is an impending global food security emergency that could have long term impacts on hundreds of millions of adults and children.” He urged for countries to rethink their food systems and encouraged more sustainable farming practices. 

In terms of water security, only 3% of the world’s water is freshwater , and two-thirds of that is tucked away in frozen glaciers or otherwise unavailable for our use. As a result, some 1.1 billion people worldwide lack access to water, and a total of 2.7 billion find water scarce for at least one month of the year. By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages. 

You might also like: Global Food Security: Why It Matters in 2023

12. Fast Fashion and Textile Waste

The global demand for fashion and clothing has risen at an unprecedented rate that the fashion industry now accounts for 10% of global carbon emissions, becoming one of the biggest environmental problems of our time. Fashion alone produces more greenhouse gas emissions than both the aviation and shipping sectors combined , and nearly 20% of global wastewater, or around 93 billion cubic metres from textile dyeing, according to the UN Environment Programme.

What’s more, the world at least generated an estimated 92 million tonnes of textiles waste every year and that number is expected to soar up to 134 million tonnes a year by 2030. Discarded clothing and textile waste, most of which is non-biodegradable, ends up in landfills, while microplastics from clothing materials such as polyester, nylon, polyamide, acrylic and other synthetic materials, is leeched into soil and nearby water sources. Monumental amounts of clothing textile are also dumped in less developed countries as seen with Chile’s Atacama , the driest desert in the world, where at least 39,000 tonnes of textile waste from other nations are left there to rot.

This rapidly growing issue is only exacerbated by the ever-expanding fast fashion business model, in which companies relies on cheap and speedy production of low quality clothing to meet the latest and newest trends. While the United Nations Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action sees signatory fashion and textile companies to commit to achieving net zero emission by 2050, a majority of businesses around the world have yet to address their roles in climate change.

While these are some of the biggest environmental problems plaguing our planet, there are many more that have not been mentioned, including overfishing, urban sprawl, toxic superfund sites and land use changes. While there are many facets that need to be considered in formulating a response to the crisis, they must be coordinated, practical and far-reaching enough to make enough of a difference. 

You might also like: Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

13. Overfishing

Over three billion people around the world rely on fish as their primary source of protein. About 12% of the world relies upon fisheries in some form or another, with 90% of these being small-scale fishermen – think a small crew in a boat, not a ship, using small nets or even rods and reels and lures not too different from the kind you probably use . Of the 18.9 million fishermen in the world, 90% of them fall under the latter category.

Most people consume approximately twice as much food as they did 50 years ago and there are four times as many people on earth as there were at the close of the 1960s. This is one driver of the 30% of commercially fished waters being classified as being ‘overfished’. This means that the stock of available fishing waters is being depleted faster than it can be replaced.

Overfishing comes with detrimental effects on the environment, including increased algae in the water, destruction of fishing communities, ocean littering as well as extremely high rates of biodiversity loss.

As part of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 14) , the UN and FAO are working towards maintaining the proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels. This, however, requires much stricter regulations of the world’s oceans than the ones already in place. In July 2022, the WTO banned fishing subsidies to reduce global overfishing in a historic deal. Indeed, subsidies for fuel, fishing gear, and building new vessels, only incentivise overfishing and represent thus a huge problem. 

You might also like: 7 Solutions to Overfishing We Need Right Now

14. Cobalt Mining

Cobalt is quickly becoming the defining example of the mineral conundrum at the heart of the renewable energy transition . As a key component of battery materials that power electric vehicles (EVs), cobalt is facing a sustained surge in demand as decarbonisation efforts progress. The  world’s largest cobalt supplier is the Democratic Republic of Congo  (DRC), where it is estimated that up to a fifth of the production is produced through artisanal miners.

Cobalt mining , however, is associated with  dangerous workers’ exploitation and other serious environmental and social issues. The environmental costs of cobalt mining activities are also substantial. Southern regions of the DRC are not only home to cobalt and copper, but also large amounts of uranium. In mining regions, scientists have made note of high radioactivity levels. In addition, mineral mining, similar to other industrial mining efforts, often produces pollution that leaches into neighbouring rivers and water sources. Dust from pulverised rock is known to cause breathing problems for local communities as well.

15. Soil Degradation

Organic matter is a crucial component of soil as it allows it to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Plants absorb CO2 from the air naturally and effectively through photosynthesis and part of this carbon is stored in the soil as  soil organic carbon (SOC). Healthy soil has a minimum of 3-6% organic matter. However, almost everywhere in the world, the content is much lower than that.

According to the United Nations, about 40% of the planet’s soil is degraded . Soil degradation refers to the loss of organic matter, changes in its structural condition and/or decline in soil fertility and it is often the result of human activities, such as traditional farming practices including the use of toxic chemicals and pollutants. If business as usual continued through 2050, experts project additional degradation of an area almost the size of South America. But there is more to it. If we do not change our reckless practices and step up to preserve soil health, food security for billions of people around the world will be irreversibly compromised, with an estimated 40% less food  expected to be produced in 20 years’ time despite the world’s population projected to reach 9.3 billion people.

Featured image by Earth.Org Photographer Roy Mangersnes

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

International Day of Forests: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

Water Shortage: Causes and Effects

13 Major Companies Responsible for Deforestation

Hand-picked stories weekly or monthly. We promise, no spam!

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Boost this article By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers. This targeted Boosting – helps us to reach wider audiences – aiming to convince the unconvinced, to inform the uninformed, to enlighten the dogmatic.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

AI’s Trust Problem

• Bhaskar Chakravorti

As AI becomes more powerful, it faces a major trust problem. Consider 12 leading concerns: disinformation, safety and security, the black box problem, ethical concerns, bias, instability, hallucinations in LLMs, unknown unknowns, potential job losses and social inequalities, environmental impact, industry concentration, and state overreach. Each of these issues is complex — and not easy to solve. But there is one consistent approach to addressing the trust gap: training, empowering, and including humans to manage AI tools.

Twelve persistent risks of AI that are driving skepticism.

With tens of billions invested in AI last year and leading players such as OpenAI looking for trillions more, the tech industry is racing to add to the pileup of generative AI models. The goal is to steadily demonstrate better performance and, in doing so, close the gap between what humans can do and what can be accomplished with AI.

• Bhaskar Chakravorti is the Dean of Global Business at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and founding Executive Director of Fletcher’s Institute for Business in the Global Context . He is the author of The Slow Pace of Fast Change .

Partner Center