The world is once again being urged by the United Nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert the worst consequences of climate breakdown.

This time, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is calling for global greenhouse gas emissions to fall by 18% by 2030, compared with 2025 levels. This reduction is part of a pathway intended to limit the extent of global warming overshoot and give humanity a chance to return to the 1.5°C threshold by the end of the century. Under this scenario, global temperatures would peak at approximately 1.7–1.8°C above preindustrial levels around mid-century before declining.

The report also criticizes governments for failing to take the necessary action and calls for much deeper emissions reductions. Source: The Guardian, October 21, 2026

Indeed, governments have formally accepted responsibility for addressing climate change. In 2015, 195 parties adopted the Paris Agreement, committing to hold the increase in global average temperatures to well below 2°C while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

The scientific pathway to achieving the 1.5°C goal was outlined in a 2018 report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to the report, global net CO₂ emissions needed to decline by approximately 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero around 2050.

Source: IPCC, Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C

Clearly, the world has not made sufficient progress. Berkeley Earth estimates that the global average temperature in 2025 was approximately 1.44°C above the 1850–1900 average. Although a single year’s temperature does not establish that the long-term 1.5°C threshold has been crossed, the trend is alarming.

Source: Berkeley Earth, Global Temperature Report for 2025

But what about corporations? What responsibility do they bear for the gap between climate commitments and actual progress?

Corporate power extends beyond the marketplace

Corporations wield considerable economic power globally. Of the world’s 100 largest economic entities, 67% are corporations. Source: Global Economic Entities

Given their enormous economic power—and the political influence that accompanies it—corporations must be held accountable as essential participants in addressing climate breakdown. Governments cannot succeed without their cooperation. However, cooperation should not mean allowing corporations to shape climate policies primarily around their own economic interests.

In the United States, for example, business interests spend billions of dollars on election-related activities and lobbying government officials to secure favorable policy outcomes.

Source: OpenSecrets, Election Spending by Sector

Source: OpenSecrets, Federal Lobbying Set New Record in 2024

These activities help businesses protect and expand their economic and political influence. Consequently, corporate accountability must extend beyond what companies do within their own operations. It must also address how they use their political power to shape public policy.

Are CEOs and their companies taking climate breakdown seriously? And can their public sustainability commitments serve as a meaningful measure of corporate responsibility?

Thousands of corporations have publicly committed to environmental protection, including through participation in the UN Global Compact and initiatives aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Many major corporations also advertise their intentions to achieve net-zero emissions by approximately 2050.

The 2025 UN Global Compact–Accenture CEO study reported that 88% of surveyed CEOs believed the business case for sustainability had strengthened over the previous five years, while 99% planned to maintain or increase their sustainability commitments.

Source: 2025 UN Global Compact–Accenture CEO Study

These findings sound encouraging. However, public commitments and actual corporate behavior do not always tell the same story.

When corporate commitments conflict with corporate political activity

Annual PwC surveys of global CEOs suggest that environmental and nature-related concerns have not consistently ranked among their highest business priorities. Instead, corporate strategies continue to emphasize conventional business metrics, such as customer satisfaction, employee engagement, and automation, alongside concerns about cybersecurity and macroeconomic volatility. Source: PwC, 25th Annual Global CEO Survey, 2022

More troubling, corporations and their industry associations have actively sought to weaken climate regulations and slow the transition to clean energy, both nationally and internationally.

In the United States, for example, extensive corporate lobbying helped limit the scope of the Biden administration’s Build Back Better legislative proposal, which included significant investments in renewable energy and other climate-related initiatives.

Source: The Washington Post, August 31, 2021

Opposition came from a broad cross-section of American industries. Among the organizations involved were the American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, National Mining Association, National Restaurant Association, PhRMA, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Source: Center for American Progress Action, Build Back Better: Support and Opposition

This contradiction is not confined to the United States.

The United Nations’ annual climate summit, known as COP (Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), provides the principal international forum for governments to negotiate climate policies, assess progress in reducing emissions, and strengthen their commitments.

Source: NOAA, Understanding COP

These negotiations take place under the framework of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris Agreement. Yet the growing presence of corporate representatives and lobbyists at these summits has raised serious questions about whose interests are being represented and whose voices carry the greatest influence.

Fossil fuel companies have been particularly visible and controversial.

Source: The Guardian, Fossil Fuel Lobbyists at COP

But they are not alone. Industries including mining, agribusiness, automobiles, food and beverage, and banking have also sought to influence climate discussions. Cross-sector business associations, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, have joined them.

This growing corporate presence has prompted civil society organizations to call for restrictions on corporate participation and influence in COP negotiations.

Watch: Civil Society Concerns About Corporate Influence at COP

But would excluding corporations from these discussions solve the problem?

Clearly, businesses must be involved in developing and implementing solutions. They control substantial financial resources, technologies, production systems, and supply chains that are essential to the transition toward a more sustainable economy.

The real issue is not whether corporations should participate, but whether their participation contributes to the public interest or allows private economic interests to undermine the policies needed to protect the climate and nature.

The problem of corporate greenwashing

Part of the answer lies in examining the extent to which corporate CEOs and their companies take climate change and environmental protection seriously.

Despite growing public commitments to sustainability, corporate priorities and political activities often suggest that environmental protection remains secondary to conventional business objectives.

Equally concerning is the prevalence of corporate greenwashing.

According to InfluenceMap, an analysis of 293 companies from the Forbes 2000 list found that 58% had net-zero or similar climate commitments that were at odds with their engagement in climate policymaking. In other words, many companies were publicly committing to climate action while failing to support the policies necessary to achieve it.

Source: InfluenceMap, The State of Net-Zero Greenwash

This contradiction raises a fundamental question: What value do corporate net-zero commitments have if companies simultaneously lobby against the regulations and policies needed to achieve them?

Government action requires corporate accountability

Even if COP negotiations were less influenced by corporate lobbying and produced policies consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement, those policies would still need to be translated into action by national governments.

And here lies the central problem.

As the US example illustrates, corporate political contributions, lobbying, and industry pressure can weaken, delay, or even prevent government action. Without addressing these sources of political influence, even ambitious international climate agreements may remain largely unfulfilled.

Corporate responsibility, therefore, cannot be measured solely by sustainability reports, emissions targets, or public commitments. It must also be measured by whether corporations support or undermine the public policies necessary to address climate change.

Ultimately, we cannot rely on voluntary corporate commitments while allowing companies to use their political power to obstruct meaningful climate action. Accountability requires transparency, enforceable rules, and consequences when corporate behavior conflicts with the public interest.

The question is not whether corporations can afford to take climate change seriously. It is whether governments and society are prepared to hold them accountable when their actions contradict their commitments.

In my next posts, I will explore how we might overcome a corporate mindset that discounts the value of nature—even though, without nature, business as a human activity cannot exist.

We Grow and Eat Our Own Vegetables

Growing food at home is more common than many people realize. Federal government and industry reports indicate that more than 43% of Americans grow food at home. Among home gardeners, 55% regularly eat their own homegrown vegetables, with tomatoes appearing in 86% of these gardens.

A home garden may not replace a weekly trip to the grocery store, but it can help reduce food packaging, provide fresh produce, and make productive use of outdoor space. It can also reconnect us with the resources required to grow food. When we plant, water, and harvest our own vegetables, we become more aware of seasonality, soil, water, and the effort behind what we eat.

We Are Eating More Plant-Based Foods

Our diets have changed over the last few decades. Between 2012 and 2022 alone, the percentage of Americans following a plant-rich dietary pattern more than doubled, from 12.1% to 25.8%.

Younger generations are helping drive this shift. Research suggests that younger consumers are more likely to embrace plant-rich diets, while surveys of college students indicate 14% of Generation Z identify themselves as either a vegetarian or vegan.

Health and nutrition are leading motivations for choosing plant-based foods, followed by concerns about environmental and animal welfare, according to the International Food Information Council.

The transformation of American diet matters because food choices are not just personal decisions. Producing food requires land, water, energy, and transportation. Replacing some meat-heavy meals with beans, lentils, vegetables, and other plant-based foods can reduce the environmental footprint of our diets without requiring everyone to become vegetarian or vegan.

We Are Buying More Secondhand Goods

Buying used products is another increasingly mainstream habit. Consumer tracking data shows that during 2025, 76% of Americans purchased at least one secondhand item, with the trend especially strong among younger consumers: 89% of Millennials and 85% of Generation Z shopped secondhand, compared with 59% of Americans aged 62 and older.

Every time we choose a suitable secondhand product instead of buying a new one, we create an opportunity to extend an item’s useful life and reduce demand for new manufacturing. This can conserve raw materials, reduce production emissions, and keep usable goods out of landfills.

We Prefer Repairing Rather Than Replacing

We are also reluctant to throw things away unnecessarily. Research published by Talker Research, for example, found that 80% of U.S. adults try to repair and maintain items themselves rather than buying replacements. Among those who repair their own belongings, 40% have fixed clothing or textiles, 38% have repaired home decor or furniture, and 37% have tackled basic household plumbing.

Moreover, 84% support policies that require manufacturers to provide repair manuals and spare parts to consumers.

Repairing a torn shirt, fixing a chair, or maintaining an appliance can save money while reducing material waste. It also challenges the assumption that replacing a broken product is always easier or more economical than keeping it in service.

The Opportunity Is to Build on What We Already Do

These habits are encouraging because they show that sustainability does not always require dramatic lifestyle changes or expensive new technology. It can begin with growing a few vegetables, changing what we eat, buying something secondhand, or repairing an item instead of discarding it.

Of course, these choices are not automatically sustainable in every circumstance. Their environmental benefits depend on factors such as what they replace, how products are made, and the resources required to maintain them.

Still, the larger lesson is important: we are not starting from zero. Many Americans are already practicing forms of sustainability, sometimes without thinking of them that way.

Recognizing these habits can help us move beyond a narrative that sustainability is all sacrifice, inconvenience, and personal responsibility. The next step is to make these choices easier, more affordable, and more widely available—and to encourage businesses and governments to support the sustainable practices people are already adopting.

Perhaps the most promising sustainability strategy is not simply asking people to do more. It is understanding what they are already doing right and finding ways to build on it.

Cheap products aren’t always cheap. Sometimes, they are simply expensive products whose costs have been shifted into the future—and onto consumers and the environment.

There are three kinds of costs.

1. Financial cost

You may have to replace a cheap product repeatedly. Instead of buying one durable product for $50 and keeping it for ten years, you might buy a $15 product three or four times over the same period. The cumulative cost could reach $45–$60, not including inflation. The cheaper product may actually cost more in the long run.

Multiply this pattern across household appliances, clothing, furniture, tools, and electronics, and repeated replacement can consume a significant share of a household’s income. Meanwhile, manufacturers and retailers benefit from the additional sales.

2. Environmental cost

A $10 product isn’t necessarily cheaper than a $30 product. It may break sooner, cannot be repaired, or become obsolete before it should. Every replacement requires more materials and energy to manufacture another product. Transportation generates additional emissions, while tire particles and leaked vehicle fluids can pollute roads and waterways. Packaging adds further waste, and discarded products may end up in landfills.

Environmental damage extends beyond the product itself. Mining raw materials, manufacturing components, and transporting finished goods all consume resources. When products are discarded prematurely, we waste not only the materials they contain but also the energy and labor invested in making them.

3. Opportunity cost

Money spent repeatedly replacing things cannot be spent on other needs or experiences that provide longer-term value and satisfaction. These might include buying more nutritious food, purchasing school supplies, saving for a bicycle, or taking a vacation. For households with limited incomes, these trade-offs matter enormously.

In short, the $10 price tag can be misleading.

Yet for an increasing number of people in the United States and around the world, buying more expensive products that last longer simply isn’t an option when 85 percent of the world’s population lives on no more than $30 a day. For households struggling to make ends meet, cheap is necessary. Someone with just $30 in their bank account cannot spend $100 on a durable product simply because it might save money over ten years.

Ironically, the people who most need products to last are often the least able to afford durable alternatives.

This is where poverty and environmental decline intersect. People with limited resources may be forced to buy products that need frequent replacement, even when doing so costs them more over time and creates more waste. Blaming these consumers misses the point: they often have little choice.

The solution requires changing the incentives. Manufacturers should be encouraged—and, where necessary, required—to make products that last, can be repaired, and have accessible replacement parts. Retailers can offer more durable options, while governments can establish stronger standards for product longevity and repairability.

An economic system that rewards sales volume and frequent replacement over durability serves neither consumers nor the environment well. It can also concentrate profits among businesses while households repeatedly pay the price.

We need an economy that rewards making better products, not simply selling more of them—and one that recognizes workers, rather than just shareholders, as the people who create real wealth.

What if you had $1,000 to make your household more sustainable—but you didn’t want to spend it simply on products labeled “green”?

Instead, what if you used that money to make investments that could save you money while reducing your environmental impact over time?

That is the idea behind the $1,000 Sustainability Challenge.

The goal isn’t to spend $1,000 strategically. Some investments can begin saving money immediately; others may take years to pay for themselves. Still others may produce little measurable financial savings but can reduce waste and encourage more sustainable habits.

The basic principle is:

Spend now, save later. Buy less, buy better, and keep it longer.

Where would you put the $1,000?

Here is one possible list:

*These are illustrative estimates, not guaranteed savings. Actual results will vary depending on household size, existing equipment, local utility rates, transportation habits, purchasing patterns, and how consistently new practices are followed.

The numbers are less important than the principle: some of the money you spend today can potentially reduce what you spend tomorrow.

1. Put $350 into energy efficiency

Energy is one of the easiest places to look for household savings because many efficiency improvements continue working year after year.

A $350 budget could cover:

• replacing frequently used incandescent or inefficient bulbs with LEDs;

• weatherstripping doors and windows;

• adding basic insulation where appropriate;

• installing efficient showerheads;

• using smart power strips to reduce standby electricity consumption; and

• improving thermostat settings and controls.

Estimated annual savings: $100–$200.

The estimate is based on the U.S. Department of Energy and ENERGY STAR.

The return depends on the home’s size, climate, utility rates, existing equipment, and energy use.

The environmental benefit is straightforward: using less energy can reduce the resources and emissions associated with producing that energy.

The first rule is simple: improve what you already own before buying something new.

2. Spend $100 on saving water

Water may seem inexpensive, but treating, transporting, and heating of water requires energy and infrastructure.

A $100 investment might include:

• low-flow showerheads;

• faucet aerators;

• efficient plumbing fixtures;

• leak repairs; and

• simple tools for identifying household water waste.

Estimated annual savings: $40–$80.

The estimate is based on EPA WaterSense numbers. Households that already have efficient fixtures may save considerably less.

3. Spend $150 on reducing food waste

American households waste substantial amounts of food. When food is wasted, so are the water, energy, labor, packaging, transportation, and refrigeration used to produce and distribute it.

A $150 budget could go toward:

• reusable food-storage containers;

• freezer containers and organization;

• a kitchen scale;

• meal-planning tools;

Estimated annual savings: $150–$300.

EPA analysis estimates that food waste costs the average U.S. consumer approximately $728 per year, or about $2,913 for a household of four.

To reduce waste, EPA recommends meal planning, checking the refrigerator and freezer before shopping, buying only what is needed, properly storing food, and using leftovers.

The potential savings depend heavily on how much food a household currently throws away. The real investment is changing how food is purchased and used.

4. Spend $150 replacing disposable consumption

Another opportunity is to reduce repeated purchases of disposable products.

Depending on the household, $150 might go toward:

• reusable water bottles;

• durable shopping bags;

• reusable food bags and containers;

• washable cleaning clothes;

• rechargeable batteries;

• durable kitchen items.

Estimated annual savings: $100–$200.

But buying a reusable product doesn’t automatically make a household more sustainable.

If you buy a reusable groceries bag but forget to take it with you to the grocery storer, for example, the potential savings largely disappear. The same is true if reusable products accumulate in a drawer without being used.

The goal is replacement, not accumulation.

Use the durable product instead of continuing to buy the disposable one.

5. Put $150 toward buying less, buying better, and keeping things longer

This may be the most important category in the challenge.

Sustainability isn’t simply about buying environmentally preferable products. Sometimes the most sustainable purchase is not making a purchase at all.

The $150 could be used to extend the useful life of things you already own:

• basic repair tools;

• replacement parts;

• shoe or clothing repairs;

• furniture repairs;

• maintenance supplies;

• secondhand purchases; or

• durable replacements for items that genuinely need replacing.

Estimated annual savings: $100–$250.

These savings are difficult to calculate because they often come from purchases you don’t make.

If repairing a $50 item allows you to postpone buying a $150 replacement, the repair has produced a meaningful financial benefit. If a quality product lasts ten years instead of two or three, the economics can be even better.

The principle is:

Buy less. Buy better. Keep it longer.

6. Put the final $100 toward transportation

The $100 might be used for:

• bicycle maintenance;

• basic bicycle equipment;

• transit passes;

• walking shoes;

• equipment that makes short trips possible without driving.

Estimated annual savings: $50–$150.

The potential savings vary enormously. Someone who replaces one weekly short car trip with walking or cycling will save much less than someone who eliminates several car trips each week.

Driving less can also reduce vehicle wear, maintenance, parking costs, and other expenses associated with automobile use. According to the AAA’s 2025 analysis operating costs of roughly 20–26 cents per mile for several common vehicle categories.

What about the return on the $1,000?

If all the estimated savings were realized, the household could potentially save $540 to $1,180 per year. In that scenario, the $1,000 investment could theoretically pay for itself in roughly one to two years.

But as noted earlier, the opportunities differ from household to household.

A household that already uses LEDs, wastes little food, rarely buys disposable products, and drives very little has fewer opportunities to save. A household with high energy use, significant food waste, frequent disposable purchases, and many short car trips could have considerably greater opportunities.

More importantly, the financial return isn’t the only return.

Reducing food waste means fewer resources are used to produce food that is never eaten. Using less energy can reduce environmental impacts associated with energy production. Driving less can reduce emissions. Repairing something instead of replacing it reduces demand for new materials and manufacturing.

Those benefits don’t necessarily appear on a household bank statement.

Think of them as a sustainability dividend:

You potentially spend less money while also using fewer resources.

This approach doesn’t require buying your way to a greener lifestyle. It requires changing what you buy, what you use, and how long you keep it.

The real challenge

The $1,000 Sustainability Challenge isn’t really a challenge to spend $1,000.

It’s a challenge to ask better questions before spending it:

Will this reduce something I repeatedly buy?

Will it lower my energy or water use?

Will it prevent something from being wasted?

Will it help me repair something rather than replace it?

Will I actually use it?

And perhaps the most important question:

Could I achieve the same environmental benefit without buying anything at all?

That question changes the concept of sustainable consumption.

Sometimes sustainability requires buying a better product.

Sometimes it requires repairing the product you already own.

And sometimes the most sustainable—and least expensive—choice is simply to buy nothing unless it is absolutely needed.

That’s the real promise of the $1,000 challenge: not spending more to be sustainable but spending strategically so that sustainability and household economics can work together.

When we talk about business and sustainability, the conversation usually begins with operations. We ask what companies can do to clean up their own acts—reducing emissions, using clean energy, and minimizing waste across supply chains.

These internal changes are important, and they may slow the pace of climate change over the long run. But they leave us with a much larger question: Should the public demand that businesses use their immense wealth and expertise to help solve global sustainability crises, rather than just cleaning up their own backyards?

The public has the right to demand that corporations become active parts of the solution. This right rests on two fundamental pillars.

First, the environment is a common good. Life cannot exist without a healthy planet. The future of humanity and the ecosystems that make organized civilization possible are of absolute, existential importance to all of us.

Second, corporations have driven this crisis. For decades—with a massive acceleration since the mid-20th century—large multinational companies in particular have inflicted trillions of dollars in damage on the Earth’s ecosystems through resource extraction, toxic emissions, and waste generation.

The scale of this destruction is staggering:

• A 2013 UN report estimated global environmental damage from business activities at $7.3 trillion per year. The report noted that high-impact sectors—including agriculture, forestry, mining, oil and gas, and utilities—would actually lose money if they were forced to pay for the damage they caused.

• A decade later, a 2024 UN study revealed that air pollution and industrial food production alone inflict more than $8 trillion and $10 trillion in damage to human health and the environment every single year.

How do businesses get away with destroying our shared environment on such a massive scale? They leverage their enormous economic power to buy political influence.

Corporate profits are at historic highs. U.S. companies generated over $3.8 trillion in after-tax profits in 2025, while non-U.S. companies’ profits reached nearly $450 billion in 2024.

In the U.S. especially, this wealth is systematically deployed to influence elections and lobby officials to ensure that legislation protects and expands corporate power. Elected officials are acutely aware of how critical money is to their political survival; more than 90% of better-funded candidates win their races for Congress. Most of that campaign money comes from corporations and wealthy individuals. For example, during the 2024 election cycle, business interests poured nearly $6 billion into national campaign contributions and spent more than $4 billion on federal lobbying in 2025.

Not surprisingly, as the 2024 UN study noted above bluntly concludes, “…States are complicit in the planetary crisis by enabling and subsidizing destructive business activities.”

The most glaring example of this complicity is the relationship between governments and the fossil fuel industry. In the midst of an accelerating climate crisis, the world’s six largest fossil fuel companies—pulling in nearly $100 billion in annual profits—received $1.2 trillion in 2022 and $600 billion in 2023 in direct subsidies from governments worldwide. Meanwhile, trillions of dollars in additional damages to human health and the environment are deferred to the public every year.

What Should the Public Expect from Business?

Historically, the public expected businesses to do a few basic things: provide goods and services, create jobs, generate economic value, and obey the law.

But our worsening environmental and social crises have permanently changed the context of modern business. Climate change, ecosystem collapse, resource depletion, and systemic inequality cannot be solved in isolation. Because these problems are deeply structural, they can only be resolved through solutions built across all social and economic institutions.

Isolated “sustainable business practices” are no longer enough to maintain an ecosystem capable of supporting human society—let alone corporate profitability—over the long term.

As a public, we have the right to ask every corporation five core questions:

• Are you, at a minimum, reducing the harm caused by your operations?

• Are your products and services actively contributing to a sustainable future?

• Are you using your economic and political influence to support systemic solutions?

• Are you helping dismantle the legal and economic frameworks that reward unsustainable behavior?

• Are you actively investing in the well-being of the communities and ecosystems your business relies on?

These questions push us past the narrow focus of whether a single company is minimizing its own footprint. They challenge us to demand something far greater: that corporations become active, accountable architects of a sustainable global economy.

We often talk about sustainability as if it were a test of personal virtue.

Drive an electric car.
Avoid plastic.
Buy organic food.
Recycle.
Waste nothing.
Use less energy.

These actions can certainly make a difference. But they can also create an unrealistic expectation: that solving our environmental and social problems depends primarily on millions of individuals making perfect choices every day.

Sustainability isn’t about perfection. It’s about systems.

That doesn’t mean individual choices are unimportant. They matter. But the choices available to us—and how affordable and convenient those choices are—are largely determined by the economic, political, technological, and social systems in which we live.

If we want sustainability to become the norm rather than the exception, we need to fundamentally change those systems.

Sustainability Isn’t About Perfection

There is nothing wrong with making more sustainable choices. In fact, individual action is an important part of the transition to a more sustainable world.

The problem arises when we place the primary responsibility for sustainability on individuals.

Consider what “living sustainably” can sometimes imply:

• Never use plastics.

• Buy only organic food.

• Drive an electric vehicle.

• Produce almost no waste.

• Buy locally produced products.

• Reduce your energy consumption dramatically.

For some people, these choices are possible. For others, they may be financially, geographically, or practically impossible.

People have different incomes, live in different communities, have different transportation options, and have different responsibilities. A parent working two jobs, for example, may not have the time or money to make the same choices as someone with considerably more resources.

And when sustainability becomes a matter of personal perfection, it can produce something counterproductive: guilt.

People may feel that if they cannot do everything, they are not doing anything.

That is the wrong message.

We don’t need millions of perfect consumers.

We need systems that make better choices possible for millions of people.

It’s About Systems

The word systems refers to the economic, political, technological, and social structures that influence our everyday lives.

Think about the systems we interact with every day:

• Energy systems: How is our electricity generated?

• Transportation systems: Is reliable and affordable public transportation available?

• Food systems: How is food produced, transported, and priced?

• Manufacturing systems: How are products designed, produced, and distributed?

• Waste systems: Are products reusable, recyclable, or designed to be thrown away?

• Government systems: What policies and regulations shape the available choices?

• Business systems: How do companies make decisions about products, their employees, natural resources, and supply chains?

These systems influence what choices are available—and what those choices cost.

Consider electricity.

A consumer may want to purchase renewable electricity, but that choice depends partly on whether their utility offers it.

Or consider recycling. We often tell consumers to recycle more, but recycling has limited value if products are designed from the beginning to be disposable, difficult to repair, or impossible to recycle economically.

The same is true with food.

We can encourage people to eat sustainably produced food, but that becomes difficult when sustainable alternatives are unavailable in their community or significantly more expensive than conventional products.

Individual choices exist within systems.

Change the system, and you can change millions of choices at once.

From Individual Responsibility to Shared Responsibility

This doesn’t mean individuals have no responsibility.

We should still conserve energy, reduce unnecessary consumption, avoid waste, and make thoughtful purchasing decisions when we can.

Individual action matters for another important reason: it sends signals to businesses and governments.

When consumers demand more sustainable products, companies have an incentive to respond. When communities support better transportation, energy, and waste systems, governments have greater reason to invest in them.

But individual action alone has limits.

Imagine asking every household to reduce its carbon footprint while continuing to operate an energy system heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

Or asking consumers to eliminate plastic waste while companies continue to produce billions of single-use plastic products.

Or telling people to buy durable, repairable products when manufacturers design products around short replacement cycles.

We shouldn’t ask individuals to solve problems that are fundamentally systemic.

What Systemic Sustainability Looks Like

A more sustainable economy would make sustainable choices easier—not harder.

That could mean:

Businesses design products to last longer.

Products could be easier to repair, upgrade, reuse, and eventually recycle rather than being designed for rapid replacement.

Governments invest in better transportation.

Reliable public transportation, walkable communities, and safer infrastructure can give people alternatives to driving everywhere.

Energy systems become cleaner.

Expanding renewable energy, modernizing electricity grids, improving energy efficiency, and developing other low-carbon technologies can reduce emissions across millions of households and businesses.

Companies reduce waste throughout their supply chains.

Instead of asking consumers to manage waste after a product has been purchased, businesses can reduce unnecessary materials and packaging before products reach the consumer.

Markets reward sustainable practices.

Government policies, consumer demand, investment decisions, and corporate strategies can work together to make sustainable products and services more competitive.

These changes don’t require every individual to become an environmental expert.

They change the choices available to everyone.

Making the Sustainable Choice the Easy Choice

Perhaps the most important question isn’t:

“How can we convince everyone to live more sustainably?”

It is:

“How can we create a society in which sustainable choices are the easiest and most practical choices?”

Imagine a community where public transportation is convenient, affordable, and reliable.

Imagine a food system where healthy and sustainably produced food is widely available and competitively priced.

Imagine products designed to be repaired rather than replaced.

Imagine an energy system where clean electricity is the default rather than a special option.

In such a system, people don’t have to think about sustainability every time they make a decision.

The system itself helps produce more sustainable outcomes.

That’s the real opportunity.

Sustainability Is a Collective Project

The environmental challenges we face are too large to be solved through individual behavior alone.

Climate change, resource depletion, biodiversity loss, pollution, food waste, and social inequality are connected to the way our economy produces, distributes, consumes, and disposes of goods and services.

That means sustainability requires more than responsible consumers.

It requires responsible businesses, effective governments, innovative technologies, informed consumers, and communities willing to rethink the systems we have built.

Individual action remains important. But individual action should be viewed as one part of a much larger transformation.

The goal shouldn’t be to create a world where everyone has to work harder to live sustainably.

The goal should be to create a world where living sustainably becomes easier, more affordable, and more accessible to everyone.

The Bottom Line

Sustainability isn’t a competition to see who can live the most perfect environmental lifestyle.

It is a challenge to redesign the systems that shape our choices.

We don’t need millions of perfect people. We need better systems that allow millions of ordinary people to make better choices.

That is how sustainability moves from an individual aspiration to a collective reality.

Households around the world are responsible for 60% of all food waste, or nearly 631 million metric tons annually Source. This translates into approximately 1.26 trillion to 1.58 trillion meals—enough to feed nearly 800 million people who do not have enough to eat. Source

Globally, household food waste amounts to 174 pounds (79 kilograms) per person per year, at an estimated economic cost of $600 billion annually.

In the United States, households throw away 24.7 million metric tons of food each year, or about 229 pounds (104 kilograms) per person. This is equivalent to approximately 65.3 billion meals. Source

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), food waste costs the average American around $728 per year. For a family of four, that amounts to about $2,913 annually, or roughly $56 per week. Source

Food waste also has a significant environmental impact. From production to disposal, wasted food is responsible for 4% to 6% of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To put this into perspective, these emissions are roughly equivalent to the annual GHG emissions of the 27 countries of the European Union. Source

In the United States, wasted food is responsible for approximately 2.6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Source

So, how can we reduce food waste, save money, and help reduce global GHG emissions?

The good news is that much of the solution begins at home. There are three simple opportunities to reduce food waste: buying, cooking, and eating.

1. Buying: Buy Only What You Need

Before going grocery shopping, check what you already have at home. Take a quick look through your refrigerator, freezer, and pantry.

Remember that “Best By” and “Sell By” dates generally indicate food quality, not food safety. Don’t automatically throw away food simply because it has passed one of these dates.

Next, create a specific meal plan for the week and make your grocery list based on that plan. Then, stick to your list. And avoid going to the grocery store when you’re hungry—you are more likely to buy things you don’t need.

At the store:

• Choose loose fruits and vegetables rather than pre-packaged quantities when possible. Buy only what you need.

• Choose imperfect or “odd-looking” produce. It may not look perfect, but it tastes just as good.

• Consider frozen or canned alternatives for foods you use over a longer period. They can last much longer than fresh foods.

• Be cautious about bulk deals on fresh food. A bargain isn’t a bargain if you end up throwing half of it away because you can’t eat it before it spoils.

2. Cooking: Make the Most of What You Have

When cooking, use older ingredients first. This simple habit can prevent food from sitting in your refrigerator until it has to be thrown away.

Cook the amount you know will actually be eaten. And don’t be afraid to be creative. Instead of following traditional recipes exactly, substitute ingredients based on what you already have.

Those odds and ends in your refrigerator can become surprisingly good meals:

• Use leftover vegetables in stir-fries, soups, frittatas, or fried rice.

• Use vegetable stems and greens. For example, broccoli stems can be processed into “rice” by cutting or grating the tough stalks into tiny pieces that look and cook like grains of rice. Carrot and beet tops can also be added to pesto or sautés.

• Save vegetable ends, onion skins, and chicken bones in the freezer to make homemade stock.

• Give stale bread a second life by turning it into croutons, French toast, or breadcrumbs.

Watch: Vegetables From Root to Stem

The EPA offers additional suggestions for preventing wasted food at home.

3. Eating: Start With Less

One of the easiest ways to reduce food waste is simply to put less food on your plate.

Start with a smaller portion. You can always go back for more if you’re still hungry. But once food is on your plate, it is much more likely to end up in the trash if you don’t finish it.

When eating at home, save your leftovers rather than throwing them away.

The same principle applies when eating out. Consider ordering a smaller portion or splitting a meal when possible. If you have leftovers, take them home rather than leaving them behind. Store them properly and eat them within a day or two.

Food waste may seem like a small household issue, but collectively, it is a huge environmental and economic problem. Every meal we save means less wasted money, fewer wasted resources, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing, transporting, and disposing of food.

Reducing food waste doesn’t require perfection. It starts with small changes:

Buy only what you need.
Cook what you have.
Eat what you buy.

For a broader look at the global food-waste problem, see Tristram Stuart’s TED Talk, “The Global Food Waste Scandal.”

When we think about the effects of climate change on our homes, we tend to picture dramatic events: a hurricane tearing off a roof, a wildfire destroying a neighborhood, or a flood washing away bridges, cars, and houses—all in a matter of hours or days.

But climate change is also affecting our homes in more gradual and subtle ways.

First, the Heat

Hotter summers place additional stress on roofs, siding, windows, insulation, and air-conditioning systems. Repeated temperature swings cause materials to expand and contract, gradually contributing to cracking and warping. Prolonged exposure to extreme heat and ultraviolet radiation can also accelerate the aging of roofs, siding, and windows. Vinyl siding, for example, can warp, sag, buckle, or fade.

Then, Moisture

A warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, increasing the potential for intense downpours. Even when a home does not flood, repeated heavy rainfall can push water into places it never reached before—around windows, through foundations, beneath roofing materials, and into crawl spaces. Over time, recurring moisture can lead to mold, wood rot, and structural damage.

The Ground Beneath the House

Longer droughts can dry out soil. When heavy rain follows, some soils can swell significantly. Repeated cycles of shrinking and swelling can cause foundations to shift and crack. In areas experiencing severe drought, trees may also draw additional moisture from the soil, increasing the potential for foundation movement.

Pests

Warmer winters can allow insects and other pests to survive longer and expand into areas where cold temperatures previously limited them. Termites, for example, can cause significant structural damage when conditions become more favorable for their activity.

The Irony

Our homes can also make climate-related problems more expensive. As temperatures rise and heat waves become more frequent and intense, homeowners may need to use more energy to keep their homes cool. Higher electricity use means higher household expenses and, when that electricity comes from fossil fuels, more carbon emissions that contribute to further warming.

Individually, these may seem like ordinary home-maintenance problems. Collectively, they are signs of how climate change could financially affect not only people who lose their homes to hurricanes, floods, or wildfires, but increasingly most homeowners—more gradually and less dramatically.

We therefore need to think about climate resilience as more than disaster preparation. A resilient home is one designed to perform well under the conditions we are increasingly experiencing: hotter summers, heavier rainfall, longer dry periods, more smoke, and greater temperature extremes.

How Can We Make Our Homes More Climate-Resilient?

There are many relatively simple steps homeowners can take.

Protect the roof. Ridge vents or solar-powered attic fans can help release trapped hot air and reduce heat buildup in the attic. Reflective, light-colored roofing materials or coatings can also reflect more solar radiation instead of absorbing it.

Block heat before it enters. Exterior shading on south- and west-facing windows can reduce the amount of heat reaching the glass. Maintaining windows, doors, and their seals is equally important. Extreme heat can dry and crack caulk, allowing hot, humid outdoor air to enter the house.

That moisture can create problems inside walls. When warm, humid air reaches cooler surfaces inside an air-conditioned wall cavity, the moisture can condense into liquid water. Persistent moisture can cause wood framing to decay, encourage mold growth, and contribute to repeated expansion and contraction of wood, which can eventually warp studs, crack drywall, and loosen fasteners.

Manage water around the foundation. Keep gutters clean and extend downspouts so that rainwater flows away from the house. Repair plumbing and air-conditioning leaks promptly and make sure crawl spaces and attics are adequately ventilated. During severe drought, maintaining appropriate soil moisture around the foundation may also help reduce extreme soil shrinkage, although homeowners should avoid excessive watering.

Reduce conditions that attract termites and other pests. Seal cracks in foundations and exterior walls, keep firewood and scrap lumber away from the house, and avoid placing mulch directly against wooden parts of the structure. Maintaining adequate clearance between soil and wood can also make it more difficult for termites to reach the house. Regular inspections can help identify early warning signs such as mud tubes, damaged wood, or discarded wings.

These improvements can also make homes more energy-efficient, reducing both household energy costs and carbon emissions. Residential buildings account for roughly 17% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and about 15%–18% of total U.S. emissions. University of Michigan Carbon Footprint Factsheet

Predicting the future of climate change is important because it helps us find ways to avoid the worst consequences of a warming planet. But climate adaptation should not be only about predicting what might happen. It should also be about improving the homes we already live in so they can withstand the climate we are experiencing today—and the changes that are already underway.

Want to see your home’s carbon footprint? Use the EPA Carbon Footprint Calculator to estimate your household’s emissions.

Climate anxiety is real. It is growing and is increasingly prevalent among children and young adults. Climate anxiety is described as a chronic fear or distress about climate change and environmental decline, and it can manifest through emotions such as anger, guilt, sadness, fear, and hopelessness.

Evidence suggests that concern about climate change has intensified in recent years. Worldwide Google searches for the terms “climate anxiety” and “eco-anxiety” increased by 4,590% between 2018 and 2023, reflecting growing concern about the psychological consequences of climate change.

People around the world are also concerned about the effects of climate change on their health. In the United States, 44% of Americans say they worry “a great deal” about global warming, while 61% believe the effects of climate change have already begun according to a 2026 Gallup poll.

The concern is particularly pronounced among young people. Among 16- to 25-year-olds, 60% report being very or extremely worried about climate change and its impacts on people and the planet, while 43% say climate change is affecting their mental health.

A 2026 Pew Research Center poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that countries around the world, will fail to do enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that in the United States the federal government is doing too little to address climate change.

These numbers suggest that climate anxiety is not simply a fear of climate change and its environmental consequences. For many people, it is also a response to the belief that society understands the problem but is failing to act with sufficient urgency. That sense of frustration and powerlessness may be an important driver of climate-related distress.

Anxiety tells us something matters. The challenge is to transform that energy into informed action rather than letting it become hopelessness. The future is not predetermined, and history shows us that collective action can reset the direction of change. That makes engagement one of the healthiest responses to climate anxiety.

Research suggests that people cope best when they balance awareness with meaningful action, community, and perspective.

Here are five approaches that can help:

1. Recognize that concern is normal

Feeling anxious about climate change does not mean something is wrong with you. It is normal to experience worry, grief, anger, or helplessness about the future. Accepting these emotions often makes them easier to manage and can give us direction as to how to address them.

2. Understand what climate change is, what is causing it, and what some of the solutions are

There are books, articles, and videos that can help us better understand the challenges facing humanity, the causes of climate change, the solutions available, and how we can get there.

The Climate Book (2022), edited by Greta Thunberg, is a collection of short essays written by experts explaining how our planet is changing and how we can address global warming. Drawdown (2017), edited by Paul Hawken, details 100 practical solutions focused on energy, land use, and food production. Braiding Sweetgrass (2013) by Robin Wall Kimmerer bridges Indigenous wisdom with ecological science to promote a more sustainable relationship with nature.

The TED video “The Business Logic of Sustainability,” featuring Ray Anderson, the founder and CEO of Interface, Inc., the world’s largest manufacturer of modular carpet tiles, demonstrates how businesses can bring sustainability and profitability together.

3. Focus on what you can do

Climate change is a global challenge that requires global action. But we are all part of this larger global community, and our individual actions are important on their own and can serve as a model for others to emulate. Instead of asking, “How do I stop climate change?” ask, “What contribution can I make?”

We can:

• Reduce our own environmental footprint where practical by driving less, eating more fruits and vegetables, or using less plastic. Check here to find out how sustainable is your life style.

• Support businesses with strong sustainability practices. Search for Benefit Corporations through B Lab. These are businesses with verified social, environmental, and governance commitments.

• Vote for those who prioritize meaningful climate policy. One way to find out if a current elected official at the federal, state, or local level is serious about their stated commitments to fighting climate change is to search for organizations that have contributed to their election campaigns in the past. That information is available on Opensecrets.org. Donor information for those running for election for the first time is available on the Federal Election Commission’s website at

https://www.fec.gov

.

• Volunteer or donate to environmental organizations. These could include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Oceana, 350.org, and The Xerces Society.

• Donate or volunteer with advocacy groups working to get private money out of politics. Three such advocacy organizations are the Campaign Legal Center, the Brennan Center for Justice, and MapLight.

• Talk constructively with others about solutions.

Research suggests that engaging in meaningful environmental action can help people feel more capable and less helpless in the face of climate change.

4. Look for evidence of progress

Climate change remains an enormous challenge. But history shows that human beings can address major environmental challenges:

• Repairing the ozone layer through international cooperation.

• Reducing acid rain.

• Cleaning polluted rivers.

When it comes to climate change, we know what needs to be done, and important efforts are underway that can result in significant progress:

• Renewable energy costs have fallen dramatically.

• Electric vehicles are becoming more common.

• A growing number of countries have expanded their use of clean energy.

• Cities are becoming more resilient through adaptation efforts.

Progress is slow, which means public engagement is important to move it forward more quickly.

5. Balance realism with hope

Hope is not believing everything will work out automatically. It is belief that our actions still matter. These successes demonstrate that coordinated action can solve environmental problems.

The retail and online marketplace is flooded with cheaper versions of popular products, including electronics, apparel, toys, and household items. These products may seem like bargains, but their low prices come with significant hidden costs.

The human cost. Cheap products are inexpensive because manufacturers often pay their workers poverty wages. Since the 1990s, many Western corporations have moved production to less-developed countries to take advantage of lower labor costs, made possible by poverty and weak or nonexistent labor protections. Without the right to organize and bargain collectively, workers are often forced to work long hours without overtime pay, have wages stolen by employers, and endure harassment and physical abuse. Many are children or refugees with little bargaining power. They frequently work in unsafe conditions, including poorly constructed factories, inadequate fire exits, and exposure to hazardous chemicals that can cause serious illnesses over time.

The environmental cost. Another reason corporations have moved production to less-developed countries is to take advantage of weaker environmental regulations. China, whose share of global manufacturing exports grew from 3% in 1990 to more than 30% by 2020, is responsible for about one-third of the world’s CO₂ emissions. China also accounts for approximately 38% of global apparel production, an industry known for consuming large quantities of water and polluting waterways and relying heavily on low cost petroleum based synthetic fibers. Much of this production supplies inexpensive clothing market associated with “fast fashion.”

The financial cost to consumers. Consumers pay for cheap products in two ways. The first is the direct cost. Low-priced products often do not last long and are discarded when they no longer function as intended—a dress that loses its shape or comes apart at the seams after a few washes, an electronic gadget that stops working after only a short time, or kitchenware that scratches or breaks after only a few uses. These items must then be replaced, often with another low-quality product, creating a costly cycle of repeated purchases.

The second is the indirect cost. Repeated purchases generate enormous amounts of waste. Among the biggest contributors are fast-fashion textiles, single-use and low-durability plastics, and inexpensive electronics, which together account for millions of tons of non-recyclable waste.

Fast-fashion garments generate an estimated 92 million tons of textile waste each year. Because many are made from polyester, they also shed microplastics into waterways during routine washing. More than 73% of discarded clothing ends up in landfills or incinerators.

Single use plastics products—plates, cutlery, wrappers, and bags—make up a substantial share of municipal solid waste. More than 91% of plastic waste is never recycled and persists for decades in landfills and natural ecosystems.

Electronic waste is now the fastest-growing category of household waste, with millions of discarded devices ending up in landfills where they release toxic heavy metals and other hazardous materials.

Air pollution, partly the result of factories in China, India, and surprisingly the United States, harm people’s health, worsens chronic health conditions, reduce productivity , and increase healthcare costs.

Taxpayers also bear the increasing cost of repairing infrastructure damaged by increasingly severe weather events , as governments spend billions on disaster response and cleanup.

In addition, floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and other climate-related disasters damage or destroy homes and drive up insurance-premiums, putting homeownership and therefore wealth building out of reach for many families.

The true price of cheap products is not reflected on the price tag. Instead, much of the cost is shifted onto workers, local communities, taxpayers, and future generations. Consumers may save a few dollars at the checkout counter, but society ultimately pays through environmental degradation, higher healthcare expenses, rising insurance costs, and public spending on disaster recovery and waste management. Choosing durable, repairable, and responsibly made products may cost more initially, but over time these purchases often save money while reducing harm to people and the planet. In the end, the least expensive product is not always the one with the lowest price. Rather it is the one whose full costs are honestly accounted for. When prices are artificially low, someone else is always paying for the difference.

Axious

The environmental impact of consumer goods is far greater than most people realize. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the extraction and processing of natural resources account for more than 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions and over 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress.

The European Environment Agency also reports that extending the life of products through repair, reuse, and secondhand markets is one of the most effective ways to reduce environmental impacts.

Extending the life of products that we own also make financial sense. Buying secondhand, repairing products instead of replacing them, and avoiding unnecessary purchases can save the average household hundreds—or even thousands—of dollars each year. The exact amount depends on purchasing habits, local utility costs, and how frequently products are used, but the savings can be substantial.

We can, for example, keep our electronics longer—like delaying a smartphone upgrade or extending a laptop’s life—can save us $800–$1,500 while avoiding the 130 pounds to 880 pounds of CO₂ created during manufacturing, easing pressure on mining and reducing e‑waste.

Choosing to repair appliances or bikes instead of replacing them can cut costs from $500–$2,000 down to $50–$300, all while conserving materials and keeping bulky goods out of landfills.

Borrowing or renting infrequently used tools prevents households from buying items that may only be used minutes per year, dramatically increasing shared utilization and reducing demand for new products.

Opting for durable goods—from reusable bottles to long‑lasting cookware—can save hundreds or even thousands of dollars over time while reducing plastic waste and the extraction of raw materials.

Finally, buying secondhand furniture, clothing, and electronics often costs 30–80% less, helping households save $500–$2,000 annually and extending the life of products that might otherwise end up in landfills.

These simple choices will help us reduce our environmental footprint while leaving more money in our pockets.

A recent public opinion poll by Pew Research found that only about half of Americans believe climate change is primarily caused by human activities, and that percentage has not changed much over the past decade. About one in five believe climate change is mainly the result of natural cycles, while the remainder either do not see convincing evidence or are unsure.

An earlier public opinion survey of the global top 15 emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) had shown that only 34 percent of Americans are alarmed by climate change compared to for example Mexico where 64 percent of population expressed being alarmed by climate change, placing the United States 13th out of 15 countries. The gap between scientific consensus and public opinion is striking. To understand why that gap matters, it helps to first understand how greenhouse gases warm the planet and why scientists are so confident that human activities are driving today’s rapid climate change.

How Greenhouse Gases Warm the Earth

The primary greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O). These gases act like an insulating blanket around the planet.

The Earth absorbs energy from the sun and then releases much of that energy back toward space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb some of this outgoing heat and re-radiate it in all directions, including back toward Earth’s surface. This natural greenhouse effect makes life possible by keeping the planet warm enough to support life.

The problem is that human activities—primarily burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, along with deforestation and some agricultural practices—have dramatically increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases we add, the more heat is trapped, causing the planet to warm.

Why American Public’s Low Level of Concern Matters

The relatively low level of concern among the American public shows a lack of awareness about the country’s role in creating today’s climate crisis.

The United States is not only the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and one of the largest per capita emitters, but it is also responsible for roughly one-fourth of the total carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, higher than, for example, the twenty-eight countries that make up the European Union.

Moreover, the fact that public opinion has changed so little over the past decade is especially troubling for two reasons. First, scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that human activities are the primary driver of today’s rapid climate change. Second, the effects of that warming are becoming increasingly visible in our everyday lives.

Scientific Evidence

Temperature records from around the world date back to the early 1700s, with more systematic global measurements beginning in mid-1800s. Together, these records show a clear and sustained increase in Earth’s average temperature. Since the late 1800s, Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by approximately 1.3 - 1.4 C. This warming has closely paralleled the rapid rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to human-generated emissions.

Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations were less than 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1750. By 2024 the CO2 concentrations had risen to more than 420 ppm. Climate scientists generally regard 350 ppm as the upper limit for maintaining a relatively stable climate.

Perhaps the strongest evidence of humanity’s influence comes from Earth’s climate history. Tiny air bubbles trapped in Antarctic and Greenland ice cores preserve samples of ancient atmospheres stretching back 800,000 years. Those records show that atmospheric CO₂ never exceeded 300 ppm during that entire period—until the modern industrial era.

Climate Change Is Already Reshaping Our World

Rising temperatures do not occur in isolation. They trigger a cascade of changes throughout Earth’s climate system. They are reshaping water supplies, coastlines, and weather patterns around the world.

Heatwaves and Water

The past decade has been the warmest on record. In cities across the United States, the average rate of extreme heat events increased from two per year in the 1960s to six per year between 2010 and 2020. Additionally, the average length of heatwave season in the U.S. has increased by 46 days since the 1960s. At the same time, droughts have become longer and more severe. In western United State the average dry period between storms increased from about 30 days in the 1970s to 45 days in 2024 and compared to the 1948–1999 period, the size of areas affected by drought increased by 17 percent between 2000 and 2022.

Freshwater supplies are also under increasing pressure. Rising temperatures, declining snowpacks, shrinking glaciers, and greater evaporation have reduced the amount of water stored in rivers and reservoirs. In the American Southwest, where the Colorado River provides water to roughly 40 million people across seven states has experienced repeated shortages that have triggered political disputes and emergency water restrictions.

Sea Level Rise

Sea levels are rising as glaciers and the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt and as warmer seawater expands. Global sea level has risen by approximately 8 to 9 inches since 1880 with about half of that increase occurring in the past three decades. Many coastal communities now experience chronic flooding during high tides and are spending billions of dollars to build seawalls, elevate roads, or relocate homes and infrastructure.

More Extreme Weather

Since 1970 the number of wildfires in the western United States has increased by more than 400 percent. The total area burned has increased by more than 600 percent, and the wildfire season has lengthened by approximately two months.

Hurricanes have also become more intense and therefore more destructive. Compared with the 1970s, there are now roughly twice as many category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Storms are more likely to undergo rapid intensification, and the Atlantic hurricane season has lengthened by nearly two weeks since the mid-1990s.

Taken together, these trends tell a remarkably consistent story. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and more powerful hurricanes have all become more frequent over the past several decades, while the time between many extreme events has grown shorter.

What We Must Do

The evidence that human activities are driving climate change has never been stronger. The real question is no longer whether the climate is changing, but how quickly we are willing to respond. Every year of delay increases the economic, environmental, and human costs.

Becoming informed is the first step. Acting on that knowledge is the next. We must read the science. Examine the data. Compare claims with evidence from trusted scientific organizations. We must talk about the evidence with family and friends, and support policies and businesses that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The choices we make as voters, consumers, business executives, and community members will help determine the climate we leave to the next generation.

Credit: The Gaurdian

The difference between consumption and consumerism comes down to necessities versus manufactured “needs.”

Consumption

Consumption is the purchase and use of goods and services to meet basic needs. It is a normal and unavoidable part of life. Every person in every society consumes resources in order to survive and function.

People need food, shelter, utilities such as electricity and water, clothing, and transportation. These necessities allow us to work, learn, care for our families, and participate in society. Public investment in meeting these needs contributes to overall well-being: healthy populations tend to live longer and more productive lives, while educated populations generally earn more and enjoy a higher standard of living.

Consumerism

Consumerism, by contrast, is based on manufactured “needs.” It is a social and economic mindset—reinforced by constant advertising—that encourages the continual purchase and accumulation of goods far beyond what is necessary.

Consumerism promotes the idea that greater consumption leads to greater happiness or social status. It also supports an economic system that depends on continuously increasing consumption to generate profits. As a result, people are encouraged to seek satisfaction through constantly upgrading, replacing, and acquiring more possessions.

Why This Distinction Matters

Understanding the difference between consumption and consumerism is important when discussing sustainability.

Consumption is unavoidable because it meets essential human needs. Its environmental impact can remain relatively limited when goods are used responsibly and for long periods of time. For example, buying a car because no other transportation is available and then using it for many years places far less strain on the environment than replacing it every few years. Manufacturing new vehicles requires additional mining, energy, transportation, and industrial production, all of which increase emissions and resource extraction.

Consumerism, however, drives overconsumption. Overconsumption depletes natural resources, increases pollution, and accelerates climate change. It is especially common in affluent societies, where corporations often rely on low-paid labor in poorer countries to extract raw materials and manufacture inexpensive goods for global markets. Since the 1990s, this pattern has contributed to accelerated rise in emissions, worsening environmental damage, and persistent global inequality—including widespread hunger despite historically high levels of production.

In short, consumption sustains life and is unavoidable; consumerism encourages excess, often at significant social and environmental cost.

What Can Individuals Do?

Reducing overconsumption does not require eliminating consumption altogether. Instead, it means becoming more intentional about what we buy and why we buy it.

Some practical steps include:

Install browser extensions that block advertisements. For example, uBlock Origin removes many online ads and tracking systems.

Unsubscribe from promotional emails and avoid following influencers whose content encourages constant purchasing.

Limit time spent browsing retail websites or watching content designed to create the desire to upgrade or replace products.

Before buying non-essential items, wait several days—or even a month—to reduce impulse purchases. If the item still seems necessary after that time, consider whether it can be acquired in a more sustainable way

The climate story behind your hamburger is the story of the high environmental cost of modern food systems. What looks like a simple, affordable staple is the product of a long, resource-intensive chain that stretches across continents and ecosystems.

Land: The starting point. Much of the world’s beef is produced on land that was once forest or natural grassland. In regions like the Amazon, vast areas are cleared to create pasture or to grow soy used as animal feed.

This transformation comes at a steep price: cutting down forests releases large amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, accelerates biodiversity loss, and weakens the planet’s natural ability to absorb future emissions. In this way, even a single hamburger is indirectly tied to global deforestation patterns and global warming.

Then there are the cows. Cattle are ruminants, and their digestive process produces methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term.

A single cow emits approximately 154 to 264 pounds (70–120 kg) of methane per year. There are 1.5 billion cows in the world. This is one of the reasons beef consistently ranks among the highest-emission foods in the world.

Emissions don’t start with the cow. Most industrial beef production relies heavily on feed crops like corn and soy. Growing these crops requires synthetic fertilizers, which release nitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas.

Add to that the fossil fuels used in farm machinery, irrigation systems, and transportation, and you have a second layer of emissions embedded in the burger long before it reaches your plate.

Water use is another critical factor. Beef is among the most water-intensive foods we produce. From irrigating feed crops to providing drinking water for 1.5 billion cattle and processing the meat, the total water footprint of a single hamburger can reach thousands of liters. While estimates vary, the comparison is clear: beef requires far more water than most plant-based proteins.

The environmental costs continue to accumulate. Slaughtering, processing, refrigeration, and transportation all require energy—much of it still derived from fossil fuels. Long supply chains mean that your hamburger may have traveled hundreds or even thousands of miles before arriving at your table.

The beef patty is only part of the story. Cheese adds another layer of emissions, as dairy production is also methane-intensive. The wheat used for the bun depends on fertilizers and land use, and packaging contributes additional layer of waste and emissions.

Americans eat roughly 4–4.5 billion hamburgers every month. A single beef hamburger is responsible for roughly 3–5 kg (6-10 pounds) of CO₂-equivalent emissions. Hamburgers are therefore responsible for 12–22 million metric tons of emissions per month. To put that in perspective, that’s comparable to the monthly emissions of 31 to 57 million typical U.S. passenger vehicles out of nearly 300 million.

There is a simple way to think about it. A cheap hamburger is often inexpensive because many of its true costs are externalized—to forests, the atmosphere, and future generations.

What can you do? The average American eats three burgers per week. If you eat only one less burger during the week you can prevent 0.15 tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere per year.

Reducing red meat consumption by half can lower your total diet-related carbon footprint by roughly 25%. Switching to other kinds of meat can further reduce your dietary carbon footprint.

Most people do not experience sustainability in terms of parts per million of CO₂ or global temperature thresholds. They experience it through the conditions of daily life—rising home insurance costs driven by more frequent and intense storms and wildfires, poor air quality, increasing food prices, and more frequent heatwaves.

A truly sustainable world would therefore be built around human well-being, encompassing the full range of conditions that allow people to live healthy, secure, and meaningful lives.

In the sustainable world of future, people will live in cities designed around humans, not cars. Communities would be walkable, with jobs, schools, parks, shops, and cultural centers accessible on foot, by safe cycling routes, or via efficient public transit. There will be less congestion, fewer emissions, and cleaner air. Shorter commutes would give people back time to enjoy their lives.

Housing would be energy-efficient and affordable. Well-insulated homes will protect residents from extreme heat and cold while lowering their utility bills. Thoughtful urban planning will reduce sprawl, preserve nearby ecosystems, and foster stronger, more connected communities.

Food systems will prioritize both health and sustainability. Diets would include more plant-based options, food waste would be significantly reduced, and regional food networks will cut emissions associated with long-distance transportation. The result would be fresher food, better nutrition, and a smaller environmental footprint.

As people eat healthier foods, walk or bike more, breathe cleaner air, and experience less stress, health care costs will decline.

The transition to a sustainable economy will also create new job opportunities—in manufacturing and maintaining clean energy systems, building and operating nuclear power plants, constructing climate-resilient infrastructure, building energy-efficient housing, and retraining workers in declining industries.

Education systems would prepare people not only for employment in the new green economy, but for participation in a rapidly changing world. Skills such as adaptability and environmental literacy will become essential, helping individuals and communities navigate uncertainty and contribute to new solutions.

Equity will be central component of this new world. A sustainable future cannot exist if large segments of the population are excluded from its benefits. Policies and investments will prioritize communities that have historically borne the greatest environmental and economic burdens, ensuring that improvements in quality of life are broadly shared.

Finally, economies will measure success differently. Instead of focusing primarily on GDP growth, progress will be defined by improvements in health, well-being, environmental stability, and opportunity. The goal would not simply be to produce more, but to live better.

In this new world, sustainability is no longer an abstract global target. It becomes a tangible improvement in everyday life, healthier, more affordable, more secure, and more connected to the natural environment. That is what makes it not only necessary, but highly desirable

.

A 2021 IMF analysis made a striking case: if governments adopted “efficient fuel pricing”—by eliminating implicit subsidies that hide the environmental, health, and social costs of fossil fuels—global CO₂ emissions would fall by 36%. That reduction would be enough to keep warming within 1.5°C. It would also generate public revenues equal to 3.8% of global GDP and prevent an estimated 7–9 million premature deaths from air pollution.

The logic is straightforward: stop underpricing fossil fuels, and both the climate and public health benefit.

And yet, the opposite continues to happen.

Just one year later, fossil fuel subsidies increased to an estimated $1.3 trillion in direct support and $5.7 trillion in indirect support worldwide. In that same year, fossil fuel companies earned $219 billion in profits.

This contradiction—between what economic evidence recommends and what policy delivers—points to a deeper reality: fossil fuels are not just an energy system; they are a political system.

Because oil and gas are so deeply embedded in the global economy, the industry has been able to convert its economic power into considerable political influence. That influence is then used to shape laws, preserve subsidies, and slow the transition to cleaner energy alternatives, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

The United States offers a clear illustration. In 2024 alone, the oil and gas industry contributed nearly $249 million to federal elections and spent roughly $150 million on lobbying. Much of this funding flowed to candidates and policymakers positioned to defend industry priorities.

This dynamic is not new. As early as 1965, the President’s Science Advisory Committee warned that rising CO₂ levels could significantly alter the global climate. The Johnson administration increased research funding—but stopped short of meaningful policy action. Lyndon Johnson’s close ties to the Texas oil industry reflected a broader pattern: awareness without disruption.

By 1983, the science of climate change had become even clearer. An EPA report outlined policy options ranging from fuel taxes to outright restrictions on fossil fuels, projecting significant warming by the mid-21st century and warning that delay would only increase the cost of energy transition. The Reagan administration dismissed the findings as “alarmist.”

Meanwhile, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations kept rising—from 320 ppm in 1965, crossing 350 ppm considered to be the threshold for stable climate in 1988 and to over 400 ppm in 2014. That year, President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations, warning that failing to cut emissions would condemn future generations to irreversible damage. His administration signed the Paris Climate Accord in 2015, signaling global leadership on climate.

But even then, contradictions persisted. The administration lifted a 40-year ban on U.S. oil exports soon after joining the Paris Climate Accords. The lifting of the export ban helped position the United States as a net oil exporter by 2019—an outcome later Mr. Obama took personal credit for.

In fact, during his eight years in office Mr. Obama expanded financing for fossil fuel projects abroad, providing $70 billion in investment which was three times the amount invested by the Bush administration. And then, in 2016, the administration declined to settle Juliana v. United States-a landmark youth climate lawsuit seeking to compel the federal government to end support for fossil fuel development and recognize a constitutional right to a stable climate.

In recent years, climate opposition has often been associated with Donald Trump. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and expanded support for fossil fuels. But the broader pattern extends beyond any one party.

But Democrats have also resisted aggressive climate action or supported continued fossil fuel development. In 2018 Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Green New Deal, a detailed package of climate and economic policies, as “the green dream or whatever they call it” and then appointing nine Democrats to the newly minted House Select Committee on Climate Crisis who together had received $200,000 in campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies. Joe Biden, despite advancing important climate legislation, approved large-scale projects like Alaska’s Willow Project and oversaw a surge in drilling permits.

The Real Constraint

Taken together, these examples reveal a consistent pattern across decades: scientific warnings grow clearer, economic solutions become more compelling, and yet political action remains constrained.

The central barrier to climate action is not a lack of knowledge or viable policy solutions. It is the entrenched political power of the fossil fuel industry.

As long as fossil fuels remain underpriced—and as long as the industry continues to shape the policies that govern it—the transition to a low-carbon economy will be delayed, regardless of the mounting costs.

Breaking this cycle will require more than technological innovation or incremental policy reform. It will require confronting the political structures that allow private profits to outweigh public costs.

Complaining about the latest jump in gas prices is an American pastime. People grumble when the price of a gallon of gasoline rises by just a few cents, and it’s treated as a national crisis when prices increase by a dollar.

Gas prices can spike suddenly due to unexpected supply disruptions—such as U.S. wars in the Middle East—but they tend to fall again, albeit slowly. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the average price of gasoline has changed very little since 1980.

But these relatively low prices mask the true cost of gasoline. Once we account for taxpayer subsidies to oil companies, along with the long-term damage burning oil inflicts on the climate, environment, and public health, the real price of a gallon of gas rises to between $8 and $15.

The U.S. federal government provides roughly $35 billion annually in direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry—about double the level in 2017. These subsidies take the form of tax breaks, below-market leases on public land, and regulatory loopholes.

Then there are the so-called “hidden costs” of fossil fuel use. These include long-term health problems caused by air pollution, severe weather events caused by global warming, and military spending to secure global oil supply routes. Together, these costs exceed $600 billion per year in the United States and more than $5 trillion globally.

Air pollution alone results in more than $820 billion in annual health-related costs in the U.S. It contributes to approximately 107,000 premature deaths each year and adds an estimated $2,500 in medical expenses per American, driven by illnesses such as asthma, and cardiovascular diseases. Globally, between 7 and 9 million people die each year from air pollution–related illnesses.

The economic toll of global warming is also staggering. Over the past decade, severe weather events—such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires—have cost the global economy more than $2 trillion. In the United States, there have been 426 so-called “billion-dollar disasters” since 1980, causing more than $3.1 trillion in damages, with recent years averaging over $149 billion annually. A 2025 report found that wildfire smoke caused U.S. workers to lose over $1 trillion in wages between 2020 and 2024.

There are also significant military costs associated with protecting global oil supplies, estimated at around $81 billion per year. If oil companies were required to bear the costs of protecting the global oil supply lines themselves, they would have needed to add between $11 and $30 to each barrel of crude oil—equivalent to roughly 20 to 70 cents per gallon of gasoline.

So, the numbers displayed at the gas station are not the true price of the fuel we pump into our cars. They represent only the portion consumers pay directly. The rest is passed on indirectly through taxes, higher healthcare costs, environmental damage, and a warming planet.

As long as these costs remain hidden, gasoline will continue to appear cheap—and meaningful change will remain elusive. Recognizing the true price of gas is not just an economic exercise; it is a prerequisite for honest policymaking, responsible markets, and a sustainable future.

In my next blog, I will explore why oil companies are able to impose such huge costs on society with little accountability.

Some 84% of shoppers in the United States admit to impulse buying—unplanned purchases driven more by emotion than logic. Roughly 80% of these purchases occur in physical stores, while the remaining 20% take place online, yet that smaller share accounts for about 40% of all e-commerce activity. Because these decisions are emotionally driven, nearly 70% of consumers report regretting them. But buyer’s remorse is only part of the problem.

Impulse buying also has measurable financial consequences. It accounts for about 15% of household credit card debt. With average household debt around $24,000 in 2024, this translates to roughly $3,600 in additional debt tied directly to unplanned purchases.

The harm, however, extend well beyond personal finances. Many impulse purchases are driven by low prices that fail to reflect their true environmental and social costs. Environmentally, every product begins with the extraction of natural resources, often powered by fossil fuels and intensive water use. These processes can leave behind chemical pollutants that contaminate soil and waterways. The impact compounds as additional energy and materials are used in manufacturing and global shipping.

Waste is the second major environmental consequence. Increased consumption leads to more products ending up in landfills, incinerators, or oceans, but impulse purchases are especially wasteful because they tend to have short lifespans. Items bought during major sales, especially fast fashion and inexpensive electronics, are often quickly discarded. Online impulse shopping further intensifies the problem by increasing demand for packaging, much of it plastic, contributing to pollution now found even within the human body.

The social costs are equally significant. Low prices are often made possible by low wages and unsafe working conditions across global supply chains. These conditions carry immediate risks, including injury, illness, and even death in extreme cases such as factory fires or structural collapses. Illness alone can remove a household’s primary earner from the workforce, sometimes permanently. In countries without strong social safety nets, such disruptions can push families into financial crisis. Over time, persistently low wages limit access to education and healthcare, leaving future generations with fewer opportunities for upward mobility. On a broader scale, suppressed incomes reduce tax revenues, constraining governments’ ability to invest in public goods, including climate mitigation.

Why are some more likely to be impulse buyers? A 2025 study by researchers at Fudan University found that early life environments play a lasting role in shaping consumer behavior. Individuals raised in unstable environment—where rules frequently changed or finances were uncertain—are more likely to prioritize immediate rewards. As adults, they are also more likely to respond to economic uncertainty with impulsive consumption, using short-term gratification as a coping mechanism. Certainly, economic conditions have been uncertain for growing number of Americans since the 1970s. Wages have remained flat and wealth and income has trickled up not down.

This perspective suggests that impulse buying is not simply a failure of willpower, but an adaptive response shaped by experiences that stretch back to childhood. That insight points to practical ways to manage impulse buying by addressing its underlying psychological drivers—particularly feelings of uncertainty and scarcity.

One effective approach is to reduce “scarcity thinking” by creating visible signals of financial stability. Maintaining an emergency fund, tracking net worth over time, and automating savings can reinforce a sense of security. Instead of thinking, “I might not be able to afford this later,” individuals can begin to think, “My financial position is stable, so I can make this decision calmly.”

Another strategy is to introduce deliberate time delays before making purchases. Because impulse buying is tied to immediate gratification, even short waiting periods can weaken the urge. A simple rule—waiting 24 hours for small purchases, 72 hours for mid-sized ones, and up to 30 days for major expenses—often allows the initial impulse to fade.

It is also important to reduce exposure to emotional triggers. Modern retail environments are designed to simulate scarcity through messages such as “limited time offer” or “only a few left.” Unsubscribing from promotional emails, limiting shopping apps, and avoiding recreational browsing can significantly reduce these triggers.

Rather than eliminating rewards altogether, a more sustainable approach is to replace impulse purchases with planned ones. Setting aside a monthly “fun budget” or pre-approving certain treats allows for enjoyment without losing control. Choosing experiences instead of random material purchases can also provide more lasting satisfaction.

Finally, building awareness of one’s personal “impulse profile” can be highly effective. Tracking moments of temptation, what emotion was felt, and the surrounding circumstances—can reveal patterns such as stress, boredom, or insecurity. Recognizing these patterns helps weaken automatic responses over time.

The key insight is that impulse buying reflects learned behavior shaped by environment rather than a lack of discipline. In uncertain settings, prioritizing immediate rewards may once have been rational. In today’s consumer economy, however, the same tendency can lead to debt and financial strain. Understanding this makes it easier to approach impulse buying not with guilt, but with awareness and deliberate control.

In this transportation series, I have argued that the dominance of high-emission vehicles in the United States was not simply the result of “consumer preference.” It was shaped by federal fuel-economy rules, tax incentives, and decades of regulatory decisions that favored larger vehicles.

While consumers did not create the U.S. transportation emissions problem on their own, they still have leverage.

The key is understanding where that leverage lies — and how to use it effectively. Three areas stand out.

1. Think Smaller — Even When Buying an EV

First, question the safety narratives automakers use to market SUVs and pickup trucks. Many smaller vehicles are just as safe while producing fewer emissions. Choosing a smaller vehicle is not a sacrifice; it is a rational climate decision.

Second, buy used when possible. Manufacturing a new vehicle generates substantial emissions before the car ever reaches the showroom. Extending the life of an existing vehicle avoids those embedded emissions.

Third, keep vehicles longer. The average American keeps a new vehicle for about 8.5 years, or roughly 80,000 miles. Yet modern cars, when properly maintained, often last 200,000 miles or more. Despite this, about 72% of new car buyers say they plan to purchase new vehicles again.

Electric vehicles are essential for decarbonizing transportation because they eliminate tailpipe emissions. But replacing one oversized vehicle with another oversized electric vehicle only partially solves the problem.

Large electric SUVs and pickup trucks require more materials to build than passenger cars and they need larger batteries. Bigger batteries require more lithium, cobalt, and other minerals — resources whose extraction cause environmental damage and has been linked to documented human-rights abuses.

Smaller EVs require fewer materials and less energy to manufacture. They also use less electricity to operate — an important advantage in a world where many power grids still rely heavily on coal and natural gas.

Electrification should not simply replicate the size escalation of the gasoline era. Efficiency still matters — even when the vehicle is electric.

2. Drive Less

Americans drive an average of about 13,000 miles per year — roughly twice the average distance traveled by Europeans.

Yet many trips are very short. About 28% of U.S. car trips are one mile or less, and more than half are under three miles. Many of these trips could be made on foot or by bicycle.

For longer trips, households can combine errands, carpools, telecommute when possible, or use public transportation.

This is not about eliminating cars.

It is about using them more thoughtfully.

3. Rethink What We Demand from Local Government

As voters, we can support candidates who prioritize public transit and walkable communities. We can question highway expansion projects and advocate for safe bike lanes, bus-only lanes, and improved transit service.

Federal incentives for purchasing electric vehicles have become politically contested. That makes action at the state and municipal levels even more important. Organizing locally for EV incentives, transit investment, and climate-friendly transportation policies can build momentum for broader national action.

For consumers, the greatest leverage may be political, not personal.

When consumers act collectively, they can reshape travel behavior at scale. They can shorten commutes, make walking and transit viable, and reduce the structural dependence on cars that many households face today.

Policy change is difficult because powerful interests benefit from the current system.

But policy ultimately follows organized public demand.

Consumers acting together can create that demand.

There is nothing “light” about “light trucks,” except perhaps some of their color options. The category includes many of the largest and most polluting vehicles on the road: SUVs, pickups, crossovers, and vans.

As noted in Part 1, the rise of these vehicles was not simply the result of organic consumer demand. Their entrance into the market was shaped by government policy and effective marketing.

Facing mounting pressure from new federal fuel-efficiency standards and intensifying competition from more efficient imports, Detroit automakers—with tacit federal approval—found a workaround. They created a new class of vehicles by placing car-like bodies on truck frames.

Marketed as SUVs, these vehicles were classified as “light trucks,” which allowed manufacturers to meet the less stringent fuel-economy standards originally intended for work vehicles used by farmers and contractors. At the same time, they were skillfully positioned to appeal to consumers’ preference for buying American-made products and to a cultivated sense of frontier adventure.

The strategy worked. Today, light trucks account for roughly two-thirds of vehicles on U.S. roads and between 75% and 80% of new vehicle sales.

But this shift has profoundly reshaped the climate footprint of American transportation.

“Light trucks” are not light on the climate for several reasons:

1. They Burn More Fuel

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and passenger vehicles make up most of that total. When the vehicle fleet shifts toward heavier, less fuel-efficient models, overall emissions rise—even if engines become incrementally more efficient.

In 2022, light trucks accounted for roughly 37% of U.S. transportation greenhouse gas emissions—the single largest share within the sector and 14% of total national emissions. While sedans deliver 30 to 40+ MPG., SUVs and crossovers typically achieve between 25 and 34 miles per gallon (MPG) and pickup trucks average between 15 and 25 MPG.

The global implications are even more striking. Between 2010 and 2018, SUVs alone were the second-largest contributor to the growth in global carbon emissions—surpassed only by the power sector and exceeding emissions growth from heavy industry.

2. Manufacturing Emissions Are Higher

Bigger vehicles require more steel, more aluminum, larger engines, and more energy-intensive manufacturing processes.

Over the past three to four decades, both SUVs and pickup trucks have grown substantially in size. Many SUV models have added more than 10 inches in length and have become significantly wider. Modern full-size pickup trucks have expanded dramatically—some models are over five feet longer, 20 inches wider, and 10 inches taller than their earlier counterparts.

Since 1990, the average pickup truck’s weight has increased by roughly 32% (about 1,300 pounds). Some high-end models now weigh as much as three small cars combined.

In terms of sheer size and weight, today’s SUVs and pickups rival some armored vehicles of earlier eras. The material and energy inputs required to manufacture them are correspondingly larger.

3. They Lock In Long-Term Emissions

Vehicle turnover is slow. The average age of pickup trucks and SUVs on U.S. roads is approximately 12.5 years. When millions of consumers purchase larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles, the associated emissions are effectively locked in for more than a decade, delaying progress toward climate targets.

In short, the “light truck” classification may have begun as a regulatory distinction. But its real-world consequences are nothing but light. The category now defines the American vehicle market—and plays a central role in shaping the nation’s climate trajectory.

How can we reduce the carbon footprint of the so called “light trucks?”

To start, don’t buy them! If you are looking to buy a new car, think of sedans and compacts. The reasons are simple.

One, these huge vehicles are not necessarily safer than sedans or compact cars. They are more likely to roll over or crash into other cars because of their height, poorer maneuverability, and larger blind spots.

Two, SUVs and pickups are more likely to injure or kill pedestrians and occupants in sedans or compact cars due to their height, size, and weight.

Three, if you are one of the majority of pickup trucks and SUV owners who never use your vehicle to climb rough trains or haul cargo, you should know that according to Consumer Reports you can buy a high-end luxury sedan for the same price as a large luxury SUV or pickup truck -$60,000 to $100,000- and enjoy superior performance, comfort, and, in many cases, more advanced technology features.

Don’t fall for the electric versions of SUVs and pickup trucks either. They have the same problems associated with safety and value in addition to a few more. Their manufacturing produces more CO2 than internal combustion engines. Since the electric grid relies mostly on fossil fuels, you will continue to add greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Extracting lithium and cobalt involves violations of human rights such as the right to water, labor safety, and fair compensation.

The good news is that the present system was engineered and therefore it can be re-engineered. In part three we will look at how consumers can help re-engineer the transportation system.