Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Can We Eat Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis?

News Feed
Sunday, September 22, 2024

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Early into his new book, The Blue Plate: A Food Lover’s Guide to Climate Chaos, ecologist Mark Easter poses a playful, but loaded, question: “How could a morning piece of toast or a plate of dinner pasta be such a world-altering culprit?” This, like many ideas Easter digs into in his illuminating debut, is a glimpse at how the author goes about breaking down the climate toll of the US agricultural system: One dish at a time.   Seafood, salad, bread, chicken, steak, potatoes, and pie are just some of the quintessentially “American” kitchen table staples Easter structures the book around as he tries to help readers understand how greenhouse gases move into and out of soils and plants on land across the country. Each of the nine chapters examines how a single dish is made; from the soil needed to grow the ingredients, to the people who manage the land and the laborers who toil to get it to the table, and the leftovers that remain—documenting the emissions created each step of the way.  The Blue Plate also takes a look at some of the innovative practices being implemented around the US to make such culinary favorites more climate-friendly. Stopping off at an Arizona produce farm, a Wyoming fertilizer plant, a Colorado landfill, an Idaho fish farm, and several dairies, Easter shows how small businesses are making conscientious changes to how they work. He theorizes how each could be applied at scale while quantifying how the widespread adoption of such techniques, and minimal shifts in consumer purchasing and consumption habits, could reduce agriculture’s gargantuan role in warming.  It’s a topic driven by Easter’s own family history. His great-grandmother was a farmer during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s who, along with others growing grain at the time in the Great Plains, unknowingly contributed to the release of one of the greatest known pulses of carbon emissions. The book uses her story to probe how the Great Plains was transformed from one of the planet’s most carbon-rich grasslands into one of its largest agricultural complexes.  By analyzing the emissions released when food is grown, produced, harvested, and shipped, The Blue Plate makes the case that curbing the carbon footprint of what we eat won’t require an agricultural revolution. It’s already happening, in bite-sized cases across the country.  Grist sat down with Easter, a research affiliate at Colorado State University, to discuss what his vision of eating our way out of the climate crisis would look like in practice. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.  In The Blue Plate, you dig into the emissions impact of the production and consumption of everything from husks of corn to hunks of meat. What led you to decide to focus on the ingredients of, in your words, “a typical meal at an American weekend dinner party”?  I sat down one evening with a plate of food in front of me, and I looked at it, and I realized that there were critical stories tied to the climate crisis in every single item of food that was on the plate. I also realized I’ve been working with farmers and ranchers around the world who were already implementing the practices that could help reduce and actually reverse those emissions. And I saw the basis for the book in that moment.  At Colorado State University, you belonged to a team of “greenhouse gas accountants” who tally the tens of billions of tons of carbon that move each year between the Earth’s plants and atmosphere—a huge focus of the book. What, exactly, does that look like?  It’s very much like what an accountant for a business or a bank does. We’re basically trying to tally the flow of carbon and nitrogen back and forth between the Earth and the atmosphere and try to understand, “Do we have too much flowing in the wrong directions?” And that’s basically what’s been happening. Not just from the fossil fuel industry, and for generating electricity, for heating homes, for transportation, but also from the way we’ve been growing food and managing forests. We’ve been essentially exhausting the ecosystem capital of organic matter and sending that into the atmosphere. When really, what we need is for that flow to be stabilized and reversed, so that we have that flow of carbon back into forests, into pastures, into crop fields, and into the plants that sustain us through agriculture.  The carbon and nitrogen in ecosystems, they’re really like the capital in businesses. If you’re burning through your capital, that’s a warning sign for business, and they can’t sustain it very long, eventually they’ll go bankrupt. And that’s essentially what’s been going on with agriculture.  Let’s talk more about that, through the lens of bread. Something that has stayed with me is a line in the book where you note that although humans eat more of it than any other food, bread and grains have some of the smallest carbon footprints, on average, of any food—about a pound and half of CO2 equivalent for every pound of bread, pasta, or tortillas. But you argue that the emissions impact of producing bread and grain is larger than that, because of its soil impact.   This is one of the most interesting stories when we think about the food that’s on our plates: the role that carbon, organic matter, has in the soil, supporting the crops that we grow. The more organic matter we have in the soil, the more fertile the soil is going to be, the more abundant the crops will be, the more resilient the plants will be in terms of being able to fight off disease and be able to deal with drought.  It’s part of that ecosystem capital. The carbon that’s in the soil there accumulates over millennia. It can take five to ten thousand years for that ecosystem capital to build up and fill what we call the soil carbon vault that sustains the ecosystem. If we’re not careful, we can burn through that soil carbon vault over a short time. We essentially exhaust that capital. Burning through that vault, and that’s just an enormous amount of carbon in the soil, that is essentially a climate burden that comes with every loaf of bread.  You visited a Colorado farm where the farmers have eliminated things like mechanically tilling the soil or leaving land fallow, both of which degrade soil. They’ve also weaned off of chemical fertilizers and planted cover crops. In what way are these compounding practices restoring the carbon that past generations of farmers have mined from their soils?  What these growers are doing is reversing that process of degradation that started when the land was first settled, and what we now know as industrial agriculture was brought to those fields. And they are restoring it through these really straightforward practices that have been around in some form or another since the beginning of agriculture, and they’re implementing it at a scale that’s very focused on ending that cycle of degradation and actually restoring, regenerating, the soil.  A story I tell in my book is of Curtis Sayles, who talks about how his soil had hit rock bottom. His focus has pivoted entirely to looking at the health of the soil, and he tracks that through the amount of organic matter, the carbon, that’s in his soil. And he’s steadily adding back the carbon into his soil. It’s extraordinary to see it come back to life.  What would scaling this require? The book notes that many US farmers still intensively till cropland every year. Is it feasible to imagine large-scale changes?  It’s important to understand that the decisions to regenerate soil, and to improve soil health, and to increase the organic matter in the soil, happen one farmer at a time, one rancher at a time, one field or pasture at a time. And there are hundreds of thousands of farmers and millions of pastures and fields around the country where the effects of those decisions can play out.  There’s been a tremendous emphasis upon soil health within the farming and ranching community today. As soon as the US Department of Agriculture started talking about this in the context of soil health, it really started getting people’s attention. And now, we see some of the fastest-growing practices in the country are changes to reduce tillage and to start to incorporate cover crops. There’s still a lot of barriers to it, and those barriers are cultural and social. And some people are uncomfortable with change. But that said, farmers are increasingly seeing this as an opportunity for them to increase their yields.  In the book, you pay homage to your great-grandmother and how she lost her farm during the Dust Bowl. How do you see her story, and historical accounts of farmers like her, reflected in how we talk about the role of agriculture in driving climate change?  The story of my great-grandmother Neva and the story of her farm was a story that played out on literally billions of acres across the world. And not every farmer at the time was generating the kinds of emissions, degrading the soil, the same way that she was. But her story was not unique. What she did on that 160 acres of land in southeastern Colorado was similar to what was happening on farm parcels everywhere across the US, especially where people were homesteading under the Great Plains.  In the process, they emitted as much carbon dioxide from the soil as we produce in a single year, in total, for all the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The magnitude of that was just extraordinary. And that is what really made my great-grandmother Neva’s story so personal to me. To realize that one of my ancestors had played a role there, unwittingly, in just trying to live a good life and fight for herself, and for her family.  Soil is a cornerstone of the global food system, and very much a focus of The Blue Plate. But it’s not the only focus. For one, you examine the emissions footprint of things like steak and salmon, but you notably do not advocate for Americans to stop eating meat or seafood or dairy altogether. In fact, you explore what the solutions could look like if these emissions-intensive foods remain on kitchen tables. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?  A lot of people are asking me about meat and their consumption of meat and “Do we need to stop eating meat?” I think what’s become clear is that we eat too much meat, whether it’s cattle or pigs or poultry. But I don’t think the answer is as simple as stopping eating meat. In some parts of the world, where millions of people live, trying to grow wheat or tomatoes, or other crops, would be an environmental disaster. It would completely deplete the soils. And some of those places, the best choice for the landscape, where it’s compatible with local wildlife and with the ecosystem as a whole, is to graze livestock. We have to be cognizant of that.  I think the message that I’m trying to get across to the public is that if they eat meat, they need to consider pastured poultry, or try to source from regeneratively grown livestock herds and dairy products, wherever possible. And farmed shellfish, which can help restore oceans, estuaries, or our coastlines. People should search for foods in the grocery store that have a “regeneratively farmed” label attached to them. Finally, to avoid foods that travel by air, and the carbon emissions that come from that. And I know that’s not possible for everybody. The through line of The Blue Plate is this question: “Can we eat our way out of the climate crisis?” You wrote that the answer is “a partial yes” but that we need to reframe the question. How would you like to see it reframed? And how would you answer it?  How can we end the process of burning fossil fuels? And then what role can the way we grow, process, ship, cook our food, and deal with the leftovers, play in reducing the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels?  We are burning fossil fuels at such a high rate and the impacts are so large we have to stop, as quickly as possible. Growing food differently, using regenerative methods, using these carbon farming methods, has the greatest potential to draw down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and back into the soil, back into the Earth, where we need more of it to lie. In that process of drawing down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, we’re going to be helping to cool the planet, and reduce the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels. 

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Early into his new book, The Blue Plate: A Food Lover’s Guide to Climate Chaos, ecologist Mark Easter poses a playful, but loaded, question: “How could a morning piece of toast or a plate of dinner pasta be such a world-altering culprit?” This, […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Early into his new book, The Blue Plate: A Food Lover’s Guide to Climate Chaos, ecologist Mark Easter poses a playful, but loaded, question: “How could a morning piece of toast or a plate of dinner pasta be such a world-altering culprit?” This, like many ideas Easter digs into in his illuminating debut, is a glimpse at how the author goes about breaking down the climate toll of the US agricultural system: One dish at a time.  

Seafood, salad, bread, chicken, steak, potatoes, and pie are just some of the quintessentially “American” kitchen table staples Easter structures the book around as he tries to help readers understand how greenhouse gases move into and out of soils and plants on land across the country. Each of the nine chapters examines how a single dish is made; from the soil needed to grow the ingredients, to the people who manage the land and the laborers who toil to get it to the table, and the leftovers that remain—documenting the emissions created each step of the way. 

The Blue Plate also takes a look at some of the innovative practices being implemented around the US to make such culinary favorites more climate-friendly. Stopping off at an Arizona produce farm, a Wyoming fertilizer plant, a Colorado landfill, an Idaho fish farm, and several dairies, Easter shows how small businesses are making conscientious changes to how they work. He theorizes how each could be applied at scale while quantifying how the widespread adoption of such techniques, and minimal shifts in consumer purchasing and consumption habits, could reduce agriculture’s gargantuan role in warming

It’s a topic driven by Easter’s own family history. His great-grandmother was a farmer during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s who, along with others growing grain at the time in the Great Plains, unknowingly contributed to the release of one of the greatest known pulses of carbon emissions. The book uses her story to probe how the Great Plains was transformed from one of the planet’s most carbon-rich grasslands into one of its largest agricultural complexes. 

By analyzing the emissions released when food is grown, produced, harvested, and shipped, The Blue Plate makes the case that curbing the carbon footprint of what we eat won’t require an agricultural revolution. It’s already happening, in bite-sized cases across the country. 

Grist sat down with Easter, a research affiliate at Colorado State University, to discuss what his vision of eating our way out of the climate crisis would look like in practice. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity. 

In The Blue Plate, you dig into the emissions impact of the production and consumption of everything from husks of corn to hunks of meat. What led you to decide to focus on the ingredients of, in your words, “a typical meal at an American weekend dinner party”? 

I sat down one evening with a plate of food in front of me, and I looked at it, and I realized that there were critical stories tied to the climate crisis in every single item of food that was on the plate. I also realized I’ve been working with farmers and ranchers around the world who were already implementing the practices that could help reduce and actually reverse those emissions. And I saw the basis for the book in that moment. 

At Colorado State University, you belonged to a team of “greenhouse gas accountants” who tally the tens of billions of tons of carbon that move each year between the Earth’s plants and atmosphere—a huge focus of the book. What, exactly, does that look like? 

It’s very much like what an accountant for a business or a bank does. We’re basically trying to tally the flow of carbon and nitrogen back and forth between the Earth and the atmosphere and try to understand, “Do we have too much flowing in the wrong directions?” And that’s basically what’s been happening. Not just from the fossil fuel industry, and for generating electricity, for heating homes, for transportation, but also from the way we’ve been growing food and managing forests. We’ve been essentially exhausting the ecosystem capital of organic matter and sending that into the atmosphere. When really, what we need is for that flow to be stabilized and reversed, so that we have that flow of carbon back into forests, into pastures, into crop fields, and into the plants that sustain us through agriculture. 

The carbon and nitrogen in ecosystems, they’re really like the capital in businesses. If you’re burning through your capital, that’s a warning sign for business, and they can’t sustain it very long, eventually they’ll go bankrupt. And that’s essentially what’s been going on with agriculture. 

Let’s talk more about that, through the lens of bread. Something that has stayed with me is a line in the book where you note that although humans eat more of it than any other food, bread and grains have some of the smallest carbon footprints, on average, of any food—about a pound and half of CO2 equivalent for every pound of bread, pasta, or tortillas. But you argue that the emissions impact of producing bread and grain is larger than that, because of its soil impact.  

This is one of the most interesting stories when we think about the food that’s on our plates: the role that carbon, organic matter, has in the soil, supporting the crops that we grow. The more organic matter we have in the soil, the more fertile the soil is going to be, the more abundant the crops will be, the more resilient the plants will be in terms of being able to fight off disease and be able to deal with drought. 

It’s part of that ecosystem capital. The carbon that’s in the soil there accumulates over millennia. It can take five to ten thousand years for that ecosystem capital to build up and fill what we call the soil carbon vault that sustains the ecosystem. If we’re not careful, we can burn through that soil carbon vault over a short time. We essentially exhaust that capital. Burning through that vault, and that’s just an enormous amount of carbon in the soil, that is essentially a climate burden that comes with every loaf of bread. 

You visited a Colorado farm where the farmers have eliminated things like mechanically tilling the soil or leaving land fallow, both of which degrade soil. They’ve also weaned off of chemical fertilizers and planted cover crops. In what way are these compounding practices restoring the carbon that past generations of farmers have mined from their soils? 

What these growers are doing is reversing that process of degradation that started when the land was first settled, and what we now know as industrial agriculture was brought to those fields. And they are restoring it through these really straightforward practices that have been around in some form or another since the beginning of agriculture, and they’re implementing it at a scale that’s very focused on ending that cycle of degradation and actually restoring, regenerating, the soil. 

A story I tell in my book is of Curtis Sayles, who talks about how his soil had hit rock bottom. His focus has pivoted entirely to looking at the health of the soil, and he tracks that through the amount of organic matter, the carbon, that’s in his soil. And he’s steadily adding back the carbon into his soil. It’s extraordinary to see it come back to life. 

What would scaling this require? The book notes that many US farmers still intensively till cropland every year. Is it feasible to imagine large-scale changes? 

It’s important to understand that the decisions to regenerate soil, and to improve soil health, and to increase the organic matter in the soil, happen one farmer at a time, one rancher at a time, one field or pasture at a time. And there are hundreds of thousands of farmers and millions of pastures and fields around the country where the effects of those decisions can play out. 

There’s been a tremendous emphasis upon soil health within the farming and ranching community today. As soon as the US Department of Agriculture started talking about this in the context of soil health, it really started getting people’s attention. And now, we see some of the fastest-growing practices in the country are changes to reduce tillage and to start to incorporate cover crops. There’s still a lot of barriers to it, and those barriers are cultural and social. And some people are uncomfortable with change. But that said, farmers are increasingly seeing this as an opportunity for them to increase their yields. 

In the book, you pay homage to your great-grandmother and how she lost her farm during the Dust Bowl. How do you see her story, and historical accounts of farmers like her, reflected in how we talk about the role of agriculture in driving climate change? 

The story of my great-grandmother Neva and the story of her farm was a story that played out on literally billions of acres across the world. And not every farmer at the time was generating the kinds of emissions, degrading the soil, the same way that she was. But her story was not unique. What she did on that 160 acres of land in southeastern Colorado was similar to what was happening on farm parcels everywhere across the US, especially where people were homesteading under the Great Plains. 

In the process, they emitted as much carbon dioxide from the soil as we produce in a single year, in total, for all the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The magnitude of that was just extraordinary. And that is what really made my great-grandmother Neva’s story so personal to me. To realize that one of my ancestors had played a role there, unwittingly, in just trying to live a good life and fight for herself, and for her family. 

Soil is a cornerstone of the global food system, and very much a focus of The Blue Plate. But it’s not the only focus. For one, you examine the emissions footprint of things like steak and salmon, but you notably do not advocate for Americans to stop eating meat or seafood or dairy altogether. In fact, you explore what the solutions could look like if these emissions-intensive foods remain on kitchen tables. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? 

A lot of people are asking me about meat and their consumption of meat and “Do we need to stop eating meat?” I think what’s become clear is that we eat too much meat, whether it’s cattle or pigs or poultry. But I don’t think the answer is as simple as stopping eating meat. In some parts of the world, where millions of people live, trying to grow wheat or tomatoes, or other crops, would be an environmental disaster. It would completely deplete the soils. And some of those places, the best choice for the landscape, where it’s compatible with local wildlife and with the ecosystem as a whole, is to graze livestock. We have to be cognizant of that. 

I think the message that I’m trying to get across to the public is that if they eat meat, they need to consider pastured poultry, or try to source from regeneratively grown livestock herds and dairy products, wherever possible. And farmed shellfish, which can help restore oceans, estuaries, or our coastlines. People should search for foods in the grocery store that have a “regeneratively farmed” label attached to them. Finally, to avoid foods that travel by air, and the carbon emissions that come from that. And I know that’s not possible for everybody.

The through line of The Blue Plate is this question: “Can we eat our way out of the climate crisis?” You wrote that the answer is “a partial yes” but that we need to reframe the question. How would you like to see it reframed? And how would you answer it? 

How can we end the process of burning fossil fuels? And then what role can the way we grow, process, ship, cook our food, and deal with the leftovers, play in reducing the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels? 

We are burning fossil fuels at such a high rate and the impacts are so large we have to stop, as quickly as possible. Growing food differently, using regenerative methods, using these carbon farming methods, has the greatest potential to draw down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and back into the soil, back into the Earth, where we need more of it to lie. In that process of drawing down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, we’re going to be helping to cool the planet, and reduce the impacts of more than a century of burning fossil fuels. 

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Bhutan PM on leading the first carbon-negative nation: ‘The wellbeing of our people is at the centre of our agenda’

Exclusive: Tshering Tobgay says his country is doing ‘a lot more than our fair share’ on climate and west must cut emissions ‘for the happiness of your people’The wealthy western countries most responsible for the climate crisis would improve the health and happiness of their citizens by prioritising environmental conservation and sustainable economic growth, according to the prime minister of Bhutan, the world’s first carbon-negative nation.Bhutan, a Buddhist democratic monarchy and biodiversity hotspot situated high in the eastern Himalayas, is among the world’s most ambitious climate leaders thanks to its people’s connection with nature and a strong political focus on improving gross national happiness rather than just GDP, Tshering Tobgay told the Guardian. Continue reading...

The wealthy western countries most responsible for the climate crisis would improve the health and happiness of their citizens by prioritising environmental conservation and sustainable economic growth, according to the prime minister of Bhutan, the world’s first carbon-negative nation.Bhutan, a Buddhist democratic monarchy and biodiversity hotspot situated high in the eastern Himalayas, is among the world’s most ambitious climate leaders thanks to its people’s connection with nature and a strong political focus on improving gross national happiness rather than just GDP, Tshering Tobgay told the Guardian.“Even with our limited resources and huge geographical challenges, we have managed to prioritise climate action, social progress, cultural preservation and environmental conservation because the happiness and wellbeing of our people and our future generations is at the centre of our development agenda,” Tobgay said in an interview. “If we can do it, developed rich countries with a lot more resources and revenue can – and must do a lot more to reduce their emissions and fight the climate crisis.”Tshering Tobgay in 2016. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The GuardianAs the UN climate summit enters its final few days, Bhutan’s climate pledge stands out as among the most ambitious with mitigation efforts across every sector of the economy, including boosting energy generation from hydro, solar, wind, distributed energy resource systems and piloting green hydrogen, as well as enhanced efficiency and regulations for transport, buildings and agriculture.Bhutan is a landlocked nation sandwiched between India and China with a population of 750,000 people, about half of whom are subsistence farmers. In 2023, it became only the seventh country to graduate from the UN’s least developed country (LDC) category, thanks to significant progress over the last three decades since transitioning to democracy in areas such as poverty reduction, education and life expectancy.It did so not by tearing up environmental regulations to incentivise economic growth but rather by tightening standards and prioritising air, water and land quality. “For us, gross national happiness is the goal, and GDP is just a tool which means economic growth cannot be detrimental to the happiness and wellbeing of our people,” Tobgay said.But while lifting itself out of the LDC ranking represented an important milestone, it also reduced access to international climate finance, aid and technical assistance – even as climate shocks such as floods, drought and erratic rainfall increased.Bhutan has contributed negligibly to global heating, and 72% of the territory is forested, making it a crucial carbon sink. It is among only a handful of countries with plans that are fully or almost compliant with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C above preindustrial levels, according to the Climate Action Tracker.Bhutan’s focus on environmental and climate protection is not driven only by its commitment to the UN climate process. Bhutanese people believe their deities reside within all parts of the natural environment, which means forests and certain water bodies are off limits and mountaineering is banned. Bhutan is home to the highest unclimbed mountain, Gangkhar Puensum, which rises to more than 7,500 metres above sea level.An entire article of the young democracy’s constitution is dedicated to protecting the environment, requiring at least 60% of the country to be under forest cover. It mandates the government and every citizen to contribute to the protection of the natural environment, conservation of the rich biodiversity and prevention of all forms of ecological degradation.Tobgay said: “We are sequestering around five times the amount of carbon dioxide we emit We are taking care of our biodiversity, taking care of our forests. We are nature positive, carbon negative. Yet, because we are a landlocked mountainous country, we bear the brunt of climate change impacts.”Mountain ranges are warming faster than the global average, causing Bhutan’s glaciers to melt and lakes to overflow. Floods have already displaced farming communities and the cost of road maintenance has more than doubled.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSeventy-two per cent of Bhutan’s territory is forested, making it a crucial carbon sink. Photograph: Suzanne Stroeer/Getty Images/Aurora Open“The developed world must do more to fulfil their moral and legal obligations. They must help the developing world adapt and reduce emissions by providing finance and resource and technology transfers, but most importantly they must reduce their own emissions,” Tobgay said. “Small countries like Bhutan, we are actually doing a lot more than our fair share. The effects of climate change are disastrous, even for rich countries.”Last year at Cop29, Bhutan led the launch of an alliance with Panama, Suriname and Madagascar, three other carbon-negative or carbon-neutral countries, with the aim of gaining greater recognition and influence at the UN climate talks for the oversized contribution they make to global climate action.“In all the climate change discussions, the focus is on promises for the future, not on actual results,” Tobgay said. “We want our contributions and foregone opportunities to be acknowledged and compensated. This would incentivise other countries to not just aspire but actually work towards carbon neutrality as soon as possible. Too often bad behaviour is recognised and rewarded and good behaviour is not seen, it’s taken for granted. We’ve got to reverse that.”Leaders of the so-called G-Zero countries held talks during the UN general assembly in New York in September and agreed on an inaugural summit in Bhutan next year to showcase and share climate solutions and deliver a message to the developed world, which is lagging behind.“So you may be an industrialised country, you’ve reaped the rewards and spread the benefits of industrialisation throughout the world, but it’s time to now take stock of where we are. You don’t need to reverse industrialisation and economic growth but you need to make it sustainable,” Tobgay said.“GDP is for what? Reducing carbon emissions is for what? It has to be for the happiness and wellbeing of your people. Earth will survive no matter what we do. The urgency to control global warming, to fight climate change, is for us people now and for our future generations.“We are taking care of our people, our economy is growing, and at the same time we’ve been able to take care of our environment. If such small developing countries can do it, there’s no excuse that larger countries cannot play bigger roles. After all, they are the leaders of the world.”

Artificial Intelligence Sparks Debate at COP30 Climate Talks in Brazil

Artificial intelligence is being cast as both a hero and a villain at the U.N. climate talks in Brazil

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — At the U.N. climate talks in Brazil, artificial intelligence is being cast as both a hero worthy of praise and a villain that needs policing.Tech companies and a handful of countries at the conference known as COP30 are promoting ways AI can help solve global warming, which is driven largely by the burning of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal. They say the technology has the potential to do many things, from increasing the efficiency of electrical grids and helping farmers predict weather patterns to tracking deep-sea migratory species and designing infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather.Climate groups, however, are sounding the alarm about AI's growing environmental impact, with its surging needs for electricity and water for powering searches and data centers. They say an AI boom without guardrails will only push the world farther off track from goals set by 2015 Paris Agreement to slow global warming.“AI right now is a completely unregulated beast around the world,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity.On the other hand, Adam Elman, director of sustainability at Google, sees AI as “a real enabler" and one that's already making an impact.If both sides agree on anything, it's that AI is here to stay.Michal Nachmany, founder of Climate Policy Radar, which runs AI tools that track issues like national climate plans and funds to help developing countries transition to green energies like solar and wind, said there is “unbelievable interest” in AI at COP30.“Everyone is also a little bit scared,” Nachmany said. “The potential is huge and the risks are huge as well.”The rise of AI is becoming a more common topic at the United Nations compared to a few years ago, according to Nitin Arora, who leads the Global Innovation Hub for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the framework for international climate negotiations.The hub was launched at COP26 in Glasgow to promote ideas and solutions that can be deployed at scale, he said. So far, Arora said, those ideas have been dominated by AI.The Associated Press counted at least 24 sessions related to AI during the Brazil conference's first week. They included AI helping neighboring cities share energy, AI-backed forest crime location predictions and a ceremony for the first AI for Climate Action Award — given to an AI project on water scarcity and climate variability in the Southeast Asian nation of Laos.Johannes Jacob, a data scientist with the German delegation, said a prototype app he is designing, called NegotiateCOP, can help countries with smaller delegations — like El Salvador, South Africa, Ivory Coast and a few in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations — process hundreds of official COP documents.The result is “leveling the playing field in the negotiations," he said.In a panel discussion, representatives from AI giants like Google and Nvidia spoke about how AI can solve issues facing the power sector. Elman with Google stressed the “need to do it responsibly" but declined to comment further.Nvidia's head of sustainability, Josh Parker, called AI the “best resource any of us can have."“AI is so democratizing," Parker said. “If you think about climate tech, climate change and all the sustainability challenges we’re trying to solve here at COP, which one of those challenges would not be solved better and faster, with more intelligence.”Princess Abze Djigma from Burkina Faso called AI a “breakthrough in digitalization” that she believes will be even more critical in the future.Bjorn-Soren Gigler, a senior digital and green transformation specialist with the European Commission, agreed but noted AI is “often seen as a double-edge sword” with both huge opportunities and ethical and environmental concerns. Booming AI use raises concerns The training and deploying of AI models rely on power-hungry data centers that contribute to emissions because of the electricity needed. The International Energy Agency has tracked a boom in energy consumption and demand from data centers, especially in the U.S.Data centers accounted for around 1.5% of the world’s electricity consumption in 2024, according to the IEA, which found that their electricity consumption has grown by around 12% per year since 2017, more than four times faster than the rate of total electricity consumption.The environmental impact from AI, specifically the operations of data centers, also includes the consumption of large amounts of water in water-stressed states, according to Su with the Center for Biological Diversity, who has studied how the data center boom threatens U.S. climate goals.Environmental groups at COP30 are pushing for regulations to soften AI’s environmental footprint, such as mandating public interest tests for proposed data centers and 100% on-site renewable energy at them.“COP can not only view AI as some type of techno solution, it has to understand the deep climate consequences," Su said.Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein in Belem, Brazil, contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.orgThis story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

UN Climate Conference Host Brazil Urges Nations to Negotiate and Find Solutions to Global Warming

Host country Brazil’s tactful guidance as host of the U.N. climate conference is raising hopes for ambitious action on fighting global warming as speeches continue from the high-level ministers in town

With a direct letter sent to nations, host country Brazil is shifting the U.N. climate conference into a higher gear. The letter sent late Monday comes during the final week of what has been billed as a historic climate summit, the first ever in the Amazon rainforest, a key regulator of climate because trees absorb carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that warms the planet. The letter comes ahead of speeches of high-level ministers Tuesday. Headliners include representatives from influential European countries like Ed Miliband, energy secretary of the United Kingdom, and Deputy Prime Minister Sophie Hermans of the Netherlands. More leaders will also speak from small island states and developing countries like Barbados and Bangladesh, both facing loss of land as seas rise because of climate change. The letter asks leaders to hash out many aspects of a potential agreement by Tuesday night so that much is out of the way before the final set decisions Friday, when the conference is scheduled to end. Climate summits routinely go past their last day, as all nations come to the negotiating table trying to balance domestic concerns with major shifts needed around the world to protect the environment and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil’s guidance for the summit, called COP30, is raising hopes for significant measures to fight global warming, which could range from a road map to move away from fossil fuels like oil and coal, or more money to help nations build out clean energies like wind and solar. For negotiators, Brazil's letter will mean later nights as they seek to strike political bargains across a host of contentious issues.“There are important concessions we expect from all sides,” said André Corrêa do Lago, COP30 president. "It is said you have to give to receive.”That Wednesday timeline is “pretty ambitious" and the stakes are high, said Alden Meyer, a senior associate at climate think tank E3G.“Whether it’s dealing with the impacts of climate change, dealing with increased energy bills and energy insecurity, improving health, creating jobs. Those are the things that people care about. They don’t care about some sub-paragraph in a legal decision adopted here in Belem,” Meyer said. “Brazil, the presidency, has made that very clear since the beginning, that that’s going to be the litmus test.”He added that the optimistic spirit of the host country “is starting to get a little infectious” and that that is part of building trust and goodwill amongst nations.“I sense ambition here. I sense a determination,” former German climate envoy Jennifer Morgan said Monday morning. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Pope Leo XIV Calls for Urgent Climate Action and Says God’s Creation Is 'Crying Out'

Pope Leo XIV is urging countries at United Nations climate talks to take “concrete actions” to stop climate change that is threatening the planet

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Pope Leo XIV on Monday urged countries at United Nations climate talks to take “concrete actions” to stop climate change that is threatening the planet, telling them humans are failing in their response to global warming and that God’s creation “is crying out in floods, droughts, storms and relentless heat.”In a video message played for religious leaders gathered in Belem, Leo said nations had made progress, “but not enough.”“One in three people live in great vulnerability because of these climate changes,” Leo said. “To them, climate change is not a distant threat, and to ignore these people is to deny our shared humanity.”His message came as the talks were moving into their second week, with high-level ministers from governments around the world arriving at the edge of the Brazilian Amazon to join negotiations. Monday was dominated by speeches, with several leaders from Global South nations giving emotional testimony on devastating costs of recent extreme weather and natural disasters.Vulnerable nations have pressed for more ambition at these talks as world leaders have begun to acknowledge that Earth will almost surely go past a hoped-for limit — 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) in Earth's warming since pre-industrial times. That was the target set at these talks in 2015 in the landmark Paris agreement.Scientists say in addition to deadly heat, a warming atmosphere leads to more frequent and deadly extreme weather such as flooding, droughts, violent downpours and more powerful hurricanes.Leo said there's still time to stay within the Paris Agreement, but not much.“As stewards of God’s creation, we are called to act swiftly, with faith and prophecy, to protect the gift He entrusted to us,” he said. And he added: “But we must be honest: it is not the Agreement that is failing, we are failing in our response. What is failing is the political will of some.”U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell said Leo's words “challenge us to keep choosing hope and action."Leo "reminds us that the Paris Agreement is delivering progress and remains our strongest tool — but we must work together for more, and that bolder climate action is an investment in stronger and fairer economies, and more stable world," Stiell said.David Gibson, director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University in New York, said Leo is becoming the world’s most prominent moral leader against climate change.“This message does stake Leo out as a voice for the rest of the world, especially the Southern Hemisphere where climate change is wreaking havoc with the vulnerable in Asia, Africa and Latin America,” said Gibson.And he said it shows that Leo, who spent decades working as a missionary in Peru and is a naturalized Peruvian citizen, “has a Latin American heart and voice.”The Laudato Si' Movement, a Catholic climate movement that takes its name from a 2015 encyclical in which Pope Francis called for climate action, called Leo's message “a profound moral intervention.""He reminds the world that creation is crying out and that vulnerable communities cannot be pushed aside. “His voice cuts through the noise of negotiations and calls leaders back to what truly matters: our shared humanity and the urgent duty to act with courage, compassion, and justice,” the group's executive director, Lorna Gold, said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

AI is guzzling energy for slop content – could it be reimagined to help the climate?

Some experts think AI could be used to lower, rather than raise, planet-heating emissions – others aren’t so convinced Cop30: click here for full Guardian coverage of the climate talks in BrazilArtificial intelligence is often associated with ludicrous amounts of electricity, and therefore planet-heating emissions, expended to create nonsensical or misleading slop that is of meagre value to humanity.Some AI advocates at a major UN climate summit are posing an alternative view, though – what if AI could help us solve, rather than worsen, the climate crisis? Continue reading...

Artificial intelligence is often associated with ludicrous amounts of electricity, and therefore planet-heating emissions, expended to create nonsensical or misleading slop that is of meagre value to humanity.Some AI advocates at a major UN climate summit are posing an alternative view, though – what if AI could help us solve, rather than worsen, the climate crisis?The “AI for good” argument has been made repeatedly at the Cop30 talks in Belém, Brazil, with supporters arguing AI can be used to lower, rather than raise, emissions through a series of efficiencies that can spread through areas of our lives such as food, transport and energy that cause much of the pollution dangerously heating our planet.Last week, a coalition of groups, UN bodies and the Brazilian government unveiled the AI Climate Institute, a new global initiative aimed at fostering AI “as a tool of empowerment” in developing countries to help them tackle environmental problems.Proponents say the program, in time, will help educate countries on how to use AI in an array of ways to bring down emissions, such as better optimizing public transit, organizing agricultural systems and recalibrating the energy grid so that renewables are deployed at the right times.Even weather forecasting, including the mapping of impending climate-driven disasters such as flooding and wildfires, can be improved in this way, according to Maria João Sousa, executive director, Climate Change AI, one of the groups behind the new initiative.“Very few places in the world actually run numerical weather prediction models because numerical weather prediction models are very compute-intensive,” she said. “I definitely believe (AI) is a positive force to accelerate a lot of these things.”AI can help monitor emissions, biodiversity and generally see what is going on, said Lorenzo Saa, chief sustainability officer at Clarity AI, who is also attending Cop30.“You can really start looking at where the problem is,” he said. “Then you can predict, and the prediction is actually short-term and long-term. You can now predict floods in the next week, but you can actually figure out sea level rise and things like that.”Saa admitted there are legitimate concerns about the governance of AI and its impact upon society but, on balance, the effect on the environment could be positive. In June, a report by the London School of Economics had an unexpectedly sunny estimate – AI could reduce global greenhouse gases by 3.2bn to 5.4bn tonnes in the next decade, even factoring in its vast energy consumption.“People already make dumb decisions about energy, such as running air conditioning for too long,” Saa said. “How much of our phone has bad stuff for us? I think a lot. How many hours do we spend on Instagram?“My view of this is that society is going to go in this direction. We need to think about how we are not destroying the planet with heating and we’re actually trying to make sure that there’s a net benefit.”Some other experts and environmental advocates are not convinced. The huge computational power of AI, particularly generative AI, is fueling a boom in data centers in countries such as the US that is gobbling up a huge amount of electricity and water, even in places prone to droughts, pushing up electricity bills in some places as a result.The climate cost of this AI gold rush, driven by companies such as Google, Meta and OpenAI, is large and set to get larger – a recent Cornell University study found that by 2030, the current rate of AI growth in the US will add up to 44m tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the equivalent of adding 10m gasoline cars to the road or the entire annual emissions of Norway.“People have this techno-utopian view of AI that it will save us from the climate crisis,” said Jean Su, a climate campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We know what will save us from the climate crisis – phasing out fossil fuels. It’s not AI.”Also, while AI can be used to drive efficiencies to lower emissions, the same sort of tools can be used to optimize other areas – including fossil fuel production. A report last month by Wood Mackenzie estimated that AI could help unlock an extra trillion barrels of oil – a scenario which, if the energy markets were to be amenable to such a thing, would obliterate any hopes of restraining catastrophic climate breakdown.Natascha Hospedales, lead lawyer for AI at Client Earth, said there is some merit to the “AI for good” argument, but that it is a “really small niche” within a much larger industry that is much more focused on maximizing profits.“There is some truth that AI could help the developing world, but much of this is in the early stage and some of it is hypothetical – it’s just not there yet,” she said. “Overall we are very, very far from a situation where AI for good balances out the negative environmental impact of AI.“The environmental cost of AI is already alarming and I don’t see data center growth winding down any time soon. A small percentage of AI is used for good and 99% of it is companies like Google and Meta lining their pockets with money, damaging the environment and human rights as they do it.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.