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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Fast Fashion Affects Climate, Exploits Workers and Creates Enormous Textile Waste

News Feed
Wednesday, November 27, 2024

November 26, 20244 min readFast Fashion Affects Climate, Exploits Workers and Creates Enormous Textile WasteFast fashion may seem cheap, but it’s taking a costly toll on the planet—and on millions of young peopleBy Paula M. Carbone & The Conversation USGeorgi Fadejev/Getty ImagesThe following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.Fast fashion is everywhere – in just about every mall, in the feeds of influencers on social media promoting overconsumption, and in ads constantly popping up online.Fast fashion's focus on the continual production of new clothing is marked by speedy cycles that give the concept its name. Fast fashion is intended to quickly copy high-end designs, but with low-quality materials, resulting in poorly made clothing intended to be worn once or twice before being thrown away.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.One of fast fashion’s leading companies, Zara, has a mission to put clothes in stores 15 days after the initial design. Another, Shein, adds up to 2,000 new items to its website daily.While others in the fashion industry are working toward more sustainable clothing, fast fashion is focused on profit. The market’s value was estimated at about US$100 billion in 2022 and growing quickly. It’s a large part of the reason global clothing production doubled from 2000 to 2014.The big winners in this game are the corporations. The industry has a reputation for exploiting workers and for excessive pollution and extraordinary waste. Consumers are pulled into an unhealthy, spiraling pressure to buy more as cheap clothes fall apart fast.Fast fashion also has a growing impact on the global climate. It is responsible for an estimated 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and its emissions are projected to grow quickly as the industry expands.I teach courses that explore fast fashion and sustainability. The industry’s growth seems unstoppable – but a combination of legislation and willpower might just rein it in.Understanding the harmAbout 60 percent of fast-fashion items are made from synthetic textiles derived from plastics and chemicals that start their life as fossil fuels. When this synthetic clothing is laundered or thrown in landfills to decompose, it can release microplastics into the environment. Microplastics contain chemicals including phthalates and bisphenol A that can affect the health of humans and animals.Natural fibers have their own impacts on the environment. Growing cotton requires large quantities of water, and pesticides can run off from farmlands into streams, rivers and bays. Water is also used in chemically treating and dyeing textiles. A 2005 United Nations-led report on cotton’s water use estimated that, on average, a single cotton T-shirt requires about 700 gallons (2,650 liters) of water from crop to clothing rack, with about 300 gallons (1,135 liters) of that water used for irrigation.The chemicals used to process textiles for clothing for the fashion industry also contaminate wastewater with heavy metals, such as cadmium and lead, and toxic dyes. And that wastewater ends up in waterways in many countries, affecting the environment and wildlife.Fast fashion’s high output also creates literally mountains of waste. More than 90 million tons of textile waste ends up in landfills globally each year, by one estimate, adding to greenhouse gases as it slowly decomposes. Only a small percentage of discarded clothing is recycled.From fashionista to environmental guardianIn many cultures, people’s self-perception is intimately connected to fashion choices, reflecting culture and alliances.The allure of buying new items comes from many sources. Influencers on social media play into FOMO– the fear of missing out. Cheap items can also lead to impulse buys.Research shows that shopping can also create a euphoric sense of happiness. However, fast fashion’s speed and marketing can also train consumers into “psychological obsolescence,” causing them to dislike purchases they previously enjoyed, so they quickly replace them with new purchases.Famous personalities may be helping to push back on this trend. Social media explodes when a first ladyor Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales, wears an outfit more than once. The movement #30wearschallenge is starting with small steps, by urging consumers to plan to wear every piece of clothing they buy at least 30 times.Upcycling – turning old clothing into new clothing items – and buying sustainable and high-quality clothes that can last for years is being promoted by the United Nations and other organizations, including alliances in the fashion industry.Some influencers are also promoting more sustainable fashion brands. Research has shown that peer influence can be a powerful driver for making more sustainable choices. The largest market for fast fashion is Gen Z, ages 12 to 27, many of whom are also concerned about climate change and might reconsider their fast-fashion buys if they recognized the connections between fast fashion and environmental harm.Some governments are also taking steps to reduce waste from fashion and other consumer products. The European Union is developing requirements for clothing to last longer and prohibiting companies from throwing out unsold textiles and footwear. France has pending legislation that, if passed, would ban publicity for fast-fashion companies and their products, require them to post the environmental impact of their products, and levy fines for violations.Changes in consumer habits, new technologies and legislation can each help reduce demand for unsustainable fashion. The cost of cheap clothes worn a few times also adds up. Next time you buy clothing, think about the long-term value to you and the planet.This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Fast fashion may seem cheap, but it’s taking a costly toll on the planet—and on millions of young people

November 26, 2024

4 min read

Fast Fashion Affects Climate, Exploits Workers and Creates Enormous Textile Waste

Fast fashion may seem cheap, but it’s taking a costly toll on the planet—and on millions of young people

By Paula M. Carbone & The Conversation US

Woman hands out of a pile of clothes and accessories on the floor.

Georgi Fadejev/Getty Images

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The ConversationThe Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.

Fast fashion is everywhere – in just about every mall, in the feeds of influencers on social media promoting overconsumption, and in ads constantly popping up online.

Fast fashion's focus on the continual production of new clothing is marked by speedy cycles that give the concept its name. Fast fashion is intended to quickly copy high-end designs, but with low-quality materials, resulting in poorly made clothing intended to be worn once or twice before being thrown away.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

One of fast fashion’s leading companies, Zara, has a mission to put clothes in stores 15 days after the initial design. Another, Shein, adds up to 2,000 new items to its website daily.

While others in the fashion industry are working toward more sustainable clothing, fast fashion is focused on profit. The market’s value was estimated at about US$100 billion in 2022 and growing quickly. It’s a large part of the reason global clothing production doubled from 2000 to 2014.

The big winners in this game are the corporations. The industry has a reputation for exploiting workers and for excessive pollution and extraordinary waste. Consumers are pulled into an unhealthy, spiraling pressure to buy more as cheap clothes fall apart fast.

Fast fashion also has a growing impact on the global climate. It is responsible for an estimated 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and its emissions are projected to grow quickly as the industry expands.

I teach courses that explore fast fashion and sustainability. The industry’s growth seems unstoppable – but a combination of legislation and willpower might just rein it in.

Understanding the harm

About 60 percent of fast-fashion items are made from synthetic textiles derived from plastics and chemicals that start their life as fossil fuels. When this synthetic clothing is laundered or thrown in landfills to decompose, it can release microplastics into the environment. Microplastics contain chemicals including phthalates and bisphenol A that can affect the health of humans and animals.

Natural fibers have their own impacts on the environment. Growing cotton requires large quantities of water, and pesticides can run off from farmlands into streams, rivers and bays. Water is also used in chemically treating and dyeing textiles. A 2005 United Nations-led report on cotton’s water use estimated that, on average, a single cotton T-shirt requires about 700 gallons (2,650 liters) of water from crop to clothing rack, with about 300 gallons (1,135 liters) of that water used for irrigation.

The chemicals used to process textiles for clothing for the fashion industry also contaminate wastewater with heavy metals, such as cadmium and lead, and toxic dyes. And that wastewater ends up in waterways in many countries, affecting the environment and wildlife.

Fast fashion’s high output also creates literally mountains of waste. More than 90 million tons of textile waste ends up in landfills globally each year, by one estimate, adding to greenhouse gases as it slowly decomposes. Only a small percentage of discarded clothing is recycled.

From fashionista to environmental guardian

In many cultures, people’s self-perception is intimately connected to fashion choices, reflecting culture and alliances.

The allure of buying new items comes from many sources. Influencers on social media play into FOMO– the fear of missing out. Cheap items can also lead to impulse buys.

Research shows that shopping can also create a euphoric sense of happiness. However, fast fashion’s speed and marketing can also train consumers into “psychological obsolescence,” causing them to dislike purchases they previously enjoyed, so they quickly replace them with new purchases.

Famous personalities may be helping to push back on this trend. Social media explodes when a first ladyor Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales, wears an outfit more than once. The movement #30wearschallenge is starting with small steps, by urging consumers to plan to wear every piece of clothing they buy at least 30 times.

Upcycling – turning old clothing into new clothing items – and buying sustainable and high-quality clothes that can last for years is being promoted by the United Nations and other organizations, including alliances in the fashion industry.

Some influencers are also promoting more sustainable fashion brands. Research has shown that peer influence can be a powerful driver for making more sustainable choices. The largest market for fast fashion is Gen Z, ages 12 to 27, many of whom are also concerned about climate change and might reconsider their fast-fashion buys if they recognized the connections between fast fashion and environmental harm.

Some governments are also taking steps to reduce waste from fashion and other consumer products. The European Union is developing requirements for clothing to last longer and prohibiting companies from throwing out unsold textiles and footwear. France has pending legislation that, if passed, would ban publicity for fast-fashion companies and their products, require them to post the environmental impact of their products, and levy fines for violations.

Changes in consumer habits, new technologies and legislation can each help reduce demand for unsustainable fashion. The cost of cheap clothes worn a few times also adds up. Next time you buy clothing, think about the long-term value to you and the planet.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Solar superstorm in 664 BCE recorded in tree rings

Scientists have narrowed down the date of a solar superstorm that occurred some 2,600 years ago to 664 BCE, based on a spike in carbon-14 in ancient tree rings. The post Solar superstorm in 664 BCE recorded in tree rings first appeared on EarthSky.

NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) captured this image of a giant solar prominence on August 31, 2012. Although large and dramatic, it did not come close to having the power of a solar superstorm. Image via NASA/ SDO/ AIA/ Goddard Space Flight Center. Scientists narrowed down the date of a solar superstorm that occurred more than 2,600 years ago to 664 BCE, based on a spike in carbon-14 in ancient tree rings. The carbon-14 spike was found in ancient wood, including wood from an Iron Age child’s burial chamber in Russia. This event was one of six solar superstorms that have occurred in the past 14,500 years, said the scientists. The 2025 EarthSky lunar calendar makes a great gift. Get yours today! Solar superstorm date confirmed in tree rings About 2,600 years ago, ancient Assyrians witnessed a fiery red glow across the night sky. And they recorded this significant event on a stone tablet. We now know they saw bright auroras caused by a powerful solar storm. On November 20, 2024, scientists said they believe they’ve found evidence of this event in tree rings. Furthermore, they’ve pinpointed that it happened in 664 BCE, 2,688 years ago. The researchers published their discovery in the peer-reviewed journal Communications Earth & Environment on August 23, 2024. If a storm of that magnitude were to occur today, it would have a serious impact on our power and communications infrastructures. But it probably would not be catastrophic. Power grids and communications systems are growing increasingly resilient in weathering solar storms. To learn more, catch up with this informative interview with David Wallace, a professor of electrical engineering at Mississippi State University. A closeup of tree rings, with the ring corresponding to 664 BCE labeled in the image. This wood came from a larch log at an archaeological site. It was part of a child’s burial chamber. Image via Irina Panyushkina. Used with permission. Carbon-14 in tree rings reveal an extreme solar event Irina Panyushkina at the University of Arizona led the team studying tree rings in ancient logs. In particular, they were measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the tree rings. They discovered a much higher concentration of carbon-14 in rings that were formed in 664 BCE. This type of carbon-14 signature, in other studies, has been associated with solar superstorms. What is carbon-14? It’s a type of radioactive carbon that forms continually in the atmosphere. Cosmic ray particles interact with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere to create carbon-14. Eventually, carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. Over a few months, that carbon dioxide containing carbon-14 makes its way to the lower atmosphere. There, trees take it up and store it in wood tissue. During a solar superstorm, the sun releases enormous amounts of particles. These particles strike the Earth’s atmosphere, creating a much higher amount of carbon-14 than usual. As a result, trees alive during such an event absorb and store that additional carbon-14 in that year’s tree rings. How often do solar superstorms occur? Scientists have identified six solar superstorms – known as Miyake events – that have happened in the past 14,500 years. They occurred in 7176 BCE, 5410 BCE, 5259 BCE, around 660 BCE, 774 CE and 993 CE. For all Miyake events, high carbon-14 spikes were found in tree rings of ancient wood corresponding to those dates. Also, scientists have found corroborating evidence in ancient ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica. (Higher levels of beryllium-10 and chlorine-36, found in the ice, were a result of interactions between particles from the sun during the storm and the Earth’s atmosphere.) However, there was uncertainty about the 660 BCE event. Scientists had known, from previous tree ring data and ice core studies, that a superstorm occurred around that time, but they did not know exactly when it happened. This new study narrowed the date to 664 BCE. When will the next solar superstorm occur? Panyushkina said: Tree rings give us an idea of the magnitude of these massive storms, but we can’t detect any type of pattern, so it is unlikely we’ll ever be able to predict when such an event is going to happen. Still, we believe our paper will transform how we search and understand the carbon-14 spike signal of extreme solar proton events in tree rings. The energy from this type of event not only changes the atmosphere’s radiocarbon content but also the atmosphere’s chemistry. We are trying to figure out how those short-lived and powerful events affect the Earth system as a whole. The wood that revealed the 664 BCE solar superstorm The researchers used dead trees that lived a long time ago to study ancient tree rings. One of the wood samples came from a well-preserved tree from a riverbank at the Polar Urals, a mountain range in Russia. Another was an archaeological timber from an ancient larch tree. Panyushkina told EarthSky more about it: The archaeological wood is from a small child’s [burial] chamber made of larch logs from the highlands of the Altai Mountains. It belongs to the Pazyryk culture, associated with the Siberian Scythians. I worked on an archaeological project to date these burials, known as kurgans, in 2003. Local archaeologists from Novosibirsk [in Russia] excavated the cemetery, and I collected wood samples from the kurgans for dendrochronology and dating. Researchers took a wood sample from this child’s burial chamber, made from larch logs. It was part of a kurgan, a type of burial mound associated with the Pazyryk culture of the Iron Age. Image via Irina Panyushkina. Used with permission. A cross-section of one of the logs from the burial chamber, showing the larch tree rings. Image via Irina Panyushkina. Used with permission. Using tree rings to study past climate and to date events Dendrochronology is the study of tree rings to date events and changes in the environment. In temperate climates, where the seasons change, trees usually form annual rings. The size and density of each ring is determined by environmental conditions during that year. As a result, tree rings provide valuable insight into past climate in a particular region. Tree rings can also be used for dating events. To do that, scientists build a long chronological timeline of ring patterns for a region, starting from living trees to progressively older dead trees. To date a tree ring sample, they compare the sample’s pattern to the reference chronological timeline, looking for a match. That match allows them to identify a date for their wood sample. Bottom line: Scientists have narrowed down the date of a solar superstorm that occurred over 2,600 years ago to 664 BCE, based on a spike in carbon-14 in ancient tree rings. Source: The timing of the ca-660 BCE Miyake solar-proton event constrained to between 664 and 663 BCE Via University of Arizona Read more: Biggest solar superstorm yet, glimpsed in ancient tree ringsThe post Solar superstorm in 664 BCE recorded in tree rings first appeared on EarthSky.

Climate
CO2
Culture

Bored of Turkey? Here’s Some High-End, Lab-Grown Foie Gras.

This story was originally published by Wired and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. At an upscale sushi bar in New York last week, a smattering of media and policy types chowed down on a menu of sushi rolls, Peking duck tapas, and mushroom salad. But what made this menu unusual was the one ingredient that […]

This story was originally published by Wired and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. At an upscale sushi bar in New York last week, a smattering of media and policy types chowed down on a menu of sushi rolls, Peking duck tapas, and mushroom salad. But what made this menu unusual was the one ingredient that ran through the dishes—foie gras made from quail cells brewed in a bioreactor. The event, catered by the sushi chef Masa Takayama, was a launch party for Australian cultivated meat firm Vow, which will sell its foie gras at a handful of restaurants in Singapore and Hong Kong. The meal was decadent—one course featured a mountain of black truffle—but that was mostly the point. Vow and its CEO, George Peppou, are angling cultivated meat as a luxury product—an unusual positioning for an industry where many founders are motivated by animal welfare and going toe-to-toe with mass-produced meat. But while growing meat in the lab still remains eye-wateringly expensive, Peppou is trying to turn the technology’s Achilles’ heel into his advantage. “I feel like the obituary has already been written for our industry,” he says. “But just because Californians can’t do something doesn’t mean something can’t be done.” It’s for venues that want “to use ingredients to distinguish themselves,” or “that have removed foie gras from their menus due to cruelty.” That something is making cultivated meat while turning a profit. The big challenge facing the industry—along with the bans and the lack of venture capital cash—is that it costs a lot to grow animal cells in bioreactors. Reliable figures are hard to come by, but one research paper with data provided by companies in 2021 put the cost of cultivated meat between $68 and $10,000 per pound, depending on production methods. A lot of startups say they have drastically cut production costs since their early experiments, but prices are still way higher than factory farmed chicken at around $2.67 per pound. The two best-funded startups in the space—Eat Just and Upside Foods—have both brought out cultivated chicken products. But Peppou, who leans into his reputation in the industry as something of a provocateur, says that approach doesn’t make sense. “Making chicken was always a terrible idea,” he says. The fundamentals of cultivated meat are pricey. The business of growing animal cells outside of their bodies is usually the domain of medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Animal cells grown in culture are used to make vaccines and medicines, which are sold in tiny volumes for sky-high prices. The cultivated meat industry needs some of the same ingredients to grow the cells it wants to sell as meat, but unlike the pharma industry, it needs to grow huge volumes of cells and sell them at grocery store prices. The major cost right now is what’s called cell media—the broth of liquid, nutrients, amino acids, and growth factors fed to cells while they’re growing. The off-the-shelf standard cell media for growing stem cells is called Essential 8, and it costs upwards of $400 per liter. That’s fine if you’re a scientist growing a few cells in a petri dish, but growing a single kilogram of cultivated meat might require 10 of liters of media, quickly sending costs sky-rocketing. Cultivated meat companies need to find cheaper sources for their ingredients and buy them in bulk in order to drive their costs down. “Ultimately the industry needs to prove that it can scale,” says Elliot Swartz, principal scientist for cultivated meat at the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit focused on advancing alternative proteins. Just a few crucial ingredients in cell media are a major factor pushing up costs for cultivated meat companies, most of which are still operating at a tiny scale, producing kilograms of meat per production cycle rather than the tons they are aiming for. “My biggest concern is always the scalability and the ability to industrialize something,” says Ido Savir, CEO of Israeli cultivated meat company SuperMeat. His company has just released a report estimating that—if produced at scale—it could grow chicken meat at $11.80 per pound, close to the price for pasture-raised chicken in the US. But this assumes production in bioreactors up to 25,000 liters—several orders of magnitude higher than the 10-liter scale the company is currently working at. “We’re improving every month,” he says. Savir is aiming at a much lower price point than Peppou, and hopes to partner with food manufacturers who might license his technology to add cultivated meat into their mix of options. “We’re more interested in the mass market,” he says. Dutch company Meatable has indicated it wants to follow a similar approach—licensing its technology to the handful of firms that already produce much of the US’s meat. Other cultivated meat companies want to sell to consumers under their own brands, but are still targeting the mass meat industry. Peppou is skewing decidedly in the opposite direction. He declines to name a price, but says his foie gras is at the “higher end” of the market—somewhere in the region of hundreds of dollars per pound. The foie gras is 51 percent Japanese quail cells—which also make up the parfait that Vow has sold in Singapore since April—plus a plant-based fat mix and corn husk flavorings. “It’s either for a venue that wants to use ingredients to distinguish themselves,” says Peppou, or it’s for “large hotels or caterers that have removed foie gras from their menus due to cruelty.” Conventional foie gras is made by force-feeding ducks or geese until their livers swell with fatty deposits. Production is banned in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and California among other places. Another cultivated meat company, France-based Gourmey, also makes foie gras, although its product is not currently on sale anywhere. “If you look at a lot of deep technology companies, it’s kind of a game of just not dying.” Vow’s quail parfait is on the menu at around six restaurants in Singapore, including being sold as a $15 (USD) bar snack and as part of a $185 tasting menu. In Peppou’s telling, going high-end is a way to spin cultivated meat’s high costs and low production volumes as a luxury proposition. “I believe the biggest challenge we have is how to shape consumer sentiment around this category. And the most efficient way to do that in my mind is to be in the most influential places with the relatively limited volume we have available.” SuperMeat’s Savir says that luxury cultivated meat products “have a place,” but that he is more interested in the mass market where he can complement the current production of meat. That will mean continuing to drive production costs down. One option is to mix cultivated meat with much cheaper plant-based ingredients. Savir says that they’re aiming at products that are around 30 percent cultivated meat cells and 70 percent plant-based ingredients. Several other firms are taking a similar strategy. In Singapore, Eat Just sells cultivated chicken strips that are only 3 percent chicken cells. The industry is also hoping that customers will pay premium prices because of the potential environmental benefits of making meat outside of animal bodies. Savir says he has spoken with a “very big” pizza company that says replacing just 5 to 10 percent of its chicken toppings with cultivated chicken would make a substantial dent in its carbon footprint. Even replacing a fraction of a percent of the $50 billion broiler chicken industry in the US would require a monumental scaling-up of cultivated meat production. “If you’re competing against chicken, which is the lowest-cost meat product, then you either have to go to very large scales or create hybrid products that have lower inclusion rates,” says Swartz of the Good Food Institute. But with investor dollars in short supply, companies are having to get creative about how they plan to get products into the world and achieve many founders’ ultimate goal of displacing at least some conventional meat production. Even though he’s targeting the luxury market, Peppou says he still isn’t turning a profit on his cultured quail parfait or foie gras, although his margin is much better than it would be if he were competing with factory-farmed chicken. “If you look at a lot of deep technology companies, it’s kind of a game of just not dying,” he says. “And it’s figuring out ways to not die long enough to get good enough to win in a market which probably doesn’t exist yet.” That means the route ahead for Vow might not look totally different from other cultivated meat companies. “The volumes are going to be low, it’s mostly going to be in restaurants. They’re going to be iterating on these products over time before they get any sort of mass market entry point,” says Swartz. “In the short term, what I’m looking forward to is getting more people that are trying this for the first time, not trying it because they’re excited about cultivated meat, but generally because they’re interested.”

Climate
Animals
Culture

Is there enough land on Earth to fight climate change and feed the world?

Study shows how smart policies could address competing land-use needs.

Capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius is a tall order. Achieving that goal will not only require a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, but also a substantial reallocation of land to support that effort and sustain the biosphere, including humans. More land will be needed to accommodate a growing demand for bioenergy and nature-based carbon sequestration while ensuring sufficient acreage for food production and ecological sustainability.The expanding role of land in a 1.5 C world will be twofold — to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to produce clean energy. Land-based carbon dioxide removal strategies include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; direct air capture; and afforestation/reforestation and other nature-based solutions. Land-based clean energy production includes wind and solar farms and sustainable bioenergy cropland. Any decision to allocate more land for climate mitigation must also address competing needs for long-term food security and ecosystem health.Land-based climate mitigation choices vary in terms of costs — amount of land required, implications for food security, impact on biodiversity and other ecosystem services — and benefits — potential for sequestering greenhouse gases and producing clean energy.Now a study in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of competing land-use and technology options to limit global warming to 1.5 C. Led by researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3), the study applies the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework to evaluate costs and benefits of different land-based climate mitigation options in Sky2050, a 1.5 C climate-stabilization scenario developed by Shell.Under this scenario, demand for bioenergy and natural carbon sinks increase along with the need for sustainable farming and food production. To determine if there’s enough land to meet all these growing demands, the research team uses the global hectare (gha) — an area of 10,000 square meters, or 2.471 acres — as the standard unit of measurement, and current estimates of the Earth’s total habitable land area (about 10 gha) and land area used for food production and bioenergy (5 gha).The team finds that with transformative changes in policy, land management practices, and consumption patterns, global land is sufficient to provide a sustainable supply of food and ecosystem services throughout this century while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with the 1.5 C goal. These transformative changes include policies to protect natural ecosystems; stop deforestation and accelerate reforestation and afforestation; promote advances in sustainable agriculture technology and practice; reduce agricultural and food waste; and incentivize consumers to purchase sustainably produced goods.If such changes are implemented, 2.5–3.5 gha of land would be used for NBS practices to sequester 3–6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 per year, and 0.4–0.6 gha of land would be allocated for energy production — 0.2–0.3 gha for bioenergy and 0.2–0.35 gha for wind and solar power generation.“Our scenario shows that there is enough land to support a 1.5 degree C future as long as effective policies at national and global levels are in place,” says CS3 Principal Research Scientist Angelo Gurgel, the study’s lead author. “These policies must not only promote efficient use of land for food, energy, and nature, but also be supported by long-term commitments from government and industry decision-makers.”

Climate
Land Use
CO2

Carnival Corp’s Fleet Emits More CO2 Than Scotland’s Biggest City

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The world’s largest cruise line company is responsible for producing more carbon dioxide in Europe than the city of Glasgow, a report has found. An analysis by the Transport and Environment (T&E) campaign group, provided to the Guardian, found Carnival to be […]

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The world’s largest cruise line company is responsible for producing more carbon dioxide in Europe than the city of Glasgow, a report has found. An analysis by the Transport and Environment (T&E) campaign group, provided to the Guardian, found Carnival to be the most climate-polluting cruise company sailing in Europe in 2023. The data covered all Europe-bound cruise ships last year, including 53 that belonged to Carnival. The second most climate-polluting cruise company in Europe was MSC, followed by Norwegian Cruise Line, the group found. Carbon emissions for Carnival’s Europe-bound ships totalled 2.6 million metric tons of CO2 last year. The latest emissions figures for the city of Glasgow, from 2021, with a population of 620,700, were 2.43 million metric tons, according to the city council. MSC emitted 1.4 million and Norwegian 0.84 million. Analysts from T&E used official data on carbon emissions supplied by vessels sailing in the European Economic Area, as required by EU law. “Scrubbers allow ships to convert their air pollution into toxic water pollution, and they can use bunker fuel which is dirty and cheap.” “The larger companies have more vessels and bigger ships,” said Jacob Armstrong, shipping policy manager at T&E. “But bigger isn’t better when it comes to emissions.” Cruising is one of tourism’s fastest-growing sectors. The number of cruise vessels has grown significantly, from 21 in the 1970s to 515 today, and T&E research shows the world’s biggest cruise ships have doubled in size since 2000. Carnival Corporation plc, a Miami-based British and US company, made $2 billion profit in 2023, after losses of $4.4 billion and $7.1 billion in 2022 and 2021, during the Covid pandemic. In 2023, 12.5 million passengers travelled on its 92 ships. In a separate ranking of environmental harm by cruise companies in 2024, by Friends of the Earth (FoE) US, Carnival and its subsidiaries also emerged lowest among 21 cruise lines. An annual “cruise ship report card” awarded five of Carnival’s nine lines—Costa Cruises, P&O Cruises, Carnival Cruise Line, Cunard, and Seabourn—the grade of F overall. Four factors taken into account were air pollution reduction, sewage treatment, water quality and transparency. Marcie Keever, ocean and vessels programme director at FoE, said Carnival’s continued use of “scrubbers” in its fleet, which, while approved by the International Maritime Organization, allows the use of dirtier fuel and causes water pollution. “Scrubbers allow ships to convert their air pollution into toxic water pollution, and they can use bunker fuel which is dirty and cheap,” she said. This factor, along with a lack of transparency, and not all ships being equipped for shore power, resulted in the F grade, the lowest ranking. FoE awarded expedition cruise lines Hurtigruten and Hurtigruten Expeditions a B+, the highest score, while Disney Cruise line got a B. Hurtigruten vessels plug into shore power instead of running their engines, thus reducing air pollution at shore power-enabled ports. Neither Hurtigruten nor Disney use scrubbers on vessels, and all three were awarded A for transparency. “There are more cruise companies getting higher grades than in previous years, so we are seeing some progress,” Keever said. A Carnival Corp and plc spokesperson said: “We’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in environmental technologies and solutions, which together with our other decisive climate actions are yielding strong results.”Carnival’s 2023 total greenhouse gas emissions were 9.7 million metric tons, compared with 10.9 million in 2011. The spokesperson said it was on track to cut its emissions per passenger-equivalent by 40 percent by 2026, compared with 2008 levels. An MSC cruise spokesperson said improving the environmental performance of its fleet was of “crucial” importance. “We have already made significant progress, and our ships are 40 percent more efficient than they were 10 years ago.” A spokesperson for Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings said: “We are proud of the progress we are making towards our goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity per capacity day by 10 percent by 2026 and 25 percent by 2030, using a 2019 baseline.”

Climate
CO2
Water

Eriel Tchekwie Deranger Seeks Climate Policy That Works With the Land

Eriel Tchekwie Deranger works to empower Indigenous peoples to lead the way on climate justice and decolonize environmental policy.

Eriel Tchekwie Deranger works to empower Indigenous peoples to lead the way on climate justice and decolonize environmental policy.

Climate
Indigenous

Suggested Viewing

Ser Manguezal

Ser Manguezal, created by Eliseu Cavalcante, was inspired by Josué de Castro's book "Of Men and Crabs" from 1967. De Castro was a Brazilian geographer, physician, writer and activist against world hunger. In his book, Castro envisions men as crabs, learning to walk in the mangroves. This relationship between them seems to unify and blend all together making the human being part of that specific biome. This film is part of an ongoing project that examines those who depend on the mangrove ecosystem to survive, and the delicate relationship between humans and this particular ecosystem. It seeks to recognize the hard-working crab hunters of the mangroves and make their work more visible, and to bring awareness about the importance of mangroves to the environment. Worldwide, 3,400 square kilometers (1,300 square miles) of mangrove forests were lost between 2000 and 2016, or about 2% of the global mangrove area (NASA). About 62% of the losses were due to direct human causes such as agriculture and aquaculture. Mangrove degradation is greater than the average for tropical and subtropical forest loss.

Water
Conservation
Plants

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

Evangelicals for Climate Action

This film introduces Evangelical Christians working for action on climate change and the environment. They explain how they became passionate about the environment, their fears about the future of our planet, and how their passion is based on their deep faith and love for creation. They call on all other Evangelicals to join them.

Climate
Culture

Saving Jaguars and Ourselves

"Saving Jaguars and Ourselves" brings attention to the plight of jaguars, wildlife, the Pantanal in Brazil AND the Amazon Rainforest and Cerrado Savannah. The film combines intimate human conversations and portrayals of jaguars in the Pantanal with clear explanations of larger threats that expand to include the Amazon, Cerrado, and the U.S.—focusing on ways that individuals in the U.S. can act effectively to bring change. These three areas form a critical Triad for preventing global climate change. My film explains why this Triad is crucial--why OUR survival in the U.S. depends on its recovery--and what we must do to literally save it, jaguars/wildlife, and Earth. The Pantanal wetland is larger than Florida and stores at least 10 billion tons of carbon. The Cerrado stores at least 13 billion tons. The Amazon stores 200 billion tons. If ANY of these areas completely burns, the carbon releases would be catastrophic. The Amazon and Pantanal are paradises. The Pantanal is directly affected by destruction of the Amazon and Cerrado savannah. Scientists believe that 80% of the Amazon Rainforest must be protected by 2025 or it will not be able to regenerate itself. The Amazon creates its own weather but if deforestation continues, its ecosystem will die and dying trees will give off as much as 200 billion tons of carbon over the next 30-50 years, effectively destroying our ability to protect the climate--and the Earth will die. The Pantanal is one of the most unique and beautiful places in the world, home to over 5,000 animal species and is now also facing threats from upstream river projects.

Solutions
Animals
Climate

THE WATER WILL TAKE US

This film tells the story of the victims of the flood of 2019 in Iran, which happened in the three provinces of North, Central and South of the country and left a lot of damages. The main narrators are three women who reveal the causes of this incident and mismanagements and tell the story of the people who were left to fend for themselves during the flood and after.

Water
Social Justice
Climate

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.