Nearly 15 years after journalist David Owen and I tangled — and then united — over Jevons Paradox, the New York Times today published a guest essay on that subject by a Murdoch-employed London journalist. David and I went deeper and did better, as you’ll see in a moment.
Jevons Paradox denotes the tendency of economies to increase, not decrease, their use of something as they learn how to use that thing more efficiently. Its 19th-century archetype, observed by Britisher William Stanley Jevons, was that “as steam engines became ever more efficient, Britain’s appetite for coal [to power them] increased rather than decreased,” as Sky News editor Ed Conway put it today, in The Paradox Holding Back the Clean Energy Revolution. Why? Because the “rebound” in use of steam as its manufacture grew cheaper more than offset the direct contraction in use from the increased efficiency.
Illustration by Joost Swarte for “The Efficiency Dilemma,” in the New Yorker magazine’s Dec. 20, 2010 print edition (Dec. 12 on line).
Where does David Owen come in? In October 2009 he published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that congestion pricing could never cure traffic congestion, on account of the bounceback in car traffic due to lesser congestion. (Funnily enough, the Journal never runs opinion pieces maintaining that induced demand prevents highway expansions from “solving” road congestion.) My subsequent rebuttal in Streetsblog, Paradox, Schmaradox, Congestion Pricing Works, changed David’s mind. The disincentive of the congestion toll, he told me, could probably stave off enough of the rebound in driving to allow congestion pricing to fulfill its promise of curbing gridlock.
A year later, when David revisited Jevons Paradox in a full-blown New Yorker magazine narrative, The Efficiency Dilemma, he made sure to point to “capping emissions or putting a price on carbon or increasing energy taxes” as potential ways out. I was thrilled. and I published a post in Grist riffing on “The Efficiency Dilemma.” I’ve pasted it below. I hope to comment on Conway’s NY Times essay in a future post soon.
If efficiency hasn’t cut energy use, then what?
By Charles Komanoff, reprinted from Grist, Dec. 16, 2010.
One of the most penetrating critiques of energy-efficiency dogma you’ll ever read is in this week’s New Yorker (yes, the New Yorker). “The efficiency dilemma,” by David Owen, has this provocative subtitle: “If our machines use less energy, will we just use them more?” Owen’s answer is a resounding, iconoclastic, and probably correct Yes.
Owen’s thesis is that as a society becomes more energy efficient, it becomes downright inefficient not to use more. The pursuit of efficiency is smart for individuals and businesses but a dead end for energy and climate policy.
This idea isn’t wholly original. It’s known as the Jevons paradox, and it has a 150-year history of provoking bursts of discussion before being repressed from social consciousness. What Owen adds to the thread is considerable, however: a fine narrative arc; the conceptual feat of elevating the paradox from the micro level, where it is rebuttable, to the macro, where it is more robust; a compelling case study; and the courage to take on energy-efficiency guru Amory Lovins. Best of all, Owen offers a way out: raising fuel prices via energy taxes.
Thirty-five years ago, when the energy industry first ridiculed efficiency as a return ticket to the Dark Ages, it was met with a torrent of smart ripostes like the Ford Foundation’s landmark “A Time to Choose” report — a well-thumbed copy of which adorns my bookshelf. Since then, the cause of energy efficiency has rung up one triumph after another: refrigerators have tripled in thermodynamic efficiency, energy-guzzling incandescent bulbs have been booted out of commercial buildings, and developers of trophy properties compete to rack up LEED points denoting low-energy design and operation.
Yet it’s difficult to see that these achievements have had any effect on slowing the growth in energy use. U.S. electricity consumption in 2008 was double that of 1975, and overall energy consumption was up by 38 percent. True, during this time U.S. population grew by 40 percent, but we also outsourced much of our manufacturing to Asia. In any case, efficiency, the assertedly immense resource that lay untapped in U.S. basements, garages, and offices, was supposed to slash per capita energy use, not just keep it from rising. Why hasn’t it? And what does that say for energy and climate policy?
A short form of the Jevons paradox, and a good entry point for discussing it, is the “rebound effect” — the tendency to employ more of something when efficiency has effectively cut its cost. The rebound effect is a staple of transportation analysis, in two separate forms. One is the rebound in gallons of gas consumed when fuel-efficiency standards have reduced the fuel cost to drive a mile. The other is the rebound from the reduction in car trips after imposition of a road toll, now that the drop in traffic has made it possible to cover the same ground in less time.
Rebound effect one turns out to be small. As UC-Irvine economics professor Ken Small has shown, no more than 20 percent of the gasoline savings from improved engine efficiency have been lost to the tendency to drive more miles — and much less in the short term. Rebound effect two is more significant and becoming more so, as time increasingly trumps money in the decision-making of drivers, at least better-off ones.
Rebound effects, then, vary in magnitude from one sector to another. They can be tricky to analyze, as Owen unwittingly demonstrated in an ill-considered 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing congestion pricing, “How traffic jams help the environment.” He wrote:
If reducing [congestion via a toll] merely makes life easier for those who drive, then the improved traffic flow can actually increase the environmental damage done by cars, by raising overall traffic volume, encouraging sprawl and long car commutes.
Not so, as I wrote in “Paradox, schmaradox. Congestion pricing works”:
When the reduction in traffic is caused by a congestion charge, life is not just easier for those who continue driving but more costly as well. Yes, there’s a seesaw between price effects and time effects, but setting the congestion price at the right point will rebalance the system toward less driving, without harming the city’s economy.
Rebound effects from more fuel-efficient vehicles, as depicted in “Energy sufficiency and rebound effects,” a 2018 concept paper by Steve Sorrell, Univ. of Sussex, and Birgitta Gabersleben & Angela Druckman, Univ. of Surrey, UK.
More importantly, as Owen points out in his New Yorker piece, a narrow “bottom up” view — one that considers people’s decision-making in isolated realms of activity one-by-one — tends to miss broader rebound effects. On the face of it, doubling the efficiency of clothes washers and dryers shouldn’t cause the amount of laundering to rise more than slightly. But consider: 30 years ago, an urban family of four would have used the washer-dryer in the basement or at the laundromat, forcing it to “conserve” drying to save not just quarters but time traipsing back and forth. Since then, however, efficiency gains have enabled manufacturers to make washer-dryers in apartment sizes. We own one, and find ourselves using it for “spot” situations — emergencies that aren’t really emergencies, small loads for the item we “need” for tomorrow — that add more than a little to our total usage. And who’s to say that the advent of cheap and rapid laundering hasn’t contributed to the long-term rise in fashion-consumption, with all it implies for increased energy use through more manufacturing, freight hauling, retailing, and advertising?
Owen offers his own big example. Interestingly, it’s not computers or other electronic devices. It’s cooling. In an entertaining and all-too-brief romp through a half-century of changing mores, he traces the evolution of refrigeration and its “fraternal twin,” air conditioning, from rare, seldom-used luxuries then, to ubiquitous, always-on devices today:
My parents’ [first fridge] had a tiny, uninsulated freezer compartment, which seldom contained much more than a few aluminum ice trays and a burrow-like mantle of frost … The recently remodeled kitchen of a friend of mine contains an enormous side-by-side refrigerator, an enormous side-by-side freezer, and a drawer-like under-counter mini-fridge for beverages. And the trend has not been confined to households. As the ability to efficiently and inexpensively chill things has grown, so have opportunities to buy chilled things — a potent positive-feedback loop. Gas stations now often have almost as much refrigerated shelf space as the grocery stores of my early childhood; even mediocre hotel rooms usually come with their own small fridge (which, typically, either is empty or — if it’s a minibar — contains mainly things that don’t need to be kept cold), in addition to an icemaker and a refrigerated vending machine down the hall.
Air conditioning has a similar arc, ending with Owen’s observation that “access to cooled air is self-reinforcing: to someone who works in an air-conditioned office, an un-air-conditioned house quickly becomes intolerable, and vice versa.”
If Owen has a summation, it’s this:
All such increases in energy-consuming activity [driven by increased efficiency] can be considered manifestations of the Jevons paradox. Teasing out the precise contribution of a particular efficiency improvement isn’t just difficult, however; it may be impossible, because the endlessly ramifying network of interconnections is too complex to yield readily to empirical, mathematics-based analysis. [Emphasis mine.]
Defenders of efficiency will call “endlessly ramifying network” a cop-out. I’d say the burden is on them to prove otherwise. Based on the aggregate energy data mentioned earlier, efficiency advocates have been winning the micro battles but losing the macro war. Through engineering brilliance and concerted political and regulatory advocacy, we have increased energy-efficiency in the small while the society around us has grown monstrously energy-inefficient and cancelled out those gains. Two steps forward, two steps back.
I wrote something roughly similar five years ago in a broadside against my old colleague, Amory Lovins:
[T]hough Amory has been evangelizing “the soft path” for thirty years, his handful of glittering successes have only evoked limited emulation. Why? Because after the price shocks of the 1970s, energy became, and is still, too darn cheap. It’s a law of nature, I’d say, or at least of Economics 101: inexpensive anything will never be conserved. So long as energy is cheap, Amory’s magnificent exceptions will remain just that. Thousands of highly-focused advocacy groups will break their hearts trying to fix the thousands of ingrained practices that add up to energy over-consumption, from tax-deductible mortgages and always-on electronics to anti-solar zoning codes and un-bikeable streets. And all the while, new ways to use energy will arise, overwhelming whatever hard-won reductions these Sisyphean efforts achieve.
I wrote that a day or two after inviting Lovins to endorse putting carbon or other fuel taxes front-and-center in energy advocacy. He declined, insisting that “technical efficiency” could be increased many-fold without taxing energy to raise its price. Of course it has, can, and will. But is technical efficiency enough? Owen asks us to consider whether a strategy centered on technical and regulatory measures to boost energy efficiency may be inherently unsuited for the herculean task of keeping coal and other fossil fuels safely locked in the ground.
I said earlier that Owen offers an escape from the Jevons paradox, and he does: “capping emissions or putting a price on carbon or increasing energy taxes.” It’s hardly a clarion call, and it’s not the straight carbon taxers’ line. But it’s a lifeline.
The veteran English economist Len Brookes told Owen:
When we talk about increasing energy efficiency, what we’re really talking about is increasing the productivity of energy. And, if you increase the productivity of anything, you have the effect of reducing its implicit price, because you get more return for the same money — which means the demand goes up.
The antidote to the Jevon paradox, then, is energy taxes. We can thank Owen not only for raising a critical, central question about energy efficiency, with potential ramifications for energy and climate policy, but for giving us a brief — an eloquent and powerful one — for a carbon tax.
Author’s present-day (Feb. 22, 2024) note: I overdid it somewhat in belittling energy efficiency’s impacts on U.S. energy use in that 2010 Grist post. Indeed, in posts here in 2016 and again in 2020 I quantified and enthused over improved EE’s role in stabilizing electricity demand and slashing that sector’s carbon emissions.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
Climate change is real, and the evidence is everywhere, from rising sea levels to extreme weather events. While changes in Earth’s climate have occurred naturally over millennia, human activities are now the dominant force behind the current warming trend. Understanding what climate change is, what causes it, and what we can do to stop it is essential for safeguarding our planet and future generations.
Key takeaways
- Human activities, especially burning fossil fuels, are now the dominant driver of climate change, not natural cycles like solar activity.
- Livestock accounts for an estimated 51% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, while deforestation is the second-largest contributor.
- 2023-2025 was the first three-year period on record to average more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures.
- Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions hit a record 38.1 billion tonnes in 2025, with no sign yet of a peak.
- Nearly 30% of plant and animal species could be at risk of extinction if global temperatures keep rising.
- Solutions like renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon offsets, and reduced deforestation can meaningfully slow climate change today.
Climate Change in 2026: The Latest Data
The data keeps confirming the same trend: warming is accelerating, not leveling off. Here’s where things stand as of 2026, based on the most recent findings from NOAA, Copernicus, NASA, and the Global Carbon Project.
2026 climate data snapshot
- Global temperatures: 2025 was the third-warmest year on record, behind 2024 and 2023. The past 11 years (2015–2025) are the 11 warmest ever measured, and 2023–2025 marked the first three-year period to average above 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels.
- CO2 levels: Atmospheric CO2 hit a record monthly high of 430.5 ppm at Mauna Loa in May 2025. Global fossil fuel emissions reached a record 38.1 billion tonnes in 2025, and researchers now say the remaining carbon budget to keep warming under 1.5°C will likely be exhausted before 2030 at current emission rates.
- Extreme weather costs: The U.S. recorded 23 separate billion-dollar weather disasters in 2025, the third-highest annual total on record, costing an estimated $115 billion. The January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires alone caused $61.2 billion in damage, making them the costliest wildfire event in U.S. history.
- Sea level rise: Global mean sea level rose just 0.08 cm in 2025, slowed temporarily by La Niña rainfall patterns, but the long-term rate of sea level rise has more than doubled since 1993, and oceans are up roughly 10 cm (about 4 inches) since satellite records began.
None of this changes the underlying picture: the causes, effects, and solutions below remain the same, they’re just playing out faster and at greater cost each year.
What Is Climate Change?
You’ve likely heard the terms “climate change” and “global warming” used interchangeably. However, they have distinct meanings. Global warming refers specifically to the increase in the planet’s average surface temperature, largely due to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change, on the other hand, encompasses a broader range of long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other aspects of the Earth’s climate system.
Climate change has always been part of Earth’s history, driven by natural interactions between five key systems:
- Atmosphere (air)
- Biosphere (living things)
- Cryosphere (ice and permafrost)
- Hydrosphere (water bodies)
- Lithosphere (Earth’s crust and upper mantle)
Today, the rapid pace and scale of climate change are primarily driven by human activities.
Climate Change (infographic)
What Are the Causes of Climate Change?
Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. While some GHGs occur naturally, human activities have sharply increased their concentrations. Major contributors include:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) – Released by burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and land-use changes.
- Methane (CH4) – Emitted from livestock, landfills, and oil and gas production.
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) – Produced by agricultural activities and fossil fuel combustion.
- Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – Man-made chemicals used in refrigeration and aerosols.
CO2 is the most significant and long-lasting of these gases, making it the primary driver of global warming.
While some of these greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, are naturally occurring, others, such as CFCs, are synthetic. CO2 is released into the atmosphere from both natural and human-made causes and is one of the leading contributors to climate change. CO2 has been increasing at an alarming rate and has the potential to stay in the earth’s atmosphere for thousands of years unless it gets absorbed by the ocean, land, trees, and other sources. As CO2 production has steadily risen, though, the earth’s natural resources to absorb it have also been diminished. This is already occurring in many ways as the earth’s resources are disappearing from things like deforestation. Some studies even predict that plants and soil will be able to absorb less CO2 as the earth continues to warm, possibly accelerating climate change even further.
Solar Activity
Solar activity, as mentioned above, does play a role in the earth’s climate. While the sun does go through natural cycles, increasing and decreasing the amount of energy that it emits to the earth, it is unlikely that solar activity is a major contributor to global warming or climate change. Since scientists began to measure the sun’s energy hitting our atmosphere, there has not been a measurable upward trend.
Agriculture
There are many significant ways in which agriculture impacts climate change. From deforestation in places like the Amazon to the transportation and livestock that it takes to support agricultural efforts around the world, agriculture is responsible for a significant portion of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. However, agriculture is also an area that is making tremendous strides to become more sustainable. As productivity increases, less carbon is being emitted to produce more food. Agriculture also has the potential to act as a carbon sink, and could eventually absorb nearly the same amount of CO2 it emits.
Deforestation
Deforestation and climate change often go hand in hand. Not only does climate change increase deforestation by way of wildfires and other extreme weather, but deforestation is also a major contributor to global warming. According to the Earth Day Network, deforestation is the second leading contributor to global greenhouse gasses. Many people and organizations fighting against climate change point to reducing deforestation as one of, if not the most, important issues that must be addressed to slow or prevent climate change.
Human Activity
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the most significant contributor to climate change in the United States is the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. Of these factors, transportation in the form of cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes emits the largest percentage of CO2, speeding up global warming and remaining a significant cause of climate change.
Livestock
While interconnected to many of the agricultural and deforestation issues we have already touched on, livestock in the form of cattle, sheep, pigs, and poultry play a significant role in climate change. According to one study, “Livestock and Climate Change,” livestock around the world is responsible for 51% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.
What Are the Immediate Effects of Climate Change?
From melting glaciers to more extreme weather patterns, people everywhere are beginning to take notice of the real impacts of climate change. While some nations around the world are taking action with initiatives such as the Paris Climate Agreement, others are continuing business as usual, pumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere year after year. As the 2026 data above shows, climate change continues to cause extreme weather as well as safety and economic challenges on a global scale, and the costs are climbing every year.
Extreme Weather
Changes to weather are perhaps the most noticeable effect of climate change for the average person, largely because of the financial impact severe weather events can have. In 2025 alone, the U.S. recorded 23 separate billion-dollar weather disasters totaling $115 billion in damages, continuing a run of the three highest years on record (2023, 2024, and 2025). Extreme weather influenced by climate change includes:
- Stronger storms & hurricanes
- Heatwaves
- Wildfires
- More flooding
- Heavier droughts
Safety & Economic Challenges
In 2014 the U.S. Department of Defense released a report that stated climate change posed a severe and immediate threat to national security. According to former Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, rising global temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict.
Climate change is also likely to cause continued economic challenges in many parts of the world. Some estimates have the U.S. already spending around $240 billion annually due to human-caused climate change, and the 2025 U.S. billion-dollar disaster total of $115 billion shows those costs remain elevated year after year. Putting an exact number on the real costs of climate change is difficult, though, once you consider the staggering costs of losing natural resources like clean air and water.
What Is the Long-Term Impact of Climate Change?
The long-term impact of climate change could be absolutely devastating to the planet and everyone and everything living on it. If the world continues on its current trajectory, and 2025’s record fossil fuel emissions suggest it is, then we will likely continue to see increasing effects on everyday life.
Health
There are many ways in which climate change could impact people’s health. Depending on age, location, and economic status, climate change is already affecting the health of many and has the potential to impact millions more. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, climate change-related health risks may include:
- Heat-related illness
- Injuries and fatalities from severe weather
- Asthma & cardiovascular disease from air pollution
- Respiratory problems from increased allergens
- Diseases from poor water quality
- Water & food supply insecurities
Negative Impact on Ecosystems
Ecosystems are interconnected webs of living organisms that help support all kinds of plant and biological life. Climate change is already changing seasonal weather patterns and disrupting food distribution for plants and animals throughout the world, potentially causing mass extinction events. Some studies estimate that nearly 30% of plant and animal species are at risk of extinction if global temperatures continue to rise.
Water & Food Resources
Climate change could have a significant impact on food and water supplies. Severe weather and increased temperatures will continue to limit crop productivity and increase the demand for water. With food demand expected to increase by nearly 70% by 2050, the problem will likely only get worse.
Sea Levels Rising
Rising sea levels could have far-reaching effects on coastal cities and habitats. Increasing ocean temperatures and melting ice sheets have steadily contributed to the rise of sea levels on a global scale. Global sea level has risen roughly 10 cm (about 4 inches) since satellite records began in 1993, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates sea levels will rise by at least 8 inches by 2100, potentially causing increased flooding and a decrease in ocean and wetland habitats.
Shrinking Ice Sheets
While contributing to rising sea levels, shrinking ice sheets present their own set of unique problems, including increased global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change has driven summer melt of the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica to increase by nearly 30% since 1979.
Ocean Acidification
The ocean is one of the main ways in which CO2 gets absorbed. While at first glance that may sound like a net positive, the increasingly human-caused CO2 is pushing the world’s oceans to their limits and causing increased acidity. As pH levels in the ocean decrease, shellfish have difficulty reproducing, and much of the ocean’s food cycle becomes disrupted.
What Are the Solutions for Climate Change?
While the effects of climate change can seem bleak, there is still hope. By taking immediate action to curb climate change, we may never see the worst consequences. Likewise, as the world adopts cleaner, more sustainable energy solutions, there may be millions of new jobs created and billions of dollars of economic benefits. Below are some practical ways you can battle climate change, including:
- Switching to renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro)
- Purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) for your home
- Using energy-efficient appliances and insulating buildings
- Offsetting your carbon emissions through verified programs
- Adopting plant-based diets and reducing meat consumption
- Minimizing food waste and single-use plastics
- Protecting and restoring forests and wetlands
- Supporting clean transportation options (EVs, public transit, biking)
Try the Terrapass Flight Carbon Calculator
Traveling by plane? Use the Terrapass Flight Carbon Calculator to estimate your flight emissions and support verified offset projects.
See How Terrapass Can Help Your Business
Companies facing growing pressure to cut emissions, whether from regulation, investors, or customers, can explore Terrapass’s business carbon offset programs to start addressing their footprint today.
Why Climate Change Matters to Everyone
Climate change isn’t just an environmental problem. It’s an everything problem. It touches every aspect of our lives:
- Jobs and the economy: Clean energy sectors are rapidly expanding and could create millions of new jobs worldwide.
- National security: Climate change exacerbates global instability, resource conflicts, and forced migration.
- Public health: Clean air, safe drinking water, and stable food systems are all at risk.
- Justice and equity: Low-income communities and developing nations are often hit hardest despite contributing the least to global emissions.
- Future generations: The choices we make today will shape the legacy we leave behind.
By investing in climate solutions now, we not only avoid catastrophe but also unlock opportunities for innovation, resilience, and shared prosperity.
FAQ: Climate Change
What is climate change?
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other aspects of Earth’s climate system, largely driven today by human greenhouse gas emissions.
What is the difference between climate change and global warming?
Global warming specifically means the rise in the planet’s average surface temperature. Climate change is the broader term, covering the shifts in weather patterns, sea levels, and ecosystems that result from it.
What causes climate change?
The main driver is greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, along with deforestation, agriculture, and livestock. Natural factors like solar activity play a much smaller role.
What are the effects of climate change?
Effects include more extreme weather, rising sea levels, shrinking ice sheets, ocean acidification, threats to food and water supplies, and growing risks to public health.
Is climate change getting worse in 2026?
The trend lines are still moving the wrong way. 2025 was the third-warmest year on record, global fossil fuel emissions hit a new record of 38.1 billion tonnes, and 2023–2025 was the first three-year period to average above 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels.
Can climate change be reversed?
It’s generally described as something we can slow and adapt to rather than fully reverse in the near term. Cutting emissions, protecting forests, and shifting to renewable energy can still prevent the worst outcomes.
What can I do to help stop climate change?
Individual actions add up: switching to renewable energy, using energy-efficient appliances, offsetting your carbon emissions, reducing meat consumption, and supporting clean transportation all make a difference.
Brought to you by Terrapass, your trusted partner in carbon offsets and climate education.
Sources:
- Rose, Brian E. “ATM 623: Climate Modeling.” Lecture04 – Climate System Components, atmos.albany.edu.
- “AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity.” American Association for the Advancement of Science, aaas.org.
- “The Causes of Climate Change.” NASA, 6 Sept. 2019, climate.nasa.gov/causes.
- “The Carbon Cycle.” NASA, earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php.
- Green, Julia K., et al. “Large Influence of Soil Moisture on Long-Term Terrestrial Carbon Uptake.” Nature, vol. 565, no. 7740, 2019, pp. 476–479, nature.com.
- “Is the Sun Causing Global Warming?” NASA, climate.nasa.gov.
- “Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” American Farm Bureau Federation, fb.org.
- “Deforestation and Climate Change.” Earth Day Network, earthday.org/campaigns/reforestation/deforestation-climate-change/.
- “REDD: Protecting Climate, Forests and Livelihoods.” International Institute for Environment and Development, 24 Jan. 2018, iied.org.
- “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” EPA, 13 Sept. 2019, epa.gov.
- Goodland, Robert and Anhang, Jeff. “Livestock and Climate Change.” worldwatch.org.
- “Extreme Weather and Climate Change.” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 14 Aug. 2019, c2es.org.
- “DoD Releases 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.” U.S. Department of Defense, defense.gov.
- “The Economic Case for Climate Action in the United States.” FEUUS, feu-us.org.
- “Climate Change and Public Health.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cdc.gov.
- “Climate Impacts on Ecosystems.” EPA, 22 Dec. 2016, epa.gov.
- Kijne, Jacob W. “Hugh Turral, Jacob Burke and Jean-Marc Faurès: Climate Change, Water and Food Security.” fao.org.
- “Quick Facts on Ice Sheets.” National Snow and Ice Data Center, nsidc.org.
- “Copernicus: 2025 was the third hottest year on record.” Copernicus Climate Change Service, climate.copernicus.eu.
- “Assessing the Global Temperature and Precipitation Analysis in 2025.” NOAA NCEI, ncei.noaa.gov.
- “Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions Hit Record High in 2025.” Global Carbon Project, globalcarbonbudget.org.
- “2025 in Review: U.S. Billion-Dollar Disasters.” Climate Central, climatecentral.org.
- “NASA Analysis Shows La Niña Limited Sea Level Rise in 2025.” NASA/JPL, jpl.nasa.gov.
The post What Is Climate Change? Causes, Effects & Solutions (2026) appeared first on Terrapass.
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits