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

From climate change to landfill, AI promises to solve Earth’s big environmental problems – but there’s a hitch

News Feed
Tuesday, August 6, 2024

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised our lives in myriad ways, from personalising our social media feeds to giving us driving directions and monitoring our health. In recent years, hopes have grown that AI may also help humanity tackle global environmental problems such as climate change. AI involves using computers to make them think like humans. It can solve complex problems and process huge amounts of data. But the technology brings with it a host of environmental costs. Here, we weigh up the pros and cons. 4 ways AI can help the natural world Energy efficiency AI systems can control and optimise energy use. For example, AI-powered “smart grids” monitor and manage electricity generation to meet the demand of consumers, which can both lower energy costs and allow for more efficient energy use. AI can also help streamline the energy used by big commercial and industrial systems. Tech giant Google, for instance, used AI to cut the amount of energy required to cool its data centres by 40%. Urban Infrastructure Waste management systems driven by AI may help increase recycling rates. In the United Kingdom, for example, recycling company Recycleye uses AI to identify materials for sorting, lowering contamination rates and increasing recycling volumes – and so, reducing pressure on landfill. And AI-powered “smart cities” technologies help make public transport systems work more smoothly, which can reduce congestion and minimise vehicle emissions. Artificial intelligence can also be deployed to improve air quality in cities. IBM, for example, uses the technology to analyse weather and air pollution data from sensors and satellites. This can help authorities pinpoint pollution sources, make air quality forecasts and issue health alerts. Sustainable agriculture AI-powered smart machines, robots and sensors are already used in agriculture. They can provide real-time monitoring of weather, soil conditions and crop needs, leading to better water use and ensuring crops receive only what they need. The technology can also identify pests, reducing the need to spray chemical pesticides on crops. As climate change worsens, there are hopes AI can help farmers avoid reduced crop yields and become more resilient. Environmental monitoring AI systems can forecast floods, bushfires and other natural hazards quickly and accurately. This can minimise the effects of natural hazards on both the environment and communities. AI can be used to track environmental change. For example, it can reportedly measure changes in icebergs 10,000 times faster than a human can. Meanwhile, environmental group The Nature Conservancy uses AI to minimise the environmental impacts of hydropower across the Amazon. But what about the downsides? The path to realising the potential of AI is fraught – and the technology comes with several major downsides, as outlined below. Energy use Artificial intelligence guzzles a huge amount of energy. First the computer models must be “trained”, or fed a large set of data. This feeding can be relatively quick, or take up to several months – during which time big data processors are running 24/7. And when we ask AI to solve a problem, this also requires processing power which consumes energy. Advanced AI models such as ChatGPT reportedly use ten times more energy per search than a conventional Google search, according to one estimate. Only a small fraction of this demand is met by renewable energy sources. The International Energy Agency projects electricity consumption from data centres, AI and cryptocurrency sector could double in the four years to 2026, from 460 terawatt-hours in 2022 to more than 1,000 terrawatt-hours in 2026. By comparison, total electricity generation in Australia in 2022 was around 273 terawatt-hours. Greener AI systems are urgently needed – and this is looking increasingly possible. Studies have shown the energy use of AI-based computer models can be slashed through various means, such as reducing a model’s complexity without affecting its performance. Water impacts The water requirements of AI are significant. The data centres housing powerful AI servers generate a lot of heat. Water is used in cooling to keep the servers at operating temperature. AI also consumes water indirectly through its energy consumption. Coal-fired power stations use water for cooling, and water is also lost through evaporation from hydro electricity schemes. And as others have noted, the mining and manufacturing required to produce AI hardware both uses and pollutes water. Broader environmental damage The environmental impact of AI goes beyond its energy use. For example, as Scientific American has reported, ExxonMobil in 2019 partnered with Microsoft to deploy AI in oil extraction, substantially increasing production. As the article also noted, the use of AI in targeted online advertising – on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook – creates demand for material goods. This leads to greater consumption of mass-produced items which creates carbon emissions and uses Earth’s natural resources. Where to now? As AI becomes more integrated into modern life, its environmental footprint will grow. Humanity must find the right balance to ensure AI helps the Earth, rather than harms it. To better achieve this, standard criteria must be developed to accurately measure the effects of AI on the environment. There is also a push from some quarters for more environmental regulation of AI, and greater transparency from companies about their AI-related emissions. But efforts to make AI more environmentally friendly will struggle for public and industry acceptance if the effectiveness of AI systems is sacrificed. To avoid this, stronger collaboration between researchers and the AI industry is needed. Ehsan Noroozinejad does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.Seyedali Mirjalili does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

There are hopes AI may be the silver bullet we need to save the environment – but it comes with downsides.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised our lives in myriad ways, from personalising our social media feeds to giving us driving directions and monitoring our health.

In recent years, hopes have grown that AI may also help humanity tackle global environmental problems such as climate change.

AI involves using computers to make them think like humans. It can solve complex problems and process huge amounts of data.

But the technology brings with it a host of environmental costs. Here, we weigh up the pros and cons.

4 ways AI can help the natural world

Energy efficiency

AI systems can control and optimise energy use. For example, AI-powered “smart grids” monitor and manage electricity generation to meet the demand of consumers, which can both lower energy costs and allow for more efficient energy use.

AI can also help streamline the energy used by big commercial and industrial systems. Tech giant Google, for instance, used AI to cut the amount of energy required to cool its data centres by 40%.

Urban Infrastructure

Waste management systems driven by AI may help increase recycling rates. In the United Kingdom, for example, recycling company Recycleye uses AI to identify materials for sorting, lowering contamination rates and increasing recycling volumes – and so, reducing pressure on landfill.

And AI-powered “smart cities” technologies help make public transport systems work more smoothly, which can reduce congestion and minimise vehicle emissions.

Artificial intelligence can also be deployed to improve air quality in cities. IBM, for example, uses the technology to analyse weather and air pollution data from sensors and satellites. This can help authorities pinpoint pollution sources, make air quality forecasts and issue health alerts.

Sustainable agriculture

AI-powered smart machines, robots and sensors are already used in agriculture.

They can provide real-time monitoring of weather, soil conditions and crop needs, leading to better water use and ensuring crops receive only what they need.

The technology can also identify pests, reducing the need to spray chemical pesticides on crops.

As climate change worsens, there are hopes AI can help farmers avoid reduced crop yields and become more resilient.

Environmental monitoring

AI systems can forecast floods, bushfires and other natural hazards quickly and accurately. This can minimise the effects of natural hazards on both the environment and communities.

AI can be used to track environmental change. For example, it can reportedly measure changes in icebergs 10,000 times faster than a human can.

Meanwhile, environmental group The Nature Conservancy uses AI to minimise the environmental impacts of hydropower across the Amazon.

But what about the downsides?

The path to realising the potential of AI is fraught – and the technology comes with several major downsides, as outlined below.

Energy use

Artificial intelligence guzzles a huge amount of energy. First the computer models must be “trained”, or fed a large set of data. This feeding can be relatively quick, or take up to several months – during which time big data processors are running 24/7.

And when we ask AI to solve a problem, this also requires processing power which consumes energy. Advanced AI models such as ChatGPT reportedly use ten times more energy per search than a conventional Google search, according to one estimate. Only a small fraction of this demand is met by renewable energy sources.

The International Energy Agency projects electricity consumption from data centres, AI and cryptocurrency sector could double in the four years to 2026, from 460 terawatt-hours in 2022 to more than 1,000 terrawatt-hours in 2026.

By comparison, total electricity generation in Australia in 2022 was around 273 terawatt-hours.

Greener AI systems are urgently needed – and this is looking increasingly possible. Studies have shown the energy use of AI-based computer models can be slashed through various means, such as reducing a model’s complexity without affecting its performance.

Water impacts

The water requirements of AI are significant. The data centres housing powerful AI servers generate a lot of heat. Water is used in cooling to keep the servers at operating temperature.

AI also consumes water indirectly through its energy consumption. Coal-fired power stations use water for cooling, and water is also lost through evaporation from hydro electricity schemes.

And as others have noted, the mining and manufacturing required to produce AI hardware both uses and pollutes water.

Broader environmental damage

The environmental impact of AI goes beyond its energy use. For example, as Scientific American has reported, ExxonMobil in 2019 partnered with Microsoft to deploy AI in oil extraction, substantially increasing production.

As the article also noted, the use of AI in targeted online advertising – on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook – creates demand for material goods. This leads to greater consumption of mass-produced items which creates carbon emissions and uses Earth’s natural resources.

Where to now?

As AI becomes more integrated into modern life, its environmental footprint will grow. Humanity must find the right balance to ensure AI helps the Earth, rather than harms it.

To better achieve this, standard criteria must be developed to accurately measure the effects of AI on the environment.

There is also a push from some quarters for more environmental regulation of AI, and greater transparency from companies about their AI-related emissions.

But efforts to make AI more environmentally friendly will struggle for public and industry acceptance if the effectiveness of AI systems is sacrificed. To avoid this, stronger collaboration between researchers and the AI industry is needed.

The Conversation

Ehsan Noroozinejad does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.

Seyedali Mirjalili does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

The Climate Impact of Owning a Dog

My dog contributes to climate change. I love him anyway.

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. It’s not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It’s a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Until recently, I hadn’t devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox. Then I read an article in the Associated Press headlined “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog.”The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examined how people perceive the climate impact of various behaviors—options like “adopt a vegan diet for at least one year,” or “shift from fossil fuel car to renewable public transport.” The team found that participants generally overestimated a number of low-impact actions like recycling and using efficient appliances, and they vastly underestimated the impact of other personal decisions, including the decision to “not purchase or adopt a dog.”The real objective of the study was to see whether certain types of climate information could help people commit to more effective actions. But mere hours after the AP published its article, its aim had been recast as something else entirely: an attack on people’s furry family members. “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog,” one Reddit user wrote. Others in the community chimed in with ire, ridiculing the idea that a pet Chihuahua could be driving the climate crisis and calling on researchers and the media to stop pointing fingers at everyday individuals.Goldwert and her fellow researchers watched the reactions unfold with dismay. “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset,” she said. “They definitely don’t,” she added. “You can quote me on that.”Loki grinning on a hike in the Pacific Northwest. Photograph: Claire Elise Thompson/Grist

Climate
Crisis
Health

Growing Tensions with Air Regulator Lead Top California Environmental Justice Advisor to Resign

While Governor Gavin Newsom was touting California’s climate leadership last week in Brazil at the U.N.’s annual climate summit, a conflict was brewing back home between environmental justice leaders and the state’s lead air pollution regulator.  The fallout came this Tuesday, when a top advisor to the California Air Resources Board resigned in protest over […]

The departure points to an intractable conflict between environmental justice groups and the California Air Resources Board over the impacts of carbon markets.By Blanca BegertWhile Governor Gavin Newsom was touting California’s climate leadership last week in Brazil at the U.N.’s annual climate summit, a conflict was brewing back home between environmental justice leaders and the state’s lead air pollution regulator. 

Climate
Pollution

HOME Alliance Slams COP30 Captured by Carbon Markets and Illusionary Fixes like Geoengineering

PRESS RELEASE: HOME Alliance Slams COP30 Captured by Carbon Markets and Illusionary Fixes like Geoengineering COP30 is a festival of false solutions PRESS RELEASE: HOME Alliance Slams COP30 Captured by Carbon Markets and Illusionary Fixes like Geoengineering  21 November, 2025 Belém, Brazil In a betrayal of Indigenous Peoples, climate justice movements and civil society, COP30 […] The post HOME Alliance Slams COP30 Captured by Carbon Markets and Illusionary Fixes like Geoengineering first appeared on Indigenous Environmental Network.

PRESS RELEASE: HOME Alliance Slams COP30 Captured by Carbon Markets and Illusionary Fixes like Geoengineering COP30 is a festival of false solutions PRESS RELEASE: HOME Alliance Slams COP30 Captured by Carbon Markets and Illusionary Fixes like Geoengineering  21 November, 2025 Belém, Brazil In a betrayal of Indigenous Peoples, climate justice movements and civil society, COP30 […] The post HOME Alliance Slams COP30 Captured by Carbon Markets and Illusionary Fixes like Geoengineering first appeared on Indigenous Environmental Network.

Climate
Indigenous

COP30’s biofuel gamble could cost the global food supply — and the planet

What was once considered a climate holy grail comes with serious tradeoffs. The world wants more of it anyway.

First the plant stalk is harvested, shredded, and crushed. The extracted juice is then combined with bacteria and yeast in large bioreactors, where the sugars are metabolized and converted into ethanol and carbon dioxide. From there, the liquid is typically distilled to maximize ethanol concentration, before it is blended with gasoline.  You know the final products as biofuels — mostly made from food crops like sugarcane and corn, and endorsed by everyone from agricultural lobbyists to activists and billionaires. Biofuels were developed decades ago to be cheaper, greener alternatives to planet-polluting petrol. As adoption has expanded — now to the point of a pro-biofuel agenda being pushed this week at COP30 in Belém, Brazil — their environmental and food accessibility footprint has remained a source of fierce debate.  The governments of Brazil, Italy, Japan, and India are spearheading a new pledge calling for the rapid global expansion of biofuels as a commitment to decarbonizing transportation energy.  Though the text of the pledge itself is vague, as most COP pledges tend to be, the target embedded in an accompanying International Energy Agency report is clear: expand the global use of so-called sustainable fuels from 2024 levels by at least four times, so that by 2035, sustainable fuels cover 10 percent of all global road transport demand, 15 percent of aviation demand, and 35 percent of shipping fuel demand. By Friday, the last official day of COP30, at least 23 countries have joined the pledge — while Brazilian delegates have been working “hand in hand with industry groups” to get language backing biofuels into the final summit deal.  “Latin America, South East Asia, Africa — they need to improve their efficiency, their energy, and Brazil has a model for this [in its rollout of biofuels],” Roberto Rodrigues, Brazil’s special envoy for agriculture at the summit, said on a COP panel last weekend. As of the time of this story’s publication, the pro-biofuel language hadn’t made it into the latest draft text that outlines the main outcome of the summit released Friday — although it appears the summit could end without a deal.  Read Next At COP30 in Brazil, countries plan to armor themselves against a warming world Zoya Teirstein Though scientists continue to experiment with utilizing other raw materials for biofuels — a list which includes agricultural and forestry waste, cooking oils, and algae — the bulk of feedstocks almost exclusively come from the fields. Different types of food crops are used for different types of biofuels; sugary and starchy crops, such as sugar cane, wheat, and corn, are often made into ethanol; while oily crops, like soybeans, rapeseed, and palm oil, are largely used for biodiesel.  The cycle goes a little like this: Farmers, desperate to replace cropland lost to biofuel production, raze more forests and plow up more grasslands, resulting in deforestation that tends to release far more carbon than burning biofuels saves. But as large-scale production continues to expand, there may be insufficient land, water, and energy available for another big biofuel boom — prompting many researchers and climate activists to question whether countries should be aiming to scale these markets at all. (Thomson Reuters reported that global biofuel production has increased ninefold since 2000.) Biofuels account for the vast majority of “sustainable fuels” currently used worldwide. An analysis by a clean transport advocacy organization published last month found that, because of the indirect impacts to farming and land use, biofuels are responsible globally for 16 percent more CO2 emissions than the planet-polluting fossil fuels they replace. In fact, the report surmises that by 2030, biofuel crops could require land equivalent to the size of France. More than 40 million hectares of Earth’s cropland is already devoted to biofuel feedstocks, an area roughly the size of Paraguay. The EU Deforestation-Free Regulation, or EUDR, cites soybeans among the commodities driving deforestation worldwide. “While countries are right to transition away from fossil fuels, they also need to ensure their plans don’t trigger unintended consequences, such as more deforestation either at home or abroad,” said Janet Ranganathan, managing director of strategy, learning, and results at the World Resources Institute in a statement responding to the Belém pledge. She added that rapidly expanding global biofuel production would have “significant implications for the world’s land, especially without guardrails to prevent large-scale expansion of land dedicated to biofuels, which drives ecosystem loss.” Other environmental issues found to be associated with converting food crops into biofuels include water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides, air pollution, and soil erosion. One study, conducted a decade ago, showed that, when accounting for all the inputs needed to produce different varieties of ethanol or biodiesel — machinery, seeds, water, electricity, fertilizers, transportation, and more — producing fuel-grade ethanol or biodiesel requires significantly more energy input than it creates.  Read Next ‘Everyone is exhausted’: First week of COP30 marked by frustration with slow progress Bob Berwyn, Inside Climate News Nonetheless, it’s not a shock to see Brazil betting big on biofuels at COP30. In Brazil, biofuels make up roughly a quarter of transportation fuels — a remarkably high proportion compared to most other countries. And that share, dominated by sugarcane ethanol, is still on an upward climb, with the Belém pledge evidence of the country’s intended trajectory.  A spokesperson from Brazil’s foreign affairs ministry told The Guardian that the “proponents of the pledge (which include Japan, Italy, India, among others) are calling upon countries to support quadrupling production and use of sustainable fuels — a group of gaseous and liquid fuels that include e-fuels, biogases, biofuels, hydrogen and its derivatives.” They added that the goal is based on the new IEA report that underscores the production increase as necessary to aggressively reduce emissions. That report suggests that if current and proposed national and international policies are implemented and fully legislated, global biofuel use and production would double by 2035. “The word ‘sustainable’ is not used lightly, neither in the report nor in the pledge,” the spokesperson said.  The issue, of course, is in how emissions footprints of something like ethanol fuel production are even measured. Much like many other climate sources, scientists argue that tracking greenhouse gas emissions linked to ethanol fuel should account for emissions at every stage — production, processing, distribution, and vehicle use. Yet that isn’t often the case: in fact, a 2024 paper found that Brazil’s national biofuel policy does not account for all direct and indirect emissions in its calculation.  The exclusions are evident of a larger trend, according to University of Minnesota environmental scientist Jason Hill. “Overall, either those studies have not included [direct and indirect emissions], or they found ways to spread those impacts over anticipated production, decades, centuries, or so forth, that tend to dilute those effects. So the accounting methods aren’t really consistent with what the best science shows,” said Hill, who studies the environmental and economic consequences of food, energy, and biofuel production.  In short: More biofuels means either more intensive agriculture on a smaller share of available cropland, which has its own detrimental environmental effects, or expansion of cropland, and the land-use emissions and environmental impacts that can carry. “Biofuel production today is already a bad idea. And doubling [that] is doubling down on an existing problem,” said Hill.  Read Next COP30 has big plans to save the rainforest. Indigenous activists say it’s not enough. Frida Garza & Miacel Spotted Elk Moreover, diverting crops like corn and soybeans from dinner plates to fuel tanks doesn’t just spark brutal competition for land and resources, it can also spike food prices and leave the world’s most vulnerable populations with less to eat.  A 2022 analysis of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, the world’s largest biofuel program, found that it has led to increased food prices for Americans, with corn prices rising by 30 percent and other crops such as soybean and wheat spiking by around 20 percent. This then set off a domino effect: Increasing annual nationwide fertilizer use by up to 8 percent and water quality degradants by up to 5 percent. The carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the mandate has ended up at least equaling the planet-polluting effects of gasoline.  “Biofuel mandates essentially create a baseline demand that can leave food crops by the wayside,” says Ginni Braich, a data scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder who has worked as a senior advisor to government clean technology and emission reduction programs. That’s because of the issue with supply and demand of food crops — higher competition for feedstocks hikes up the prices of food, feed, and farming inputs.  When there are biofuel mandates, which the IEA report underlying the Belém pledge recommends, demand remains inelastic — no matter the changes in yields, growing and weather conditions, prices, or markets. Say there is a huge drought that decimates crop yields, as one example, the baseline demand of biofuels still needs to be met despite depleted food stocks. In terms of supply, increasing growing area for biofuels typically means less area available to grow food crops — which can cause prices to surge alongside supply shortages, and spike costs of seed, inputs, and land. Nutritional implications should also be taken into account, according to Braich. Not only do people’s diets tend to shift when food gets more costly, but cropping patterns are already revealing adverse shifts in dietary diversity, which could be exacerbated by a further concentration on fewer crops. The Belém pledge, and Brazil’s intention to lead a global expansion of the biofuels market, does not bode well for people’s food accessibility nor for the future of the planet, warns Braich.  “It seems quite paradoxical for Brazil to promote the large-scale expansion of biofuels and also be seen as a protector of forests,” she said. “Is it better than decarbonization and fossil fuel divestment rhetoric without actual transition pathways? Yes, but in a lot of ways it is also greenwashing.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline COP30’s biofuel gamble could cost the global food supply — and the planet on Nov 21, 2025.

Climate
Food
Agriculture

Iran's Capital Has Run Out of Water, Forcing It to Move

The decision to move Iran’s capital is partly driven by climate change, but experts say decades of human error and action are also to blame

November 21, 20252 min readIran's Capital Is Moving. The Reason Is an Ecological CatastropheThe move is partly driven by climate change, but experts say decades of human error and action are also to blameBy Humberto Basilio edited by Claire CameronA dry water feature in Tehran on November 9, 2025 TTA KENARE/AFP/Getty ImagesTehran can no longer remain the capital of Iran amid a deepening ecological crisis and acute water shortage.The situation in Tehran is the result of “a perfect storm of climate change and corruption,” says Michael Rubin, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.“We no longer have a choice,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reportedly told officials on Friday.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.Instead, Iranian officials are considering moving the capital to the country’s southern coast. But experts say the proposal does not change the reality for the nearly ten million people who live in Tehran, who are now suffering the consequences of a decades-long decline in water supply.Since at least 2008, scientists have warned that unchecked groundwater pumping for the city and for agriculture was rapidly draining its aquifers. The overuse did not just deplete underground reserves—it destroyed them, as the land compressed and sank irreversibly. One recent study found that Iran’s central plateau, where most of the country’s aquifers are located, is sinking by more than 35 centimeters each year. As a result, the aquifers lose about 1.7 billion cubic meters of water annually as the ground is permanently crushed, leaving no space for underground water storage to recover, says Darío Solano, a geoscientist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.“We saw this coming,” says Solano.Other major cities like Cape Town, Mexico City, Jakarta and parts of California are also facing day zero scenarios as they sink and run out of water.This is not the first time Iran’s capital has moved. Over the centuries, it has shifted many times, from Isfahan to Tabriz to Shiraz. Some of these former capitals still thrive while others exist only as ruins, says Rubin. But this marks the first time the Iranian government has moved the capital because of an ecological catastrophe.Yet, Rubin says, “it would be a mistake to look at this only through the lens of climate change.” Water, land and wastewater mismanagement and corruption have made the crisis worse, he says. If the capital moves to the remote Makran coast in the south, it could cost more than $100 billion dollars. The region is known for its harsh climate and difficult terrain, and some experts have doubts about its viability as a national center. Relocating a capital is often driven more by politics than by environmental concerns, says Linda Shi, a social scientist and urban planner at Cornell University. “Climate change is not the thing that is causing it, but it is a convenient factor to blame in order to avoid taking responsibility” for poor political decisions, she says.It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Climate
Water
Crisis

Suggested Viewing

Rise and Fall

A film to provide an awareness of climate change and the individual measures we can take to combat it. The production process of Rise and Fall began as your stereotypical documentary meant to showcase various aspects of the Earth and Ocean Sciences Department at UNCW. Still, as the interview process was underway, it was quickly decided to move in another direction. It is an essay film about the science of climate change, what we can do in our day-to-day lives to combat it, and its impacts. Without using talking heads, the images of the natural world provide a sensual look at what will be affected by climate change.

Climate
Nature
Documentary

Carbon Men Salvation: The Senator's Dilemma

Climate change is heating up the world at an accelerating rate, but Congress is frozen to action. Humanity is heading towards devastation; there is only one chance to change the future by traveling into the past. Brilliant climatologist student Anna Jones is researching a massive glacier in Antarctica that is on the verge of collapse. This disaster will drown coastal cities, trigger unprecedented climate refugee numbers and loss of life, while inciting wars. Anna’s father, Dan Jones, the newly elected Senator from New Jersey, is pivotal to the success or failure of a key climate bill. The vote is imminent. Powerful climate denier factions work against the necessary climate actions, even as the planet teeters on the prime tipping point where human behavior, science and legislation collide. Only Noah Poem, a time traveling scientist from the future, can help Anna Jones convince her climate doubting father to do the right thing. But time is running out as science fiction meets science fact. The fate of the human race hangs in the balance. One vote could save humanity.

Government
Climate
Activism

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

Eating the Future

Bafta-winner Mia McKenna-Bruce voices an eco-investigator who is traumatised by her work accessing factory farms and documenting animal abuses undercover. Terrified of a future of climate apocalypse, she embarks on a journey into the food systems that shape our planet, to look for hope.

Activism
Climate
Food

CO2? CO-Nee!

Joep van Dijk is a passionate climate scientist. He likes to search for extreme examples that show how life can be lived sustainably. This documentary follows Joep on his CO2-neutral journey from Amsterdam to the United States of America and shows how this choice inspires himself and others to live a climate conscious life.

Climate
CO2
Sustainable

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.