Climate change

According to a 2024 United Nations survey, 80 percent of people worldwide want their country to do more about climate change and 69 percent said climate change is impacting big decisions in their lives. We’ve long moved past the debate about whether climate change is happening. Now the debate must be what can and should be done about climate change. [1]

Earth’s climate system

But first, the basics. As Encyclopædia Britannica explains, Earth’s climate system includes:

• The atmosphere: “The gas and aerosol envelope that extends from the ocean, land, and ice-covered surface of a planet outward into space.” [2]
• The hydrosphere: A “discontinuous layer of water at or near Earth’s surface. It includes all liquid and frozen surface waters, groundwater held in soil and rock, and atmospheric water vapor.” [3]
• The lithosphere: The “rigid, rocky outer layer of Earth, consisting of the crust and the solid outermost layer of the upper mantle. It extends to a depth of about 60 miles (100 km). It is broken into about a dozen separate, rigid blocks, or plates.” [4]
• The biosphere: A “relatively thin life-supporting stratum of Earth’s surface, extending from a few kilometers into the atmosphere to the deep-sea vents of the ocean. The biosphere is a global ecosystem composed of living organisms (biota) and the abiotic (nonliving) factors from which they derive energy and nutrients.” [5]

Earth’s climate system is solar-powered. Because Earth is a sphere, sunlight is absorbed unevenly across Earth’s surface, so the atmosphere and oceans redistribute the heat from the overly heated Equator (which gets the most sunlight) outward toward the North and South poles (which get the least sunlight) and from Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere (the troposphere) back into space. Earth’s heat engine accomplishes this redistribution through surface water evaporation, convection, rainfall, winds, and ocean circulation. [6]

The greenhouse effect is when Earth’s surface and troposphere are warmed by the presence of greenhouse gases. Those gases are primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, though surface-level ozone, nitrous oxides, and fluorinated gases also trap infrared radiation (heat) at lower rates. This effect is natural and necessary, as NASA explains: “Imagine these gases as a cozy blanket enveloping our planet, helping to maintain a warmer temperature than it would have otherwise.” [7] [8] [9]

Similarly, the carbon cycle (also called the carbon budget) is a completely natural process that works to maintain an appropriate amount of carbon on Earth by moving carbon between plants, animals, microbes, minerals, and the atmosphere. [10]

Earth is often called “the Goldilocks planet,” explains NASA, where “conditions are just right, not too hot or too cold, allowing life to thrive.” When these conditions are tipped out of balance, we get global warming, and thus climate change. [9]

What are climate change and global warming?

Climate change is, according to the United Nations:

Long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. [11]

The phrase “climate change” is often used interchangeably with “global warming.” However, global warming is specifically “the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries,” according to Encyclopædia Britannica. Thus, global warming is just one aspect of the larger issue of climate change. As NASA explains:

Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of [global] warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping [greenhouse] gases into the air. [12] [13] [14]

Natural causes of climate change

There are natural causes of climate change, including “volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation, tectonic shifts, and even small changes in our orbit,” according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). [15]

However, these natural causes cannot explain the rapid acceleration of climate change since the Industrial Revolution—the shift from an agrarian and handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacturing—which began in the late 18th century in Britain and continued into the 20th century globally. The Industrial Revolution dramatically increased the use of fossil fuels, primarily coal. [15] [16] [17]

The human impact: Fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions

As noted by both the United Nations and NASA above, the main cause of global warming specifically and climate change more generally is fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels are biological materials that contain hydrocarbons and are found within Earth’s crust. These fuels—coal, petroleum, natural gas, oil shales, bitumens, tar sands, and heavy oils—are used as sources of energy. [11] [14] [18]

The processes to extract fossil fuels from Earth, including deforestation, fracking, and mining, as well as various industrial processes to turn fossil fuels into energy, increase greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂, one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms) and methane (CH₄, one carbon atom with four hydrogen atoms). [19]

According to Climate TRACE, a coalition of organizations that tracks global emissions, fossil fuel operations (including oil and gas production as well as coal mining) are responsible for the largest portion of CO₂e emissions, with 18.1 billion tons of emissions in 2025. CO₂e means “carbon dioxide equivalent” and is a measurement that standardizes emissions so that all greenhouse gases can be compared. [20]

The increase of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere severely impairs the carbon cycle and turns the cozy blanket of the greenhouse effect into a sweltering heat trap.

Feedback mechanisms

The most basic version of climate change is that more greenhouse gas emissions lead to a warmer Earth. However, thanks to feedback mechanisms, the relationship is a bit more complicated. A feedback mechanism is a loop in which the result of a change circles back and impacts the original change. [21]

Feedback mechanisms can be positive or negative. For example, a positive feedback mechanism is pressing the accelerator pedal (“the gas”) while driving, which causes the car to go faster. A positive feedback mechanism amplifies something. On the other hand, pressing the brake while driving is a negative feedback mechanism because pressing the brake pedal slows the speed of the car. A negative feedback mechanism controls or corrects something.

In climate change, though, positive feedback mechanisms amplify something bad for the environment. The ice-albedo effect is a good example. Ice is naturally more reflective (also called a higher albedo) than water. When glaciers melt, that water absorbs more heat rather than reflecting the heat back into space the way ice would. Water absorbing heat thus warms the oceans more and melts more ice, which loops us back to the melting glaciers. We end up with a self-reinforcing cycle of warming. Other examples of positive feedback mechanisms include water vapor feedback, cloud feedback, and carbon cycle feedback. [12] [22]

Negative feedback mechanisms in climate change are few and far between, exert less impact, and are more uncertain. One example is that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which in turn allows more plants to absorb carbon dioxide via photosynthesis and leaves less of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. [23]

However, positive feedback mechanisms greatly outweigh the negative feedback mechanisms in the climate change crisis. Plus, the loops are never operating alone. Our plant–carbon dioxide loop is also affected by a loop that has resulted in less available nitrogen, which plants also need to grow and be productive. Although the interplay of feedback mechanisms causes uncertainty about how climate change is evolving, feedback mechanisms do not call into question the facts of climate change and human-caused acceleration. [21] [23] [24]

Effects of climate change

Because climate change and global warming are frequently used interchangeably, many believe the only consequence of climate change is rising global temperatures. However, while the fact that each decade has been warmer than the previous since the 1980s is true and important, climate change can also cause colder temperatures. Climate change makes “weather systems more unstable and, when events occur, more extreme,” according to Forbes contributor Robert G. Eccles. Thus, everything from snowstorms and heat waves to hurricane seasons and floods are becoming more severe and dangerous. [25] [26] [27]

On top of more severe weather, climate change increases Arctic ice melt (glacier retreat), ocean temperatures and sea level, risk of extinction and displacement for animals and plants, biodiversity loss, risk of wildfires, shifts in plant hardiness zones, food shortages and insecurities, poverty, human displacement, human health concerns, infrastructure stress, and a number of other consequences. [26] [27]

Journalist Courtney Lindwall explains:

The first wave of [climate change] impacts can already be felt in our communities and seen on the nightly news. The World Health Organization says that in the near future, between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause an additional 250,000 deaths per year from things like malnutrition, insect-borne diseases, and heat stress. And the World Bank estimates that climate change could displace more than 140 million people within their home countries in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America by 2050. [37]

Climate change is accelerating

Because the primary drivers of climate change—carbon dioxide and methane concentrations—continue to increase in Earth’s atmosphere, climate change is accelerating. A June 19, 2025, report published by a team of over 60 international scientists found “human activities are increasing the Earth’s energy imbalance.” Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in two million years, and the decade 2015–24 has seen temperatures warming faster than any other decade on record. [28] [29] [30] [31]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes:

The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, [because] projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming. [26]

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

The question now is what can we do about climate change? We have two high-level choices: mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation means reducing climate change by stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through reducing the flow of such gases (emissions). Mitigation efforts include actions such as transitioning to renewable energies, carbon capture technologies, regenerative agricultural practices, reforestation, and other efforts. [32] [33] [34]

Adaptation means simply adapting to life in the current and expected future environment with climate change in ways that reduce the vulnerability of humans, animals, and plants. Adaptation efforts include infrastructure adjustments to deal with rising sea levels and flood defenses, as well as planting drought-resistant crops and protecting wildlife. [33] [35]

Unfortunately, even if we were to miraculously stop all greenhouse gas emissions this very second, Earth would not immediately begin to cool, and we would still face some consequences. Carbon dioxide that has been released into the atmosphere remains there for hundreds to thousands of years. And, because the climate takes time to catch up to all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (much like a clogged sink that is slow to drain), restoring Earth to preindustrial temperatures will take a millennium or longer. [36]

Thankfully, “climate action is not a binary pass-fail test,” according to Lindwall. She explains:

Every fraction of a degree of warming that we prevent will reduce human suffering and death, and keep more of the planet’s natural systems intact. The good news is that a wide range of solutions exist to sharply reduce emissions, slow the pace of warming, and protect communities on the frontlines of climate impacts. Climate leaders the world over—those on major political stages as well as grassroots community activists—are offering up alternative models to systems that prioritize polluters over people. Many of these solutions are rooted in ancestral and Indigenous understandings of the natural world and have existed for millennia. Some solutions require major investments into clean, renewable energy and sustainable technologies. To be successful, climate solutions must also address intersecting crises—like poverty, racism, and gender inequality—that compound and drive the causes and impacts of the climate crisis. A combination of human ingenuity and immense political will can help us get there. [37]

Pros & Cons: Climate change solutions

Of course, “why not both?” mitigation and adaptation may be the best answer to climate change, because there is no silver bullet to solve the enormous and multifaceted problem that is slowing climate change.

Below, we’ll take a look at the pros and cons of some of the ever-increasing variety of climate change solutions—both mitigation and adaptation—so you can make an informed decision about how we can best address climate change. The content here will continue to grow, so if you don’t see a particular climate change solution now, we’re likely working to add the sought-after solution soon.

1. Electric vehicles (EVs)

Transportation accounted for 15.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2025. Road emissions alone accounted for 11.3 percent. Thus, part of the fight against accelerating climate change should be reducing car and truck emissions, whether personal or commercial. [20]

Globally, electric vehicles were 21 percent of all new cars sold in 2024. Nordic countries had the largest share of new-car sales of EVs: Norway at 92 percent (113,500 cars), followed by Sweden at 58 percent (157,000 cars), Denmark at 56 percent (96,100 cars), and Finland at 50 percent (37,000 cars). China, however, had the most new EVs on the road (11.3 million cars). Still, EVs account for only 4.2 percent of all cars on the road globally. [38]

Some credit electric car adoption in Nordic countries for their 6.2 percent drop in road transportation emissions since 2015. [39]

Are electric vehicles an effective way of addressing climate change?

Electric vehicles

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Is Driving an Electric Vehicle Good?
Pro 1: EVs are better for the environment than gas-powered cars. Read More.	Con 1: EVs are not carbon-neutral, they still damage the environment, and their batteries can be dangerous. Read More.
Pro 2: EVs are less expensive to fuel and maintain. Read More.	Con 2: EVs cost more to buy, and thus finance, than gas-powered cars. Read More.
Pro 3: EVs are quiet and offer better handling than gas-powered cars, making them attractive to consumers. Read More.	Con 3: EVs are less reliable than gas-powered cars and lack the infrastructure needed to support them. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Are electric vehicles an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, how widely should electric vehicles be adopted, and how can charging station infrastructure be expanded to support adoption? Explain your answer.
3. If no, should we continue to rely on gas-powered cars? Why or why not?
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

2. Geothermal power

Geothermal power, as Encyclopædia Britannica explains, is a “form of energy conversion in which geothermal energy—namely, steam tapped from underground geothermal reservoirs and geysers—drives turbines to produce electricity. It is considered a form of renewable energy.” The amount of geothermal energy within Earth far exceeds global energy requirements, but harnessing this energy to produce electricity can be difficult. To date, despite its potential, geothermal power makes up less than 1 percent of total U.S. energy use and 1 percent of the world’s electricity generation, which is far less than that produced by most other renewable energy sources. [40] [41] [42]

Renewable energies are considered the primary tool in the fight against climate change because they directly replace fossil fuels.

Is geothermal power an effective way of addressing climate change?

Geothermal power

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Is Geothermal Power a Good Form of Energy?
Pro 1: Geothermal power is flexible and reliable, with low operating costs. Read More.	Con 1: Geothermal power plants entail high up-front costs and are geographically limited. Read More.
Pro 2: Geothermal power can be efficiently used on a small scale, such as a single home or building. Read More.	Con 2: Geothermal power plant construction can trigger earthquakes. Read More.
Pro 3: Geothermal power is a consistent, clean energy, with a small land footprint, making plants less obtrusive to the natural landscape. Read More.	Con 3: Geothermal power plants can endanger water supplies and wildlife. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Is geothermal power an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, where and how should geothermal power be used? Consider residential and commercial applications, as well as geography and whether other energies might be better suited to a place or application.
3. If no, should geothermal power be pursued at all? Why or why not?
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

3. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)

GMO crops (sometimes called bioengineered crops) have become increasingly prevalent. As of 2024, more than 90 percent of American acres planted with soybean, cotton, and corn used GMO seeds. As of February 19, 2025, the USDA listed 14 bioengineered products available in the U.S.: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun varieties of eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant varieties of papaya, pink flesh varieties of pineapple, potatoes, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, sugarbeet, and Bt insect-resistant sugarcane. [43] [44] [45]

GMOs can be used as both mitigation and adaptation efforts—lowering traditional agricultural emissions while also creating crops that can withstand climate changes.

Are GMOs an effective way of addressing climate change?

GMOs

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Should GMOs Be Grown?
Pro 1: GMO crops have been proven safe through testing and use and can even increase the safety of common foods. Read More.	Con 1: GMO crops have not been proven safe for long-term consumption through human clinical trials. Read More.
Pro 2: Genetic modification improves crop yields, lowers the price of food, and increases nutritional content, helping to alleviate world hunger. Read More.	Con 2: Tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants can result in changes to the food supply that introduce toxins or trigger allergic reactions. Read More.
Pro 3: Growing GMO crops has environmental benefits, such as reduced pesticide use, less water waste, and lower carbon emissions. Read More.	Con 3: GMO crops can harm the environment through the increased use of toxic herbicides and pesticides. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Are GMOs an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, what foodstuffs would you focus on producing first, where would they grow, and where would you distribute them? Explain your answer.
3. If no, should GMOs be grown at all? Why or why not?
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

4. Nuclear power

The increasing urgency to slow climate change and the dramatic rise of artificial intelligence (AI) have reignited interest in increased nuclear power production. For example, Constellation Energy, which owns the TMI-1 reactor at Three Mile Island, has partnered with Microsoft to restart TMI-1 to power the company’s AI data centers as soon as 2027. [46] [47] [48]

In the United States, enthusiasm over nuclear power as a domestic energy source was quelled by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, during which its TMI-2 nuclear reactor had a partial meltdown. The other reactor, TMI-1, was taken offline for a few years after the accident but later continued power production until being decommissioned in 2019. The subsequent nuclear accidents in Chernobyl, Soviet Union (in what is now Ukraine), in 1986 and in Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 further fueled concerns about the safety and reliability of nuclear energy. [46] [47] [48] [49]

Though not a renewable energy, nuclear power does not rely on fossil fuels, meaning nuclear power is cleaner and has lower emissions than fossil fuel energies.

Is nuclear power an effective way of addressing climate change?

Nuclear power

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Is Nuclear Power a Good Form of Energy?
Pro 1: Nuclear power has zero emissions and can reliably and inexpensively support an electricity grid. Read More.	Con 1: Nuclear power is dangerous, from the risk of meltdowns to the problem of nuclear waste. Read More.
Pro 2: Nuclear power is a perfect complement to weather-dependent renewable energies. Read More.	Con 2: Nuclear power is expensive to initiate and delays implementation of truly sustainable and renewable energy sources. Read More.
Pro 3: Nuclear power protects America’s global national security interests. Read More.	Con 3: Nuclear power is inextricably linked to lethal nuclear weapons. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Is nuclear power an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, where and how should nuclear power be used? Consider the issue of giving nuclear capabilities to more countries.
3. If no, should nuclear power be pursued at all? Why or why not?
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

5. Single-use plastics bans

Approximately 50 percent of plastic waste is single-use plastic. As Lindwall explains:

Single-use plastics are goods that are made primarily from fossil fuel-based chemicals (petrochemicals) and are meant to be disposed of right after use—often, in mere minutes. Single-use plastics are most commonly used for packaging and serviceware, such as bags, bottles, wrappers, and straws. [50]

Images of the mounting garbage at municipal landfills, and reports of garbage coming together in the oceans and harming and killing sea animals, further popularized the need for recycling. In 1997, while returning home after the Los Angeles-to-Hawaii Transpacific Yacht Race, Capt. Charles Moore sailed through the North Pacific Ocean, where he found himself awash in a sea of plastic refuse. Returning the next year, Moore found the mass of plastic had grown. Dubbed the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the plastic island is now estimated to be twice the size of Texas and is just one of five areas of plastic accumulation in the oceans. The unceasing growth of these areas highlights in dramatic fashion the environmental problem with plastics and their potential danger to marine life, which can ingest the plastics and microplastics and get entangled in the refuse. [51] [52] [53]

Eliminating single-use plastics would lower (or eliminate) emissions from the manufacture and disposal of such plastics.

Are single-use plastics bans an effective way of addressing climate change?

Single-use plastics bans

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Should Single-Use Plastics Be Banned?
Pro 1: Single-use plastic bans combat destructive convenience culture. Read More.	Con 1: Single-use plastics are sanitary, convenient, efficient, and used in important ways. Read More.
Pro 2: Single-use plastic bans work and generate greater awareness about the dangers of all plastics. Read More.	Con 2: Single-use plastic bans spawn complacency and mask a greater need—a reduction in all plastic production and use. Read More.
Pro 3: Bans are required because plastic recycling is a myth. Read More.	Con 3: Bans wrongly punish consumers, whereas producers and recyclers are the problem. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Are single-use plastics bans an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, which level of government would be responsible for the ban, and what would the ban include? Explain your answer.
3. If no, are plastic bans a good idea otherwise? Why or why not?
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

6. Space colonization

According to a 2023 poll, 56 percent of Americans believed NASA would “get people onto Mars by its goal of 2040,” and 43 percent believed that within 50 years “at least some people will be living in space permanently—either on another planet such as Mars or on the Moon.” The most common ideas for space colonization include settling on Earth’s Moon, building on Mars, and constructing new space stations. [54] [55]

Is space colonization an effective way of addressing climate change?

Space colonization

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Should We Colonize Space?
Pro 1: Space colonization can save our species from suffering and extinction. Read More.	Con 1: Humans living in space is pure science fiction. Read More.
Pro 2: Space colonization is the next logical step in space exploration and human growth. Read More.	Con 2: Earth should be cleaned up first before we potentially destroy an extraterrestrial land. Read More.
Pro 3: Space colonization can exist alongside conservation efforts on Earth. Read More.	Con 3: Life in space, even if possible, would be miserable. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Is space colonization an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, imagine a timeline in which humans could live in space before climate change becomes too bad for Earth. Explain your answer.
3. If no, should we colonize space anyway? Why or why not?
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

7. Vegetarianism and veganism

Those who choose a plant-based diet are generally a minority population in each country. While many eliminate or limit animal products in their diets worldwide for health reasons, others also choose to do so for environmental reasons, citing the emissions from livestock production in particular. [56] [57] [58]

Are plant-based diets an effective way of addressing climate change?

Plant-based diets

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Is a Vegetarian Diet Better for Us and Society?
Pro 1: Plant-based diets lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Read More.	Con 1: Most land is not suitable for growing crops, meaning raising beef is often the most efficient way to produce food for humans. Read More.
Pro 2: Plant-based diets prevent damage made to the environment by raising livestock. Read More.	Con 2: Growing crops includes erosion that pollutes waterways, pesticides, and herbicides. Read More.
Pro 3: Plant-based diets require less water than meat-inclusive diets. Read More.	Con 3: The production of processed plant-based protein options includes greenhouse gas emissions. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Are plant-based diets an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, how can you convince more people to adopt plant-based diets? Explain your answer.
3. If no, are there steps we need to take to ensure our diets are climate-friendly? Explain your answer.
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.

8. Wind power

Wind power is a “form of energy conversion in which turbines convert the kinetic energy of wind into mechanical or electrical energy that can be used for power,” according to Noelle Eckley Selin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wind is considered a renewable energy. [59]

Renewable energies are considered the primary tool in the fight against climate change because they directly replace fossil fuels.

Is wind power an effective way of addressing climate change?

Wind power

Pros	Cons
ProCon has a separate debate on this topic with a more in-depth discussion: Is Wind Power a Good Form of Energy?
Pro 1: Wind power is cheaper than fossil fuel energies. Read More.	Con 1: Wind power is unreliable. Read More.
Pro 2: Wind power is clean. Read More.	Con 2: Wind power is too limited, in use and location. Read More.
Pro 3: Wind power is safe and getting safer. Read More.	Con 3: Wind power can harm the environment. Read More.

Discussion questions

1. Is wind power an effective way of addressing climate change? Why or why not?
2. If yes, where would you build wind farms in your town, city, or state? Consider wind patterns and available land. Explain your answer.
3. If no, should wind power be pursued at all? Why or why not?
4. What questions do you have after reading the debate above? Where might you find answers?
5. What was the most interesting thing you learned from this debate?
6. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? How and why? If your thoughts have not changed, explain how and why you better understand the other side of the debate.
7. Push for the position and policies you support by writing local officials, U.S. senators and representatives, or other people in a position to make the change you champion.