We’ve previously talked about how the way our economic system works doesn’t properly account for natural resources. It essentially assumes that natural resources are bottomless and therefore can be endlessly exploited. We now know that isn’t the case, but perhaps one hangover from that failure of the market is that our recycling rate is abysmal. Only 9% of the plastic we have produced has been recycled and other materials aren’t much better. But everything we recycle doesn’t have to be sent to landfill, and can be used in place of extracting more natural resources from the planet.

Food is something we can’t live without, so by definition we can’t eliminate the environmental impact it has, we can only work to reduce it. Fortunately there is opportunity aplenty to do so - it is thought that our food production system is responsible for about 35% of our total greenhouse gas emissions. There are two main areas to start with when it comes to food - nutrition and food waste.

Here’s a few ideas for swaps you can make in your household cleaning routine to get rid of some of the plastic and chemical nasties that you might not realise you have in there.

Here’s a few ideas for swaps you can make in your haircare routine to get rid of some of the plastic and chemical nasties that you might not realise you have in there.

Here’s a few ideas for swaps you can make in your skincare routine to get rid of some of the plastic and chemical nasties that you might not realise you have in there.

Here’s a few ideas for swaps you can make in the bathroom to get rid of some of the plastic and chemical nasties that you might not realise you have in there.

Here’s a few ideas for swaps you can make in the kitchen to get rid of some of the plastic and chemical nasties that you might not realise you have in there.

Coexistence is about living in harmony with the natural world. And that’s how the suggestions that follow will be framed, not through the narrow prism of reducing our carbon footprint, but with the goal of living more sustainably, wasting less, and reducing our impact on the planet and the species we share it with. After all, think about your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and all of those yet to take their first steps on this planet. Don’t they deserve the same opportunities we have had? We’ll also discuss the ways in which these suggestions are beneficial to you, and the ways they might be able to save you a bit of money.

Public opinion surveys about climate change make for fascinating reading. One the one hand there is majority support for the idea that humans are the main cause of global warming. But once questions are asked about the actions required to mitigate climate change, the more individual sacrifice required to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions the less support those actions are likely to have.

As an individual it can seem an overwhelming proposition to take action that will have a meaningful impact on the environmental crises we face. The truth is though, we as individuals, both as citizens and consumers, wield a lot of influence over governments and corporations and can encourage them to move away from business as usual to a new way of doing things.

As we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution we need to recognise that the world we live in has changed, and the way that we measure our prosperity must too. We can no longer be consumed by infinite growth - the natural world has only finite resources and we must find a way to decouple economic progress and environmental degradation. Here’s how we can do it.

Since the steam engine was introduced in the 18th century and production was mechanized we have witnessed exponential growth in economic output and the longest sustained rise in living standards in human history. The catch is our good fortune has come at a significant cost to the environment.

Yesterday we talked about some of the health reasons for cleaning up our act environmentally. Yet another reason to preserve nature is we benefit from spending time in the outdoors.

One stereotypical view of an environmentalist is someone chained to a tree, prepared to risk their own safety to save another of nature’s creations. But even if you’re not moved by some of the arguments made yesterday, rest assured there are plenty of reasons to tackle the environmental crises we face from a perspective of self-interest too.

Over the past few days there has been a heavy focus on climate change, fossil fuels, and greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is the environmental issue that gets the most attention because it is an existential crisis for our own species - if we aren’t able to get greenhouse gas emissions under control and stop global temperatures rising then we risk making the planet uninhabitable. But coexistence is about much more than reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is about living in harmony with the natural world.

A couple of days ago we looked at country contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis, which showed us which countries emitted the most greenhouse gases per person. But even that dataset doesn’t tell the full story, because as a general rule the wealthier someone is the higher their greenhouse gas emissions.

Spoiler alert: we already know the answer to this one - it’s the energy industry, and more specifically the fossil fuel sector. Nonetheless, it is helpful to have a holistic view of which industry sectors contribute to global warming and by how much so that we can understand where our decarbonisation efforts need to be targeted.

The last few days we’ve been cutting the data on global greenhouse gas emissions in different ways to understand how much an individual country has contributed to global warming. The blame doesn’t all lie with countries though - multinational corporations, and in particular those in the oil and gas industry, also bear responsibility for the climate crisis. So which ones are the most culpable?

We now know which countries are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases both historically and today. But again that’s not the whole story. Two of the world’s biggest three emitters, China and India, are also the most populous countries in the world, so it follows that they would also be up the rankings for total greenhouse gas emissions. So what if you adjusted emissions for population? What does the top 20 look like then?

Yesterday we looked at the countries that bore historical responsibility for our carbon emissions. There is possibly a case to be made that in 1850 we didn’t know any better, but that argument has become less and less plausible as time has gone on and certainly today no country can claim it is not aware of the impact of its greenhouse gas emissions. So which countries are the biggest emitters today?