A philosophical approach to a sustainable human existence.

The purpose of this brief contribution is to clarify our current position, examine the long-term stakes, and suggest a philosophical approach to climate change within the broader context of human activity.

To begin, we shall consider the deeply entrenched perspectives surrounding climate change specifically, and more generally, the impact of human actions upon our planet.

1 Three main positions

When discussing climate change, positions among global leaders, scientists, and the general public can vary significantly, generally breaking down into three main categories: climate alarmists, climate moderates, and climate sceptics. Below are the most prominent viewpoints and their proponents, along with relevant publications for each stance.

1.1 Climate Alarmists

Climate alarmists contend that climate change constitutes an existential threat to humanity, demanding urgent and transformative action to avert irreversible damage. They call for rapid, large-scale measures such as drastically reducing fossil fuel consumption, transitioning to renewable energy sources, and fundamentally altering agricultural practices.

The climate alarmist movement, with its long-standing advocacy, has particularly resonated among younger generations. Here, we identify three key proponents who have become emblematic of this stance:

• Greta Thunberg: The Swedish activist has gained global recognition for her resolute stance on immediate climate action, notably through the influential "Fridays for Future" movement. Thunberg advocates for swift, comprehensive policy shifts to curtail carbon emissions.


• Al Gore: The former U.S. Vice President and environmental advocate has played a prominent role in raising awareness about climate change since his seminal film An Inconvenient Truth (2006).


• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): In its reports, the IPCC underscores the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to forestall catastrophic climate consequences [01].

1.2 Climate Moderates

The position of Climate Moderates is characterized by acknowledging the realities and risks associated with climate change, while advocating for a balanced approach to mitigation and adaptation. Rather than sweeping, radical changes, they support gradual, evidence-based policies that account for short-term economic impacts and technological advancements, often favouring pragmatic solutions over drastic action.

The key proponents of this “moderate” perspective form a diverse and influential group. Central to their argument is a critical view of prevailing economic models, which largely assume that unlimited growth is essential for general prosperity. Three notable figures representing this stance are:

• Bill Gates: The philanthropist and author of How to Avoid a Climate Disaster [02] champions innovation-led solutions to tackle climate change, maintaining that technological advancements and incremental policy adjustments can drive sustainable progress.


• Bjorn Lomborg: The Danish economist advocates for realistic, cost-effective approaches, favouring a balanced response that aligns environmental concerns with economic priorities [03].


• Judith Curry: A climate scientist, Curry underscores the importance of addressing uncertainties in climate modelling and supports adaptive, resilience-oriented strategies [04]. She has outlined her views in publications such as Climate Change: The Facts and frequently discusses the intricacies of climate prediction on her blog, Climate Etc., where she emphasizes resilience and the need for flexible, adaptive responses.

1.3 Climate Sceptics

Climate sceptics argue that the severity of climate change is exaggerated or that the scientific evidence does not justify extreme policy interventions. Some sceptics question the reliability of climate models or believe human influence on the climate is minimal. Others may acknowledge that climate change is real yet see no urgent need for action.

The selected representatives of this viewpoint question the case for strong measures to counter climate change, often highlighting the inherent complexity of climate models and the challenges in predicting future developments with certainty:

• Richard Lindzen: A former MIT professor of atmospheric sciences, Lindzen contends that climate models overemphasize the role of CO₂, with natural variability playing a more significant role in climate patterns [05].


• Patrick Moore: A former co-founder of Greenpeace, Moore challenges the scientific consensus on climate change and critiques what he views as alarmist narratives [06].


• Heartland Institute: This U.S.-based think tank promotes climate scepticism, questioning the consensus on human-driven climate change.

These perspectives illustrate a range of responses to climate change, from calls for immediate and sweeping action to more cautious, gradualist approaches, to outright scepticism. Each stance holds policy implications, with advocates proposing varied solutions based on their interpretation of the evidence and the trade-offs they consider justifiable.

This remains a profoundly debated field, and publications on the topic are diverse. Works by authors like Mark Maslin (offering a balanced overview) [07] and Andrew Dessler (introducing climate science to general audiences) [08] provide valuable insights that often defy easy categorization within this spectrum.

2 Climate Change Itself Is Not in Dispute

Few, if any, authors outright deny that the climate is changing, yet they diverge considerably in their views on its scale, causes, and consequences. This range of perspectives mirrors the current state of the climate debate. While most prominent voices today recognise that climate change is occurring, they differ substantially in assessing its magnitude, underlying drivers, impacts, and the most effective responses. The principal points of contention include:

2.1 Scale and Urgency of the Problem

• Alarmists argue that climate change constitutes an imminent existential threat that demands urgent, far-reaching action.


• Moderates agree that climate change is a serious issue but advocate for a balanced approach, with an emphasis on innovation and gradual adaptation.


• Sceptics often question the immediacy of the threat, suggesting that current climate models may overstate both the severity and the impact of climate change.

2.2 Primary Causes

There is a general consensus that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, contribute to climate change. However, sceptics and some moderates often stress natural variability as a factor, questioning to what extent human actions are the primary drivers.

2.3 Impact and Economic Costs

Predicted impacts vary from catastrophic (alarmists) to manageable with adequate adaptation (moderates and some sceptics). For instance, Bjorn Lomborg and Judith Curry argue that the economic and social costs of extreme measures may surpass the anticipated benefits, favouring instead a more cost-effective, realistic approach.

2.4 Policy and Solutions

While alarmists advocate for immediate, transformational policies, moderates prefer innovation-led solutions that minimise economic disruption. Sceptics often promote minimal intervention, questioning whether comprehensive policy measures are warranted given the current state of evidence.

Although these positions diverge in interpretation and proposed actions, they share a fundamental acknowledgment of climate change. This nuanced spectrum reflects diverse values, evidence, and levels of risk tolerance among scientists, policymakers, and thought leaders.

3 What is at Stake – Understanding the Risks

In discussing risks and acknowledging the inherent uncertainties of predictions, it is essential to consider the possible consequences of inaction, moderate action, and aggressive intervention. From a risk management perspective, if we adopt an agnostic stance towards the reasoning presented by the three main factions on climate change, we can approach this scenario by assigning an equal probability to each group’s perspective.

3.1 Threats, Risks, Probabilities, Damages & More

Often, risk discussions lack precision in defining terms, so here we briefly categorise the terminology we shall employ. In assessing uncertainties and guiding decisions, these terms clarify the nature and scale of potential challenges, forming the backbone of risk management.

• Threats
  Threats are specific events or conditions that could cause harm or disrupt normal functioning. They represent potential sources of risk and may be external (e.g., natural disasters, cyber-attacks) or internal (e.g., system failures, human error). As precursors to risk, threats create conditions under which harm may arise.


• Risk
  Risk combines the probability of a threat materialising with the potential impact or damage if it does. In other words, risk quantifies the likelihood of encountering a threat and the magnitude of its impact. By assessing risks, organisations and individuals can weigh potential dangers based on the probability of occurrence and severity.


• Probability
  Probability reflects the likelihood of a particular threat or event occurring within a specific timeframe or context. It can be represented qualitatively (high, medium, low) or quantitatively (percentages, ratios). Probability helps prioritise which risks are most likely to occur, thus enabling better allocation of resources to high-probability threats.


• Damages
  Damages refer to the actual harm caused if a threat materialises, encompassing financial losses, health impacts, reputation damage, and environmental harm, among others. Understanding potential damages aids in assessing the severity of various risks, allowing for a focus on minimising the most significant potential losses.


• Vulnerability
  Vulnerabilities are weaknesses or gaps within a system, organisation, or process that render it susceptible to threats. Reducing vulnerabilities is crucial for mitigating risks, as they determine how much damage a particular threat could inflict.


• Exposure
  Exposure denotes the degree to which an entity is subjected to specific threats and risks. Higher exposure increases the likelihood or impact of certain risks. For instance, an organisation with extensive digital operations faces greater exposure to cyber threats.


• Uncertainty
  Uncertainty reflects the unpredictable aspects of a situation, which may complicate risk assessment. Uncertainty often necessitates conservative or flexible planning, especially regarding unpredictable or high-impact events. Generally, two types of uncertainties are distinguished in risk management: "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns."


• Known Unknowns: These represent risks or factors we recognise as existing but do not fully understand or cannot predict with accuracy. We acknowledge their presence yet lack detailed information. For example, we are aware that climate change will have profound impacts, but the precise timing, scale, and regional effects remain unclear. Known unknowns can often be studied, prepared for, and monitored, even if specifics are uncertain.


• Unknown Unknowns: These are risks or factors that we are not aware of and cannot foresee with current knowledge or experience. They fall entirely outside the scope of known risks, often due to a lack of prior data or experience. Such risks could include unprecedented technological breakthroughs, novel societal shifts, or natural phenomena yet to be encountered. Unknown unknowns are the most challenging to manage, as their existence remains undetected until they arise, making preparation nearly impossible.

Distinguishing between these types of uncertainty aids in risk management, indicating that while some risks can be broadly anticipated and addressed, others may emerge unpredictably, posing potential surprises. Consequently, adaptability, flexibility, and resilience are frequently emphasised in discussions concerning future risk management.

Below is an outline of the potential risks and the recommended mitigating actions as reported by each perspective.

3.2 High-Risk Scenario (Alarmist Perspective)

Should the alarmists’ perspective prove accurate, the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Potential risks include accelerated sea-level rise, increasingly extreme weather events, mass displacement, loss of biodiversity, and severe disruptions to food and water supplies. The socioeconomic impact could be profound, affecting global stability, public health, and economies at large.

Accordingly, this position calls for decisive and comprehensive actions to forestall the worst outcomes:

• Adopt a precautionary approach by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


• Invest heavily in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure to transition away from fossil fuels.


• Develop robust disaster preparedness and resilience strategies tailored to vulnerable areas.


• Implement policies that support conservation, reforestation, and carbon capture technologies.

These measures are intended to mitigate the most severe outcomes should this scenario prove correct.

3.3 Moderate-Risk Scenario (Moderate Perspective)

If the moderate position is accurate, climate change poses a significant but manageable challenge. The expected risks would include notable, but potentially containable, impacts on weather patterns, gradual shifts in ecosystems, and certain economic adjustments.

Consequently, this perspective advocates moderate, progressive actions underpinned by an assumption that there remains time for measured adaptation to unfolding changes:

• Focus on gradual reductions in emissions through innovation and investments in clean technology without risking major economic disruption.


• Prioritise adaptation measures such as enhancing infrastructure, constructing flood defences, and promoting drought-resistant crops.


• Encourage collaboration between the private and public sectors on research and development in green technology.

In this scenario, the focus is on building adaptive capacity and fostering a sustainable economic transition.

3.4 Low-Risk Scenario (Sceptic Perspective)

Should the sceptics’ outlook be correct, extensive climate action may only impose unnecessary economic strain, divert resources from pressing social issues (such as poverty or healthcare), and undermine energy security.

This position typically holds that climate threats are overstated, with either the anticipated damage or probability of occurrence much lower than claimed by others. Accordingly, the recommended approach is to maintain a course of “business as usual,” with the confidence that should adverse effects arise, there will be sufficient time and resources to address them:

• Implement low-regret measures that offer benefits regardless of climate outcomes, such as enhancing energy efficiency, expanding urban green spaces, and curbing pollution.


• Avoid irreversible, high-cost policies that may hinder economic growth.


• Continue scientific research and monitoring to enable swift policy adjustments should new data support a heightened threat.


• Prepare for minimal impacts by adopting lighter adaptation measures where needed.

3.5 Risk Management Recommendations

While one perspective emphasises the compelling evidence for a dramatic climate crisis, for the other definitive proof lacks, instead it is proposing counter-theories. The moderate stance navigates a path between these poles.

Though it may be challenging to maintain impartiality in such a critical matter, a balanced approach may prove instructive, especially if one considers all three scenarios to be equally probable, assuming non-decidability.

Under this framework, the high-risk alarmist scenario—despite its severe consequences—would still contribute a third of the overall risk probability. Even this partial probability would justify the economic and societal costs of a substantial transformation towards sustainable development.

A fundamentally different approach to this issue, however, is conceivable and will be detailed and advocated in the subsequent section.

4 The "Leave No Trace" Approach

The guiding questions here may be expressed as follows: With the long-term survival of humanity on an unspoiled planet in mind, would it not be prudent to adopt the slogan "Leave No Trace," drawn from outdoor ethics, and apply it to the full scope of human activity? Since we are not in a position to reliably predict the future, should we not take a cautious and defensive approach? Let us examine this idea further.

The principle of “Leave No Trace,” originally conceived in the context of outdoor ethics and hiking, closely aligns with several philosophical and environmental movements advocating for minimal impact, caution, and preservation on a global scale. Extending this ethos to encompass all human activity appears prudent, particularly given the unpredictability of environmental consequences.

4.1 A New Philosophical Concept?

We must first ask whether this is indeed a new idea. Research reveals that, although not under this exact slogan, similar ideas have long been expressed—though not always as a categorical imperative.

1. Sustainable Development and the Precautionary Principle: Advocated by the United Nations and environmental organisations worldwide, sustainable development practices aim to minimise humanity’s long-term ecological footprint. The Precautionary Principle, often invoked in environmental policy, suggests that when actions could potentially harm the public or the environment, the burden of proof falls on those proposing such actions. This principle embodies a “Leave No Trace” mindset, advocating caution and respect for nature.


2. Deep Ecology: Arne Næss and other proponents of deep ecology propose a philosophy that prioritises nature’s intrinsic value, advocating for reduced human interference with ecosystems. This philosophy, which encourages living in harmony with nature, closely aligns with the “Leave No Trace” ideal, urging minimal environmental impact and often suggesting lifestyle changes that reduce consumption and waste.


3. Minimalism and Degrowth: Advocates for minimalism in economic and lifestyle choices share a similar philosophy, promoting a “less is more” approach that values sustainability over growth. The degrowth movement, in particular, criticises the emphasis on economic expansion, instead calling for reduced consumption, production, and waste—principles that align closely with the societal-scale application of “Leave No Trace.”


4. Environmental Ethics and Conservation: Inspired by thinkers like Aldo Leopold, the conservation movement emphasises a “land ethic” that respects natural boundaries and minimises human impact. Today’s environmental ethics draw heavily from these ideas, suggesting that humanity has a moral obligation to reduce harm and minimise its ecological footprint.

4.2 Advocates of Similar Approaches

Many voices in environmental philosophy and policy have highlighted ideas akin to a global “Leave No Trace” ethic. Although some of the seminal publications on this topic are now decades old, they have until recently been recognised mainly within circles already committed to the environmental cause. However, broader awareness of environmental issues is now emerging, particularly among the world's youth [09], who are moving this issue from the periphery to the centre of public discourse:

• Rachel Carson in her classic publication Silent Spring [10] (1962) raised awareness about the destructive impact of pesticides, calling for restraint and long-term thinking regarding chemical pollutants.


• Arne Næss in Ecology, Community and Lifestyle [11] (1989) introduced the principles of “deep ecology,” which emphasise harmony and minimal interference with natural systems.


• William Ophuls in Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail [12] (2012) argues that civilisations tend to overreach and exceed ecological limits, advocating a “return to nature” approach that resonates with the “Leave No Trace” mentality.


• Donella Meadows and the Club of Rome in Limits to Growth [13] (1972) warned of the dangers of unchecked growth, recommending a steady-state economy to limit humanity’s ecological footprint.

While the ideal of leaving no trace resonates on an ethical level, it is clear that implementing this philosophy on a global scale would present substantial challenges to current economic systems, political structures, and consumption patterns.

Moreover, adopting a “Leave No Trace” approach globally would require a profound shift in societal values. Yet this approach is increasingly championed by those who advocate for an ethical, sustainable, and cautious approach to humanity’s impact on the planet.

In following this philosophy, which measures would best address not only climate change but also the entirety of humanity’s “footprint” on our planet?

Practical steps to advance this direction will be explored in the following section.

5 Recommending a holistic approach

Adopting a "Leave No Trace" philosophy on a global scale necessitates a comprehensive approach to humanity’s impact on Earth, encompassing not only climate change but also wider environmental, social, and economic practices. This holistic perspective builds upon earlier concepts, taking them decisively further by emphasizing caution, sustainability, and a long-term view, with the aim of minimizing humanity’s ecological footprint while preserving the planet’s biodiversity and resources.

At present, numerous proposals suggest pathways to establish a stable equilibrium between human needs and environmental health. However, most are yet to be fully developed or substantiated in practical application, indicating a considerable journey still lies ahead.

Nonetheless, few viable alternatives exist to confront these pressing challenges.

Outlined below are eight categories, each encompassing a range of proposals published to date. While presented here as brief summaries, each of these 26 proposals would merit a dedicated contribution to fully explore its implications—possible items for a future agenda.

5.1 Redefining Economic Success and Growth

• Shift to a Circular Economy: At the heart of the "Leave No Trace" philosophy is the commitment to recycling, repurposing, and reducing waste across all sectors. Transitioning from a linear "take-make-dispose" model to a circular economy can greatly reduce resource extraction, pollution, waste, and overall environmental impact.


• Degrowth and Steady-State Economy: This approach challenges the assumption of perpetual economic growth, focusing instead on well-being and ecological balance rather than GDP as the primary metric of success. Only economists, it seems, would propose infinite growth on a finite planet without facing scepticism. The steady-state economy instead aims to stabilize consumption at sustainable levels.


• Environmental Tax Reform: Proposals in this area range from implementing “polluter pays” principles to introducing taxes on pollution and resource depletion, thereby redirecting revenues from resource exploitation towards conservation and sustainable practices. A radical rethink of the tax system—focused purely on the long-term survival of humanity within a balanced environment—would likely yield compelling ideas. One might question why income or profits are taxed, as neither directly impacts the environment. Instead, it is consumption that directly contributes to humanity’s footprint, which might alone warrant taxation.

5.2 Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems

• Regenerative Agriculture: Embrace practices that restore soil health, enhance biodiversity, and reduce chemical inputs. Techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and minimal tillage can sequester carbon, enrich soil, and support local ecosystems. However, such methods may not suffice to feed a still-growing global population, lending weight to the case for synthetic food solutions.


• Rewilding: Focus on restoring ecosystems to their natural state and enhancing biodiversity, actively repairing rather than merely preserving. Some claim that a global collapse of ecosystems could only be averted if one-third to half of the planet’s surface were dedicated exclusively to nature as a reserve. Achieving this goal, and with it humanity’s survival, may ultimately depend on stabilizing global population size.


• Reduce Meat Consumption: Promote plant-based diets and reduce livestock production, which contributes significantly to deforestation, water use, and methane emissions. While such dietary shifts could also mitigate health issues related to high meat consumption in many societies, they alone are unlikely to suffice.


• Local and Seasonal Eating: Encouraging the consumption of locally grown, seasonal foods could reduce transportation emissions and energy use in food storage and processing, offering a modest contribution to sustainability.

5.3 Conservation and Biodiversity Preservation

• Expand Protected Areas: Designate additional land and marine reserves where human activity is limited or prohibited. Protected zones can play a crucial role in halting the currently accelerating sixth mass extinction. For instance, today’s land mammals account for an alarmingly small fraction (~4%) of biomass, with livestock (62%) and humans (34%) [14]. dominating. Establishing rewilding initiatives within protected areas would enable ecosystems to regenerate naturally. Yet, as with other measures, the feasibility of this goal depends significantly on global population size.


• Implement Habitat Corridors: Develop connections between isolated habitats to facilitate species migration and adaptation, especially in response to climate change. Climate shifts, although not unprecedented, present an acute challenge today as undisturbed wildlife is limited to small, isolated pockets that lack the space to migrate as in the past. Additionally, the rapid pace of modern climate change exceeds the migration capacity of many species, underscoring the importance of migration corridors.


• Stop Deforestation and Restore Forests: Enforce stringent anti-deforestation laws and incentivize reforestation and afforestation to capture carbon and support biodiversity. As of 2024, deforestation remains a critical threat to biodiversity and climate stability. The 2024 Forest Declaration Assessment reported a loss of approximately 6.37 million hectares of forest in 2023, leaving the world 45% off-track to halt deforestation by 2030 [15]. The primary culprit remains habitat loss driven by population pressure.

5.4 Resource and Energy Conservation

• Transition to Renewable Energy: Prioritize mature renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro, while supporting research into next-generation, low-impact technologies like tidal and advanced geothermal (Hot Dry Rock Technologies).


• Energy Efficiency Standards: Mandate energy-efficient practices across buildings, transport, and manufacturing to reduce consumption as a supplementary measure. Yet there is no denying that humanity’s development trajectory has been strongly correlated with increasing per capita energy use. A well-documented and statistically supported link exists between human advancement and energy consumption per capita. Evidence suggests [16], [17], [18], [19] that nations with greater energy access demonstrate higher economic productivity, innovation, and general welfare. New technologies, like AI applications, may only intensify this trend. Thus, continued investment in established and emerging renewable energy technologies is advised.


• Water Conservation: Employ efficient water-use practices and sustainable irrigation, particularly in water-scarce regions. Technologies like rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling can help curb freshwater demand. Given the world’s expanding population and livestock needs, large-scale desalination may prove indispensable. However, as these processes are energy-intensive and have adverse environmental effects, they require careful management and oversight.

5.5 Population and Urban Planning

• Population Stabilization Policies: Population size is the overarching factor influencing all other environmental challenges, shaping the range of viable solutions. In regions with rapid population growth, providing access to family planning, education, and healthcare is essential for supporting population stabilization. Sustainable population levels are critical for balanced resource demand. In 2019, the United Nations projected [20] that the global population would reach approximately 10.9 billion by 2100, with growth extending into the 22^nd century. However, recent projections [21] suggest that the population will peak earlier [22] and at a lower level. The 2024 revision of the UN's World Population Prospects estimates a peak around 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s, followed by a decline to approximately 10.2 billion by 2100. This revision reflects declining fertility rates in several large countries, notably China, where fertility has fallen to about one child per woman. Despite the overall slowing trend, certain regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa [23], continue to experience rapid growth. The UN projects that the population of sub-Saharan Africa will double by 2050, posing specific challenges, including resource strain, infrastructure, and social services. Addressing these requires targeted policies emphasizing education, healthcare, and sustainable development to prevent exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. While mainstream narratives often argue that societies thrive through growth, a declining population might well be a benefit, especially as artificial intelligence assumes many traditional roles.


• Sustainable Urban Design: Develop compact, walkable cities that minimize reliance on cars and enhance green spaces [24], thus lowering emissions and improving air quality. The need for improvements [25] in urban design is immense, with concepts such as Smart Cities, Digital Infrastructure [26], and the "15-minute city" concept championed by urban planner Carlos Moreno [27],gaining traction. Other ideas include car-free urban zones [28], green roofs and vertical gardens [29]. However, in many rapidly urbanizing areas, especially in developing regions, implementing such sustainable designs faces significant financial, infrastructural, and social barriers. Limited funding, political will, and public awareness often hinder progress in these regions. For instance, parts of India and sub-Saharan Africa confront unique challenges in urban sustainability due to poverty, rapid growth, and inadequate infrastructure.


• Resilient Infrastructure: Construct adaptable, resilient infrastructure designed to withstand environmental stressors like extreme weather, floods, and droughts. Promising examples of resilient urban infrastructure include flood-resistant architecture in the Netherlands [30], seawalls and flood barriers in Venice [31], drought-resistant infrastructure in Australia [32], green stormwater infrastructure in New York City [33], Singapore’s ABC waters program (Active, Beautiful, Clean) [34], HafenCity flood-resilient development in Hamburg [35] or Tokyo’s Underground Flood Prevention System [36] further exemplify advanced designs that strengthen urban resilience.

5.6 Reducing Pollution and Waste

• Ban Single-Use Plastics and Harmful Chemicals: Implement policies to restrict single-use plastics and other pollutants, promoting biodegradable and eco-friendly alternatives. Many regions have introduced bans or taxes on single-use plastics, particularly bags and straws. For example, the EU and Canada have rolled out ambitious bans on such plastics, while Kenya enforces some of the world’s strictest plastic bag regulations. Yet, plastic pollution remains a critical issue, especially in oceans, where single-use plastics constitute much of the waste. Despite bans, enforcement is uneven, and compliance is challenging where regulatory infrastructure is weak. Furthermore, substitutes, while available, can be costly and vary in environmental impact (such as energy-intensive biodegradable options). A global agreement on plastic reduction and improved waste management in developing countries is essential to progress.


• Waste-to-Resource Innovations: Invest in technologies that convert waste into valuable resources, such as composting, biogas, and plastic-to-fuel technologies. Innovations in waste-to-energy and waste-to-resource are progressing, with biogas plants, composting, and recycling technologies operational in many regions. Sweden, for instance, successfully converts nearly 99% of its waste to energy or recycling. While waste incineration still raises environmental concerns, converting plastic waste into crude oil analogues for petrochemical production could be a key step toward a circular economy. However, the high costs of establishing and maintaining these facilities, especially in developing areas, limit their scalability. Increasing investment, incentivizing businesses, and creating supportive regulatory frameworks could help bridge these gaps.


• Regulate Industrial Emissions: Enforce strict emission controls on industrial pollutants affecting air, water, and soil quality, and encourage industries to adopt cleaner practices. Industrial emissions have long been a focus of regulatory efforts, particularly for pollutants like carbon and waterborne chemicals. Countries under the Paris Agreement have committed to emission limits, with new technologies like scrubbers and filters helping to reduce pollutants in certain industries. However, compliance remains uneven globally, with some pollutants, like methane and industrial chemicals, on the rise in particular regions. Developing countries face considerable challenges in implementing and enforcing these regulations, often due to economic pressures and resource limitations. Aligning international standards, bolstering enforcement, and supporting industries as they transition to cleaner technologies are imperative. Increased investment in cleaner production processes and the development of robust monitoring and reporting frameworks will enhance compliance but require significant funding.

5.7 Human-Centric Environmental Education and Culture

• Promote Environmental Literacy: Integrate environmental education into curricula at all levels, focusing on sustainability, conservation, and ethical stewardship. Such foundational literacy will shape future generations' attitudes towards environmental protection. While some regions have made advances, many education systems still treat environmental literacy as elective. To close this gap, a systematic curriculum overhaul is needed to make environmental studies central, incorporating hands-on learning, community projects, and experiential education to foster a deeper connection to nature.


• Public Awareness Campaigns: Develop extensive media and educational initiatives to equip citizens with knowledge on how their lifestyle choices affect the environment. Campaigns should highlight the tangible benefits of sustainable living—health, savings, community well-being—and promote practical, accessible changes individuals can make. While campaigns are underway, they often lack widespread impact. Enhancing effectiveness requires more relatable messaging and leveraging local success stories.


• Foster a Culture of Mindful Consumption: Encourage citizens to embrace mindful consumption, valuing quality over quantity, experiences over possessions, and shared over individual ownership. This shift promotes sustainable consumer behaviour and a reduced environmental footprint. Although interest in minimalism and conscious consumption is growing, consumer culture largely remains focused on material accumulation. Greater emphasis on mindful consumption in media, workplaces, and community initiatives could help embed these concepts into everyday life.

5.8 Research and Adaptive Policy Making

• Support Independent Environmental Research: Establish dedicated funding for independent research focused on assessing the long-term ecological impacts of emerging technologies, consumption patterns, and policies. Independent research is crucial for identifying potential risks and guiding policymakers toward unbiased, sustainable solutions. Though environmental research funding exists, a significant gap remains in long-term studies and comprehensive ecological assessments. Bridging this gap requires increased investment and a focus on interdisciplinary studies exploring environmental and social implications.


• Adaptive Policy Frameworks: Implement flexible policy structures allowing for updates based on scientific insights and ecological needs. Adaptive management, as opposed to rigid target-based policies, enables adjustments in response to shifting environmental conditions and scientific developments. While some countries have begun adopting adaptive frameworks in areas like climate resilience, many policies still rely on fixed benchmarks. Addressing this requires training policymakers in adaptive approaches and fostering cross-sector collaboration.


• Long-Term Impact Assessment in Policy: Integrate long-term environmental health assessments into policymaking, ensuring policies consider their potential planetary impact. By prioritizing sustainability over immediate gains, governments can help conserve resources and mitigate future risks. Although long-term impact assessments are increasingly recognized, they are inconsistently implemented, with many policies still judged by short-term economic outcomes. Expanding assessments to routinely consider environmental, social, and economic effects over decades will better align policies with sustainability goals.


• Global Cooperation for Environmental Governance: Strengthen international environmental bodies to develop unified ecological governance. By enhancing the authority of institutions overseeing environmental policy, countries can collectively address cross-border ecological impacts and ensure accountability. Frameworks like the Paris Agreement are a step forward, yet they often lack enforceable mechanisms and comprehensive global support. Reinforcing these bodies with more robust frameworks and accountability measures is essential for effective global environmental governance.

6 Epilogue

Embracing a “Leave No Trace” philosophy on a global scale embodies an ethic of environmental stewardship, urging us to consider the lasting impact of our actions on future generations. This respectful, long-term perspective is perhaps best encapsulated by a saying attributed to Native American or Indigenous wisdom:

"We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."

Accepting this responsibility requires us, as a society, to foster a long-term, intergenerational approach to conserving natural resources. We are well advised to prioritise sustainability, resilience, and adaptability over short-term gains or complacent inaction.

While some may regard this approach as ambitious, it embodies a respectful relationship with the Earth that preserves resources, supports biodiversity, and leaves a legacy of sustainability for those who follow.

Given the vast and only partially understood complexity of the interacting forces within our ecosystems, the probability remains high that this approach may ultimately prove to be our sole viable option if humankind genuinely aspires to sustain life on this blue planet over the long term.

We operate within the bounds of probability. Opinions diverge widely. No one can predict the future with certainty. Were these merely social issues, as is often the case in politics, we might recommend compromise and seek a middle ground.

However, in this grave context, nature allows for no compromises. No negotiations are possible, and while we may not feel the consequences of our actions immediately, they will eventually arrive with unyielding and elemental force.

All wisdom, therefore, advises caution and restraint. Leave no trace: you are not the landlord here, but merely a guest.

References