The short answer to your question is called ‘just transition.’ It is the idea that we can transform our societies to stop relying on fossil fuels responsible for climate change (coal and oil, for example) and create alternatives that are fair, so that no one is left out.

There is a common idea that polluting industries are necessary for our economy to work. Well, this is not true, quite the contrary! Transforming our societies, so that they are more sustainable (or environmentally friendly), could create jobs and improve our quality of life. Investing in renewable energy (like wind and solar energy) and sustainable industries (like public transportation or eco-friendly housing), can help to create new jobs, while fighting against climate change.

Here is an example. When a coal power plant closes, many workers lose their jobs, and this can have a serious impact on the local community and economy. Therefore, it is important to make sure that these people are given new job opportunities (through training, etc) in clean energy sectors, for instance. A key for a successful ‘just transition’ is to ensure that all the people concerned work together to decide what they want the new society to look like.

This is a really good question! Unfortunately, I do not have the solution to stop wars and bombing... However, it is true that wars produce a lot of pollution, and there are a couple of rules that countries must respect to protect the environment during war time.

One rule prohibits countries at war to damage the natural environment, especially if the damage is expected to be serious. This is because people rely on the environment to survive and be healthy (for food, water, and shelter for instance). Another rule prohibits countries at war from setting forests and other vegetation on fire, to protect plants, animals, and their habitats (where animals live).

Another important rule prohibits countries to use environmental modification for military purposes. This means that countries cannot modify the environment to cause damage to their enemy (by provoking floods, for instance).

All these rules are quite old, and they were agreed on when the protection of the environment was not such an important issue. Now that we know that wars produce a lot of pollution, it may be time for countries to think about updating these rules.

The best way to hold people accountable for their carbon footprint is called ‘carbon pricing,’ which means putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, so that it becomes more expensive for companies to pollute, and for people to buy products that are polluting.

This corresponds to what we call ‘the polluter-pay principle.’ It means that the person (or company) who is responsible for the pollution must pay for the damage it causes. For example, if companies paid a tax on the amount of carbon dioxide they use, their business would become more expensive to run, and this would encourage the company to invest in alternative sources of energy (wind and solar energy).

A variation of this principle is ‘the user-pay principle.’ It is the idea that the consumer, who benefits from the pollution, should pay for the damage. For example, if products with a high carbon footprint were more expensive, people would want to buy less of them, and use alternatives.