The concentration of greenhouse gases in atmosphere continues to increase in spite of the efforts to reduce it (Friedlingstein et al. 2019; Pihl et al. 2019; WMO 2021;  Figure 1). The threat of climate change has got the headlines and the sustainability attention is concentrated on reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. In many cases this is the single issue considered when addressing sustainability (e.g., IPCC 2019a, 2019b; Pihl et al. 2019; Ripple et al. 2020; Eskenazi et al. 2020). This single-issue approach is blurring other impacts which are not less destructive to biosphere: massive pollution, habitat destruction, exhaustion of natural resources (see Biosphere diagnosis for details).

Addressing climate-change as a stand-alone issue leads to recommended actions that are simplistic when not contra productive.

An example are the proposals to intensify food production by substituting cattle grasslands by the much more efficient industrial crops with less emissions of greenhouse gases (e.g., IPCC 2019a, Drew et al. 2020; Ripple et al. 2020, 2021; Smith et al. 2020). Many of these eat-less-meat proposals do not consider the trade-offs of the crops (Figure 2): total destruction of grasslands’ habitat and their substitution by almost sterile monoculture fields, strong pollution by biocides and fertilizers, losses of soil by tillage, etc. (Martin et al. 2018; Dainese et al. 2019).  Besides, grass-fed cattle breeding may even be carbon neutral if properly performed (Stanley 2018).

Another example is the selection of the “greenest” clothing alternative among leather, wool, cotton, synthetic fibers, etc. A proper ranking should include not only the emissions of greenhouse gases but also habitat destruction, soil erosion, pollution by fertilizers and biocides, pollution by plastic debris, etc. The actual environmental advantages and disadvantages of different clothing alternatives become less clear when all the parameters (environmental trade-offs) are included in the analysis (Figure 3).

​

A third example is the ongoing transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to electric vehicles (EVs) "with zero emissions".  As calculated by USEPA (2019), EVs have much less CO2 emissions than ICEVs, but by far these emissions are not zero (Figure 4). Besides, EVs have higher environmental impacts than ICEVs in terms of metal and mineral consumption and human toxicity potential (Xia and Li 2022). When considering all the parameters in a wider context, EVs still have a lower environmental impact that ICEVs, but the trade-offs of manufacture and use make them just an improvement, not a magic solution.

Even the so called “European Green Deal” aiming to make Europe a climate-neutral continent has been criticized for ignoring the trade-offs that would have contra-productive effects (Fuchs et al. 2020).

Disciplinary specialization that addresses only narrow specific problems is behind these simplistic proposals (Brandshaw et al. 2021). Climate change is not the single threat to sustainability and therefore a more holistic multi-parameter approach is required.