Newly released research from The Trussell Trust and Liz Gadd Consulting explored how environmental change and related policies affect the drivers of food bank need, including money, housing health and work. It found that environmental action can help end the need for food banks but only if it’s fair. Policymakers must ensure that environmental action tackles poverty, not deepens it.
Hunger and hardship are part of everyday life for too many people in Scotland. Trussell’s previous ‘Hunger in Scotland’ research estimated that in 2024, 1 million people across Scotland, including 210,000 children, lived in food insecure households. Despite falling inflation, there has been no real progress in reducing hunger or the need for food banks.
That matters for every decision we take, including those on climate and nature. If we get environmental action right, it can ease pressure on household budgets, improve health, and strengthen communities. It can make life better for people and nature at the same time, including for those already facing hunger and hardship.
We get to choose
Environmental impacts are already shaping people’s lives, through floods, heatwaves, and polluted air. The decisions governments take now will shape who pays for climate action and who benefits from it. Those decisions can ease the pressures that push people towards food banks, or they can deepen them. This is not inevitable. We have choices.
We know that the need to use food banks is linked to income levels, housing costs, work opportunities, social security, caring responsibilities, community networks, mental health, and disability. Environmental action gives us a real opportunity to tackle these drivers together. Homes that stay warm in winter and cooler in heatwaves. Lower energy bills without costs being passed on through rent rises. Public transport that is reliable and affordable. Better access to green spaces that improve wellbeing. Clear routes into decent work, for people currently locked out of opportunity.
Who pays and who benefits
Fairness cannot be an afterthought. It must shape decisions from the outset.
People on low incomes are often the most exposed to rising energy prices and the least able to absorb shocks. Many live in homes that leak heat in winter and overheat in summer, driving up bills. Many juggle debt, insecure work, and gaps in social security. If environmental policy adds upfront costs, pushes up rents, or makes travel harder, it can deepen hardship. But if we design environmental action well, it can cut bills, improve housing, create secure jobs, and reduce the need for food banks.
Scotland’s role
Scotland can lead by linking climate and nature action to concrete outcomes that people feel. Lower bills. Better homes. More reliable local transport. Fair access to training and jobs. Social security that helps people cope with shocks, instead of pushing them deeper into crisis.
This is central to whether environmental action succeeds. Public support grows when people can see that policy improves their lives, especially for those at the sharpest end of cost-of-living pressures.
If we are serious about building a better future, then environmental action in Scotland must reduce hunger and hardship.
Read more about the Trussel Report How environmental issues are shaping hunger and hardship here.
More on environment:
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
