Doctors worldwide are prescribing a new treatment for their patients. It isn’t administered in the hospital. It isn’t found at the pharmacy.  It isn’t even available for individual patients. Instead, this treatment requires the unified effort of world leaders: the protection of our climate by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Disease and climate change are directly connected, argue the experts behind the Lancet Countdown, an annual report of the leading public health and climate science research.

 The newly released report reaffirmed the conclusion it has come to since it was established in 2015: burning fossil fuels is making us sick. That’s right, the basis for our modern-day energy systems is undermining our health. This isn’t a projection for the future, it’s a prognosis for today. If world leaders don’t drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the report makes clear that the results will be devastating. 

The Lancet Countdown breaks down this prognosis into four categories: heat, natural disasters, infectious diseases, and access to nutrition. 

Heat Waves and Beyond

Yes, we’ve heard. Climate change is making our planet hotter. But, it’s more than just heatwaves driving up the risk of heat strokes. A 1-2C change in global temperature can have other less recognized impacts on our health. For example, continued exposure to higher temperatures stresses our heart and lungs, even if we can’t feel that stress in the moment. This then creates or worsens cardiovascular and respiratory diseases like heart attacks, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

These effects are magnified when high temperatures are combined with air pollution, an all too common combination. The presence of both high heat and high air pollution in a given area can triple cardiovascular mortality rates. 

No region in the world is immune to the extremes of heat. Vulnerability to high temperatures and its resulting illnesses “has worsened everywhere” warn the authors of the Lancet Countdown. A hotter climate puts our national health at stake. 

Natural Disasters and Unnatural Consequences

Fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes are all intensified by climate change, and this has doctors and public health researchers worried.

When a community is hit by a natural disaster, let’s say a flood, three things happen. First, there is direct death and injury such as by drowning or building collapse. Second, there are after-effects like water-borne diseases or limited access to health care. Third, there are effects on healthcare infrastructures as a whole.  The Lancet Countdown surveyed the health infrastructure of over 800 cities, looking at hospitals, primary care facilities, and emergency services, and concluded that public health infrastructure in almost 70% of these global cities will be “seriously compromised” by climate change-induced natural disasters. That is no small number. The health infrastructure of our cities, helping patients with everything from broken bones to chronic diseases, will be compromised by climate change. Is that a risk we want to take?

Let’s Talk about Bugs

Now for some good news: A warming climate isn’t bad for all species. Many species are directly benefiting from these hotter temperatures!

The bad news: Those species happen to be bugs and bacteria, which carry a host of diseases like malaria, dengue, West Nile virus, Lyme disease, cholera, E. Coli, and many more. 

The Lancet report found that of all the vector-borne diseases they track, global transmission rates have increased for every single one. On top of that, all pathways of infection are being affected: food, water, and animals. 

Food for Thought, but not Consumption

Lastly, climate change threatens global food systems. The pronouncement is clear: crop yields are decreasing as demand for food is increasing. Staple crops such as corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice are already seeing declining crop yields due to climate change. 

In less than ten years, the global number of malnourished people will increase by 840 million due solely to climate change, disproportionately affecting countries already facing malnutrition and poverty. This is nearly three times the U.S. population.

Prescription: What can we do about it?

There is a common misconception that climate change just affects polar bears on melting icebergs. Even when we do think about climate change’s effects on humans, we often imagine those effects to be far off into the future. I say “we” because I previously held these beliefs. But they are inaccurate. 

The Lancet Countdown makes clear that climate change is about our health and well-being in the present moment. It is nothing short of a code red emergency. 

The connection between the energy systems we depend on and the health of our bodies is clear. Burning fossil fuels is making us sick. The prescription then is also clear. For the doctors and public health professionals behind the Lancet Countdown, protecting our health means meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement. 

The future these researchers describe is grim, but I believe this report can serve as a rallying cry for action rather than scaring us into inaction. Both the problem and its solutions are laid out in front of us. We know what needs to be done to protect our health. We just need to make sure we act on the knowledge we have.

Take a moment, and think back to your childhood. Focus on memories where you were outdoors. How did you feel? Were you carefree, and curious? Does the memory bring a smile to your face?

Now think back to memories of your schooling. What were your science classes like? Did they center around the textbook or a laboratory? I’m sure you remember that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, but what does that mean for your life? Without hands-on and application based learning, it is difficult to internalize these ideas and carry them with you as you walk through the world.

These childhood experiences are central to who you are today. The way you understand the world around you can make you feel just as powerful as any data measure out there. Unfortunately, they are not always given the weight they deserve. 

A study titled “School-Based Experiential Outdoor Education: a Neglected Necessity” aims to demonstrate the value of this learning style. The paper has two main takeaways: first, that hands-on environmental education is key to success and, second, that the value our society places on standardized test scores is driving students and teachers farther and farther away from this type of learning.  

Most teachers center their classrooms around test prep rather than for the broader goal of encouraging curiosity and fostering a passion for education.  Not surprisingly, that mode of teaching is not exciting for students.    

A survey cited shows that 45% of students are disengaged and apathetic towards their school based learning. 

The good news is that this study makes clear that outdoor activities are an excellent way to increase student engagement and passion.  That  engagement (i.e. caring about what you’re doing/having internal motivation) is directly correlated to academic achievement.  This approach also  helps level the playing field. Students who did not participate in conventional class activities demonstrated excellent critical thinking skills and even took on leadership roles in the outdoor activities. 

This is not to say that we should abandon standard classroom practices. Rather we need to recognize that this type of experiential learning is integral to the growth and development of the student as a whole. The research showed that “scaffolding” material between the classroom and the outdoors was extremely valuable for engagement, confidence, independence, and overall general satisfaction. 

Now that we know for sure that this type of learning is essential, how can we encourage it? While there might not be a definitive answer, the pandemic has shown us in schools nationwide that it is possible to rethink the basic structure of our classrooms and how we measure success.

For two decades, the U.S. has looked to corn as a renewable source of energy and alternative to oil. But recent research shows that corn is a little less green than we thought. 

TLDR: Corn held promise as a green fuel and the government adopted policies to support that.   

In the early 2000s, the federal government wanted to decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources. To make this shift, the government adopted policies that supported domestic energy production of ethanol, a fuel made from corn. These initiatives also helped develop a green energy market in the United States.

At the time, ethanol had promise as a green fuel with the potential to help the U.S. meet fuel economy standards and reduce carbon emissions. Lawmakers, therefore, implemented programs to increase our supply of ethanol. One of these was the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). The Act requires a certain volume of ethanol to be blended into the gasoline we buy at the gas station. It also sets annual targets to steadily raise the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline, so the U.S. eventually reaches 36 billion gallons of ethanol (up from the original 9 billion) by 2022. Such ambitious targets made ethanol central to the future of green energy.

Since then, a few things have changed…

TLDR: New research highlights significant consequences of those policies for water quality.  

The increase in ethanol production was not without consequences. New research highlights significant implications of those policies for water quality in the Mississippi River Basin, a region of the central United States that stretches from Minnesota to Louisiana. 

Mississippi River Watershed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Mississippi+River&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image

A study in Environmental Science & Technology found that policies – like the EISA – drive the conversion of “idle” land into cropland to grow corn. As a consequence, more fertilizer is being applied to land and the risk for nutrient runoff has increased. 

Corn is a nitrogen intense crop. Since corn plants remove so much nitrogen from the soil,  farmers need to apply nitrogen — in the form of fertilizers — to their cornfields each year. Despite technology that helps farmers apply precise amounts of nitrogen to their crops, not all of the nutrients are taken in by plants. What is leftover “leaches”, or flows out of the soil as runoff, into waterways. 

Nutrient runoff is an ongoing concern for states along the Mississippi River. For example, the findings of this research are directly connected to ongoing issues related to water pollution in my home state of Minnesota. Nitrogen runoff is very common in the Minnesota River Valley, a region dominated by agriculture in the southwest part of the state. The Minnesota River sits as the very beginning of the Mississippi River, meaning any nitrogen runoff eventually makes its way into the Mississippi River Basin. 

The state of Minnesota has struggled for years to effectively address the problem since holding a single farmer accountable for actions on their cornfield can be difficult. Existing programs, such as the voluntary Minnesota Water Quality Assurance Program, have failed to curb the problem. And Minnesota is not alone. Excess nitrogen from all of the states bordering the Mississippi is an ongoing concern. Runoff from all of the states is funneled into the Gulf of Mexico, where it contributes to a growing dead zone.   

A “dead zone” is an area of water that has a low concentration of oxygen. This condition — known as hypoxia — occurs when excess nutrients pollute the water, use the available oxygen, and suffocate other organisms. This year, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is currently 6,334 square miles or almost the size of 6 Rhode Islands. Nearly 4 million acres of habitat are unlivable for fish and other aquatic species. 

TLDR: Growing perennials, not corn, could lead to a significant reduction in nutrient leaching and land-use conversion. 

The research makes it clear we need to adjust ethanol fuel policies to support perennial crops, not corn. Policies, such as the EISA, that mandate higher volumes of corn-based ethanol to be blended into gasoline, have exacerbated nitrogen runoff. 

But the researchers recommend a solution: growing perennials like switchgrass or miscanthus could lead to a significant reduction in nutrient leaching and land-use conversion. Both of these plants are not typically grown as row crops and, unlike corn, they do not require yearly replanting or nitrogen application.

Adjusting federal ethanol volume mandates, the researchers find,  might encourage more farmers to plant perennials. But a shift won’t be easy. The researchers admit that lessening our dependence on corn would be a difficult transition.  Corn-based ethanol has an established market, whereas perennial-based ethanol’s is still emerging.

All of this does not mean we should boycott ethanol; plants can still be a renewable energy source. But it is going to be perennials, not corn, which make a greener future possible. 

It’s hard to keep track of all these colorful new deals environmentalists keep talking about.

The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution that aims to achieve a 100-percent clean energy future in a way that is “fair and just” to all communities. But, this resolution largely neglects to include the oceans. That’s where a Blue New Deal comes in.  It calls for the inclusion of oceans and coastal communities in the Green New Deal.

Now that we hopefully have our colors straight, just how do we integrate this Blue New Deal into the Green New Deal? In a 2020 journal article from Conservation Letters, economists, geographers, marine biologists, and ecologists teamed up to answer that question. The group identified four main areas of the Green New Deal that could be extended to ocean and coastal environments: offshore renewable energy, sustainable transportation, food security, and habitat restoration.

A Big Fan of Renewable Energy

If you’ve ever been on a boat out at sea or lounging on the beach enjoying the summer sun, you know it’s windy. Your observation aligns with a broader trend: it is often windier offshore than onshore. Therefore a good place to build wind farms is actually offshore. 

“Thanet Offshore Wind Farm” by Vattenfall Nederland is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Utilizing the power of offshore winds as a renewable energy source not only increases the amount of clean power available for the grid, but also balances out other renewable energy sources. Solar energy production tends to fall in the late afternoon as the sun sets, but this is the time when offshore winds are their strongest. Late afternoon also happens to be when electricity demand is highest, so having a steady power supply from offshore wind farms would help to support the grid during its peak demand.

Whatever Floats Your Boat

When you think of transportation, it is usually cars and planes that are seen as the biggest climate culprits.  But what about boats?  

Maritime transportation is responsible for around 3% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per year.  That is twice the emissions from air travel. Furthermore, maritime transportation plays a large role in international trade, accounting for the transport of 80% of global goods.

“Panama Canal – Cargo Ships 2” by thinkpanama is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

The researchers of the study make clear that including sustainable maritime transportation is key to effective climate policy. This includes modifying ship designs for efficient travel, powering ships with renewable energy sources, and focusing on port-based incentives to shift the industry to emit less carbon dioxide.

Kelp Wanted

Growing up, I never liked seaweed. It felt slimy between my toes and made for a messy and sometimes smelly day at the beach. But, seaweed could be a valuable ocean-based climate solution.

“Kelp and Sardines” by NOAA’s National Ocean Service is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Seaweed farming, specifically kelp farming, is one of the fastest growing forms of aquaculture worldwide. A good source of dietary protein and fiber, growing seaweed also yields fewer CO2 emissions than land-based meat production. Seaweed has the potential to join the ranks of other plant-based meat alternatives in people’s everyday diets. Additionally, seaweed can be used as a fertilizer due to its abundance of phosphorus, nitrogen, and minerals.  That could help conventional farms shift to more sustainable practices.

Save the Bees, Trees, and Coastlines Please

You’ve surely heard of people planting trees to attempt to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, even the popular Youtuber MrBeast stepped up to rally people to plant trees. But trees aren’t the only thing that need planting.

The restoration of our coastlines needs to be a part of our climate policy action plan too. Coastlines and wetlands protect against flooding and erosion, provide habitats for many species, and serve as natural barriers for the worst of storm damage impacts. 

“Blackwater estuary” by frank.shepherd is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

While there are many beach nourishment, reef restoration, and other habitat restoration programs underway in the United States, the researchers caution against the “quick fix” programs, which could end up doing more harm than good. Restoration efforts should focus on the long-term benefit of both the ecosystems themselves and society as a whole. Simply building seawalls to protect such areas is not enough of a solution.

***

A Green New Deal cannot exist without a Blue New Deal, and a Blue New Deal cannot exist without a Green one. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel for ocean-based climate solutions; we only need to tweak existing strategies and apply them to our oceans and coastlines too.

Today, affordable electricity is as essential to life as food, water, and shelter. 

Yet, Indigenous communities in Canada and New England have struggled to meet this need even as large clean energy projects–mainly hydroelectric dams–are built on their lands. 

Plans for the Central Maine Power Corridor, slated to carry enough electricity from Canadian hydroelectric dams to power a million homes, has been progressing even as Indigenous groups voice concerns over land use. Though this is a clean energy project, planners appear to be adopting the same blasé attitude towards Indigenous rights as “dirty energy” project planners.

Is the clean energy transition doomed to repeat the same patterns of repression that have become hallmarks of the oil and gas industries? 

A group of ten researchers from Queen’s University and several other prominent Canadian institutions banded together to answer this question. The culmination of their work–a study synthesizing data from 956 related research papers–gave reason for hope. The 2018 study outlines a concrete set of action items that clean energy project leaders need to take to further both the renewable energy agenda and heal the relationship between Indigenous and “settler” peoples. 

Making Project Information Accessible

The first step towards ensuring that Indigenous voices are heard is to make information about proposed projects accessible. 

Language, literacy, and jargon barriers should be met not by the communities who may be sacrificing their land or way of life for the project, but by the developers and investors. The researchers emphasize that the party with more power should be the one to bridge the knowledge gap by providing “comprehensive knowledge translation initiatives to better communicate the complexities [of the project] with Indigenous leaders and community members.” 

Listening to Community Needs and Values

The researchers are careful to highlight that under no circumstances should the sentiments of one Indigenous community be assumed to represent all Indigenous groups. In fact, assuming that opinions between groups and even within a group are similar reinforces colonial thinking and contributes to the supposed “justification” of Indigenous rights violations. 

Many Indigenous communities express the desire for energy projects to provide “tangible benefits” including cutting the steep energy costs common in rural areas and providing income for education and healthcare. Other communities communicated the desire for projects to be partly or mostly managed by Indigenous leaders and to increase the autonomy of the group. Still others wanted projects to abide by the “Seven Generations Teaching” and consider impacts reaching far into the future. 

Regardless of the particular mix of desires of a specific community, the researchers conclude that, “making sure development aligns with community priorities is of the utmost importance.”

Redefine Success

Foregrounding community involvement means redefining what a successful clean energy transition means. As long as “success” is defined exclusively by project speed, size, and profitability, renewable energy projects will continue to exploit Indigenous communities. 

Community involvement should be front and center in measuring success. From wind and solar farms to hydroelectric dams, high levels of community involvement were associated with longer-lasting projects that were better for the environment and fostered equality and trust among involved parties. 

But the discussions surrounding the Central Maine Power Corridor make clear how challenging implementing these recommendations can be.

The Central Maine Power Corridor is a major project, important to a clean energy transition in New England, that has been moving steadily ahead despite the deluge of open letters and raised voices in opposition from the Indigenous community. 

The Penobscot Nation of Maine, the Innu Nation of Labrador, and the First Nations of Pessamit, Wemotaci, Pikogan, Kitcisakik and Lac Simon of Quebec all petitioned the US and Canadian governments this past summer to pause the project until affected tribes have been consulted and the possible environmental damages properly investigated. 

The power imbalance between Indigenous communities and renewable energy companies may be too great for these companies to be interested in engaging with the action items proposed by the study. We need to support work that makes our grid cleaner while not allowing our values to be compromised. 

Indigenous communities are actively championing the push for energy justice and the protection of the environment and we need to do everything we can to support them. 

Have you heard that Bitcoin’s an energy hog? Guess what: it is also a leading source of e-waste.

Economists Alex de Vries and Christian Stoll report in the journal Resources, Conservation, and Recycling that Bitcoin mining – where computers solve computational problems to validate Bitcoin transactions and create new Bitcoin chains – is far more than just an energy problem with a large carbon footprint.  

Every Bitcoin transaction – the transferring of Bitcoin from one person to another – creates as much electronic waste (e-waste) as throwing away two brand new iPhones. And, with 112.5 million transactions in 2020 alone, Bitcoin “mining” is producing as much e-waste every year as the Netherlands, a country of 17.28 million people. 

That amount of waste is projected to grow dramatically, as Bitcoin’s popularity continues to explode. 

Electronic waste, or e-waste for short, is electrical or electronic waste produced by incorrectly throwing away electronic equipment. The problem is that that trash goes to a landfill, and that old equipment leaks toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the soil, air, and water. 

Even the e-waste that is “properly recycled” (only 17.4% of it) is a problem. Most US “recyclers” send their e-waste abroad and the parts are stripped and repurposed. Anything that is not reusable is thrown away anyway. This comes at a huge cost to impoverished nations and their people, who work hands-on with toxic chemicals that poison their bodies, land, and waterways. 

This is a huge problem with Bitcoin. Just like Apple sells new iPhones every year to stay up to date with technology, companies that sell computer parts necessary for Bitcoin mining do the same. In other words, Bitcoin miners go through a lot of computer parts.  De Vries and Stoll explain, that that turnaround speed for needing new parts is even shorter than previously thought, with “mining parts” becoming obsolete within 1.29 years of their market availability. 

Bitcoin mining requires ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) miners, electronic circuits designed solely for mining cryptocurrency. The catch? If you use it for Bitcoin mining, you can only use it for Bitcoin mining. 

Not other cryptocurrencies. 

Not another computer function. 

To keep up with increased efficiency and be able to make a profit, Bitcoin miners have to stay up to date with the newest models, which means replacing these parts nearly every year — and those parts can’t be repurposed. 

DeVries and Stoll estimate 30,700 tons of e-waste go into the trash every single year. That’s enough waste to fill up almost 22,000 large dump trucks.

The estimates only cover the ASIC miner components, not to mention the cooling equipment, cables, and other things essential to maintain all 2.9 million Bitcoin mining devices. It also does not include the vast amounts of waste produced manufacturing these computer parts in the first place. So, the problem is likely even worse than the research shows.

The problem is only going to get worse. Bitcoin e-waste production will double by 2050. This signals big trouble, especially for lower and middle-income countries that will likely end up responsible for the majority of the waste. 

According to de Vries and Stoll, solving this e-waste crisis would require restructuring Bitcoin’s mining process entirely and replacing it with a sustainable alternative.  Instead, they suggest that more common computer parts that can be utilized in different ways be used more widely by miners. Their research also suggests that simply educating the public on these environmental impacts can provide enough of an incentive to help, as well as encouraging and making legitimate e-waste recycling services more available.

Bitcoin may offer privacy and more democratized money, but there are still downsides common to traditional forms of currency (see the gold rush). So, regardless of how you manage it, Bitcoin’s currently a huge waste.