The question is whether it can be successful.

A series of events over the past few years has made a successful COP even more challenging. Amid calls for drastic climate action now, there has been political backlash against climate change activism and mitigation in the United States, and the end of the pandemic has seen industrial operations, travel, and other human activity return to pre-pandemic levels, causing emissions to go up in some areas. In addition, COP27 saw the largest presence of fossil fuel interests of any previous COP meeting. At COP28 there will be an even larger presence given that it is being held in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates. Moreover, the appointment of the Sultan Al Jaber, CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ANDOC) as the COP President has drawn the ire of some countries, along with climate and human rights activists.

The Stakes are High — IPPC’s Call for Urgent Action

Global conferences are nothing new. They make for interesting events, but often accomplish little in terms of catalyzing action. But this conference is different. The stakes could not be higher. COP28 attendees will take stock of the commitments made in Paris in 2015 to limit increase in global temperatures to 1.5 C and must forge commitments on a path forward. Decisions and accountability cannot be pushed to a future COP.

In March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released its latest report on the progress being made towards curbing carbon emissions to achieve the Paris goals, and the findings were dire, but not hopeless. In short, the UN noted, the IPCC report concluded that unless the global community acted very quickly to make significant reductions, the chance to keep emissions below 1.5C increase were in serious jeopardy.

The report highlighted the damage that is already being done and that will continue “hitting the most vulnerable people and ecosystems especially hard.” Aditi Mukherji, one of the report’s authors, noted that “almost half the world’s population lives in regions that are highly vulnerable to climate change.” She went on to note that “in the last decade, deaths, droughts, and storms were 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions.” The report noted that temperatures have already risen 1.1 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

According to the IPCC, if temperatures are to stay below 1.5 degrees increase, deep and rapid emissions reductions are needed in all sectors. The report concluded emissions must be cut by 50% by 2030.

While certainly a dire picture, the IPCC opined that there was still time to achieve these goals if action was quick and decisive. The IPCC proposed a “climate resilient development” approach and an increased focus on finance and finding ways to protect the most vulnerable. The UN called for an “Acceleration Agenda” and urged an immediate end to coal burning while achieving net-zero electricity generation by 2035 for all developed countries and by 2040 for the rest of the world.

IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee noted that “the report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that if we act now, we can still secure a livable sustainable future for all.”

But his words of caution ring particularly true for this conference, when he observed that “transformational changes are more likely to succeed where there is trust, where everyone works together to prioritize risk reductions, and where benefits and burdens are shared equitably.”

A Firestorm of Controversy

Can the attendees at COP 28 rise to meet the moment, trust each other, and work together to prioritize reductions and have the benefits and burdens shared equitably, or is COP28 doomed to failure? The controversies and skepticism of the parties leading into COP28 suggest a difficult path forward.

The decision to hold the COP28 in Dubai caused controversy for a variety of reasons, notably because of the dominance of the oil industry in the country, inequitable treatment of women, and limits on expression of political dissent. A new furor erupted in June when the Sultan Al Jaber’s appointment was announced.

Environmental activists and others were outraged and called the appointment a clear conflict of interest. The LA Times editorial page wrote: “Putting an oil executive in charge is not only a bad look, but it also stands to undermine important and urgent negotiations and further erode public confidence in summits that have been criticized as little more than high-level venues for greenwashing.”

Climate activists also roundly condemned the appointment. Al Jaber’s appointment “poses an outrageous conflict of interest” and takes the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the UN talks “to another dangerous and unprecedented level,” said Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network International. Over 130 members of Congress and the European Parliament called for the removal of Sultan Al Jaber. There has also been significant concern about the limitations on protesting in the country. According to the Financial Times, COP28 organizers told speakers not to protest or criticize corporations, Islam, the UAE government or individuals.

Some leaders rallied to Al Jaber’s defense including US Climate Czar John Kerry who called the Sultan a “terrific choice” because his company knows it needs to transition.” EU Climate chief Frans Timmermans defended the UAE’s decision, asking people to “look at his impressive track record.”

Despite all the controversy, most countries and even most environmental organizations are still attending. Cherelle Blazer, senior advisor with Sierra Club’s climate group said it was “vitally important” that the members of civil society groups attend despite its being held “in a place that is hostile to protesting.”

In a rare interview the Guardian, the Sultan addressed concerns saying: “I decided I want to go and engage with everybody. I want everyone to be heard, and I want everyone to have face time with me. So, I travelled the world, and I even met with those who attack me publicly. I made it a point to go and see them.”

In further response to criticisms about hostility to protesting and concerns over inclusion and equality, on August 1, the UAE and the UN Climate group issued a joint statement trying to allay some fears on inclusiveness and the ability to protest:

“[W]e want to express our commitment to making COP28 and inclusive and safe space for all participants… We will work together to make CO28 the most inclusive UN Climate Change Conference to date.”

They sent a letter to all parties urging “increased participation and meaningful engagement of youth, women, and local communities, and Indigenous People … in climate decision making, policy and action.”

It went on to say, “In line with the UNFCCC guidelines and adherence to international human rights norms and principles, there will be space available for climate activists to assemble peacefully and make their voices heard.”

Only time will tell.

What is on the Agenda?

Sultan Al Jaber issued a strong call to action to the parties on the need to take strong and vigorous action:

• We must unite and seize the moment of the Global Stocktake to put the world on the right track to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
• We need tangible progress, this year, on reform that will unlock far more concessional finance, mitigate risk, and attract more private capital.
• We must be laser focused on phasing out fossil fuel emissions, while phasing up viable, affordable zero carbon alternatives.

The Global Stocktake will be the first COP to undertake a process designed to examine the degree to which countries have been successful in taking measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a comprehensive way. The data gathering has been ongoing over the past year, but in Dubai the parties will evaluate the results. In other words, it will in theory provide a mechanism to hold countries accountable for their actions or inaction.

In conjunction with the call to action, the Presidency also established the agenda and themes for each day. The themes include:

· Health/Relief, Recovery and Peace — Focusing on “investments that protect lives and support community resilience and stability.”

· Finance/Trade/Gender Equality/Accountability — Finance and trade mechanisms will require transformational change to achieve the climate goals. The focus will be on scale, access, and affordability. Programs will address mechanisms to ensure accountability so that help turn promises into results. Also discussed will be gender-responsive policy-making and better access to finance in the pursuit of true advancement of gender equality.

· Energy, Industry and Just Transition — A focus on the various strategies and mechanisms to obtain massive decarbonization and just transition while accelerating economic opportunity and job growth, while also addressing universal energy access and the needs of workers across the energy sector transition.

· Multilevel Action, Urbanization & Built Environment/Transport — A key focus will be on government action at all levels — not just national governments. Mayors, governors, and others will be featured, with a particular focus on challenges in building resiliency in urban areas related to the built environment and transportation.

· Youth, Children, Education, and Skills — Younger generations will be most affected by climate impacts and engagement, inclusion in policy decision making, and adapting education to develop skillsets aligned with climate action among those groups is critical.

· Nature, Land Use & Oceans — Critical to Paris Climate goals are the sustainability of nature, land use, and oceans. Delivering climate and nature co-benefits through a range of financing mechanisms will be discussed. Attention will be given also to managing carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots. There will also be a focus on increasing private equity investment to nature-positive accountability frameworks.

· Food, Agriculture & Water — Feeding the planet is critical and food supply is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Moreover, the food and agriculture industry are significant contributors to man-made climate emissions as well as water resources. This will focus on innovation and investment, regenerative agriculture, and related financing mechanisms. Freshwater restoration, conservation and infrastructure discussions will also be an area of focus.

Woven into all days will be four key topics: Technology & Innovation, Inclusion, Frontline Communities, and Finance. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, swirling around all this activity will be the formal negotiations by the government leaders over a new agreement.

Can COP28 Succeed?

Even in the best of circumstances, the ability to reach consensus across the global community on any issue of significance is daunting. COP28 will face tremendous headwinds given the lack of significant progress since 2015, the sheer complexity of the issues, the vast difference between countries in terms of development, the lack of trust among parties and stakeholders, and the controversy over the host country and the leadership of COP. The stakes are high for our planet and everyone on it. If the parties recognize what is truly at stake and the magnitude of the challenges, and if they can find a way to trust and put personal agendas aside, it can be successful.

It is a tall order, but our future depends on it. The world will be watching; and hoping.

The post Climate at a Crossroads appeared first on Medika Life.

The IPCC Report was characterized as the final warning before 1.5C of warming is locked in, from which point effects on the climate become irreversible.   We are currently at a 1.1 C increase, and the IPCC concluded that GHG increases must stop by 2025 to have any chance to stay below the 1.5 C target and that dramatic action is needed.   To keep within the 2.7 F  (1.5 C) increase, emissions need to be reduced by 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 and at least 60% by 2035.  

Everyone Should be Part of the Solution

The Secretary-General called on CEOs of all oil and gas companies to be part of the solution and present plans detailing actual emission cuts for 2025 and 2030 and efforts to change business models to phase out fossil fuels and scale up renewable energy.  Key measures to achieve the reductions include:

The report also found that losses and damage disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations, creating a tipping point toward more poverty.

Adaptation options that are feasible and effective today will become constrained and less effective with increased global warming.   The report also notes that while measures are being taken to address adaptation, the financial resources committed to the effort fall far short of what is needed. Investments in innovations will be vital to reaching ambitious goals. Companies with innovative climate solutions can differentiate themselves in the market.

The post UN Panel Warns of the Dire Consequences of Climate Change appeared first on Medika Life.

We’re faced with a tilted Supreme Court that rolled back decades of critical social justice, medical, and environmental protection. Our politics are paralyzed by inaction.  One political party seeks to strangle American democracy; the other is seemingly incapable of responding adequately to the magnitude of the danger facing government.

Surrounded by this kind of negativity, perhaps despair and hopelessness are reasonable reactions. How can we hope to effect positive change and confront the threats to our vision for a better future in this environment?  I’m here to tell you that there is reason for optimism.

Even though circumstances appear dire, we’re starting to see leadership from a rather unlikely hero: Corporate America. Many companies are pivoting their positioning on corporate purpose to champion solutions for the most pressing concerns we face. They define their mission in terms of profit, purpose and social impact.

As communications professionals, we’re the lynchpin that helps them construct a strategy and build campaigns that can move the needle in meaningful ways, and now more than ever it’s critical that we get it right.

Here are four ways we can do just that:

1. Be Genuine about Corporate Culture

Any effective communications strategy around protecting the environment and supporting social justice causes must demonstrate that the commitment is real – that it comes directly from the C-Suite and Board and is ingrained in the corporate culture. The effort is doomed from the start if senior leadership isn’t fully bought in.

We’re seeing that corporations are increasingly defining their brand around sustainability and promoting their commitment to the environment, corporate social responsibility, and making a positive difference in the world. They tout ESG metrics as evidence and for many organizations, it’s genuine and indicative of a culture shift from top to bottom. For others, however, they’re just trying to check a box because they feel pressure from the market or shareholders. That’s when companies get into trouble.

Stakeholders, both internal and external, tend to see through the rhetoric and recognize it has no substance—this is devastating for the health of an organization. If employees and customers don’t believe that senior leaders are invested and genuine in sustainability principles, they won’t embrace any initiatives that get rolled out.

The modern workforce increasingly sees these efforts as critical factors when choosing who to work for. A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that 9 out of 10 American professionals surveyed across 26 industries would accept lower lifetime earnings in exchange for greater meaning at work. Gone are the days when salary was the only differentiator between prospective employers—meaningful action on social issues matters.

In fact, New York University’s Stern Center for Sustainable Business finds that good sustainability programs yield millions in benefits, both in financial and less concrete terms. Their Return on Sustainability Investment (ROSI) metric identifies nine drivers of financial performance that can improve with good sustainability strategies:

• Innovation
• Operational Efficiency
• Sales and Marketing
• Customer Loyalty
• Risk Management
• Employee Relations
• Supplier Relations
• Media Relations
• Stakeholder Engagement

Notice anything about that list? It includes every aspect of business operations. Clearly, focusing on sustainability is no longer a “nice to have”; it’s a sound business strategy and a story worth telling.

2. Transparency and Candor

I learned early on that the first rule of good media and public relations is “never, ever lie”. Communications professionals must ensure that ESG reporting is transparent and candid and as the volume of companies doing this kind of reporting increases it only becomes more important.

There isn’t a standard set of metrics for ESG, so it can get confusing when companies report on progress differently. Regardless of the metrics, they must be clearly articulated and independently verifiable. Investors, consumers, competitors, and even the company’s employees will look at the report. Even more scrutiny gets leveled on publicly traded companies. Inaccurate or incomplete reporting can have serious consequences, both in the court of public opinion and at the hands of enforcement agencies like the SEC, particularly as they move to finalize formal disclosure rules.

I’ve heard arguments from some that don’t want to report ESG performance unless mandated for this very reason. While I understand that inclination, even a caveated and qualified report is better than nothing. Every company starts somewhere, and if you’re only looking at a few metrics in your first report, that’s perfectly acceptable. However, the same rules apply – be authentic. It can’t just be a marketing gimmick.

Another concern I hear is around negative legacy issues in an organization’s history. Maybe that’s a less-than-stellar record on environmental issues or problematic past hiring and promotion practices. The best policy is to acknowledge past sins and focus on the future.

As communicators, we can help organizations find the middle ground between risk-averse executives or lawyers (speaking as an attorney who has served in both State and Federal government positions) who might be hesitant to say anything at all and marketers whose enthusiasm to convert sales might lead them to overstate the company’s action. We can help develop messaging to show how corporations have turned the corner and embraced a business philosophy and culture centered on doing good.

3. Finding the Right Message and Messenger

It’s not enough to have a compelling narrative. The person delivering the message needs to be equally attention-grabbing. Recent efforts to change behavior in response to the global pandemic and climate change are instructive on this point.

First, on climate change:

A study out of Great Britain looked at public engagement on climate change post-Brexit, focusing on those who identified themselves as being right-of-center politically. Participants appreciated an upbeat, positive tone around a clean energy future, but they didn’t respond well to absolutes: “we can have a 100% clean energy future”, for example. Messaging that indicated the need for a dramatic behavior change was more challenging for them to embrace.

The core values of the focus group included a sense of fairness, protecting their families, helping others, and living a good life. Messaging consistent with those values was more likely to be well-received.

This is true of most people across the political and ideological spectrum. They’re not as likely to embrace action to address climate change if they’re told they must give up their ICE cars entirely. They’re more likely to respond when given options: drive a more fuel-efficient or electric vehicle. They’ll take action to prevent illness in their children stemming from carbon emissions, but don’t mobilize based on academic discussions and data around rising temperatures and the polar ice caps.

Second, on the pandemic:

During the early stages of the pandemic, we heard from politicians, media personalities, and scientists. Most of them white men. They were disseminating highly scientific and granular data combined with doom and gloom warnings on the dangers of the virus and the need for social isolation and vaccination. Vaccination rates stayed well below 50% and COVID rates continued to rise.

We changed our messengers and got different results, recognizing that not all audiences respond to the same message in the same way. We began to tailor messaging to the audience and deliver it through messengers they connected with. Professional athletes, country music stars, clergy, and social media influencers did their part to communicate with people who listened to them. The result was progress. The lesson is that we can win over even the most skeptical listener with positivity and respect instead of domineering and demeaning.

4. Actions Speak Louder Than Words

To borrow a phrase from Nike, “Just Do It.”

Talk is cheap. To see real positive change requires action, one company at a time, one community at a time. Action is contagious. When one organization starts making an impact, others tend to follow. Those who act get the best talent to join, develop innovative products, attract the most desirable investors, and achieve the best financial results. Just getting started towards making a difference can inspire others to follow and when they do, we can change the world: save the planet, champion diversity, and achieve social justice.

As Margaret Mead put it, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

The post Communication: The Missing Link Between Vision and Progress on Environment and Social Responsibility Priorities appeared first on Medika Life.

Here is the background of the four thought leaders who joined in conversation:

Bob Martineau, JD, a Senior Partner with FINN Partners, a global integrated marketing communications agency, who heads the Environment and Social Impact Group, and the former Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation, served as moderator.

James Hildreth, MD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, the nation’s largest private, independent and historically black academic health sciences center. Dr. Hildreth is also a member of President Biden’s Health Equity Task Force. 

Rachel Hodgdon, CEO and President of the International WELL Building Institute. Rachel joined IWBI in November 2016, bringing her broad sustainability expertise and her track record as a leading global advocate for green schools, better buildings and social equity to IWBI’s work to advance human health through more vibrant communities and stronger organizations.

Gil Bashe, Chair Global Health and Purpose at FINN Partners.  He currently serves as editor-in-chief of MedikaLife, an online health magazine, and is a global correspondent for Health Tech World. He is also an ordained rabbi who is exploring how spiritual strength is a moral compass in addressing many of the world population’s most pressing physical needs.

Bob Martineau/FINN:  The discussion of many environmental and public health issues brings to the forefront environmental equity and social justice. So many studies show a direct correlation between public health in a community and the socio-economic impacts. Your work at Meharry with the social determinants of health speaks to that. It’s the lower income neighborhoods that sit next to factories and landfills and have contaminated water supplies. Low-income housing is the least energy efficient. How do we address these disparate impacts in our communities as we set public policy, both on the environmental health and the public health side of the coin?

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:  First, I think we have to incentivize organizations, large and small, to start making different decisions about how they’re going to approach the business that they do and where they’re going to do it. Simple things like having walkways and parks and access to healthy foods would make such a huge difference in the lives of people. Even though I’m in healthcare, I understand that healthcare only accounts for about 10% of one’s overall health.

Health comes from being able to breathe clean air, eat healthy foods and have a certain level of educational attainment; that can only happen if organizations, even the governments that make the policies and laws that we live by, take a different approach to this. I point out that we spent $3.8 trillion on healthcare, but we’re not among the ten healthiest nations on the planet. If we just took 10% of that and use it to invest in children and their health and public health measures, we could actually change the dynamic for health in this country in a very dramatic way. But that’s going to take some will and dedication on the part of our leaders to get it done.

 Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:  Health equity is a focus for IWBI as well.  Rabbi Bashe is working with us as a co-chair of our health equity advisory and the honor is mutual. We’re working on a new certification product or rating product that’s focused specifically on advancing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility.

We start with the social determinants of health as the foundation of that work. Dr. Hildreth made mention to the social determinants without using the name. The social determinants of health, which is sort of a universally accepted truth within the public health community, must tell us is that where you sit and who you sit next to, your physical and social environment, have a greater impact on your health and wellbeing than your access to healthcare, your lifestyle and behaviors and any other factor combined.

That is such a powerful way of thinking about what we have to shift to shift public health outcomes. We need to think about how to do that in an equitable fashion. What we learned during COVID-19, very quickly, is that those who had the least suffered the most, but that is true for virtually every other public health issue that is out there, from diabetes and obesity to heart disease to cancer. We need to think about how we can reach those communities and reach them first.

One of the most important ways to do that is through policy. I would say those on the line who come from the media and communications world, the other most important vehicle that we have, are through those engines. In other words, in order to shift health outcomes, we have to shift perspectives and perceptions in the communities that we serve; that can happen in any variety of ways, but we need to go straight to the heart of low-income communities, both within this country and outside of it. Places where there are high concentrations of black and brown people- rural communities, urban communities. These are the places with the highest areas of need.

 Bob Martineau/FINN:  Rachel, Gil, Dr. Hildreth, those are great points. You are right- framing that message, and as Gil alluded to, right now, we’re in an era in a world where we distrust so many people.

We distrust our politicians and government officials.  We even distrust scientists standing at a podium explaining the facts and the cause and effect. We are a distrustful group.

So, how do we frame those messages? And as you alluded to, you need to find the right messenger, who they trust, whether it’s their minister or a pop star celebrity. But how do we frame those messages to really hit home and explain the behaviors that you suggest we need to change so that we can address these health equity impacts? Any thoughts or suggestions from the three of you on that? I’ll let you jump in, Dr. Hildreth. Any thoughts on how we communicate with people so they will listen and take action given the distrustful era that we live in today?

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:   I think that it’s very clear that when the messenger comes from the same cultural background and community as the population they’re engaging, messages are much better received, and people actually listen. Part of our problem today is that people only tune into and engage those who reinforce the disbeliefs and the negatives they bring to it. We’ve got to find a way to change that.

In our work at Meharry, in my work on President Biden’s Task Force, we recognize that trusted messenger means that the messenger comes from the community that you’re trying to engage. I want  to make one other point here: to solve some of the problems that we’ve been talking about there’s an issue that has to be addressed that is seldom talked about seriously. That is that there’s bias and racism in so many areas of life in our country that if we don’t address it, inequities will persist. We are not going to be able to fix it unless we address that issue, which is at the heart of much of what we’ve been talking about here today. All lives are valued the same. We say that, but there a lot of ways our actions seem to belie that we actually believe it.

Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:  I’ll pick up where Dr. Hildreth left off. We know that intellectual agreement alone is not inspiration to act. We cannot continue to fool ourselves into thinking that if people accept the notion that climate change is real, that they’ll change the choices that they make day to day. We have to start to pivot our messaging to make it more about what’s in it for each one of us. What’s in it for our family’s health and well-being? What’s in it for our communities and their ability to thrive? What’s in it for organizations and their ability to be successful and do good work? I think that a more health focused spin on climate change is one that is proving to be extremely successful. This is about the livelihood of our families and of ourselves.

When we focus on solutions that are good for the planet, what we’re really doing is focusing on solutions that are good for ourselves- healthier food, more sustainable agricultural practices, more access to nature and to greenery, more physical activity, less driving. All these things serve to benefit us in so many different ways. It’s a matter of translating the solutions to universal imperatives that call us all to action. I think at the heart of all of it is our desire to be well and our desire for our families to be well.

Gil Bashe/FINN:  I want to reinforce some things that Dr. Hildreth and Rachel shared, and I also want to acknowledge their organizations for a moment. Meharry Medical College with Dr. Hildreth’s leadership is really doing some very incredible things in terms of education. I want to start there. Children of all ages, even adult children, have great influence on their peer group and their families. When you start training a fifth grader about the importance of environmental health in a way that they appreciate it, and feel safe, they go home and talk about it. Children can be very influential advocates on their parents. So, education, whether it’s children, whether it’s a medical school,

I think Dr. Hildreth nailed that. Rachel alluded to something, but it’s much more important than her passing comment- the International Well Building Institute certification. It’s an organization that is dedicated to examining every element of environmental health, from racial disparities and inequities, to making sure that areas have walking paths, to certification and really means setting standards. That is critical. I also want to say that there’s something that was not said that I’m worried about and that is our “cancel culture.”

Dr. Hildreth alluded to that and talked about how half the people follow this group, and half the people follow that group. We all end up producing produce from the same soil. We breathe the same air, we have to drink the same water, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of race, regardless of religion, yet we are terribly divided. Rachel alluded to something through my work in spirituality, and that is the fact that we are all here, visitors, finite visitors on this planet, and we have to remember that we’re placed here in partnership, perhaps with a higher source to do good things for future generations.

We’re in an Amazon-like, environment, People want it delivered tomorrow. People want healthier environments tomorrow. Well, guess what? Make it better now, for tomorrow. I think that’s what we have to understand. We can do great things immediately- recycling, sparing water, voting, as Rachel said, for people who want to educate our children appropriately. These are all things we can do now.

Bob Martineau/FINN:  Thanks, Gil. To wrap this up, I want to ask you one final question and get your thoughts. I think the message here is so correct that we need to bring it together.  As Dr. Hildreth said at the beginning, the planet will be just fine without us, but we can’t survive on an unhealthy planet. We need to use our own human ingenuity to fix the problems we’ve created, and we can because we created the problems. We can fix them and save us and our planet. So, how do we take those messages recognizing the need to personalize it so people see what’s in it for them?

The consequences of these health issues are generally the same, but the impact is different based on socioeconomics and race and education. What are one or two things that the attendees, the listeners can take back and help really take action to start to move the needle in their communities and in their institutions? In other words, what is your call to action?

 Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:   I’ll present a three-part strategy. The first is a personal commitment that we all can think about making and that is to really take a look at how much time we spend on planes year over year. Again, this goes back to that notion that we’re gaining more than we’re giving up. During COVID, we learned the value of staying in one place, many of us, at least, who had the luxury of comfortable situations. For those of us who are on the road a lot, many of us spent more time with our partners and with our families. We realized that we could get a lot done remotely as opposed to face to face. So, I’m not saying don’t travel, I love that as much as anyone else, but I’m saying travel more efficiently and more mindfully. And when possible, think about alternative forms of transportation other than planes.

The second is another simple action that I think will be extraordinarily helpful to you in your personal life, and in your work life, no matter what industry you’re a part of, and that is to pick up a copy of Paul Hawkins book, Regeneration. Regeneration launched just a couple of months ago. It’s already a New York Times bestseller, and it is the most beautiful and complete reframing of solutions for solving the climate crisis, taking climate out of the atmosphere and healing our relationships to one another as we heal our relationship to the planet.

Finally, more of a global action- find out if the companies that you work for and otherwise associate yourself with have a plan around ESG and have a target as it relates to reducing their emissions. Ask the questions, volunteer where appropriate to make contributions, but start to make these demands. The more that we start to ask these for these commitments, I believe the more that the organizations that we align ourselves with will really start to heave that call because their one voice may not make a difference, but of course, a business of voices certainly can.

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:  I guess my call to action is to remind people that leadership matters and we need to elect leaders who will do the things and make the right decisions in terms of the planet in our relationship to it.

Also, to remind people that as Gil said earlier, we’re all connected. We breathe the same air, and when I say “we,” I mean the global we. That is why I’m so concerned that unless we vaccinate the whole planet against COVID-19, none of us are going to be safe. Because these variants that we’re reading about and we’re concerned about, they can arise anywhere.  We need to start viewing ourselves as a global population that make decisions based on the fact that all of us are in this together. All seven and a half billion of us are in this together.

Gil Bashe/FINN:  My call to action is this: Invest more in science; invest more in engineering solutions so that we can correct the course; train our experts to be good communicators. And go out today and look at the eyes of a child very closely and say to yourself I imagine that child growing up to be a healthy 92-year-old with clean air and water and soil around them free of contamination so that we all have access to healthy food and water and a healthy world. Now imagine the opposite for that child and make your choice.

Our thanks to the Global Action Summit, hosted by the Belmont University Massey School of Business, for organizing this world-class conversation on planetary health.

The post Reimagining a World for Health and Environmental Health for Sustainable Well-Being – Part 2 appeared first on Medika Life.

Four outstanding thought leaders joined in conversation:

Bob Martineau, JD, a Senior Partner with FINN Partners, a global integrated marketing communications agency, who heads the Environment and Social Impact Group, and the former Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation, served as moderator.

James Hildreth, MD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, the nation’s largest private, independent and historically black academic health sciences center. Dr. Hildreth is also a member of President Biden’s Health Equity Task Force. 

Rachel Hodgdon, CEO and President of the International WELL Building Institute. Rachel joined IWBI in November 2016, bringing her broad sustainability expertise and her track record as a leading global advocate for green schools, better buildings and social equity to IWBI’s work to advance human health through more vibrant communities and stronger organizations.

Gil Bashe, Chair Global Health and Purpose at FINN Partners.  He currently serves as editor-in-chief of MedikaLife, an online health magazine, and is a global correspondent for Health Tech World. He is also an ordained rabbi who is exploring how spiritual strength is a moral compass in addressing many of the world population’s most pressing physical needs.

———

Bob Martineau:  I am pleased to convene this important discussion on the intersection of public health and environmental health or planetary health. Thank you all for your participation. The World Health Organization issued a report highlighting the connection between public health and climate change. The report estimates that 250,000 additional premature deaths each year globally are from climate change and without sustained rapid change, the report said these numbers will only increase.   Rachel, I’ll start with you. Can you share your thoughts on this report and what it tells us about public health and the environment?

Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:  I think that the most important headline in that report is that we’re in a code red moment right now. Some might say that we are running out of time, others say that we have run out of time to experience some of the more dramatic impacts of climate change. I think the other principal findings of that report, and many of the conversations between global leaders that have happened since, is that we’re not on track to meet our targets.

This is a call to all of us to act. It is a call that is so urgent that it threatens our livelihood and the livelihoods of future generations. This means that all of us need to become advocates for making change and all of us need to start making choices about what we invest in, where we shop and what companies and communities, we align ourselves with based on this fundamental imperative to address the climate crisis.  What we’re seeing is a real response to that sense of urgency from younger generations.

We’re starting to see some of the policy levers turn the way that they should in the United States and in other economies. You could say that we’re driving slower off the cliff, and we’ve got to focus on more opportunities to take carbon out of the atmosphere, put it back into the soil, put it back into the land, and not just focus on slowing down what is essentially a collision course with our own humanity.

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:  I would just add that the Earth can do just fine without humans on it. There are species that have been around for 2 billion years. There are plants that have been around for hundreds of millions of years. My point is that if we’re not careful, the Earth will get rid of us as a pest, so to speak, because we’re not necessary for the survival of the Earth itself. If we’re not careful, it’s going to take steps to rid itself of a species.

The pandemic reminds us that as we move into habitats, we have not been a part of, and as we destroy habitats, that brings us into contact with animals that have pathogens that can be deadly to us. So, that’s just another example of the kind of recklessness that we’re demonstrating by doing some of the things that we’re doing without being mindful of what it does to the earth and to the other species that inhabit it.  I totally agree with everything that Rachel said.

Gil Bashe/FINN:  I’m going to be an optimist here. I think it’s important. I’ve learned that from Rachel and from Dr. Hildreth; people enjoy positive messages, and I think that they’ve laid out the cause for alarm. I want to quote a 19th century mystic, for a moment, not a scientist, not an economist, a mystic, who said, simply, if you can break it, you can fix it. I think that through all of the doom and gloom, Bob, you have expressed before your belief that human ingenuity, science, engineering and creativity do give us the ability to fix some of these problems. So, I am going to believe that as well.  I’m going to also draw from what we’ve just heard from Rachel and Dr. Hildreth, which is we’ve got to engage. I’ve learned this certainly from following both of our other panelists, that sometimes to learn, we must unlearn certain behaviors.

Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:  I totally agree with Gil, I am also an eternal optimist, and I do fundamentally believe that there are ways for us to really get ourselves out of the mess that we’ve created. But I also think that one of the challenges with climate change is that it has seemed to be a topic that’s so far off, that’s so huge, that we as individuals can’t make a difference. We think, yeah, we can solve it, but that’s somebody else’s job. That’s the job of elected and appointed officials. That’s the job of large corporations. So, I think that more than anything, the report that you mentioned in the opening is a call to action for all of us, it’s time for us to stop shifting responsibility in the solutions to others.

Bob Martineau:  With COVID, we saw the impacts were very immediate and real: a person got exposed, and within days, you saw people got sick.  It was easy to connect cause and effect.  However, with many public health issues caused by environmental health issues, the latency period is long term. It takes years for the asthma or the respiratory issues to develop. So, people don’t see the direct connection between cause and effect.  In addition, if you add that other factor Rachel mentioned – the doomsday effect. That is people saying there’s such a big problem and any change will not make any difference anyway.

So, how do we get that call to action? With COVID, it took a while, but people understood that if they wore masks and got vaccines, they could help mitigate the impact. It was individual behaviors that would change as we tried to reach a herd immunity. So, with these longer-term impacts and the magnitude of the problem and people just throwing up their hands in despair, how do we speak to people to get that action?

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:  One of my biggest concerns is that we can’t ever get out of our own way.  If you look at what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic, science delivered, in record time, safe and effective vaccines. Yet, there are those among us who cannot realize that by taking the vaccines they can help the larger community.  It is not only a selfish thing to do in terms of protecting yourself, but it also allows us to protect the larger community.

What I worry about is, we cannot see that the things that we do now can benefit those who are going to come after us- we don’t seem to care. It’s the same kind of challenge we have with getting people vaccinated and to do the things you need to do. We have to figure out a way to get past that. Otherwise, we’re not going to solve this problem, climate change, or, in fact be able to deal with the pandemic, which is still ongoing. My biggest concern is, how do we get out of our own way and what do we need to do to have that happen? I haven’t thought of a solution to that yet. I’m hopeful that we can do it.

Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:   I’ll give you a quick list of four and then I will elaborate: (1) You’ve got to make it visual; (2) You’ve got to make it personal; (3) You’ve got to make it actionable; and (4) You have got to make it positive. We have many visual ways to tell the story- the COVID-19 pandemic is one great example; we came face to face with the reality that we drive pollution in our own environment that ultimately accelerates climate change when we all stopped commuting. Also, when we all stopped operating construction equipment and the skies in every major city cleared. That is such an amazing visual. You can do a simple Google and see, you know, Dubai, Los Angeles, any of the world’s major cities before the pandemic and at the height of it.

We also must make it personal. I think one of the biggest regrets that I have about the outset of the pandemic is that we didn’t turn quickly enough to trusted ambassadors, deploying members of communities and spiritual leaders and even celebrities – the people that we know that the public trusts the most, that they can relate to. We need to give people actionable ways to take first steps; we need to lay out a roadmap for the choices that you can make in your own life. It’s less about those performative actions of using your reusable grocery bags or your non plastic reusable water bottles; it’s a lot more about asking people to make bigger choices around how many flights they take per year, or the kinds of cars that they purchase, or even where they vote, or where they vote with their wallet.

Finally, you have to make it positive.  We know through decades of research, that negative messaging, particularly around issues of climate can be debilitating and paralyzing. We need to shift these messages from doom, gloom and what we lose to positive messages of abundance and everything that we have to gain.

Gil Bashe/FINN:  We said often during the COVID period, that we should trust the science, but I’m going to put a twist on that and maybe make this a little more complex. Can we trust scientists, and do scientists understand the science of communication? Rachel touches on that in her points, and Dr. Hildreth talks about this as well, but the reality is our scientists, the people who really convey information, they’re not trained in public health to talk to the public and to mobilize the public. In fact, scientists can be very inspiring, but the reality is they don’t know how to communicate and that’s one thing we need to begin to fix immediately.

The other aspect is who’s responsible here? So let me take my sector.  I think Rachel and Dr. Hildreth will identify with this. Rachel and the International Well Building Institute are doing exceptional work trying to look at how to build a healthier world for the future. Dr. Hildreth at Meharry Medical College is doing a tremendous amount of work and effort to talk about critical public health needs that connect to environmental health. I believe that hospitals occupy about 5% of our commercial space in this country, but they consume about 20% of our energy. So, think about that.

The healthcare sector, which I come from and love, and has done remarkable, miraculous work during the COVID period, to invent vaccines quickly- if it were a country, would rate number five in greenhouse gases, after China, the U.S., India and Russia. Hospitals and health systems would be the fifth largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the world. So, how do we solve this? I’m calling upon the healthcare industry, first and foremost, which is so dedicated to our well-being, to take a stance to do everything possible not to reduce its contribution to climate damage or environmental damage but work diligently with the same creativity and the same science to correct its course.

Bob Martineau:  I think that’s a great point. Modeling best practices and moving from just pure sustainability to advancing causes and improvement in public health and in public environment. I think we’ve spent so long focused on treatments to diseases and impacts and less about the causes. If we don’t move to look at those causes more directly, we’ll continue to just treat diseases and that’s a vicious cycle that never ends.

Stay tuned for the second in this two-part series featured exclusively on Medika Life.

The post Reimagining a World for Health and Environmental Health for Sustainable Well-Being – Part 1 appeared first on Medika Life.

Now you have brought your ideas and expertise to Finn Partners to focus your energies on communications for the environment, health, energy, and sustainability. Servant to the nation, advisor to major corporations, teacher and public advocate. Let’s talk about the environment and health. I think the two topics are inseparable.

Bashe: Our world has been struggling with one of the greatest public health crises of our generation. I sense that this period has sensitized us to something even bigger — a threat to our planet. COVID-19 was in our face. Its immediacy was palpable. Yet, I wonder if you agree that climate change and environmental degradation are far greater danger to our way of life. What do you think — is environmental health the great public health uniter?

Martineau: Gil, that is a great question and one I’ve thought about a lot during the last 16 months as we’ve dealt with the pandemic. How can we take the incredible focus and attention we’ve given to COVID 19 and translate it to meeting the climate challenge together? The impacts of COVID were real and immediate — we all know people who lost their lives or became very sick. Climate and environmental degradation pose a greater danger, but the adverse impacts are more incremental and harder to see. We live in a snapchat world of 30 second messaging. It’s hard to have that same sense of urgency when the degradation and impacts are more incremental and long term. But communicating the seriousness of the issue from a public health perspective could be the great uniter.

Bashe: I’ve often said that communication is part of the care. But, during COVID-19, I felt it was part of the problem — the pandemic of poor communications. Are communicators doing enough to rally corporate leaders — policy officials — to recognize that there is no going back when it comes to environmental health?

Martineau: Effective communication can certainly make a huge impact. During COVID, too much of the messaging was to and from corporate leaders and policy officials — urging companies to send everyone home, suspend large group gatherings, convincing people to take protective measures and get the vaccine when it became available. 

Successful communication must be three-part process:

1. Create an effective message

2. Make sure people are willing to listen

3. Make sure those who are listening are willing to respond.

As we saw with the pandemic, some public officials and other leaders who refused to accept good science, made the issue political and created their own set of “facts” because they did not trust the messenger. A significant percentage of the population still believes that the pandemic response was a political tool to control behavior, not a public health initiative. We need to find different ways to communicate with people the importance of critical public health issues and depoliticize them. We need to find better messengers — be they ministers in the pulpit, trusted sports heroes or a favorite music legend.

Bashe: Just like science moved mountains to shift molecules from lab benches into jabs in people’s arms, people may expect miracles to tackle our environmental challenges. How can law makers create policies to get us in the right direction — to accelerate innovation?

Martineau: We must create urgency.

Most human beings and government institutions are risk avoiders — we fear the unknown and stick with what we know. So, we need to create that sense of urgency in order to accelerate innovation. A few examples: offer tax breaks for innovative solutions to those things adversely impacting public health; incubate startup companies working on new solutions to old problems; and enlist research labs in our universities to stimulate innovation.

We have to communicate how climate change can interfere with our daily lives. We saw such an incredible response to COVID for two main reasons:

1. It changed our way of life overnight — travel shut down, restaurants closed, our personal and work life turned upside down

2. We saw people dying in large numbers every day. The impacts were real and immediate. Other public health issues are more incremental on both fronts. The changes to how we live will be more incremental and the loss of life or other health impacts more incremental.

Bashe: Some suggest that we have a ticking clock — a ticking that grows louder and louder — on the count-down to environmental danger where things will spiral out of control. How do voices of influence within the health ecosystem join others to ensure companies make sustainability both a requirement and a business builder?

Martineau: I agree the clock is ticking and growing louder because in the past few years, at least in the US, we detoured from addressing environmental and public health issues. But we can get where we need to be before we spiral out of control. Prominent voices in the health ecosystem can be a major force for change. The health sector can influence both the public and private sector behavior.

Leaders in health care world must raise their voices and support measures to mitigate the dangers. The health care industry has enormous power it can bring to bear in shaping forward thinking in the political arena.

The health care sector has enormous economic leverage it can use to shape private sector behavior towards more sustainable business models. ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) principles are all about risk management. The health sector can embrace ESG itself and it can demand it from its supplier partners. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it also makes good business sense. An increasing body of data shows that corporations that do well on ESG measures are doing better financially. Companies with good performance on ESG issues also have higher employee engagement. Younger employees want to work for socially responsible companies. Customers also can and should expect it from their vendors.

Bashe: How can people responsible for public health and wellness communicate the implications of what we face without scaring the life out of people or having them tune out? What are the paths to getting people to understand communities can affect change?

Martineau: Again, COVID-19 has given us a reality check that these issues are real, but solvable. We cannot just scare people or say our whole lifestyle must change. Instead, we should identify solutions that seem doable and will not completely turn our lifestyle on its head. We can address the carbon impacts of transportation without making everyone ride their bike to work. Innovation will make solutions appear feasible and spur adaption. A decade ago, who would have imagined General Motors pledging to make only electric vehicles by 2035. And yet, here we are.

Bashe: Doctors lost the ears of our nation when it comes to COVID-19. Who are the voices of influence when it comes to the environment? Who do you listen to closely to inform your opinions?

Martineau: Doctors may have lost about 40% of the nation on the issue, but many of us took it very seriously. And a lot of that 40% was due to politics, not science. In the environmental world, there are several sources for information. The EPA is once again relying on data and science to shape policy. NGOs like the Natural Resources Defense Council take a pragmatic approach to environmental regulatory programs and collaborate with industry and government policy makers. I have great respect for Gina McCarthy, now the White House lead on climate. I got to work with her on a wide variety of issues when she was EPA Administrator. She is willing to listen and is smart, savvy, passionate and pragmatic. More and more businesses are becoming proactive on environment and sustainability issues and taking the long view of what is good for business.

Bashe: The socially conscious investor is screening for sustainability according to Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) criteria. Health companies rely on communications to help them report ESG compliance. What is meaningful reporting for health enterprises such as hospital and pharmaceutical companies?

Martineau: Health care companies have a special role in ESG reporting, especially the “E.” As an industry whose very purpose is to protect public health and promote wellness, health companies must analyze their ESG performance. We used to think that the manufacturing, chemical, and utility sectors were the only ones with environmental issues. Yet hospitals operate 24/7/365 and use substantial electricity and water. Moving to energy efficient lighting, HVAC systems and equipment can help reduce carbon impact. Water saving measures can reduce water usage. The handling of medical waste can be an important metric.

Today’s ESG metrics will also look at supply network performance. Health care companies need to analyze their supplier network just like the auto industry does. Companies need to establish their baseline, determine where they need to be, set goals, and demonstrate progress with verifiable information. First and foremost, the ESG commitment must be central to the business culture. It cannot be a “check the box” item. It must be real to have impact.

Bashe: We can expect Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance to move from the corporate to non-profit/public spheres. We tend to look at growth and profit as the measure of business success. With our world in the balance, do you think we need an environmental impact ranking and health metrics?

Martineau: Environmental impact and health metrics are emerging. Some of the metrics being used in ESG reporting go to environmental impact, less so to health metrics. Beyond the direct operations of a business, be it a hospital or manufacturing plant, how do you fully assess the full environmental impacts of a business? From the operations of the supplier to the transportation used to get the supplies to you and your product to your customer, to the waste generated after the use of your product, it’s complicated. We must uncomplicate it. Relative to health metrics, you can look at everything from the health impacts of the products you produce to whether you provide health benefits to your employees. The challenge is to come up with a uniform set of metrics to enable fair comparisons. Many companies are asking for just that and all must find their path to improve.

Health is both an industry and a collective mindset.

The clock is ticking on creating a healthy, sustainable planet. This conversation with environmental affairs expert Bob Martineau frames the urgency and possibilities going forward. Health is both an industry and a collective mindset. While we work to invent new life-saving molecules against disease, we must dedicate ourselves to invention — new policies and technologies — that lead to the health of our planet. This interview can begin to frame our thinking.

The post Bob Martineau on How Our Planet’s Wellness Impacts Our Own appeared first on Medika Life.