That tension became unmistakable during the recent EcoHealth dialogue convened by The Galien Foundation. The gathering brought together innovators addressing climate and environment needs, not-for-profit organizations mobilizing global youth action and corporate-enabling technologies strengthening responsible business.

Their work spans ocean-wave power, grassroots environmental leadership, women-led solar entrepreneurship, next-generation water treatment, industrial cooling, soil restoration platforms and algae mitigation technologies. Their perspectives may differ, but their commitment to science is united. However, each voiced the same underlying truth: climate tech, like medicine, advances only when society answers the defining question of our era –Who pays?

A Planet Under Stress and a Market Slow to Respond

Climate instability is not a distant worry; it is a daily force shaping people and planetary health. When lakes collapse due to toxic blooms, communities lose access to drinking water, fisheries and tourism. When drought tightens its grip, agricultural regions face diminished yields and economic pressure. When wildfire smoke drifts across borders, respiratory health deteriorates even hundreds of miles away. Stability in water, air and soil is inseparable from human wellbeing, and climate innovators working in these areas, such as BlueGreen Water Technologies, which restores threatened lakes, operate on the very front line of prevention.

Yet companies like BlueGreen often face a steep path to investment because their work benefits everyone but belongs to no single customer. A restored lake sustains tourism, agriculture, local economies, ecological health and community wellbeing. However, responsibility is spread across municipalities, counties, state agencies, and the Federal government and national ministries, all of which manage immediate crises that overshadow the slow, devastating progression of environmental decline.

The same challenge confronts innovators such as Solar Sister, which expands access to clean, safe solar energy for communities without reliable power, and the POP Movement, which mobilizes youth populations to drive local environmental action. Their impact is generational, and their value is immeasurable, yet their funding often relies on philanthropy or public grants, mechanisms that rarely match the scale of the problems they address.

Even climate technologies designed for industrial operations face the challenge of being essential but not urgent in public budgets. Infinite Cooling, for example, captures water evaporating from power-plant cooling towers, reclaiming resources that would otherwise be lost to the atmosphere. It offers a response to the costs of water as an essential business resource. Yet, because these benefits impact industries – from pharmaceutical companies to power plants – rather than county governments, adoption is championed by supply chain and corporate financial stewards. 

A similar story emerges from companies like Greenore, which is building biological solutions to regenerate soil systems. Healthy soil underpins food security, agricultural productivity and community resilience. It is as essential to global health as any medicine. However, soil restoration often lacks a corporate customer and competes with established agricultural practices and stretched public budgets.

Corporate Imperative: Climate Tech Cannot Wait

Compare these funding obstacles with the experiences of corporate-oriented climate tech innovators whose solutions support operations, reduce costs, or address regulatory pressures. Eco Wave Power illustrates the point with clarity. Its technology harnesses ocean waves to produce clean electricity, transforming coastal infrastructure into renewable-energy assets. For ports, industrial campuses, and commercial centers along coastlines, this is not only an environmental benefit but also an energy security strategy and an additional revenue source.  The value is concrete, the payer is clear. Operations leaders can place it within a capital plan.

The contrast is evident in how global companies behave. Cloud providers racing to meet AI demand are committing billions to renewable power purchases, as their data centers cannot operate without stable, cost-controlled energy. Manufacturing companies often sign long-term agreements for clean electricity because energy risk poses a significant threat to their production output and profitability. Logistics and e-commerce giants invest heavily in biodegradable packaging because regulations are tightening, and sustainable materials avoid reputational damage and secure supply chains. These forms of climate innovation do not wait for budget approvals across 10 public agencies. They fit within the clearly defined corporate operating model.

Two Speeds, One Planet

The result is a two-speed climate economy. The technologies that support business continuity scale quickly; in contrast, the technologies that protect the environmental foundations of life struggle to secure investment despite their importance.

The Galien Foundation EcoHealth dialogue highlighted the precarious nature of this imbalance. BlueGreen restores waterways before they collapse. Solar Sister brings clean energy into homes before households turn to harmful alternatives. Greenore regenerates soil before agricultural regions face collapse. POP Movement ensures communities are engaged before consequences become irreversible. However, without clear lines of accountability, these organizations perpetuate the existential paradox of the Myth of Sisyphus, who is constantly pushing the rock uphill only to see it roll down again and again.  The problem is real.  The solution is proven. The funding environment is challenging.

Meanwhile, corporate-oriented climate tech companies are racing to meet demand because their value proposition directly connects to corporate cost, efficiency, or continuity. Eco Wave Power and Infinite Cooling demonstrate how quickly solutions advance when they operate within a budget line rather than under a public-funding process.

The Answer That Determines the Future

The question, then, is not whether climate innovation exists; rather, it is whether it is effective. It is without question. The polemic is whether society is prepared to fund climate innovations that protect human survival with the same urgency as those that safeguard business operations.

Municipalities, counties, and state agencies are tasked with safeguarding water, soil and air; yet, public funding cycles often prioritize immediate crises over slow-burning threats. Tourism boards rely on restored lakes and healthy ecosystems, yet rarely have the budget authority to invest early. Agricultural departments rely on resilient soil, yet their funding models prioritize short-term yields over long-term regeneration. Responsibility is diffused across institutions, so that no one bears the full responsibility to allocate resources.

This is where climate tech faces its greatest challenge and where corporate and public leadership must step forward. Preventive climate action needs its equivalent to the payer system that supports access to health care. Blended finance, climate resilience bonds, public–private partnerships and impact investment models can help fill the gap. Policy can make restoration and resilience non-negotiable long before crises mature. Communication can transform the invisible and delayed into the immediate and owned.

The innovators showcased in the Galien Foundation EcoHealth dialogue offer a roadmap. Their work illustrates that climate technologies are not abstract “science fiction” climate solutions; they are the infrastructure of human continuity. They restore the systems that allow communities to thrive, and they ensure the global economy has the stable environmental foundations it requires.

The future of climate tech equity will be defined by whether society chooses to treat environmental health with the same seriousness as business operational resilience. Without an answer to who pays, one side of the climate tech industry will continue sprinting while the other waits for the world to catch up.  

The post The Climate Tech Paradox: Innovation Surges, But Who Pays? appeared first on Medika Life.

This highly respected journal has indicated that Earth has breached another boundary, and it’s in the oceans, turning toward a more acidic level than before. One cause is the enormous amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the air, which has accumulated at levels not seen in millions of years. And the answer isn’t as simple as dumping some Alka-Seltzer into the oceans. Yes, I once worked for a public relations company that actually did suggest that huge tablets of Alka-Seltzer could be pushed into lakes that were being acidified by falling leaves. I really don’t know how that ended.

While scientists have long documented how ocean acidification harms coral reefs and shellfish, the ripple effects don’t stop with ecosystems. They extend to human health — our bodies, our communities, and our minds. The story of acidification is also a story of nutrition loss, respiratory dangers, and psychological stress.

Physical Health: When the Sea Stops Giving

The physical effects of ocean acidification are better understood and already visible.

• Seafood under threat
Fish and shellfish provide protein for billions of people, yet acidified waters compromise their survival. Scientific reviews have noted that fisheries will have reduced fish stocks available in the future, which means a decrease in income as well as available food for individuals in that area. For coastal regions where seafood is a daily staple, the health impacts could be profound.

• Toxins in the food chain
Acidified waters alter how metals and pollutants move through ecosystems. The Climate Change Post reported that the acidification of the oceans has increased toxic metals in marine life that are taken up, and then this food is consumed by us. Increased availability of toxic metals, such as aluminum, copper, and lead, may increase risks of neurological, kidney, and developmental disorders.

• Airborne risks
Harmful algal blooms — expected to worsen with acidification — can release aerosolized toxins that irritate lungs. According to news-oceanacidification-icc.org has noted: “Human exposure can occur through direct contact, ingestion of contaminated seafood, or inhalation of aerosolized toxins.” For those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, this may mean worsening symptoms and hospitalizations.

I’ve been in Florida, where the red tide was affecting their west coast. The air became heavy with the toxins from the algae blooms, and I coughed as never before. Anyone who didn’t have notification by the various hotel industries would have foolishly exposed themselves to danger by vacationing there. Of course, the red tide was not advertised widely, and people did go and did experience health issues.

The coastline where I was staying was heaped with seagrass and hundreds of snails that were dying, as well as a young shark. Along much of the western coast of Florida, the bloom was noted on maps for anyone who sought information like this.

• Waterborne disease
As protective ecosystems like seagrass beds degrade, pathogens spread more easily in warmer, more acidic water. Gastrointestinal illness and skin infections may become more common in swimmers and seafood consumers. Is this why we are seeing an increase in the malicious tissue-destroying bacteria in the water down in the South?

• Coastal defenses weakened
Coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass meadows buffer storms and filter pollutants. As they erode, communities face a heightened risk of flooding, contaminated water supplies, and physical injury during extreme weather events.

Taken together, these effects suggest that acidification is not only an environmental issue — it is a public health challenge.

Mental Health: The Invisible Ripples

The psychological effects are less studied but just as real. Our connection to the ocean is emotional, cultural, and deeply human.

• Livelihood loss and stress
Fishing communities are among the most vulnerable. It’s obvious that the loss of income from fishing activities due to climate change will affect the mental health of these communities. Because of this finance-related stress, there will be an increase in depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. When a fisherman’s catch dwindles, the consequences ripple through families, schools, and local economies. So it’s not just the fishermen who will suffer, but the wide-ranging aspects of the entire community that will begin to falter.

• Cultural grief and solastalgia
When corals die or coastlines erode, people lose not only ecosystems but identity. The concept of solastalgia — grief caused by environmental change — describes the anguish of watching a beloved landscape transform into something unrecognizable. For Indigenous peoples and island nations, the loss of marine ecosystems undermines cultural continuity, traditional knowledge, and rituals tied to the sea. Currently, we are witnessing areas of the world where small communities are being submerged by ocean waves triggered by glacial melting associated with climate change.

• Loss of “blue space” benefits
  Healthy oceans function as “blue spaces” that restore calm, lower stress hormones, and encourage reflection. Studies consistently show that time spent near water reduces anxiety and boosts mood. It seems to be something comforting in this closeness to the water. Perhaps that stems from our evolutionary history.

When acidification bleaches reefs and empties coastal waters of life, the restorative power of the sea diminishes. In fact, researchers have noticed that a decrease in marine environments definitely has an impact on mental health.

• Climate anxiety in the young
Ocean acidification contributes to the broader phenomenon of climate anxiety. Young people in particular report distress, hopelessness, and fear about an uncertain future. Their anxiety is not irrational; it’s rooted in science and lived experience. Watching ecosystems collapse during formative years shapes their identity, mental health, and worldview.

• Inequality of burden

Marginalized coastal communities often bear the heaviest psychological load. Lower-income and minority communities may have fewer resources to adapt, leading to deeper stress and trauma.

In short, as oceans sour, human minds can suffer — sometimes quietly, but profoundly. There is no way around it unless we take drastic measures now to save our futures and those of our children and grandchildren.

A child who spends their childhood snorkeling through coral gardens will witness fish swimming between the living coral reefs. And that child will experience a profound shock when they see their former coral reefs transformed into lifeless, gray structures ten years later. The child will be left with either the fading memories of their wonder or the deep sorrow of losing something precious.

We now know that ocean acidification extends beyond its chemical and coral-related aspects. The process affects how people identify themselves while also threatening their sense of security and their mental ability to cope with challenges.

Protecting our oceans directly benefits human beings by safeguarding their physical health and mental well-being. If there is a slow, silent menace, it’s ocean acidification, which will inevitably affect us. However, the real question concerns our speed and empathy in taking action. When will the world realize that it MUST take action and CANNOT put it off?

The post Kill the Oceans and Destroy Your Health Slowly appeared first on Medika Life.

As someone who works in communications, I’ve watched this all unfold with a growing sense of urgency, not just because it affects my work, but because it affects the work of the entire ecosystem, from startups trying to commercialize to scientists and innovators trying to solve our biggest planetary problems.

We often talk about climate solutions needing scale. But before they scale, they need visibility. They need resonance. They need the world to understand why they matter.

Communicators as Ecosystem Builders

Marketing and communications professionals in the climate space have always worn many hats: translator, storyteller, advocate, pressure-tester. But lately, I’ve started to see our role differently: we are infrastructure. The strength of the message can determine the strength of the movement.

In Israel, where I work with several climate tech companies, there is no lack of innovative ventures; startups are tackling everything from water quality and waste to sustainable food systems and energy efficiency. But too often, their stories don’t reach the audiences that matter.

Whether it’s a lack of media attention, limited investor familiarity, or messaging that doesn’t translate across markets, the result is the same: solutions that could make a global impact remain under the radar. Recent research highlights that communication barriers, including conflicting values and lack of emotional engagement, are among the biggest obstacles to climate action.

This is a stark reminder of how critical effective, strategic communications is for companies needing that break. We can’t assume the science will speak for itself. Our job is to help it connect.

Tell the Story Behind the Science and Tech

Technical breakthroughs are important. But if we don’t communicate the human stakes — if we can’t answer “why does this matter, now?” — then even the most brilliant solutions will get buried in white papers and pitch decks.

Take Amai Proteins, an Israeli innovator creating sweet proteins that offer a healthier alternative to sugar. On the surface, that’s a biochemistry story. But it’s also a public health story; excess sugar consumption is linked to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, all of which disproportionately affect low-income communities and strain healthcare systems.

It’s a consumer behavior story, too. Shifting tastes and nutritional preferences are driving the food industry to rethink its ingredients, and “clean label” alternatives are in high demand.

Even RFK Jr., despite the controversy surrounding many of his opinions, is taking on food system reform, moving to eliminate dyes and other additives and expressing that he’d love to see sugar eliminated from the American diet.

And yes, it’s a climate resilience story. Sugarcane and sugar beet farming are resource-intensive crops that require large amounts of land, water, and fertilizer, all of which are vulnerable to climate disruptions. Replacing them with a low-footprint, precision-fermented protein could ease pressure on ecosystems and improve food system sustainability.

These are opportunities for communicators to widen the frame and show how innovations intersect with public values. That’s how a single ingredient becomes part of a bigger story.

Make Climate Action “Cool”

In a world drowning in doomscrolling, climate urgency isn’t enough. People want hope, and they want to feel like they’re part of something that’s not just necessary, but exciting.

We saw this with Tesla and the early days of the electric vehicle market. EVs didn’t catch on because people suddenly got worried about emissions; they caught on because someone made them desirable.

As marketers, we have the power to do the same for other sustainable technologies: to make algae cleanup, biodegradable packaging, or atmospheric water generation feel like the future, not a compromise.

Speak Across the Divide

Many of us are communicating in fragmented markets. Different regions, different priorities, different regulatory directions. But the best messaging finds common truths: Clean water. Job creation. Community resilience.

If you start the story with a universally accepted premise, you’ve created a foundation of trust from which to build.

FireDome, an Israeli startup inspired by the country’s Iron Dome missile defense system, offers a perfect example of this approach. FireDome has developed an AI-assisted solution to detect and suppress wildfires autonomously, addressing the increasing frequency and intensity of such events due to climate change — something we saw clearly in Israel last week.

FireDome’s story tightly aligns a climate solution with community benefits. Everyone can agree that defending against wildfires is a necessity to protect property and lives.

That’s because the impacts are clear. Last year’s wildfire, which raged through Southern California, left entire communities in ashes, dozens of people killed, over 150 thousand people displaced, and damages estimated between $250-$275 billion, according to AccuWeather.

The value of proactively defending against wildfires quickly becomes obvious. The alignment between technological outcomes and community values exemplifies how climate tech can build long-term momentum and break through with target audiences by highlighting these tangible benefits.

Building Communications into the Business Model

Startups often focus intensely on R&D, product-market fit, and fundraising — and rightly so. But communications can’t just be an add-on, revisited only when there’s “good news” to share.

If we believe climate solutions are essential, then we need to treat communications as essential, too –not an afterthought or a slide at the end of the pitch deck, but a foundational part of the company’s infrastructure.

Strategic communications, embedded early, does more than explain what a company does; it shapes how it’s understood by investors, partners, policymakers and the public.

The right narrative can open doors, build credibility, and help a startup punch above its weight. Because climate solutions don’t just need to work. They need to land. And that’s where strong, unifying, value-driven messaging makes all the difference.

The post Why Israel’s Brilliant Climate Solutions Are Still Invisible appeared first on Medika Life.

Climate change is the worst crisis humanity is currently facing. The evidence is clear with the stark differences in climate-related incidents across the globe. While Dubai received torrential rainfall, causing flash floods, people across various parts of Asia are grappling with heatwaves, leading to severe water shortages, with poorer communities being the worst affected. The Earth is boiling, quite literally, and resources have been stretched to the limit as the population grows, foreshadowing devastating consequences for future generations. Public health, in particular, is reeling from this crisis as the prevalence of communicable and non-communicable diseases grows at a startling rate. Between 2000 and 2019, almost 489,000 people died each year due to heat-related illnesses, with 45% in Asia and 36% in Europe.[1] Rising temperatures are responsible for not just public health emergencies, they can affect health services. Public health is the first line of defense during a crisis of this magnitude, and as systems across the globe struggle to cope, the outlook seems bleak.

Disease prevention, treatment, accessibility, equity, and protection of the environment are all essential facets of health that aim to enhance the well-being of the public. The main goal of sustainability is to meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the needs of future generations. The crux of both these concepts is the adoption of holistic practices that provide long-term welfare over short-term respite. Hence, it is crucial to understand how health and sustainability go hand-in-hand to help humanity weather the current crisis.

Making health sustainable

The health sector is responsible for between 4.4% and 5.2% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.[2] This creates a paradoxical situation wherein the systems created to help can harm the well-being of the public. Health services comprise energy-intensive activities, from maintaining hospitals to creating life-saving medicines. Reducing the carbon footprint would be the first step towards making health sustainable. The solutions to this problem boil down to three categories — switching to non-fossil energy, storing energy, and conserving energy. Rather than solely depending on non-renewable sources of energy, the sector must start adopting renewable sources such as wind or solar energy. This helps build resilience to adverse climate-related events and can provide a positive socioeconomic impact.

A critical aspect of health that is often overlooked is the significance of preventive care. Countries that are a part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development spend less than 3% on preventive care.[3] Prevention is important in reducing the overuse of resources in health, which can result in reducing the carbon footprint. Several short and long-term sustainability goals can be achieved through primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. A robust global vaccination programme must be implemented to decrease resource consumption. Furthermore, encouraging the public to adopt a healthy lifestyle empowers them to take an active role in enhancing their well-being.

Public health is often highly fragmented as patients may have to go to several points along the treatment pathway. Improving access to early diagnosis and providing one-stop solutions can make this process easier and more sustainable. Policymakers and other stakeholders can drive systemic change by encouraging people to adopt preventive measures to reduce the disease burden and health consumption.

There are several indirect ways in which health can become more sustainable. For instance, encouraging the adoption of telemedicine in cases where the patient does not need to be physically present. Governments must create policies that encourage the sustainable procurement of ingredients for medicines, using greener methods of transportation, embracing a circular economy, and employing safe waste disposal methods.

Public health and sustainability have a symbiotic relationship that requires our utmost attention. COVID-19 may not be the last health crisis we witness in our lifetimes. This is especially true due to climate change, which can exacerbate more than half of the known human pathogenic diseases.[4] As health communicators our task is twofold — drawing attention to the brewing health crisis while shedding light on climate change and its implications. The future hinges on sustainability and integrating it into the health system while not compromising on quality. The transition needs to start now.

[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-heat-and-health

[2] https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/confronting-health-cares-carbon-footprint#:~:text=Data%20suggest%20that%20the%20global,contribute%202%20to%205%20percent.

[3] https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/boosting-investment-in-health-systems-will-be-essential-to-deal-with-future-shocks.htm

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01426-1

The post The intersection of Public Health and Sustainability: Why it Matters Now More Than Ever appeared first on Medika Life.

The Significance of New York Climate Week

New York Climate Week, hosted by the Climate Group in collaboration with the United Nations and other partners, serves as a platform for governments, businesses, and civil society to showcase their commitments to climate action. Since its inception, the event has played a crucial role in galvanizing global efforts to combat climate change, with leaders announcing ambitious pledges and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster sustainability.

One of the critical features of Climate Week is the Climate Week NYC Hub, a series of events and workshops focused on various aspects of climate action, from renewable energy to sustainable finance. This hub serves as a melting pot of ideas and solutions, fostering stakeholder collaboration and innovation.

The Intersection of Climate and Politics

The intersection of climate and politics becomes particularly pronounced in an election year. Political leaders are not only under pressure to address the pressing issues of the day but also to appeal to their voter base and secure reelection. This dynamic can influence the discourse surrounding climate action, potentially shaping the outcomes of events like New York Climate Week.

However, the politicization of climate change poses a significant challenge to meaningful progress. Partisan divides can sometimes hinder bipartisan cooperation on sustainability policies, leading to gridlock and a failure to build any meaningful momentum. Additionally, short-term political goals may take precedence over long-term environmental objectives, undermining the urgency of climate action.

The seemingly endless push and pull between what the environment demands at this moment and moving forward and what policymakers are willing to agree on may prove disastrous if we cannot collectively overcome bad-faith actors and engage in solutions-oriented negotiations on common, fact-centered ground.

The Role of Leadership

Despite these challenges, political, social, and corporate leadership remains crucial in driving sustainability policy forward. Political leaders can set the agenda, prioritize climate action, and mobilize resources to support renewable energy, conservation efforts, and other sustainability initiatives.

Moreover, corporate leaders are pivotal in advancing sustainability goals through corporate social responsibility initiatives, supply chain management, and investment in clean technologies. By aligning their business practices with environmental stewardship, companies can contribute to a more sustainable future while enhancing their reputation and competitiveness in the market.

The Role of Corporations

Corporations wield significant influence in the fight against climate change, given their economic power, resources, and ability to drive innovation. Their participation and engagement during New York Climate Week can significantly contribute to the success of the event and the advancement of sustainability goals. Corporate communications, in particular, can play a crucial role in amplifying the impact of Climate Week initiatives and fostering collaboration among businesses, governments, and civil society. Here’s how corporations and their communication strategies can make Climate Week a success:

1. Demonstrating Commitment to Sustainability

Corporate participation in New York Climate Week sends a powerful commitment to sustainability and climate action. By showcasing their initiatives, achievements, and commitments to reducing carbon emissions, conserving natural resources, and promoting renewable energy, corporations can inspire others to follow suit. Whether through keynote speeches, panel discussions, or interactive exhibits, companies can use Climate Week to highlight their sustainability efforts and demonstrate leadership in addressing climate change.

2. Sharing Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Climate Week allows corporations to share best practices, lessons learned, and success stories in sustainability. Through workshops, roundtable discussions, and networking events, businesses can exchange knowledge and expertise on energy efficiency, carbon management, supply chain sustainability, and circular economy initiatives. By sharing insights and collaborating with peers, corporations can accelerate progress toward common sustainability goals and drive collective action.

3. Engaging Stakeholders and Building Partnerships

Corporate communications are crucial in engaging stakeholders and building partnerships during Climate Week. Through strategic messaging, storytelling, and outreach efforts, companies can effectively communicate their sustainability priorities, values, and achievements to employees, customers, investors, and the broader public. By fostering transparency and dialogue, corporations can build trust and credibility, strengthen stakeholder relationships, and cultivate a supportive ecosystem for climate action.

4. Mobilizing Resources and Driving Innovation

Corporations have the resources and expertise to drive innovation and scale up solutions for climate change. During Climate Week, companies can announce new investments, partnerships, and initiatives to advance sustainability goals, such as renewable energy projects, green technology innovations, and sustainable supply chain initiatives. By mobilizing financial resources, technical expertise, and market influence, corporations can catalyze innovation and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.

5. Advocating for Policy Change and Collective Action

Corporate communications can also play a role in advocating for policy change and collective action on climate issues. Companies can advocate for supportive policy frameworks, incentives, and regulations that promote sustainability and drive investment in clean energy and climate resilience by engaging with policymakers, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Through public advocacy campaigns, thought leadership initiatives, and corporate lobbying efforts, corporations can leverage their influence to shape public policy and drive systemic change.

The Power of Collective Action

At its core, New York Climate Week is about collective action. It brings together stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, united by a common goal: to address the climate crisis and build a more sustainable world. Through collaboration and dialogue, participants can identify shared challenges and opportunities, forge partnerships, and catalyze change at scale.

Moreover, the outcomes of New York Climate Week can extend far beyond the event itself. Pledges made and initiatives launched during the week can inspire further action and investment, both at the local and global levels. By amplifying the voices of leaders committed to climate action, Climate Week has the potential to mobilize public support and pressure policymakers to prioritize sustainability policy.

The Role of Public Engagement

Public engagement is also critical in driving momentum for sustainability policy. Citizens can hold their elected officials accountable, advocate for climate-friendly policies, and support businesses prioritizing environmental responsibility. Grassroots movements, youth activism, and community-led initiatives can all significantly shape the political landscape and drive meaningful change.

Monitoring the critical conversations at Climate Week can be a challenge for the concerned individual citizen, but finding a non-profit or advocacy organization to align with either in a membership capacity or even to follow on social media and receive updates may provide a more complete picture of how the sustainability conversation is being framed.

In an election year, the power of the electorate to influence policy outcomes is especially pronounced. By demanding action on climate change and making sustainability a top priority at the ballot box, voters can send a clear message to policymakers about the importance of environmental stewardship. Staying informed is critical.

COP v. Climate Week: Global Gatherings with Very Different Tenors

New York Climate Week is just one of the significant global gatherings focused on climate on the calendar. COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, will happen shortly after the United States elections in November. While New York Climate Week and the Conference of the Parties (COP) bring together global stakeholders to address climate change, they differ in scope, format, and objectives. Understanding these distinctions is essential for assessing how New York Climate Week may shift paradigms in the fight for sustainability policy, particularly as America chooses its next president.

1. Scope and Focus

COP conferences, organized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), are large-scale international gatherings where countries negotiate and finalize multilateral agreements on climate change. These agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, set binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and establish frameworks for international cooperation on climate action.

In contrast, New York Climate Week is a more diverse and decentralized event, encompassing a wide range of stakeholders beyond national governments. While COP conferences primarily involve government representatives, Climate Week engages businesses, civil society organizations, and local governments, fostering a potentially more holistic approach to climate action.

2. Format and Structure

COP conferences follow a structured negotiation process, with formal plenary sessions, working groups, and side events focused on specific issues. These conferences culminate in adopting official documents, such as the COP decisions and the conference outcome reports, which serve as the basis for international climate policy.

New York Climate Week, on the other hand, features a more fluid and dynamic format, with various events, panel discussions, and workshops hosted by multiple organizations and stakeholders. While Climate Week lacks the formal decision-making authority of COP conferences, it provides a platform for networking, knowledge sharing, and collaboration, driving momentum for climate action at all levels.

3. Objectives and Outcomes

The primary objective of COP conferences is to negotiate and finalize international agreements on climate change, focusing on achieving consensus among participating countries. These agreements often set long-term targets and timelines for emissions reductions and mechanisms for financial assistance and technology transfer to support developing countries in their climate efforts.

In contrast, the objectives of New York Climate Week are more diverse and multifaceted. While the event aims to showcase commitments and initiatives from various stakeholders, its ultimate goal is to mobilize action and catalyze momentum for climate solutions. The outcomes of Climate Week may include new partnerships, initiatives, and pledges, as well as increased public awareness and engagement on climate issues.

4. Political Context

Another key difference between New York Climate Week and COP conferences is the political context in which they occur. While the UNFCCC process governs COP conferences and involves formal negotiations among countries, Climate Week takes place in a broader political landscape shaped by national and regional dynamics.

In an election year, the political context surrounding New York Climate Week may be particularly significant as policymakers seek to demonstrate leadership on climate issues to their constituents. However, participating countries’ domestic political priorities may influence the ambition and commitment they bring to the event.

As New York Climate Week approaches, the stakes remain high. Amid an election year, the event has the potential to catalyze momentum for sustainability policy, but it also faces challenges posed by political polarization and short-term thinking. Nevertheless, the power of collective action, leadership, and public engagement is a proven combination that gets results. We can build a more sustainable future for future generations by coming together to address the climate crisis. As individuals, businesses, and governments, we all have a role in moving the needle toward a more sustainable world.

The post New York Climate Week in an Election Year appeared first on Medika Life.

Studies have shown that changes in the weather have a greater effect on our emotions and mental health than they usually do. During the dark season, some people experience what is known as “winter depression,” or seasonal affective disorder (SAD). This condition involves not just the usual depressive symptoms but also increased appetite, weight gain, and excessive sleepiness, which results in longer sleep duration and fatigue during the day. While it may leave us feeling grumpy or a bit less usual to skate through emotional ups and downs, it is becoming more of a problem for industry and social relationships.

One study in Finland accessed records for sick days taken over twelve years with nearly 700,000 people’s data. The results were nothing short of eye-opening for researchers who wondered if climate change truly was affecting our mental health.

A review of the data revealed that manic episodes reached a peak from March to July and dipped in September–November and in January–February; unipolar depressive disorders peaked in October–November and dipped in July, with similar associations in all forms of depression; anxiety and non-organic sleep disorders peaked in October–November; anxiety disorders dipped in January–February and in July–August, while non-organic sleep disorders dipped in April–August. Seasonality was not dependent on the severity of the depressive disorder. Researchers then began to look at patterns of light exposure.

The findings from Norway, which suggest brighter summers and darker winters, can help clinicians and workplaces prepare for seasonal variations in healthcare needs. The results suggest a seasonal variation in sick leave due to common mental disorders and bipolar disorder, with high peaks in depressive, anxiety, and sleep disorders towards the end of the year and a peak in manic episodes starting in spring. Rapid changes in light exposure may have an impact on bipolar disorder-related sick leave.

Variations in circadian rhythms are likely to prominently mediate these seasonal effects since light strongly entrains the internal clock, modifying brain function. Seasonality patterns are reported in a variety of psychiatric disorders. Brain adaptations associated with seasonal changes, factors that contribute to individual differences, and their implications for psychiatric disorders are all being studied.

The availability of light has an impact on serotonin, a neurotransmitter that is essential for happiness and mood regulation. Photoperiodic adaptation of the human brain’s circadian system may be the cause of changes connected to sunrise and sunset timing. If we have more gloomy days than light ones, it stands to reason that our mood may be affected.

I once had a clinical supervisor who wrote his dissertation on the effect a specific season of clouding fog in Switzerland had on the emotions of the people in that particular region—and this was well before we began to understand SAD and reading public were introduced to the concept.

While social influences and pressures associated with the season, such as holidays and school schedules, can influence symptoms, strong evidence indicates that biological processes are a major contributor to the observed seasonality. If birds are pushed to migrate by light hitting a small area in their brain behind a delicate bone near the beak, we aren’t very different. We may not migrate, but we do change our moods and behaviors.

But changing light conditions aren’t the only way climate change is increasing mental health issues. Children are often very resilient, and their reactions to disasters may resolve over time, but they should be monitored for the long-term effects of chronic stress. Other factors that contribute to children’s distress include disruptions in routine, separation from caregivers as a result of evacuations or displacement, and parental stress following a disaster.

How much thought has been given or action taken relative to climate change in addition to mood changes? Lack of rain and erratic weather patterns also contribute. Forest fires contribute to pollution, which can also carry environmental pollutants from burning structures. Air pollution has been shown to increase the risk of autism, lower cognitive ability, and cause more ADHD and behavioral problems in children, as well as increase the risk of dementia, particularly Alzheimer’s dementia, in adults.

While there are many other sources of air pollution, the use of fossil fuels accounts for 85 percent of all air pollution. This particulate air pollution can travel to the brain in the blood vessels and in nerve cells, where it causes inflammatory cell damage. We already know that depression is probably associated with some degree of inflammation.

It’s not about weather changes; it’s about major health concerns that will only increase as our Earth is scorched and resources are lost.

The post Climate Change Is Bringing on Yet More “Blues” in Our Lives appeared first on Medika Life.

The Alarming Thresholds

The Global Tipping Points report, a landmark study by a team of 200 researchers funded by the Bezos Earth Fund, alarmingly indicates that humanity is on the cusp of breaching five critical natural thresholds. These include the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the extensive permafrost thawing, the dying off of coral reefs in warm waters, and the breakdown of atmospheric circulation in the North Atlantic. These shifts are not incremental but can cause the climate to abruptly shift from one state to another, leading to irreversible and extensive impacts.

The Domino Effect of Tipping Points

Tim Lenton from the University of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute highlights the profound implications of these tipping points, stating, “Tipping points in the Earth system pose threats of a magnitude never faced by humanity.” He discusses the cascading effects, including the loss of vital ecosystems and agricultural capability, which can lead to societal upheavals like mass displacement, political instability, and economic collapse.

Three More Tipping Points on the Horizon

The report also cautions that three additional systems may reach their tipping points in the 2030s if global warming exceeds 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. These include mangroves, seagrass meadows, and boreal forests, with a tipping point between 1.4C and 5C warming.

The COP28 Climate Summit and Emissions Targets

In the context of these warnings, the COP28 climate summit in Dubai takes on even greater significance. However, Climate Action Tracker’s recent estimates suggest that 2030 emissions targets would result in a 2.5C rise in temperature by the end of the century, significantly overshooting the 1.5C goal.

Feedback Loops and Cascading Effects

The report underscores the potential for feedback loops that can exacerbate global warming or trigger other tipping points. For example, melting the Greenland ice sheet could disrupt the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, impacting global weather patterns, including the El Niño southern oscillation.

The Uncertainty and Urgency

Despite uncertainties around the timing of these shifts, co-author Sina Loriani from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research emphasises the urgency, noting the irreversible changes these thresholds could trigger for centuries to come.

IPCC’s Findings on Tipping Points

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports these findings, acknowledging that while precise tipping points are unclear, the risks become more acute with increasing temperatures.

The Flip Side: Positive Tipping Points

The report also highlights ‘positive tipping points’ like the rapid decline in renewable energy costs and the growth of electric vehicle sales. However, these positive changes require proactive strategies involving innovation, market development, regulation, and public engagement.

A Call for Caution and Action

Co-author Manjana Milkoreit urges caution in over-relying on social tipping points without scalable and controllable solutions, advocating for a balanced approach that combines hope with realism.

Conclusion

As COP28 unfolds, the scientific community sends a clear message: immediate action is crucial. Earth’s proximity to irreversible environmental tipping points calls for a united, global response to combat climate change and adopt sustainable solutions. Our choices today are vital for the planet’s future and the legacy we leave for the next generations.

The post Five Catastrophic Climate Tipping Points Loom, Scientists Alert appeared first on Medika Life.

Sultan Al Jaber, the UAE’s special climate envoy, insists cooperation, not confrontation, is vital. As CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, he argues that fossil-fuel expertise can enable change, stating, “We cannot simply unplug the current energy system.”

Other voices strongly disagree. “The fossil fuel industry has been actively aggravating the climate crisis and blocking progress for decades,” said Harjeet Singh of Climate Action Network International. With COP28 now being steered by a fossil-fuel giant, activists warn of an intractable conflict of interest.

So what steps are oil and gas companies taking as scrutiny mounts? Many tout emissions reductions, carbon offsets and token renewable investments to polish their image. But as the UN and activists highlight, expanding hydrocarbon energy production utterly contradicts climate goals.

But how committed is the industry beyond superficial greenwashing?

The Proof is in the Projects

In 2021 alone, fossil fuel companies allocated over $100 billion to new upstream projects, according to a report from the International Energy Agency. This continues a long-term trend of channelling billions into extracting yet more oil, gas and coal — the prime driver of climate change.

Meanwhile, renewable energy investments pale in comparison. The largest fossil fuel corporations each spend 100 times more on extraction than on fledgling green energy projects.

Bottom lines still dominate boardroom strategy, reflecting an industry clinging to business as usual amid the climate storm. This underscores the limited sway of voluntary measures lacking regulatory teeth.

The UN Secretary-General recently declared, “New funding for fossil fuel exploration and production is delusional.” Until investment flows fundamentally shift, fossil fuel companies ‘net zero commitments seem more PR than progress.

Pressuring a Powerful Lobby

Dwarfed by Big Oil’s muscle, progressive policymakers face intense headwinds driving change. In the US alone, fossil fuel companies spent over $100 million lobbying Congress in 2022.

Their obstructionism also reared its head in the EU, where leaked documents revealed ExxonMobil and Shell lobbying fiercely against stronger climate policy. Such political influence impedes urgently needed frameworks to wind down coal, oil and gas.

With COP28 now chaired by an oil major CEO, activists caution that commercial interests could again overpower climate imperatives. “Fossil fuel producers should not be close to the climate negotiating table,” said Chiara Martinelli of Climate Action Network Europe.

So, how do we counter their outsized clout? Grassroots pressure and sinking clean energy costs help, but putting health over profit remains difficult. “The fossil fuel industry’s invisible hand is still writing our future,” laments Greenpeace EU climate campaigner Silvia Pastorelli.

Vision for a Just Transition

Beyond highlighting obstructionism, civil society groups say constructive ideas are vital in spurring change. We must consider transitional support in a fossil-fuel phase-out for workers and communities, including low-income countries dependent on oil and gas revenue.

A well-managed transition can bring significant benefits to public health, the environment and society. But it hinges on unprecedented cooperation among governments, corporations and citizens.

The Poor Peoples’ Campaign, a US social justice movement, promotes a vision for change centred on equity and care for marginalised groups. Alongside fossil fuel reductions, their platform calls for renewable energy access, green jobs, climate finance, and adaptation support for vulnerable nations.

With vast renewable potential worldwide, an inclusive transition can improve lives while replacing polluting infrastructure. But political will is vital to steer change and ensure its benefits are justly distributed.

Seeds of a Sustainable Future

From Australia to Nigeria, inspiring examples demonstrate what grassroots climate solutions can achieve. In the coal-reliant Australian state of Victoria, citizen groups helped push the state to enshrine a renewable energy target of 50% by 2030 in law. Nigeria’s vibrant off-grid solar market leapfrogged inadequate national electricity access, with small firms providing clean power to millions.

People-centred initiatives like these offer hope of a better future free from fossil fuel dependence. But they urgently need the support of climate policy and investment at scale. As global emissions continue to rise, replicating these successes remains a race against time.

With COP28 now on the horizon, the crossroads is clear. On one hand, further climate inaction raises dire threats to human security and ecological stability. On the other, a new chapter remains possible — one where clean energy and social equity triumph over the grip of fossil fuels.

Far more unites than divides us in forging this future. Protecting lives and livelihoods is a universal aim. The tools to achieve it exist. But at COP28 and beyond, we face a moment of truth demanding courage, care and perseverance like never before. The stakes could not be higher.

The post The Fossil Fuel Conundrum on the Road to COP28 appeared first on Medika Life.

The world has long been dependent on petroleum-based plastics. They are cheap, durable, and versatile, finding applications from healthcare to consumer goods. Plastic has historically been an affordable material to produce and use, largely due to the relatively low cost of oil. However, the environmental toll is immense, and with rising oil prices approaching US $100 per barrel for Kuwait Export Blend on 15th September 2023, The economics behind plastics are being reevaluated. This brings us to a crucial comparison: petroleum-based plastics vs. bioplastics.

A crude oil component called ‘naphtha’ is at the core of plastic production. The proportion of naphtha (from naphthenes) in crude oil can vary based on the specific type of oil, but it generally constitutes between 15% and 30% of the crude oil by weight. Consequently, even if there is a decline in the demand for oil for heating and powering internal combustion engine vehicles, our existing or increasing need for petroleum-based plastics necessitates continued oil extraction at current levels.

The True Cost of Petroleum-Based Plastics

Petroleum-based plastics generally range from US $1 to US $5 per kilogram. However, these prices are influenced by fluctuating oil prices. When oil exceeds US $100 a barrel, the cost of producing petroleum-based plastics can increase significantly, possibly reaching upwards of US $6 or US $7 per kilogram. For context, 1.9 kilograms of crude oil is required for 1 kilogram of plastic.

What often goes unmentioned are the hidden environmental and public health costs. From carbon emissions during production to microplastics contaminating water bodies, the externalities are far-reaching. In the context of global public health, the long-term impact could be costly treatments for diseases triggered by environmental degradation. Considering these hidden costs, it’s clear that we need to reevaluate our reliance on petroleum-based plastics. Enter the promising alternative: bioplastics.

Consider the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This floating “island” of plastic debris in the Pacific Ocean spans an area twice the size of Texas. It consists primarily of microplastics — tiny particles that fish often mistake for food. Not only does this harm marine life, but these plastics also enter the food chain, ultimately consumed by humans. Studies have shown that microplastics can carry harmful pathogens and toxic chemicals, which raise serious concerns for global public health.

The Cost of Bioplastics: More Than Just Numbers

As we look for ways to mitigate the environmental impact of our consumption habits, a crucial question arises: are people willing to pay a little more for bioplastics to promote sustainability? Bioplastics are usually more expensive, ranging from around US $2.5 to US $15 per kilogram. This is partly due to less mature production processes and smaller economies of scale. Bioplastic prices are expected to drop as production and distribution processes become more streamlined. For example, the price of Polylactic acid (PLA) has fallen by 50 percent since its introduction in 2007, with an average drop of 9 percent annually.

Bioplastics are a revolutionary subset of plastics that have piqued interest for their environmentally friendly pedigree. Unlike traditional plastics, predominantly synthesised from fossil fuels like petroleum, bioplastics are crafted from renewable biological resources. These can range from corn starch and sugarcane to more avant-garde materials like algae. This shift in raw materials has profound implications for sustainability. Among these next-gen materials, PLA bioplastic is a prime example of how far we’ve come in creating eco-friendly alternatives.

PLA bioplastic is a versatile material with a wide range of applications. It’s commonly used in food packaging, including containers, cups, trays, and packaging films and wraps. Beyond packaging, PLA is ideal for creating utensils, shopping bags, and rubbish (or trash) bags. It’s also used in plant pots, textiles and fabrics. For the tech-savvy, PLA is a popular filament in most 3D printers, prized for its detailed printing capabilities. In the medical field, PLA is highly valued for implants and sutures, as it breaks down harmlessly in the body over time. Additionally, it’s a material found in various consumer goods, from toys and cellphone cases to sunglasses frames.

However, bioplastics often boast a reduced carbon footprint and lesser environmental impact, aligning more closely with sustainability objectives. This is a crucial consideration when integrating public health goals and environmental responsibility. In particular, bioplastics offer a reduction in carbon emissions from fossil fuel-based materials. The production of bio-based plastics requires up to 90 percent less energy than traditional plastics and has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80 percent.

One such example is the case of NatureWorks LLC, a leading company in producing Ingeo biopolymer, which is made from plants like sugarcane. According to studies and life cycle assessments conducted on their bioplastics, NatureWorks found that their Ingeo biopolymer could produce up to 60–80% less greenhouse gases and consume approximately 50% less non-renewable energy during production than traditional plastics like PET and PS.

Are all bioplastics sustainable?

It’s essential to note that not all bioplastics are equally sustainable. The source of the biological material, the agricultural practices involved, and the biodegradability of the final product are all factors that need to be scrutinised. For instance, corn is a monoculture crop, often grown in vast fields requiring significant synthetic fertiliser and pesticide inputs. These chemicals can run off into waterways, leading to nutrient pollution and other environmental issues. The energy used for planting, cultivating, and harvesting the corn also contributes to its environmental footprint. And let’s remember the ethical concerns related to using food-grade corn for plastic production while food insecurity remains a problem in many parts of the world.

Theoretically, bioplastics made from agricultural byproducts, such as corn or sugarcane, are more sustainable than those derived from food crops. But it’s important to note that food crops can be grown on land suitable for other purposes, such as grazing pastures and forests. Thus, if we were to use these crops for bio-based plastics instead of human consumption, we would need additional land to meet global demand.

Bioplastics often have a lower carbon footprint during production compared to petroleum-based plastics. Plants absorb CO2 as they grow, offsetting some emissions generated during production. However, it’s essential to consider agricultural practices, such as pesticide use and land conversion, which can add to the environmental impact.

However, curbside recycling is increasingly a common practice. You can typically dispose of bioplastics in your curbside recycling bin. Many communities have separate bins for plastic and paper collected weekly in a local curbside recycling program.

Bioplastics can require significant amounts of water and energy during production. In some cases, energy might come from non-renewable sources, negating some environmental benefits. However, a 2009 study found that one type of corn-based bioplastic requires significantly less energy than traditional plastics made from petroleum.

Companies might market bioplastics as “green” or “eco-friendly,” but the environmental benefits vary widely. This can mislead consumers and stakeholders, especially those keen on making sustainable choices.

Carbon sequestration — another perspective

While bioplastics have been spotlighted for their potential to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and lower carbon footprints, it’s crucial to recognise other innovative strategies to mitigate environmental impact. One such promising avenue explores the possibilities of Carbon Sequestration — a concept that goes beyond mere storage of CO2 to its productive utilisation.

CO2 from carbon sequestration or carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be turned into plastic. There are several different ways to do this, but they all involve using catalysts to convert the CO2 into other chemicals that can then be used to make plastic. This process is called carbon capture and utilisation (CCU). Plastic is just one product; others include synthetic fuels, building materials and fertiliser.

While still an emerging area, companies like Newlight Technologies are pioneering this space. Newlight uses carbon capture technology to convert greenhouse gases like methane and CO2 into a bioplastic material called AirCarbon. This material is then used in everything from furniture to packaging, effectively sequestering the carbon and reducing the product’s overall carbon footprint

Alternatively, using a catalyst to convert CO2 into ethylene a basic building block for many plastics. This can be done using various catalysts, such as nickel and cobalt. Once the CO2 has been converted into ethylene, it can be used to make a variety of plastics, such as polyethylene and polypropylene.

Another approach is to use a catalyst to convert CO2 into propylene, another basic plastic building block. This can also be done using a variety of different catalysts. Once the CO2 has been converted into propylene, it can be used to make a variety of plastics, such as polypropylene and polystyrene. Given that propylene is one of the most widely used plastic materials globally, even a small percentage shift to a more sustainable production method could have significant global implications.

When Oil Prices Skyrocket: A Comparative Analysis

As oil prices continue their unpredictable dance, close to hitting the US $100 mark or more, the financial landscape for plastics is dramatically shifting. The spike in oil prices directly affects the cost of production for petroleum-based plastics, making them less economically appealing. On the flip side, this creates a golden opportunity for bioplastics to become not just an environmentally responsible choice but a financially prudent one.

High oil prices can serve as a catalyst for change, forcing industries to reevaluate their material choices. In sectors like healthcare, where both plastics are widely used, this reevaluation could lead to more sustainable practices that resonate with broader public health and climate goals.

While petroleum-based plastics have long been the default choice due to their affordability and versatility, the changing landscape of oil economics and the urgent need to tackle climate change make it imperative to consider bioplastics an increasingly viable alternative. As we evaluate these options, understanding the nuanced monetary and environmental costs is crucial for making decisions that align with economic sustainability and ethical responsibility. The time for reevaluation is now; the choices we make today will sculpt the future we will live in. What kind of plastic will shape your future? The answer to this question can propel us all towards a more sustainable, healthier planet.

The post When Oil Hits $100: The Cost Dynamics of Petroleum-Based Plastics vs Bioplastics Shifts — What Kind of Plastic Will Shape Your Future? appeared first on Medika Life.

Attending the ENBEL (Enhancing Belmont Research Action to support EU policy-making on climate change and health) conference in Brussels, which focused on ‘Health Impacts of Climate Change — Advancing the European Adaptation Agenda to 2030,’ profoundly heightened my awareness of the pressing need for more robust financial resources in health adaptation to climate change. The conference unequivocally illuminated that current levels of health adaptation funding for addressing climate-related challenges are woefully inadequate.

New research, funded by ENBEL, provides concerning evidence that only a tiny fraction of international climate adaptation financing has been directed towards health needs over the past decade. Analysing data from 2009–2019, just 4.9% of multilateral and bilateral climate adaptation funds went to health projects globally. This equates to only US$ 1.4 billion out of over US$ 29 billion in total adaptation financing over a ten-year period. Worse still is the pitiful amount for projects with explicit health objectives, just US$ 0.1 billion.

Not only are overall volumes low, but very little targets core health system needs. Projects where health was the primary focus made up only 0.5% of multilateral climate funding, mostly for infectious disease control and surveillance. Vital areas like heat warning systems, climate-resilient health facilities, expanded mental health services, and local community health adaptation still lack investment.

The implications are troubling. As the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change clarifies, climate change already contributes to disease, death, and health inequality worldwide. The Lancet Countdown tracks health financing via an indicator, showing a year-on-year increase in health adaptation spending from 4.6% in 2015–2016 to 5.6% in 2020–2021. However, more is needed to manage the health burden of recent climate events.

Sub-Saharan Africa faces an especially heavy burden yet still needs commensurate international support. The World Bank predicts the region will incur 80% of the global rise in climate-linked malaria and diarrheal disease by 2050. This will further strain overburdened health systems.

Adaptation financing can help change course. Funding water and sanitation systems adapted for climate extremes reduces water-borne illness. Warning systems allow preparation for heat waves and disasters. Resilient clinics maintain health services through storms and floods. We have the knowledge and tools for health adaptation but need the resources to implement them at scale.

Some progress was made at COP27, with a breakthrough agreement on a new “loss and damage” fund to support climate-vulnerable developing countries. But major gaps remain. Health ministries have yet to fully access climate funding opportunities, whilst health benefits often remain assumed, not measured, in many adaptation projects across sectors like agriculture and water. Accurate tracking of health financing is essential to verify where money flows.

Addressing the shortfall in climate funding for health adaptation is a shared responsibility that extends well beyond the donors. It’s imperative for governments in developing countries to prioritise health adaptation in their national climate plans and investments. Health leaders have a role in better articulating the risks and suggesting viable solutions.

Above all, the broader ecosystem of health financing — encompassing governments, global health organisations, and corporations — must internalise that climate resilience is not a separate issue but an integral component of strengthening health systems and achieving universal health coverage. As we ponder the pivotal question raised in the beginning — where will the needed funds come from — it’s clear that our collective health depends on an inclusive, multifaceted approach to financing climate resilience.

The post Climate Change is a Health Crisis, So Why is Health Adaptation Financing Still Lacking? appeared first on Medika Life.