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.

The lead content of surface enamel at that time was determined to be high. A number of widely used dentifrices were tested for lead since it was suspected that they could be a source of this element. Every single sample tested positive for lead.

Toothpaste samples taken from certain brands showed high levels of lead in the areas immediately surrounding the product container’s walls. When squeezed from nearly empty tubes, the paste contained substantial levels of lead in these tests. These findings left little doubt that these products contained a neurotoxin that could cause harm if ingested. How many years ago was that? Yes, that was 45 years ago, and we have continued to use products that may not be as safe as they should be. But what’s the specific problem, and shouldn’t we have been protected by the agencies given that charge?

Children and Lead Exposure

There are several well-documented negative impacts of lead exposure on children’s health, including:

Brain and neurological system injury
Decreased development
Issues with learning and conduct disorders
Speech and hearing impairments

Resulting in:

Reduced intelligence of a lifelong nature
Minimal capacity for sustained attention
Academic underachievement

In children, we need to be especially concerned, as this is where the most damage can occur, and the consequences can be lifelong. Lead is harmful to children because it enters the bloodstream rapidly. Once in the bloodstream, lead is transported to the brain, bones, and every part of a child’s body. It is insidious and may not be detected immediately except when specific blood tests are performed. The question here, of course, is whether or not lead is suspected to be the culprit, and testing is ordered.

A child’s blood lead level will increase if they ingest lead. However, blood lead levels decline over time when a child’s exposure to lead ends. However, despite decreasing levels of lead, not all lead will be eliminated, and this is where the damage lies.

Kidney, perspiration, and feces are excreted by the body as a portion of the lead. Bones are another repository for lead. Lead levels in bones can decline over decades. But there’s more here than we would suspect, and we would be lulled into a false sense of security that the body has a natural ability to read itself of lead. The story is more complex than that.

Due to its ability to penetrate and remain in the body, lead is extremely harmful to children’s health. Lead can enter the blood circulation and even reach the brain when a kid breathes lead dust or consumes lead particles. Remember the toothpaste that we mentioned earlier? Lead, alarmingly, can lodge in bones and soft tissues, where it can stay for decades, unlike many poisons that the body removes.

One reason lead is so harmful is that it resembles calcium and iron, two essential minerals necessary for a growing body. Lead, when ingested, mimics these essential nutrients and fools cells into utilizing them instead. This change disrupts the brain’s normal development and functioning.

Like insulation, the protective myelin layer around nerve cells is likewise damaged by lead. Damage to this coating prevents the normal transmission of nerve signals throughout the brain. Physical and mental development, as well as learning and processing information, are all impacted by this harm. It is crucial to limit lead exposure in youngsters because the consequences can be long-lasting and happen at very low exposure levels.

Toothpaste Current Research

After all these years, researchers decided to revisit the exploration of currently available toothpastes and other potential sources of metal contamination. The results are anything but heartening and have raised new concerns for even the most well-known brands of toothpaste.

Many of the popular brands were included in a 2025 research project, and a chart is available here. In fact, you can find information on multiple products and their safety regarding contamination by lead or other materials here. It’s not only toothpaste that we need to be concerned about because we’ve recently been made aware of contaminants, such as metals, in baby food.

In the area of toothpaste, especially for children, 51 Brands were tested and, unfortunately, even those that were supposed to be “green” had issues with contamination. Lead was present in approximately 90% of toothpastes, arsenic in 65%, mercury in slightly less than half, and cadmium in one-third. Many brands have some harmful substances. Many popular brands were found to contain harmful substances, including Crest, Sensodyne, Tom’s of Maine, Dr. Bronner’s, and others.

In their defense, several corporations have pointed out that lead is ubiquitous in nature and thus impossible to eliminate. Currently, the federal Baby Food Safety Act of 2024 is stuck in Congress, which would limit lead levels in children’s food to 10 parts per billion. The lead limit in infant food in California is six parts per billion; however, this does not apply to toothpaste. The majority of toothpastes surpassed those levels.

You can find arsenic in nature just about everywhere: rocks, dirt, water, air, and even some living things. Organic chemicals, including those found in seafood (such as fish and shellfish), are one possible form they can take. However, when we detect unacceptable levels of any heavy metal, such as lead, in a product intended for oral use or ingestion, it is mandatory that we take every possible step to eliminate it. To do less is unconscionable and damaging to children and adults.

As always, it is wise to inform yourself about all the foods and materials that you will either ingest or apply to your body. This research would not have seemed necessary, except that almost 50 years ago, lead was found in toothpaste. Now that we have the information, we can act intelligently with it and protect ourselves and our children.

The post STOP! Brushing Your Teeth May Expose You to Deadly Neurotoxins appeared first on Medika Life.

She didn’t know how to answer but said something like, “Trees can become very old, and they carry a lot of wisdom.”

I suppose as a 3 or 4-year-old, I found that to be a satisfactory answer.

When I think about that question now — which seems like a pretty deep question for a 3- or 4-year-old — I still don’t know the answer. But what my mom said back then remains true. Trees have a lot of wisdom to share.

What Trees Teach Us About Climate Change

Many of us learned in grade school that you could know a tree’s age by counting its rings. In fact, these rings tell us a lot more about the environment over time than just a tree’s age. NOAA Climate.gov is home to the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB), which includes ring-width data from forests globally. The data bank has information from over 4,600 locations across six continents!

Climate scientists use these tree growth records, statistically matching the data with local weather records to estimate past temperatures or precipitation. This provides valuable climate histories that extend back hundreds or even thousands of years! More importantly, these insights help us understand natural climate variability over time and can help us create a baseline to assess human-induced climate change.

But Wait, There’s More: The Roots of Sustainable Development

Trees are nature’s record keepers. But, they are also an important resource that has driven the development of societies. Our use of this natural resource marks the birth of sustainable development as a concept.

The earliest notions of sustainability reach back over 300 years. In 1713, the German mining director Carl von Carlowitz wrote Sylvicultura Oeconomica, an essay on forestry, in which he called for sustained use of the forest to feed industry. However, Carlowitz stipulated that the use of trees should be limited to “only as many trees as would allow a continuous replenishment of an equivalent number of mature trees…allowing the forest to be maintained and managed over the long term.” In short, we can use trees, but only as quickly as we can replenish forests for sustained use.

3 Sustainability Principles We Can Learn from Trees

1. Resilience and Adaptation

Trees are masters of resilience and adaptation. They endure harsh climates, pests, and human interference, constantly evolving to survive and thrive. Some species, like the bristlecone pine, can live for thousands of years, adapting to changes in their environment over millennia and building resilience to harsh weather and bad soil.

Resilience and adaptation are also key focus areas in developing sustainability strategies on a global scale. Technology will help societies adapt to more arid climates, drought, desertification, and other impacts.

Desalination, drip irrigation and atmospheric water generation are helping to ensure water security for human consumption and agricultural and industrial needs. Agronomists are developing more robust fruit and vegetable varietals that can withstand climate changes and developing innovations to support desert farming, and the food tech industry continues to develop more efficient methods for alternative protein cultivation to ensure our future food security.

2. Resource Efficiency

Trees are remarkably efficient in their use of resources. They optimize water and nutrient absorption through complex root systems, the efficiency of which can inspire sustainable practices in human systems. For instance, adopting water conservation techniques in agriculture, including wastewater cleaning technologies to ensure we maximize use of every drop, optimizing energy use in buildings, and creating more efficient transportation systems can all contribute to a more sustainable future in which we maximize use of all our resources.

Moreover, trees rely on an almost limitless energy resource — the sun — to manage energy through photosynthesis. It’s not a new idea that we must extend our use of renewable resources as much as possible — solar, wind, hydrogen and even waves can serve as renewable energy sources. We must, however, ensure that the economic case also make sense for these energy sources if we are to phase out the use of oil and gas.

3. Models for Circular Economy

Trees embody the principles of a circular economy. They recycle nutrients through leaf litter, support diverse ecosystems, and create habitats for countless species. In a circular economy, waste is minimized, and materials are reused and recycled, much like how trees operate within their ecosystems.

So too, circular solutions can come in the form of materials we use — and ensuring everything is designed from the start for reuse. Companies are doing this by creating a new life for household waste, textile waste, and agricultural waste. The circular economy must go beyond this.

John Elkington, the grandfather of sustainable business uses a fish-and-water metaphor. We may clean up individual fish — finding ways to reuse waste, clothing and agricultural waste — yet, if the ocean is dirty, these fish will not be able to thrive. Our markets must also heed circular economic principles.

By embracing these principles, we can develop systems that reduce our environmental impact and foster sustainability.

So, Do Trees Have Souls?

While I’m still not certain trees have souls, what I do know is that trees have inspired humanity for millennia, from the Garden of Eden’s Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life to Newton’s apple tree to the beauty of Japan’s cherry blossom trees and the wonder of the great Sequoia trees in California.

Let’s ensure we continue to learn from their wisdom and keep our planet healthy enough for them to thrive.

The post Do Trees Have Souls? appeared first on Medika Life.

The host country, Azerbaijan, has committed to ambitious climate goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2050 and increasing renewable power capacity to 30% by 2030. The COP29 Presidency’s plan is built on two pillars: enhancing ambition through national plans and transparency and enabling action through finance to reduce emissions, adapt to climate change, and address loss and damage.

The Path to COP29: Key Preceding Meetings

Several important meetings and conferences will shape the agenda and build momentum for COP29 throughout 2024:

UNFCCC Intersessional Meetings

Typically held in Bonn, Germany, these technical sessions allow negotiators to progress on critical issues away from the spotlight of the main conference. As climate policy expert Alden Meyer notes, “The intersessionals are where the real work gets done, away from the spotlight of the COP.”

Bonn Climate Change Conference

Held on June 3–13, 2024, this conference was a crucial stepping stone towards COP29. Around 6,000 delegates will gather to negotiate mechanisms for implementing previous agreements and draft formal recommendations for COP29. Key topics include climate finance, national climate action plans, just transition from fossil fuels, and adaptation strategies.

G7 and G20 Summits

These high-level meetings of major economies often result in climate-related commitments and financial pledges that significantly influence broader negotiations. The outcomes of these summits will likely set the tone for COP29, particularly regarding climate finance and emission reduction targets.

Regional Gatherings

Events like the African Climate Summit allow countries to align their positions and highlight region-specific challenges and solutions. These conferences often result in declarations that inform the global climate agenda.

UN General Assembly and Climate Week NYC

Held annually in September, these events provide a high-profile platform for world leaders to reaffirm their commitment to climate action. Speeches and announcements during this period can significantly influence the momentum leading into COP29.

Pre-COP Ministerial Meeting

This ministerial gathering is crucial for identifying potential roadblocks and finding common ground on contentious topics before COP29. Christina Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, describes the Pre-COP as “a vital opportunity to take the political temperature and prepare the ground for successful negotiations.”

Specialised Conferences

Throughout the year, conferences focusing on renewable energy, biodiversity, and climate finance will contribute valuable insights to the COP29 process. For instance, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Assembly provides a platform for discussing the latest clean energy technologies and policy developments.

Scientific Gatherings

Meetings involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will provide the latest climate data and projections, informing the urgency and ambition of actions discussed at COP29.

Civil Society and Private Sector Events

These gatherings mobilise non-state actors and generate momentum for ambitious climate action, often producing innovative ideas and commitments that complement formal negotiations.

Key Issues and Expectations for COP29

As these preparatory meetings unfold, several critical themes are expected to emerge for COP29:

Negotiating a new climate finance goal to replace the $100 billion annual commitment

Increasing ambition in nationally determined contributions (NDCs)
Accelerating the transition to renewable energy
Addressing loss and damage mechanisms
Scaling up climate finance for developing countries
Implementing the outcomes of the Global Stocktake from COP28
Ensuring a just transition away from fossil fuels

The Road Ahead

The journey to COP29 is paved with crucial meetings and negotiations that will shape the summit’s outcomes. As the world grapples with escalating climate impacts, the pressure is mounting for COP29 to deliver concrete results. The conference in Baku represents a critical opportunity to set more ambitious climate targets and ensure these targets translate into tangible actions.

Azerbaijan’s commitment to renewable energy and emissions reduction sets an encouraging tone for the host country. However, the success of COP29 will depend on the collective will of all nations to address the urgent needs of climate-vulnerable countries and accelerate global climate action.

As Patricia Espinosa, former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, emphasised, “Governments cannot address climate change alone. We need all of society engaged and contributing to solutions.” The road to COP29 is a collaborative effort requiring the engagement of governments, civil society, the private sector, and individuals worldwide to drive meaningful progress in the fight against climate change.

The post The Path to COP29: How Preceding Meetings Will Shape Climate Negotiations 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 global healthcare industry is responsible for two gigatons of carbon dioxide each year, which amounts to 4.4% of net emissions worldwide. Hospitals generate about five million tons of medical waste annually from everyday trash such as medical packaging and food to regulated medical waste, surgical gowns, gloves, syringes, IV bags and more.

The recent panel discussion, “Sustainability + Health Systems,” facilitated by mHealth Israel, brought together an impressive roster to discuss this issue. Panelists included:

• Dr. Reed Omary, MD, MS, is the Carol D. & Henry P. Pendergrass Professor of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) with over 25 years as a practicing interventional radiologist. Dr. Omary stepped down from his position as Chair of Radiology to make a full career pivot towards sustainable healthcare to motivate US healthcare to decarbonize their operations and adopt sustainable practices. You can follow Dr. Omary’s blog on making healthcare more sustainable: The Green Leap
• Dr. Elizabeth Morris, MD, is the Chair of the Department of Radiology at UC Davis Health, an institution with a history of commitment to sustainability. Dr. Morris approaches sustainability through the academic lens, exploring how to think holistically about planetary health within our healthcare system.
• Bert Hartog, Interim VP of Sustainability & Transformation at The Digital Medicine Society (DiMe), a professional society for the digital medicine community that focuses on driving scientific progress and broad acceptance of digital medicine to enhance public health.
• Philip Guster, Director of System Sustainability at Henry Ford Health. Philip previously worked at DTE Energy, which partnered with Henry Ford in 2021 to help the health system reduce its greenhouse gas emissions through DTE’s voluntary renewable energy program with the purchase of wind and solar energy at increasing rates over the years.

Below is a selection of insights to questions raised during the webinar. Responses have been edited for length and clarity. You can view the full panel discussion here:

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FBjCpeI45wfc&display_name=YouTube&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBjCpeI45wfc&image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FBjCpeI45wfc%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=a19fcc184b9711e1b4764040d3dc5c07&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtubeSustainability + Health Systems: U.S. and EU Perspectives Webinar

What made you decide to turn your focus towards sustainability in healthcare? And what do you see as the greatest challenges facing healthcare when it comes to sustainability?

Bert Hartog, DiMe: I’ve spent my career in clinical research, looking at clinical trials and ways to make them not only scientifically robust but also very attractive for participants to take part in, and part of that is convenience for the participants. That’s where digital health technologies can make a huge difference.

The light bulb moment for me was when I realized that many digital health solutions come from digital health devices produced for single use. At the beginning of the 2020s, 100 million devices were newly issued into the global market. I realized this is a mountain of electronic waste that nobody has given much thought to.

Everybody acknowledged that this is an underserved part of the digital health transition we see happening. It’s something that warrants attention.

Dr. Morris, UC Davis Health: When I took the job at UC Davis, I found myself in an environment highly geared towards sustainability. UC Davis is number one in the country for sustainability, and being in that environment made me start looking around at our department. As chair of radiology, which is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in healthcare, I realized we need to figure out how to make our machines work more sustainably.

I am also interested in AI research, which, as Bert pointed out, is a double-edged sword. AI can help us achieve greater sustainability, but these storage systems can consume significant energy.

Sustainability is our number one problem. We need to start talking about it, communicating, and working together. It’s crucial to collaborate with industry partners to get this right. The biggest challenge is that doctors tend to be conservative. New technology often takes 16 to 20 years to gain traction, but we cannot wait that long. This issue is imminent, and we need to be nimble and act fast.

Dr. Omary, VUMC: I used to think about being green in my personal life, but I didn’t consider how to bring that mindset to my work as a physician. It felt like I was living two separate lives. The pandemic made me realize that as healthcare professionals, we have not just an opportunity, but a responsibility to step out of our medical centers and benefit our communities and nations.

During the pandemic, we saw how events in one part of the world could impact another, seemingly unconnected part. This realization hit me during lockdown — I wanted to do everything I could to help during the pandemic and take on the larger, more complex challenge of climate change.

The more I read about it, the more I realized that climate change, like COVID, disproportionately affects those who can least tolerate it. This led me to pivot my career towards generating the most impact. In healthcare, we think about our patients, but with climate change, we suddenly have 8 billion patients to consider, including future generations.

Philip Guster, Henry Ford Health: Midway through my career, I was working for the largest utility in Michigan, one of the largest in the country. My background is in manufacturing, and then I moved to utilities, working there for 13 years. My expertise is in engineering, energy efficiency, and systems. Healthcare has large systems behind the scenes that are crucial to patient care.

At Henry Ford Health, I’ve seen the crucial role we play as a safety net hospital in Detroit’s revitalization. Our hospital has been here for over 100 years, and we’re building a new 21-story tower that will anchor Midtown Detroit. This project will change the skyline and address the health and poverty challenges in our population. Our patients expect us to lead the way in sustainability and healthcare innovation. I’m excited to be part of a team with a culture of inclusion and collaboration, and our success will depend on our partnerships.

Clinicians have a lot on their minds — patients, improving outcomes, integrating new technologies, dealing with burnout, and staying up to date with the latest research. How does sustainability even have space in your mind as a clinician?

Dr. Morris, UC Davis Health: Sustainability shouldn’t be an additional burden. It needs to be pervasive in all aspects of our work. Sustainability can make a clinician’s day better by improving efficiencies. For example, in my area, we can improve patient protocols to make them shorter and more efficient. Small initiatives like installing motion detector lights can collectively make a significant impact across the system. These small steps create a better working environment and improve patient care.

Dr. Omary, VUMC: Dr. Morris is right. We don’t want sustainability to be seen as separate from our other duties. There’s a massive staffing crisis in healthcare — two-thirds of nurses are burnt out, and roughly half of physicians, depending on their specialty, are burnt out too. One-quarter of physicians in the US are clinically depressed. If we think about these statistics, it’s clear we need to improve our work environment.

When we care for the planet, we care for our patients. For example, telehealth reduces the need for patients to travel and deal with parking, which can be stressful. Telehealth is a sustainable intervention that benefits both the environment and patient care. Measuring the carbon cost of our care algorithms is a great opportunity for research and innovation. Sustainable practices can save money, enhance workforce satisfaction, and benefit our patients.

Philip Guster, Henry Ford Health: This is my first time working with clinicians, but we’re all focused on continuous improvement. The key is making sustainability visible and part of our daily operations. Accurate data is crucial for this. For example, we’ve been working on our energy data for three years to ensure it’s accurate. This visibility can engage hospital presidents, clinicians, and staff.

We’ve made significant strides, such as reducing the use of harmful anesthetics like desflurane. From 2019 to 2023, we reduced its usage from 25 down to one. This data-driven approach can prevent greenwashing and help us track our progress accurately.

We need to continue working on reducing single-use plastics and other waste, but having concrete data like this helps keep everyone motivated and aligned with our goals.

Policy and regulation are crucial for ensuring that our efforts in sustainability and innovation have the intended impact. How is policy either helping or hindering the advancement of sustainability initiatives in health systems? And who’s learning from whom here? Is it the US learning from the EU, the EU learning from the US, or is it a little bit of both?

Bert Hartog, DiMe: The short answer is, the US is learning from Europe, Europe is learning from the US, and we’re both looking at the rest of the world for further inspiration.

The difficulty is scale. We need to transition from point solutions, proof of concept pilots, individual clinics, individual hospitals, and individual networks doing their own thing, which is good and should continue. But we need to move up to the network level where we start addressing issues at state level, country level, and region level to really have the impact we’re looking for. Every little bit helps, but we need to start transitioning from innovation into scaling. That is important, and that’s where policy can make a difference.

One example in Europe is the electronic waste resulting from digital health devices. This was the beginning of a consortium with academics, hospitals, business schools, pharma, med tech, and startups, funded by the European Commission to work on designing these technologies for recycling — be it reuse, repurpose, or any of the “Rs.” We look at incentives for people to return these devices after use, considering a behavioral science component. Downstream, we work with waste management companies so they are equipped to handle this medical waste properly, allowing for recycling and recovering rare earth materials and precious metals when the product has reached its end of life.

Dr. Morris, UC Davis Health: In my area, radiology, we have very big machines like MRI and CT machines. So there’s a lot of effort or thought put around refurbishing these machines so that we’re not just recycling them but making them better. This requires a huge amount of effort and connecting people who normally weren’t connected in the past, and creating new regulations and guidelines.

In the medical space, societies can be very strong in this area, putting out suggested guidelines for machines, for example. There’s the Energy Star program here in the US, which could impact regulations and guidelines. Building these relationships is crucial, and normally, I would never have talked to an Energy Star person until several years ago. But this is critical because we need to speak the same language and get guidelines that are used not just in the US but globally.

We look to Europe because they are usually ahead in environmental policies and ideas. For instance, in MRI, we use gadolinium, a contrast agent that gets excreted into the water. Europe is very concerned about rising levels of gadolinium, which we weren’t even measuring in the US. Now that Europe has highlighted this, we’re starting to think about it too. We can learn a lot from Europe as they often lead in these areas, and I tip my hat to them.

What is the role of innovation in accelerating the sustainability transformation? And what’s the business opportunity in it?

Dr. Omary, VUMC: There’s a lot of money being left on the table when sustainability isn’t considered. Proper sustainability practices save money by reducing waste, and those savings can be reinvested into new growth areas. Entrepreneurs have a crucial role here. They bring a finance lens that can lead to faster adoption of sustainable practices.

If we pitch sustainability as an economic benefit, we meet the needs of the audience better. Entrepreneurs also teach us how to scale and grow quickly, which is essential for expanding sustainability initiatives.

Philip Guster, Henry Ford Health: As we’re building our new campus, sustainability is a priority. At Henry Ford, we’re implementing sustainability upfront in the contracting phase. When we seek partners through RFPs, we hold them accountable for sustainability. This approach ensures that sustainability isn’t an afterthought but a core part of our projects.

We understand there are incremental costs, but having the option to choose sustainable solutions and holding vendors accountable for innovation is crucial. It’s about integrating sustainability into every phase, from contracting to the materials we use in construction.

Bert Hartog, DiMe: In clinical research, which is the prelude to clinical care, we have an opportunity to scale sustainability benefits exponentially. We’ve started quantifying the environmental impact of clinical trials to establish a baseline and identify what good looks like. By understanding these metrics, we can address logistics, utilities, and packaging without compromising patient safety or scientific integrity.

For example, remote monitoring in clinical trials can reduce carbon footprints by 20%. If we multiply this impact across millions of instances, the benefits are substantial. Offering remote options for assessments and trials can significantly reduce environmental impact. More companies are becoming interested in this approach as they see the data proving its effectiveness.

How do we ensure these efforts and technologies are accessible and equitable to all communities, marginalized populations, and developing countries? How do we address these disparities?

Dr. Morris, UC Davis Health: It’s only recently that healthcare systems have started to address inequities and systemic racist policies. It’s crucial that we factor in these disparities completely to ensure we don’t leave behind marginalized communities.

As we scale up initiatives globally, particularly in lower and middle-income countries, we have the opportunity to improve healthcare access. For example, in our area, we’re investing in vans to reach remote communities, utilizing telehealth for primary care, and establishing clinics in rural areas. Shared best practices and collaboration are essential to make healthcare accessible for everyone, although I don’t have a perfect solution yet.

Bert Hartog, DiMe: Sustainability can be a byproduct of changing practices. Initiatives like hospital-at-home and telehealth not only improve access to care but also contribute to sustainability. Equity means reaching those populations who currently lack routine access to healthcare due to various barriers. By embedding sustainability in different practices, we can address both access and environmental concerns simultaneously.

Dr. Omary, VUMC: The transition to green technologies allows us to redesign systems with an equity lens. Sustainability and equity can go hand in hand, offering win-win solutions.

What gives you hope for healthcare’s ability to make the needed changes?

Dr. Omary, VUMC: What gives me hope is knowing that younger generations prioritize climate change, making it a top issue facing humanity. This mindset shift will lead to a workforce that’s committed to sustainability. When healthcare professionals see themselves as part of climate solutions, it gives me hope.

Bert Hartog, DiMe: What gives me hope is the blurring of traditional boundaries and the interconnectedness of the world. With knowledge sharing and collective efforts, we can address systemic issues and scale up solutions globally.

Philip Guster, Henry Ford Health: From a Henry Ford perspective, executive support for sustainability initiatives is encouraging. Top-level commitment ensures that sustainability is integrated into our practices from the ground up. It’s a significant shift from when production was the sole focus, and it gives me hope for our future.

Dr. Morris, UC Davis Health: Leadership plays a vital role, and I’m hopeful to see leaders across industries prioritize sustainability. There’s a growing market for green initiatives, which further drives change. It’s reassuring to know that sustainability is becoming a best business practice.

A Hopeful Future for Sustainable Health Systems

Following this conversation, three points stood out to me.

First, everyone has a role to play in making healthcare more sustainable. Clinicians can ensure their areas of health are optimizing resources to ensure their most efficient use (and reuse). Making practice more sustainable can bring an economic benefit. Optimizing costs means funds can be reinvested in other areas of care.

Second, professionals from other industries — the energy sector, materials industry, or waste management — can also “work in healthcare,” enabling the sustainable transformation of healthcare systems.

Finally, often what is good for patients can also be good for the environment. Remote care and telehealth can make care more accessible, equitable and convenient to patients while having an impact on emissions reduction related to transportation to and from healthcare institutions.

As health leaders continue to drive the integration of sustainability into every aspect of healthcare, from clinical practices to large-scale infrastructure projects, we begin to reveal a hopeful future for the global healthcare industry. Leveraging technology, fostering interdisciplinary collaborations, and prioritizing equity will enable healthcare systems to address climate change and improve health outcomes globally.

The post Sustainability + Health Systems: US and EU Perspectives 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.