none of this is normal. and yet, none of it is entirely too surprising. scientists have long been warning of the potential for a pandemic. the time and disease was never known, but the possibility was always there.

while much about the future remains uncertain, there is one thing we can predict: this is not the last pandemic humanity will face. and if we want to prevent future pandemics, we need to seriously consider how we interact with the environment, and how seriously we combat climate change.

covid-19 and the human-environment interaction are intertwined

the new coronavirus, covid-19, is a zoonotic disease. zoonotic diseases are diseases that come from pathogens that spill from wildlife (including animals, insects, and ticks) into humans, causing everything from mild to deadly illnesses including global pandemics. 

zoonotic diseases make up about 60% of all total diseases, and represent about 75% of emerging infectious diseases, and you’ve probably heard of more than a few of them. sars, mers, rabies, lyme disease, salmonella, zika, avian “bird” flu, and west nile are all zoonotic diseases. 

zoonotic diseases are nothing new. but they are increasing, and many of the drivers are a direct result of human interaction with the environment. 

for example, ecosystem destruction is a primary driver of zoonotic disease reproduction and transmission. natural ecosystems act as a buffer zone that prevents spillover of certain pathogens from animals to people. 

unfortunately, human activities including deforestation, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have caused large scale ecosystem fragmentation, impinging upon this essential buffer zone. this elicits more densely populated flocks of animals with more opportunities to congregate diseases, and with less of a barrier to prevent spillover into humans. 

increased and intensified animal agriculture further feeds the problem. the demand for meat and dairy products encourages intense animal agricultural practices that serve as incubation grounds for zoonotic diseases. 

in many factory farms, large amounts of genetically similar animals are clustered together. because they lack large genetic diversity, they become a group less resistant to infection, and thus more likely to fall ill and spread disease. indeed, livestock often serve as the disease bridge between wildlife and human life. 

furthermore, intensification of livestock not only contributes to ecosystem destruction, but also increases the amounts of animal waste contained in small spaces, and the amounts of fertilizer used, both of which can further foster environmental conditions that allow some pathogens to thrive. it also encourages antibiotic overuse, which itself is a risk factor for zoonotic disease emergence. 

and of course, animal agriculture contributes to climate change, which is another major driving factor for zoonotic disease emergence.

because climate change influences conditions that impact pathogen reproduction and transmission rates of pathogens, vectors, hosts, it can play a major role in infectious disease reproduction and transmission. 

for example, climate change shifts changes in things like temperature, humidity, precipitation patterns, and seasonality. extreme weather events related to climate change, like flooding, droughts, and wildfires, may exacerbate ecosystem fragmentation, or make environmental conditions even more amenable to disease outbreak.

all of these conditions impact how certain pathogens reproduce and spread, and certain changes driven by climate change may cultivate optimal conditions or extend seasons for select pathogens to thrive. 

there is substantial evidence to suggest that the risks associated with frequency and intensity of zoonotic diseases may increase with climate change.

but the environmental risks don’t stop there. air pollution, which kills an estimated 7-8 million people each year in non-pandemic conditions, threatens human health by increasing risks of chronic diseases like asthma and copd, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and neurological distress. many of these conditions are conditions considered ‘high risk’ for developing complications with covid-19.

thus, areas that have high levels of air pollution may have more people who are vulnerable to becoming seriously ill if they contract covid-19. sadly, high levels or air pollution are often found in lower income areas. compounded with poverty, which is itself a risk factor for poor health, it is feasible that mixing air pollution with coronavirus could increase vulnerability of already vulnerable populations.

it seems as if there is a positive feedback loop at play — several activities which contribute to climate change, including human activities that augment air pollution, and modern animal agriculture, are both independent risk factors for zoonotic disease, and both also contribute to climate change. 

climate change, in turn, increases ecosystem destruction which increases risks further, while independently acting as a risk factor for increased reproduction and transmission of zoonotic diseases. 

thus, it seems we cannot decrease the risks of future pandemics if we do not simultaneously assess how we interact with our environment. the problems are deeply intertwined.

and although this is a dual burden, it also presents a unique dual opportunity to blunt two major global threats simultaneously. 

so what can we learn, and how can we move forward?

there are many similarities between the covid-19 crisis and the climate change crisis: both are global threats to human health, the economy, and have the potential to disrupt life as we know it. 

the major difference between the two is the time scale at which they are unfolding.

with coronavirus, the threat is palpable; we see it unfolding daily as cases and fatalities continue to climb, and the world scrambles to find treatments, vaccines, and strategies to adapt to a new reality in the face of a major threat.

climate change, on the other hand, is unfolding a bit more slowly. while some directly see and feel its effects, for many, it seems like a distant and personally irrelevant threat.

yet, these two crises both require a global cooperative effort to mitigate their magnitude of their destructive potential, and rely heavily on work done by the scientific community to project their paths and to create and implement solutions.

and importantly, both require not only the cooperation of governments around the globe, but also action of everyday citizens. 

when it comes to climate change, that means individual action to reduce personal carbon footprint while supporting policies for sweeping change, and when it comes to coronavirus, that means adhering to public health recommendations by sheltering in place, wearing a mask, and social distancing. 

both instances require personal sacrifices, a trust in science, and a respect for greater good. and unfortunately, both coronavirus and climate change have been politicized, with certain individuals casting shadows of doubt on science and experts to fuel political narratives, creating an illusion of personal safety and remission of personal responsibility. 

which is perhaps why, most importantly, both of these crises run the risk of giving in to the temptation to delay taking action until it’s too late. we’ve seen the impact of complacency in parts of the world that believed itself immune to the dangers of covid-19, until the virus proved its potential to wreak havoc on communities. 

there is the potential that the crises created by climate change will have similar implications for disrupting humanity, riddled with the devastation, death, and economic fallout happening across the globe. some places will be hit harder than others, and some people and places are already feeling these effects. 

much like with the current pandemic, we must act swiftly and with global cooperation to implement solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and, to make a parallel to covid-19, to flatten the curve of its destructive potential.

we have seen that on some scale, this is possible. with covid-19, the world has pulled together to fight a common enemy. people are staying home, helping their neighbors, and rising at opportunities to contribute to a greater good.

we have also learned with greater clarity what is really essential in terms of polluting activities we engage in in our daily lives. perhaps more of us can truly work from home from time to time, avoiding long daily commutes, and perhaps we can continue to eat food we have in our homes rather than seek out other foods to suit our moods and let leftovers go to waste.

the pandemic has also exposed the gravity of modern health and economic disparities in our societies, and perhaps we can move forward with plans that better serve those in need. 

and with coronavirus, as many around the world turn to medical and public health experts for guidance, eagerly waiting for scientists to create a treatment or vaccine, there’s a chance that this experience will perhaps bring about a returned trust in science and experts to guide relevant decisions. 

as humans, we have grown, and can continue to learn from these experiences to create a brighter future. 

all of these learned experiences will be helpful for working to better protect our environment, fight climate change, and prevent future pandemics. 

there is no way to disentangle future pandemics and how we treat the environment. luckily, this presents a dual opportunity: we can take better care of our planet, and by doing so, take better care of our health.

while finding hunger solutions, we must also consider the urgent threat of global climate change. the problem is complex, as the food system is both a leading cause of climate change and an industry deeply impacted by its effects.

relieving both of these problems simultaneously is a difficult task. luckily, there are many ways to build a healthy and sustainable diet, and many innovations at our fingertips to help get us there. the following “win-win” plant-powered solutions serve both human health and the environment and have use across a variety of contexts. if applied on a global scale, these innovations could help lead a path toward healthful, sustainable food systems in the future.

1. swapping protein

it is well-known that meat, particularly livestock meats, have some of the largest carbon and water footprints of all foods, representing 14.5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (ghg). red and processed meats also have been linked to increased risks of cancer and cardiovascular disease. but there are other ways to consume protein. plant-based proteins including legumes, nuts, and whole grains are far less carbon- and water-intensive than animal proteins and offer plenty of health benefits, including lower rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. a shift from meat to less processed plant proteins will remain important moving forward.

2. focusing on whole plant foods

fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, and whole grains are all micronutrient-dense foods, filled with powerful plant compounds, including cancer-fighting flavonoids and heart-friendly plant sterols. their high levels of dietary fiber provide fullness while lowering the risk of various chronic diseases, such as stroke, hypertension, and diabetes. fruits and vegetables vary in their water and carbon use, but are generally far less harmful to the environment than animal-based foods, especially when planned according to ideal growing seasons and delivered to consumers locally whenever possible.

3. algae as food

although algae have been consumed by humans for thousands of years, large scale adoption of algae as food has not taken off fully. however, it should. algae could offer sustainably sourced protein and vitamin b-12, an essential micronutrient primarily found in animal-based foods, offering a valuable source of nutrition for those shifting toward a sustainable plant-based diet. algae also could be considered as an alternative to seafood as a source of dha and epa while helping decrease the current harm caused to the oceans by overfishing. the humble plant also contains a large amount of iodine, a mineral that ranks among the leading micronutrient deficiencies in the world. scaling up nori (dried green and purple laver) and red algae production is worth considering for planetary and human health.

4. biotechnology

biotechnology (such as the use of genetically modified organisms, commonly known as gmos) is a powerful tool that may offer solutions to various malnutrition-related problems. for example, biotechnology can be used to address many micronutrient deficiencies of public health concern, including vitamin a, iodine, iron, and zinc, all of which already have been implemented into staple crops such as rice and proved effective in reducing rates of deficiencies. also, biotechnology has helped create more sustainable and resilient crops better equipped to deal with an increasingly unpredictable climate, dwindling water supplies, and extreme weather events, and offers potential to decrease reliance on harmful pesticides.

5. hydroponics and fortification

hydroponic farming (also known as vertical farming) allows for the cultivation of large amounts of plant-foods, and is uniquely adaptable in urban settings, thereby slashing fresh food mileage and emissions in areas of high demand but little agricultural landscape. in addition to its high productivity and efficient water usage, hydrophobic farming offers opportunities for plant-food fortification, offering an additional way to combat micronutrient deficiencies and encourage fresh, plant-based food consumption at a larger, less resource-intensive scale.

6. replacing sugar crops with more diverse plant crops

consumption of added sugar is associated with increased rates of obesity, diabetes, and dental caries, and offer little nutritive value besides calorie density. high-fructose corn syrup (hfcs), often found in soft drinks and packaged foods, is also associated with elevated risks of cardiovascular disease. sugar and hfcs-full products are cheap, highly accessible, and supported by subsidies and tariffs. as a result, much land is devoted to corn production, limiting land available for other crops and threatening agricultural diversity. ending sugar subsidies and replacing them with other fruit and vegetable subsidies could benefit human health and encourage crop diversity, expanding the variety of plants we grow and consume, which is important for long-term agriculture and dietary well-being.

7. widespread use of low-water, highly nutritious fruit crops

there are many low-resource, weather-resistant, food-bearing plants that are not widely used now. for example, the moringa oleifera, shown above, is a fast-growing, drought-resistant tree native to tropical south asia. it produces high volumes of nutritious fruits and edible leaves, and its kernels can be used to produce oil. artocarpus altilis (‘breadfruit’), is another hearty, fast-growing species of flowering tree that produces edible fruits rich in protein, vitamins, and minerals, and requires little fertilizer or pesticides. while these plants and others like them already are used in some areas to alleviate malnutrition, more widespread use is worth exploring.

solving global hunger in a sustainable way will be a real challenge. however, starting with little “win-win” solutions can help guide a path forward to create a more sustainable, nutritious future for all. from algae to breadfruit to biotechnology, focusing on expanding innovations and taking full advantage of the power of plants can lead to improved planetary and human health moving forward.

there seems to be a lot of confusion around the topic of gmos among the public. and with the plethora of information and fear surrounding the topic, it’s easy to get overwhelmed in deciphering the truth.

but as a consumer and an environmental science and nutrition student, i was determined to broaden my perspective, and set out to speak with a farmer and a plant scientist to learn more about what role gmos may have in our world.

after reading the book “tomorrow’s table,” i spoke with authors raoul w. adamchak, an organic farmer and educator at university of california davis, as well as his wife, pamela c. ronald, a professor from the department of plant pathology and genome center, also at university of california davis.

as i read, researched, and spoke with different people about gmos, i discovered an under-appreciated perspective, worthy of being more widely shared.

what is a gmo anyway?

surprisingly, there is no true precise or universal scientific definition of the phrase “gmo,” nor is there any regulation around its use for labeling in the united states, which may contribute to the large amount of public confusion surrounding the topic.

says ronald: “many people use it to mean ‘genetically modified organism,’ but the fda doesn’t use that term because everything we eat is genetically modified in some manner, and we generally don’t eat whole organisms, so it doesn’t really have a scientific meaning.

“i try not to use that term because i think it really confuses people,” she added.

and confuse people it does. many misinterpret long-used gene-altering techniques to be the same thing as genetic modification, when the two are in fact distinct (albeit similar) entities. and while media hype may lead you to believe all things non-organic and local are full of gmos, large cost and regulatory barriers actually keep the number of genuine gmos on the market quite low.

are gmos safe?

the safety of gmos is frequently brought into question. but when it comes to gmos and human health, the science overwhelmingly agrees that genetically modified foods are indeed safe for consumption. the american association for the advancement of science, who, national academy of sciences, and fda, all say that gmos are safe for consumption based on the plethora of available data.

so why are people so afraid of gmos?

according to ronald, part of the broad misconception about gmos may be due to lack of ample communication on the topic from scientists, farmers, and the agriculture industry.  

the rampant and increasing mistrust of scientific entities in combination with the plethora of false science, nutrition, and agriculture information flooding our news feeds makes it increasingly difficult for legitimate information to reach people’s ears in what ronald calls a “fear-based market and economy.”

and although the notion of food that has been tinkered with in a lab is understandably unsettling to some, it’s interesting to reflect on our otherwise general trust of medications that have been created in similar settings.

gmos, it seems, are often villainized, despite the fact that they have no proven long-term negative health or environmental impacts, have offered enormous benefits to others and are addressing real-world issues related to sustainability and malnutrition.

can gmos be useful?

gmos and gene-altering techniques on agricultural crops can, in fact, be useful.

how exactly? “geneticists are using modern gene modification to enhance sustainability,” ronald says.

gmos already have been shown to reduce pesticide use, increase crop yields, and boost farmer income in both developing and developed nations, which may help move the planet toward a more sustainable food system.

furthermore, the genetic addition of certain micronutrients to staple crops, as with the addition of beta-carotene to “golden” rice, has helped address some issues of malnutrition.

and with climate change creating more severe storms and unpredictable weather patterns, gene modification may offer an added layer of heartiness to plants to manage extreme weather.

for example: ronald’s lab and their collaborators have used marker-assisted breeding, to “develop gene markers that can survive floods as the climate changes.”

sometimes, gmos can even save a crop. the papaya once was threatened by extinction by the papaya ringspot virus. fortunately, a plant geneticist from cornell university was able to insert a gene modification that made the crop resistant to the devastating disease, thereby essentially saving the papaya industry and allowing consumers worldwide to enjoy this popular vitamin c-rich fruit.

and although not currently allowed in organic farming, some believe gmo seeds could offer a benefit to the organic industry, as well.

could gmos have a place in organic farming?

as with conventional crops, using gmos in organic farming could improve yields of organic (and conventional for that matter) crops, and deliver fewer heavily pesticide-raised foods to the market.

“i think that if genetically engineered traits were allowed in organic farming, there could be could be a lot of benefits, because there are pests that are difficult to control (by organic methods),” adamchak says.

pests are an issue for all farmers, but a particular challenge for organic farmers, who are unable to use many pest-resistant pesticides on their crops. with climate change increasing the burden of invasive species and pathogens, a gene modification that could improve pest-resistance could lead to higher yields of organic crops, a win-win for consumers and farmers alike (as long as those extra crops don’t go to waste, of course).

but will the organic farming industry accept gmos?

adamchak didn’t seem overly optimistic at the prospect, which could potentially be a missed opportunity for sustainable food systems going forward.

“the bigger issue as an organic grower is how does the attitudes of organic growers affect agriculture as a whole? because organic agriculture uses only 1% land in the u.s., and 99% is conventionally grown,” adamchak says.

“so if you want to change that system, if you want to make that system more sustainable, using genetically modified traits that reduce pesticide use, that reduce soil erosion depending on how it’s used, this could make that 99% of agriculture more sustainable — less of an impact on the environment, more profit for growers,” he says. “and clearly the attitudes of the organic community have impacted the spread of genetically modified traits and also how they’re perceived by consumers. and i think that’s a problem.”

the farmer-consumer dynamic is challenging: consumers rely on farmers for food, but farmers must produce things consumers will buy. the difficulty lies in creating a sustainable and trusting system that pleases both sides.

moving forward

after gathering these nuances about gmos, i reckoned with what i could do to improve the food system myself. i think the first step, as a scientist and consumer, is to educate oneself about the topic and help spread factual information, which may lessen the fear of gmos in general.

furthermore, supporting sustainable food technologies — gmo, gene altering, or otherwise — may help us address the monumental challenge of creating a more sustainable food system for our future.

turning on the news, scrolling through my social media feed, or speaking with people from outside of my department can quickly remind me of the divisive world we live in, and that climate change is still, for many, up for debate.

i try to understand where these people are coming from. many of us are removed from facing immediate realities of climate change. we enjoy our climate controlled living spaces, and may not live in areas where impacts are as obvious as others. on top of that, not everyone has been well-educated in the topic, nor has a solid grasp of how to read and interpret scientific data. fake news and profit-driven pseudoscience can confuse people even further. there’s a lot out there, and it can be easy to get lost.

and when there’s a financial stake in the game, it can be tempting to turn a blind eye to any potential negative altercations of a sustaining activity that may be contributing to the problem. no one enjoys confronting the idea that what they’re doing could be harmful, and turning a blind eye is easy and enticing.

as someone who hopes to change the tide and help more people understand the reality of climate change, i often grapple with how i can bridge these knowledge and comprehension gaps for skeptics. to work collectively toward a more eco-friendly future, it’s important to work with, rather than against, as many people as possible, which makes helping skeptics understand the reality of climate change so much more vital.

if you want to know what keeps me up at night, it’s this. and it was something i had really been ruminating even more than usual right before my recent trip to alaska.

the view on climate change in alaska

i had never been to alaska before this trip. i grew up in wisconsin, and then spent roughly 6 years living in the new york city area, while enjoying later stints of time living in denver, paris, and the twin cities. i’ve been fortunate to travel around the country and globe. but alaska was different. very different.

geographical and landscape differences aside, what struck me as the most unique in alaska was the general consensus among people who live there that climate change is real, and it’s happening right now. though i can only speak from my personal experiences, it seemed climate change in alaska was not a political issue nor a subject of debate. rather, it was spoken about matter-of-factly—a striking difference from many places i have visited or lived in (even progressive ones).

this realization begged the questions: how and why are these people so accepting of climate change? and how can they help convince others about about the reality of what’s going on?

slowly, through conversations, i found the answer to my questions. i spoke with naturalists, fishers, national park rangers, native alaskans, local residents, and heard from the lieutenant governor of alaska, gaining tidbits of insight from each, identifying themes and patterns between their stories.

why do alaskans see it differently?

first, it seems they all accept climate change because they see it in their daily lives.

alaska has been called ground zero for climate change—and for good reason. with temperatures rising faster than those of the rest of the country, and obvious fluctuations in precipitation and weather patterns, those i spoke to didn’t seem to deny climate change because to them, it’s quite obvious.

many spoke about changes they’d seen in their own lifetimes: noticeably warmer temperatures, shrinking glaciers that were visible to the eye over short periods of time, increases in snowfall, shifts in frosts and seasons, fluctuations in wildlife populations, and new challenges in agriculture, to name a few.

a glacier bay national park ranger who wishes to remain anonymous told me that since the most recent administration took over, park rangers and pamphlets are unable to speak about global climate change—only changes that are happening in their immediate area.

though obviously a frustrating censorship, i began to wonder if perhaps this approach—speaking about local rather than global change—could actually be useful in fostering change. and that maybe, many who refuse to admit to climate change will be hesitant to do so until they have to face it themselves, or until it starts to interfere with their daily lives or impacts them financially.

communicating about climate change

inspired, i questioned those who lived and worked in alaska about how they suggested speaking with skeptics about climate change. and again, a theme emerged: speak about realities that are changing right in front of you. that way, i realized, there is no room for denial, nor is there need to bring in politics, money, or even science.

what i took most from my entire experience in alaska is that to transform skeptics into believers you have to make climate change real to them.

travel can be perception-changing, and videos, photographs, and data can be effective for some, but for those where facts aren’t enough, maybe, just maybe, their own two eyes, their grocery bills, or the flooding in their backyard will be.

perhaps as scientists, journalists, and advocates, we have to think less “global,” and go more “local.” what i mean by this is instead of the continual broad focus on climate change as an abstract occurrence happening around the world, or in distance places, there should be an increase in talking about climate change as it’s happening within our own communities.

we can start by communicating in our hometown media outlets: documenting sea level rise on our own coasts, reporting on changes in temperature and precipitation that may be obvious in our hometowns, and by shedding light on climate change-related realities that someone may feel at an individual level, whether that be higher prices on local agriculture goods, or changes in air quality around the neighborhood.

i’ve always been one to believe that small changes can cumulatively make a big difference. which is why, from now on, i’m going to make more of an effort to report bigger on a smaller scale, striving to be less negligent of what’s right in front of me. my hope is that this may be a meaningful avenue of change, and potentially result in shifts of perception at a local level, even at times when federal or state regulation may not support it. and maybe now, thanks to the insight i gained from my trip to alaska, i can rest a little easier, now that i know the answers to my questions were—no pun intended—right in front of me all along.

with rapidly increasing temperatures, thawing permafrost, changes in precipitation and weather patterns, melting glaciers and subsequent sea level rise, many people in alaska see reminders of climate change in their daily lives. pictured above are mountains near glacier bay national park, just one area seeing rapid change.

but climate change isn’t just seen – it’s felt. weather and temperature fluctuations aside, many experience the less obvious but no less concerning health impacts caused or exacerbated by climate change.

taking note of how climate change has already affected the health of alaskans, and how it may in the future, is important to mitigate and adapt to our changing world for a healthier future.

here are some ways that the health of alaska residents may be impacted by climate change.

1. coastal life, sea rise & stress

according to npr, approximately 90% of alaska’s residents live in coastal areas, such as those pictured along the coastline in southeastern alaska. quickly rising water levels and erosion threaten infrastructure to many alaskan’s homes and communities, which can cause chronic, long-term stress.

stress not only predisposes individuals to be more vulnerable to illness, but may also lead to or exacerbate mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. alaska already has higher rates of mental illness compared to the rest of the country. such ailments can impair social, professional, and cognitive function; thus, mental health impacts of climate change are of great concern.

2. changing seasons & food supply

many people in alaska use land and sustenance food resources (such as wild fish, eggs, and berries) to sustain themselves. as temperatures change landscape, growing seasons, and wildlife populations, these people may face food shortages and subsequent malnutrition. while some crops are experiencing longer growing seasons which may be beneficial in some areas, invasive species may also increase, threatening future or other crops.

to further complicate the equation, average annual precipitation is expected to increased by 15-30% by 2100 compared to a reference period of 1971-1999, which may greatly impact food plant growth, and make harvest more difficult.

climate change has already increased variability in berry harvest, such as the native berries pictured here. furthermore, shifts in caribou migration, and warmer oceans, are leading to decreases in some seafood availability.

native alaskans, who also use seals and collect eggs in lush wildlife areas such as the island pictured below, may be forced to adapt to find new sources of food.

3. changing seafood safety & supply

seafood safety is also impacted by climate change. rising temperatures promote harmful algae bloom in fresh and saltwater. in the right conditions, marine toxins produced by algae may accumulate in mollusks such as clams and scallops, which can lead to increased risk of paralytic shellfish poisoning.  many communities, such as sitka, pictured here, have already experienced harmful algae blooms, and rely heavily on fishing for income and as a major source of food.

furthermore, fishing plays an important role in the economy of many alaskan communities, such as petersburg, seen below. disruptions to profitable seafood supply may have a negative economic impact on many vulnerable people, further increasing their risk to physical and mental illness.

4. increasing marine traffic & reduced air quality

tourism plays a large role in alaska’s economy, and may be impacted by climate change. as sea ice continues to melt at a rapid rate, marine traffic may increase, including traffic related to tourism, as with the ships and zodiacs seen here near fort terror and lake eva. this may increase carbon emissions in the air, and cause respiratory and cardiovascular illness.

on the other hand, increased tourism may be beneficial to tourism-driven towns, and the increase in income may help some alaskans better defend themselves against climate change.

5. changing opportunities for recreation

with changing temperatures and precipitation patterns, outdoor recreation activities (such as hiking, running, rock climbing, kayaking as seen here at fox creek, and other water sports), which may offer both physical and mental benefit for alaskans, may change. these changes may help or hinder opportunities for recreation, depending on the activity.

6. rising temperatures & heat sickness

the average temperature across alaska has increased approximately 3 degrees fahrenheit in the past 60 years, more than double the average of the rest of the united states. rising temperatures comes and unseasonably warm weather as seen in here in sitkoh bay, ushers increased risk of heat stress, illness, and stroke.

while alaska’s temperatures are not predicted to be as high as in some parts of the country, a lack of air conditioning or other climate control in many homes and buildings may increase risks of heat illness for some residents.

7. increasing particulate matter from glacial dust & wildfires

receding glaciers don’t just impact the water – they may also impact the air. increased rates of glacier melting can lead to increased glacial dust being emitted into the air. this can increase rates of ambient pm levels, especially pm10. pm causes increased risk of many chronic cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses.

glaciers at glacier bay national park and dawes glacier, both pictured here, face global climate change. glacier bay, below, has already seen melting glaciers.

while dawes glacier has not yet been well-studied.

additionally, climate change is increasing wildfires in alaska due to increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. wildfires emit a mix of harmful pollutants including carbon monoxide, particulate matter (pm), and volatile organic compounds (vocs), and heavy metals such as mercury. exposure to wildfire smoke can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular illness, as well as asthma and low birth weight in offspring.

and, as mentioned above, increased marine traffic may also contribute to increases in pm.

8. vector-borne illness & water-borne illness

climate change is bringing warmer temperatures and changing weather patterns in alaska. this can impact the incidence and spread of vector-borne illnesses by increasing the length of transmission season, and offering favorable climate to vector breeding.

flooding or heavier-than-usual precipitation may also lead to standing water, as seen in petersburg, alaska, thus greatly increasing risk of mosquito-borne illnesses, as such environment fosters favorable mosquito reproduction.

climate change can also increase risk of waterborne illnesses. increased temperature can influence survival, virulence, and persistence of many pathogens in and outside of water. floods and droughts may also increase availability of safe drinking water. additionally, increased runoff and changes in precipitation may lead to increases in contaminated food and foodborne illness.

9. allergens and asthma

climate change affects many plants, and often impacts the abundance and seasonality of allergens. increased temperatures in alaska may lead to increased pollen and bloom, and allergens in the air, increasing or exacerbating allergies, hay fever, and asthma. below, a plant pictured here near pavlof harbor, blooms abundantly, perhaps impacted by a changing climate.

conclusion

while the melting glaciers (as those see above, near dawes glacier) and warmer temperatures are more visible impacts of climate change being experienced by alaskans, a variety of public health issues emerge in a more conspicuous – but no less concerning – manner. from changes in food metrics and safety to disease transmission, mental health risks and complicating one’s ability to access medical care, climate change is a threat to not only the health of the earth, but also to the health of the human.

to 2022年卡塔尔世界杯官网 , we need a healthy population. and for a healthy population, we rely on the earth. addressing these public health issues in places where climate change is being felt more sharply than in other parts of the world can help us all work to not only reduce our climate impact, but also to better adapt and mitigate to our world as it changes.

it’s no secret meat isn’t the most eco-friendly food to pile on your plate. globally, the meat industry emits an estimated 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and is considered a leading contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution. additionally, animal agriculture accounts for more land use than any other food source, and ushers overuse of hormones, and antibiotics, which leach into our water and food systems.

and although many of us are already aware of the unsustainability of meat, humans still have quite the appetite for meat, which has climbed in recent years, and is projected to peak in 2018.

…which governments have subsidized

the global explosion of enthusiastic meat consumption has to do with a variety of factors, including increases in disposable income, and the heavy subsidization of the industry in many parts of the world, including the united states.

and while it’s often easy to point at meat as a source of environmental and health issues, it is worth noting that meat can be a valuable source of energy, protein, amino acids, and essential micronutrients, including iron and b12, all of which are important in preventing many global malnutrition-related conditions, including protein-energy deficits and anemia.

still, it’s hard to justify pouring billions into a food source that is contributing so greatly to climate change when there are an estimated 815 million hungry people on earth.

we can’t address global food insecurity without creating a more sustainable food system. and one of the biggest areas of opportunity for improvement lies in our ability to cut down on meat production.

how we shift our funding towards a sustainable, food secure future:

many high and low-tech alternatives exist as promising solutions, but many remain underappreciated or underfunded. by redirecting global animal agriculture subsidies, there is great opportunity for impact.

which next begs the question, where do these funds go? we can begin to subsidize more eco-friendly alternatives, but considering the global diversity in palates, cultures, landscapes, and infrastructures, we need more than a one-size-fits all approach.

it’s overly optimistic to expect steak-lovers to willingly swap beans for beef, and plain unrealistic to suggest high-tech meat startups are the solution in countries that lack the proper infrastructure.

so, here are 5 animal agriculture-free, protein alternatives to shift our animal agriculture funding into:

1. subsidize research and production of meat made from plants:

meat, technically speaking, is a composition of water, proteins, amino acids, minerals, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and small amounts of carbohydrates. all of these building blocks can be found or fostered in plants.

several protein-alternative startups are building brands on this principle. by piecing together building blocks of meat from plant-foods, and processing them together with new technology, they are able to create meat alternatives that smell, taste, feel, and cook just like meat.

by offering “meat made from plants” to appease the carnivore palate, companies like beyond meat and impossible foods are a wiser way to channel animal subsidy dollars, and offer an appealing, yet sustainable meat choice for meat-lovers in many parts of the world. subsidizing such technologies (as leonardo dicaprio already has) could ensure products continue to improve and decrease in price, giving meat-lovers a meat with lesser harm to the environment.

2. subsidize research and production of lab-grown meat

for those looking for another alternative that comes from animals rather than plants, several start up companies are working to bring lab-grown meat to market. companies like mosa meat and just foods, are pioneering lab-grown meat.

mosa meat products, for example, are made from small samples of muscle stem cells taken from real animals. known as “myosatellite” cells, these cells serve the specific function of creating new muscle tissue upon injury. cells are next placed in a medium of nutrients and growth factors, cultivating their growth. strands of cells are then layered together to create real meat – the only difference being that theirs is grown outside – rather than inside – the animal.

rather than devote land, water, and feed grains to grow and butcher livestock, lab-grown meat requires far fewer resources, and emits far fewer greenhouse gases.  

by shifting government funds from land and feed-requiring meats to lab-grown meat, die-hard carnivores can rest assured their steaks aren’t soon to be replaced with tofu. subsidizing these technologies can ensure their affordability and continual improvement.

3. subsidize edible insect agriculture

insects hold great promise as a sustainable source of animal protein. requiring far less land, water, and producing far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than most mammalian protein sources, insects are a highly nutritious food source that is often overlooked. while edible insect nutrient profiles vary by species, many are micronutrient rich in vitamins and minerals including zinc, calcium, and iron, which are often lacking from diets of malnourished people.

some are even energy dense, which could combat protein and energy deficiencies. additionally, insects have low technological and monetary start-up costs, and are a viable option in developing countries where resources are limited. insects are a wise and low-cost subsidy option which could address hunger far and wide.

4. subsidize algae production

algae is another fast-growing, high quality, and underappreciated source of protein. importantly, algae is one of the few plant-based sources of b12, which is essential for proper neurological function and prevention of anemia. furthermore, there are a lot of algae strains around the world, and cultivating algae does not require arable land, and can be done in many water environments including marshes, swamps, hot springs, and even under ice, and can also be grown in a lab, offering a promising, scalable option in many parts of the world.

5. subsidize organic – or any – produce alternatives

fruits, vegetables, and legumes (besides soy) are drastically under-supported by government entities compared to staple grains and animal feed. although developed nations often tout fruits and vegetables as essential to a healthful diet, many channel far more funding into meat, animal, and grains like corn and wheat.

by subsidizing fruits and vegetables, people will be better-able to afford these nutrient-dense food choices, and have a better chance at avoiding micronutrient deficiencies. and although not a large source of protein per se, most plant-foods have at least some traces of protein, all of which add up and can contribute to protein and energy intake.

how to move forward:

there are many more sustainable ways to direct worldwide subsidies currently supporting animal agriculture. to solve global hunger, we need a global, cooperative approach to create sustainable food choices with minimal environmental impacts. if developed and developing countries refocus their protein investments, this vision is possible.

and while politically-willed hypotheticals sometimes seem like far-off solutions, there are still things we as citizens can do to nurture these changes. from selecting to spending our dollars on sustainable protein alternatives, educating ourselves and others on the reality of our global food system, and showing up with our political voice in support of institutional change, together we can empower a more food secure future.

cliff’s notes:

how trader joe’s fights food waste

food waste is a major global issue. in the united states alone, its estimated that up to 40% of food produced ends up in the garbage. the negative impacts are multifold: not only are there many hungry people in need of said food, but throwing away food is also major waste of resources required for food production and transportation. furthermore, food that ends up in landfills contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.

as a commitment to managing their environmental impact while helping their local store communities, trader joe’s has one of the most impressive food waste management programs among grocery store chains in the country. 

working with feeding america, the long-standing food donation program starts in the store. each day, items that are set to expire the next day are pulled from the shelves, scanned, properly stored, and make their way to a local food pantry or food recovery program. that means 100% of food that is “not fit for sale but safe for consumption” is donated. this includes items like day-of expiring foods, dented cereal boxes, cartons of eggs that may have a single cracked egg, and pieces of misshapen produce.

the process

the food donation process, like all things trader joe’s, is thoughtfully run, and executed with a smile. each and every trader joe’s store has a donation coordinator, who oversees food handling within the store, as well as delivery to local food pantries and food recovery programs. every crew member shares the responsibility of pulling products they see unfit for sale, scanning them for inventory reasons, and storing them according to temperature.

stores further separate food items by type to make it easier for pantries to organize what they receive. employees have also been known to visit food banks to see if anything else can be done to improve or streamline the process.

the operation runs seven days a week, most days of the year (aside from major holidays during which trader joe’s is closed). while it would be easier, and faster, to toss most of these products in the trash as opposed to track, store, and ensure their delivery, the grocer’s commitment to the program has made an impressive impact: in 2017 alone, the grocery store chain donated 70 million pounds of food, worth nearly $350 million. according to feeding america, that’s nearly 58 million meals.  

so why doesn’t every store donate their food?

trader joe’s is able to write off the donation as a tax break — making it a win-win situation for everyone involved — which begs the question: why don’t all grocery stores donate their food?

turns out, there are a couple reasons. first, many mistakenly believe the process to be a liability: that if people get sick from the donated food, the company will be held responsible and be subject to legal action. but that actually isn’t true. in 1996, congress passed the bill emerson good samaritan food donation act, which protects companies who donate food in good faith from civil or criminal liability.

many stores also don’t wish to bother with the logistics of the process. donating food requires tracking and properly store donations, and ensuring they make their way to a reputable food bank. this requires a significant amount of time and effort, and not every store has the staff, space, or desire to maintain a donation program.

some stores just may not know how to go about it. only 12 states have established guidelines for food donations. a lack of proper guidance or information may deter many willing grocers from participating.

what we can learn from trader joe’s

trader joe’s impressive food donation program is inspiring, and something many regular shoppers aren’t even aware of. spreading the word and asking about donation programs in your local stores could spark conversations into meaningful food recovery programs like the one at trader joe’s.

and, their program is a wonderful reminder that strangely shaped produce, day-of expiring goods, and less-than-beautiful boxes are still perfectly safe forms of nourishment. and that’s something we can all raise a spoonful of cookie butter to.

sound familiar? welcome to america, where the average citizen consumes a staggering 217.5 pounds of meat each year, a figure that far exceeds the global average of 41.3 pounds per capita. meat is part of our culture; many of us grew up with meat at the center of our dinner plates, under the impression that it was good for us. yet, in recent years, mounting evidence has suggested high levels of meat consumption may not be the healthiest option for our bodies and our planet. so why are we still married to meat, despite the warning signs?

nutrition scientists have been investigating meat for years. in 2015 the international agency for research on cancer (iarc) classified processed meat as a carcinogen, and red meat as a probable carcinogen. the who and american cancer society next urged the public to limit meat consumption. diets rich in animal protein are also linked to increased cardiovascular risks and all-cause mortality, while those high in plant-protein show protective effects.

from a sustainability standpoint, livestock has a higher water and carbon footprint than any other food, emitting significant amounts of methane and other greenhouse gases from their farts and burps. researchers estimate that it takes about 100 times the amount of water to produce animal protein compared to vegetable protein. this all goes without mentioning, of course, the animal welfare concerns many have surrounding commercially raised meat.

with climate change an urgent threat, and historically high rates of chronic, preventable disease, we must put down our forks and assess if we are engaging in best-practice dietary-initiatives for our bodies, the planet, and humanity at large.

seeing as the food system contributes roughly a third of the greenhouse gas emissions, and that 5 of the 10 leading causes of death in the u.s. are diet-related, there’s a real opportunity to better our health and protect the planet.

yet we often eschew this opportunity, allowing convenience and fleeting preference to trump ethical considerations surrounding the food choices we make. we blissfully fail to acknowledge the impacts of meat, drowning out uncomfortable thoughts with the sizzling sound of bacon frying on the stove. the time is now, however, to push for decreased consumption of meat.

a colossal task, meat reduction strategies historically have have been met with deep resistance. when a school in texas attempted to implement a meatless monday policy, offering just one meatless meal per week, backlash erupted, and the measure was seen as overly coercive. and when reduced meat consumption was proposed for the 2015 dietary guidelines, heavy meat-industry lobbying ensured the suggestion did not make the cut.

what opposers who denounce such initiatives as overly paternalistic fail to realize, however, is that their taste for a meat-heavy diet is a result of a preference that has been architected for them. the government uses tax dollars to feed our meaty appetites, spending billions on agricultural subsidies, a bulk of which support commercially raised meat, often incentivized by “big meat’s” hefty political contributions to persuade lawmakers.

and the meat industry’s power extends beyond its pocketbooks. marketing campaigns have established cultural norms that contribute to our meat-heavy mindset, telling us our bodies need “high quality” animal protein or we will become malnourished or anemic, and that eating only plants is unsatisfying and emasculating, all contributing to resistance to shift away from animal protein. after all, believing these notions is far easier than changing something so personal and emotionally charged as our diets.

but if we continue to consume meat at the present rate, we set ourselves on a trajectory for resource depletion, irreversible damage to the planet, and a multitude of preventable health risks. moreover, we jeopardize the right for future generations to food access and a healthful planet.

with momentum growing in the plant-based food movement, there has never been a better time to nudge for reduced meat consumption. incentivization of meatless monday practices, continued advocacy for reductionist messaging in dietary guidelines, and education about meat’s impacts, may prove monumental.

even if national policy is presently out of reach, we can begin by adjusting our own diets and work on changing the social norms around meat. and we don’t have to push the world into veganism overnight to make a difference. by eating a little less, applauding when meat-free options are offered out of the home, and celebrating plant-based meals, we can decrease meat demand and foster a cultural shift where plants become preferential. doing so can shrink our ecological footprint, improve our health, and ensure sustainable food choices for future generations. if there is a true desire to make a positive impact for health of humanity or the planet, it’s time to put the money where our mouths are, and back off the beef.

according to the usda, roughly 30-40% of the food produced in the united states goes to waste. in addition to manufacturing waste, and about 31% of the total food loss occurs in the hands of retailers and consumers. this includes food wasted in grocery stores, at home, and in restaurants.

achieving low or no waste is a challenge for restaurants. even if a restaurant sources local and sustainable ingredients, a great deal of waste occurs at the front end of the house. often, consumers order large quantities of food and don’t finish them. moreover, diners expect aesthetically pleasing and large portioned meals, as well as consistency in taste, texture, and appearance for every dining experience, adding additional challenges to reducing waste in restaurant settings.

a creative alternative to waste

thankfully, some chefs are stepping up to the plate when it comes to sustainable dining. chef jehangir mehta is a former runner-up on food network’s next iron chef and a zero waste restaurant pioneer. his widely-acclaimed restaurant, graffiti earth, is nestled in the heart of tribeca, manhattan, where diners enjoy creative, sustainably-sourced meals in an enchanting atmosphere.

i had the pleasure of speaking to chef jehangir mehta and learning more about the initiatives he has taken to commit to sustainable dining, and quickly learned that every detail of his restaurant, from the burger recipe to the dining placemats, is a result of thoughtful eco-minded decision making.

the eclectic menu at graffiti earth is filled with enticing plant-forward dishes, like zucchini hummus pizza, garlic coconut soup with chickpea caviar, and scallop brulee with cauliflower wasabi yogurt.

while the menu may read as an ordinary upscale new york restaurant, a closer look reveals a carefully crafted and creative collection of sustainable dishes.

incorporating the misfits

chef mehta consciously seeks out produce that may go unloved in other eateries, looking past aesthetic misshapes by sourcing unusable produce scraps from vendors who consider awkwardly shaped fruits and vegetables unuseable, and from other chefs who cannot use fruits or vegetables in their entirety.

the otherwise neglected produce gets put to use in soups and entrees on the menu, which is vegetable-focused, with animal proteins served on the side as a nod to sustainability.

when it comes to the meats and seafood that do appear on the menu, chef mehta seeks underutilized seafood that often goes to waste, and is careful to insure that all seafood served has been sourced in a manner that does not disrupt oceanic health.

the scallop brulee, for example, is crafted from broken scallops, given new life in an upscale entree. without careful cooking techniques and an open mind, these scallops likely would have gone to waste. even the burger on graffiti earth’s menu is made up of more mushrooms than beef, demonstrating an inventive way to stretch a carbon-costly food item with one that’s more climate friendly.

the coconut-based soup is ever-changing; it’s a creation based on whatever vegetable scraps are currently available, proving that good food doesn’t have to be consistent – it just has to be delicious.

graffiti earth also sources used espresso grounds from birch coffee and uses them to give a distinct espresso flavor to ice cream in the restaurant’s persian toast, butterscotch & irish coffee cream dessert dish.

many of the dishes served at graffiti earth are made from ingredients that would be turned down by other chefs. but with proper care and preparation, one chef’s trash becomes another chef’s treasure, delighting diners and the planet alike. 

dinnerware and utensils vary between place setting, and showcase a collection of gifts and hand-me-downs sourced from friends and family. meals are served on recycled newspaper rather than disposable tablecloths, offering diners a recyclable dining surface and a memorable eating experience. 

graffiti earth is a not only a great place to eat, it’s delicious proof that sustainable eating doesn’t have to be defined by strict dietary labels or new technology. it can be defined by create compassion, a little planning, and a lot of imagination.

chef jehangir mehta proves that effective change doesn’t have to happen over night. incremental changes over time can add up to a monumental impact. his steady approach to sustainability offers inspiration to those intimidated by large lifestyle changes. or at the very least, an eating establishment to enjoy an eco-friendly meal.