environment and human life essay

Human Impacts on the Environment

Humans impact the physical environment in many ways: overpopulation, pollution, burning fossil fuels, and deforestation. Changes like these have triggered climate change, soil erosion, poor air quality, and undrinkable water. These negative impacts can affect human behavior and can prompt mass migrations or battles over clean water.

Help your students understand the impact humans have on the physical environment with these classroom resources.

Earth Science, Geology, Geography, Physical Geography

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College Biology

Course: ap®︎/college biology   >   unit 8.

• Mutation as a source of variation
• Introduced species and biodiversity
• Invasive species
• Human activities that threaten biodiversity
• How does climate change affect biodiversity?
• How did all dinosaurs except birds go extinct?
• Were dinosaurs undergoing long-term decline before mass extinction?

Human impact on ecosystems review

• Disruptions to ecosystems

Human impact on biodiversity

Human-mediated causes of biodiversity loss.

• Land-use change : Humans may destroy natural landscapes as they mine resources and urbanize areas. This is detrimental, as it displaces residing species, reducing available habitats and food sources.
• Pollution : Pollution can occur from the runoff or disposal of chemical substances, or from energy sources (noise and light pollution).
• Introduced species : Humans may unintentionally, or intentionally, introduce a non-native species into an ecosystem. This can negatively effect an ecosystem because the introduced species may outcompete native organisms and displace them.
• Resource exploitation : Humans consume large amounts of resources for their own needs. Some examples include the mining of natural resources like coal, the hunting and fishing of animals for food, and the clearing of forests for urbanization and wood use. Extensive overuse of nonrenewable resources , like fossil fuels, can cause great harm to the environment. Recycling products made from nonrenewable resources (such as plastic, which is made from oil) is one way to reduce the negative impacts of this resource exploitation. In addition, the development and use of renewable resources , like solar or wind energy, can help decrease the harmful effects of resource exploitation.

Climate change and biodiversity

Conservation, common mistakes and misconceptions.

• The extinction rate is currently 1,000-10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. Some people think that extinction is not a relevant issue, but it is actually more relevant than ever! Historically, the natural extinction rate is between 1-5 species-level extinctions per year. Human impact has caused this rate to jump to a significantly higher rate, offsetting the balance of biodiversity.
• The greenhouse effect is not all negative. Although we talk about greenhouse gases producing a negative impact (global change), the greenhouse effect serves a natural purpose: maintaining the warmth that sustains life on Earth. The problem arises when too much heat is trapped, causing a rise in average global temperature.
• An individual person can have an effect on biodiversity. Although biodiversity loss may be a large-scale problem, reducing threats to biodiversity can begin with a single individual. Smaller efforts, such as reusing or recycling items, or even purchasing sustainable foods, can have a culminating effect. That is, if each person did these things, even just a little, they would add up and help reduce biodiversity loss!

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Environment Essay

Essay on Understanding and Nurturing Our Environment

The environment is everything that surrounds us – the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil beneath our feet, and the diverse flora and fauna that inhabit our planet. It's not just a backdrop to our lives; it's the very essence of our existence. In this essay, we'll explore the importance of our environment, the challenges it faces, and what we can do to ensure a sustainable and thriving world for generations to come.

Our environment is a complex and interconnected web of life. Every living organism, from the tiniest microbe to the largest mammal, plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of ecosystems. This delicate balance ensures the survival of species, including humans. For instance, bees pollinate plants, which produce the oxygen we breathe. Nature is a masterpiece that has evolved over millions of years, and we are just one small part of this intricate tapestry.

Importance of Environment  

The environment is crucial for keeping living things healthy.

It helps balance ecosystems.

The environment provides everything necessary for humans, like food, shelter, and air.

It's also a source of natural beauty that is essential for our physical and mental health.

The Threats to Our Environment:

Unfortunately, our actions have disrupted this delicate balance. The rapid industrialization, deforestation, pollution, and over-exploitation of natural resources have led to severe environmental degradation. Climate change, driven by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, is altering weather patterns, causing extreme events like floods, droughts, and storms. The loss of biodiversity is another alarming concern – species are disappearing at an unprecedented rate due to habitat destruction and pollution.

Impact of Human Activities on the Environment

Human activities like pollution, deforestation, and waste disposal are causing environmental problems like acid rain, climate change, and global warming. The environment has living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) components. Biotic components include plants, animals, and microorganisms, while abiotic components include things like temperature, light, and soil.

In the living environment, there are producers (like plants), consumers (like animals), and decomposers (like bacteria). Producers use sunlight to make energy, forming the base of the food web. Consumers get their energy by eating other organisms, creating a chain of energy transfer. Decomposers break down waste and dead organisms, recycling nutrients in the soil.

The non-living environment includes climatic factors (like rain and temperature) and edaphic factors (like soil and minerals). Climatic factors affect the water cycle, while edaphic factors provide nutrients and a place for organisms to grow.

The environment includes everything from the air we breathe to the ecosystems we live in. It's crucial to keep it clean for a healthy life. All components of the environment are affected by its condition, so a clean environment is essential for a healthy ecosystem.

Sustainable Practices:

Adopting sustainable practices is a key step towards mitigating environmental degradation. This includes reducing our carbon footprint by using renewable energy, practicing responsible consumption, and minimizing waste. Conservation of natural resources, such as water and forests, is essential. Supporting local and global initiatives that aim to protect the environment, like reforestation projects and wildlife conservation efforts, can make a significant impact.

Education and Awareness:

Creating a sustainable future requires a collective effort, and education is a powerful tool in this regard. Raising awareness about environmental issues, the consequences of our actions, and the importance of conservation is crucial. Education empowers individuals to make informed choices and encourages sustainable practices at both personal and community levels.

Why is a Clean Environment Necessary?

To have a happy and thriving community and country, we really need a clean and safe environment. It's like the basic necessity for life on Earth. Let me break down why having a clean environment is so crucial.

First off, any living thing—whether it's plants, animals, or people—can't survive in a dirty environment. We all need a good and healthy place to live. When things get polluted, it messes up the balance of nature and can even cause diseases. If we keep using up our natural resources too quickly, life on Earth becomes a real struggle.

So, what's causing all this environmental trouble? Well, one big reason is that there are just so many people around, and we're using up a lot of stuff like land, food, water, air, and even fossil fuels and minerals. Cutting down a bunch of trees (we call it deforestation) is also a big problem because it messes up the whole ecosystem.

Then there's pollution—air, water, and soil pollution. It's like throwing a wrench into the gears of nature, making everything go wonky. And you've probably heard about things like the ozone layer getting thinner, global warming, weird weather, and glaciers melting. These are all signs that our environment is in trouble.

But don't worry, we can do things to make it better:

Plant more trees—they're like nature's superheroes, helping balance everything out.

Follow the 3 R's: Reuse stuff, reduce waste, and recycle. It's like giving our planet a high-five.

Ditch the plastic bags—they're not great for our landscapes.

Think about how many people there are and try to slow down the population growth.

By doing these things, we're basically giving our planet a little TLC (tender loving care), and that's how we can keep our environment clean and healthy for everyone.

Policy and Regulation:

Governments and institutions play a vital role in shaping environmental policies and regulations. Strong and enforceable laws are essential to curb activities that harm the environment. This includes regulations on emissions, waste disposal, and protection of natural habitats. International cooperation is also crucial to address global environmental challenges, as issues like climate change know no borders.

The Role of Technology:

Technology can be a double-edged sword in environmental conservation. While some technological advancements contribute to environmental degradation, others offer solutions. Innovative technologies in renewable energy, waste management, and sustainable agriculture can significantly reduce our impact on the environment. Embracing and investing in eco-friendly technologies is a step towards a greener and more sustainable future.

Conclusion:

Our environment is not just a collection of trees, rivers, and animals; it's the foundation of our existence. Understanding the interconnectedness of all living things and recognizing our responsibility as stewards of the Earth is essential. By adopting sustainable practices, fostering education and awareness, implementing effective policies, and embracing eco-friendly technologies, we can work towards healing our planet. The choices we make today will determine the world we leave for future generations – a world that can either flourish in its natural beauty or struggle under the weight of environmental degradation. It's our collective responsibility to ensure that it's the former.

FAQs on Environment Essay

1. What is the Environment?

The environment constitutes the entire ecosystem that includes plants, animals and microorganisms, sunlight, air, rain, temperature, humidity, and other climatic factors. It is basically the surroundings where we live. The environment regulates the life of all living beings on Earth.

2. What are the Three Kinds of Environments?

Biotic Environment: It includes all biotic factors or living forms like plants, animals, and microorganisms.

Abiotic Environment: It includes non-living factors like temperature, light, rainfall, soil, minerals, etc. It comprises the atmosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere.

Built Environment: It includes buildings, streets, houses, industries, etc. 

3. What are the Major Factors that Lead to the Degradation of the Environment?

The factors that lead to the degradation of the environment are:

The rapid increase in the population.

Growth of industrialization and urbanization.

Deforestation is making the soil infertile (soil that provides nutrients and home to millions of organisms).

Over-consumption of natural resources.

Ozone depletion, global warming, and the greenhouse effect.

4. How do we Save Our Environment?

We must save our environment by maintaining a balanced and healthy ecosystem. We should plant more trees. We should reduce our consumption and reuse and recycle stuff. We should check on the increase in population. We should scarcely use our natural and precious resources. Industries and factories should take precautionary measures before dumping their wastes into the water bodies.

5. How can we protect Mother Earth?

Ways to save Mother Earth include planting more and more trees, using renewable sources of energy, reducing the wastage of water, saving electricity, reducing the use of plastic, conservation of non-renewable resources, conserving the different flora and faunas, taking steps to reduce pollution, etc.

6. What are some ways that humans impact their environment?

Humans have influenced the physical environment in many ways like overpopulation, pollution, burning fossil fuels, and deforestation. Changes like these have generated climate change, soil erosion, poor air quality, and undrinkable water. These negative impacts can affect human behavior and can prompt mass migrations or battles over clean water.  

7. Why is the environment of social importance?

Human beings are social animals by nature. They spend a good amount of time in social environments. Their responsibility towards the environment is certainly important because these social environments might support human beings in both personal development goals as well as career development goals.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Agriculture and the Environment
• Case Studies
• Chemistry and Toxicology
• Environment and Human Health
• Environmental Biology
• Environmental Economics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Ethics and Philosophy
• Environmental History
• Environmental Issues and Problems
• Environmental Processes and Systems
• Environmental Sociology and Psychology
• Environments
• Framing Concepts in Environmental Science
• Management and Planning
• Policy, Governance, and Law
• Quantitative Analysis and Tools
• Sustainability and Solutions
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

The environment in health and well-being.

• George Morris George Morris European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, United Kingdom
•  and  Patrick Saunders Patrick Saunders University of Staffordshire, University of Birmingham, and WHO Collaborating Centre
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.101
• Published online: 29 March 2017

Most people today readily accept that their health and disease are products of personal characteristics such as their age, gender, and genetic inheritance; the choices they make; and, of course, a complex array of factors operating at the level of society. Individuals frequently have little or no control over the cultural, economic, and social influences that shape their lives and their health and well-being. The environment that forms the physical context for their lives is one such influence and comprises the places where people live, learn work, play, and socialize, the air they breathe, and the food and water they consume. Interest in the physical environment as a component of human health goes back many thousands of years and when, around two and a half millennia ago, humans started to write down ideas about health, disease, and their determinants, many of these ideas centered on the physical environment.

The modern public health movement came into existence in the 19th century as a response to the dreadful unsanitary conditions endured by the urban poor of the Industrial Revolution. These conditions nurtured disease, dramatically shortening life. Thus, a public health movement that was ultimately to change the health and prosperity of millions of people across the world was launched on an “environmental conceptualization” of health. Yet, although the physical environment, especially in towns and cities, has changed dramatically in the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, so too has our understanding of the relationship between the environment and human health and the importance we attach to it.

The decades immediately following World War II were distinguished by declining influence for public health as a discipline. Health and disease were increasingly “individualized”—a trend that served to further diminish interest in the environment, which was no longer seen as an important component in the health concerns of the day. Yet, as the 20th century wore on, a range of factors emerged to r-establish a belief in the environment as a key issue in the health of Western society. These included new toxic and infectious threats acting at the population level but also the renaissance of a “socioecological model” of public health that demanded a much richer and often more subtle understanding of how local surroundings might act to both improve and damage human health and well-being.

Yet, just as society has begun to shape a much more sophisticated response to reunite health with place and, with this, shape new policies to address complex contemporary challenges, such as obesity, diminished mental health, and well-being and inequities, a new challenge has emerged. In its simplest terms, human activity now seriously threatens the planetary processes and systems on which humankind depends for health and well-being and, ultimately, survival. Ecological public health—the need to build health and well-being, henceforth on ecological principles—may be seen as the society’s greatest 21st-century imperative. Success will involve nothing less than a fundamental rethink of the interplay between society, the economy, and the environment. Importantly, it will demand an environmental conceptualization of the public health as no less radical than the environmental conceptualization that launched modern public health in the 19th century, only now the challenge presents on a vastly extended temporal and spatial scale.

• environmental and human health
• environment
• environmental epidemiology
• environmental health inequalities
• ecological public health

Introduction

This article traces the development of ideas about the environment in human health and well-being over time. Our primary focus is the period since the early 19th century , sometimes termed the “modern public health era.” This has been not only a time of unprecedented scientific, technological, and societal transition but also a time during which perspectives on the relationship of humans to their environment, and its implications for their health and well-being, have undergone significant change.

Curiosity about the environment as a factor in human health and well-being, and indeed health-motivated interventions to manage the physical context for life, substantially predate the modern public health era. The archaeological record provides evidence of sewer lines, primitive toilets, and water-supply arrangements in settlements in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Southern Europe, dating back many thousands of years (Rosen, 1993 ). Some religious traditions also imply recognition of the importance of environmental factors in health. For example, restrictions on the consumption of certain foods probably derive from a belief that these foods carried risks to health; a passage in the book of Leviticus conveys the existence of a belief in the relationship between the internal state of a house and the health of its occupants (Leviticus [14:33–45], quoted in Frumkin, 2005 ).

The sixty-two books of the “Hippocratic Corpus” dating from 430–330 bc are the accepted bedrock of Western medicine (Lloyd, 1983 ), not least because they departed from the purely supernatural explanations for health and disease which hitherto held sway. For the first time, ideas about medicine, diseases, and their causes were being written down. Among these were ideas about the environment and its relationship to mental and physical health (Lloyd, 1983 ; Rosen, 1993 ; Kessel, 2006 ). While scarcely a template for how societies would come to think about environment and health in the modern era, one Hippocratic text in particular, On Airs, Waters and Places , introduces several ideas that do retain currency. For example, the simple message that good health is unlikely to be achieved and maintained in poor environmental conditions is enduring. Also, through specific reference to the health relevance of changes in water, soil, vegetation, sunlight, winds, climate, and seasonality, On Airs, Waters and Places conceives an environment made up of distinct compartments and spatial scales from local to global, recognizing that perturbations in these compartments, and on these scales, may result in disease. Such thinking remains conceptually and operationally relevant today. Hazardous agents are still frequently addressed in “environmental compartments” such as water, soil, air, and food or by developing and applying environmental standards for the different categories of place where people work, live, learn, and socialize. In parts, the Hippocratic Corpus also presages the ecological perspectives now coloring 21st-century public health thinking. These include an understanding of the potential for human activity to impact negatively on the natural world and the importance of viewing the body within its environment as a composite whole.

Environment and Health in the Modern Public Health Era

Epidemiology is the basic science of public health and is concerned with the distribution of health and disease in populations across time and spaces, together with the determinants of that distribution. Environmental epidemiology is a subspecialty dealing with the effects of environmental exposures on health and disease, again, in populations. Since the early 19th century , the outputs of epidemiology have been key components of a “mixed economy of evidence” that has shaped and reshaped priorities and informed the decisions society takes to protect and improve population health (Petticrew et al., 2004 ; Baker & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2008 ).

In a classic paper from the 1990s, the respected epidemiologists, Mervyn and Ezra Susser, helpfully described different “epidemiological eras” in modern public health, each driven by a dominant paradigm concerning the causes of disease and supported by a particular analytical approach (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). This differentiation offers a useful framework within which to consider changing perspectives on the role of environment in health since the early 1900s.

The Environment in an “Era of Sanitary Statistics”

The Industrial Revolution came first to 19th-century Britain driven by technological innovation, abundant coal supplies, and supportive political/economic conditions. Also influential was a post-Reformation philosophy that extolled the work ethic and self-sufficiency. The events were to resonate throughout the world, bringing great prosperity to some, but others, especially the urban poor, endured poor housing, severe overcrowding, and an absence of wholesome water or sanitation. The growing industrial cities became crucibles of squalor, disease, and severely reduced life expectancy as their citizens suffered the ravages of typhus, tuberculosis, and successive cholera epidemics. Unhealthy working conditions and grossly polluted air also damaged health and compounded the misery of urban life at this time. Such challenges were common to all locations touched by the Industrial Revolution and became the catalyst for a new public health movement across Europe and North America (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ; Rosen, 1993 ).

Using the new science of medical statistics, investigators quickly established the locations with the poorest living conditions to be also those where disease and early death were most prevalent (Chadwick, 1842 ), fueling an ultimately transformational societal response—a “sanitary revolution” (Rosen, 1993 ). Such was the impact of this mix of slum clearance with the introduction of waterborne sewerage and piped water supplies that readers of the British Medical Journal , voting almost two centuries later, still chose it, from a shortlist of 15, as the most important medical milestone since the Journal was first published in 1840 . The 11,300 readers who voted even placed it above the discovery of antibiotics and the development of anaesthesia (Ferriman, 2007 ).

Despite its impact, the “sanitary revolution” was famously initiated and sustained on a biologically flawed paradigm regarding the mechanistic causes of disease. Yet “miasma” (the transmission of disease through noxious vapors), because it served as a metaphor for squalid insanitary conditions, still drove effective intervention (Morris et al., 2006 ; Nash, 2006 ). During this time, however, the emergence of epidemiology as the primary mode of inquiry of public health was also pivotal to success. Endorsing this view, Susser and Susser labeled the first half of the 19th century an “Era of Sanitary Statistics,” citing the frequent use of district-level data to link disease to, for example: filthy and degraded urban environments; overcrowding and poor housing and working conditions; and social factors like infant care (Susser & Susser, 1996 )).

Thus, recognition that the environment (physical and social) mattered for health and notions of a “permeable” human body in close connection with other organisms and the abiotic environment were embedded at the launch of the 19th-century public health movement. It is notable that the perspective of the reformers was quite properly “proximal,” that is, rooted in an acceptance of the importance of the local environment, physical and social. While the term “ecology” would not be coined until 1866 (Haekel, 1866 ) and “social ecology” much later still (Bookchin, 1990 ), the public health pioneers embraced what, in today’s terms, we would understand as a broadly socioecological perspective and discerned no conflict in this with their efforts to understand the immediate causes of disease and intervene in a focused way to prevent it (Nash, 2006 ).

Especially through the efforts to stop cholera, the sanitarians affirmed the pathogenic potential of unsanitary conditions and pioneered the epidemiological approach, initially as “environmental epidemiology” (Baker & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2008 ). Other legacies of the Era of Sanitary Statistics have been less enduring. Despite recent advocacy of a “precautionary principle” (see, e.g., Martuzzi, 2007 ; European Environment Agency, 2013 ), the willingness to act on the basis of strong suspicion of a societal-level environmental threat to population health has diminished, perhaps an inevitable casualty of increasing sophistication and “evidence-based” approaches in medicine and policy (Kessel, 2006 ; Brownson et al., 2009 ). Many of public health’s greatest triumphs have flowed from interventions that would have struggled to satisfy today’s evidential criteria. Also, despite a recent reconnection with such arguments, the inherent logic of seeing and tackling disease in its social and environmental context, so obvious to the pioneers of public health, has periodically been less visible in the rhetoric and actions of their successors.

It is appropriate at this point to emphasize the international character of the 19th-century public health movement. This movement can all too easily be presented as a British phenomenon, with seminal contributions from John Snow ( 1813–1858 ) on the investigation of cholera (Vinten-Johansen et al., 2003 ); William Farr ( 1807–1883 ), also on cholera but more widely on medical statistics (Susser & Adelstein,, 1975 ); Edward Jenner ( 1749–1823 ) on vaccination (Baxby, 2004 ), and Edwin Chadwick ( 1800–1890 ) on the assembly of data relating disease to the filth and squalor that came with poverty (Chadwick, 1842 ). In reality, public health, then as now, advanced through the contribution of many individuals in many nations. For example, the German pioneer of cellular biology, Rudolf Virchow ( 1821–1902 ), and his fellow countryman, the hygienist Johan Peter Frank ( 1745–1821 ), were hugely important (Rather, 1985 ). In France, Louis-Rene Vilerme ( 1782–1863 ), the doctor and pioneer of social epidemiology, highlighted links between poverty and death rates (Rosen, 1993 ) and, in the United States, the meticulous work of Lemuel Shattuck ( 1793–1859 ) bears direct comparison with that of Chadwick (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ).

It might be supposed that the consolidated outputs of European laboratories, especially in the decades between 1830 and 1870 , would have quickly expunged the miasmic paradigm from 19th-century medicine and public health. Yet, the concept of miasma was so inculcated in Western thought that, for many, it retained significant explanatory power. Thus, for much of the 19th century there was not a single settled view on disease contagion (e.g., see Kokayeff, 2013 ). Indeed, as late as 1869 some distinguished Medical Officers of Health in England still attributed diseases such as typhoid to “the insidious miasma of sewer gases” and dismissed germs as “pure nonsense.”

The Environment in an “Era of Infectious Disease Epidemiology”

Increasingly contested, the miasmic theory of disease was effectively supplanted in the 1880s by broad acceptance of the germ theory, ushering a new “Era of Infectious Disease Epidemiology” (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). In 1882 , Louis Pasteur’s techniques for growing organisms made it possible for Robert Koch ( 1843–1910 ) to demonstrate that a mycobacterium was the cause of tuberculosis and, shortly thereafter, to provide scientific proof that cholera was waterborne (Foster, 1970 ; Collard, 1976 ; Brock, 1999 ). In so doing, Koch established, what had been hypothesized by his teacher, Jacob Henle ( 1809–1885 ), some 40 years earlier that disease was microbial. Henle, Snow, Koch, and the biologist Ferdinand Cohn ( 1828–1898 ) are rightly seen as fathers of the science of medical microbiology that for a time would come to dominate thinking in medicine and public health (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ).

Initially at least, the germ theory did little to diminish interest in the environment as a determinant of health. Indeed, by revealing causal linkages between organisms isolated from their environmental carriers and specific diseases, it conferred scientific coherence on the established sanitary model and vindicated efforts to secure hygienic water, food, and housing. As Lesley Nash has observed, the germ theorists were initially content to meld the insights of bacteriology with longstanding environmental beliefs. Notions of a body in constant interaction with, and closely dependent on, its local social and physical context (in today’s terms a socioecological perspective) did not conflict with the narrower perspectives of laboratory science (Nash, 2006 ).

While relative contributions may be debated, over a short timeframe medical microbiology, isolation, immunization, and improving social/environmental conditions combined to sharply reduce the burden of infectious disease for Western society. Yet, by the early years of the 20th century , the capacity to examine disease at the microscopic level, which was the engine of diagnostics and therapeutics, was beginning to act on the very foundations that support public health. Medical science gradually made its focus the pathogenic agents of disease, moving attention away from the environment and eroding socioecological perspectives. Doctors seemed quite content to express health as an absence of disease, and medical science to project its role as the maintenance and reinforcement of “self-contained” human bodies (Nash, 2006 ). Through a growing tendency to see health, disease, and their determinants as attributes of individuals rather than characteristics of communities, wider society seemed almost complicit in an ‘individualization’ of health status. One implication of this blunting of a social/environmental thrust of public health was to divorce health from place, a development that would have profound implications in the very different epidemiological context that emerged following World War II.

The Environment in an Era of Chronic Disease Epidemiology

The dramatic reduction in infectious disease was certainly one reason why the epidemiological climate in Western society changed substantially in the mid- 20th century . But just as important was the emergence of a quite disparate set of pathologies believed to be of noncommunicable etiology. Coronary heart disease, cancers, and peptic ulcers, which became the targets in a new “Era of Chronic Disease Epidemiology” (Susser & Susser, 1996 ), were thought rather unlikely to have origins in exposure to what was an increasingly regulated and ostensibly improving physical environment. While the outputs of much postwar epidemiology seemed to endorse this view, it is useful, with hindsight, to recognize the influence of what might be seen as “fashions” in epidemiological inquiry. These fashions would influence how medical science and the wider society would come to regard diseases and their causes for a generation.

The response of the public health community to the new and alarming “noncommunicable” threats was, logically, to deploy descriptive epidemiology to reveal those most likely to be affected. Perhaps surprisingly, those who traditionally were most vulnerable to disease (the young, the old, the immunocompromised, etc.) did not appear to be at increased risk. Rather, the new epidemics disproportionately affected men in their middle years (Nabel & Braunwald, 2012 ). Supported by enhanced computing power and methodological advance (Susser & Susser, 1996 ), researchers began to converge on specific risk factors that correlated with diseases of greatest concern. Many, it seemed, were aspects of individual lifestyle and behaviors, ostensibly freely chosen. A particular attraction for the proponents of what was to become known as “risk factor epidemiology” was its capacity to represent, mathematically, the “relative risk” of contracting a disease between people exposed to a putative risk and those who were not. Some have dubbed this epidemiological approach to noncommunicable or chronic disease “black box epidemiology” because it can relate exposure to outcomes “without any necessary obligation to interpolate either intervening factors or even pathogenesis” (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). Another unfortunate characteristic of this approach to epidemiology is that, despite its laudable intent to understand and address disease in populations , its focus is on individuals within those populations. As a result, it fails to elucidate the societal forces whose influence and interplay shape the health and health-relevant choices of those individuals. When viewed through a policy lens, this mitigates in favor of simplistic solutions that target individuals divorced from context and that lack the traction to produce meaningful change.

In summary, the desire to create a mathematical measure of relative risk for a specific factor is understandable. However, risk factor epidemiology uses an approach that is much more flexible than material reality. In the real world, many different factors coexist and interact to create and destroy health. This is not, however, to deny risk factor epidemiology’s capacity, particularly in synergy with laboratory-based research, to break new ground. Notably, these methodologically driven approaches were key to elucidating links between smoking and lung cancer, heart disease and serum cholesterol, and between levels of prenatal folic acid intake and neural tube defects (Susser & Susser, 1996 ; Kessel, 2006 ; Perry, 1997 ).

The same basic criticism is voiced where similar “black box” epidemiological approaches are used to explore the contribution of a specific environmental agent, as in the case of much recent air pollution epidemiology (see below) (Kessel, 2006 ). Any specific pollutant under epidemiological investigation inevitably coexists with other pollutants and in a specific exposure context (e.g., prevailing climatic conditions). These coexisting factors may be critical in determining the health outcomes from exposure to the pollutant under investigation. Because the outputs of black box epidemiology are abstractions, the relative risk calculation represents an abstraction that can be limited in its capacity to inform policy.

The decades following World War II were a time of declining influence for public health and population perspectives, largely for reasons we have outlined. Yet, in its rhetoric and activities, the discipline of public health seemed at times almost complicit. Even its defining science of epidemiology seemed for a time more concerned to reinforce the insights of clinical medicine than to play the exploratory role on which its reputation had been founded (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). On the face of it, academic public health and the wider public health discipline had little to say about environment, no longer presenting it as an active component in the then current health challenges for Western society. As Nash has observed, physical environments were “recast as homogenous spaces which were traversed by pathogenic agents.” Nevertheless, divorced from the prevailing rhetoric, in many locations there was a parallel narrative depicting a workforce that continued to work at a local level, within established legal and administrative frameworks, to protect and maintain health-relevant environmental quality standards. However, the environmental health function was often set in the narrow, hazard-focused, and compartmentalized terms framed for it by laboratory science. The task was largely confined to identifying, monitoring, and controlling a limited set of toxic or infectious threats in their environmental carriers. Only when pathogenic organisms or toxic agents demonstrably escaped their industrial, agricultural, or marine confines to damage health and reinforce the porosity of the human body did environment briefly assume a higher profile.

Against this backdrop, it was not necessarily predictable or inevitable that environment would regain a central place in public health. Yet, by the end of the 20th century , a much richer understanding of the environmental contribution to human health and well-being had indeed emerged. This change cannot be attributed to a single factor in isolation. Some point to the key influence of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 (Carson, 1962 ), which expressed grave concern for the ecosystem effects of DDT, the linkage to potential human health effects, and the implications of a growing disconnect between humankind and nature. We do not deny the status of Carson’s work as a seminal text of a modern “environmentalism” that would rapidly gather pace and influence (Nash, 2006 ). However, we submit that it is only now, in the 21st century , when the reality of unprecedented anthropogenic damage to global processes and systems and its health implications is self-evident, that the health sector has fully made common cause with the environmentalist movement (e.g., see Butler et al., 2005 ; Butler & Harley, 2010 ) (We discuss this development later in this article under Ecological Public Health.

However, for reasons that are distinct from a mounting concern over anthropogenic threats to global environmental systems and processes, we argue that the closing decades of the 20th century and the early years of this century did see a rekindling of public health and societal interest in the local or proximal environment. This interest has continued into the 21st century . Developing interest in well-being as a concept, the belief that it is important and that it might be enhanced through the organized efforts of society, continues to engage the attention of academics and policymakers. Although well-being demonstrably impacts health and vice versa, well-being is about much more than health. Rather, it is a measure of what matters to people in every sphere of their lives. Despite its importance, well-being has proved a challenging target for policy. Some of its components are beyond the reach of policy. However, others, including aspects of the built and natural environment and people’s connection to it, are amenable to manipulation. Accordingly, research has been especially concerned to identify the qualities of their environment that are important for different people’s well-being, quality of life, and health at various life stages (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ). Also, on a practical level, integrating the various well-being frameworks and indices that continue to emerge is an ongoing challenge. However, it is sufficient at this point simply to recognize that elevated concern for well-being and its connection to environment can only broaden and deepen concern for the environment in public health. It will continue to drive renewed interest in matters such as landscape, natural beauty and scenery; crime free, clean places; green, blue, and natural environments; and so on.

Reconnecting Health with Place

Five issues/developments merit particular mention for their role in reestablishing the local environment as a mainstream consideration in health in the developed world in the late 20th century . While recognizing that there is an interrelationship among some of the factors discussed, for simplicity, we discuss them separately here.

Air Pollution

In citing air pollution as a key factor in a late- 20th-century resurgence of interest in the environment, we recognize its much longer history as a contributor to ill health (Evelyn, 1661 ; Lloyd, 1983 ). We acknowledge, too, that accounts of the modern public health era since its inception have been suffused with references to air pollution events, their health implications, and the political and professional campaigns that have sought to mitigate risk (Kessel, 2006 ). However, despite a compelling case for action, the need for urgent intervention was only fully accepted after a number of high-profile air pollution episodes in the 20th century . In 1930 , a severe smog incident in Belgium’s Meuse Valley resulted in the death of sixty people. Prophetically, investigators were quick to highlight the potential for many more deaths, were such an incident to be repeated in a more highly populated area (Bell & Samet, 2005 ). In 1948 , a further twenty people were to die and many more suffer injury after an industrial pollution incident in Donora, Pennsylvania (Hamil, 2008 ), but the tipping point came four years later, with the London Smog of 1952 .

Between December 5 and December 9, a dense fog descended on London where it mixed with air, polluted by domestic and industrial emissions. The resulting thick smog was familiar to many urban dwellers, but in this case, a combination of cold weather and stagnant atmospheric conditions caused sulfur dioxide and smoke concentrations to reach and maintain extremely high levels for a sustained period. The smog had a paralyzing effect on the city’s transport system, and many other aspects of daily life were severely disrupted. But the most dramatic effects were on health. Death rates were to reach three times the normal level for the time of year, and demand for hospital beds far exceeded supply (Baker & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2008 ). While the smog dissipated after a few days, deaths rates remained high for several months thereafter. Subsequent analysis has revealed that, rather than the 3,000–4,000 deaths linked to the episode in at the time, a figure of 10,000–12,000 deaths is more probable (Bell et al., 2004 ).

The London smog is historically important, obviously because of the distressing toll in morbidity and mortality and because it catalyzed long-overdue legislative intervention in the UK in the form of the Clean Air Act of 1956 and the U.S. Clean Air Act 1963 . Critically, however, it reminded the public and politicians of the reality that, given the right conditions, population-level environmental exposures were still entirely capable of producing significant morbidity and mortality.

In combination with other factors, the clean air legislation that emerged in the wake of the smog reduced domestic and industrial fossil fuel emissions, and helped to secure significant reductions in background concentrations of smoke and sulfur dioxide (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ). However, by the late 1980s, a new, more insidious, urban air pollution threat had begun to emerge. This pollution had its origins not in fixed-point emissions, but in the rapidly increasing numbers of motor vehicles and other fossil fuel-driven forms of transport in towns and cities. The pollutants of concern here, which lacked the visibility of the earlier sulfurous smogs, were fine particles, oxides of nitrogen, and ozone. So-called time-series analyses, using data on the temporal variation in environmental exposure and in health, aggregated over the same time period, were now applied to explore the issue of urban air pollution and health (e.g., see Pope et al., 1995 ; Dockery & Pope, 1996 ; Kessel, 2006 ). The studies revealed the cardiopulmonary effects of long-term exposure to much lower levels of ambient air pollution and, later, following further investigation, the absence of a threshold level for causing health effects. Recent outputs of ‘life-course’ epidemiology have also shown that air pollution affects health, not only through the exacerbation of symptoms in the elderly, but through various processes that have impacts from the womb, through childhood to adolescence, early adulthood, and on into middle and older age (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ). Also, appreciation that air pollutants can be resident in the air for days or even weeks makes air pollution not simply a local problem, but one that demands source control at city, regional, and international levels. In the UK, for example, the equivalent of around 40,000 deaths every year can be attributed to fine particulates and NO 2 exposure from outdoor air (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ).

Air pollution is probably the most thoroughly investigated of all environmental threats to health and well-being. Revelations about the true extent of its impact on health keep the issue in the headlines and emphasize the centrality of the physical environment within the public health project. Despite being a focus for academic interest and research fundings, the problem of urban air pollution is a very long way from resolution and is one factor that demands a fundamental reappraisal of how, as a species, we live, consume, and travel. (We discuss a wider, global dimension of the air pollution challenge later in this article.)

Everything Matters: The Environment as an Ingredient in Social Complexity

Another important and often overlooked reason for the late- 20th-century rekindling of interest in the environment and human health can be traced to developments within the wider discipline of public health. Ironically, the thinking behind what, by the 1990s, was being termed the “new public health” had its origins in much older ideas that gave prominence to the social structures in which health is created and destroyed (Baum, 1998 ; Awefeso, 2004 ). If we accept that health, disease, and social patterning in these matters are products of a complex interaction of influences at the level of society with the characteristics of individuals, then such complexity ought to be reflected in the policies and partnerships formed to address them. A growing number of analyses, beginning in the 1970s, would turn a spotlight on this complexity and fundamentally challenge the dominance of the biomedical/health care model and its capacity to solve the problems that beset public. These problems included the intractable burden of noncommunicable disease; growing levels of obesity; diminished psychological well-being; and, not least, stubborn and widening inequalities in the health and well-being of different social groups. Concern also mounted over containing rising, and potentially bankrupting, health care costs.

“A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians,” more commonly referred to as the Lalonde Report, after Canada’s then health minister Marc Lalonde, was published in 1974 (Lalonde, 1974 ). Despite its national focus, the report assumed wider relevance because of its analysis of one of public health’s greatest generic challenges, that of navigating among the many complex and interacting determinants of health to identify effective policies and actions. Implicitly offering a socioecological perspective, the Lalonde Report spoke of a “Health Field,” which included all matters that affect health and comprised four core elements: human biology, environment, lifestyle, and health care organization. Any issue, it was proposed, could be traced to one, or a combination, of these elements, allowing the creation of a “map of the health territory” for any problem (Lalonde, 1974 ). In this way, the contribution and interaction of the elements could be assessed. The analysis affirmed the health relevance of a complex environment comprising interacting physical and social dimensions in interaction with the human body. Lalonde’s message was logical and important, yet more than just an echo of an earlier, more inclusive, understanding of the determinants of health and disease. It recast these largely abandoned perspectives for a more scientific and sophisticated era. The proposal that thousands of “pieces” relevant to health and its determinants could be organized in “an orderly pattern” was alluring and progressive, as was the notion that the exercise alone would allow all contributors to more fully appreciate their roles and influence (Morris et al., 2006 ). In the ensuing years, Lalonde’s proposals for understanding and addressing complexity in the determinants of health have been refined and given greater policy relevance by others. In part, this has been through the development of conceptual models of the socioecological determinants of health. These models have been promoted as tools for presenting evidence that can make their implications more apparent (Evans & Stoddart, 1990 ; Dahlgren & Whitehead, 1991 ). In most of these representations, the local environment is accepted as a key driver of health and well-being (Morris et al., 2006 ).

Despite its inherent logic, the socioecological perspectives that emerged in the closing decades of the 20th century created scientific and policy challenges for all constituencies concerned with public health. There were obvious generic challenges, for example, around which of the models (each, necessarily, a gross simplification of a complex reality) might point to solutions (Morris et al., 2006 ; Evans & Stoddart, 1990 ; Reis et al., 2015 ); around the nature of evidence and its interpretation (Petticrew et al., 2004 ; Tannahill, 2008 ); and how, in practice, to traverse professional and policy silos to produce the interdisciplinary approaches that are inevitably required. In this connection, the task of motivating, supporting, and delivering effective intersectoral working, an abiding challenge for public health policy and practice, assumed a much higher profile in the late 20th century with the emergence of the socioecological model of health.

We emphasize that the continuing failure to adequately confront this challenge has the gravest implications for global public health. As Prüss-Üstün et al. recently observed, “Tackling environmental risks requires intersectoral collaboration. After nearly 50 years of actively promoting this concept, whether referred to as intersectoral action, breaking down silos or the nexus approach, it remains elusive as ever. The statement ‘intersectoral collaboration: loved by all, funded by no-one’ points to obstacles, mainly vested interests, that have burdened this approach ever since it was included as part of the WHO/UNICEF Alma Ata Declaration on Primary Health Care in 1978 . Environmental health, quintessentially intersectoral, has suffered most from this lack of progress” (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2016a ).

With specific reference to the role of the local environment, the recognition of socioecological complexity as the determinant of health meant that strict adherence to narrow hazard-focused and compartmentalized approaches became intellectually unsustainable. Yet, acceptance of the dynamic interaction of environment with other determinants of health demands a richer understanding of the environmental contribution than can be provided by toxicology or microbiology in isolation.

The Role of the Environment in Health Inequalities

The fact that the poorest, most degraded urban neighborhoods were those most blighted by disease and reduced life expectancy was clear even to the public health pioneers of the 19th century . Indeed, throughout much of the modern public health era, an acceptance of the importance of the environment for health and well-being has been accompanied by a recognition of the interplay between sociodemographic, economic, and physical factors in creating and sustaining health inequalities.

The term “health inequalities” refers to general differences in health, however caused. Where the differences in health are unfair, unjust, and avoidable, as they often are when linked to social variables, they should more properly be termed “health inequities.” However, in the extensive literature on the topic and in common usage, inequities are termed inequalities, and we adopt this convention here. Despite their importance, the emphasis on tackling health inequalities has varied considerably over time and according to place.

In 2008 , the final report of the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH, 2008 ) elevated the global profile of health inequalities and emphasized the interplay of many societal-level factors in their creation in the 21st century . The significant achievements in public health across the world over nearly two centuries have not been shared equally between countries or by all social groups within countries. An important component has been the health-relevant differences in the physical context for people’s lives—the quality of the physical environment. Sometimes expressed in terms of environmental justice , or elsewhere as environmental health inequalities, attention to this area is key to tackling health inequalities across the world (CSDH, 2008 ; Morris & Braubach, 2012 ).

Estimates of the impact of environmental quality on health and well-being vary widely, depending on the definition of environment used. However, that impact is undeniable. Over a billion people in developing countries, for example, have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation . The World Health Organization estimates that environmental factors were responsible for 12.6 million deaths worldwide in 2012 , 23 percent of all deaths, and 22 percent of the total burden of disease. Addressing environmental risks could prevent 26 percent of all deaths of children under the age of 5 (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2016b ).

In addition, there is clear evidence that a “good” environment empowers health through access to environmental assets such as green spaces, access to a healthy diet, and safe environments in which to walk, cycle, play, and socialize. However, as these data suggest, there is also a fundamental equity dimension to the distribution of both the cause and distribution of environmental stressors, the susceptibility to exposure, and the adverse effects of those exposures. Deprived communities almost invariably live in poorer quality environments, with higher levels of indoor and outdoor air pollution, contaminated land, polluting industrial processes, overcrowded and poor quality housing, and lower levels of environmental assets (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2016a ; 2016b ; Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ; The Marmot Review Team, 2010 ). Populations in developed countries, including the former communist states of eastern Europe living in areas of high air pollution, are disproportionately deprived, for example (Kriger et al, 2014 ; Bell & Ebisu, 2012 ; Branis & Linhartova, 2012 ; Goodman et al., 2011 ). Poor indoor air quality is associated with unfit or inadequate housing standards, conditions that overwhelmingly affect the deprived (The Marmot Review Team, 2010 ). There is evidence that deprived communities are not only more exposed to environmental hazards but are also more susceptible to the effects of those exposures (Goodman et al., 2011 ; Carder et al., 2008 ; Richardson et al., 2011 ; 2013 ; Vinikoor-Imler et al., 2012 ). There are also concerns that stress, at both the individual and community level, can weaken the body’s defenses against external insult and influence the internal dose of toxicants (Gee & Payne-Sturges, 2004 ).

This effect is also seen in social and physical environments. An adequate and nutritious diet is essential to a healthy, productive, and fulfilling life, and it is a fundamental right predicated by a range of factors including personal knowledge, choice, convenience, availability, quality, cost, and social norms. The evidence is clear that deprivation compounds all these factors, with poorer people buying more unhealthy foods with fewer healthy components while being exposed to circumstances that make such “choices” inevitable (Rudge et al., 2013 ). The proportion of adults considered overweight or obese in 2008 in the 19 EU member states for which data were available ranged between 37 and 57 percent for women and between 51 and 69 percent for men ( EUROSTAT ). English children from deprived areas are almost twice as likely to be obese than those in affluent areas, and adult obesity is also associated with deprivation, particularly in women (Public Health England, 2016 ; National Obesity Observatory, 2013 ).

The poor in developed countries are adept at sourcing cheap calories and are exposed to a large numbers of local outlets selling cheap, calorie-dense takeaway food (Saunders et al., 2015 ). These meals are often super-sized and contain high levels of fats, sugar, and salt. At the same time, many of these areas provide limited access to healthy food options, creating a highly compromised public health environment (Saunders et al., 2015 ).

In addition, environmental stressors seem to have a cumulative impact, exacerbating this inequality. It is evident that poorer people have multiple health, social, and environmental stressors. It is entirely plausible that these stressors modify the effect of exposure to pollutants, as is reflected in the increased vulnerability of obese people to the effects of exposure to air pollutants, including increased risk of diseases such as cardiovascular events and respiratory symptoms (WHO, 2013 ; Jung et al., 2014 ). Long-term exposure to airborne pollutants has also been reported to increase the risk of obesity, and being overweight or obese is associated with an increased susceptibility to indoor air pollution in urban children with asthma (Lu et al., 2013 ).

The responsibility for, and relative benefits and costs of, environmental contamination are also important components of inequality. Environmental contamination may be tolerated by communities living in the vicinity of dirty industrial processes if they perceive a benefit in terms of local employment, although that trade-off has largely broken down in developed countries as those industries have declined in the 20th and 21st centuries. On a wider scale, the environmental consequences of contemporary affluent nations’ fuel economies are borne by those populations least able to bear them and with little or no responsibility for their causation (Patz et al., 2005 ). UNICEF has projected that 75–250 million Africans will be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change by 2020 (UNICEF, 2008 ), a phenomenon overwhelmingly caused by the First World. This is a gross injustice. These are also the same people with limited powers to prevent the dumping of rich countries’ waste in their communities. One appalling example is that of the “disposal” of 500 tons of toxic waste in and around Abidjan, the capital of Cote D’Ivoire, in 2006 . This poisonous cocktail of waste oil and contaminants was the result of the trading in, and processing of, hydrocarbon fuels by multinational commodity and shipping companies, criminal levels of cost cutting, and local political corruption, which led to 17 deaths and over 30,000 injuries in one of the poorest communities in the world (Bohand et al., 2007 ) There are many other examples, including the export, often illegally, of hundreds of thousands of tons of e-waste from Western countries to Africa, China, and Asia for recycling or disposal—transferring the costs and dangerous consequences of exposure to workers, including children, and local communities in these countries that do not have the technical or regulatory systems to deal safely with these toxic materials (ILO, 2012 ). Inuit mothers in northern Canada have elevated levels of chemicals such as PCBs—generated many hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away—in their breast milk (Johansen, 2002 ).

The redistribution of the environmental injustices historically endured by the poor also perversely appears to be affecting more affluent communities in the West. The huge expansion of “fracking” in North America, for example, may be leading to an export of risks from traditional “national sacrifice zones” to areas with no previous experience of such industry, creating “profound social, cultural, and economic shocks for middle class communities losing control over their environments” (Lave & Lutz, 2014 ). Despite their relative affluence, this would nonetheless be an injustice given the constraints on local democratic input and highly questionable direct economic benefits to those communities (Kinnaman, 2011 ; Lave & Lutz, 2014 ; Sovacool, 2014 ).

During a period when environmental catalysts for distress migrations are becoming more frequent (Thomas-Hope, 2011 ), there is a moral as well as a professional duty for the Environmental Health community to tackle these inequalities, which otherwise are likely to both widen and deepen.

The Health-Promoting Environment: Green, Blue, and Natural Spaces

While human communities have long valued access to natural resources such as green spaces, the industrialization of the 19th and early 20th centuries saw millions of people deprived of this access. This era did witness some far-sighted philanthropic gifting of areas of open recreational space for the working classes driven by a moral rather than evidence-based imperative. Though welcome, the distribution of, and access to, such resources was limited, inconsistent, unplanned, and vulnerable to the insecurities of voluntary funding. Subsequent local municipal development of parks and other open spaces increased access, and a greater understanding of the benefits of such access blossomed during the late 20th century as research demonstrated and quantified the public health dividends. Access to good-quality green spaces not only makes the places in which we live, work, and play more attractive, but also has a demonstrable effect on improving health and well-being. Green space is linked to lower levels of several diseases and conditions, including lower rates of mortality (Villeneuve et al., 2012 ), increased longevity in older people (Faculty of Public Health, 2011 ), improved mental health (Faculty of Public Health, 2011 ), better outcomes in disease treatment, and reduced medication (Faculty of Public Health, 2011 ), and it also helps reduce health inequalities (Mitchell & Popham, 2008 ; CABE, 2010 ). Plausible mechanisms for these benefits include the provision of a venue for physical activity, promotion of social contact, and the direct impacts of green spaces on psychological and physical health. Natural spaces also promote greater community cohesion and reduce social isolation, providing a platform for community activities, social interaction, physical activity, and recreation (Public Health England, 2014 ). Research from the United States has identified powerful associations between green space and major reductions in aggressive behavior, domestic abuse, and other crime in deprived urban areas (Kuo et al., 2001a , 2001b ).

And yet, there remain great inequalities in the distribution, use, and quality of this empowering resource. People living in the most deprived areas are less likely to live in the greenest areas and therefore have less opportunity to gain the health benefits of green space compared with people living in the least deprived areas (Public Health England, 2014 ). Children living in poor areas, for example, are nine times less likely than those living in affluent areas to have access to green space and places to play (National Children’s Bureau, 2013 ). It is entirely plausible that that this contributes to the sobering reality that children from deprived communities are up to three times as likely to be obese than those children growing up in affluent areas (National Children’s Bureau, 2013 ).

Accessibility, however, is not the same as availability or utility, nor is it simply a function of proximity. It is strongly impacted by the cost of access, whether it is actually physically available, opening times, and the ease of being able to get to it, for example, walking and good public transport. Deprived communities in particular appreciate the value of such spaces, but they tend to underuse them due to concerns about the safety and quality of the spaces (CABE, 2010 ). Experience has shown that quality of the green space is just as important, if not more so, than its size. Post-World War II urban developments in many countries have included large grassy areas, and substantially derelict former industrial sites have often been entirely grassed over. The sterility and sheer size of these sites, the cost of maintenance, and the lack of facilities have often led to misuse and subsequent abandonment by both communities and local municipalities.

The provision, maintenance, and promotion of good-quality and safe , publicly available spaces is not a subsidy; it is an investment delivering economic, health, and regeneration benefits . Research on Philadelphia estimated that maintaining city parks could achieve huge annual savings in health care costs, stormwater management, air pollution mitigation, and social cohesion benefits (The Trust for Public Land, 2008 ). The improved social cohesion associated with natural spaces also has economic benefits. A 2009 Scottish study estimated a £7.36 dividend for every £1 invested in conservation volunteering projects (Greenspace Scotland, 2009 ). It is clear from the evidence that increasing the use of good-quality green space for all social groups is likely to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities.

The Reemergence of the Infectious Threat

Among the developments that, for Western societies, consigned environment to the periphery of medical and public health interest in the post–World War II era, we highlighted the epidemiological transition in the mid- 20th century . Indeed, for a period in the 1960s and 1970s it seemed that infectious disease in the developed world had effectively been conquered (Fauci, 2001 ). It was even tempting to suggest that the developing world might eventually follow suit. Yet, within a relatively few years, the twin threats of emerging infectious disease and antibiotic resistance would shatter the earlier confidence and reestablish infection as a live threat to individuals, communities, and populations and one that presented, increasingly, on a global scale.

The term “emerging infectious disease” (EID) denotes an infectious disease, newly recognized as occurring in humans; one that has been previously recognized but is appearing for the first time in a new population or a different geographic area; one that now affects many more people; and/or one that is displaying new attributes, for example, in terms of its resistance or virulence ( adapted from The US Government & Global Emerging Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response ). Although the return of infection was not necessarily anticipated by a confident global community, many predisposing factors were clearly present. Changes in land use, growth and movement of populations, contacts between people and animals, international trade and travel, and, often, an absence of a public health infrastructure all played a part. Where such influences coincided, as in sub-Saharan Africa or parts of Asia, hotspots were created that were conducive to the emergence of infectious disease. Several hundred new infectious diseases appeared across the globe in the period between 1940 and 2004 , with the greatest number emerging in the 1980s (Jones et al., 2008 ). The 1980s was also the decade that notoriously witnessed the late 20th century ’s most sentinel infection event, the first reported cases of Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS). By 2014 , AIDS alone would result in approximately 78 million cases worldwide . Although HIV/AIDS engendered particular alarm, the list of late- 20th-century EIDs of medical and public health significance is extensive. Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (vCJD), H5N1 Influenza and Ebola Virus Disease, the Northern Hemisphere debut of the mosquito-borne zoonotic viral disease, and West Nile Fever in New York City in 1999 were all public health and media events. The process continues unabated in the 21st century with the arrival of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), H1N1 Influenza (“swine flu”), H7N9 Influenza (“bird flu”), and, despite having surfaced some 40 years earlier, Ebola revealed its potential as a global threat with the West African Outbreak of 2014–2015 . More recently still, the distressing incidence of microcephaly in South America putatively linked to the Zika virus simply emphasizes the abiding challenge posed by infection for public health and global economics (European Centre for Disease Control, 2016 ).

Antibiotic resistance has been a developing public health horror story over, perhaps, 50 years. The therapeutic use of antimicrobials and especially antibiotics was a key factor in slashing the burden of illness from infection in Western countries in the latter half of the 20th century . Yet all classes of organisms—fungi, protozoa, viruses, and bacteria—can develop antimicrobial resistance. Through their genetic processes, bacteria have derived multiple resistance mechanisms to antibiotics used in medicine and agriculture. The threat renders humankind vulnerable to a host of infections, notably in hospital settings where treatment options for many infections are now severely limited. As a consequence, even at the dawn of the 21st century , drug resistance was already being perceived as an increasing threat to global public health, involving all major microbial pathogens and antimicrobial drugs (Levy & Marshall, 2004 )

The challenges of EIDs and antimicrobial resistance are, unquestionably, game changers for medicine and public health in the 21st century . Importantly, they are among the factors that have revealed the true limitations of the biomedical model of health and disease in the 20th century and rekindled interest in the socioeconomic and environmental determinants of disease. HIV/AIDS merits special mention in this regard. Although it is believed to have origins in nonhuman primates in West Africa, it is not an environmental disease in the sense that there is a specific environmental reservoir. Medical sciences and epidemiology have shown transmission of the virus via unprotected sex, contaminated blood transfusions, hypodermic needles, and mother to child transmission during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. HIV (the infection) and AIDS (the disease) have shown the capacity to extend beyond the initially identified high-risk groups, potentially placing whole populations at risk. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa where the infection is widespread, it impacts negatively on almost every aspect of society and the economy.

Over 30 years after it first emerged and despite concerted efforts, there is still no cure. In addition to banishing complacency, the infection and the disease call for a much wider perspective than that which took root in the postwar era of scientific positivism and medical paternalism. The failure to manage the threat stems in part from an incapacity to understand where to intervene to change behaviors and to see the disease in its social and environmental context.

Ecological Public Health

Earlier in this article, we identified five issues that helped reestablish awareness of the environment as a key component in the production of human health and well-being in the late 20th century . These issues, and our understanding of them, continue to evolve to challenge the public health community and wider society in the 21st century . In the most general terms, progress seems most likely where issues and challenges are framed with reference to a much wider range of pertinent factors by developing new approaches to evidence and its synthesis; by aligning institutional, physical, and educational infrastructures to the task; and by building governance structures in which all players are accountable and yet are encouraged to unite in common cause.

However, society must now embrace an additional and potentially more devastating threat to health and well-being. Human activity, including economic activity, is now directly and indirectly driving changes to the ecosystems and planetary processes on which we rely for health, well-being, and existence. For too long, human beings have lived, moved, consumed, and pursued health and well-being as if humankind is distinct and separate from nature rather than integral to it. The consequences of this disconnect for the natural world were graphically expressed by Rachel Carson in the 1960s and many others in the ensuing years (e.g., see Rockström et al., 2009 ; Steffen et al., 2015 ). However, developments in science and technology now reveal the true extent of the crisis, its accelerating nature, and its consequences both now and in the medium and longer term.

The term “ecological public health” is increasingly being used to encapsulate a need to build health and well-being, henceforth, on ecological principles. Rayner and Lang ( 2012 ) observe that, despite appearing difficult and complex, Ecological public health “is now the 21st century ’s unavoidable task.” Thus, the already complex challenge of navigating human social complexity to deliver health, well-being, and greater equity, which has defined public health in Western society for several decades, is made more challenging still. The relationship of the environment and human health and well-being must be understood and addressed on vastly extended temporal and spatial scales.

The notion that the planet is a finite resource on which human activity can place intolerable pressure and that the consequences of doing so are potentially catastrophic has been around for some time (e.g., see Carson, 1962 ; Meadows et al., 1972 ). A contemporary evolution of this thinking is expressed by Rockstrom and colleagues. Their sentinel paper, first published in 2009 (Rockström et al., 2009 ) and updated in 2015 (Steffen et al., 2015 ), lists the large earth system processes that are urgently in need of stewardship if humanity is to remain safe into the future. Where applicable, it proposes thresholds beyond which nonlinear, abrupt, and potentially catastrophic changes in these systems might be expected. This thinking is used as a basis for defining a “safe operating space for humanity.” The authors propose nine “planetary boundaries.” Three of these—climate change, ocean acidification, and stratospheric ozone depletion—are major planetary systems where evidence exists of large-scale thresholds in the history of the planet history of the planet. Also included are systems of a rather different sort. These are the slow variables that buffer and regulate planetary resilience. These slow variables comprise interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; land-use change; rate of biodiversity loss; and freshwater use. Two parameters, air pollution and chemical pollution, are especially difficult to quantify, meaning that thresholds cannot yet be defined. It is emphasized that, while for understandable reasons, the nine systems are often discussed independently, they are interrelated in ways meaning that changes in one system have profound implications for the others. Rockstrom and colleagues observe that in the preindustrial era, all nine parameters were within the safe operating boundaries, and yet by the 1950s, change was underway, most evidently in the nitrogen cycle. By 2009 , according to their analysis, three planetary boundaries had been transgressed: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss; and the nitrogen cycle.

An implicit challenge in limiting global ecosystem damage and its multiple implications is how to achieve recognition among the public and policymakers that the choices they make either directly or indirectly cause ecosystem damage and related environmental change (Morris et al., 2015 ). Climate change is simply the most striking example, but comparable challenges over communication exist in relation to other planetary process and systems. The fundamental rethink of society, the economy, and the environment, which is necessary if health and well-being are to be built on ecological principles, will happen only if the true implications for health and well-being of a “business as usual” approach are understood, communicated, and challenged. For any population, the environmental changes that may ultimately have profound implications may take place in countries and regions well beyond their borders or may not occur for some time, conferring a temporal and/or spatial remoteness that diminishes the sense of urgency. Appreciating the importance of these “distal” pathways of ecosystem damage to human health and well-being demands a greater understanding of ecosystem services (the benefits human beings get from the natural environment) and of why they matter. It also demands a much fuller appreciation of the global connectivity of social, economic, and ecological systems (Morris et al., 2015 ; Adger et al., 2009 ).

When initiating our discussion of the role of environment in health, we observed that the modern public health era was built on an environmental conceptualization of public health. It is now inconceivable that health, well-being, health care, and equity in any of these domains can be delivered without rediscovering an environmental conceptualization of public health for the 21st century .

For Western society, ecological public health is likely to require a rethink of society, the economy, and our stewardship of the natural environment (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ). At the very least, it will demand pursuit, through policy and action, of outcomes that recognize a ‘quadruple bottom line’ measured in health and well-being, environmental quality, equity, and sustainability. The extent to which we embrace ecological principles will be evidenced in policies that address how we live (for example, the energy efficiency of our homes), how we move (particularly our reluctance to substitute travel in fossil-fueled cars with more active forms of travel); how we consume (notably how we source and produce food) and, of course how we obtain and conserve energy.

Taking Stock

Despite being necessarily selective, this article has sought to illustrate how perspectives on the role of the environment in human health and well-being have evolved over the course of the modern public health era. Perspectives can be seen to shift owing to changes in the nature of environmental hazards and risks that are themselves products of the evolution of how societies live, move around, consume, source their energy, and so on. Our understanding of the health relevance of the built and natural environments is also shaped by advances in scientific understanding and technology and a much wider economic, social, cultural, and even political context. In structuring our account, we have adopted a loose framework based on the “epidemiological eras,” elegantly articulated by two of the 20th century ’s leading epidemiologists (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). These eras are differentiated according to the dominant paradigm of the time concerning the causes of disease, each underpinned by analytical approaches to understand and prioritize risk.

The importance accorded to the environment as a mainstream public health issue arguably reached its lowest point in the decades following World War II when the tendency to regard health and disease as characteristics of individuals, rather than communities or populations, gained prominence. This approach diverted attention from social and environmental factors, divorcing health from place. Notions that humans are self-contained and impervious to context have now been largely swept away, not least because denial of a socioecological perspective hugely undermined attempts to address the most serious contemporary health challenges. Also instrumental in challenging the notion of the self-contained body has been an environmentalist movement with a particular interest in pesticide and other chemical contamination of the biosphere. The toxic effects of chemical contamination reinforce the reality of a body that is permeable and invariably in a state of intimate exchange with its surroundings. As Nash ( 2006 ) has observed, “ the singular and self-contained body of the early 20th century came, by the end of that century to seem distressingly porous and vulnerable to the modern landscape” (p. 13). We would simply add that humans exhibit comparable porosity and vulnerability to the social and economic context in which they exist.

We recognize that our account contains only limited reference to the regulatory context that has been so central to controlling the environment for public health. We consider it appropriate to sound a warning in this regard. The processes through which environment is monitored and regulated to protect human health and well-being are sometimes taken for granted. Yet, since the 1980s, pressures have mounted in most Western nations to ‘deregulate’ markets to maximize profit. These pressures have led to environmental and public health regulation being increasingly perceived by governments and markets as “red tape” and a barrier to economic enterprise. Pressure to loosen or even abandon aspects of environmental regulation has weakened formal controls, leaving society vulnerable to corporate excess and irresponsibility, with often serious impacts on public health (Oldenkamp et al., 2016 ). This is not to argue that regulation should be static. Rather, it should adapt to changing technological, social, and economic circumstances and should be appropriately funded whether it relates to the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the buildings we live, learn, and work in, or the nutritional aspects of the food we eat. Neither do we deny the potential to exploit citizen science and the power of new technology to supplement conventional regulation (e.g., enabling vulnerable individuals to avoid hazardous exposures and the opportunities for personal pollution monitoring to improve research).

Mainly anthropogenic damage to planetary resources and ecosystems demands that, wherever we are in the world, public health agencies must understand not just the proximal threats to health and well-being that have been the targets of public health intervention throughout the modern public health era. They must also understand and move to prevent, counteract, and contain more distal threats to health and well-being. The distal threats derive from changes to environments that appear remote in space or time or involve a complex interaction of social, environmental, and economic influences. These are no longer abstract considerations. The unprecedented global connectivity of economic and social systems and the growing understanding of ecosystem interdependencies demand that the implications of human activity for health and well-being be recognized, understood, and addressed on a vastly extended temporal and spatial scale.

Only by build health and well-being on ecological principles (Ecological Public Health) will society effectively address the more distal threats to health and well-being from global ecosystem damage; the socioecological complexity of the proximal environment and the interconnections between these.

Conclusions

In this necessarily brief and artificially linear account, our intention has been to reinforce the enduring importance of the environment for health and well-being. Along the way, we have identified three factors that have marginalized the environment as a component of health and disease. We suggest that they continue to represent clear and present threats, undermining public health and, in the case of the latter, an existential threat to humankind.

The Threat from Medical Reductionism

This tendency to think of disease almost exclusively in terms of pathogenic agents and organic dysfunction marginalizes any influence outside the crucible of the laboratory. This trend was most evident in the decades following World War II but remains an ever-present threat.

The Separation of Health from Place

Closely related to medical reductionism is the tendency to downplay the importance of local context for life. The idea that if local environment matters, it does not matter much and, that when it comes to health and disease, the real action is not out there in the neighborhood and among the community but “over here” in the laboratory and at the level of the individual. Such perspectives are divisive. They create artificial barriers between many academic disciplines, including some medical specialties, and those working to manage and improve the local social and environmental context within which “permeable” human beings live out their lives.

The Denial of Ecology

Science now permits humans to understand the true extent to which their activities are plundering natural resources and harming the planetary systems and processes on which they depend. The pace of change is such that health, well-being, heath care, or anything approaching equity in these things will not be sustained in the medium to longer term without radically rethinking society, the environment, and the economy. The global connectivity of social, economic, and environmental systems means, ultimately, that no one is insulated from the threat whether by distance or socioeconomic circumstance. Ecological public health, the pursuit of health and well-being on ecological principles, has been described as the 21st century ’s unavoidable task. It demands recognition of the dynamic interconnections between people and their environment. Manifestly, we depend on the environment we inhabit, and we powerfully affect it. Among the clearest impediments to delivering ecological public health and preserving a viable environment for future generations are the belief that we can manipulate and conquer the natural environment without consequence, and the irresponsible capitalist imperative that subverts regulatory standards and damages and exploits the environment for profit. Both are revealed as transparent absurdities by an ecological understanding and analysis.

• Adger, W. N. , Eakin, H. , & Winkels, A. (2009). Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 7 (3), 150–157.
• Awefeso, N. (2004). What’s new about the new public health? American Journal of Public Health , 94 , 705–709.
• Baker, D. , & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (Eds.). (2008). Environmental epidemiology: Study methods and application . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Baum, F. (1998). The new public health: An Australian perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Baxby, D. (2004). Jenner, Edward (1749–1823). In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14749 .
• Bell, M. L. , & Davis D. L. (2001). Reassessment of the lethal London fog of 1952: Novel indicators of acute and chronic consequences of acute exposure to air pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives , 109 (Suppl. 3), 389–394.
• Bell, M. L. , Davis, D. L. , & Fletcher, T. (2004). A retrospective assessment of mortality from the London smog episode of 1952: The role of influenza and pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives , 112 , 6–8.
• Bell, M. L. , & Ebisu, K. (2012). Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives , 120 , 1699–1704.
• Bell, M. L. , & Samet, M. J. (2005). Air pollution in environmental health. In H. Frumkin (Ed.), From Global to Local (pp. 387–415). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bohand, X. , Monpeurt, C. , Bohand, S. , et al. (2007). Toxic waste and health effects in Abidjan City, Ivory Coast. Medecine Tropicale , 67 , 620–624.
• Bookchin, M. (1990). The philosophy of social ecology: Essays on dialectical naturalism . Montreal: Black Rose Books.
• Branis, M. , & Linhartova, M. (2012). Association between unemployment, income, education level, population size and air pollution in Czech cities: evidence for environmental inequality? A pilot national scale analysis. Health and Place , 18 , 1110–1114.
• Brock, T. D. (1999). Robert Koch: A life in medicine and bacteriology . Washington, DC: ASM Press.
• Brownson, R. C , Fielding, J. E. , & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: A fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual Review of Public Health , 30 , 175–201.
• Butler, C. D. , Corvalán, C. F. , & Koren, H. S. (2005): Human health and well-being in global ecological scenarios . Ecosystems , 8 (2), 153–164.
• Butler, C. D. , & Harley, D. (2010) Primary, secondary and tertiary effects of eco-climatic change: The medical response . Postgraduate Medical Journal , 86 : 230–234.
• CABE . (2010). Community green: Using local spaces to tackle inequality and improve health . London: CABE.
• Carder, M. , McNamee, R. , Beverland, I. , et al. (2008). Does deprivation index modify the acute effect of black smoke on cardiorespiratory mortality? Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 67 , 104–110.
• Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Chadwick, E. (1842). Report to her majesty’s principal secretary of state for the Home Department from the Poor Law commissioners on an inquiry into the sanitary conditions of the labouring classes of Great Britain. London: HMSO.
• Collard, P. (1976). The development of microbiology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Commission on Social Determinants of Health . (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241563703_eng.pdf .
• Dahlgren, G. , & Whitehead, M. (1991). Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health . Institute of Futures Studies. Department for Education and Skills, Stockholm.
• Dockery, D. , & Pope, A. (1996). Epidemiology of acute health effects: Summary of time-series studies. In R. Wilson & J. D. Spengler (Eds.), Particles in our air. Concentration and health effects (pp. 123–147). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• EPA . Environmental justice . (2016). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice .
• EPA . Next generation air measuring research . (2016). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/epas-next-generation-air-measuring-research .
• European Centre for Disease Control . (2016). Zika outbreak in the Americas and the Pacific . Retrieved from http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/zika_virus_infection/zika-outbreak/Pages/zika-outbreak.aspx .
• European Environment Agency . (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation . Copenhagen: EEA.
• Eurostat . Overweight and obesity BMI statistics . Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics .
• Evans, R. , & Stoddart, G. (1990). Producing health, consuming health care. Social Science and Medicine , 31 , 1347–1363.
• Evelyn, J. (1661). Fumifugium, or the inconvenience of aer or the smoake of London dissipated . London: Dorset Press for the National Society of Clean Air.
• Faculty of Public Health and Natural England . (2011). Great outdoors: How our natural health service uses green space to improve wellbeing briefing statement . London: FPH.
• Fauci A. S. (2001). Infectious diseases: considerations for the 21st century. Clinical Infectious Diseases , 32 , 675–685.
• Ferriman, A. (2007). BMJ readers choose the “sanitary revolution” as greatest medical advance since 1840. British Medical Journal , 334 , 111.
• Foster, W. D. (1970). A history of medical bacteriology and immunology . London: Heinemann.
• Frumkin, H. (Ed.). (2005). Environmental health: From global to local . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Gee, G. C. , & Payne-Sturges, D. C. (2004). Environmental health disparities: A framework integrating psychosocial and environmental concepts. Environmental Health Perspectives , 112 , 1645–1653.
• Goodman, A. , Wilkinson, P. , Stafford, M. , & Tonne, C. (2011). Characterising socio-economic inequalities in exposure to air pollution: a comparison of socio-economic markers and scales of measurement. Health and Place , 17 , 767–774.
• Greenspace Scotland . (2009). Social return on investment (SROI) analysis of the Greenlink, A partnership project managed by the Central Scotland Forest Trust (CSFT). Retrieved from http://1068899683.n263075.test.prositehosting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Greenlink-SROI-Final-report-5-October-2009.pdf .
• Haekel, E. (1866). Generelle morphologie der organismen . Berlin: Georg Reimer.
• Hamil, S. D. (2008, November 1). Unveiling a museum, A Pennsylvania town remembers the smog that killed 20. New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/us/02smog.html?_r=0 .
• International Labour Office . (2012). The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge . Geneva: ILO.
• James Hutton Institute . Greenhealth. Contribution of green and open space to public health and wellbeing. Retrieved from http://www.hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/projects/GreenHealth-Final-Report.pdf .
• Johansen, B. E. (2002). The Inuit’s struggle with dioxins and other organic pollutants. American Indian Quarterly , 26 , 479–490.
• Jones, K. E. , Patel, G. N. , Levy, M. A. , et al. (2008). Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature , 451 , 990–993.
• Levy, S. B. , & Marshall, B. (2004). Antimicrobial resistance worldwide: Cause. Challenges and responses. Natural Medicine , 12 (Suppl.), S122–S129).
• Lloyd, G. E. R. (Ed.). (1983). Hippocratic writings (trans. J. Chadwick . & W. N. Mann ). London: Penguin.
• Jung, K. H. , Perzanowski, M. , Rundle, A. , et al. (2014). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure, obesity and childhood asthma in an urban cohort. Environmental Research , 128 , 35–41.
• Kessel, A. (2006). Air, the environment and public health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kinnaman, T. C. (2011). The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies. Ecological Economics , 70 , 1243–1249.
• Kokayeff, N. (2013). Dying to be discovered: Miasma vs germ theory. ESSAI , 10: Article 24. Retrieved from http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1416&context=essai .
• Kriger, N. , Waterman, P. D. , Gryparis, A. , et al. (2014). Black carbon exposure more strongly associated with census tract poverty compared to household income among US black, white, and Latino working class adults in Boston, MA (2003–2010). Environmental Pollution , 190 , 36–42.
• Kuo, F. , & Sullivan, W. C. (2001a). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime. Environmental Behavior , 33 , 343–367.
• Kuo, F. E. , & Sullivan, W. C. (2001b). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environmental Behavior , 33 , 543–571.
• Lalonde, M. (1974). A new perspective on the health of Canadians. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pube-pubf/perintrod-eng.php .
• Lave, R. , & Lutz, B. (2014). Hydraulic fracturing: A critical physical geography review. Geography Compass , 8 , 739–754.
• Leviticus [14:33–45] quoted in Frumkin, 2005.
• Lu, K. D. , Breysse, P. N. , Diette, G. B. , et al. (2013). Being overweight increases susceptibility to indoor pollutants among urban children with asthma. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology , 131 , 1017–1023.
• Martuzzi, M. (2007). The precautionary principle: in action for public health. Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 64 , 569–570.
• Meadows, D. H. , Meadows, D. L. , Randers, J. , et al. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind . New York: Universe Books.
• Mitchell, R. , & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet ; 372 , 1655–1660.
• Morris, G. P. , Beck, S. A. , Hanlon, P , et al. (2006). Getting strategic about the environment and health. Public Health , 120 , 889–907.
• Morris, G. P. , & Braubach, M. (2012). Environmental health inequalities in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241563703_eng.pdf .
• Morris, G. P. , Reis, S. , Beck, S. , Fleming, L. E. , Adger, W. D. , Benton, T. G. , & Depledge, M. H. (2015). Climate change and health in the UK. Scoping and communicating the longer-term “distal” dimensions. In S. Kovats (Eds.), Health Climate Change Impacts Summary Report Card, Living With Environmental Change . Retrieved from http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/health-source10/ .
• Nabel, E. G. , & Braunwald, E. M. (2012). A tale of coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine , 366 , 54–63.
• Nash, L. (2006). Inescapable ecologies: A history of environment, disease and knowledge . Berkeley, CA: California University Press.
• National Children’s Bureau . (2013). Greater expectations: Raising aspirations for our children . London: NCB.
• National Obesity Observatory . (2013). National Child Measurement Programme changes in children’s body mass index between 2006/07 and 2011/12. Retrieved from http://www.noo.org.uk/uploads/doc/vid_17929_NCMP_Changes_children.pdf .
• Oldenkamp, R. , van Zelm, R. , & Huijbregts, A. J. (2016). Valuing the human health damage caused by the fraud of Volkswagen. Environmental Pollution , 212 , 121–127.
• Patz, J. A. , Campbell-Lendrum, D. , Holloway, T. , et al. (2005). Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature , 438 , 310–317.
• Perry, I. J. (1997). Risk factor epidemiology. The Lancet , 350 , 1256.
• Petticrew, M. , Whitehead, M. , Macintyre, S. , et al. (2004). Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 58 , 811–816.
• Pope, C. A. , Dockery, D. W. , & Schwartz, J. (1995). Review of epidemiological evidence of health effects of particulate air pollution . Inhalation Toxicology , 47 , 1–18.
• Prüss-Üstün, A. , Wolf, J. , Corvalan, C. , Neville, T. , Bos, R. , & Neira, M. (2016a). Diseases due to unhealthy environments: An updated estimate of the global burden of disease attributable to environmental determinants of health . Journal of Public Health . Retrieved from http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/12/pubmed.fdw085.full .
• Prüss-Üstün, A. , et al. (2016b). Preventing disease through healthy environments: A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks . Geneva: World Health Organization.
• Public Health England . (2016). Health Inequalities. Retrieved from http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/inequalities .
• Public Health England and UCL Institute of Health Equity . (2014). Local action on health inequalities: Improving access to green spaces . London: PHE.
• Rather, L. J. (1985). Rudolf Virchow: Collected essays on public health and epidemiology . Canton, MA: Science History Publications.
• Rayner, G. , & Lang, T. (2012). Ecological public health: Reshaping the conditions for good health . Oxford: Routledge.
• Reis, S. , Morris, G. , Fleming, L. E. , et al. (2015). “Integrating Health and Environmental Impact Analysis.” Public Health , 129 , 1383–1389.
• Richardson, E. A. , Pearce, J. , & Kingham, S. (2011). Is particulate air pollution associated with health and health inequalities in New Zealand? Health and Place , 17 , 1137–1143.
• Richardson, E. A. , Pearce, J. , Tunstall, H. , et al. (2013). Particulate air pollution and health inequalities: A Europe-wide ecological analysis. International Journal of Health Geographics , 12 , 34.
• Rockström, J. , Steffen, W. , Noone, K. , et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity . Ecology and Society 14 , 32.
• Rosen, G. A. (1993). History of public health (Expanded ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Originally published 1958.
• Royal College of Physicians . (2016). Every breath we take: The lifelong impact of air pollution . Report of a working party. London: RCP.
• Rudge, G. , Suglani, N. , Jenkinson, D. , et al. (2013). Are fast food outlets concentrated in more deprived areas? A geo-statistical analysis of an urban area in central England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 67 (Suppl. 1), A14.
• Saunders, P. , Saunders, A. , & Middleton, J. (2015). Living in a ‘fat swamp’: exposure to multiple sources of accessible, cheap, energy-dense fast foods in a deprived community. British Journal of Nutrition , 113 , 1828–1834.
• Sovacool, B. K. (2014). Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 37 , 249–264.
• Steffen, W. , et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science , 349 , 1286–1287.
• Susser, M. , & Adelstein, A. (1975). An introduction to the work of William Farr. American Journal of Epidemiology , 101 , 469–476.
• Susser, M. , & Susser, E. (1996). Choosing a future for epidemiology: I. Eras and paradigms. American Journal of Public Health , 86 , 668–673.
• Tannahill, A. (2008). Beyond evidence to ethics: A decision-making framework for health promotion, public health and health improvement. Health Promotion International , 23 , 380–390.
• The Marmot Review Team . (2010). Fair society, healthy lives: Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010 . Marmot Review Team, London.
• The Trust for Public Land . (2008). How much value does the city of Philadelphia receive from its park and recreation system? Retrieved from http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_PhilaParkValueReport.pdf .
• Thomas-Hope E. (2011). People on the move. Managing migration in today’s commonwealth . The second report of the Ramphal Commission on Migration and Development.
• UNICEF . (2008). Our climate, our children, our responsibility. The implications of climate change for the world’s children . Retrieved from https://www.crin.org/en/docs/climate-change.pdf .
• Villeneuve, P. J. , Jerrett, M. , Su, J. G. , et al. (2012). A cohort study relating urban green space with mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Research , 115 , 51–58.
• Vinikoor-Imler, L C. , Gray, S. C. , Edwards, S. E. , et al. (2012). The effects of exposure to particulate matter and neighbourhood deprivation on gestational hypertension. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology , 26 , 91–100.
• Vinten-Johansen, P. , Brody, H. , Paneth, N. , et al. (2003). Cholera, chloroform and the science of medicine: A life of John Snow . New York: Oxford University Press.
• World Health Organization . (2013). Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution—REVIHAAP Project . Bonn: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/193108/REVIHAAP-Final-technical-report-final-version.pdf .
• World Health Organization . (2016). Water sanitation and health . Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/en/ .
• World Health Organization . (2016). Global Health Observatory (GHO) data: HIV/AIDS . Retrieved from http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en .
• World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe . (2012). Environmental health inequalities in Europe Assessment Report . Copenhagen: WHO.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 23 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 16 November 2022

Climate change and human behaviour

Nature Human Behaviour volume  6 ,  pages 1441–1442 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

2 Citations

62 Altmetric

Metrics details

Climate change is an immense challenge. Human behaviour is crucial in climate change mitigation, and in tackling the arising consequences. In this joint Focus issue between Nature Climate Change and Nature Human Behaviour , we take a closer look at the role of human behaviour in the climate crisis.

In the late 19th century, the scientist (and suffragette) Eunice Newton Foote published a paper suggesting that a build-up of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could cause increased surface temperatures 1 . In the mid-20th century, the British engineer Guy Callendar was the first to concretize the link between carbon dioxide levels and global warming 2 . Now, a century and a half after Foote’s work, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that human behaviour is the main driver of climatic changes and global warming.

The negative effects of rising temperatures on the environment, biodiversity and human health are becoming increasingly noticeable. The years 2020 and 2016 were among the hottest since the record keeping of annual surface temperatures began in 1880 (ref. 3 ). Throughout 2022, the globe was plagued by record-breaking heatwaves. Even regions with a naturally warm climate, such as Pakistan or India, experienced some of their hottest days much earlier in the year — very probably a consequence of climate change 4 . According to the National Centers for Environmental Information of the United States, the surface global temperature during the decade leading up to 2020 was +0.82 °C (+1.48 °F) above the 20th-century average 5 . It is clear that we are facing a global crisis that requires urgent action.

During the Climate Change Conference (COP21) of the United Nations in Paris 2015, 196 parties adopted a legally binding treaty with the aim to limit global warming to ideally 1.5 °C and a maximum of 2 °C, compared to pre-industrial levels. A recent report issued by the UN suggests that we are very unlikely to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. Instead, current policies are likely to cause temperatures to increase up to 2.8 °C this century 6 . The report suggests that to get on track to 2 °C, new pledges would need to be four times higher — and seven times higher to get on track to 1.5 °C. This November, world leaders will meet for the 27th time to coordinate efforts in facing the climate crisis and mitigating the effects during COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.

This Focus issue

Human behaviour is not only one of the primary drivers of climate change but also is equally crucial for mitigating the impact of the Anthropocene. In 2022, this was also explicitly acknowledged in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For the first time, the IPCC directly discussed behavioural, social and cultural dynamics in climate change mitigation 7 . This joint Focus highlights some of the aspects of the human factor that are central in the adaptation to and prevention of a warming climate, and the mitigation of negative consequences. It features original pieces, and also includes a curated collection of already published content from across journals in the Nature Portfolio.

Human behaviour is a neglected factor in climate science

In the light of the empirical evidence for the role of human behaviour in climatic changes, it is curious that the ‘human factor’ has not always received much attention in key research areas, such as climate modelling. For a long time, climate models to predict global warming and emissions did not account for it. This oversight meant that predictions made by these models have differed greatly in their projected rise in temperatures 8 , 9 .

Human behaviour is complex and multidimensional, making it difficult — but crucial — to account for it in climate models. In a Review , Brian Beckage and colleagues thus look at existing social climate models and make recommendations for how these models can better embed human behaviour in their forecasting.

The psychology of climate change

The complexity of humans is also reflected in their psychology. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, research suggests that many people underestimate the effects of it, are sceptical of it or deny its existence altogether. In a Review , Matthew Hornsey and Stephan Lewandowsky look at the psychological origins of such beliefs, as well as the roles of think tanks and political affiliation.

Psychologists are not only concerned with understanding and addressing climate scepticism but are also increasingly worried about mental health consequences. Two narrative Reviews address this topic. Neil Adger et al. discuss the direct and indirect pathways by which climate change affects well-being, and Fiona Charlson et al. adopt a clinical perspective in their piece. They review the literature on the clinical implications of climate change and provide practical suggestions for mental health practitioners.

Individual- and system-level behaviour change

To limit global warming to a minimum, system-level and individual-level behaviour change is necessary. Several pieces in this Focus discuss how such change can be facilitated.

Many interventions for individual behaviour change and for motivating environmental behaviour have been proposed. In a Review , Anne van Valkengoed and colleagues introduce a classification system that links different interventions to the determinants of individual environmental behaviour. Practitioners can use the system to design targeted interventions for behaviour change.

Ideally, interventions are scalable and result in system-level change. Scalability requires an understanding of public perceptions and behaviours, as Mirjam Jenny and Cornelia Betsch explain in a Comment . They draw on the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss crucial structures, such as data observatories, for the collection of reliable large-scale data.

Such knowledge is also key for designing robust climate policies. Three Comments in Nature Climate Change look at how insights from behavioural science can inform policy making in areas such as natural-disaster insurance markets , carbon taxing and the assignment of responsibility for supply chain emissions .

Time to act

To buck the trend of rising temperatures, immediate and significant climate action is needed.

Natural disasters have become more frequent and occur at ever-closer intervals. The changing climate is driving biodiversity loss, and affecting human physical and mental health. Unfortunately, the conversations about climate change mitigation are often dominated by Global North and ‘WEIRD’ (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) perspectives, neglecting the views of countries in the Global South. In a Correspondence , Charles Ogunbode reminds us that climate justice is social justice in the Global South and that, while being a minor contributor to emissions and global warming, this region has to bear many of the consequences.

The fight against climate change is a collective endeavour and requires large-scale solutions. Collective action, however, usually starts with individuals who raise awareness and drive change. In two Q&As, Nature Human Behaviour entered into conversation with people who recognized the power of individual behaviour and took action.

Licypriya Kangujam is a 10-year-old climate activist based in India. She tells us how she hopes to raise the voices of the children of the world in the fight against climate change and connect individuals who want to take action.

Wolfgang Knorr is a former academic who co-founded Faculty for a Future to help academics to transform their careers and address pressing societal issues. In a Q&A , he describes his motivations to leave academia and offers advice on how academics can create impact.

Mitigation of climate change (as well as adaptation to its existing effects) is not possible without human behaviour change, be it on the individual, collective or policy level. The contents of this Focus shed light on the complexities that human behaviour bears, but also point towards future directions. It is the duty of us all to turn this knowledge into action.

Foote, E. Amer. J. Sci. 22 , 377–381 (1856).

Google Scholar  

Callendar, G. S. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 64 , 223–240 (1938).

Article   Google Scholar  

NASA. Vital signs – global temperature. climate.nasa.gov , https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ (2022).

Zachariah, M. et al. Climate change made devastating early heat in India and Pakistan 30 times more likely. worldweatherattribution.org , https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/India_Pak-Heatwave-scientific-report.pdf (2022).

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Annual 2020 Global Climate Report. ncei.noaa.gov , https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202013 (2021).

United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window — Climate Crisis Calls For Rapid Transformation Of Societies (UNEP, 2022).

IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (IPCC, 2022).

Calvin, K. & Bond-Lamberty, B. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 063006 (2018).

Beckage, B. et al. Clim. Change 163 , 181–188 (2020).

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Climate change and human behaviour. Nat Hum Behav 6 , 1441–1442 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01490-9

Download citation

Published : 16 November 2022

Issue Date : November 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01490-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Natural Disasters — Natural Disasters: Causes and Impacts

Natural Disasters: Causes and Impacts

• Categories: Natural Disasters

About this sample

Words: 682 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 682 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, definition of natural disasters, causes of natural disasters, environmental effects of natural disasters, economic effects of natural disasters, social effects of natural disasters, mitigation and preparedness measures.

• Callaghan, K., & Alexander, M. (2018). Hurricane Harvey on the Gulf Coast: A Comprehensive Analysis of Impacts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.
• IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.
• McMahon, J., & Keefer, J. (2016). Social Vulnerability and Tropical Cyclones in Sint Maarten. Journal of Water and Climate Change , 7(2), 396-408.
• UNDRR. (2017). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations.
• Vos, F., Dykes, J., & Pierce, L. (2017). Flood Preparedness and Early-warning System Effectiveness in the Philippines. Disasters, 41(S1), S16-S37.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 493 words

7 pages / 3050 words

2 pages / 978 words

2 pages / 892 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Natural Disasters

It was a typical day in my hometown, the sun was shining, and the birds were chirping. I was going about my daily routine when suddenly, the ground beneath my feet started to tremble. At first, I thought it was just a minor [...]

The 2022 New York flooding event has been a wake-up call for many, signaling the urgent need for climate action and resilience building in the face of extreme weather events. This essay will delve into the aftermath of the [...]

Volcanoes are an inescapable part of our planet's geologic makeup, and their eruptions can have devastating consequences for the environment. In this essay, I will explore the myriad ways in which volcanoes affect the [...]

Climate change is an urgent global concern, with far-reaching consequences for our planet. One of the most visible manifestations of climate change is its impact on global weather patterns. In this essay, we will utilize recent [...]

Natural Disasters are never a good thing. In areas where they happen, they affect everything in a negative way. They can destroy whole town, cities, the economy, infrastructure, and in some cases the human population. They wreak [...]

Have you ever been present in a category 5 hurricane? If the answer is no let me tell you that I just wish you never had to go through an experience like that. In September 20 Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico. All the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Climate Change Essay for Students and Children

500+ words climate change essay.

Climate change refers to the change in the environmental conditions of the earth. This happens due to many internal and external factors. The climatic change has become a global concern over the last few decades. Besides, these climatic changes affect life on the earth in various ways. These climatic changes are having various impacts on the ecosystem and ecology. Due to these changes, a number of species of plants and animals have gone extinct.

When Did it Start?

The climate started changing a long time ago due to human activities but we came to know about it in the last century. During the last century, we started noticing the climatic change and its effect on human life. We started researching on climate change and came to know that the earth temperature is rising due to a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect. The warming up of earth surface causes many ozone depletion, affect our agriculture , water supply, transportation, and several other problems.

Reason Of Climate Change

Although there are hundreds of reason for the climatic change we are only going to discuss the natural and manmade (human) reasons.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Natural Reasons

These include volcanic eruption , solar radiation, tectonic plate movement, orbital variations. Due to these activities, the geographical condition of an area become quite harmful for life to survive. Also, these activities raise the temperature of the earth to a great extent causing an imbalance in nature.

Human Reasons

Man due to his need and greed has done many activities that not only harm the environment but himself too. Many plant and animal species go extinct due to human activity. Human activities that harm the climate include deforestation, using fossil fuel , industrial waste , a different type of pollution and many more. All these things damage the climate and ecosystem very badly. And many species of animals and birds got extinct or on a verge of extinction due to hunting.

Effects Of Climatic Change

These climatic changes have a negative impact on the environment. The ocean level is rising, glaciers are melting, CO2 in the air is increasing, forest and wildlife are declining, and water life is also getting disturbed due to climatic changes. Apart from that, it is calculated that if this change keeps on going then many species of plants and animals will get extinct. And there will be a heavy loss to the environment.

What will be Future?

If we do not do anything and things continue to go on like right now then a day in future will come when humans will become extinct from the surface of the earth. But instead of neglecting these problems we start acting on then we can save the earth and our future.

Although humans mistake has caused great damage to the climate and ecosystem. But, it is not late to start again and try to undo what we have done until now to damage the environment. And if every human start contributing to the environment then we can be sure of our existence in the future.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [ { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What is climate change and how it affects humans?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Climate change is a phenomenon that happens because of human and natural reasons. And it is one of the most serious problems that not only affect the environment but also human beings. It affects human in several ways but in simple language, we can say that it causes many diseases and disasters that destroy life on earth.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Can we stop these climatic changes?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Yes, we can stop these climatic changes but for that, every one of us has to come forward and has to adapt ways that can reduce and control our bad habits that affect the environment. We have to the initiative and make everyone aware of the climatic changes.” } } ] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

This Earth Day we consider the impact of climate change on human health

The health outcomes of climate change are highlighted this Earth Day. Image:  Unsplash/Guillaume de Germain

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Shyam Bishen

Annika green.

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Future of the Environment is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, extreme weather events.

• Earth Day takes place every year on 22 April when we are encouraged to come together to work on solutions to give our planet a healthier future.
• Climate change is one of the biggest challenges to the health of our planet, which also impacts human health worldwide.
• By taking action to mitigate climate change, we can safeguard the well-being of current and future generations and preserve the beauty and diversity of life on Earth.

By 2050, climate change will place immense strain on global healthcare systems, causing 14.5 million deaths and $12.5 trillion in economic losses. This was the warning from the Quantifying the impact of climate change on human health report published in January 2024 by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with Oliver Wyman,

As we celebrate Earth Day , it's essential to reflect on the beauty of our planet and on the challenges it faces, particularly concerning climate change. The environmental effects of climate change are widely discussed, but its impact on human health is significant and often overlooked.

Here, we delve into the profound effects climate change has on our well-being and explore why addressing these issues is crucial for the health of planet Earth and all of its inhabitants. There are five key issues related to climate change that are already impacting human health.

1. Extreme weather events

Climate change intensifies extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, floods and droughts. Forty million people in Africa are living in severe drought conditions and droughts are on the rise in more temperate climes too. Almost 40% of the lower 48 states in the United States and 17% of the European population are facing drought, threatening food and water security.

These extreme weather events can have devastating consequences on human health, leading to injuries, displacement and even loss of life. Increased heatwaves, for example, can exacerbate heat-related illnesses and strain healthcare systems. Heat waves also come with a huge economic toll. It is estimated that $7.1 trillion of productivity could be lost by 2050 as a result of heat waves.

2. Air pollution

The burning of fossil fuels and other human activities contribute to air pollution, which is exacerbated by climate change. Wildfires increasingly are making the news headlines because they cause immense destruction of property and loss of life and livestock, but they also aggravate air pollution. Poor air quality is linked to respiratory diseases, such as asthma, bronchitis and lung cancer. Additionally, pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, can worsen cardiovascular health, leading to heart attacks and strokes. Air pollution could lead to 6 to 9 million premature deaths per year by 2060.

The Global Health and Strategic Outlook 2023 highlighted that there will be an estimated shortage of 10 million healthcare workers worldwide by 2030.

The World Economic Forum’s Centre for Health and Healthcare works with governments and businesses to build more resilient, efficient and equitable healthcare systems that embrace new technologies.

Learn more about our impact:

• Global vaccine delivery: Our contribution to COVAX resulted in the delivery of over 1 billion COVID-19 vaccines and our efforts in launching Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has helped save more than 13 million lives over the past 20 years .
• Davos Alzheimer's Collaborative: Through this collaborative initiative, we are working to accelerate progress in the discovery, testing and delivery of interventions for Alzheimer's – building a cohort of 1 million people living with the disease who provide real-world data to researchers worldwide.
• Mental health policy: In partnership with Deloitte, we developed a comprehensive toolkit to assist lawmakers in crafting effective policies related to technology for mental health .
• Global Coalition for Value in Healthcare: We are fostering a sustainable and equitable healthcare industry by launching innovative healthcare hubs to address ineffective spending on global health . In the Netherlands, for example, it has provided care for more than 3,000 patients with type 1 diabetes and enrolled 69 healthcare providers who supported 50,000 mothers in Sub-Saharan Africa.
• UHC2030 Private Sector Constituency : This collaboration with 30 diverse stakeholders plays a crucial role in advocating for universal health coverage and emphasizing the private sector's potential to contribute to achieving this ambitious goal.

Want to know more about our centre’s impact or get involved? Contact us .

3. Vector-borne diseases

Climate change affects the distribution and behaviour of disease-carrying vectors, such as mosquitoes and ticks. Warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns create favourable conditions for the spread of vector-borne diseases, like malaria, dengue fever, Lyme disease and Zika virus, to moderate and previously less affected climate zones, such as Europe and the United States.

These diseases pose significant threats to public health, especially in vulnerable communities with limited access to healthcare. By 2050, an additional 500 million people may be at risk of exposure to vector-borne diseases.

Have you read?

Earth day: what is it, when is it and why is it important, equitable healthcare is the industry's north star. here's how ai can get us there, 4. food and water insecurity.

Changes in climate patterns disrupt agricultural systems, leading to decreased crop yields, food shortages and compromised food safety. In Sub-Saharan Africa, southern Asia and Central America, around 80 million people will be at risk of hunger by 2050.

Moreover, extreme weather events can contaminate water sources, contributing to waterborne diseases, such as cholera and dysentery. Food and water insecurity not only jeopardize physical health but also contribute to malnutrition and widening socio-economic disparities.

5. Mental health impacts

Climate change-induced disasters and environmental degradation can take a toll on mental health too. The loss of homes, livelihoods and communities due to natural disasters can cause psychological distress, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Additionally, the uncertainty and existential threat posed by climate change can lead to eco-anxiety and feelings of helplessness.

If climate change continues to impact human health across these five vectors, it is predicted that the total cumulative healthcare system costs to provide treatment for diseases caused by climate change could reach over $1.1 trillion by 2050 . North and Central America are expected to have to cover nearly half the cost of this because of higher hospitalization and treatment costs in these regions. And, with climate-related disasters disproportionately impacting Asia, it will also have to shoulder a lot of this financial and medical burden

Addressing the health impacts of climate change requires urgent action at individual, community and global levels. Transitioning to renewable energy sources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting sustainable agriculture and investing in resilient healthcare infrastructure are crucial steps in mitigating these challenges. Furthermore, prioritizing adaptation strategies and enhancing public health preparedness can help communities withstand and recover from climate-related disasters.

This Earth Day, let's recognize the intrinsic connection between planetary health and human health. By taking decisive action to mitigate climate change and protect our environment, we safeguard the well-being of current and future generations and preserve the beauty and diversity of life on Earth. Together, we can build a healthier, more sustainable future for all.

Healthy and resilient societies

The World Economic Forum has been active in climate action for over a decade, including initiatives such as the Alliance for Clean Air , the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders and the Forum's work towards nature-positive industry sector transition, amongst others.

These workstreams and activities have focused on climate change mitigation and transition towards net-zero conditions. However, it is recognized that historically, there has been a critical underinvestment in the health implications of climate change, with only 0.5% of multilateral climate funding allocated towards the protection or improvement of human health.

The launch of the Forum’s Climate and Health Initiative at the start of 2023, ahead of the first COP meeting with a dedicated health day, was designed to address this lack of focus on health.

The Initiative’s mission is to help build a healthier and more resilient society to the health impacts of climate change through multistakeholder and cross-sector collaboration and systems transformation. The initiative aims to achieve this through three strategic pillars:

1. Advocacy and visibility

Convene and amplify voices to advance a unified global approach by building a multisector community of thought leaders to deliver a high-impact outreach and engagement campaign.

2. Evidence gathering to catalyze action

Map the research and data on the impact of climate change on health, with a focus on identifying the most critical gaps in understanding and how partners can address these gaps in knowledge.

3. Resilience and preparedness

Identify and accelerate evidence-based approaches to mitigating the health impacts of climate change across sectors. Unlock finances and incentivize climate and health investment.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Health and Healthcare Systems .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Scientists have invented a method to break down 'forever chemicals' in our drinking water. Here’s how

Johnny Wood

April 17, 2024

Young people are becoming unhappier, a new report finds

Promoting healthy habit formation is key to improving public health. Here's why

Adrian Gore

April 15, 2024

What's 'biophilic design' and how can it benefit neurodivergent people?

Fatemeh Aminpour, Ilan Katz and Jennifer Skattebol

Why stemming the rise of antibiotic resistance will be an historic achievement

Carel du Marchie Sarvaas

April 11, 2024

Medical innovation for an aging world: the view from Hong Kong

April 10, 2024

Human and Environmental Change Essay

Sustainability is a concept that is being embraced in all fields of people’s lives. This has been the case due to the fact that resources to support survival are decreasing while the human population is growing at a terrific speed. These two factors have therefore led to serious considerations being done to ensure continuity of future generations. As human beings live in the environment, their coexistence affects each one of them. The more affected of the two is the environment which affects human beings later when it is not able to provide for their needs.

The essay will discuss the safe operating space for humanity so that the environment is not overstretched beyond its limits. A news article, written by twenty-eight renowned scientists titled ‘safe operating space for humanity space’ has tried to identify some of the basic requirements for this operating space to be there. There must be some boundaries within which human activities are to be carried out. Operating beyond these boundaries will only spell the most dreaded effects on the existence of the human race. (NCEAS) has cited some of the limits within which humans must operate in order to remain safe (1). These include changes in climate and good use of available freshwater.

These limits act as a check to human behavior which if left unmanned may stretch planet earth beyond her ability to cater for the species in her. Humans need to understand the earth’s system so that they can predict how their behavior change and the change of the environment can influence the system (NCEAS)

According to NCEAS (1), the change of human activities since the time of the industrial revolution has been very strong and has impacted greatly on the systems of the earth. The need for more resources to drive the different activities has continuously depleted major resource deposits on earth.

The increase in human activities is pushing the earth to the limits where the sustainability of its natural operations will be impossible. If due considerations are made well in advance, the consequences of the earth being unable to sustain itself can be prevented. This would in return go a long way in ensuring that future generations will have a place and the means to survive. According to NCEAS (1), human history and the changes that have occurred on earth should be looked at as related elements which influence each other.

This understanding will in return provide guidelines that shall be followed in setting standards that will help the human race to safely navigate within the binderies of the planet without dangerously crossing the expected threshold. The limits that were recommended by the article were not meant to replace economics, politics, or ethics. Instead, they were meant to act as yardsticks for measuring where unfair practices may be found e.g. excessive emission of gases so that we can take the necessary actions to prevent such practices from happening. The pressure applied on the planet earth by humans has reached a level where it cannot be put aside when issues regarding human survival on earth are under discussion. This is because it has become critical and failure to factor it in our planning will make our lives and those of generations become unbearable. Going beyond the planetary limits will prove devastating but if the limits are respected, the existence of the planet and its species has a bright future.

The fact that civilization was dependent on fossils is very clear. The concept of discovering new forms of energy and its subsequent influence on the population growth is very evident from the course readings. Likewise, the inseparability of human activities and environmental change is also s led to increased productivity of food. The increase in food productivity led to more land being needed for cultivation. This in turn led to clearing of more bushes to create more farms for cultivation. The uncontrolled desire to develop and satisfy needs lead to major changes most of which were negative. The manner in which the need to satisfy desires can drive people to their own destruction and the destruction of others is well portrayed in the readings. The concept of conflicts, which arise due to the scramble of scarce resources and their subsequent solving, has been highlighted in the readings. The usage of charcoal that followed the use of wood did not do much to help stop the cutting down of the trees. For societies to develop more sophisticated weapons to conquer their enemies, they had to use coal to smelt iron and other metals. This was so because wood had proven to be ineffective in this task as it could not supply the amount of heat that was required to melt metals. The coal deposits again started being depleted. Degradation of the environment was taking to another level where the pits from where the coal was mine were left open. The use of coal in revolutionizing machines in the factories led to changes in labor forces. Machines were able to handle tasks in bulk thus increasing efficiency. The increased production demanded for more raw materials from the earth some byproducts from charcoal led to a big leap into development of new systems. Manufactured gas came as a bi product of coal. The first to be manufactured was used in lighting factories and towns. This was a major change in people’s way of life in those areas where those productions took place. The demand for raw materials put strain the available resources thereby stretching the abilities of the earth to provide the demands of human beings.

The running of automobiles could not have been possible without the presence of fossil fuels such as petroleum. The use of petrochemical herbicides in the farms led to increased productivity. The emergence of theses automobiles led to the hunting of sea animals such as the whales. Their oils were being used to rubricate the moving parts of the machines. This led to massive hunting of whales that reduced their population immensely. Civilization therefore is vulnerable to disruptions of fossil fuels and its absence means that it will remain at standstill. This means that as the article had stated earlier on, sustainability of the resources the earth has carries the key to survival humans and more so the future generations. Failure to mitigate the causes and effects of these will lead to a bleak future where the generations to come shall forever blame their ancestors for having denied them a chance to experience nature at its best.

From medieval times, people and the environment have changed tremendously. The discovery of wood as a form of energy took the society of that time to a new level. A close reference to societies in central and Western Europe is a clear evidence of this. Likewise, the use of wood as material for building houses led to further cutting down of trees. Each of these discoveries had a certain impact to both the environment and the human society at large. From the environment’s perspective, the land was left bare without the original cover of trees. As people continued yearning for more convenient ways of life, they could not notice the negative impacts they were creating in the environment. This meant that once a tree was cut down, it could not be replaced as there did not seem to be any need to do so. As more settlements were being constructed, people’s lifestyles changed. Due to many people living together in the urban centers that developed later. Due to the interactions that ensued, new faiths were developed e.g. those societies in Europe who used to offer sacrifices in the trees accepted Christianity when it was introduced and left their old way of beliefs. From the human point of view, these discoveries had a huge impact on the human population. Food was being cooked well after the discoveries thereby eliminating pathogens that could cause food borne illnesses. Furthermore, houses built from wood protected them from adverse weather condition that predisposed their bodies to risks of getting sick. Generally their lives improved and their population grew tremendously. This growth led to more cutting down of trees and this continued on and on.

The changing of the human beings went hand in hand with those of the environment. The increase in human population did not leave environmental degradation behind. As the scientists in the article had recommended, human history and earth’s system changes are to be studied together as they shape each other. A clear understanding of these relationships will enable one to fully understand why historically the two occurred concurrently. This will result in designing mechanisms to deal with the negative effects that come along with the environmental change.

Uncontrolled means to satisfy human desires can be destructive. When sources of energy got depleted, and the human needs had not been fulfilled, they resulted to colonization in order to acquire more sources of energy. This totally disregarded moral issues that are involved in slavery that resulted from colonization. The societies that were colonized lost both their material resources and cultural values that guided them on how to relate with the environment. When colonization was over, those societies were not able to regain what they had lost to the colonizers. As such, they still remain ignorant of the importance of preserving natural resources so that the future generations can depend on them. Deforestation is actually at its peak in such societies while those that were the first to industrialize are fighting to regain their lost treasure. Most of the campaigns by the governments of these countries are based on sensitizing people to stop misusing resources while in the developing countries, emphasis is on mending the damage that has already occurred. The emergence of electricity use at homes made automation of many gadgets at home to be possible. Electronics such as the radio and television became widely used. Their use transformed the communication sector. Marketing of the products made at different factories were promoted through these channels of communication.

Conflicts over scarce resources were resolved mostly though warfare. Uprisings that came up as a result of the people in the lower stratum in the society revolting against those who were higher in the social stratum were suppressed though aggression. This meant that more swords of better quality had to be made. This further put pressure on mother earth to provide the metallic ores that were needed to make these weapons.

Projections that are being done currently indicate that the world is headed to a hard time due to the oil peak that is about to come. With the world population rising, a crisis is precipitating. The word governments should adopt strategies that will ensure that the population of the world does not go beyond the carrying capacity of the world. In addition to controlling the population, other sources of energy should be explored with the main intent of reducing dependence on the fossil fuels which are bound to become extinct. From the author’s point of view, people are currently seeing the importance of going back to the origins where, even if life was simple, it offered that personal touch with Mother Nature. This has been well demonstrated by the fact that the current generation is doing some activities that indicate that they are missing the old ways of life. For instance, people are using more herbal medicine than before. It is very evident therefore that if people fail to work within the limits of the earth’s capacity, the old and once referred to as ‘primitive’ will be seen like a paradise after the world has become destroyed beyond repair. Due to the imminent danger posed by the environmental degradation, and the global sensitization of the issue, people are becoming very health conscious and are only purchasing those products that portrays environmental conservation qualities e.g. using recycled papers.

The major similarities between the article and the course readings are that both are talking of sustainability of resources by human beings as they interact with their environment. The readings are majorly focusing on the trends fuels have taken since the Stone Age. On the other hand, the article is mainly looking at ways of utilizing the resources in such a way that the environment cannot be overstretched beyond its limits. Both of them are portraying the importance of using what we have wisely so that it can be available for use by generations to come.

NCEAS. ‘’Scientists Outline Planetary Boundaries’’: A safe Operating space for humanity . University of California-Santa Barbara 2009: print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 8). Human and Environmental Change. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-and-environmental-change/

"Human and Environmental Change." IvyPanda , 8 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/human-and-environmental-change/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Human and Environmental Change'. 8 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Human and Environmental Change." January 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-and-environmental-change/.

1. IvyPanda . "Human and Environmental Change." January 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-and-environmental-change/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Human and Environmental Change." January 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-and-environmental-change/.

• Coal Energy and Reserves in New Zealand
• The Advantages of Coal Gasification
• Coal Pollution in China as an Environmental Problem
• Mountain Top Removal Mining for Coal
• Nuclear and Coal-Fired Power Generation
• Coal Mining and Marginal Concepts
• Proposal to mine coal on Denniston Plateau
• Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments
• Big Coal and the Natural Environment Pollution
• Polish Coal Export to Germany, Its History and Trends
• Society Comparison: Iceland vs. The Easter Island
• The Documentary 'Crude': Legal Issues and Humanity
• Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals
• Health, Safety and Environmental Management Systems
• Amazon Rainforest's Destruction: Leading Issues

Essay on Environmental Effect of Climate Change on Human

This paper discusses the various effects of climate change and what the government can do to minimize global warming. The author begins the paper by introducing the topic of climate change. He discusses how climate change is caused by discussing the concept of global warming. He stresses that despite that global warming has adverse effects, it is also crucial for human survival. The author however, points that the release of carbon to the atmosphere has led to the formation of the ozone layer, which has contributed to the increased temperatures in the atmosphere. In the body of the paper, the author discusses the various consequences of climate change on humans. He discusses on how these effects could lead to infection of diseases on human beings, and eventually death. He also notes the various persons who are at a higher risk of being affected by the climate change. In the conclusion, the paper highlights the summary of the main points in the body, and the recommendations to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere, hence limiting climate change.

Environmental Effect of Climate Change on Human

Due to the adverse effects that climate change has caused, the government must develop ways to minimize the factors that lead to climate change. Climate change is when typical weather patterns and temperature in a place experiences long-term alteration. Various factors lead to climate change. Some of these factors include burning fossil fuels such as gas, oil, and coal. When people burn fossil fuels, they release carbon into the atmosphere causing the ozone layer. When the atmosphere forms the ozone layer, it leads to an increased temperature in the atmosphere. Research shows that climate change has been taking place for the last 4.5 billion years, but natural factors have been causing it (Zalasiewicz & Williams, 2012). Human factors had contributed a lot to the increased temperatures in the atmosphere since the 1800s, when the industrial revolution took place. Natural factors that cause global warming include shifts in the earth’s crust, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the earth’s orbit. Another study shows that the effect of the greenhouse effect is crucial for human survival (Mikhaylov et al. 2020). According to the study, the earth could have been 30 degrees colder today if there was no greenhouse effect. With such temperature, no person could have been able to survive. However, the same study criticizes the greenhouse effect by saying that since the industrial revolution, it has led to heat in the atmosphere at a rapid rate instead of making the earth warmer. The long-term alteration in temperature and typical weather patterns has led to various environmental effects on humans; hence, governments should devise ways to minimize the factors that cause climate change.

The first environmental effect of climate change on humans is that it increases heat-related deaths. As the temperature increase in the atmosphere, people experience more frequent and hotter days. Such temperatures are unfavorable for some people. For instance, the temperature changes lead to death of thousands of individuals in the United States each year (Burke et al. 2018). During the winter season, the country experiences some reduction in deaths, but they do not offset the deaths. People who are exposed to extreme heat tend to experience dehydration and heatstroke. Others experience respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The people whom the extreme heat majorly affects are those who come from the northern latitudes. Other people who are more vulnerable to extreme heat conditions are the homeless, athletes, and outdoor workers. These people spend a lot of time outdoors, hence are more affected than other people. Another group that faces extreme heat conditions includes older adults and low-income households. These groups lack access to air conditioning, hence find it difficult to regulate the heat. Climate change leads to extreme heat, which affects various categories of people, hence increasing death risks.

Another environmental effect of climate change is that it leads to dirtier air. When pollution from factories and cars reacts to sunlight, they worsen the air conditions by making it dirtier. The main component of smog is the ground-level ozone; hence the dirtier air is likely to increase as things get hotter (Mikhaylov et al. 2020). The dirtier air is likely to worsen the health conditions of people with health problems, such as those with an asthmatic problem. Another group of patients that the pollution is likely to affect is a pulmonary disease and cardiac. The increased temperatures and dirty air also increase airborne pollen, affecting those suffering from various allergies and hay fever. This means that as pollution from factories and cars increases, the environmental air tends to be dirtier, which worsens the health conditions of various people, hence increasing the number of patients that the hospitals are admitting or even the death rate.

Climate change could also lead to increased wildlife extinction rates. When the atmosphere experiences increased temperature conditions, every living thing residing in it experiences the effects of such situations and not human beings only. Sometimes these changes in the atmosphere occur rapidly, making it difficult for some species to adapt quickly enough. Despite that some species make to adapt, others do not. Some species in the ocean, freshwater, and even land tend to migrate to cooler regions when temperatures rise in their present areas (Chaidez et al. 2017). However, not all species find it a success in migrating and also adapting to the new environment. Most of them tend to die, hence face extinction risk. Research shows that most vertebrate species such as mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are disappearing 114 times faster than they should be due to deforestation, climate change, and pollution.

More acidic oceans are another effect of climate change. As the atmosphere becomes warmer, oceans become more acidic due to their absorption of some excess emissions. The more pollution occurs, the more the threat increases to underwater life. These conditions affect the living things in these waters in various ways. For instance, creatures with bare shells, such as those with carbonate shells or skeletons, including crabs, corals, and mollusks, have their bodies reacting with the acidic water formed due to pollution. The moment these shells respond with acid water, these species become extinct, affecting the third party that depends on them. Human beings living on the coast tend to harvest clams, oysters, and mollusks to sell. Once these species die, they reduce, affecting the economic status of those depending on the products. In 2015, acidification led to the loss of $110 million in the Pacific Northwest oyster industry. Indeed, climate change has directed to more acid oceans, leading to the extinction of some species due to the reaction of the acid water with these ‘species’ body shells. People who depend on such species to get money for their survival are likely to lower their income levels, affecting their living standards.

Higher sea levels are another environmental effect of climate change. Higher latitudes tend to experience a warmer atmosphere. In the arctic regions, the average temperatures are rising very fast and are approximated to increase twice than any place on earth. The higher temperatures have led to the melting of the ice sheets very fast, causing various consequences. The consequences affect people, plants, and wildlife. However, the most severe result is that it leads to rising sea levels. Studies show that the sea level will be one to four feet higher by 2100, a factor that threatens low-lying areas and coastal systems (Mikhaylov et al. 2020). This threat is likely to affect the world’s largest cities such as New York, Miami, Rio de Janeiro, and Sydney. Other areas are the entire island nations. Such high sea levels are likely to affect people living in various cities and islands, which may lead to the migration of these people to other areas.

Climate change is likely to increase strength of extreme events such as droughts and storms, threatening human life and safety. When there are increased temperatures in the atmosphere, there is a likelihood that it will affect the hydrological cycle. The higher temperatures could lead to prolonged droughts, affecting various living things (Mikhaylov et al. 2020). The plants will die due to lack of water, leading to low levels of transpiration and decreased amount of water vapor through evapotranspiration. This, in turn, affects the number of clouds that could be formed, affecting the amount of transpiration. The more the problem persists, the more the humans are concerned. Human beings mainly depend on plants for food and even water for survival. The moment the drought conditions persist, human beings are likely to get a food shortage, hence facing hunger or even death. On the other hand, the increase in temperature leads to the melting of the glaciers, leading to the rise in sea levels, which could lead to floods, hence killing people.

Climate change also leads to warmer temperatures, leading to a greater risk of human beings dying prematurely. When people pollute the air through the emission of gases, there tend to be unhealthy levels in the atmosphere. People who are exposed to these conditions are likely to die prematurely (Mikhaylov et al. 2020). Alternatively, they are likely to be admitted to hospitals for respiratory problems. These conditions can damage the lung tissue and inflame airways. Such conditions place people at risk of dying prematurely.

Climate change is likely to cause vector-borne diseases which risk the lives of human beings. Vector such as ticks, mosquitoes, and fleas tend to transmit these diseases. When precipitation, temperatures, and extreme conditions change, vector-borne ‘diseases’ geographic range tends to increase, leading to increased illnesses. For instance, temperature limits the geographical range of ticks that carry Lyme disease. When temperature increases, ticks tend to become more active (Daniel et al. 2018). Once the Lyme infection reaches human beings, they experience fever, fatigue, headache, and characteristic skin rash. Mosquitoes also strive in particular areas, especially those flooded, transmitting malaria and the West Nile Virus to human beings. Both climate and non-climate factors influence the spread of such diseases. The non-climate conditions include access to healthcare, cultural needs, pest control, human response to disease risk, and socioeconomic conditions. Despite that richer country such as the United States can handle such infections due to their public health infrastructure and programs prevent the disease from spreading, poorer countries face a challenge in managing these infections. Climate change has indeed increased the spread of vector-borne diseases, hence risking human life.

Another effect of climate change on humans is that it leads to water-related illnesses on human beings. Climate change can lead to increased run-offs and even storms. Such factors lead to water contamination, especially when the water run-offs pass through areas that are chemically contaminated (Lipczynska-Kochany, 2018). When such water reaches the water bodies, they contaminate the water, making it unhealthy for human beings to consume. Some of the health impacts that can be caused by contaminated water include gastrointestinal illnesses such as cholera and diarrhea. Such infections affect the respiratory systems and the body’s nervous such as the kidney or liver. When water is contaminated, many people are affected since they depend on it, and once they are infected, it increases the risk of death.

Another impact of climate change on humans is that it disrupts or slows the distribution of food. Extreme events such as floods can damage roads and waterways, becoming a challenge for various organizations to transport the food to multiple regions. Sometimes there are floods in streets, becoming difficult for vehicles to transport goods (Pregnalato et al. 2017). In some cases, the storms destroy bridges, making the places inaccessible. Reconstruction of these roads or bridges may take time once they are destroyed. The storms also are unpredictable and may take a more extended period. Such factors make it difficult for organizations to transport the food to various regions, hindering particular persons from getting food. The longer the problem lasts, the more those people who lack food get affected. In some places, if the government does not develop an emergence solution, some people, such as the aged and kids, may die.

Climate change has also affected food safety and nutrition, risking the levels of human beings. Higher temperatures can lead to increased cases of bacteria-related food poisoning. Research indicates that bacteria tend to grow more rapidly in warm temperatures. When human beings get infected with such bacteria, they tend to have gastrointestinal distress, and in some cases, it may lead to death. Higher temperatures on the sea surface can lead to higher mercury concentrations in seafood, affecting human beings when they feed in these foods. When there are higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, some plants tend to use it as fertilizer. When these plants use it as fertilizer, it lowers essential minerals and proteins in crops such as potatoes, rice, and wheat, a factor that makes these foods less nutritious. The less healthy foods can affect the health of human beings in a particular region, leading to non-healthy individuals. The non-health people in a specific area are less productive, affecting the productivity of a country, a factor that can lower the G.D.P of a nation.

Another way that climate change can affect humans is by affecting the mental health of individuals. Changes in the physical environment can affect the mental health of human beings. One of the ways that climate change can affect the mental status of human beings is by causing stress to people who lose their loved ones due to extreme conditions such as floods and even hunger due to drought. People with mental illness are at a high risk of increasing their status during hotter conditions. Research shows that these individuals double the bet of death when there are increased heat waves (Liu et al. 2019). Some medication for people with mental illness makes it difficult for people to regulate their body temperatures. Some individuals, such as older persons, tend to be stressed during extreme conditions. For instance, women with kids can tend to emphasize what to feed their children during drought conditions. Parents can also be distressed when storms and floods destroy their houses or even crops because of the worries of eating or even feeding their families. Sometimes, floods kill properties of people, causing distress and depression on people.

Climate change leads to increased temperatures in the atmosphere, which reduces the chances of people getting pregnant. Research shows that the problem is likely to get worse as temperatures increases. High temperatures tend to harm birth rate and sperm account. As the temperatures get up, the heat waves increase, making it difficult for women to become pregnant. Research that Barreca et al. conducted on U.S birth data shows that there are fewer births in May (Barreca et al. 2018). The fewer births this month are due to the increased heat waves in August, nine months before May. This means that in August, the probability of women becoming pregnant is very low due to the high heat waves. The research indicates that people tend to have sex in all periods of the year at an equal rate, but the heat waves tend to affect male fertility. During high temperatures, the sperm counts tend to fall. The study also showed that people from the northern states experienced slightly more effectiveness because they were less prepared for the heat waves. However, the hot states such as Arizona had the same trends as the cooler ones because they had adapted to the heat waves and were much prepared as they stayed indoors or installed air conditioners in their buildings.

The last effect of climate change is that it can lead to dust storms, affecting humans. Climate change can lead to winds which cause blowing dust and sand to fill the air. When they fill the air, they limit visibility and can create traffic on roads. The increased dust can also lead to increased accidents leading to the loss of lives. The high sand and dust storms have led to increases in hospital admissions, increases in emergency hospital visits, and increased asthma cases or worsening the conditions (Schweitzer et al. 2018). The bits of dust and soil during a dust or sand storm can carry pathogens, fungi, or even bacteria affecting people’s health.

In conclusion, climate change has had adverse effects on the lives of people. Some results are minor, while others are major. The significant products include the deaths of people. Alternatively, climate change effects can affect particular people more adversely compared to others. Older people and children are likely to be at greater risk when climate change occurs. People from the northern latitudes, the athletes, the homeless, and the poor are also at greater chances to be affected by global warming. Wealthy people are likely to be better positioned to deal with higher temperatures to install air conditions in their buildings. Governments should ensure that they come up with ways to minimize the global warming effect. They should come up with ways to produce clean energy to reduce global warming. They can input measures to organizations on the amount of carbon they are supposed to create and impose fines or high taxes on those that emit a high amount of carbon. It can also protect and restore ecosystems to slow global warming. Another way the government can deal with global warming is by supporting small-scale agricultural producers, ensuring enough food in the country. People should also avoid using energies that emit carbon, such as coal, and start using renewable energy sources such as solar.

Barreca, A., Deschenes, O., & Guldi, M. (2018). Maybe next month? Temperature shocks and dynamic adjustments in birth rates.  Demography ,  55 (4), 1269-1293.

Burke, M., González, F., Baylis, P., Heft-Neal, S., Baysan, C., Basu, S., & Hsiang, S. (2018). Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico.  Nature climate change ,  8 (8), 723-729.

Chaidez, V., Dreano, D., Agusti, S., Duarte, C. M., & Hoteit, I. (2017). Decadal trends in Red Sea maximum surface temperature.  Scientific reports ,  7 (1), 1-8.

Daniel, M., Danielová, V., Fialová, A., Malý, M., Kříž, B., & Nuttall, P. A. (2018). Increased relative risk of tick-borne encephalitis in warmer weather.  Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology ,  8 , 90.

Lipczynska-Kochany, E. (2018). Effect of climate change on humic substances and associated impacts on the quality of surface water and groundwater: A review.  Science of the total environment ,  640 , 1548-1565.

Liu, X., Liu, H., Fan, H., Liu, Y., & Ding, G. (2019). Influence of heat waves on daily hospital visits for mental illness in Jinan, China—a case-crossover study.  International journal of environmental research and public health ,  16 (1), 87.

Mikhaylov, A., Moiseev, N., Aleshin, K., & Burkhardt, T. (2020). Global climate change and greenhouse effect.  Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues ,  7 (4), 2897.

Pregnolato, M., Ford, A., Glenis, V., Wilkinson, S., & Dawson, R. (2017). Impact of climate change on disruption to urban transport networks from pluvial flooding.  Journal of Infrastructure Systems ,  23 (4), 04017015.

Schweitzer, M. D., Calzadilla, A. S., Salamo, O., Sharifi, A., Kumar, N., Holt, G., … & Mirsaeidi, M. (2018). Lung health in era of climate change and dust storms.  Environmental research ,  163 , 36-42.

Zalasiewicz, J., & Williams, M. (2012).  The Goldilocks Planet: The 4 billion year story of Earth’s climate . Oxford University Press.

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Essay on Food Supply
• The work of Degas as an example of nineteenth century developments in ...
• Essay on Juxtaposing Short Stories: The Third and Final Continent and ...
• Essay on Growth Marketing Plan for a High-Growth Alternative Protein S...
• A review of a Sybil attack in wireless sensor networks
• Essay on Social Media Strategy for MoMath

Essay on Environment and Human Health in English for Children and Students

Table of Contents

Life on this planet is interconnected. Nothing is isolated and everything has an impact on everything else. With concerns about climate change looming and becoming more immediate, we need to understand how our environment and health are connected.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Essay on Environment and Human Health in English

Below you will find some essays on environment and human health that can help you in your examinations, assignments. Select any environment and human health essay you need from the ones given below.

Short Essay on Environment and Human Health – Essay 1 (200 words)

Introduction

Human health is defined as the state of well-being with regards to the mental, physical and social aspects of the human condition. A person cannot be called healthy merely because of the absence of disease; he or she needs to be doing well in all ways to actually qualify as healthy.

Many factors play a role in determining our health – biological, nutritional, psychological and chemical. These factors can be influenced by internal and external conditions. Externally, the biggest factor that influences our health is our environment.

Environment and Human Health

Our environment isn’t merely the air we breathe, although that is a major component; it ranges from the water we drink to the soil we grow our food in to the sounds and noises in our surroundings. Each part affects us and thereby our health. With emissions from vehicles, factories and fires, our air supply is full of toxic chemicals that present the risk of lung cancer, heart disease and asthma. The food we eat is covered in pesticides that make soil less fertile and can be carcinogenic for us. The human body needs water to survive but our water sources are full of human and industrial wastes that create serious health issues.

We need to remember that we have to live in synergy with our environment. What we put out in it will come back to us. Unless we do something now, the earth will very soon no longer be a habitable planet.

Essay on Health and Environment – Essay 2 (300 words)

Human tendency has always been to subjugate our surroundings. We take pleasure in conquering and reshaping our environment as though it is beneath us and we are supreme. However, the simple truth is that humans are as dependent upon the environment as any other animals on the planet for our continued well-being. Therefore, if we harm our environment, we harm ourselves.

Health and Environment

Our physical, mental and social well-being is dependent upon our surroundings. What we put into the ecosystem is eventually cycled back to us. The pollutants we discard into this ecosystem find their way back through the air we breathe, the food we consume and the water we drink. Since we discard these pollutants because they are harmful to us, it follows that when we inadvertently consume them afterwards, they will still have harmful effects on our health.

Problems with this have been going on for quite some time. We use pesticides on our food crops because the chemicals kill the pests that could destroy the crops. However, those pesticides remain on the food when we consume them causing health problems ranging from skin problems to cancer. The pesticides also reduce the fertility of the soil ensuring that the next crop isn’t as bountiful.

Similarly, we discard human and industrial waste into whatever water body is conveniently close. But we also use the same water bodies for drinking water. Water pollution leads to diseases such as diarrhoea, dysentery, lead poisoning, polio and arsenicosis amongst others. The air is also polluted by all the gaseous emissions our activities release. Ranging from smoke from fires to emissions from vehicles and industries, these pollutants cause respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis and can even result in lung cancer.

Environmental scientists have been raising the alarm for some time, but things are very critical now. Our unchecked activities have had adverse effects on the ecosystem and some of that damage is now irreversible. If we do not step up to the plate, we will render the earth uninhabitable very soon.

Essay on Environment Affects Humans Health – Essay 3 (400 words)

As per the definition by WHO, “human health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity”. This well-being does not happen in isolation; it is affected by internal as well as external factors. Internal factors include issues inside the human body such as immune deficiencies, hormonal imbalances and genetic or congenital disorders.

External factors generally include three types of health hazards: physical hazards such as ultraviolet and radioactive radiations, noise pollution, carbon monoxide and CFCs; chemical hazards such as industrial effluents, heavy metals, pesticides and fossil fuel combustion; and biological hazards such as parasites, bacteria and viruses.

This clearly means that our health is, to a great extent, dependent upon our environment and the environmental factors that affect human health are mostly created by humans. What we release into our eco-system eventually finds its way back to us.

How Environment Affects Human Health

Since we are completely dependent on the environment to survive, it is safe to say that any changes to the environment will impact human well-being. However, the actual relationship between these two is more complex than we believed and isn’t always easy to assess. The most obvious impacts that we have seen are from deteriorating water quality, air pollution and unsanitary conditions. Radiation poisoning too has deadly consequences for human health.

The response to these issues has been an overall attempt to clean up our ecosystem. While that has worked for some countries, mostly in the developed world, it hasn’t been applied thoroughly in the developing countries of the world. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries have managed to address some of the more immediate concerns such as the emission of CFCs into the atmosphere and the damage done to the ozone layer by them.

The corporate world is also trying to lessen its carbon footprint and turning to ‘green’ solutions. However, there are many concerns that have yet to be addressed and are spiralling out of control such as biodiversity; on an average, one species dies out every day. In addition, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a proper supply of food so that the world doesn’t starve.

We are simply too well-woven into our surroundings to be immune to the effects of any changes in those surroundings. The problem is that because the relationship between health and environment is complex, we aren’t motivated to make major changes; we’re waiting for irrefutable evidence. By the time we do get it, it might be too late.

Essay on Healthy Environment Healthy Life – Essay 4 (500 words)

We are aware of the complex strands that bind us to our environment. We have already started noticing the difference in our health and how it is related to what we do to our environment. However, a point to consider is that if a bad environment can cause harm to human health, a good environment can actually nurture it.

Unhealthy Environment Unhealthy Life

A report jointly published by the United Nations Environment Programme, the WHO, the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Stockholm, Rotterdam and Basel conventions states that in the year 2012 alone, approximately 12.6 million people lost their lives due to conditions brought on by environmental pollution. UNEP also estimates that environmental degradation is behind 25 percent of all human diseases.

Environmental Pollution Impact

While environmental pollution may have an impact on everyone, research has shown that there are certain demographics that are more vulnerable to its effects – the young, the poor, women, the migrant workers and the elderly. In addition, diseases such as Ebola, Zika and SARS are emerging every few months and spreading because of overpopulation, too much livestock and the resultant environmental impact.

In order to stop the spread of these diseases, healthy ecosystems are essential. While tackling these diseases, such ecosystems can also bring about economic development, reduction of poverty, fewer risks to human well-being and the security of knowing that resources will not run out.

Mental Health

Increasingly, studies conducted on mental health are relating good mental health with exposure to nature. These studies have linked reduction of the symptoms of anxiety and depression and lowered stress levels to the presence of green space close by. In fact, people who moved to urban areas that are greener were seen to have improved mental health.

Water Contamination Impact

This is another example of environmental pollution affecting those in the lower economic strata. In countries where the income levels are middle to low, unavailability of clean water is responsible for 58 percent of the diarrhoea cases. Contaminated water and poor hygiene and sanitation are responsible for the deaths of around 3.5 million people. They also cause the premature deaths of around 25 percent of children younger than 14 years of age.

Approach to Resolution

There are several areas of immediate concern, based on the connection between poor human health and environmental degradation. Some of them are:

• Ecosystems that have degraded and natural systems on earth that are under pressure, which are more likely to cause disasters such as disease outbreaks, scarcity of food and natural disasters.
• Insufficient sanitation, poor hygiene and unsafe water that are the causes of deadly diseases, poor mental health and even hit economic productivity badly.
• Poor nutrition combined with dropping levels of physical activity, leading to the spread of non-communicable diseases.

Directly or indirectly, a healthy environment means healthy people. This is not to say that disease and malnutrition will be eliminated entirely but the incidences of these occurrences will reduce and millions of human lives will not be lost every year.

Long Essay on Impact of the Environment on Health – Essay 5 (600 words)

Human health or human well-being is affected by two main factors – individual traits or internal factors and ecological well-being or external factors. However, most of the time, when research is conducted on the human health condition, these two factors are investigated in isolation from each other. If one truly wants to answer the question – how does the environment affect individual health – one has to look at both factors in tandem. This becomes especially important now in light of climate change warnings and governmental indifference to them.

Impact of Environment on Health

The drawback with health related environmental studies or environment related health studies being conducted, especially those in the West, have narrowed their focus to concentrate on specific allergenic, infectious or toxic agents. They aren’t focusing on broader issues that cover psychological and social impacts too.

Some researchers agree that when studying human health it is important to take into account the impact of the environment of the people being studied. That impact can be seen in the fact that health inequalities exist as per the geography. In fact, health is impacted by the social and physical environment.

Additional research has also shown that there is a direct relationship between people’s mental health and the prevalence of green spaces; the more proximity to the green space, the better the mental health.

Socio-economic Differences in Environmental Impact

That the environment and human health are intertwined cannot be denied. However, that relationship works out differently in different places. In other words, depending upon where you are in the world, the immediate health concerns and the environmental factors affecting those concerns can be varied.

Developing countries tend to focus more on issues such as infant mortality, malnutrition and infectious diseases. The immediate environmental concerns in these countries are sanitation, hygiene, mining, ore processing, oil production and water quality. However, when one looks at developed nations, health concerns revolve around issues such as cancer, lung disease and heart disease. These countries have economies built around industries and those industries do not dispose off their hazardous wastes responsibly, thereby contaminating nearby water bodies and soil.

Considering these factors, it is no wonder that emphasis is placed more on the diseases than on the causes behind those diseases. The causes vary; the diseases may not necessarily do so.

Examples of Environmental Impact on Health Globally

Unfortunately, there isn’t any part of the globe that is free of environmental damage, not even the Polar Regions. If one goes looking, one will almost always find health concerns related to those environmental issues. It doesn’t help that countries such as China and India are developing very quickly. Their pace is such that environmental concerns aren’t being able to keep up with development.

Untreated human waste, industrial effluents, agricultural runoff and just plain old dumping are playing havoc with the ecology in both countries. Then there are the eastern European countries, many of which are former Soviet Union states. Over the past decades, hazardous waste such as heavy metals and nitrates were dumped without any plan or precaution. The result is badly contaminated ground water and surface water, not to mention the lowered quality of soil.

Some action is being taken finally where in such regions are being identified and efforts have been made to remediate, reclaim and restore the soil and surface water in such places; the effort comes too late, however, for the population that has already been exposed to these contaminants.

If one really wants to know what the environmental impact on health looks like, they need to stop looking at it in terms of discrete bubbles. They must study health disorders from an individual as well as an environmental perspective.

Related Information on Environment

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Watch CBS News

What is biodiversity and why is it important? Here's what to know.

By Li Cohen

April 22, 2024 / 7:57 AM EDT / CBS News

Earth is home to millions of discovered species of plants and animals with many more yet to be known. They all play vital roles in each other, their ecosystems, and the planet's overall health and they make up what is known as biological diversity. 

But what exactly is biodiversity? It's a shortened version of two scientific terms — biological diversity. Essentially, all it means is having a variety of living things. There are three main levels of biodiversity scientists typically refer to, according to the Smithsonian, including species, genetic and ecosystem diversity. Under these categories, researchers are looking to identify how many and what kind of species are around, what the genetic makeup of those individual species are and passing down to generations and what species populations are in various environments, such as waterways and forests. 

"These levels cannot be separated," the Smithsonian says. "Each is important, interacting with and influencing others. Changes at one changes at other levels." 

Why is biodiversity important? 

A species' ability to thrive isn't only essential for its survival, but in many cases, for the survival of others as well. One of the clearest examples of this is bumblebees. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture , there are 49 species of bumblebees across the U.S., and they all will go flower-to-flower, picking up nectar and pollen as they go. Not only does that help feed individual bees, but the transporting of the nectar and pollen also helps plant species thrive. 

However, studies have found that climate change is threatening their survival, with researchers finding the likelihood of a bumblebee population surviving has declined by an average of 30% within a single generation of humans. 

Honeybees also serve a vital role in biodiversity. The USDA says they pollinate $15 billion worth of crops  every year, helping support life for more than 130 agricultural products. The honey they produce, which humans have grown to love and enjoy, is also worth millions. 

What is biodiversity loss? 

As important as biodiversity is, it's come under significant threat . In 2019, a  United Nations report found that roughly 1 million plant and animal species could be threatened with extinction, while a newer report found an even more dire state – up to 6 million species extinct over the next 50 years. 

" Major direct threats to biodiversity include habitat loss and fragmentation, unsustainable resource use, invasive species, pollution, and global climate change," the American Museum of Natural History says. "The underlying causes of biodiversity loss, such as a growing human population and overconsumption are often complex and stem from many interrelated factors."

How many species are there?

Scientists estimate that there are roughly 8.7 million species of plants, animals, fungi, and other organisms on Earth, including roughly 2.2 million species that live in the world's oceans. But even that number is low for the true amount of life on the planet. 

"In spite of 250 years of taxonomic classification and over 1.2 million species already catalogued in a central database, our results suggest that some 86% of existing species on Earth and 91% of species in the ocean still await description," researchers said in a  2011 study . "Renewed interest in further exploration and taxonomy is required if this significant gap in our knowledge of life on Earth is to be closed."

But new species are constantly being discovered. In 2023, scientists at London's Natural History Museum say they've uncovered 815 new species , from geckos to algae to swamp eels. And that's just one group of scientists. 

Thousands of other species have been discovered since Earth Day 2023, including more than 5,500 species in a single area, the Clarion-Clipperton Zone between Hawaii and Mexico. Researchers have also found new species of  hedgehogs , a deepwater catshark , an "electrical" blue tarantula , and a deep-sea octopus .

"The bad news, however, is that biodiversity is declining," says the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUNC) Red List , the world's most comprehensive list of species conservation status. 

The Red List holds more than 157,100 species, including 44,000 the group says are threatened with extinction – more than a quarter of all the species the IUCN has assessed. 

How to help and protect biodiversity

Even though species decline continues to be a serious ongoing issue, there are things that everyone can do to help what's happening in their own backyard. 

If you have a garden, for example, opting for native plants and wildflowers can be a huge boost for the local ecosystem. Native plants, which are those that grow naturally in a region, are vital to an area's biological web, help reduce the amount of needed fertilizers and pesticides and provide ample pollinating opportunities. According to the National Audobon Society , they also require less water to maintain and can help store greenhouse gases, which are a key driver of climate change when they are in the atmosphere. 

If you enjoy hiking or spending time outdoors, it's also key to respect nature. Sticking to walking paths and trails isn't just for your safety but for that of the species around you. Constantly disrupting habitats or walking on plant life can tarnish an ecosystem. 

Reducing and reusing materials is also key, as landfills and pollution can be detrimental to life on Earth, especially marine life. Consider buying items second-hand and instead of throwing away old clothes or things around the house, find a way to repurpose them, sell them or donate them. 

Essentially, it's all about taking care of the home outside of your home. 

"It is within our power to change our actions to help ensure the survival of species and the health and integrity of ecological systems," the American Museum of Natural History says. "...While we might not be able to prevent all negative human impacts on biodiversity , with knowledge we can work to change the direction and shape of our effects on the rest of life on Earth."

• Climate Change
• Endangered Species
• Environment

Li Cohen is a social media producer and trending content writer for CBS News.

More from CBS News

How countries are using innovative technology to preserve ocean life

Climate change a health risk for 70% of world's workers, UN warns

Even those who care most about climate have heard little of Biden's policies

Poll: Big majority of Americans favor taking steps to reduce climate change

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Earth Day: How a senator’s idea more than 50 years ago got people fighting for their planet

FILE - Climate activists hold a rally to protest the use of fossil fuels on Earth Day at Freedom Plaza, April 22, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

FILE - Activists display prints replicating solar panels during a rally to mark Earth Day at Lafayette Square, Washington, April 23, 2022. (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe, File)

• Copy Link copied

Millions of people around the world will pause on Monday, at least for a moment, to mark Earth Day. It’s an annual event founded by people who hoped to stir activism to clean up and preserve a planet that is now home to some 8 billion humans and assorted trillions of other organisms.

Here are answers to some common questions about Earth Day and how it came to be:

WHY DO WE CELEBRATE EARTH DAY?

Earth Day has its roots in growing concern over pollution in the 1960s, when author Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring,” about the pesticide DDT and its damaging effects on the food chain, hit bestseller lists and raised awareness about nature’s delicate balance.

But it was a senator from Wisconsin, Democrat Gaylord Nelson, who had the idea that would become Earth Day. Nelson had long been concerned about the environment when a massive offshore oil spill sent millions of gallons onto the southern California coast in 1969. Nelson, after touring the spill site, had the idea of doing a national “teach-in” on the environment, similar to teach-ins being held on some college campuses at the time to oppose the war in Vietnam.

Nelson and others, including activist Denis Hayes, worked to expand the idea beyond college campuses, with events all around the country, and came up with the Earth Day name.

WHY WAS APRIL 22 CHOSEN FOR EARTH DAY?

A history of the movement by EarthDay.org, where Hayes remains board chair emeritus, says the date of the first Earth Day — April 22, 1970 — was chosen because it fell on a weekday between spring break and final exams and the aim was to attract as many students as possible.

IS EARTH DAY A REAL HOLIDAY?

It’s not a federal holiday. But many groups use the day to put together volunteer events with the environment in mind, such as cleanups of natural areas. You can see a list of events worldwide , or register your own event, at EarthDay.org.

HAS IT HAD AN IMPACT?

It has. The overwhelming public response to the first Earth Day is credited with adding pressure for the U.S. Congress to do more to address pollution, and it did, passing landmark legislation including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. More broadly, it’s seen as the birth of the modern environmental movement. In later years, Earth Day expanded to become a truly global event. It now claims to have motivated action in more than 192 countries.

In 2000, Earth Day began taking aim at climate change, a problem that has grown rapidly more urgent in recent years.

WHAT’S THE THEME THIS YEAR?

This year’s Earth Day is focusing on the threat that plastics pose to our environment, with a call to end all single-use plastic and find replacements for their use so they can quickly be phased down.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Impacts of Plastic Pollution

Plastic pollution has become ubiquitous in natural and built environments, raising concerns about potential harm to humans and nature alike. Once in the environment, research shows that plastic pollution is persistent and may take between 100 to 1,000 years or more to decompose, depending on environmental conditions. 

Once in the environment, plastic pollution can fragment into smaller pieces of plastic. Microplastics are plastic particles ranging in size from five millimeters to one nanometer; nanoplastics are plastic particles smaller than one micrometer. Both are found in every ecosystem on the planet from the Antarctic tundra to tropical coral reefs.  

On this page:

Environmental Impacts

Human health impacts.

Plastic pollution poses a threat to the marine environment. It puts marine species at higher risk of ingesting plastic, suffocating, or becoming entangled in plastic pollution. Research indicates that more than 1,500 species in marine and terrestrial environments are known to ingest plastics.  

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated that in 2019, plastic products were responsible for 3.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions throughout their life cycles, with 90% of these emissions coming from the production and conversion of fossil fuels into new plastic products. OECD also reports that, unless human behavior changes, greenhouse gas emissions associated with the life cycle of plastic products are expected to double by 2060. The World Economic Forum projects that without intervention, the global plastics industry will account for 20% of total oil consumption and up to 15% of global carbon emissions by 2050.   

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, microplastics have also been found in human livers, kidneys, and placentas. Additionally, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (pdf) (291 KB)  finds that carcinogenic chemicals found in plastic products can leach into tap water, which may cause developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune disorders. Some animal studies have raised similar concerns about endocrine-disrupting effects. More research is needed to better understand the potential human health impact of microplastics. 

• Sustainable Management of Plastics Homepage
• About Plastic Pollution
• Best Practices
• Regulation and Policy
• Resources and Grant Programs
• What You Can Do to Reduce Plastic Waste

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Human rights violated by Swiss inaction on climate, ECHR rules in landmark case

Court finds in favour of group of older Swiss women who claimed weak policies put them at greater risk of death from heatwaves

Weak government climate policies violate fundamental human rights, the European court of human rights has ruled.

In a landmark decision on one of three major climate cases, the first such rulings by an international court, the ECHR raised judicial pressure on governments to stop filling the atmosphere with gases that make extreme weather more violent.

The court’s top bench ruled that Switzerland had violated the rights of a group of older Swiss women to family life, but threw out a French mayor’s case against France and that of a group of young Portuguese people against 32 European countries.

“It feels like a mixed result because two of the cases were inadmissible,” said Corina Heri, a law researcher at the University of Zürich. “But actually it’s a huge success.”

The court, which calls itself “the conscience of Europe”, found that Switzerland had failed to comply with its duties to stop climate change. It also set out a path for organisations to bring further cases on behalf of applicants.

The Swiss verdict opens up all 46 members of the Council of Europe to similar cases in national courts that they are likely to lose.

Joie Chowdhury, an attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law campaign group, said the judgment left no doubt that the climate crisis was a human rights crisis. “We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond,” she said.

The facts of the three cases varied widely, but they all hinged on the question of whether government inaction on climate change violated fundamental human rights. Some of the governments argued that the cases should not be admitted, and that climate policy should be the subject of national governments rather than international courts.

The plaintiffs attending the hearing in the court in Strasbourg, some as young as 12, celebrated after a member of a panel of 17 judges read out the verdicts. The climate activist Greta Thunberg joined a gathering outside the court before the hearing to encourage faster action.

Anton Foley, who with Thunberg was representing Aurora, a youth group that filed a climate lawsuit against Sweden, said it was “unjust” that responsibility for stopping the climate crisis fell on young people, and praised the Swiss women for stepping up. “We don’t want to be the hope for the older generation. We want them to do this, because we don’t want to fight this fight.”

Thunberg thanked Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of the KlimaSeniorinnen, for what she had done, as they met outside the courtroom.

The KlimaSeniorinnen, a group of 2,400 older Swiss women, told the court that several of their rights were being violated. Because older women are more likely to die in heatwaves – which have become hotter and more common because of fossil fuels – they argued that Switzerland should do its share to stop the planet heating by the Paris agreement target of 1.5C (2.7F) above preindustrial levels.

The court ruled that Swiss authorities had not acted in time to come up with a good enough strategy to cut emissions. It also found the applicants had not had appropriate access to justice in Switzerland.

But it also rejected the cases of four individual applicants who had joined the KlimaSeniorinnen.

“I’m very happy,” said Nicole Barbry, 70, a member of the KlimaSeniorinnen who had come to Strasbourg. “It’s good that they’re finally listening to us.”

The Portuguese children and young people – who because of their age will see greater climate damage than previous generations – argued that climate-fuelled disasters such as wildfires and smoke threatened their right to life and discriminated against them based on their age.

The court did not admit the case, deciding that the applicants could not bring cases against countries other than Portugal and adding that they had not pursued legal avenues in Portugal against the government.

“Their [the Swiss] win is a win for us, too,” said Sofia Oliveira, a 19-year-old applicant in the Portuguese case. “And a win for everyone.”

The French case, brought by the MEP Damien Carême, argued that France’s failure to do enough to stop climate change violated his rights to life and privacy and family life. Carême filed the case when he was the mayor of Grand-Synthe, a coastal town vulnerable to flooding. The court did not admit the case because Carême no longer lives there.

The ECHR rejects about 90% of all applications it receives as inadmissible but fast-tracked the three climate cases to its top bench because of their urgency. It delayed hearings on six more climate cases to get a result on the rulings on Tuesday.

The rulings will influence three other international courts that are examining the role of government climate policy on human rights.

Charlotte Blattner, a researcher at the University of Berne who specialises in climate law, said the court had delivered a bold judgment in favour of a viable future. “The nature and gravity of the threat of climate change – and the urgency to effectively respond to it – require that governments can and will have to be held accountable for their lack of adequate action,” she said.

The court said that keeping global heating to 1.5C was a key part of protecting human rights, rather than the higher 2C limit that courts had used for rulings on cases in Germany and the Netherlands.

Gerry Liston, a lawyer for the Portuguese children, said the recognition that Switzerland’s policies were not science-based was “by far” the most significant aspect of the ruling. “No European government’s climate policies are aligned with anything near 1.5C, so it will be clear to those working on climate litigation in those countries that there is now a clear basis to bring a case in their national courts.”

• Climate crisis
• European court of human rights
• Human rights (Law)
• Switzerland
• Human rights (Global development)
• Older people

More on this story

Desert city of Dubai floods as heaviest rainfall in 75 years hits UAE

Strasbourg court’s Swiss climate ruling could have global impact, say experts

World Bank must take ‘quantum leap’ to tackle climate crisis, UN expert says

MPs accuse Charity Commission of legal breach over climate sceptic thinktank

US banks ‘sabotaging’ own net zero plans by livestock financing, report claims

Millions go hungry as a billion meals binned every day, says UN report

Geologists reject declaration of Anthropocene epoch

‘When it’s this hot, time stands still’: surviving west Africa’s blistering heat

Most viewed.