The practices used in conventional farming help produce large amounts of food, which of course helps farmers stay in business. However these practices also contribute to climate change. The use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, plus planting the same crop over and over in the same field, leads to lower quality soil and increased vulnerability to pests. 

Managing a profitable farm and practicing good climate stewardship aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. Farmers have options that make it possible to grow large amounts of food and minimize their impact, including using regenerative agriculture techniques and installing agrivoltaic systems for solar power on their land. Let’s look at how both these paths improve a farm’s resilience and support the farmer’s economic well-being.

Saving the Soil Can Also Save Money

According to the Regenerative Agriculture Foundation, regenerative farming is any practice, process or management approach that enhances the functioning of the systems on which it relies that makes the land, community and bottom-line healthier year after year.

Regenerative farming practices include using natural fertilizers and cover crops, eliminating mechanical soil tilling, and integrating trees into farming. These methods help promote biodiversity and maintain healthy carbon levels in the soil; they can also reduce overall agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Regenerative farming also has the potential to increase crop yield – and also revenue – depending on how and where it is used. Organic farming, or the practice of using natural fertilizers, shows an average yield gain of 16 percent in tropical countries in Africa. In subtropical and tropical regions, using agroforestry, or integrating trees into crop land, results in a 7-16 percent increase in crop yield. Farmers that planted cover crops like legumes in areas with course-textured soil and not much rain saw an overall yield increase of 14 percent. 

However even when crop yields are smaller, regenerative agriculture can still result in higher revenue through decreased operational costs. A 2025 study looking at regenerative farming in the Upper Midwest compared a five-crop rotation system to a conventional corn-soybean rotation and found that the regenerative system can be just as profitable, particularly over the long term. After three years of a five-crop rotation, the revenue produced was similar to that of the two-crop system, likely because of the need for less spending on pesticides, spraying, fertilizers, and tractor use. 

Prioritizing climate sustainability doesn’t have to mean an unprofitable farm. Regenerative agriculture can offer financial stability, but it’s not the only option farmers have.

Harvesting Crops and Kilowatts

In the short term, switching to regenerative farming can be a financial risk due to unpredictable initial crop yields, so finding a secondary income source can be a lifesaver for farmers. Arivoltaics, or solar panels integrated into an agriculture system, allow farmers to earn money in two ways: from selling products and from producing or selling electricity. This extra energy income can help farmers become less affected by unpredictable crop price fluctuations and protect them from financial losses caused by extreme weather conditions.

However, agrivoltaic systems can be expensive to install because they require taller, stronger, and more complex structures than regular ground-mounted solar panels. Some studies estimate the cost to be about 5 to 40 percent higher than conventional solar panel installations, though newer designs and distributed manufacturing may help lower costs and improve payback period, which is already less than 10 years on average.

Solar Panels can Shade and Shelter

Even with the high installation costs, a 2025 systematic review found that agrivoltaic systems can provide several benefits beyond renewable electricity. These systems may improve water-use efficiency in hot climates by up to 150-300 percent through providing shade. They also enhance land-use efficiency by up to 200 percent, reduce the need for irrigation by 14 percent, and increase revenue by up to 15 times. In addition, shade from the panels helps reduce heat stress in livestock and the physical structure itself creates a shield, reducing potential wind damage to crops and the earth. 

However, these potential benefits don’t mean that agrivoltaics will work equally well everywhere. The success of these systems depends on the location of the farm, soil and crop type, and the layout of the solar panels. 

A 2026 PNAS study gives a good example of these mixed results. It found that agrivoltaics performed differently in locations across the U.S. Midwest. In the more humid, eastern Midwest, agrivoltaics reduced crop yields and farm profits, while in semiarid western Midwest locations, solar panel shade helped reduce water stress, improving crop growth. One lesson we can take from this study is that agrivoltaics may be most useful in hotter or drier climates.

Supporting the Farms of Tomorrow

While regenerative agriculture and agrivoltaics have their trade offs, they offer farmers a hopeful path forward. Regenerative agriculture can rebuild soil health, reduce dependence on expensive fertilizers and pesticides, and even increase yields when matched to the right climate and crop, while agrivoltaics add another layer of economic support and provide shade and wind protection. Together these practices show that farming does not have to choose between profit and environmental responsibility. When carefully planned for local conditions, regenerative agriculture and agrivoltaics can help farmers earn money, protect their land, and build farms that actively fight against global warming.

Check out our other articles on regenerative farming, soil health, and all things food.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at woods@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post How Soil and Solar Can Pay Farmers Back appeared first on Earth Day.

Mammals are captivating, warm, and cuddly, however, a global analysis of around 14,600 conservation projects found that almost half of all species-focused funding went to just 47 species, primarily large ones such as elephants, bears, and wolves, while plants received only about 6.6% of total resources. 

Yet, trees are fundamental to the Earth’s health, they, among other things, stabilize soil with their roots, provide home and nutrition for countless species, and make our landscapes beautiful. When a tree disappears, it’s not just a single loss, it’s a shift in habitat. 

Some of the world’s truly remarkable trees are now mere remnants, quietly declining without the spotlight granted to charismatic animals. It’s long overdue that we give these neglected giants the recognition and protection they deserve.

The Firefighter

Florida Torreya is an evergreen tree of the yew family that lives in just a tiny 35 kilometer-long stretch of ravines along the Apalachicola River in the area of northern Florida and southern Georgia. In the 20th century, its population crashed by roughly 98.5% due to a fungus-caused canker disease, with most of its original habitat remaining intact. What used to be a stretch of over 0.3 million trees is now estimated to be less than 2,000 entities.

At its prime, Florida Torreya can grow up to 20 meters (65.6 feet) in height, however, ever since 1962, no trees of such size have been spotted. Nowadays, most members of the species are less than 2 meters (6.6) tall, with only a couple stems to display.

Florida Torreya’s main benefit for the environment was its low flammability. With this species going extinct and other more flammable trees populating its former habitat, the Apalachicola River area’s vulnerability to wildfire has increased. This puts the flora of the region, which includes 48 rare species, in danger, demonstrating how decline in one species can threaten entire systems.

The Dinosaur’s Friend

Wollemi Pine is one of the rarest tree species on Earth, with just 91 surviving individuals as of 2021, only 45 of which are mature. Today, Wollemi Pines live in only four small rainforest canyon sites in Australia, all of which are located in the Blue Mountains and Wollemi National Park.

Appearance-wise, a Wollemi Pine can grow to about 40 meters (131 feet) tall, its bark looking similar to bubbling chocolate, earning the species the “Coco Pops Tree” moniker.

When the species’ dwindling remnants were discovered in 1994, scientists pointed out that the tree belonged to a very ancient lineage that existed when dinosaurs were still alive. The tree was named the “botanical find of the century,” shaking the conservation efforts around the globe awake.

Due to the population being so small and isolated, the threats caused by diseases, fire, unauthorized human disturbance, and climate change are especially dangerous to the species. As a result, the exact location of the remaining trees has never been made available to the public.

A Chef and a Medic

The Science Maple

Acer Yangbiense is a maple tree endemic to Yangbi County in Yunnan, China. It grows in the Cangshan Mountain region at about 2,200-2,500 meter elevation and can reach up to 20 meters (65.6 feet) in height.

For years, the species was thought to survive as only five wild trees, but 2016 surveys found a total of 577 individuals in 12 different areas, with another 2019 search uncovering additional 166 trees. The main problem with restoring this species comes from its poor reproduction capacities, with most trees growing only male flowers and only 5.37% having both female and male blossoms. In addition, habitat degradation caused by human activity and climate change also plays a major role in this species endangerment.

What makes Acer Yangbiense especially notable is its contribution to science. In 2019, researchers mapped the tree’s entire DNA, creating the first full genome for this species and the first genome ever published for a maple tree. Having this information helps researchers study how the species evolved, how it adapts to its environment, and how it and similar trees can be better protected, making the species valuable outside its small population.

The Icon of Resilience

Sicilian Fir is the most endangered conifer in all Europe with only 30 mature trees surviving in nature. It lives in Madonie Regional Park, Sicily, growing up to around 14.4 meters (47.2 feet) in height and closely resembles a pine tree from a distance.

The species’s main struggles are loss of genetic diversity, scatteredness in population, weak regeneration, and a high rate of sterile seed production. All of these contribute to its slow extinction, which was initially launched by deforestation for construction projects due to the wood’s high flexibility and sturdiness.

Despite the hardships and the extremely small population size, mature Sicilian Firs are exceptionally genetically diverse, even when compared to other Mediterranean trees of much greater populations. Aside from the resilience of the tree’s genetic variation being especially admirable, this diversity also increases the tree’s chances to survive various threats like climate change induced calamities, stoking the hope that it might yet prevail.

Planting the Seeds of Change

These five trees come from different continents and habitats, but their stories point to the same truth: forests are fragile, and the loss of even a single species can leave permanent marks on landscapes, traditions, or minds.

Supporting forest restoration can make a meaningful difference. A donation to Canopy Tree Project can go a long way in supporting reforestation efforts that give trees and the ecosystems built around them a chance to thrive and stay out of endangerment lists.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at woods@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 5 Trees Worth Saving appeared first on Earth Day.

Nature is full of creatures that do far more than simply survive. Many quietly perform jobs that keep ecosystems functioning. A review on biodiversity loss gathered evidence from more than 600 experiments involving over 500 kinds of organisms and found that when biodiversity is lost, living things populating the surrounding area become less efficient at using resources, growing biological matter, and breaking down and reusing nutrients.

This underscores how animals are not just interesting parts of nature, they are superheroes, each with their own special job, supporting the health and stability of the entire planet. Without their vigilant protection, entire ecosystems would be at risk of decay, as they lost their resistance to climate change, efficiency in resource usage, and improved environmental restoration. This National Superheroes Day, let’s explore some unsung champions inhabiting, and safeguarding, three vastly different layers of our Earth.

The Gardeners of Nature

In savannahs, deserts, and forests, one such heroic species moves with enormous weight but leaves life behind with almost every step. Elephants are far more than impressive giants, they are also major seed dispensers. Research describes them as “megagardeners of the forest” because they consume as many as 500 plant species and then deposit viable seeds over long distances in nutrient-rich dung.

This matters for the ecosystem’s health as seeds carried away from the parent plant are less likely to compete with it for nutrients. Additionally, distribution of a plant over a larger area decreases the chance of child plants catching parental disease. On top of that, being spread out lowers the risk of being eaten by insects and animals stalking the original area for the species, improving their survivability.

The elephants’ size, broad diet, long gut passage time, and large home range make them unusually effective at transporting seeds across landscapes in a way that smaller animals often cannot. On average, forest elephants transport seeds for 5.3 kilometers. 89% of the seeds get displaced by more than 1 kilometer from the parent plant and 10% carried further than 14 kilometers, far past the borders of the parent tree neighborhoods. These numbers show that elephants do not simply drop seeds near where they found them, they spread them across the forest, helping plants colonize new, uncharted areas, and maintain genetic diversity.

The Creepy Custodians

A very different superhero appears only after death. Vultures are often seen as ugly or ominous, yet they perform one of the most valuable jobs in nature: pollution and disease control. 

By finding and consuming dead animals quickly, they remove carcasses before they can become breeding grounds for harmful bacteria and other pathogens. This keeps the environment cleaner and lowers the risk of infectious diseases, like anthrax, spreading among humans and animals.

Vultures, being the only surviving vertebrates who are obligate scavengers, are especially efficient at disposing of remains, getting it done much faster and cleaner than other animals. Even when feral dogs populate areas devoid of vultures, they do not measure up to the birds’ standards, often being too few in numbers and leaving uneaten pieces behind.

Vultures’ work also supports cleaner water. When carcasses end up in streams and rivers, their decomposition causes a decrease in the level of dissolved oxygen and an increase of fecal-originating bacteria. Lower oxygen levels harm survivability of local fish who need it to breathe, while bacteria threaten human and animal health by causing infections, making vultures the guardians of water quality as well.

On top of that, these birds also provide indirect benefits to human communities. Their rapid cleanup of animal remains can reduce the food available to roaming scavengers such as feral dogs, which helps limit the spread of rabies among people. At the same time, Vultures save communities the time, cost, and labor that would otherwise be needed to dispose of the carcasses through burying or incineration.

The Shoreline Vanguards

While elephants strengthen the forests and vultures keep landscapes clean, corals protect life by building the structure of entire underwater cities. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), although coral reefs cover only about 1% of the planet’s oceans, they create a livable environment for at least 25% of all marine life. Rather than simply occupying an ecosystem, they create one.

But their work does not stop in the ocean, coral reefs defend land inhabitants too. NOAA explains that reef structures act as natural barriers against waves, dissipating around 97% of wave energy. This helps reduce erosion and subsequent property and life damage. The service saves nations significant amounts of resources, as calculations suggest that without coral reefs to protect our shorelines, global yearly expenses caused by storms would increase by at least $4 billion. It is estimated that countries most at risk from these natural disasters, such as Cuba, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines, and Mexico, each save around $400 millions in damages annually just from being surrounded by coral reefs.

But coral reefs are important not only because they support marine life and shorelines, they also help scientists develop new medicines. Many substances found in coral reefs are currently being used to develop treatments for diseases such as arthritis, cancer, viruses, bacterial infections, and more.

Anyone Can Be a Hero

Together, these species show that protecting nature is about more than saving individual animals. Elephants, vultures, and corals each perform a different kind of environmental service, but all of them help keep the planet healthy. Their stories remind us that ecosystems depend on cooperation, and that every living thing matters in the big picture.One way you can join these heroes in their quest to protect the planet is by donating to the Canopy Tree Project. Not only would your donation share in the spirit of planet conservation, but it would also help preserve habitats of animals, helping maintain biodiversity that strengthens our ecosystem.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at woods@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Nature’s Hidden Superheroes appeared first on Earth Day.

Earthday.org’s 2026 theme, “Our Power, Our Planet,” asks a simple but urgent question: what kind of future are we building with our hands? We talked to five experts whose answers, though different in focus, all return to the idea of well-being.

Together, our guests show that health is larger than medicine alone, tying our ecosystem, political environment, and economy into one living body. Each conversation invites listeners to view Earth Week not just as a call to cut waste and save power, but also as an invitation to protect the conditions that allow us to live, work, and thrive as parts of a bigger picture.

Planetary and Human Health with Dr. Carlos A. Faerron Guzmán

For Dr. Carlos A. Faerron Guzmán, health begins long before a person enters a clinic. It begins in the soil, the water, the air, and the systems that make life possible. Drawing on his experience working in an indigenous territory in Southern Costa Rica, he reflects on the limits of urban way of thinking that treats the effects of the environment on human health as secondary to medical treatment.

Dr. Guzmán highlights how human health begins with the surrounding environment, showing that when we use our power to protect the planet, we also protect the conditions that keep us healthy.

Political Health with Bob Inglis

Bob Inglis enters the discussion asking what happens when public life becomes so politically divided that even clean air and water are treated as partisan matters. Looking back at the first Earth Day and its spirit of bipartisan agreement, Inglis suggests that the country may be reaching a point of exhaustion with empty conflict for conflict’s sake.

As a former Republican congressman, Inglis emphasizes that the message of environmental action should be spoken in many political languages for all sides to get behind it. Through this conversation about finding a common ground, Inglis shows how power lies in people getting together to make a change, no matter what side of debate they are on.

Community Health with Jason Walsh

Jason Walsh speaks from long experience at the intersection of policy-making and environmental advocacy. He challenges the idea that getting rid of fossil fuel jobs harms the workers, explaining that introduction of green jobs would bring improved benefits, pay, and stability.

Instead of waging war between environmentalists and union workers or silently waiting for the quality of life to progress, Walsh calls for a coalition aimed at bettering conditions for everyone.

His words point toward a broader definition of community health, one that includes security and fairness as much as it includes jobs. Walsh offers a path in which communities are not sacrificed in the name of progress but deliberately included in it, calling for the fossil fuel workers to use their power in numbers to push for greener policies and a better future.

Ecosystem Health with Ashish Kapoor

Ashish Kapoor brings ecosystem health down to the ground level, where abstract ideas about technology meet the realities of land, water, air, and human health. Speaking about the rapid spread of AI-powering data centers, especially in Virginia, Kapoor challenges the illusion that digital exists outside of the material world.

Yet, this is not simply a warning, Kapoor also points toward the practical forms of power communities still possess: local listening, coalition-building, and policy, encouraging the listeners to leverage that power for the sake of our own well-being.

Economic and Future Health with Efrem Bycer

Efrem Brycer from LinkedIn introduces to us the future through the lens of economic health. His focus is the growing gap between the demand for green skills and the number of workers prepared to fill that need. 

Taking care of economic health sometimes means learning green skills and getting ready to apply them in fields one might least expect: from management and software engineering to insurance and marketing. 

This reflects how the power to shape a more sustainable future is not monopolized by any one industry, but shared across many kinds of work, giving more people the opportunity to contribute to a healthier future.

Stay A-Tuned to the Planet

Taken together, these five conversations offer a broad understanding of what health really means in the age of climate crisis and political unrest. Sign up to receive these and future podcasts as soon as they are released and stay connected to the urgent conversations shaping our shared world.

The post Five Ways To Define Health With Five Experts appeared first on Earth Day.

Where human and environmental health intersect, Dr. Carlos A. Faerron Guzmán offers a perspective that goes beyond hospitals and medical treatment: planetary health.

In his discussion with an EARTHDAY.ORG educator Dennis Nolasco, Dr. Guzmán reflects on practical experience from his work as a physician in an Indigenous community in southern Costa Rica, highlighting how closely human health depends on the surrounding environment.

Set within the broader discussion of the Earth Week 2026, his message focuses on the idea that environmental conditions and human health are deeply connected. Dr. Guzmán argues that problems such as respiratory illness, extreme heat, limited access to nutritious food, infectious disease, and emotional stress should not be viewed in isolation from climate disruption. Rather than treating these issues as separate topics, Dr. Guzmán presents them as part of a larger system in which damage to air, water, land, and local environments directly affects people’s lives.

Dr. Carlos A. Faerron Guzmán is an international scholar and educator in global health whose work focuses on equality in healthcare. His teaching and research reflect a strong interest in how social and environmental conditions work together to shape well-being across communities. He holds leadership and academic roles at University of Maryland Baltimore, John Hopkins University, the InterAmerican Center for Global Health, the School of Professional Studies at Northwestern University, and the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.

Earthday.org’s 2026 theme, Our Power Our Planet, reflects how actions we take now can save us the invisible costs of climate change in the future. Our health starts with our environment, and we have the power to keep that environment clean and thriving.

Q: Carlos, welcome. You’ve worked on the frontlines where health and environment intersect. Was there a moment or experience that made you realize the planet’s health and human health can’t be separated?

I’ll say there was kind of a slow movement towards that recognition. Early on in my career as a physician working in an indigenous territory in southern Costa Rica I started understanding how these interconnections of health and the environment happened. I grew up mostly as a, let’s say, a city person. I didn’t fully understand out of lack of lived experience and somewhat ignorance how directly the environment actually shapes health, food, daily life and even things like our spirituality. So what I saw in that indigenous territory was that the environment was not something that was a backdrop to health, it was more or less the foundation of health.

A lot of times in urban life. It’s easy to think that health is managed in clinics. In that indigenous territory called La Casona It became very clear to me that actually health begins much, much earlier. In the land, in the soil, in the water, in the food systems and in the ecosystem — the other living beings that are surrounding us — and that experience really exposed that this way of understanding health from a very urban perspective is very very limited.

I say that cured me from that urban illusion. So when you see that food comes directly from the soil that you’re surrounded by, when you’re seeing that your health depends right on the water that’s in the river, and that even the identity of people are so tied to place. The idea that environmental degradation is separate from health really becomes very difficult to defend.

Q: For those hearing “Planetary Health” for the first time, how would you explain it in a way that connects to someone’s daily life? For example, what’s a simple way to see this link while walking through a city or sitting in a doctor’s office?

Planetary health is a simple idea. We can have layers of our understanding, but the simplest way to explain it is that the health of humans depends on the stability of the natural systems that support our well-being. The simplest way that we interact with natural systems is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil where our food comes from, the climate that helps us live stably, so to speak. The ecosystems, the bees and the other aspects of living things that live with us. If those systems are degraded, then our health is deeply affected.

And whether you notice that immediately or not, those things are interconnected. So let’s say I’m gonna use an example from a normal city block anywhere in the world, and in that city block you can have things like excessive heat trapped in concrete. You can have pollution of the air coming from traffic. You can have little presence of greenery that provides little shade, creating a hotter environment. You’re seeing that in the neighborhoods that flood quite easily after heavy and extreme rains. You can even see it when you go to the supermarket. The quality of the food that we buy. Right? So in our daily lives, we’re encountering these ways in which natural systems degradation is starting to impact our health.

We as physicians, we’re also seeing this at the end of the process. We see more cases of asthma, more cases of heat stress, more cases of anxiety, more cases of infectious diseases, more cases of malnutrition because people are struggling to access healthy food.

And these are not separate problems. These are all interconnected through what we call global environmental change. So planetary health should not be thought about as an abstract environmental issue. It’s really about whether we can thrive breathing clean air or drinking safe water. And in general, just supporting those living conditions that support our health and the health of the other species that live with us.

This is why we call it planetary. Our planet Earth shows up in the conditions of our bodies. And that is because science keeps telling us this more and more. Everything is interconnected. 

Q: Where do you see climate change already showing up in people’s bodies or communities today — even in ways that aren’t labeled “climate-related”?

One thing I’ll say when we talk about planetary health, right, we’re not just talking about climate change. We’re talking about “everything” change, so to speak. We have huge changes in our biodiversity. We have huge changes in the quality of our soils. We have huge changes in the quality of our air, in the quality of our water.

We see changes happening at every single natural system that we know. And climate change is definitely one of those very prevalent symptoms of our larger syndrome. But I think one of the biggest misunderstandings is that climate change is a future problem.

It’s actually very visible in everyday health and in every person around the world. You see it in everything from worsening respiratory diseases and that changing towards not just someone that has asthma but has a more severe case of asthma, not someone that has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but has a more severe case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Right. Because in a sense, right, the world is becoming hotter, becoming more polluted, and it’s making it harder for people to just get their daily necessities of clean air, clean water, good food, being met. 

I think even today, as we’re seeing it, due to ongoing geopolitical aspects and conflicts, we see it in our food systems. We see higher prices, we see reduced access.

And as changes in temperature and rainfall patterns really start being unpredictable, it affects what we call vector borne diseases like mosquitoes, and we see rising cases of things like dengue. And the numbers tell us if we don’t start changing the way we look at these challenges, these challenges are only going to get worse.

So climate change is already showing up in people’s lungs, people’s diets, people’s stress level, and every single choice they make in their daily lives. This is not something of the future.

This is something that’s happening right now. 

Q: You co-authored a recent Annual Reviews piece on Planetary Health: Focusing on the Intersection of Human Health and the Earth System. Which findings struck you most personally — something that surprised you or changed how you think about health care itself?

I’ll say the central message of that piece is that the Earth crisis is fueling a global health crisis.

And those things cannot be separated and understood in different policy realms or solution realms. They need to be seen as one and be tackled as one. And part of what we talk about in that paper is the transgression of what we’re now calling planetary boundaries, which are these limits which the best science deems is a safe living space for the majority of humanity.

So that’s what we call the concept of planetary boundaries. Anything above a planetary boundary is deemed unsafe for humans. So you think: how much climate change before it becomes unsafe? How much pollution before it becomes unsafe? How much biodiversity loss before it becomes unsafe? 

So the most recent assessment of the boundaries tells us that six out of the nine boundaries have already been transgressed to dangerous levels, which means that we are already operating outside much of the safe space and that human society is at high risk.

And we’re seeing that in everything from coastal Bangladesh to central Texas to the Amazon. We’re seeing it all over manifesting in different ways as a manifestation of the Earth crisis. And one of the things that in the paper we really emphasize is that the data keeps showing that health is often harmed before there’s actually a transgression of the boundary.

Especially health is mostly harmed in vulnerable communities. So there are communities already that are starting to pay the price of this Earth’s crisis very early. And these are communities all around the world.

And that challenges us to think that we shouldn’t wait until everything is color red and the alarms are ringing. Which is kind of what the Planetary Boundaries framework kind of depicts.

Q: Are you seeing momentum within the medical field toward viewing environmental protection as part of health care itself? What would help accelerate that shift?

Yeah, I’ll say there is momentum, but I’ll say also that the momentum is quite uneven and that it’s slower than what we want and what science would justify. So there is growing awareness, I’ll say that. There are more people around the world that are recognizing how the environment is interconnected with our health.

But that recognition is not necessarily leading to institutional change or systemic change. So that is still, let’s say, lagging a bit. And we still see that health systems around the world and education systems around the world are still treating the environment factor as kind of secondary rather than a core determinant of health. And this is a structural problem that we know is about training, it’s about finance, about governance.

And those are still organized in a kind of an old way where we’re treating illness rather than preventing it or promoting a healthier environment. So we need to change both in our imagination, how we do these things right and how we actually act. So we think at the Planetary Health Alliance that accelerating this shift means integrating planetary health into education, changing incentives, recognizing environmental risk as a clinical reality.

So we have training modules for clinicians and public health professionals that want to understand how do we actually go about doing this. 

And then there’s another aspect of planetary health that’s interesting around the medical field and health system, which is looking inwards, so to speak, and saying, “What’s my role in, you know, the environmental issues? How am I disposing my waste?”

There are countries where the footprint of a health system can be anywhere between 5 to 10% of the environmental footprint from that country.

So it’s not minor that we ourselves, from the health systems, the health professionals are part of the problem. And we could be doing more in that sense. So there’s kind of many ways or many paths that can lead to convergent solutions towards reaching that momentum that you were mentioning earlier.

And as I said earlier, part of the challenge is how do we distribute this momentum where it is mostly needed. Because right now there’s a handful of countries that are trying to advance this of university systems, of health systems, of policy and decision makers and many other actors that are trying to move forward. But we really need convergent actions.

And then because priorities are shifting in other parts of the world due to geopolitical, political circumstances and, you know, lobbying and many other things, then we see that momentum lagging or even, you know, struggling to pick up. So it’s unfortunate, but in the Planetary Health Alliance, I’ll say we’ve captured a lot of that momentum and we try to systematize it in order to be inspirational to others.

Q: You’ve argued that climate action is one of the most cost-effective public health investments. What does a prevention-focused health system look like in practice — and what would it take to move from treating illness to preventing it at scale?

In a lot of my classes, I usually tell my students when we think about prevention in health systems, we think about it too narrowly.

Our own definition of health is too narrow. And because our definition of health is narrow, then our actions are narrow. So we think about prevention and health systems on things like screenings and vaccines. But actually prevention is much more than that. It’s also about those very basic things like air, water, good housing, stable food availability, and the quality of that food.

Right. So securing all those aspects should also be part of what we understand as a preventative health system. So a preventative health system should not be thinking about things downstream. Yes it should, but we also should be looking at the upstream conditions as part of when we think about goals involved in health policy, not just external environmental issues.

When we think about, you know, a planetary-health-friendly health system. It’s more around a priority problem. And we really need to start getting our priorities straight as societies, as voters, as professionals of healthcare or professionals in education. In general the world really needs to start thinking about what it is that we want to do and what kind of future we want to create.

And I think one way to look at this is through one specific lens, which is climate action. It’s a very powerful health investment. It produces not just benefits for us today, but benefits for the people in the future. And all aspects of our health and our well-being will be improved through climate action.

I recently saw a cartoon that says, “What if we created a better world for nothing? And climate change was just a hoax?” If you think about it, it is like we could be creating a better world just because. Even if there was no climate change.

Climate change exists and it’s very real, but what’s stopping us from creating a better world? So I think, again, priorities need to be set out straight. This relates to people’s values, relates to constitutional values and many other things that I talked about a lot in my classes.

Q: You’ve said education is your passion. What’s one way we can better connect with people who don’t see climate change as personal yet — to make them realize it’s about their kids’ asthma, their food, their mental health?

There’s no one way. And if we had the one best way, we would be repeating and repeating and rinse and repeat.

But different parts of society, different geographies will react to different things. And I think understanding that is a good place to start. Now there is science that is telling us what type of messages tend to hit best with certain parts of communities and societies and professions. So even looking at that science is a good starting point.

But for the most, I think, we’re starting a lot of the time in the wrong place. We—and I might be even at fault at this at times—We start with abstract language, instead of things like lived experience.

So we start seeing climate change as personal. Not as global averages, but daily lives. As you were saying, impacting people’s asthma, the cost of food, the heat, the stress, the sleep. But even if you do that, there’s going to be a part of society that thinks that’s immune to that, right? Whether because they have strong social networks or they have high resources or simply they’re, you know, not empathetic.

And that’s where I think appealing to people’s values and common sense and common good is important. So, we need to bring it down to people’s personal lives. But still we know that more information is not always gonna lead people to change.

Education, as we traditionally think about—and you’re an educator, so you know what I’m talking about—Education is not about putting more information in people’s brains. It’s not just about giving more information, new information. It’s also about how we look at stuff. How we frame the challenges, how we frame that solution.

So kind of boiling it down to everyday climate and health connections, it’s about not just telling you these are the impacts, but reframing what actually counts as health issues. So how does this affect their body? How does this affect their family? How does this affect their communities? How does this affect the overall long term well-being of a country?

And we might start seeing that when that happens the conversation might change. So in Costa Rica, for example, we see this in Latin America in general. We start seeing people from all around the spectrum starting to recognize how, you know, the heavy rains, the dengue, the food insecurity—all these things are now made more explicit in the way we communicate them.

And asking people to reframe this is not just impacting a sector of society. It’s impacting the country as a whole. It’s impacting global as a whole. And we need to start thinking about solutions together. So the goal is to make climate change visible, not something that is abstract, not something that is distant. It’s bringing it to people’s day-to-day lives, but also bringing it to the things that they care about the most.

Q: You’ve spoken about how pollution shifts costs onto families and health systems. Can you walk us through an example of that “invisible bill” we’re all paying — and why prevention could actually save money and suffering alike?

Invisible bill is a good term because it tells us about the costs that we’re not seeing. When we pay for gas at the pump, when we pay for plastic in a supermarket, we’re not paying for the real cost of that.

There’s, you know, externalities that go into that production process to get from under the Earth to that gas pump that are not necessarily easily seen. and this is why the invisible bill is a good concept. 

So I’m going to go back to perhaps the example of the kid with asthma that’s exposed to polluted air from traffic or industry or the production of dirty energy. And that kid is developing asthma and having to visit the E.R. every now and then to get treatment and starts having issues to thrive because of this asthma and can’t control their asthma. 

So there’s, you know, the price we pay in the pump or the price we pay for energy. But there’s also kind of the invisible bill, as you were saying, which is the family that is paying for the medications, the clinical visits. How about that kid missing school and what that means for that kid’s life? How do we put a cost on that? How about future missing work or all the stress that is causing not just to the kid, but also the family?

And then there’s the health system. The health system is paying through emergency visits, long term care, increased demand, worker burnout. And all that is caused by us and air pollution or the way we produce our energy. The entity that is responsible for the pollution is not really paying for the damage.

And obviously this is one example, but it’s not limited to just asthma. It also applies to polluted water, heat-related illnesses, and food system impacts.

Um so we often say “profits are concentrated, but the damage is distributed.”

Q: Fixing “the air and water” can’t fall on individuals alone. What’s one bold move you’d like to see from governments, businesses, and health systems to anchor prevention in policy — not just personal choice?

Well, I don’t know if it’s bold but it seems rational. I’ll say that I’d like to see more rational decisions being taken. And one of the decisions or rational moves that we could take is apply a concept that’s been part of how we think about these challenges for a while in all policy frameworks.

Now we’re looking at planetary health in our policy. And that really means that all major decisions that countries and societies make—be it energy, economy, transport, housing, food—that the decisions aren’t made until we have clarity on what will be the impact on people’s wellbeing now and into the future.

So I don’t know if that’s bold, but I think that’s rational, right? Health shouldn’t be an afterthought. It should be the central metric of whatever we do in policy. And there are frameworks to look at. And these are already being applied in certain parts of the world.

For our government it means embedding health into planning, into budgeting into regulation. But it also can apply for other stakeholders like businesses.

For businesses, it would mean recognizing that shifting a cost to society is unacceptable. That’s a value decision. And I think that decision needs to be made. But it also can be a carrot and stick, right? So governments can play a role in how businesses make those decisions, right? For families or for health systems, for example, that shifting means using the influence, right, and their knowledge and their accumulated trust, and that form of power that is not just economic, but health system has a lot of power in the form of influence and moral and knowledge and data, of course, that can advocate for this approach.

Q: If we reimagined health care as prevention on a planetary scale, what would that system look like? How would it feel different from today’s model?

So, if we were to design a planetary health intervention that can trickle down or go from bottom up and spread around the world, the world would look different, right? I mean, the system wouldn’t be organized as reactive. It wouldn’t wait until damages were caused to react. It would immediately start shaping the things that I’ve been mentioning. You know, how we organize cities, how we produce food, how we produce environment, or how we produce energy, how we treat the environment, right?

People would start experiencing health and well-being in a much different way. They would experience it in the walk in the park with the cleaner air. They would walk through safer neighborhoods. They would have more safe, stable conditions and predictable conditions to make better life decisions.

So the measure wouldn’t be things like how many people I treat or how successful were those treatments, but how many people I’m keeping on the healthy side, how well is the planet doing? How many diseases am I preventing? There would be different metrics there that will help us. Tell us if we’re being successful.

And today, the end stage parts of systems, like hospitals, are carrying the burden. In this planetary-health-forward world we would still need hospitals, of course, but they wouldn’t carry the burden. The burden would be distributed much more in the other systems that keep us well.

Q: As Earth Day 2026 approaches, what gives you hope?

One thing that keeps giving me hope over and over again is that when I look at what’s happening around the world, it’s that we know probably 90% of the solutions that we need to implement.

There’s clear strategies being created. There’s clear technology, there’s clear governance schemes, there’s clear policy packages. They’re clear metrics. We know that most of these things work. And we know what that looks like. We can imagine ourselves in that world of cleaner energy, better food systems, healthier cities, stronger preventative public health systems.

We’re not navigating in the dark, but there are definitely forces pushing against that. But, what I do admire for the people working in the frontlines is their consistent push forward that also gives me hope.

And thinking about it from a public health side, as a public health person myself, just thinking about these things as we’ve been saying, the interconnectivity of how one thing that moves forward can then have a trickle down effect on how other things happen. How just secure and safe water can have, you know, immense, immense consequences for good for the people that are accessing that safe water.

The same goes for food. With better quality of the food, with better access to food, people’s lives will get better, not just now, but into the future. To think about that baby in a womb, getting nutritious food and the life trajectory of that baby suddenly improves exponentially. So that gives me hope as well, that there are kind of lock on effects that we can have down the line that we know are possible.

And I think kind of the question now is how do we actually act on what we already know? And from the Planetary Health Alliance, we’ve been working hard with different sectors of society and stakeholders to try to see what is that best “how.” How do we take that knowledge that we’ve created, those technologies, those governance schemes, those policy packages, those behavioral changes, you know, those solutions from all sides and how do we best implement them? Because I think the alliance is in itself pushing forward and trying to find those convergent actors in order to do that more quickly and create that shift that we need.

The post Climate Change in Our Bodies and Our Communities: 22 Minutes with Dr. Carlos Faerron Guzmán appeared first on Earth Day.

Imagine a hardworking biodegradable battery powering a temporary soil sensor in the field, a tool measuring soil conditions to guide the frequency of watering and fertilizing. After days or weeks, its job of supplying power is done. Instead of needing to retrieve it or leaving electronic waste in the fields, the battery simply dissolves.

The idea sounds perfect: use the battery, then let nature take care of it. But reality is more complicated. Vanishing does not always mean harmless, and even the most eco-friendly inventions can carry hidden burdens.

Decomposing Biodegradable Batteries

Compostable batteries are energy storage devices designed to break down under controlled composting conditions, often at 58 °C (136.4 °F), 50% humidity, and pH of 6.5 to 8. They can be born in two ways. Some are designed to disappear almost entirely, built with a 3D printer using all-degradable polymers. Others are partially biodegradable: their binders, packaging, and separators can compost away, while metals inside slowly dissolve rather than fully biodegrade. The battery we’ll focus on if of the second type.

To be more precise, it is part of the aqueous zinc-ion family (AZIB), specifically the manganese dioxide branch (Zn-MnO2), which we will call Ziggy for its compounds. The key distinction of aqueous batteries is that they are water-based, making them chemically milder and safer than batteries based on organic solvents such as ethylene carbonate and polycarbonate. While not all AZIBs are biodegradable, versions like our Ziggy can be engineered to be so by replacing the un-chargable components that hold the battery together with compostable materials.

The Birth of a Battery

Right at birth, our young battery faces competition from powerful cousins, especially lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, one of the most popular conventional battery types used today.

In manufacturing, AZIBs like Ziggy perform surprisingly well. Studies suggest that producing various AZIBs can on average result in 45.1 kilograms of CO2 per watt-hour, nearly half the greenhouse gasses emissions of Li-ion batteries at 39 to 196 kilograms of CO2 per watt-hour. For clarity, producing 39 kilograms of CO2 per one kilowatt-hour battery is like driving an average car for 96.5 miles to power an average microwave for an hour. Regarding other factors, all tested AZIB types score better for terrestrial acidity and cancerogenic human toxicity, although non-cancerogenic human toxicity for AZIBs was higher for all material types. 

But there is no rest for Ziggy, as another competitor enters the scene: the all-organic polymer battery. Ironically, producing some all-organic batteries has, so far, shown greater greenhouse gasses emissions, ozone depletion, and toxicity than the production of Li-ion batteries and AZIBs. This is because all-polymer components are not as effective for energy storage as metals are. The specific energy (or how much energy it provides compared to its total mass) of all-organic batteries is five times lower than that of Li-ion ones and nearly seven times lower than some successfully optimized zinc and manganese dioxide based AZIBs. Due to this, a lot more material needs to be created to achieve the same output, leading to higher environmental impacts.

This does not prove that all-organic batteries are a bad idea, but it does show that when specific energy is low, manufacturing demands might complicate the end-of-life environmental benefits.

Overall, with the limited all-organic battery manufacturing data available, Ziggy seems to win in the production effects. However, our battery’s story is still unfolding.

Entering the Workforce

Soon after manufacturing, Ziggy is deployed where it is needed: networks of connected data-exchanging devices, eco-friendly sensors, and data-secure electronics. 

Here it competes again with lithium-ion batteries, whose main strength is that they deliver high energy density of 100–265 watt-hours per kilogram of material. However, Ziggy meets the challenge admirably, its power output matching that of Li-ion batteries at 150 watt-hours per kilogram with the newest advances in design. Additionally, like Li-ion, some Zn-MnO2 based AZIBs like Ziggy can be recharged, and considering our battery doesn’t need to be recovered when used in hard-to-retrieve agricultural monitoring devices, it does its job better in some scenarios than its Li-ion relative.

Meanwhile, another contender enters the field, though not for long, as its defeat is nigh: the all-organic batteries. They are, as mentioned above, seven times weaker per kilogram of substance than most advanced Ziggies. This makes all-organic batteries bulkier and less efficient.

In this regard, our battery is doing a good job at matching and even outperforming its competition, however, there are still the post-mortem costs to consider.

End of Life

When our hero’s job is done, its body starts its return to the earth. However, letting it decompose in one place without recovering active components, elements that hold the energy inside the battery, can lead to them accumulating and exceeding safe values by as much as 180 times for zinc and eight times for chlorides. This can cause soil quality to degrade and plants to die, leading researchers to suggest that better composting standards for these batteries be developed.

This challenges the comforting assumption that biodegradable batteries automatically solve the battery disposal problem. Batteries like our hero may reduce persistent plastics and certain toxic components, but they can still introduce harmful substances into the environment if handled improperly.

But how does this compare to the other contestants?

Li-ion batteries create a different end-of-life problem: when they are discarded as waste, they can become a serious chemical hazard. Lithium-ion cells contain limited and toxic materials such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and electrolyte salts. These can pose threat to soil, air, and water safety, as well as deplete ozone layer and increase cancer and respiratory disorder risks in humans if released.

Due to the lack of enforcement, these batteries are most often tossed or incinerated, which introduces harmful compounds into the air, water, and soil. The best disposal method for them is recycling, which while not being entirely pollution-free, minimizes negative effects on nature. However, the recovery rate for Li-ion battery materials is low, with less than 40% of a battery being recyclable with the current technology and operation patterns.

As for the last contestant, the costs of all-organic battery dissolution is currently undetermined. Researchers, however, are optimistic, citing metals such as zinc, manganese, and chlorides, as the main problem with biodegradable batteries, and saying that replacing them with all-organic polymer might result in a technology that is safe to compost.

The Moral of the Story

If biodegradable batteries like Ziggy are to become more common, their story needs careful editing.

Their dissolution time should be tightly controlled so the batteries remain stable while they work and release predictable doses of ions afterwards. Regulations, composting standards, and environmental testing must grow alongside innovation. Ziggy is a step in the right direction, but its power needs to be handled responsibly if it enters a large-scale production.

The story also reminds us that labels like “biodegradable” or “eco-friendly” deserve closer inspection. Sometimes they could be pure marketing, like we so often see with food items in grocery stores, while other times, they signal a genuinely promising approach, especially when the claim is backed by real toxicity data. This is why climate education matters, as it helps us connect everyday technology to real-world environmental outcomes. As such, we encourage you to sign the Pledge to Support Climate and Environmental Literacy to ensure that future generations have the tools they need to navigate the complex landscape of green labels and real impacts.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Say Hi to Ziggy, the Biodegradable Battery appeared first on Earth Day.

Bubble Wrap Appreciation Day falls on the last Monday of January, landing on January 26 in 2026. The date is a grave reminder that plastic is still being mass-produced all over the globe, just to be shipped  to another part of the world, and thrown away somewhere else. While serving as an efficient type of package cushioning, plastic bubble wrap accounts for billions of tons of global plastic waste annually, as it’s not commonly reused and is particularly difficult to recycle.

Bubble wrap works because it is lightweight and shock-absorbing. The problem is what happens after the bubble wrap serves its original purpose; it goes from a home straight to the landfill. Bubble wrap takes centuries to fully decompose, all the while contributing to ozone layer depletion, killing honeybees, and reducing soil quality.

Fortunately, there are materials other than plastic on the market, giving anyone a chance to switch to more eco-friendly options. While seaweed-based solutions and bioplastics might not be widely available yet, eco-friendly bubble wrap alternatives are. Every step to reduce plastic usage matters, and choosing a greener cushioning can cut waste fast, even if you only ship a few boxes a month. 

Whether you are a manager of a small business or occasionally send a mug for your grandma’s birthday, here are 7 ways to ship bubble wrap free: 

1. Honeycomb Packing Paper (aka “Paper Bubble Wrap”)

Let’s start with the classic substitutes. Honeycomb packing paper can be purchased at chain stores as well as online. It is made of recycled kraft paper, a stronger paper type treated with sodium sulfide. In the process of paper-making, most of the sulfides in the pulp get converted into other molecules, so adding sodium sulfide into the mix helps keep the pulp charge stable and paper more resilient. Paper bubble wrap is arranged in a honeycomb pattern. Its shape features “air pockets,” like those in plastic bubble wrap. These pockets protect items by absorbing the impact upon collisions, causing them to “deflate.”

Honeycomb packing paper is best for business or frequent personal use, as it can only be purchased in large rolls. It works perfectly with mugs and jars, as it wraps around them tightly, and sharp objects since it isolates the sharp side and stays in place well. At the same time, it struggles with heavy items due to their potential to compress the paper, in which case double wrapping might be necessary. Luckily, it can be recycled with other cardboard paper as long as it is dry and clean.

2. Cornstarch Peanuts

The eco-friendly sibling of traditional polystyrene foam peanuts, cornstarch peanuts are biodegradable and non-toxic. They are lightweight and fill empty space well, preventing items from sliding around in a box.

They can be bought at chain stores as well as online and are a great option for business and private use. Cornstarch peanuts work best with lightweight and oddly-shaped items that may be difficult to wrap using other materials. However, cornstarch can soften in high humidity or when exposed to rain, so it is not the most effective at shipping in stormy or tropical climates. On the plusside, as such they can be composted or dissolved in water as a means of disposal.

3. Molded Pulp

If you’ve ever unboxed a phone or water bottle nested in a perfectly shaped tray, you’ve met molded pulp before! It is usually made of recycled paper and/or natural fibers. As the mold fits the product snugly, it can’t shift. This immobilizing effect is the secret: molded pulp protects by holding an item in place and absorbing impact through its pliable structure.

This alternative works best for repeated shipments of similarly shaped items and can be ordered online in customized or generic shapes. It is highly reliable for securing bottles, jars, small electronics, and anything else that does not have an intricate shape. Most molded pulps can be discarded with paper recycling, just check that your local recycling facility accepts things like egg cartons or other pulp food containers, and you’re good to go.

4. Paper Egg Cartons (and Other Grocery Packaging)

Paper egg cartons, while not a perfect substitute, are a decent “reuse what you have” option as they are specifically designed to protect eggs, which are known to be quite delicate, from cracking. Made of the same material as molded pulp inserts, they absorb impact with comparable efficiency. Egg cartons can be used for transporting small items that fit securely inside as well as cut into larger, dimpled pieces of multiple conjoined cups to fill space and take small kicks. For example, upon separating, the top and the bottom of the paper container take a form very similar to industrial molded pulp fillers that work by having their structure deformed instead of the object. Egg cartons can also be split into egg cups and repurposed as simple protective corners, with their rounded shape rather than ridges providing the unfilled space needed to soak up small impacts.

Egg cartons work best for personal shipping and transporting, helping secure small round items or preventing dents and scratches in bigger objects. They can be recycled or composted if the paper is dye-free, in which case the carton will be dark to light brown or white. Before sending them to the curb to be picked up by a recycling truck however, make sure your local facility accepts pulp food containers.

5. Crumpled Paper

Crumpled paper, especially its kraft variety, is the most accessible form of low-waste shipping. It fills space, absorbs impact, and is widely available.

Crumpled paper can be adopted for both personal and business uses, easily fulfilling most everyday shipping needs. It can even support the transportation of very fragile items if enough is used, since thicker cushioning deforms more under impact, allowing for more energy to be absorbed that would otherwise damage the item. When clean and dry, this alternative can be recycled with matching paper materials as a method of disposal.

6. Drinking Straw Cuttings

You bought a pack of paper straws, discovered they turn into soggy sadness, and now you have a whole box that you will never use. Don’t rush to throw them away just yet! Cut the straws into half-inch-long segments and use them as lightweight packing filler. They are not a wrap, but the squishy rings work well to absorb small impacts, especially when combined with kraft paper.

This option is perfect for personal use, filling small gaps and stabilizing light items. At the same time, it is not as great for heavy objects that could easily squish them and high-moisture situations, in which the straws could get soggy. Paper straws usually contain adhesives and additives, so their final resting place will be in the trash, but repurposing them as cushioning can allow a bad purchase to die with dignity. For a more sustainable option, compostable straws can also be used.

7. Old Fabric

Old towels, T-shirts, sweaters, and pillowcases can be incredible cushioning, especially for non-commercial shipping. Similarly, to how running socks can soften the impact of feet slamming into the ground, various fabrics can protect items they are wrapped around.

These are best for shipping to friends and family as well as moving houses. While cloth is not as lightweight as other alternatives, its fibrous structure is very shock-absorbent and can even protect items on the hefty side. This is the easiest option to reuse and can be disposed of by donating to a thrift store or in accordance with disposal instructions for its comprising materials. For example, most textiles can be recycled by dropping them into designated “Clothing Recycling” drop-off containers like the ones found around Maryland and New York.

The “Clovely” Future of Shipping

Plastic bubble wrap is not going to vanish overnight, but as society takes more responsibility for the waste we produce, the number of alternatives keeps growing. Researchers are experimenting with materials previously deemed pure waste, like garlic clove peels, which are now being considered the next biodegradable plastic material option.

In the meantime, while we wait for these alternatives of the future to arrive, we can do our best to minimize the amount of waste we create today. The ongoing switch to biodegradable alternatives has already eliminated plastic waste on a multi-million-ton scale. This includes Amazon’s effort to eliminate plastic from its packaging, resulting in almost 15 billion plastic air cushions avoiding the landfill every year.

Swapping out bubble wrap for reusable cushioning is a small change that helps move the global production in a more eco-friendly direction. Many of the listed innovations are already proving that protecting products doesn’t have to mean adding more persistent plastic waste to the world. With the United States staying in the top of the global plastic pollution, Earthday.org encourages US citizens to sign the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act as a way to show that we are ready for better, non-plastic solutions to our daily needs.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 7 Ways to Ship Greener appeared first on Earth Day.