Q: So, you’ve spent decades studying chemicals and the link to reproductive health. Was there a single moment in your career when you realized, “This is much bigger than I thought?”

I think a turning point was when I was asked to join a committee of the National Academy of Sciences that had been formed to answer the question: Are these chemicals in the environment that affect our hormones — which they termed hormonally active agents in the environment, what we call endocrine-disrupting chemicals — something that might be affecting human health?

The committee was formed to answer that question: Are these chemicals affecting human health? And this committee, which was in D.C., was composed of three categories of people: neutral people who didn’t know at that point; people who strongly believed that these are harmful — yes, the chemicals are affecting human health; and the other, no, which tended to be more industry-influenced.

So there were three groups, and I was in the middle because I had never actually heard of these chemicals. I had studied lots of environmental factors, but not this class of chemicals. So that was interesting for me, and I learned a lot. And yeah, that turned me around, I think, in terms of my thinking.

Q: When we think about human health and plastics and these chemicals — these endocrine-disrupting chemicals — what do you think people get completely wrong about that link?

That’s a good question. Well, I think it depends which people. Some people ignore it completely. Some people are pretty diligent about reducing their exposure, and some people think it’s a problem, but it’s just too big to do anything about.

So I think what we should be paying more attention to is, yes, we can reduce our exposure, and I’m sure we’ll talk about that. But we should also keep in mind that it’s not really our job to do that. This should be taken care of by the government and by the manufacturers. And so I think that’s the main thing that people get wrong, is not to really recognize who is responsible for regulating this. It’s not me and you.

Q: Your research has truly helped uncover how environmental chemicals affect our bodies. Looking at the evidence today, what do you want people to know about the connection between these chemicals and reproductive health?

I think the first thing I want people to know is that the organism that is most sensitive, and whose exposure will matter the most in the future, is the unborn child. The unborn child is totally captive in this environment and is exposed continually throughout gestation to these chemicals at a time, or times, that the organism is just developing and is most sensitive in the organism’s life to these chemicals.

So if I had to stress one thing, it would be protecting the unborn child. Backing that up a little bit is protecting the environment that the unborn child will enter. And what makes that happen? That is the egg and the sperm. And the male plays a role here, of course. In terms of toxics, exposures to the male before conception can influence that development, as well as what the mother-to-be is exposed to while she’s pregnant.

Q: I was digging into your research a little bit more, and I read that sperm counts have declined dramatically over the past several decades. When you first saw that data, did you realize it would fundamentally change the conversation? We’re having a conversation about it today, about environmental health. Or were you concerned that the findings wouldn’t be taken seriously?

I don’t think I ever believed they would not be taken seriously, because the study you’re talking about — the first meta-analysis study of all the papers in the world that we could find on this topic — gave us information about how sperm count had changed over time, and also how it varies geographically. And this is so fundamental to all of reproductive health.

Of course, it’s the male side, and we can come back to the female side, but that’s much harder. But yes, I believed that this was important to do, which is why I did it with my colleagues. We all thought it was important to do and that it would change the conversation. But honestly, I was not prepared for the huge impact of this study.

It was one of the most highly cited papers in the world according to Altmetric, which is a metric that tracks that, and it’s still talked about. And by the way, I think you know that we followed that up with a second meta-analysis to update it, and we found things that were even more alarming, and we might continue that.

So I think it’s a moving target, but it’s not getting better.

Q: It’s getting worse. Why do you feel it’s not getting better?

Because when we do later updates to the meta-analysis, we see the slope — the rate at which sperm concentration and count are declining — increasing. So it went from around 1% per year to over 2% per year in studies after 2000.

And we don’t know what it is right now because now we’ve moved along. We could look at studies after 2020 or 2025, or whatever we decide to do in the next one, but we want to keep tracking this. We don’t want people to feel it’s a done deal. We want them to realize that it’s an ongoing problem. It’s not a past problem.

Q: Many people today, especially women, wonder whether environmental exposures play a role in infertility and reproductive-health challenges. From your standpoint, what does the science tell us, and what are the biggest questions researchers still need to answer?

When it comes to infertility, there are so many unanswered questions. I guess the one really, really critical one is: What kinds of chemicals are we most concerned about?

Reproduction is governed by hormones. And so if we can isolate and identify chemicals that alter the hormones that are critical to successful reproduction, if those are changing, and we show that those chemicals are causing — I’m using that word deliberately — causing us to be less likely to conceive, which is what I believe, that’s really, really important.

But I have to say, we have much more information on the male side than the female side.

Q: Why is that?

You can pretty easily get a sperm sample. Actually, there are companies — Fellow, for example — where men pay a fee, get a kit, collect their semen at home, send it in, and then get their results: their count, concentration, motility, morphology. These are very reliable. There are a couple of very good, reliable companies.

What do you do on the female side? I don’t know what your experience is, but many, many women know how hard it is to learn about their ovaries and their eggs, their egg count and the health of their eggs, how many are left, and so on and so forth. It requires an ultrasound — things that are quite difficult and costly and sometimes painful. It’s not like giving a semen sample.

And so we actually have much less information. I don’t think we’ll have a meta-analysis of ovarian decline because I don’t think the data are there. It’s just too hard to get this information.

So it’s unfortunate. There are some things we can track. We can track, for example, something called premature ovarian failure, which is the cessation of menstruation earlier than expected. We can measure and keep track of menstrual function: How often do women have their periods? How painful are those periods? How irregular are those periods? And so on and so forth.

There are things we can do by testing hormones to see how hormone levels in the body have changed. But the female side is way behind the male side, and it’s just because the testicles are hanging out. They’re very easy to get a sample from. The ovaries are not.

Q: Switching gears for a minute, for decades we’ve treated environmental protection and public health as separate conversations. Do you think science has shown us they’re actually one and the same, and that we need to adjust the way we communicate about the two?

I do. And I think it’s even more — I’d add a couple of layers to that. I would say the picture involves health, reproductive or other, but it also involves the health of not only humans, but other species.

And then, in terms of when you get to the causes, it involves fossil fuels. So I like to talk about the triple threat: climate change, biodiversity loss and reproductive decline. They’re all part of the same picture.

I like to use this image of a three-headed Hydra sitting in a pool of oil. You know what that is, that monster? There’s a monster sitting there, and it’s producing climate change, of course, coming from fossil fuels, biodiversity loss, and then failure of reproductive health.

These are not separate problems. They’re all interlinked. But the problem is, with the Hydra, you can’t cut off one head. You can’t just control, say, biodiversity loss — even if you could — and get rid of the fossil fuel problem and so on. You have to deal with all of them together.

Q: At EARTHDAY.ORG, we have launched a global campaign around food because we truly believe that what we eat connects climate, environmental health and human health. When you think about plastics and food and chemical exposures, do you think people should start asking not only, “What’s in my food?” but also, “What has my food been exposed to before it reaches my plate?”

They’re really not separate questions, right? Because what food has been exposed to along the way — if you want to think of it from farm to fork — the things that matter are the things that stay with the food. If there’s something transient and it’s not going to show up in the final product in some way, then why would you worry about it?

But in fact, everything seems to matter that the food meets along the way. The soil that it’s grown in, what’s in the water that it’s watered with, the pesticides that it’s exposed to, what’s in the transport mechanisms, and then how it’s processed. Processing is a huge source of contamination.

It’s processed typically through plastic. I like to think of the tomato as an example. You pick the tomato and it travels in some kind of train or truck, perhaps to a processing plant. In that plant, it’s broken down and we’re going to make sauce out of the tomato. Then it goes through various steps, including being passed through plastic tubing.

Now, it’s not typically tested for chemicals at that point. But I want to tell you that there are other things that are passed through plastic tubing that are tested. One very dramatic example is children in the neonatal intensive care nursery. This sounds very different, but it actually is similar because those children are being fed and given various things through tubes.

Those tubes are made of soft plastic. Soft plastic is soft because phthalates are added to the material that makes the tube. And those phthalates lower testosterone. They interfere with hormone function. They interfere with reproductive hormone function, and they affect the growth of those children.

How do we know that it plays a role? It’s very simple. You can count the number of tubes that are going into an infant in the NICU, and then you can get their urine, because that’s how you test the level of phthalates in the organism. You run it through a lab that tells you how much phthalate is contained in that urine. And that turns out to be proportional to the number of lines that are going into the newborn.

Here’s another very different example. They did a study in Eastern Europe on a farm — a very clever, simple study. They milked cows the old-fashioned way with a hand milker, and then they milked the same cows on another day with a milking machine. The milking machine contains plastic tubing.

They tested the milk in both cases for phthalates. The hand-milked milk did not contain phthalates, and the machine-milked milk contained phthalates. So whatever you’re passing through this plastic tubing is going to pick up.

The phthalates are put into the plastic matrix to make it soft and flexible. And then when you use it — particularly if you heat it — the phthalates that are put in there to make it soft and flexible are not chemically bound to the matrix. And so they leave it and they go into the food, the milk, the baby. And then we can measure it.

This is why you can’t heat food in plastic. When you heat it, those chemicals can migrate into the food.

Q: Your recent intervention study, featured in the Netflix documentary The Plastic Detox, found that participants who made practical lifestyle changes showed measurable reductions in BPA and phthalate levels — common chemicals found in everyday consumer products — in just a few months. What did that research teach us about our ability to reduce exposure, and how can we educate the public to really understand and test those levels?

Just for people who haven’t seen the movie — and I hope everyone watching this will see the movie — it’s a Netflix movie. What we did was enroll a very small number of couples, and this was only a pilot. By the way, we are applying for federal funding to do this in a much larger sample, and we’ve published it in a scientific journal. So it’s not big science, but it is science.

We enrolled these couples, and there were six originally, and one dropped out. Then we worked with a company called Million Marker. Million Marker did two things. Later, when we got the samples from the subjects, they tested them for these chemicals. But they also spoke to all of these people very personally and often during the three months of the intervention.

They asked them: What did you put on your face this morning? What did you wash your clothes with? How do you store your food in the kitchen? How do you cook your food? And on and on — all the areas where we can get these chemicals. They asked them to try to understand what they were doing and what products they were using that might impact their levels.

Then they talked to them about how to reduce those exposures — actions they could take. You might store your food in glass instead of plastic. You might change out your frying pans so that they’re not nonstick — and by the way, that’s not phthalates, that’s PFAS. You might change your water bottles. Those hard water bottles are actually bisphenols, not phthalates or PFAS, and so on.

So they went into these different areas where people could make changes and suggested these changes. And then this is the hardest part and the most dramatic: I went to their houses. I went to all of their homes.

I brought a big box. This box was actually about $500 worth of products, and I gave it to them as a present. In it were alternative products: different toothbrushes, different soap, different laundry soap, different storage jars, different frying pans, and so on and so forth — things that they could use that would reduce their exposure.

Then we got urine samples at the beginning, at the middle and at the end — at the beginning, six weeks and 12 weeks. It was a 12-week intervention. We asked them what they were doing at those points, and then we looked to see what their levels of these chemicals were in their bodies.

We also had the men give us semen samples, and we looked at the quality of their semen. So the hard measures were their sperm count and so on, and what their body burden was.

And finally, we had quite a few pregnancies, which was really exciting because these couples had been trying for a long time to get pregnant unsuccessfully. It was pretty incredible.

By the way, there were some unexpected benefits that we hadn’t tracked or hadn’t built into the study protocol. We asked them about their sleep and got reports. These are soft endpoints that I wouldn’t put a lot of weight on until we study them in the next study, when they’ll be systematically collected. But many reported sleeping better, many reported being less anxious and many changed their lives.

For example, you’ll see in the movie that one of our men is a preacher. That’s Eric. Eric was so impressed and convinced by this little intervention that he entered law school, and he is now studying law to pursue environmental law. This is his life now.

Q: A lot of our constituents always like to know, “What can I do?” So if you walked into my home today, what are the first three changes you’d recommend to reduce my exposure to plastics and harmful chemicals, and which one would make the biggest impact?

I’ll answer your question, but I’ll say first that there are tools that the film team has produced. One of them is the Unplastic Your Life campaign, where you can go through a house and see where the culprits are — the things you might want to change. In addition, there are some tools that are not related to the film directly.

One of them is EWG, Environmental Working Group. If you’re holding up a new bottle of sunscreen and you say, “Wait, should I have gotten this? Is this okay?” then you go to EWG, go to the consumer guides, look at sunscreens and it ranks the sunscreens. It’s very simple and helpful.

Another simple thing to do is to download an app called Clearya. Clearya does kind of a similar thing but a little differently. You scan the barcode of something you’re thinking of buying in the supermarket, and it gives you a ranking based on what the ingredients are.

Now, I have to say both of these sources do not actually test products. So it’s maybe a little misleading. You might think, “Oh, they’ve tested all these things.” No. What they’ve done is looked at the ingredient list. Then they go to lists out there, like the Proposition 65 list and so on, compare them, look at the number of bad ingredients that are on the list and then rank it that way. That is very useful, but it’s not the same as actually testing.

When you asked me where the science has to go, I mentioned testing products on a global scale. I think that’s a challenge that we as a field are facing, and connected to that is defining what it means for a product to be safe.

If you think about this, it’s not an easy question, because you can ask: Safe for whom? At what stage in life? And so on. I won’t get into the details of that. But the third thing that is probably the hardest of all is to say: What are the safe alternatives? We are all struggling with that, whether it’s biologically based plastic that has a lot of interesting possibilities and some downsides as well.

So I think those are the major problems that we as a society, as a civilization, have to come to grips with. We don’t actually know what it means to say that product A is safer than product B.

Q: A lot of people assume that the kitchen is the biggest source of exposure, possibly because there’s just a lot of plastic. But are we overlooking things like the air we breathe or the clothes we wear by focusing mainly on the kitchen?

Absolutely. The kitchen is, I would say, an easy target, and it’s obvious in some sense — not that it’s unimportant at all — but there’s the bathroom and all the cosmetics.

These chemicals are put into cosmetics because they help absorption. You put some hand cream on your hand, and then you come back and it’s gone, right? Fifteen minutes, gone. So the phthalates make that happen faster. They also hold scent and color. And so anything that’s perfumed is going to have phthalates in it. We showed in our study that women who said they used perfumed products had more phthalates in their urine. It’s measurable.

The air that we breathe contains many chemicals. And now there’s a lot of attention to microplastics, those tiny particles. Those are in the air we breathe all the time and in the water that we drink all the time. So it’s not just one room or one set of shelves that we have to worry about. We have to worry about our total environment.

Q: Thinking about back-to-school season, parents and guardians are thinking about everything from lunch boxes to backpacks, school supplies and snacks. What are some changes families can make to reduce their children’s exposure to harmful chemicals without feeling totally overwhelmed?

I’ll tell you in a minute, but I want to preface this by saying these changes are often not cheap, and so the ability to protect yourself is not an equal-opportunity activity for everybody.

First of all, communities or people that are disadvantaged don’t have the time to learn about this, read about this and find out what the alternatives are. They’re disadvantaged, and they may not have the resources in their neighborhood. There may not be a market nearby that has fresh food, and they may not have the money to buy organic food.

So I’m going to tell you a few things, but recognize that this is a disparity — not everybody has the same ability or possibility of protecting themselves.

One thing we hadn’t mentioned — you mentioned clothes in passing — is that fabrics are really important. Fabrics are my sofa, my rug, my curtains, my clothes. My clothes, particularly if they’re waterproof or stain-proof, are going to contain PFAS.

So one thing you could think about, if you can afford it, is to buy natural fabrics. You want to buy clothes made of linen, wool and cotton. Those are more expensive, absolutely.

Water is a really big concern for me: drinking, showering, bathing. You can do things, but you have to do them carefully because you don’t want your distiller or your filter to introduce more plastic into the water. You have to buy devices or use techniques that don’t make things worse.

And I can’t avoid saying the microwave is a tricky device. It’s helpful and it’s dangerous because we can’t microwave in metal, of course, we know that. But we can’t microwave in plastic either. Many foods are designed to be microwaved in plastic, and that just blows me away. It will introduce the chemicals into the food directly. So don’t do that. Don’t put food in a plastic container and heat it if you want to consume that product.

Q: It’s kind of wild that there’s no regulation. How is there no oversight on this yet, when we know it’s directly affecting our bodies and the bodies of our unborn children?

I want to come back to that because there’s something called the phthalate syndrome.

It’s interesting. I don’t know of any other medical developmental syndrome that is named after a chemical class. So how did that happen?

First of all, human urine was tested and found to contain phthalates. We all have phthalates in our bodies. This is a representative sample of the U.S., so a high percentage of people have phthalates in their bodies.

Around the time they were finding this, the National Toxicology Program started saying, “Okay, it’s in everybody. Let’s see what it does. Start with animals.” What does it do to the offspring of mice or rats that are fed phthalates during pregnancy?

The result was really striking. What they found was — and this was affecting male offspring; other chemicals affect females — the phthalate syndrome affects males. They found that the pups, when they were born, were not completely masculinized.

What does that mean? I hope this isn’t too technical for just a minute. The genital tract in the developing fetus is the same in males and females initially. And then when testosterone comes on board — testes create testosterone — it acts on the genital tract and makes it differentiate between males and females. So you have this divergence into genetic male and genetic female. But it requires that testosterone.

Now, if the organism is being given a chemical that lowers its testosterone, that won’t happen as fully, or maybe at the right time.

The National Toxicology Program saw this. What did they see? First of all, they saw that the testicles were less likely to descend into the scrotum. The penis was smaller. There were other changes — I’ll leave those aside because they’re a little more technical — but the most dramatic was how much space the genitals took up, how much “real estate” the genitals took up.

That’s the distance from the anus to the genitals — the anogenital distance, or AGD. If you work in a lab, you see that this measurement from the anus to the genitals is typically about twice as long in males as in females.

When the mother is exposed to phthalates at the right time, that distance reflects undermasculinization in male offspring: it’s more feminine, it’s shorter. So, in short, AGD is a reflection of what they call the phthalate syndrome.

Then I said, “Well, that’s interesting. What about humans?” Over a period of several years, I conducted two studies. In the first one, we found the phthalate syndrome. We took urine from pregnant women and tested it for phthalates. We couldn’t expose them deliberately — you can’t feed people phthalates when they’re pregnant. They’re exposed through their daily lives.

So we could see what was in their bodies when they were pregnant. Then we said, “Would you bring your child back so we can examine him or her?” And we did that.

We saw that when the phthalate levels were higher in the mothers during pregnancy, in the critical period, the male offspring were affected. The males had anogenital distances that were shorter and more feminine. They were more likely to have undescended testicles, and they were more likely to have smaller genitalia.

So we found the phthalate syndrome in humans, and we did it again in a whole other study. It was a very important study, and it took a long time and a lot of money to do this twice. But we did establish the phthalate syndrome in humans.

Now, we don’t know what other syndromes are present in humans from other chemicals, and that’s part of the work that we need to do.

Q: We’ve talked a lot about what individuals can do, and we touched earlier on governments. Where do you think the greatest opportunity lies for governments and industry to connect the dots and make this planet a healthier place for all of us and for generations to come?

Jillian, I’m going to answer your question, but first I’m going to point out the story of BPA.

BPA, unlike phthalates, makes plastic hard. And it is estrogenic, not anti-androgenic, which phthalates are. So I like to think of it as the evil twin.

When people started getting alarmed about BPA, manufacturers said, “Oh, no problem, we’ll take it out.” And they took it out and replaced it with BPS and BPF, and now some others. Then they could put a tag on their bottle saying “BPA-free.” But what they didn’t tell consumers was that there was this other phenol in there that actually did a very similar thing. That’s called “whack-a-mole” in our community.

It’s a trick in a way. They can go on making their product and people think they’re safe because it says “BPA-free.” It’s misleading.

So I think what we should have in this country is what they have in the EU under REACH. If a manufacturer wants to add BPS or BPF, for example, they should not be allowed to do that until the replacement or newly introduced chemical is shown to be safe.

That’s the assumption: harmful until proven safe. It’s like guilty until proven innocent. And that’s what exists in the EU. In the U.S., we do not have anything like that. The way we find out if something is harmful is to give it to millions of people and then see what the health effects are over the next 10 or 15 years — all that time exposing people to something that hasn’t been tested.

That, to me, is the biggest challenge we face now. We have to test for safety. And I admit that this is difficult, and we have a lot of work to do on that. Test for safety before a new chemical is introduced into the market. And don’t assume, as TSCA does, that a chemical that has been around for a long time has got to be good and is grandfathered in. “It’s okay, it’s been here forever, we’re used to it.” Never mind about that one.

Q: If we sat down ten years from now, what would you hope has changed in the way that governments, industry and everyday people think about not just plastics, but chemicals and human health?

Of course, I would like a REACH equivalent to be worldwide — good luck on that — so that a chemical will be tested before it’s put into commerce.

And I would like people to be aware of the potential for chemical exposure from things that they might not consider. Who would think that a wonderfully smelling perfume could be lowering their testosterone? But it does, and so on and so forth.

There needs to be an awareness that it’s not all safe until somebody points out a harm. It’s potentially harmful if it’s man-made, and particularly if it’s fossil-fuel-based.

The post Chemicals, Fertility, and Our Future: 22 Minutes with Dr. Shanna Swan appeared first on Earth Day.

A City Organizes Itself

São Paulo is a massive city with a population of around 11.4 million people and is divided into 32 subprefectures. Having to coordinate a unified environmental effort across all of them is no small task, yet that is what happened this Earth Day. 

To prepare for Earth Day, São Paulo partnered with Clean Brazil Institute or Instituto Limpa Brasil as part of EARTHDAY.ORG’S Great Global Cleanup campaign. Through the Great Global Cleanup campaign, EARTHDAY.ORG supported local partnerships that helped train community leaders, mobilize volunteers, and connect São Paulo’s cleanup to a global movement for community action. 

A mutirão is more than a neighborhood cleanup. It is a long-standing tradition of neighbors coming together to solve a shared problem or achieve a common goal through collective volunteer work. That tradition guided São Paulo’s Earth Day activities from start to finish.  

The preparation began on Earth Day itself. On April 22nd, community leaders gathered for training that prepared them to organize volunteers and lead cleanup efforts in their own neighborhoods. Then, on April 25, those leaders led simultaneous cleanup crews across every subprefecture in the city.

By Earth Day, those trained community leaders had mobilized more than 2,000 volunteers to participate in hands-on cleanup efforts, while residents took part in surrounding community events and awareness activities that gave the day its scale. Volunteers hauled plastics, paper, and other irregularly dumped trash from streets and squares.  

More Than a Cleanup

The goal was never to simply haul away trash. It was to show, block by block, that lasting environmental progress starts with people getting involved. By the end of the day, volunteers had removed roughly 150 tons of waste in a single coordinated effort, showing what community action can achieve.

Environmental education in local communities was a part of the effort. São Paulo’s State Environmental Education Policy describes this kind of work as a way to help students build a sense of responsibility and belonging toward parks, rivers, and public spaces around them. 

Waste picker cooperatives were also an important part of the cleanup, helping sort and recover recyclable materials while connecting a one-day event to an ongoing recycling system. The work didn’t end when Earth Day was over. Brazil recognizes waste picker cooperatives as partners in municipal waste management through its National Solid Waste Policy, and their role helped ensure that recyclable materials collected during the cleanup continued through São Paulo’s recycling system. 

Part of Something Bigger

São Paulo wasn’t the only city taking action this Earth Day. Through EARTHDAY.ORG’S Great Global Cleanup, communities in 190 countries organized cleanups throughout April 2026. These efforts show how local cleanups can bring communities together while encouraging long-term action on illegal dumping and waste management. 

A São Paulo Waste Study found that when trash isn’t managed properly it can contaminate waterways and worsen flooding, challenges that the city has been facing for years. While every community approaches cleanup differently, São Paulo showed what can happen when local leadership, residents, schools, and environmental organizations all work towards something that feels distinctly local. 

Whether it’s joining a local cleanup, organizing neighbors, or participating in EARTHDAY.ORG’s Great Global Cleanup, every effort helps build healthier communities, one block at a time. Find a cleanup near you and get involved at EARTHDAY.ORG.

The post In São Paulo, Earth Day Begins Block by Block appeared first on Earth Day.

As we all know by now, plastic is not fantastic. But how can we solve this issue?

Enter bioplastics. Bioplastics, like all plastics, have a base made of macromolecules with some added ingredients. But what makes bioplastics different is that their macromolecules are bio-based and/or the product is capable of biodegrading. Bio-based means that the materials are of biological origin, like animals, plants, bacteria, algae, and fungi. Importantly, just because a product is bio-based does not automatically mean it is also biodegradable.

While bioplastics account for less than 2% of all plastics, up to 90% of fossil-based plastics could technically be substituted with bioplastics.

Let’s explore five unique bioplastics!

Saving The Sea

The world uses over five trillion plastic bags each year, and these bags never fully decompose; they fragment into microplastics. Once in oceans, plastic bags damage ecosystems, hurt organisms, and cause millions of dollars in economic costs.

But these harms do not have to continue. Takuzo Aida and his research team have created a bioplastic bag that dissolves within hours when placed in seawater without leaving microplastics behind, according to the researchers. This bag can be classified as a bioplastic because it is made from cellulose, a type of macromolecule that is naturally-occurring and therefore bio-based.

Waste Not

Bioplastics could help reduce food waste, too. Food waste that contains bio-based macromolecules such as cellulose or starch has the potential to be transformed into bioplastics.

This is an exciting concept because food waste rotting in landfills emits an estimated 58% of the methane gas released from U.S. municipal solid waste landfills. Methane is a type of greenhouse gas that is exacerbating the climate crisis.

Orange Peels

Orange peels have high cellulose levels and are thus well-suited to be converted into bioplastics. Although more research is required, pulverizing and combining orange peels with other materials yields a bioplastic that has similar properties to traditional plastic. This bioplastic should be able to biodegrade in natural conditions in four or more months while being environmentally safe.

Chicken Feathers

The UNLOCK project is experimenting with a bioplastic made from chicken feathers. Chicken feathers are high in a protein called keratin which is known to be both durable and biodegradable. By extracting keratin from these feathers, scientists have been able to create a biodegradable plastic alternative while reducing landfill waste.

Rice Husks

Like orange peels, rice husks have a high cellulose content. Combining cellulose extracted from rice husks with other materials creates a biodegradable bioplastic. 

Importantly, rice husks are often managed by combustion in open air; nonetheless, turning rice husks into a bioplastic is still beneficial. A 2022 study found that using rice husks to create a bioplastic led to a 82% reduction in human health impact and a 74% reduction in environmental cost compared to combusting them.

An Idea We Should Not Swat Away

Many people might view flies as a nuisance, but we shouldn’t be telling them to buzz-off. Scientists are exploring bioplastics made from black soldier flies. The exoskeleton of black soldier flies is reinforced by a sugar-based, biodegradable polymer called chitin. Scientists hope to use a broken-down form of this polymer to manufacture a biodegradable bioplastic. 

A potential issue with bioplastics is that producing their bio-based materials strains land use. Using adult black soldier flies, however, avoids this issue. Black soldier flies are often farmed for the purpose of using their larvae, and adult flies are soon discarded after the completion of their short lifespan. Creating bioplastic from these flies uses a waste stream that already exists, rather than requiring new crops or land.

The Solution Isn’t Clear

These five products exhibit some of the advantages of bioplastics. Bioplastics built from food waste and dead organisms support the idea of a circular economy, where one product’s waste is the material for a new product. Additionally, biodegradable bioplastics can help reduce our impact on the planet.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that even bioplastics are still damaging to the environment. 

As briefly mentioned, harvesting plants for bioplastics can strain land use. There are concerns that an increase in agricultural land used for bioplastic materials could impact the food system by causing a jump in food prices. And the fertilizers required to cultivate these materials can cause acidification and eutrophication. 

There are also worries surrounding the disposal of bioplastics. Proper bioplastic recycling facilities are not widespread, and not all bioplastics can be recycled with traditional plastic. For example, as little as 1% contamination of PLA bioplastic in the waste stream of one of the most recycled plastics, HDPE, can negatively affect the quality of recycled HDPE.

Additionally, while bioplastics can be better than conventional plastics, there are still concerns about the ways in which bioplastics contribute to climate change during their life cycle.

Plastic Does Not Have To Be Permanent

When it comes down to it, the type of plastic that should make you the most enthusiastic is simply no plastic at all. And you can help make this a reality!

You can start by exploring our End Plastics campaign to learn more about the threats of plastics and to take action. 

From there, you can calculate your plastic footprint and make yearly plastic reduction goals. You can hold yourself accountable by taking a plastic pledge. And you can sign our Global Plastics Petition to call on the United Nations and Governmental organizations to decrease plastic production worldwide.

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 Surprising Biodegradable Plastic Substitutions appeared first on Earth Day.

Let’s clarify one thing first; not all U.S. insurers have stopped paying out for extreme weather damage. Many standard homeowners policies still cover named perils like fires, storms, and hail. But as of early 2026, higher premiums aren’t the only thing making people nervous. Claims are harder to get approved, payouts are more limited, and denial cases are becoming more common.

Losses from extreme weather are starting to look less like one-off disasters and more like a regular, ongoing cost. Global insured losses from natural catastrophes have stayed high for years. In 2024, global insured losses from natural disasters were about $137 billion. In 2025, they were around $108 billion, with the United States among the hardest hit regions.

When payouts keep getting larger and as rebuilding continues to get more expensive, the insurance system responds by rewriting the rules like tightening what’s covered and requiring homeowners to pay and prove more up front. Homeowners may see higher deductibles (or the amount of money they spend before insurance kicks in), more exclusions (or things insurance won’t cover), and stricter documentation requirements especially in high-risk regions. The result is thinner coverage and a tougher path to getting your life back on track after a disaster. 

More Claims Are Being Denied

In Oklahoma, Attorney General Gentner Drummond said publicly in December 2025 that his office would intervene in a lawsuit against State Farm, alleging that the company used a so-called “hail focus” program to systematically cut down roof-related claim payments that should have been covered.

Cases like this aren’t just “bad luck” for a few people. These situations are making more and more people realize that even when the damage is similar, claims can face stricter review like more proof of damages, more disputes over what’s covered, and a higher chance of delays, reductions or denial of any coverage at all. One peer-reviewed analysis of Texas Department of Insurance claims data after the 2021 Winter Storm Uri found that 39.2% of claims were denied 13 months after the event. This means well over a third of filers were left to pick up the pieces of their life without any support. 

California offers another strong example. One analysis found that some major homeowners insurers in California had a relatively high  share of “closed claims with no payment/denial” in 2023. In 2023, several major homeowners insurers in California closed roughly46%–50% of claims with no payment.

The insurance market is shifting in a way that changes what coverage actually means. In many high-risk areas, homeowners are paying more for insurance that can be harder to get. And harder to rely on when a disaster hits. That means the real risk isn’t just higher premiums, it’s the possibility of delayed payouts, denied claims, or being unable to find coverage at all and leaving families to front thousands of dollars in repairs and recovery.

When You Can’t Get Coverage

Difficult claims are emotionally exhausting, but not being able to get insurance at all is what truly makes people anxious.

In 2023, State Farm announced that it would stop accepting new homeowners insurance applications in California, citing reasons such as rising catastrophe exposure, higher rebuilding costs, and a tougher reinsurance market. When major insurers pull back, many homeowners are left with only one option: the state’s insurer of last resort system, the FAIR Plan. By early 2026, available figures show the FAIR Plan has grown to roughly550,000–650,000 policies, and the pace of that growth has been extremely fast.

According to official information from the California Department of Insurance, the maximum coverage limit for a residential policy is $3 million. For high-cost housing markets, this creates a very real protection gap: a home may be worth more than $3 million, but the basic coverage cap is fixed at that amount. And for many households, even if their home value isn’t near that $3 million cap, being pushed onto the FAIR Plan can still be a major shock. Because as the last resort, it often comes with a chain reaction of problems. Higher premiums and less comprehensive coverage, with more exclusions and stricter limits. In practice, that can leave people paying more out of pocket after a disaster and spending more time on paperwork and the claims process.

Not All Extreme Weather Coverage Is In The Same Policy

FEMA states clearly that most homeowners insurance policies do not cover flood damage, as flood insurance is a separate policy. So the same heavy rainstorm might be called extreme weather in the news, but in an insurance policy, it may be classified as flooding, standing water, or water intrusion. This inconsistent terminology can leave homeowners to assume a loss is covered, only to find out it’s excluded from a standard policy.

In many states, wind and hail deductibles are calculated as a percentage of your home’s insured value, not a flat dollar amount. That means even a “small” percentage can translate into thousands of dollars you must pay upfront before coverage kicks in. For example, a 2% wind or hail deductible on a $300,000 insured home is $6,000 out of pocket. In many policies, windstorm and hurricane deductibles commonly range from 1% to 5% of insured value, which is roughly $3,000 to $15,000 for that same $300,000 home. The Texas Department of Insurance explains how percentage deductibles work, and across the industry, it’s common to see 1%–5% windstorm/hurricane deductible structures.

This creates a painful reality. It’s not that insurance refuses to pay–it’s that homeowners have to pay a very large amount out of pocket first, and only then does the coverage start to kick in.

Renters Feel It, Too

You don’t have to own a home to get hit by a homeowners insurance squeeze. Renters take the hit directly because renters insurance often has major gaps in coverage. For example, flood damage is typically not covered unless you buy separate flood coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Many renters are underinsured or uninsured. One estimate suggests that about 45% of renters don’t carry renters insurance at all, which means a single storm can wipe out essentials like clothes, furniture, electronics and even temporary hotel costs. A Federal Reserve analysis finds that higher landlord costs are added to existing rent prices. When landlords face higher property insurance and maintenance costs, those increases often show up in renewal rent, higher building fees, bigger deposits, or stricter lease terms.

This risk exposure isn’t limited to property owners. The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies notes that a large share of U.S. rental units are located in FEMA-defined high-risk counties, which are more likely to experience disaster exposure. When risk is repriced, it reaches renters fast.

This Is Bigger Than Homeowners Insurance

When it comes to weather-driven risk, it isn’t just homeowners insurance that gets more expensive or harder to secure. Commercial property, business interruption, and transport insurance tighten too, and those costs don’t stay with insurers. They get passed through into rent, everyday prices like groceries and shipping costs, and tighter business budgets, which is why this insurance squeeze hits all of us. That’s why solutions have to address the root cause of rising disaster risk, while also helping people manage today’s costs.

Promoting clean energy and reducing emissions can lower the probability of extreme weather occurring in the future and the likelihood of it causing massive property losses. In the meantime, you can also take practical steps like reviewing your coverage, understanding deductibles and exclusions, and comparing quotes before renewing. And if you want to support long-term solutions, sign the renewable energy petition to support clean energy and climate resilience. We need you to make sure risks aren’t shifted onto us again and again.

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 The Home Insurance Squeeze: Less Coverage, More Risk appeared first on Earth Day.

Art has always had a seat at the environmental table. The first Earth Day in 1970 featured everything from protest posters to poetry readings. Before that, moving photographs of the damage caused by the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill helped ignite the movement. And now, celebrities like William Shatner, Ringo Star, Amanda Seyfried, and Zac Efron use their voice to promote climate action through Earth Day.

Students too use art as their voice for action and that is because art does what science often can’t. Arts stirs emotions, captures attention, and gives people something to believe in. 

That’s exactly what International Artist Day is here to celebrate. Founded in 2004 by Canadian artist Chris MacClure, this day honors artists for the way they shape culture, challenge perspectives, and make the world more beautiful. It is about more than gallery walls or museum halls. It’s a reminder to artists of all kinds that at its heart, art is activism.

Art That is Doing What Politicians Won’t

The Land Art Generator Initiative (LAGI) is charging the art scene with a creative current: renewable energy. Artists Elizabeth Monoian and Robert Ferry founded LAGI to challenge creatives across the globe to design public artworks that also generate clean power.

Since its inception, LAGI has hosted worldwide competitions in major cities like Abu Dhabi, New York, and Copenhagen. The goal? Turn energy infrastructure into something that powers both cities and imaginations.

One standout design is WindNest, a group of rotating pods made to capture both wind and solar energy. This art installation was made for the city of Pittsburg, and If approved it could produce enough power (8,000 kWh) for 260,000 people to charge their phones with just the sun and the wind each year!

Another eye-catching proposal is Windstalk. This piece makes you feel like a tiny ant, with a field of tall, flexible stalks that sway with the wind like oversized blades of grass. As the wind blows, the motion of each stalk generates electricity – a process called piezoelectricity. At night, the stalks gently glow, reflecting the energy they’re producing by dancing in the breeze. In fact, they are projected to produce enough energy (20,000 MWh) to power 1,800 U.S. homes for an entire year. An extra bonus; when it rains, water collects at the base of the art installation, which helps nourish a garden of native plants. 

Then there’s Solar Hourglass, and no, it’s not for keeping time. Imaging two mirrored saucers, facing each other and having a staring contest. With their mirrors, they are meant to “catch” sunlight. These mirrors reflect and bounce the sunlight into one superpowered beam, kind of like when you use a magnifying glass to make a bright dot on the sidewalk. This crazy hot beam is captured and turned into energy, and makes enough power for hundreds of homes. The project is estimated to produce enough energy (7,500 MWh) to run 2,200 electric cars for a year.

PULLQUOTE: “If we’re serious about 100% renewable energy, it will reshape the way our cities look. So why not make them beautiful?” Robert Ferry, CoFounder of LAGI – The Guardian

While many are still in development, cities like Glasgow are already working with LAGI to bring these visions to life.They show the potential for art to literally light up the planet.  

Earth Day Knows Watts Up with Inspiration

The Land Art Generator Initiative is certainly impressive and creative, but art for the climate isn’t new. For Earth Day it’s part of our roots. In 2025, EARTHDAY.ORG tapped environmental artist Alexis Rockman to create something unforgettable. With the theme Our Power, Our Planet, focusing on the global adoption of renewable energy, Rockman generated a powerful image of a solar panel rising above a joyful, diverse crowd, surrounded by a thriving forest. It perfectly captures the year’s theme and the urgent hope that renewable energy can bring us together, with people power.

PULLQUOTE: “Humans are an almost entirely visual species, and art can and should convey complex and highly emotional images that go directly to our hearts…There is still time to make a difference.” Alexis Rockman

In a time when data can be overwhelming and headlines exhausting, art cuts through the noise. It reminds us what we’re fighting for. It turns facts into feelings. It invites everyone into the climate conversation with beauty.

So on this International Artist Day, whether you’re a painter, poet, designer, or just someone who appreciates consuming art, you can make a difference. Sign our Renewable Energy Petition to voice your support for a triple in renewable energy generation by 2030. 

The post Art and Renewable Energy Are a Power Couple appeared first on Earth Day.

At EARTHDAY.ORG, one of our goals is to educate as many people as we can about our core campaigns: renewable energy, fighting plastics and the scourge of fast fashion, championing climate education and planting trees through our Canopy Tree Project. 

A great tool to help us do that is through booking our staff on podcasts. Across the world, it is estimated that over 584.1 million people have listened to podcasts already this year. They are a great way to listen, learn, and get informed – whether you are on the go driving to work, working out in the gym, or relaxing and enjoying a night at home.. 

We value all the partnerships we have had with podcasters around the world. So, this Podcast Day, we want to take the opportunity to appreciate and share some of our favorite podcasts and webinar partnerships:  

Sean White’s Solar and Energy Storage Podcast

For Earth Day 2025, Aidan Charron, our Associate Director of Global Earth Day, was interviewed on Sean White’s Solar and Energy Storage Podcast in an episode titled “Today is Earth Day, with Aidan Charron of EarthDay.Org”. 

This chat was to mark this year’s theme, Our Power, Our Planet, where we are calling for a triple in renewable energy generation globally by 2030. 

Sean and Aidan had an enthralling conversation on a variety of topics, from how views on the changing climate can be very divisive to career opportunities in the growing renewable energy sector. In fact, employment opportunities in the renewable energy sector grew 222% between 2012 and 2023. Of these, many do not require a college degree. 

To support solar, wind and geothermal energy, sign our petition to tell your state legislators to back renewable energy.

22 Minutes With…

EARTHDAY.ORG launched its very own web and podcast series, “22 Minutes With…” in 2023 featuring senior staff and special guests experts discussing climate solutions, renewable energy, plastics, activism  and human health. 

Guests included Denis Hayes, the organizer of the very first Earth Day, Diane Wilson, winner of the 2023 Goldman Prize, Kathleen Talbot – Chief Sustainability Officer & VP Operations, Reformation and most recently Rachel Kibbe, Founder and CEO of Circular Services Group (CSG) and American Circular Textiles (ACT).

Thank you to all our friends in the movement who have taken part and here’s to many more episodes to come!

On Planet Podcast

The One Planet Podcast, featured Kathleen Rogers, President of EARTHDAY.ORG, as a guest to discuss the theme we set for Earth Day 2024, Planet vs. Plastics.  

Kathleen had an engaging discussion on the prevalence of plastic in our environment and the impacts it has on our health, using the show to talk about our Babies vs Plastics report. She was able to unpack how plastic chemicals, like Bisephenol A (BPA)  and phthalates,  are known endocrine disruptors, meaning they scramble our hormones, and potentially lead to such health issues as lowered fertilityinfertility, miscarriage, some cancers,  strokes and heart attacks and a whole lot more. 

On the show Rogers revealed why EARTHDAY.ORG is demanding a 60% decrease in plastics by 2040. This requires us all to roll back our use and consumption of plastics, but it also needs policy changes at government level. 

You can help us achieve that by supporting the Global Plastics Treaty and adding your name to this petition, protecting your health and your community. 

Live Lightly Podcast

We care about plastics and how they impact human health and wildlife  but they also hurt our pets too. Our furry friends are especially vulnerable to consuming plastics as most dogs and cats  are smaller than us and are therefore closer to the ground where housego dust accumulates. Household dust is packed with microplastics which our pets inhale.

As co-author of the Pets vs Plastics report, Aidan Charron from EARTHDAY.ORG joined the Live Lightly Podcast to talk about what he had discovered. Aidan pointed out the plethora of ways plastics are sneaking into your pets lives; it’s not just from inhaling plastic laden dust either.

Pull Quote: “None of us should be ingesting plastics, including our pets. It has been associated with serious health consequences: from cancers to infertility, liver and kidney issues and more,” Tom Cosgrove, Chief Creative and Content Officer, EARTHDAY.ORG. 

Pets gnaw on everything, including plastic toys and they ingest tiny plastic pieces this way. The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate pet toys. Plastic finds its way into your pets’ digestive system,  potentially causing liver, kidney, and reproductive damage. 

Charron explained how there is a lot you can do to keep your pets safe, including ensuring their toys are made of natural materials like organic cotton, bamboo, natural rubber, wool, and hemp.  

The International Schools Podcast

Climate education has always been at the forefront of the Earth Day movement. Denis Hayes, the organiser of the first Earth Day back in 1970, and EDO’s founder, has always regarded it as an important campaign. Why? Well because around the world, schools are uniquely positioned to shape the next generation of climate leaders.

In episode 139 of the International Schools Podcast, Emily Walker, Dennis Nolasco, and Bryce Coon from our Climate Education team sat down for a powerful conversation on the role of education in addressing the climate crisis. 

They collectively made the point that knowledge fosters awareness, comprehension, and critical thinking. Education is a fundamental tool in building climate resilience. Just as literacy paved the way for the first Industrial Revolution, climate education will ignite the next revolution, one that addresses the climate crisis.

Our amazing team explored how schools can empower students with the green skills they need to be competitive in the workforce, and grow their own green muscle memory to make the right choice for the planet instinctively.  They shared the materials they had been working on to equip educators with the tools they needed to integrate climate change into their already busy curriculum. 

Emily, our Senior Education Coordinator, also emphasized the importance of integrating climate lessons into all subjects to foster both critical thinking and curiosity in students who might not favor the sciences. To help support climate education, explore our Climate Literacy Campaign to find loads of toolkits, teaching guides, and other resources.

Fossil vs. Future Podcast

We often forget that plastics are made from petrochemicals, like oil. So, it was all fitting that Aidan Charron featured on the Fossil vs Future Podcast on an episode entitled “What About Plastics?” to discuss the hidden costs of plastics to both our health and our planet.

Hosts James and Daisy took a deep dive into the growing plastics crisis and Aidan explained how plastics are contributing to global warming because plastic production relies heavily on fossil fuels, from extraction and refining to manufacturing, transportation, and disposal. Together, these stages emit significant greenhouse gases, accounting for an estimated 5% of global emissions in 2019—more than emissions from shipping and aviation combined—and this share could grow substantially by 2050 if plastic production continues to rise.

Plastics are also polluting the planet – from the depths of our oceans to the air we breathe. Microplastics have even been found in human placentas and the ice on Mount Everest. 

One surprising takeaway: despite plastic’s reputation as recyclable, only around 9% of plastic waste globally is actually recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, our ecosystems and inside all of us!

Get Listening and Get Involved!

We hope these podcasts have inspired you to join the growing green movement and let your bosses, educators, policy-makers, leaders, friends and family know that you care about our planet, and our future and are fighting to protect it.

At EARTHDAY.ORG, we don’t shy away from many topics or talking about them. Our campaigns cover everything from fast fashion to plastics to climate education to planting trees, to cleanups –  our goal is to always empower people by educating them on all of these topics.  

Which is why Kathleen Rogers, our President, has been all over the radio waves: she featured on the incredible Tavis Smiley Show, with an audience of 12 million, on Earth Day 2025. She also appeared on WBOK-AM and WVON-AM, discussing renewable energy and campaigns like Babies vs Plastics. Kathleen spoke with Manny Munoz on WIOD, a program syndicated to 23 channels and she guested on KNX-AM, which reaches over 600,000 listeners, across 45 channels in the U.S., discussing the 2025 Earth Day theme Our Power, Our Planet. KBME-AM Sports Talk Radio hosted her for Earth Day and she was interviewed on WHTZ, syndicated to 123 channels and over 400,000 listeners, where she discussed renewable energy. The list goes on and on, just like our work does. 

If you want to keep up with the radio shows and podcasts EARTHDAY.ORG features on, you can find them on the “EARTHDAY.ORG in the News” section of the News and Stories page.  

Listening is just the first step—getting involved, speaking up, and taking action is how together we turn inspiration into impact and build a healthier, sustainable future for all. Join us and sign up for updates and newsletters HERE.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use. 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 davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Podcasts, Pets, and Plastics, Oh My! appeared first on Earth Day.

Climate change isn’t just reshaping ecosystems; it’s reshaping the workforce. Rising temperatures, extreme weather, and shifting natural systems are forcing workers in diverse industries to adapt, sometimes drastically. While green jobs like solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians are growing, climate change is also directly impacting fields that few people associate with environmental shifts.

In fact, this shift is already influencing hiring trends. In a 2024 report, Linkedin noted that workers with at least one green skill are hired 29% more often than the average job seeker. It is now a necessity to have knowledge of the climate.

Here are five professions already feeling the heat (literally and figuratively) of climate change:

1. Professional Athletes

Extreme weather is no longer just a “game day” inconvenience. It’s becoming a defining challenge for athletes at all levels. Heat waves are forcing professional leagues to reschedule matches, shorten training sessions, and expand hydration breaks. In soccer, an NWSL game had to be postponed due to extreme heat. Similarly, the Australian Open has seen play halted due to dangerous heat indexes. 

Teams worldwide are increasingly being forced to reschedule games to cooler hours, while wildfires and poor air quality in places like California have canceled practices entirely. As climate impacts accelerate, athletes’ safety and performance will increasingly be tied to how the industry adapts to extreme weather events. 

2. Construction Workers

The construction industry is among the most vulnerable to weather extremes. Rising temperatures create unsafe working conditions on rooftops, highways, and other exposed job sites. 

In the US, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),  a United States federal agency under the Department of Labor, has reported spikes in heat related illnesses among builders, leading to stricter regulations on rest breaks but equally leading to productivity losses exceeding 30%. 

Beyond heat, floods and storms damage infrastructure projects mid-build, costing both time and money. In fact, increased floods from climate change cost the U.S. alone between $179.8 and $496 billion a year. The climate crisis is taking our time, health, and our money. 

3. Farmers and Agricultural Workers

Farmers are already contending with unpredictable growing seasons, prolonged droughts, and more frequent floods. 

In fact, global crop yields are projected to decline significantly in the next decade. A major 2025 study analyzing 12,000 regions worldwide found staple crops like wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, barley, and cassava will suffer yield losses averaging 8% by 2050 and possibly up to 24% by 2100 under high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, despite farmer’s best adaptation efforts. Also, due to rising temperatures, crops like coffee and cacao are becoming harder to cultivate in traditional regions. How will we survive without chocolate!  

Climbing temperatures also affects livestock. Heat stress occurs when high temperatures and humidity combine to prevent animals from effectively dissipating their body heat, leading to elevated core temperatures that can impair how their body functions.

For dairy cows, extreme heat reduces milk production by up to 10% , with effects lingering for over 10 days afterward. Cooling technologies (e.g., fans, misters) can only mitigate about half of this loss, meaning climate change is likely to cause  long-term declines in dairy productivity. Beef cattle also suffer from heat stress, which lowers how much they eat, resulting in reduced growth of the cattle and diminishes meat quality. 

Farm workers themselves face heat related mortality rates that are 20x higher than those working other occupations. Climate volatility threatens food security and the livelihoods of those who produce it.

4. Pilots and Airline Workers

Even 10,000 feet in the air, you can feel the heat. Rising global temperatures reduce air density, which can make it harder for planes to take off on short runways, particularly in high-altitude airports. 

More frequent extreme storms create safety concerns for both passengers and crew causing flights to increasingly be canceled or rerouted. Now, about 30% of delays are due to the weather. Wildfire smoke also serves as its own hazard, which often blankets major cities. 

Climate change is affecting the winds high up in the sky, which is causing more sudden and bumpy air during flights, – especially over regions like North Atlantic, North America, and East Asia. These bumps, called clear-air turbulence, (CAT) are invisible and pose significant risks to passenger safety and comfort. Scientists warn turbulence duration and intensity could double or triple due to this warming. In response, airlines are exploring technologies like on-board LIDAR to detect turbulence early and improve safety.

5. Healthcare Professionals

Doctors, nurses, and first responders are seeing firsthand how climate change is a public health crisis. Heat waves lead to spikes in emergency room visits for heat stroke, dehydration, and respiratory illnesses. Wildfire smoke exacerbates asthma and heart disease. Diseases like Lyme are spreading into new regions, requiring healthcare workers to prepare for illnesses that were once considered rare in their area. 

The profession is adapting not just to treat climate related illnesses, but also to advocate for preventative public health policies.

A Changing World of Work

From the playing field to the farm, climate change is shaping careers in ways many never anticipated. Jobs once seen as stable are now in flux, and workers must adapt to survive in a warming world by learning and applying green skills to their careers. Supporting these existing professions as they navigate climate disruption is of the utmost importance.

The best way to help all of these professions and our own well being is to tackle climate change. The present Administration at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA,  is not making that easy! But you can make your voice heard by adding your name to our public comments urging the EPA not to revoke the Endangerment Finding, which gives the agency the authority to regulate pollution.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also 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 davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 5 Jobs Already Being Transformed by Climate Change appeared first on Earth Day.

The future of agriculture is a major concern around the world. The Earth is growing hotter, crucial resources are becoming scarcer, and the global population is climbing higher. In the face of these issues, producing enough food to sustain the global population while preserving critically important ecosystems is increasingly difficult to manage.

But in the last fifteen years, vertical farming has emerged as a promising alternative to current farming practices.

The concept is simple: rather than taking up even more land in a horizontal direction, crops are stacked vertically, integrated into structures like skyscrapers, warehouses, and even shipping containers. It’s a brilliant and innovative solution, but because it differs so much from traditional farming, it can be hard to fully grasp just how beneficial vertical farming could be. To demystify it a little, let’s look at three of the biggest and most successful vertical farms in operation today and unpack what concrete problems they solve.

Bustanica: Tackling Water Scarcity in Dubai

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a desert country with limited fertile land and summer temperatures regularly clearing 100°F, agriculture is a major struggle. As a result, the UAE imports around 80% of its food supply, which not only jeopardizes its food security, but also increases the potential of food waste during transportation. But Bustanica, an impressive feat of technology, could change this.

Founded in 2022 by Emirates Flight Catering and Crop One, Bustanica is the world’s largest vertical farm, located near Al Maktoum International Airport and covering an impressive 333,000 square feet. Using a closed-loop system, the farm circulates water through the plants, so that when the heat causes the water to evaporate – turning it from liquid into vapor – it is captured, absorbed, and recycled to be used again. This process conserves water by reusing it instead of letting it escape into the air.

In Dubai’s harsh arid climate, the fresh water needed to make crops thrive through traditional agriculture is scarce. But by vertical farming, Bustanica is able to produce vast amounts of leafy greens with only a fraction of the water usage that traditional farming uses. Their facility saves over 250 million liters of water a year!

Sky Greens: Maximizing Space in Singapore

With a population of over six million crammed onto an island less than 300 square miles in area, Singapore has the third highest population density in the world. With so little land to work with, it’s a struggle to make sufficient space for humans, let alone for producing food, of which more than 90% is imported. To respond to their land issues, Singapore has expanded upwards, with towering high-rises built every year to accommodate their growing population, so why not apply that concept to agriculture too?

Sky Greens, Singapore’s pioneering vertical farm, did just that. Founded by engineer and entrepreneur Jack Ng, the company has patented a vertical farming system that features rotating tiers of growing troughs, mounted on an aluminum frame reaching up to thirty feet in the air and housed in a protected, controlled environment. The rotating mechanism, powered by hydraulics, allows their crops to receive uniform sunlight, irrigation, and nutrients as they pass through different parts of the structure.

Highly praised for its ingenuity, Sky Greens is a shining example of urban agriculture. The farm can produce one ton of leafy vegetables every other day, and its success has contributed to Singapore’s goal of achieving greater food security. The farm’s space-efficient design and sustainable farming techniques have paved the way for similar urban farms, offering hope for densely populated areas that desperately need to bring some greenery into their communities.

AeroFarms: Overcoming Pollution in Newark

In the city of Newark, New Jersey, a heavily industrialized area which deals with significant contamination from factories and toxic waste, thriving agriculture is probably the last thing one would expect to find. But AeroFarms, an award-winning vertical farming company with a focus on microgreens, has proved that vertical farms have the potential to brighten any city with greenery, regardless of how polluted it is.

Founded in 2004 and relocated to Newark in 2015, AeroFarms found its success through aeroponic farming, a method of growing plants indoors, without using soil. Instead, they use an artificial fabric, a fleece material made from recycled plastic water bottles, that supports seeds as they germinate and take root, while a mist delivers nutrients and water.

In this controlled indoor environment, agriculture is fully protected from the toxins that would destroy plants had they been grown using traditional farming.

AeroFarms currently supply over 70% of the U.S. retail market for microgreens, which are far more nutrient-dense than their mature counterparts. For example, younger leaves of baby spinach were found to have higher levels of phytonutrients than more mature leaves, meaning that they are better able to support the immune system and reduce the risk of chronic diseases.

Looking to the Future

Sometimes, the issues that face our world seem  impossible to surmount, especially when it comes to such crucial areas as food production. But vertical farms are proof that new technology and renewable energy practices can turn the tide of global agricultural issues.

If you’re as excited about this future as we are, there are ways to take action! Check out our theme for 2025: Our Power, Our Planet, a commitment to harnessing the power of renewable energy. You can read more about what changes we’re calling for, sign our renewable energy petition, or support us by joining our mailing list. The Earth needs any help we can contribute!

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. 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 davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Skyscraper Crops Are Changing the World appeared first on Earth Day.

We live in a world dominated by plastic. It’s nearly impossible to avoid, so most of us just accept it as a part of our lives. But how much do you really know about this omnipresent material? Can you truly trust the plastic industry to have your best interests in mind? Spoiler alert — there’s probably a lot you’re not aware of and the plastic industry has worked hard to sell plastic to us as the perfect product!

EARTHDAY.ORG is dedicated to exposing the truth about plastics and spreading awareness of the dangers they pose to the environment and ourselves. Through our countless articles and in-depth research reports, we shed light on the sinister side of plastics. 

Here are five of the most disturbing facts about plastic that we believe everyone has the right to know.

1. Plastics are fossil fuels in disguise

Over 99% of plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, like oil and so-called ‘natural’ gas. Producing one billion plastic bottles requires 24 million gallons of oil. Coca-Cola alone produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute, for a total of 100 billion bottles per year. Clearly, our addiction to the convenience of disposable plastic is directly tied to skyrocketing fossil fuel use and catastrophic climate change.

Moreover, while plastic manufacturing accounts for only 12% of global oil consumption, as the world moves towards a clean energy transition, like solar and wind, and the fossil fuel industry loses its grip on electricity generation and transportation, it will likely cling desperately to plastic production as a way to maintain relevance and profits.

The devastating health effects of pollution from plastic production can be seen in Cancer Alley — an 85-mile region along the Mississippi River in Southeastern Louisiana. Due to the area’s numerous plastics manufacturing facilities and petrochemical plants, the predominantly Black residents are constantly exposed to hazardous chemicals including polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), vinyl chloride, and polychloroprene, which contaminate the air, water, and soil. 

As a result, the risk of cancer in the region is 700 times greater than the national average, and residents suffer from respiratory problems and other illnesses.

2. Plastics are linked to infertility

With plastics as prevalent as they are, we all inevitably ingest tiny bits of plastic. These tiny pieces, called micro and nano plastics, may be a hidden culprit behind the infertility crisis. Once in the body, plastics leach out hormone-disrupting chemicals such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). 

Studies on mice show that microplastic exposure decreases the survival rate of oocytes, the precursors to eggs. Researchers have also detected microplastics in human penises and linked microplastic exposure to decreased survival and DNA integrity in sperm, impeding egg fertilization.

Even after conception, the threats from plastic persist. One study found that pregnant women with the highest concentrations of phthalates in their urine were 60% more likely to miscarry in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Another found that women with the highest levels of BPA in their blood were 83% more likely to miscarry in the first trimester. Microplastics can even be detected in placentas, having permeated the protective membranes

3. Babies are especially vulnerable to ingesting microplastics

Last year, EARTHDAY.ORG released its Babies vs. Plastics Report. Among the report’s most concerning findings was that babies and infants have over 10 times higher rates of microplastics in their feces than adults. 

Babies are exposed to microplastics in feeding bottles, formula, breast milk, clothing, and toys. Tiny particles can enter their bodies through inhalation, breastfeeding, dermal exposure, and oral intake, commonly called teething!  Studies have found that infants can ingest up to 4.5 million plastic particles per day when fed from polypropylene baby bottles and that disposable storage bags release microplastics into breast milk.

Moreover, the most widely-used fabric in clothing, polyester, contains plastic. With young childrens’ habit of chewing and sucking on their clothes, this puts them at a greater risk of exposure to microplastics in textiles.

4. Our pets also face threats from plastic

Earlier this year, we published our second report, Pets vs. Plastics, which demonstrated that harm from plastic is not limited to the human members of our families. In addition to the fact that ingesting plastic chunks can cause broken teeth and lacerations or punctures to the digestive tract, plastic from chew toys, food bowls, and food packaging can leach out phthalates and BPAs that can enter your pet. Similarly, polyester bedding and collars release microplastics that they may ingest or inhale.

A major reason why pets are so exposed to plastic is that the pet product industry is inadequately regulated. There are no laws specifically regulating pet toys in the U.S. The FDA does not regulate non-food pet products, and the Consumer Protection Safety Commission claims to lack the authority to protect pets from unsafe plastic toys, bedding, and clothes. Globally, the pet food industry is largely left to regulate itself and microplastics are often processed directly into the food.

Unfortunately, this means we must take things into our own hands. See our top 6 tips for keeping your beloved pets safe from plastics.

5. Plastic recycling is a lie

Less than 10% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. Just 5% of U.S. plastic waste and 9% of global plastic waste is properly recycled. If this comes as a surprise to you, you’re not alone. Beginning in the 1980s, the petrochemical industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a decades-long disinformation campaign to convince the public that plastic could be recycled. 

Even Resin Identification Codes — the little numbers in the triangles on plastic products that are supposed to tell us something is recyclable — are an invention of the plastic industry. While 30% of numbers 1 and 2 plastic are recycled, numbers 3-5 are much more difficult, and numbers 6 and 7 are virtually impossible to recycle. 

The plastics industry has also worked hard to shift the blame for plastic pollution off themselves and onto consumers with efforts such as the infamous anti-littering campaign from the 1970s, “The Crying Indian.”

Some have proposed chemical recycling as a solution to our plastic recycling problem. This process converts plastic waste back into oil, keeping it out of landfills and reducing our need to extract more fossil fuels. However, chemical recycling produces byproducts containing toxic chemicals such as benzene, lead, cadmium, and chromium. As processing facilities and disposal sites for hazardous waste are often located in low-income and minority communities, this presents a serious environmental justice issue.

Plastics have got to go

Clearly, we cannot rely on the oil and plastic industries to tell us the truth.  The only way to ensure we are all safe from plastic is to cap plastic production.

That is why EARTHDAY.ORG is working to end plastic production. We invite you to join our fight by signing the Global Plastics Treaty petition to call on the United Nations and governments around the world to commit to a 60% reduction in all fossil fuel-based plastic production by 2040. Want to get outside and make an immediate impact? Use our Global Cleanup Map to find a cleanup near you!

Read the statement by the President of EARTHDAY.ORG, Kathleen Rogers, on the US government’s changing position on plastic production caps, HERE.

It’s time we take our health and futures into our own hands. Are you in?

The post Enough Is Enough: Why Plastics Have Got to Go appeared first on Earth Day.

Science fiction has a remarkable track record of predicting the future. From inventions that seem completely futuristic to cultural or political scenarios that feel unimaginable in the real world. But both often become part of our everyday lives in the 21st century. 

The 1960s show The Jetsons featured a futuristic “videophone,” a concept that is now mirrored in our everyday life in the form of the ubiquitous FaceTime and Zoom. We’ve turned sci-fi’s once-fanciful visions of technological connectivity into everyday realities and the list is extensive. For example, we’ve embraced mass surveillance—a concept first envisioned in George Orwell’s dystopian 1984—through our daily consumption of reality television shows, from Big Brother to Love Island,  all made possible with security cameras. Devices like Amazon’s Alexa are eavesdropping on around 200 million of us globally and most of us don’t even know it and Star Trek alone predicted tablets, touchscreens, computer assistants and more. 

The sci-fi genre not only sparks innovations but can actively shape the future too, by guiding us towards developing technologies, from submarines and virtual reality. In this way the lines between science and fiction are blurred. Often sci-fi touches on the issues that environmentalists grapple with every day, for example the seminal book by Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, paints a grim picture of a world in which pesticides have annihilated wildlife, and extinguished birdsong. Which at the time was a serious reality. In sci-fi films such as Interstellar and WALL-E, film-makers too lean into this theme, envisioning an Earth that is so damaged and beyond repair that humans must venture out to the cosmos to seek a new home. 

The reality today is that right now, more than 100 countries are at serious risk of degradation through desertification and wildfires burn hundreds of millions of hectares of land every single year. On top of these two realities, humans produce two billion tons of waste annually—an amount equal to more than five times the weight of the human population. Which collectively is why over three-quarters of Earth’s land is currently degraded, and this figure could soar to more than 90% by 2050. 

As we face the all-too-real climate crisis, what can we learn from the speculative futures created by science fiction about how to best move forward? 

Cautionary Tales

Some sci-fi movies feature situations that are absolutely dire but based on real issues we are facing albeit it slightly exaggerated, such as the narrative of the film Snowpiercer which illustrates a scenario in which humanity tries to undo climate change.  Director Bong Joon Ho is no stranger to biting social commentary, with movies such as Parasite and Okja under his belt, and his 2013 film is no different.  In Snowpiercer, humanity’s attempt to halt global warming by geoengineering a cooling agent to be shot into the atmosphere backfires disastrously, plunging the Earth into a new ice age. In a nightmarish end result, only a few thousand survivors remain, all confined aboard a perpetually moving train circling the globe battling for survival. 

Further highlighting the folly of humanity, the train operates as a microcosm of previous society, rigidly divided by a strict class system that mirrors the inequalities currently plaguing our reality. The lower class is relegated to the harsh conditions of the tail end of the train, while the elite live in luxury at the front, in many ways it is similar to how marginalized populations are forced to cope with the most extreme impacts of climate change. Snowpiercer serves as a forewarning: if we don’t change our destructive behaviors and the value systems that perpetuate them, the future will be apocalyptic.  

Meanwhile Don’t Look Up’s star-studded cast (Leo, J-Law and Meryl, oh my!) features two scientists racing against time, and widespread indifference, to alert the world to an impending comet on a trajectory with planet Earth.  

Director Adam McKay doesn’t disguise that this sci-fi movie comes with a message, with caricatures that hit a little too close to home: a selfish president who refuses to accept the science while attempting to cover up a relationship with an adult film star; a tech billionaire who prioritizes profit over ethics and has an obsessive preoccupation with colonizing outer space; an outspoken activist who people would rather memeify than listen to; a popstar whose breakup gets more airtime than the comet; TV broadcasters who care more to distract than inform; and to top it all off, a scientifically supported yet controversially disputed as ‘fake news’, cataclysmic event that’s threatening the Earth. 

The heavy satire in the movie reveals an unfortunate truth and even though the planet killing comet is fictional, the characters’ reactions to it, reflect humanity’s genuine apathy to the climate crisis.  When almost a quarter of Congress members are climate deniers and 40% of Americans either believe there is no evidence of climate change or that it’s due to ‘natural patterns’, how ‘fictional’ is it really? 

Don’t Look Up sends a warning shot that it’s not just one evil corporation alone or one bad world leader solely at fault, it is a collective failure of society at large to prioritize the planet’s well-being, and our long term survival as a species, over short-term interests. 

Glimmers of Galactic Hope

Christopher Nolan’s 2014 film Interstellar follows a group of astronauts who must find a new planet for humanity to occupy after Earth is rendered uninhabitable by a global blight that has killed off almost all plant life. Taking place in the latter half of the 21st century, we see a world that is running out of food and breathable oxygen, where the threat of human extinction looms large. There seems to be no hope left for the human race until a NASA scientist finds a wormhole that could act as a cosmic shortcut to a possible Planet B and launches a risky expedition. 

Of course, in our current timeline and reality, there is no Planet B. But that does not prevent Hans Zimmer’s soaring soundtrack and the theoretical physicist-backed scientifically-accurate script transport you to this extraterrestrial realm. Be it only for the three-hour runtime. Interstellar allows us a glimpse into a bleak state of the world that we must never allow ourselves to reach while also finding a potential solution.  What makes Nolan’s movie different is that rather than the moral of the story being the inevitability of ecological collapse, he allows us to focus on the possibility of redemption and the ethos of discovery.  

Other sci-fi films feature an already destroyed world that is deemed worth saving. Pixar’s WALL-E imagines a distant future where humans have abandoned Earth, now a highly polluted wasteland littered with towering skyscrapers of waste and remnants of mega corporate ruin. The planet had become so contaminated by trash and greenhouse gasses that it could no longer sustain life, pushing humanity into starliners in space. 

WALL-E the robot is the last remaining Waste Allocation Load Lifter: Earth-class, compacting trash into piles and collecting salvageable objects left on Earth including his latest find—a green seedling. 

When EVE, a robot sent to Earth to find signs of life, arrives, she discovers WALL-E and his precious seedling. She brings WALL-E to the Axiom, a massive starliner where the human race has reached peak laziness, living in hovering recliners and drinking meals from plastic cups. 

WALL-E and EVE realize that the seedling is proof that life can return to Earth. Disproving what world leaders and corporations have told the surviving population of humans. They manage to bring the seedling back to Earth, cultivate the land, restore agriculture and rejuvenate the planet. This emotional and  insightful animated feature shows children and adults alike that even a ravaged world can be revived with care and determination, led by those who dare to believe in the possibility of transformation. 

The heroes in these sci-fi flicks refuse to follow the status quo,each of them in some way challenges the mindsets that led to the downfall of their worlds in the first place. Whether they are robots with hearts of gold, astronomers speaking out on national television, scientists brave enough to leave their lives behind to save humanity, or rebellion leaders fighting back against the ruling class, these protagonists risk everything to fight against complacency.

We can’t let time pass us by while we become the lackadaisical humans from WALL-E and Don’t Look Up, so glued to screens that we can’t see the world around us. Nor can we ruin the Earth so badly that relocating to another planet becomes our only option.  We must harness the imaginative and valiant spirits of sci-fi heroes and educate ourselves and others about climate change so we can avoid these speculative futures becoming our reality. Only through climate education can we develop the revolutionary minds that will pave a path towards our own sustainable future.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. 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 davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org.

The post Sci-Fi Predicts the Future in Film appeared first on Earth Day.