Meet Dr. Shanna Swan, one of the world’s leading reproductive epidemiologists and a longtime researcher of environmental chemicals and reproductive health.

For more than three decades, Swan has studied how endocrine-disrupting chemicals can affect hormones, fertility and human development. Her research has helped draw global attention to declining sperm counts and raised broader questions about how everyday  exposure to chemicals in our food, homes and environment may be affecting human health.

In a new conversation with EARTHDAY.ORG, Swan joins Jillian Semaan, Global Director of Food and Environment, to discuss the connections between plastics, food and fertility — and why those links may matter far beyond the laboratory.

The interview takes a closer look at the many ways people can come into contact with chemicals during an ordinary day. Swan discusses chemicals found in plastic, personal care and household products, food packaging, cookware and other common consumer goods.. She also explains why scientists are paying close attention to certain chemicals commonly found in consumer products and what researchers are still trying to understand about their effects on reproductive health.

But the conversation is not only about alarming statistics.

Swan also talks about practical steps people can take to reduce exposure in their everyday lives. From reconsidering t food storage and cookware to paying closer attention to household products and other common sources of exposure, the interview offers a more practical ways to limit exposure and make more informed choices. 

At the same time, Swan makes clear that individuals should not carry the full burden of protecting themselves. The conversation also explores the role of manufacturers, governments and chemical regulation — and what it means to decide whether a product is truly safe before it becomes part of everyday life.

From reproductive health e to the choices families make in the kitchen, Swan’s conversation with EARTHDAY.ORG highlights the connection between human health and environmental health — and why reducing harmful chemical exposures  matters for both people today and future generations.

Watch the full episode on Saturday, August 22nd. RSVP to receive a link to view the stream.

The post Everyday Chemical Exposures Put Us All at Risk appeared first on Earth Day.

Do you crave early afternoon hikes on a dirt path that curves through a thick, green forest with thousands of trees to entertain you for miles? 

Or do you find the “great” outdoors to be not so much that?

If that’s the case, it’s ok! Not everyone feels a connection to nature. But if you’ll indulge us for a moment, we’d like to tell you why spending even a little bit of time in nature can be good and how you can make it feel more, well, natural. Read on to learn how being in the natural world can improve your physical, emotional, and intellectual health.

Is Nature “Natural” to Everyone?

In 1984, a biologist named Edward O. Wilson built upon the work of psychoanalyst Eric Fromm and proposed the biophilia hypothesis.

In other words, everyone should feel a desire to be around varying forms of living nature such as plants and wildlife. But his hypothesis may be incorrect; researchers still dispute its validity. In particular, many researchers disagree with its claim that mankind’s attraction to nature is a universal trait.

Instead, researchers suggest that humans’ attraction to nature presents itself in the human population on a bell-curve distribution, meaning most people fall somewhere in the middle with a moderate appeal to nature, while a few carry an extreme love or hate for it. 

Your childhood experiences also influence the strength of your connection to nature. As a child, the conversations and activities relating to nature sparked or suppressed by your parents or guardians have the greatest influence on your relationship with nature. Other important figures in your life such as friends and teachers can also impact your connection, but those you live with have the strongest effect.

Additionally, contact with nature as a child matters, too. Contact with nature refers to visiting natural spaces like the wilderness or a park and interacting with nature like gardening. This factor influences your connection to nature significantly more than your childhood living environment, which includes elements like the amount of vegetation around your home or light visible outside at night.

More specifically, interactive contact with nature leads to a deeper connection than simply visiting natural spaces. Observing events in nature and nurturing plants are the two most influential childhood nature activities, highlighting the importance of meaning and emotion.

Nature Nurtures Us

Even if you fall on the part of the bell curve that does not enjoy nature or your childhood experiences did not foster an affinity for nature, it is still in your self-interest to care about it as an adult.

Physical Benefits

Nature has physical benefits. Forest bathing — an English term for the traditional Japanese practice of “shinrin-yoku” — is when you enjoy a forest through your senses: the smell of wildflowers, the sight of sunlight filtering through the tree canopy, the sound of the wind rustling branches, the tickle of a leaf brushing against your arm as it cascades down from above. Scientific studies have explored how this activity enhances your physical health by lowering your blood pressure. 

And even something as simple as breathing in the forest air can strengthen your immune system. Plants and trees release an airborne chemical called phytoncides to increase their protection from disease. When humans inhale phytoncides, they trigger an increase in the production of a type of white blood cell that works to rid the body of cells that have been damaged by viruses or tumors. 

Intellectual Benefits

Nature provides intellectual benefits, too. Two similar studies found that walking in different environments can impact your brain’s attention and memory capabilities. Students that walked in a nature-filled botanical garden experienced improved attention scores after their walk, while those that walked in an urban, pavement-filled area saw less improvement.

According to the attention restoration theory, our fast-paced and digital society requires a lot of energy and therefore drains our brain. Nature also captivates our attention, but it does so in a less demanding way than modern life. As a result, spending time in nature allows the brain to rest and reset to its full potential.

Emotional Benefits

Finally, nature is full of emotional benefits. Forest bathing can improve your mental health by reducing and preventing painful emotions such as psychological stress, anxiety, and depression. Forest bathing can lower cortisol levels, a hormone in the human body that increases when you are stressed. Additionally, a study found that forest bathing increased serotonin levels in middle-aged men, and low levels of this neurotransmitter are linked to depression and anxiety.

And spending time outside in nature can boost your mood. Whether you choose to go for a peaceful wooded hike in a forest or meander through a scenic park, spending time in nature can make you feel more positive and happy. It can also improve your sense of self-worth, such as enhancing your body image. 

Nature is full of unique creations, and observing them can instill a feeling of being a part of something bigger than just you. By doing so, you allow nature to turn on a calming nervous system response and unravel the tension brought on from our busy, technology-filled world.

Settle For Making Nature Feel Normal

Nature may never feel completely “natural” to you, but that doesn’t mean you should avoid it and forgo nature’s gifts to your health! Over time, you can make spending time in nature feel normal by incorporating nature-related activities into your daily life.

EARTHDAY.ORG can help you do this. We’ve compiled 50 ways you can engage with nature routinely. The list includes actions that directly immerse you in nature like forest bathing and ones that indirectly immerse you in nature like educating yourself and others on how to help nature flourish. 

You can also normalize nature in your life by signing up for our email list so that articles like this are sent straight to your inbox. And you can explore our social media at X, Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube to stay up to date on environmental news and information. Want to make a bigger impact? Donate to EARTHDAY.ORG and help fund our work year-round.

Taking these first steps will place you on a path towards incorporating nature into your daily life and becoming a healthier, more attentive, and happier person.

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 Don’t Deprive Yourself of Nature’s Benefits appeared first on Earth Day.

Bees, butterflies, and moths are typically beloved images of what we commonly know to be pollinators. However, the insects we often look at with distaste — those like mosquitoes, wasps, and flies — are actually also important pollinators in their own right. 

Bees and the like are incredibly critical to ecosystems, providing plants and crops we rely on with the pollen they need to reproduce. However, it’s also important to shed light on the other creatures that affect our environments, ones we often try to get rid of because of their reputation. 

They do a lot more than incessantly annoy us by supporting plant reproduction through plant pollination worldwide. In honor of national Pollinator Week, here are some less appreciated pollinators and the surprising benefits they have for ecosystems around the world. 

Over-Hated Garden Dwellers 

Flies are famously disliked in households worldwide.They’re often considered a nuisance, not doing much other than buzzing around where you don’t want them to. Surprisingly, despite how we see them, it’s actually been determined that flies are the second-most important pollinators, right after bees. 

The fact is flies are necessary for the health of plant populations across the world, including crops — According to a research article published by biology researchers from the University of Exeter, they visit around 72% of global food crops, cross-pollinating between plants and ensuring reproductive success.

Flies are incredibly diverse, species and habitat wise. Hoverflies are a specific family of flies, made up of over 6,000 different species, as detailed by a 2024 University of Georgia field report. They can be found on and across various continents. These flies play a valuable role in pollination and pest control, as they frequently visit flowering plants and naturally prey on destructive pests like aphids. 

A 2019 study observed hoverfly migration in and out of England and continental Europe, reporting billions of hoverflies seasonally migrating. The massive numbers of flies leads to significant pollination across land-masses, and this redistribution of pollen supports the reproduction of plants, including popular crops like sweet peppers, strawberries and onions. 

Certain types of flies can also be major players in the creation of beloved foods like chocolate. Tiny flies known as midges are the sole pollinator of cacao trees, making them critical to the chocolate industry. Cacao flowers, which have small, intricate openings, can only be entered by midges due to their miniscule size. 

Even with midges, due to the complex nature of the plant and its reproduction process, only 10-20% of the flowers actually get pollinated. Without midges pollinating cocoa flowers, the plants would be unable to produce the seedpods used to make chocolate.

 In short: no flies, no chocolate. 

A Common Menace 

People tend to live in terror of wasps. To some, even the sight of a nest’s stalk being built is a sign to call the exterminator. Of course, this isn’t unfounded, considering that wasps are notorious for being aggressive. What’s lesser known about them, however, is their tropical family members’ prominence as specialist pollinators, that focus on pollinating a narrow variety of plant species. 

Many of these plants are important in their own right: Figs are a well-known and well-loved fruit, of which there are almost nine hundred different species. They’re more than just fruits, though. Figs actually act as a keystone species, due to the significant number of animals and insects that depend on them for sustenance year-round. A 2018 study even documented that certain species of figs can help support declining bird populations, by providing them with a reliable source of food. 

Fig wasps are a small, often overlooked species of wasp. The two native to the United States are unnoticed to the point that they have no common name, only a scientific one: Pegoscapus. Figs and Fig wasps have a mutualistic relationship, meaning that both species generally benefit from their exchanges, though a first glance might say otherwise.

When a fig’s flowers (which are actually inside the fruit) are ready to reproduce, they attract female wasps, who crawl into the fruit through a small opening— it’s so small that while entering, the wasp will lose its wings. As the wasp crawls around to lay its eggs, it spreads the pollen it collected from the previous fig it was in. The flowers can then reproduce while the wasp, done with its job, dies within the fig.

While it sounds like a morbid exchange, it allows the wasp’s eggs to grow in a safe environment where they can hatch before continuing the cycle. This relationship maintains both populations and indirectly supports other species who rely on figs. 

Not all wasp pollination requires the death of the insect, however. Other species of wasps promote pollination the same way many other pollinators, including flies, do — they feed on nectar to support their energy levels, landing on flowers and collecting pollen in the process. As they travel from plant to plant, the collected pollen is transferred between flowers, fertilizing their seeds. This is commonly known as “incidental pollination”, a process butterflies and moths also take part in. 

The World’s Most Hated Insect 

It’s a well-known fact that mosquitoes are widely hated, and not without good reason. One particular species of mosquito, Aedes aegypti, might well be one of the most dangerous insects in the world, as a past carrier of yellow fever and the Zika virus. 

However, like any other creature, there’s a large diversity of species within the mosquito family, and some can actually be beneficial to both humans and the environment. There are around 3,500 species of mosquitoes documented worldwide, and only about 3% of those species are able to transmit diseases. 

Take, for example, the elephant mosquito, or Toxorhychites rutilius, which is found across a broad range of the southeastern United States. Rather than feeding on our blood, these giant, colorful creatures prefer plant nectar, pollen, and even the larva of other mosquitoes, and as they buzz from meal to meal, they pollinate flowers along the way, collecting and transferring pollen between the plants that host the substances they feed on. 

Another type of mosquito, Aedes Communis, commonly known as a snow pool mosquito, is a critical pollinator of blunt-leaf orchids. Found across the North of the United States, Alaska, and Canada, this mosquito does feed on blood to sustain the development of its eggs, but it also commonly feeds on nectar.

 As it feeds, it collects pollen from one flower and transfers it to the stigma of another, effectively pollinating the orchids and allowing them to reproduce. Blunt-leaf orchids are also important to ecosystems — they often indicate the presence of the many protected species they grow in tandem with. 

Now, it’s important to note that the details about mosquito pollination are still being studied, and there’s not much concrete information about what their pollination patterns, preferences, and effectiveness are just yet. That being said, researchers have drawn tentative conclusions about mosquitoes being potential nocturnal pollinators, due to their observations of significant mosquito presence around flowers at nighttime, rather than during the day.

 Professor Helen J. Young conducted a study that blocked flowers from pollination during daylight and evening hours, and found that the flowers that only received nocturnal pollinators (which operate similar to mosquitoes) produced twice as many seeds.

So, while we’re still learning about mosquito pollination, it’s safe to say that they do have a purpose other than just spreading disease and generally annoying people. 

The Surprising Reality

Not all of the insects we know as “pests” are deserving of that title. Flies, wasps, and mosquitoes are just a fraction of the thousands of non-bee pollinators that exist and are essential to plants around the world. An estimated 35% of global food crops and 75% of the world’s flowering plants rely on pollinators to be able to reproduce and continue population growth. 

While some insects are certainly a threat to gardens and human health, there are many that are wrongly implicated, ones our environments would be substantially different without. We don’t have to forgive all of them, but maybe we can learn to appreciate the ones that deserve it. 

Additionally, the unfortunate truth is that pollinators of all kinds are being threatened by issues such as climate change, pesticide use, habitat loss, and disease. That’s not a fact you have to just accept, though. There’s plenty each of us can do to support our local pollinators, and a great way to start is by getting involved with National Pollinator Week. Be sure to also check out additional resources like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and our own bee conservation tool-kit. 

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 Pests Do More for Us Than You Think appeared first on Earth Day.

Glyphosate is a common weed killer used by farmers around the world to control weeds, protect crops, and reduce the need for labor-intensive hand weeding, such as pulling weeds by hand or using mechanical tools to clear fields. It has also become one of the world’s most debated farm chemicals because of concerns about how its use affects soil, water, and people. At the center of the debate is a difficult food-system question: can the world reduce its reliance on chemicals like glyphosate while still growing enough food for a rising population?

Research on glyphosate has reached mixed conclusions. Supporters argue that glyphosate helps farmers control weeds more efficiently, protect crop yields, and reduce the time and cost of field labor. Critics argue that heavy reliance on glyphosate can harm ecosystems, contribute to herbicide-resistant weeds, and raise concerns about long-term effects on soil, water, and human health. This makes the debate difficult because both concerns are real: governments want safer food and healthier environments, but farmers also need reliable ways to protect harvests. In regions where hunger and food insecurity remain serious, those trade-offs become even harder to ignore. In 2024, hunger affected about 323 million people in Asia and 307 million people in Africa. These numbers do not explain every glyphosate regulation, many of which developed over years, but they show why the question still matters today. 

Any debate over glyphosate has to hold two truths at once: farmers need tools to protect harvests, and communities need food systems that are safer, healthier, and less dependent on chemical inputs. Across Asia and Africa, the debate is no longer just about weeds. It is about what ends up on our plates, how farmers grow our food, and whether today’s food systems can protect both people and the planet. 

Asia: A Patchwork of Bans, Restrictions, and Food-Safety Rules

In Asia, governments and communities want safer food and healthier environments, but they also know farmers rely on herbicides to control weeds, reduce labor and protect yields. So glyphosate policy is not moving in one direction. Some governments are trying bans or restrictions, while others are using food-safety standards, residue limits, and registration systems.

Vietnam

Vietnam shows how a country can restrict glyphosate domestically while still keeping the chemical inside its food-safety system. In 2019, Vietnam moved to ban glyphosate imports and suspended registrations for glyphosate products, citing health and environmental concerns. But Vietnam continued to maintain maximum residue limits for glyphosate in food, showing that glyphosate didn’t disappear from the regulatory system. Instead, this case shows the tension between reducing domestic use and still managing food trade, imported products, and residue rules.

India

India took a different path. In 2022, the government restricted glyphosate use so that it could only be applied through pest control operators. The order cited health hazards and risks to humans and animals. The government later clarified that this was not a full ban on the sale, distribution, or use of glyphosate-based pesticides. For farmers, however, this approach raises a practical challenge: if glyphosate can only be applied by trained operators, farmers need reliable access to those operators at the right time in the growing season. India’s case shows how a restriction can look clear in law but become more complicated in real fields.

Sri Lanka and Thailand

Sri Lanka shows why pesticide reform cannot rely on bans alone. The country banned glyphosate in 2015, partly because of health concerns, but later reversed course after pressure from tea, rubber, and other agricultural sectors. Thailand followed a softer version of the same pattern: it considered stronger restrictions but kept glyphosate legal under limits after farmer, trade, and agricultural pressure.

China, Japan, South Korea

Other Asian countries are taking a more regulatory approach. China, Japan, and South Korea are not mainly trying to ban glyphosate; they are managing pesticide risk through food-safety standards, maximum residue limits, testing, and import controls. China’s 2026 food-safety standard includes 10,749 maximum residue limits and 350 testing methods for 585 pesticides, showing how food safety is increasingly being handled through monitoring rather than prohibition. Japan applies its Positive List System to pesticide residues in food, and its import inspection plan has specifically flagged some foods, such as chickpeas, for the possibility of glyphosate residues over the MRL. South Korea uses its own Positive List System as well: since 2019, agricultural products without an established Korean MRL are generally subject to a default limit of 0.01 ppm, making residue control a strict compliance issue for both domestic and imported foods. 

Together, these cases show that regulation does not always mean a ban; in China, Japan, and South Korea, the main approach is to keep glyphosate inside a controlled food-safety system rather than remove it entirely.

The key lesson from Asia is that safer food systems need more than a simple choice between banning glyphosate and leaving it unregulated. Across Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, and South Korea, governments are trying to reduce risk while still protecting food production, trade, and farmers’ ability to manage weeds. Without practical support for farmers, a ban or restriction may protect consumers in theory while creating new challenges in the field.

Africa: Fewer Bans, But Growing Pressure

In Africa, the glyphosate debate is even more closely tied to food security. More than 20% of Africa’s population faced hunger in 2024, and farmers are also dealing with drought, flooding, high input costs, and limited support. In that context, herbicides can become part of a survival strategy, even when communities worry about exposure and food safety.

South Africa

In early 2026,testing commissioned by the African Centre for Biodiversity in South Africa reported glyphosate and AMPA residues in everyday foods such as maize meal, wheat flour, bread, and infant cereal. Advocacy groups called for stronger action, while producers and industry voices emphasized compliance with existing safety limits. The disagreement is really about trust, people want to know not just whether food is legal, but whether it is truly safe for daily consumption.

Kenya

Kenya points to another growing trend: pesticide debates are moving into courts. In 2025, Kenya’s High Court allowed a pesticide-related petition to proceed as a class action, opening the door for affected communities to join. The case is broader than glyphosate, but it reflects a larger shift that pesticide exposure is increasingly being treated as a public-health, environmental justice, and food-safety issue.

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe shows a third response: using testing and food standards to address public concern. After a public allegation that maize meal imported and processed by Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe members contained harmful glyphosate residues, the Standards Association of Zimbabwe tested six mealie meal samples and reported that the detected levels were below the test method’s 0.5 ppm limit. Zimbabwe’s maize meal standard also requires maize meal to comply with Codex maximum pesticide residue limits. The result is not a ban or a lawsuit, but a regulatory response built around testing, standards, and public reassurance.

The challenge for Africa is turning concern into practical change. Stronger testing and enforcement matter, but farmers also need affordable alternatives, extension services, and support for soil health. Otherwise, pesticide reform can become another burden on the people already carrying the hardest part of the food system.

Can We Grow Enough Food Without Depending on Chemicals?

The need to grow enough food to feed its people drives how countries make regulations and laws governing the use of chemicals like glyphosate. As shown by actions in countries across Asia and Africa, there is no one specific answer. In some places, pressure from the population causes the government to act, while in other places, certain industries have more influence. At heart, the goal is the same – to provide a healthier food future while also protecting people from harm. 

One potential path to farming without chemicals is regenerative farming. Want to know more about regenerative agriculture and EARTHDAY.ORG’s research on food? Check out our Foodprints for the Future articles.

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 The Global Debate over Glyphosate appeared first on Earth Day.

Most people have heard that forests absorb carbon dioxide. Fewer have heard about the other carbon-storing giants on our planet — the ones hidden in plain sight along every coast, but below the waterline and beneath the mud.

They’re called blue carbon ecosystems, and they may be our most underappreciated climate allies.

What Is Blue Carbon?

The term blue carbon refers to the carbon captured and stored by the world’s ocean and coastal ecosystems. While the entire ocean absorbs CO2, scientists use “blue carbon” most specifically to describe three coastal habitats: mangrove forests, seagrass meadows, and salt marshes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) describes these systems as among the most carbon-dense ecosystems on earth — and the science behind that claim is striking. 

Here’s the key insight that surprises most people: most of the carbon in these ecosystems isn’t in the leaves or the branches. It’s underground.

Because mangroves and marshes grow in waterlogged, oxygen-poor soil, dead plant material decomposes extremely slowly. Instead of breaking down and releasing carbon back into the air, it accumulates — layer by layer, century by century — in thick, dark sediments that can be several meters deep. This carbon that has been locked away not for years, but for thousands of years.

Pound for pound, blue carbon ecosystems can absorb carbon up to ten times faster than tropical forests. And because that carbon stays buried in waterlogged soils rather than cycling back quickly through decomposition, these coastal systems also store twice as much carbon per equivalent area.

Meet The Three Ecosystems

Mangrove forests are saltwater trees with tangled above-ground root systems that grow where land and sea meet. They thrive in tropical and subtropical coastlines — throughout Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America. Their dense root networks trap sediment, build soil, and create some of the richest nursery habitats on Earth for fish, birds, and marine mammals. Research estimates that mangroves protect 15 million people from flooding each year and prevent more than $65 billion in property damage annually — just through their physical presence as a coastal buffer. 

Salt marshes are coastal wetlands dominated by salt-tolerant grasses and sedges, flooded and drained daily by tides. About half of the United States’ salt marshes line the Gulf Coast, including protecting key areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Like mangroves, their soils are waterlogged and anaerobic, meaning carbon that enters the soil and largely stays there. Salt marshes are also critical feeding and nesting habitats for shorebirds, and they filter runoff from the land before it researches the sea.

Seagrass meadows are the least visible of the three — entirely underwater fields of flowering plants that grow in shallow coastal waters around the world. They may not look dramatic, but the numbers are extraordinary. Though they cover only 0.1% of the ocean floor, seagrasses store up to 18% of the world’s oceanic carbon and can capture it from the atmosphere up to 35 times faster than tropical rainforests.

Together, these three ecosystems store about 50% of the Earth’s biological carbon despite occupying less than 5% of global land area and less than 2% of the ocean. Their impact is wildly disproportionate to their size.LINK

When Protection Becomes A Source of Emissions

Here’s where things get urgent. When blue carbon ecosystems are damaged — when mangroves are cleared for shrimp farms, when marshes are drained for development, when seagrass beds are smothered by polluted runoff — the carbon locked in those soils doesn’t stay buried.

That carbon is released. All of it. Quickly.

When coastal ecosystems are degraded or destroyed, scientists estimate that between 0.15 and 1.02 billion metric tons of CO2 are released annually from their soils alone. Although the combined area of mangroves, marshes, and seagrasses is only 2-6% of the area covered by tropical forests, their loss contributes up to an additional 19% on top of current estimates of deforestation emissions. We lose far more than habitat. We lose centuries of stored climate stability. 

The losses are already significant. Estimates suggest that up to 67% of historical mangrove coverage has been lost, along with at least 35% of salt marshes and 29% of seagrass meadows globally. Annual loss rates continue at roughly 0.5-3% per year depending on the ecosystem type. If current trends continue, nearly all unprotected mangroves — and 30 to 40% of remaining tidal marshes and seagrasses — could be gone within a century.

Blue Carbon Is Powerful — But It Can’t Stop Climate Change Alone

Restoring wetlands is critical. Protecting them before they need restoration is even better.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes clear that protecting and restoring ecosystems can help reduce emissions — but they cannot replace rapid, deep cuts to fossil fuel use. In its Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report, the IPCC states that limiting warming requires “deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” across all sectors this decade. 

If oceans keep warming and seas keep rising, even the strongest marsh cannot hold the line forever. Warmer, and more acidic oceans stress seagrass beds. Higher seas can drown marshes faster than sediment can accumulate. More intense storms can shred mangrove forests before they recover. The very conditions created by unchecked emissions threaten the ecosystems we need most to help us absorb those emissions. 

That’s why protecting blue carbon ecosystems and transitioning to renewable energy are not competing solutions — they’re connected.

When emissions fall, ocean warming slows. When warming slows, sea level rise slows. When sea levels rise more slowly, wetlands have a fighting change to survive — and so do the people behind them.

The Choice In Front Of Us

Imagine southern Louisiana in twenty years.

In one version, restored marshes stretch wide again. Sediment diversions rebuild land. Mangrove forests expand northward as conditions allow. Offshore wind farms and solar fields reduce the fossil fuel emissions driving warming seas. A storm will come — but they hit a coast that is prepared.

In another version, we delay. Wetlands continue to vanish. Storm surge travels unbroken across open water. More families rebuild. More land slips away.

The difference between those futures isn’t abstract. It comes down to decisions being made right now — in city councils, state legislatures, Congress, and corporate board rooms.

Expanding clean energy doesn’t just cut emissions; it slows the ocean warming and sea-level rise that are steadily eroding places like southern Louisiana.At the same time, investing in wetland restoration and conservation strengthens the natural storm barriers communities already depend on. Rebuilding marshes, protecting mangroves, and restoring seagrass beds give coastal towns breathing room — time, protection, and resilience in a warming world.

The disappearing coastline is a warning, but it’s also proof that nature still has extraordinary power. Beneath the surface of these marshes lies carbon stored for centuries. Whether that land disappears and releases that carbon, or grows and protects the vibrant life there, depends on what we choose to protect. This is true not just for Louisiana, but for coasts worldwide.  

Efforts like EARTHDAY.ORG’s Our Power, Our Planet campaign are pushing governments to dramatically scale up renewable energy — calling for a tripling of renewable energy generation by 2030, a pace scientists say is necessary to keep climate goals within reach. Join us for Earth Day 2026 and learn how to contact your elected officials or advocate action with your local government.

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 Blue Carbon is a Powerful Climate Defense appeared first on Earth Day.

Climate change can feel like an insurmountable issue, but we aren’t as alone in fighting for our planet as we think. Scientists are constantly creating new technology to slow or repair the damage our warming climate causes.

These breakthroughs can happen across disciplines, from engineering to manufacturing, and can be used in locations from space to the ocean. They might seem small on their own, but these innovations push our efforts to protect our planet forward. Here are some of the inventive ways people are fighting against climate change that you might have never suspected.

Protecting the Coral Reefs with Light and Food

As oceans warm and further damage coral reefs, a process called coral bleaching, scientists have found ways to help coral build resistance to the negative effects of warming water. Their solution? Food.

The more food that coral eats, the higher the chance it can survive rising temperatures and bleaching. Coral consumes zooplankton, a microscopic organism found in oceans. In early 2025, scientists created a tool that increases coral’s feeding opportunities, thereby helping its heat resistance.

This device, called the Underwater Zooplankton Enhancement Light Array or UZELA for short, is an autonomous underwater light that draws in nearby zooplankton for coral to eat. The study found that running the device in a location for just one hour a night increased local coral feeding rates by 10 to 50-fold, compared to areas without the device. It helped strengthen both healthy coral and already bleached corals by bringing its food closer.

These efforts are important because coral reefs are vital to keeping erosion at bay, sustaining the fishing industry, and generating tourism. The Great Barrier Reef, for instance, is home to 1,625 species of fish, and even more crustaceans, turtles, rays, and other sea creatures. 

PULLQUOTE: [“The real intent of this project is to inject new technology and energy into coral restoration success. It’s something that can be deployed strategically for high-value reefs, or projects that have already had a lot of investment in them.”] — Andrea Grotti, professor of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University

Battling Deforestation … from Space?

Losing trees affects many aspects of our planet’s health, from losing animals habitats to even contributing to climate change. Trees remove carbon dioxide from the air and since it’s a greenhouse gas that warms the earth, taking trees away limits a natural deterrent against a warming atmosphere. There are ways to fight it though, satellites for instance have long been used to monitor rainforests and identify where illegal deforestation is happening. 

However, traditional satellites can’t take pictures through clouds, which often cover rainforests. This makes it hard to track deforestation in real time, and by the time authorities can get images, sometimes the perpetrators are already gone.

But now satellites are using radio waves that can take pictures through the clouds. 

The European Space Agency’s Copernicus Sentinel-1 mission consists of two satellites orbiting the Earth. It uses Radar for Detecting Deforestation, called RADD, to capture images that are nine times more detailed than traditional satellites. It’s so specific it can detect changes on an almost tree-by-tree scale. Now, the Global Forest Watch compiles the satellite data so anyone can see data on the world’s tree coverage. Simply click on different countries to get a visual overview of tree cover, biodiversity, and the different types of forests growing around the world.

Solar Power Is Getting Cheaper and Cheaper

If there’s one surefire way to fight against fossil fuels, it’s to make renewable energy sources as cheap and practical as possible. Luckily, solar panel prices have only been dropping, and it’s all thanks to technological advancement.

As engineers improved the design of solar panels, the total cost to make one also dropped. In 1975, a single solar panel watt cost almost $130 in today’s money, while in 2024, that same watt was less than $0.30. By 2023 solar panels had grown so efficient that it only took a year for a solar panel to generate the same amount of energy that was used to create it. 

On top of that, creating solar panels themselves is also becoming more environmentally friendly. While producing aluminum for a solar panel’s frame results in a large carbon footprint, using renewable-generated electricity to power the smelters is one of several ways to decrease that carbon impact.

In the same vein, aluminum is highly recyclable, and the process uses only 5% of the energy required to make new aluminum. Not only is solar a key energy player in battling climate change, but every step of making solar panels is being carefully looked at to reduce its impact on the environment.

Fighting Fire from the Sky

There are roughly 60,000 to 80,000 wildfires each year in the United States, a number that’s stayed steady for the past four decades. Yet, in 2023 fires in the US cost over $23 million in losses, up from $18.8 million the year before. To combat wildfires, firefighters are using new technology to scope out the spreading flames.

The Fire Urgency Estimator from Ground to Orbit, or the FUEGO project, started by Berkeley physicist Carlton Pennypacker, is one of these new types of technology. It has the potential to revolutionize wildfire fighting by providing real-time data on how and where a wildfire is spreading.

FUEGO will rapidly identify wildfires and track their motion across the U.S., specifically scanning high fire-risk Southern California every 30 seconds. This gives firefighters rapid, up-to-date data on its location. Pennypacker’s team has already created a prototype of the technology, which they outfitted on spotter planes as a test run. It cross referenced data on humidity and wind speed to prove its effectiveness in battling wildfires.

PULLQUOTE: [ “The costs associated with research, development, and implementation of FUEGO would likely be paid for many times over (perhaps even in its first year of operation) through the system’s capability to detect wildfires in their incipient stages, report them to the relevant fire agencies, and provide valuable data to responding firefighting systems.”] — Carlton Pennypacker, astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley

There’s a long way to go, but we can all do our part

Researchers at the top of their fields are working constantly in tandem with technology to fight climate change, but there’s ways you as an individual can also help.

Getting active in organizations like EARTHDAY.ORG helps amplify your voice with like-minded individuals concerned on how to prioritize our planet’s health. On top of that, consider using our Climate Education resources to become your own expert in everyday sustainable living, since saving our planet isn’t just a job for scientists. 
Whether that’s making a composting system, learning how to plant a garden for local pollinators, or coming out for Earth Day 2026 in April, it’s also important for you to step up in whatever way you can.

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 New Ideas in the Climate Change Fight appeared first on Earth Day.

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

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

Decomposing Biodegradable Batteries

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

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

The Birth of a Battery

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

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

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

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

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

Entering the Workforce

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

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

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

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

End of Life

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

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

But how does this compare to the other contestants?

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

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

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

The Moral of the Story

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

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

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

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

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

Each time someone asks ChatGPT a question, the exchange feels nearly invisible: just text appearing on a screen. But behind that response lies a massive physical infrastructure drawing electricity, consuming water, and producing carbon emissions at an unprecedented scale. As generative artificial intelligence becomes embedded in everyday life, the environmental footprint of the system powering it is growing just as rapidly.

OpenAI has acknowledged that users now send roughly 2.5 billion prompts per day to ChatGPT. Each prompt requires computation inside energy-intensive data centers, where servers run continuously to process, store, and generate responses. While a single query may seem insignificant, the cumulative demand of billions of interactions translates into real and measurable environmental costs.

While a single AI query may feel insignificant, everyday use adds up quickly at scale. A typical office worker might use ChatGPT about 20 times a day to summarize a meeting, draft emails, brainstorm ideas, and outline a report. Each prompt uses an estimated 0.34 watt-hours of electricity — roughly the amount of energy needed to run a standard LED lightbulb for about two minutes. Over a day, that adds up to about 6.8 watt-hours per person. 

On its own, 6.8 watt-hours per day is minimal, but scaled to one million daily users, that becomes 6,800 kilowatt-hours — enough to power roughly 225 U.S. homes for a full day. At 100 million users, the number jumps to 680,000 kilowatt-hours daily, comparable to the electricity consumption of more than 22,000 households. Small individual actions, multiplied globally, begin to resemble the energy footprint of the entire community. 

Data Centers and the AI Boom

Generative AI relies heavily on hyperscale data centers, the largest category of computing facilities in the world. As of 2024, there were 1,136 hyperscale data centers globally, with the United States accounting for 54% of global capacity. These facilities are expanding in both size and power density, driven largely by AI workloads that require constant, high-performance computing. 

The environmental implications are already visible. At more than 4%of total U.S. electricity consumption, data centers now use roughly as much power as all residential lighting nationwide — and more electricity than many individual states consume in total. Projections cited in the same analysis suggest that figure could rise between 6.7% and 12% by 2028 as AI systems continue to scale.

This surge in electricity demand presents a challenge for both U.S. national climate targets and global climate goals under the Paris Agreement, which depend on rapidly reducing fossil fuel use even as electricity demand grows. While renewable energy capacity is expanding, much of the U.S. grid still relies on fossil fuels. As a result, increased electricity use by data centers often corresponds directly with higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon Emissions at Scale

The climate impact of AI infrastructure is no longer speculative. A roadmap study from Cornell University estimates that AI-driven data center expansion could generate between 24 and 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually by 2030. That range is comparable to adding millions of gasoline-powered vehicles to U.S. roads each year.

The emissions stem from multiple sources: the electricity required to run servers, the energy used for cooling, and the upstream carbon footprint of power generation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fossil-fuel power plants also consume substantial amounts of water, linking carbon emissions and water use in ways that amplify environmental stress.

AI’s Thirst for Water

While electricity consumption often dominates discussions about AI’s climate impact, water use is an equally pressing concern. Data centers rely on water-based cooling systems to prevent servers from overheating. Research summarized by MIT Technology Review shows that AI servers operating within standard “cool” temperature ranges — typically between 18°C and 27°C (64-81°F) — can require one to two liters of water per kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed, depending on system design and local climate conditions. At one to two liters per kilowatt-hour, generating the electricity for a single AI-heavy household’s daily energy use can require the equivalent of an entire person’s daily drinking water — just to keep servers cool.  

In 2023, U.S. data centers consumed an estimated 17 billion gallons of water. Given that the average American uses between 30,000 to 36,500 gallons of water annually, that volume could meet the full yearly water needs of roughly half a million people. In effect, data centers now “drink” as much water each year as a mid-sized American city. 

The consequences are especially severe in arid regions. A Bloomberg analysis found that many new AI-driven data centers are being built in already water-stressed areas, including the American Southwest. In Reno, Nevada, a growing data center hub, climate assessments show high long-term drought risk, raising concerns about the sustainability of continued industrial water use — and putting residents at greater risk of water restrictions, rising utility costs, and heightened vulnerability during prolonged drought conditions.

Local investigations have already documented these pressures. Reporting by The New York Times found that a Meta data center in Georgia uses roughly 500,000 gallons of water per day — enough to supply the daily water needs of several thousand residents. Similar conflicts are emerging nationwide as communities grapple with competing demands for limited freshwater.

Transparency Gaps and Policy Challenges

Despite the scale of energy and water consumption, reporting requirements remain limited. Most technology companies do not publicly disclose facility-level data on water withdrawals or cooling practices. Experts cited by The Guardian have warned that the lack of mandatory reporting for data center energy and water use makes it difficult for regulators and communities to assess environmental risks or plan for infrastructure strain.

Without transparency, local governments may approve new facilities without fully understanding long-term impacts on water systems, electricity prices, or emissions targets.

Paths Toward Sustainable AI

There are viable ways to reduce AI’s environmental footprint. Research from Cornell indicates that strategic siting of data centers, renewable energy integration, and advanced cooling technologies could significantly lower emissions and water use if adopted at scale. In some scenarios, improved cooling efficiency alone could reduce water consumption by nearly a third.

The United Nations has repeatedly emphasized electrification — shifting cars from gasoline to electric vehicles, replacing gas heating with electric systems, and digitizing infrastructure — must be paired with rapid expansion of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Without decarbonizing the grid at the same pace that electricity demand grows, increased digital and AI infrastructure risks locking in higher emissions rather than reducing them. 

Innovation With Accountability

AI systems like ChatGPT offer real social benefits, from education and accessibility to research and communication. But as adoption accelerates, so does the responsibility to ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of climate stability and water security. 

EARTHDAY.ORG has long focused on making environmental costs visible. The infrastructure behind AI is no exception. As billions of daily prompts translate into rising energy use, water withdrawals, and carbon emissions, the future of AI will depend not just on technological advancement, but on whether its growth aligns with the planet’s ecological limits.

Powering AI Without Polluting the Planet

You can help ensure that all energy infrastructure — including the power behind AI — is clean, renewable and responsibly built.

Sign the Renewable Energy Petition urging world leaders to triple renewable energy generation by 2030 — a benchmark climate scientists say is essential to meeting global emissions targets. Past public pressure has helped accelerate renewable commitments at both national and corporate levels, and continued engagement remains critical.
In the U.S.? You can also send a message to your local lawmakers urging them to invest in renewable energy and grid modernization so that digital innovation doesn’t deepen the climate harm.

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 True Price of Every ChatGPT Prompt appeared first on Earth Day.

The word “wetlands” usually conjures up images of water-logged marshes humming with frogs and insects, complete with patches of reeds and short, gnarled trees along the banks. Think back to your childhood; did you grow up near a pond or lake, dodge  your parents’ warnings in soggy bullrush groves, catch frogs, or fish for trout and perch?  Even if none of those scenarios stirred your memory, chances are you’ve seen or been near (or even in!) wetlands at some point in your life. As you mucked through those waters, eyeing black birds or turtles, did you realize just how precious those ecosystems were? Well, in celebration of World Wetlands Day, prepare to get your boots muddy!

Wetlands are water-dominated ecosystems with a wealth of diverse animal and plant life. Although they cover less than 10% of Earth’s surface, almost 40% of all plants and animals live or breed in wetlands. According to a broader definition provided by the U.N., wetlands may include all freshwater, marine, and coastal ecosystems, from lakes and rivers to coral reefs and underground aquifers to the humble marsh or swamp. 

Wetland ecosystems benefit and protect animals, plants, and humans. For the 60% of humans living near large bodies of water, wetlands provide key buffering zones along the coasts to protect us from flooding and absorb storm impacts. They also act as natural water filters, improving water quality for humans and wildlife by removing pollutants, sediment, and other waste. 

Unfortunately, for much of history, wetlands have been places to be avoided. Wetlands were treated as wasteland for people to drain, fill in, or dump waste into. In just the last 300 years, 87% of the world’s wetlands have disappeared, in part due to rising sea levels and human-led habitat destruction. And, as a result of climate change, remaining wetland ecosystems are grappling with harmful algae blooms. 

What Are Harmful Algae Blooms?

Harmful algae blooms (HABs) happen when colonies of algae expand out of control, resulting in toxic or harmful effects on surrounding wildlife and human beings. When blooms decompose, algae-eating microbes use extra oxygen while consuming them, leading to oxygen dead zones and marine animal die-offs. For instance, in 2020, masses of dead sea creatures washed up on beaches near Kamchatka. Initially believed to be the result of petroleum pollution, scientists later blamed a massive algae bloom, some several kilometers wide, off the coast.

“Red Ghosts” in China

On the southern coast of China, “red tides” of the algae Phaeocystis globosa blanket beaches. Known locally as the “red ghost,” P. globosa hit hard during the summer of 2025, with local officials warning people against visiting affected areas or consuming seafood from impacted regions for fear of illness. The dense algae also threatened to clog local power plants, shutting down generators and clogging cooling pipes. For marine life, rapidly depleting oxygen levels in and around the bloom increased risks of hypoxia or oxygen deficiency in the body. This often leads to mass marine die-offs.

The first documented harmful algae bloom in China occurred in 1933. Since 1980, HABs have increased exponentially: between 2014 and 2023, China recorded an average of 50 annual red tides. Thankfully, mitigation techniques like modified clay approaches which activate clay with elements like aluminum to absorb algal cells, have been used to deal with sudden blooms. While modified clay approaches are both highly effective and environmentally friendly, they have historically been expensive to produce. 

Poison in the Great Lakes 

While red ghosts haunt China, blue-green ghosts plague the Great Lakes in North America. Cyanobacteria blooms are now annual occurrences around the Great Lakes, especially in Lake Erie. Its depth and geography make it particularly vulnerable to harmful algae blooms. Bloom-induced oxygen dead zones tend to remain for months on end due to Erie’s stratification, or the tendency of the water to divide into distinct layers based on varying temperature and density.

Lake Erie’s recurring blue-green ghosts threaten the health and drinking water of nearly 11 million people. Communities in the area worry about access to unpolluted drinking water, harm to the region’s tourism industry, and whether or not they’ll be able to enjoy boating and swimming on the lake each summer.

One of the biggest contributors to Lake Erie’s algae blooms is fertilizer and manure runoff pollution from local farms and industry. This boatload of nutrients feeds harmful blooms, turning them into expansive monsters that threaten the quality of life of both humans and wildlife.

An Algae-clogged South African Reservoir

Between 2022 and 2023, NASA recorded images of harmful algae blooms at the Hartbeespoort Dam in South Africa. The reservoir is primarily used for irrigation and recreation, but swimming in HAB-infested waters may leave rashes on humans, while pets who drink the water may get sick and die. Accidentally swallowing infected water leads to a host of symptoms including stomach pain, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, muscle weakness, dizziness, and liver damage. Pets face more severe symptoms like seizures and difficulty breathing.

The marine life of Hartbeespoort Dam suffered too. In 2023, decreased levels of oxygen in the Hartbeespoort Dam due to harmful algae blooms contributed to mass fish die-offs.

Trends over time revealed key factors in algae bloom frequency and severity: algal growth was more severe near the western side of the reservoir due to golf course runoff and reduced water circulation. After high phosphorus levels in the early 1980s caused massive blooms, a bioremediation program—an environmentally friendly control system to reduce algae—was introduced to mitigate algae blooms. However, funding cuts decimated the program and algae blooms spiked again in the 2000s. Similar initiatives to control algae blooms are used around the world, from experimental seaweed biological control methods in Japan and the USA to deep-water upwelling in Norway, Chile, and Australia.

Report and Protect Your Community From Ghosts!

Our wetlands are precious and deserve our respect and protection. While wider issues stemming from anthropogenic climate change, habitat destruction, and uncaring world leaders may seem overwhelming, there are smaller steps individuals can take to help mitigate wetland damage. 

Try using phosphate-free detergents, refrain from flushing medications or chemicals, ensure pet waste is cleared, and that your lawn is kept at least 3-4 inches in length to avoid excessive runoff. If you notice a suspicious algae bloom, report it to your local environmental department by calling their number.

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Canopy Project is another way to get involved. Reforestation is an excellent way to give back to nature, providing more roots and biomass to absorb excess nutrient runoff and protect our wetland ecosystems. By donating to the Canopy Project, you’re helping to plant trees and protect waterways, from Dallas, Texas to Madagascar.

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 Colorful Ghosts Haunt Our Wetlands appeared first on Earth Day.

For centuries, forests have stood as silent sentinels and humanity’s first pharmacy. Generations of herbalists — and today’s scientists — have turned to trees and plants to discover remedies that relieve pain, fight disease, and save lives.

In 2023, around 11 percent of the drugs that the World Health Organization considered “basic” and “essential” originated in flowering plants — and there were many more that originated from those that do not flower. Yet, as deforestation accelerates and biodiversity declines, we risk losing the wisdom hidden in these forests before we even discover them. Here are several tree-based medicines that demonstrate nature’s extraordinary pharmaceutical power.

Aspirin

Long before aspirin became a household name, the willow tree was used by Sumerians in pain management remedies as far as 4000 years ago. White willow bark contains salicin, which metabolizes in the body as salicylic acid. Salicylic acid in the body works by blocking cyclooxygenases, enzymes that produce inflammation, and preventing blood cells from sticking together, which reduces pain and fever.

In the early 19th century, scientists began isolating salicin from willow bark — with Johann Büchner isolating and naming salicin in 1828, Henri Leroux purifying it to treat rheumatism in 1829, and the Heyden Chemical Company launching large-scale production in Germany in the late 1800s. Aspirin as we know it today emerged when Bayer, a former German dye company, pivoted to pharmaceutical production.

Aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, is on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines. The List includes medicines considered critical for addressing the most pressing global health needs based on their effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness.

The Fever Trees: Antimalarials

Malaria is a life-threatening disease that is mostly found in tropical countries and spread to humans by some types of mosquitoes. Quinine was the first antimalarial drug. It is found in the bark of the cinchona tree, a tree native to the Andes region of South America. French chemists isolated quinine from the cinchona bark in 1820, establishing it as the treatment for intermittent fevers worldwide.

Quinine was strategically important to the Allied powers during World War II. The Japanese capture of the Dutch East Indies in 1942 cut the Allies off from the supply of quinine. This limited and halted Allied military operations in the Indo-Pacific region, as tens of thousands of soldiers were infected with malaria. This forced the military to turn to alternative antimalarials.

The 1960s created a need for the development of new antimalarial drugs, as drug-resistant malaria disabled U.S. military troops in Vietnam — at times, disabling more soldiers than combat. In 1969, Chinese scientist Tu Youyou was assigned to search for a cure in traditional medicine, eventually identifying and extracting artemisinin from sweet wormwood. This breakthrough earned Tu the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015.

Today, the World Health Organization recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies — a combination of a fast-acting artemisinin derivative with a longer-lasting partner drug — as the first-line treatment for the deadliest strain of malaria. Quinine is no longer a first-line antimalarial, but it is still used today when other treatments cannot be used. 

The Tree Oncologists: Anticancers

According to the World Health Organization, cancer encompasses a broad range of diseases that can occur in any organ or body tissue and are characterized by abnormal cell growth that invades other parts of the body. More than 65 percent of the medications used in cancer treatment originate in plants and their derivatives.

From 1960 to 1981, the National Cancer Institute and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) partnered to screen over 115,000 plant extracts from 15,000 different species, searching for natural compounds that could fight cancer. In 1962, USDA botanist Arthur Barclay collected a sample from the Pacific yew that enabled researchers to isolate paclitaxel, which stops cancer cells from dividing.

Today, paclitaxel is on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines as a drug that kills cancer cells. Paclitaxel is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat breast cancer, ovarian cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and Kaposi sarcoma. Paclitaxel is one of the most important anticancer drugs.

Paclitaxel is not the only cancer fighting drug that comes from the trees. Camptothecin comes from the Camptotheca acumineta, or the “happy tree,” a deciduous tree native that is native to China. Camptothecin prevents cancer cells from replicating their DNA, killing the cells, and its derivatives include topotecan and irinotecan, which are used in the treatment of breast, ovarian, colon, lung, and colorectal cancer.

The Pharmacy We Cannot Afford to Lose

These four medicines represent just a fraction of what forests have given us. There is a clear connection between human health and forest health. 

More than half of all medications derive from 50,000 known medicinal plants — with up to a fifth of these at risk of extinction due to deforestation. Thus, the loss of forests doesn’t just mean losing trees — it means losing knowledge and losing the medicine cabinet of future generations. 

Forest conservation is healthcare infrastructure. Protecting biodiversity is investing in medical research. When we save forests, we’re not just preserving beauty or fighting climate change — we’re maintaining nature’s laboratory, keeping open the possibility that the next revolutionary medicine is growing silently in a forest somewhere, waiting to be discovered. Please consider donating to our Canopy Tree Project to help us plant trees to combat climate change, protect biodiversity, and support communities 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 davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Fever Trees and Forest Pharmacies appeared first on Earth Day.