Why There’s No Difference Between Protecting the Environment and Protecting Human Health

By path2positive

The field of environmental health, which focuses on aspects of the natural and built environment that may affect human health, plays an increasingly evident role in climate solutions. A new study in the journal Nature offers evidence that biodiversity strengthens ecosystems, making them more resilient and capable of combating climate change, as Time Magazine reports below. And when we work toward stemming climate change, we protect the wellbeing and lives of people everywhere. Health professionals who may not have had any environmental health education, must take note. We already have data showing that spending time in open spaces has significant health benefits and that there is an association between children's cognitive development and green spaces. It's no longer possible to separate the environmental and public health fields. They are intertwined. If you have the time, check out the website of our partner organization, the National Environmental Health Association. They work toward advancing the environmental health and protection professional for the purpose of providing a healthful environment for all.


Why Restoring Nature Could Be the Key to Fighting Climate Change

Time Magazine

By Justin Worland I October 14, 2015

'It’s a solution that's available now'

For decades, scientists and policymakers have focused on changing human behavior to address climate change. Regulations have mandated reduced carbon emissions, subsidies have supported the development of renewable energy and individuals have worked to make their lifestyles more sustainable.

But, while addressing global warming will inevitably require humans to change behavior, a growing body of research supports the need for solutions rooted in nature: ensuring biodiversity, revitalizing forests and supporting other natural environments. A new study in the journal Nature offers the strongest evidence yet that biodiversity strengthens ecosystems, increasing their resistance to extreme climate events and improving their capacity to stem climate change.

For years, the researchers behind the study evaluated 46 grassland ecosystems in Europe and North America, collecting data on the production of organic matter called biomass. Because species in any given ecosystem rely on biomass for energy, biomass production serves as a metric for the health of a community. In grasslands areas with only one or two species, ecosystems’ biomass production declined by approximately 50% on average during extreme climate events. In communities with between 16 and 32 species, biomass production declined by only 25%.

Read more

 

 

Subscribe

Stay connected and get updates from Climate for Health.

Subscribe

You May Also Like

April 16, 2021

ecoAmerica’s most recent contribution to the National Environmental Health Association’s Journal of Environmental Health, “Denial: Our Biggest Environmental Health Threat?” was published in the May 2021...

Read More

April 15, 2021

To prevent pipes from freezing, set the thermostat in your house no lower than 55°F, an article tells me. I set the temperature to 55°F,...

Read More

April 7, 2021

Climate for Health joined over 100 health professionals and organizations to support a set of recommendations to build climate, health, and equity across the Department...

Read More
climate-for-helth-logo-white

 

Climate for Health is a program of ecoAmerica

 

© ecoAmerica 2006 – 2021 The contents of this website may be shared and used under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International License.