logo
The health risks from climate change that almost no one talks about

The health risks from climate change that almost no one talks about

Vox20 hours ago
is a staff writer at Grist covering climate change and its effects on human health. Her work can also be found in Wired, Rolling Stone, the Associated Press, and other outlets.
A woman and her child on the Panbari tea estate in Assam, India. Over years, pregnant women working on the plantations have been subjected to long hours with little to no accommodation of their basic needs for food, hygiene, latrines, and lesser work loads.This story is a collaboration between Vox and Grist and builds on Expecting worse: Giving birth on a planet in crisis, a project by Vox, Grist, and The19th that examines how climate change impacts reproductive health — from menstruation to conception to birth. Explore the full series here.
Climate change poses unique threats to some of the most foundational human experiences: giving birth and growing up. That's the conclusion of a recent summary report compiled by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which shows that climate change is exposing tens of millions of women and children to a worsening slate of physical, mental, and social risks — particularly if they live in the poorest reaches of the globe.
Extreme heat, malnutrition linked to crop failures, and air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels are driving higher rates of preterm birth and infant and maternal death, undermining many countries' efforts to improve public health. Already, 1 billion children experience a level of risk that the report characterizes as extreme.
'We're still just beginning to understand the dangers,' the authors wrote in their review of the limited existing scientific literature on the subject, 'but the problem is clearly enormous.'
Here are the 5 biggest takeaways:
Extreme heat is particularly dangerous for pregnant women and newborns.
High temperatures are linked to premature births, stillbirths, low birth weight, and congenital defects, the report said, pulling from a study conducted by Drexel University researchers in Philadelphia who found that, for every 1.8 degrees that the city's daily minimum temperature rose above 75 degrees Fahrenheit, the risk of infant death grew about 22 percent.
'Whatever associations we're seeing in the U.S. are much, much greater in other areas, particularly the areas of the world that are most impacted by heat and then also already impacted by adverse birth outcomes,' said Rupa Basu, chief science advisor for the Center for Climate Health and Equity at the University of California, San Francisco.
'This is the tip of the iceberg,' added Basu, who was not involved in the new report.
Heat waves also raise the odds of early birth by 16 to 26 percent, according to the report, and women who conceive during the hottest months of the year are at higher risk of developing preeclampsia, a pregnancy complication that can become dangerous if left untreated.
In The Gambia, where 70 percent of the agricultural workforce is female, a survey of pregnant farmers conducted by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine researchers found that women were being exposed to conditions that overwhelmed their capacity to regulate their internal temperatures 30 percent of the time. Up to 60 percent of women exhibited at least one symptom of heat stress and heat-related illness, such as vomiting and dizziness. Diagnostic tests showed that a third of pregnant farmers showed signs of acute fetal strain.
Air pollution is a silent killer.
The burning of fossil fuels — and a related surge in wildfires burning over the earth's surface — are likely linked to a staggering proportion of low birth weight cases globally: 16 percent, according to the report. That's because the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas produces tiny toxic molecules, and wildfire smoke contains fine particulate matter that is infamous for causing a slew of adverse health effects. At least 7 million children in the U.S. are exposed to wildfire smoke every year, and that number is rising quickly as rising temperatures have driven a doubling of extreme wildfire activity around the globe over the past 20-some years. In 2010, researchers linked 2.7 to 3.4 million preterm births around the world to air pollution exposure.
'Risky, sublethal effects of air pollution are also coming into focus,' the report continues. One study conducted using data on 400,000 births in southern California found that a woman's exposure to fine particulate matter during pregnancy may increase her odds of spontaneous preterm birth by 15 percent, especially if that exposure happens during the second trimester.
Mothers may face mental health burdens as a result of air pollution, too: The odds of postpartum depression rose 25 percent in women exposed to a range of different types of air pollution in their second trimester.
Pregnant people march during a rally for climate action in Sydney, Australia.Climate change is already causing serious and measurable harm to children.
One billion children worldwide are at 'extremely high risk' from the effects of climate change — meaning they live in areas prone to sudden, disruptive environmental shocks and already experience high levels of poverty, food insecurity, and lack of access to medical infrastructure. The African continent, which is home to countries with some of the highest mortality rates for children under 5 years old in the world, saw a 180 percent increase in flooding between 2002 and 2021. And a study of 37 African countries published last year identified a steep rise in infant mortality due to drowning and waterborne diseases caused by flooding in the past five years. (Exposure to repeated flooding can overwhelm sewage systems and contaminate drinking water supplies with fecal matter and other pollutants that can lead to disease.)
Climate-driven drought in Africa is contributing to another adverse health outcome: malnutrition. Since 1961, climate change has led to a 34 percent decrease in agricultural productivity across the continent, according to the report. A deadly cycle of drought and flooding has wiped out crop yields, contributing to stubbornly high rates of infant malnutrition in many sub-Saharan African countries.
These problems will get worse, but how much worse depends on how much global emissions continue to rise.
The report modeled what different emissions scenarios would mean for maternal and child health in two countries: South Africa and Kenya. In a low emissions scenario, in which average warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius — or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit — globally, childhood mortality in both countries would decline between 2040 and 2059, thanks in large part to projected gains in safeguarding public health that are already in the works. Those gains, however, are predicated on sustained aid from developed countries like the U.S., which have produced the lion's share of emissions driving the climate crisis. The Trump administration has made seismic changes to America's international funding infrastructure in recent months, including effectively eliminating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its related aid programs.
A medium emissions scenario, where average global temperatures increase by 2.5 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius, would override that expected progress, leading to a 20 percent increase in child mortality rates in South Africa and stable rates in Kenya, where there has been much investment in protecting child health. Preterm birth rates in both countries would also rise substantially even with low rates of planetary warming. Worldwide, climate-driven malnutrition could lead to an additional 28 million underweight children over the next 25 years.
Regardless of which emissions path the world ends up following, a shift toward a more isolationist approach among the world's richest countries threatens to exacerbate the risks pregnant women and children already face. As the planet continues to warm, those risks will keep multiplying.
We don't have to wait for global warming to stop to save lives.
Much can be done to prevent suffering right now. Solutions range from the straightforward to the complex: City planners can plant more trees in urban areas to keep pregnant people and children, whose internal systems are prone to overheating, cool. Organizations can identify ways to get public health data from the most underresourced parts of the globe. And nations can take steps to incorporate maternal and child health into their climate plans.
Both sets of solutions are achievable, and there are precedents. Since 2013, for example, local air pollution strategies in Chinese megacities have been forcing rates of respiratory illness down dramatically, an echo of what happened in the U.S. after the passage of Clean Air Act amendments in 1970. To combat climate-driven harm today, nations can direct resources to maternal health wards, cooling technologies for buildings, and flood-resistant infrastructure. They can also update building codes to make sure hospitals and other health facilities are keeping their patients safe from extreme weather events. Getting nutritional supplements to pregnant people in countries dealing with high rates of food insecurity can offset some of the dangers of malnutrition; researchers have found that reducing vitamin deficiency in pregnant mothers slashed neonatal mortality by nearly 30 percent.
In Philadelphia, city leaders implemented a $210,000 early warning system for extreme heat in 1995. It saved the city nearly $500 million in diverted costs over its first three years of operation. The new report argues that more cities in the U.S. and around the world should implement similar measures.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rudolph and all of the other reindeer are probably dying from climate change
Rudolph and all of the other reindeer are probably dying from climate change

Vox

time10 hours ago

  • Vox

Rudolph and all of the other reindeer are probably dying from climate change

is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher. It's bad enough that climate change is ruining the dream of a white Christmas for many people, as warming makes snow in some regions less likely. Now, apparently, it's coming for reindeer, too. Reindeer aren't just creatures of Christmas myth; they're real animals — a kind of deer that live in the Arctic, from northern Europe and Russia to North America, where they're commonly known as caribou. These animals are remarkably adapted to cold weather, sporting thick fur, a snout that warms the air they take in, and uniquely structured hooves that help them shovel snow to find food, such as lichen. But they've also survived bouts of Arctic warming that occurred thousands of years ago, thanks to their ability to travel long distances in search of colder habitats. These adaptations are, however, no match for modern climate change. The Arctic is warming quickly from a higher baseline temperature compared to natural fluctuations in the distant past. Wild reindeer search for food under the midnight sun on the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Circle. Ben Birchall/PA Wire Over the last few decades, wild Arctic reindeer populations have declined by about two-thirds, from 5.5 million to around 1.9 million, largely due to warming, according to previous research. Rising temperatures can affect reindeer health directly — causing the animals to overheat and get sick — and indirectly by limiting their supply of food. Now, it's clear those declines will likely continue. A new study in the journal Science Advances found that if the world doesn't quickly rein in greenhouse gas emissions, the global wild reindeer population could plummet by nearly 60 percent by the end of the century. Those declines will be far more severe in North America, where they could exceed 80 percent, according to the study's models, which reconstructed 21,000 years of reindeer population data using fossil records, DNA, and other data sources. That's because North America is expected to lose more habitat that can support reindeer to warming than elsewhere, said Damien Fordham, a study author and researcher at the University of Adelaide. Even under a more modest emissions scenario — in which countries cut back what they spew into the atmosphere — the study projects steep population declines. You can see these results in the chart below, which shows projected declines based on a high and moderate emissions scenario, respectively. 'These results are absolutely concerning,' said Jennifer Watts — Arctic program director at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, a nonprofit research organization — who was not involved in the new study. 'Given how quickly and severely the Arctic is warming at present, the results from this study are not overly surprising, and should serve as yet another wake-up call for humans to curtail anthropogenic drivers of climate warming.' The study offers yet another example of how climate change is threatening biodiversity and how those threats in turn affect humans. Reindeer are not only a critical food source for some Arctic Indigenous communities — like Alaskan Natives and the Inuit people of North America — but also a cornerstone of their culture, similar to salmon or wolves for some tribal nations in other parts of the US. If major polluting nations, like the US, China, and India don't curtail their emissions, it could further endanger the food sovereignty of those communities. Beyond their direct impact on human well-being, reindeer also shape the tundra ecosystems — quite literally making them what they are — by limiting the growth of trees and shrubs, spreading seeds, and fertilizing the soil. 'We should care about the fate of reindeer and caribou with the same concern we give to the fate of polar bears and other Arctic animals,' Watts told Vox. 'The well-being of entire ecosystems and humans living across the Arctic depend on their survival.'

RFK Jr. Is Supporting mRNA Research—Just Not for Vaccines
RFK Jr. Is Supporting mRNA Research—Just Not for Vaccines

WIRED

time10 hours ago

  • WIRED

RFK Jr. Is Supporting mRNA Research—Just Not for Vaccines

Aug 13, 2025 2:07 PM HHS is slashing hundreds of millions in funding for mRNA vaccines and infectious disease treatments, but leaving the door open to mRNA therapies for cancer and genetic conditions. Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links. Learn more. This month, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was canceling 22 contracts and investments worth nearly $500 million as a part of a 'coordinated wind-down' of mRNA vaccine research. Yet some projects that do not involve mRNA or vaccines have been caught up in the purge. At the same time, the administration has quietly endorsed research into mRNA treatments for cancer and genetic disorders. HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been suspicious of mRNA vaccines, and in May he announced that HHS would no longer recommend mRNA Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. The same month, he canceled a $590 million contract with Moderna, one of the mRNA Covid vaccine manufacturers, for a bird flu vaccine based on the same technology. In a video on social media, he justified the latest cuts by saying 'HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,' which contradicts the scientific evidence. 'The major misconception is that mRNA is some voodoo thing that we are sticking into our body, that it's a magic molecule from Mars,' says Jonathan Kagan, an immunologist at Harvard Medical School and cofounder of Corner Therapeutics, which is developing mRNA treatments for cancer. Short for messenger RNA, mRNA is a molecule found naturally in every cell in the body. It provides instructions to cell machinery to make certain proteins and is used constantly by the body to run and repair itself. Kagan likens mRNA to an app for human health. Scientists have figured out how to make synthetic versions of the molecule that can be programmed to make different kinds of proteins. This tailored mRNA can then be delivered to people to address various diseases. 'The problem with mRNA is that the first clinical application was the most political thing on the planet,' says Kagan, referring to the mRNA Covid vaccines. 'Therefore the disease got muddied in the technology.' Developed and authorized during President Donald Trump's first administration as part of Operation Warp Speed, the mRNA Covid vaccines use the molecule to direct cells to produce copies of the coronavirus spike protein, stimulating the immune system to create defenses against the virus. The shots were instrumental in reducing deaths and hospitalizations during the pandemic, and while they have a very high safety profile, they have been known to cause rare cases of heart inflammation in boys and young men. In June, the US Food and Drug Administration approved new labeling for Moderna's and Pfizer's mRNA Covid vaccines to emphasize this risk. Research into mRNA vaccines had been ongoing for years, and during the pandemic the technology was used because it allowed for faster manufacturing compared to traditional vaccine development methods. The versatility of mRNA led to an explosion of interest in harnessing it against a range of other diseases, both in vaccines and therapeutics. After the success of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, the US government invested more heavily in mRNA technology. The canceled contracts announced on August 5 were part of a program under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the agency within HHS tasked with developing medical countermeasures against pandemics and other public health threats. Among the projects canceled are some that weren't working with mRNA or on vaccine development. One of the targeted recipients, Tiba Biotech, had a $750,000 contract with BARDA that was slated to end October 30. The company was developing an RNAi-based therapeutic for H1N1 influenza, also known as swine flu. RNAi is short for RNA interference and refers to small pieces of RNA that can shut down the production of specific proteins. The approach has been well studied, and several RNAi-based drugs are on the market. The first was approved in 2018 to treat nerve damage caused by a rare disease called hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis. The contract cancellation came as a surprise to Tiba, which received a stop-work order on August 5 that did not reference the wind-down of BARDA's mRNA vaccine development activities. 'Our project does not involve the development of an mRNA product and is a therapeutic rather than a vaccine,' said Jasdave Chahal, Tiba's chief scientific officer, via email. Government contracts often include specific milestones that contractors must achieve to receive funding and move forward with their projects. Tiba says its project had met its goals so far and was near completion. Also among the canceled contracts was a $750,000 award to Emory University to convert an mRNA-based antiviral treatment for flu and Covid into an inhaled, dry powder formulation. The project did not involve the development of a vaccine. 'Unfortunately, we don't have much insight to offer on the grant cancellation,' Emory spokesperson Brian Katzowitz told WIRED in an email. The cuts are consistent with Kennedy's desire to deprioritize research into infectious diseases, although experts have warned that the cuts could leave the US more vulnerable to future pandemics. Despite its scaling down of RNA-related infectious disease research, the administration has expressed enthusiasm about some non-Covid research involving mRNA. In January, shortly after taking office, President Trump announced a joint venture by OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank called Stargate to invest up to $500 billion for AI infrastructure. At the time, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison talked up the potential for AI to make personalized mRNA-based vaccines for cancer. In an August 12 op-ed in The Washington Post, National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya acknowledged the promise of mRNA. 'I do not dispute its potential. In the future, it may yet deliver breakthroughs in treating diseases such as cancer, and HHS is continuing to invest in ongoing research on applications in oncology and other complex diseases,' he wrote. Unlike his boss, Bhattacharya says he does not believe the mRNA vaccines have caused mass harm. But he says the reason for stopping mRNA vaccine research is because the platform has lost public trust—a rationale that deviates from Kennedy's. Yet mRNA may be more accepted when it comes to treating very sick patients with genetic disorders. Earlier this year, regulators at the FDA greenlit a customized gene-editing treatment for an infant named KJ Muldoon with a rare and life-threatening liver disease. Created in just six months, it uses mRNA to deliver the gene-editing components to his liver. It was the first time a customized gene-editing treatment was used to successfully treat a patient. In June, FDA commissioner Marty Makary praised the achievement on his podcast, calling it 'kind of a big win for medical science,' and at an FDA roundtable Makary said the agency will continue to facilitate the regulatory process for these types of products. The researchers behind the custom gene-editing treatment plan to use the same approach for more patients and recently met with the FDA about a clinical trial proposal. 'The FDA was very positive about the proposal and effectively gave us the green light to proceed with our work,' says Kiran Musunuru, professor for translational research at the University of Pennsylvania and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The team has another meeting with the FDA in a month or two to discuss extending the platform concept beyond a single disease or single gene to a broader group of disorders. 'We'll see how that goes,' he says.

A 'glacial outburst' prompted a flooding crisis in Alaska. What is that?
A 'glacial outburst' prompted a flooding crisis in Alaska. What is that?

USA Today

time11 hours ago

  • USA Today

A 'glacial outburst' prompted a flooding crisis in Alaska. What is that?

Glacial lake outburst flooding is a flood that's produced by the quick, unexpected release of water from a glacial lake. Water from a melting glacier has caused a river near Alaska's capital city of Juneau to swell to historic levels amid a "glacial outburst" event that has prompted flooding fears and evacuations. On Aug. 13, emergency barriers protecting Juneau appear to be holding, but the risk from summer glacial flooding is on the rise as climate change increases temperatures, causing more ice melt. Glacial lake outburst flooding is a flood that's produced by the quick, unexpected release of water from a glacial lake. These lakes can exist behind unsteady dams made of ice or bedrock, and when these dams fail, the water rushes out, often resulting in catastrophic downstream flooding. A glacial outburst like the one in Alaska this week occurs when an ice dam holding back a lake – in this case Suicide Basin – collapses amid summer heat, releasing the water in a short period of time. Suicide Basin is part of the Mendenhall Glacier. Aaron Jacobs, a hydrologist at the National Weather Service office in Juneau, said that as these events continue to unfold, scientists need to continue to improve their understanding of these glacial systems, especially as the climate continues to change and warm throughout Alaska. Previous studies have tied glacier loss with climate change Thanks to climate change, Earth's glaciers continue to melt away, losing up to 390 billion tons of ice and snow per year, a 2019 study said. The largest losses were glaciers in Alaska. And a 2014 study found that since 1990, humans have been the primary cause of melting glaciers worldwide. In that study, researchers found that, from 1990 to 2010, about two-thirds of the world's glacier loss was due to rising temperatures from the burning of greenhouse gases, along with land-use changes. "In our data we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic (human-caused) contribution to glacier mass loss," said study lead author Ben Marzeion, a climate scientist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. A 2023 study also found that millions of people worldwide are at risk of glacial lake outburst flooding, primarily in Asia. Glacial outburst floods on the rise amid climate change These glacial outbursts in Alaska are not a new phenomena and have been occurring annually in the Suicide Basin, sometimes more than once, since 2011. What is new in the last few years is the amount of water being released all at once during these events, which led to back-to-back years of record flooding downstream in Juneau in 2023 and 2024, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Compared to the rest of the country, Alaska has warmed twice as fast over the last several decades, and its average annual temperature has risen 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, according to the federal National Centers for Environmental Information. In other parts of the world, glacial outburst floods are also known as Jökulhlaups (an Icelandic word pronounced yo-KOOL-lahp), according to the National Park Service.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store