By Leila Waid.

The climate change crisis worsens year by year, yet somehow, it feels like not enough progress is ever achieved. Frustratingly, there are many people who choose to ignore the issue, don’t believe it is real, or simply don’t think that there is anything they can do about it. So, how can environmental justice advocates reach these groups of people who don’t want to discuss the issue, let alone even think about it?

Researchers from all different fields of studies, not just those in environmental health, have spent years trying to understand what makes people tick – what kinds of messages are the most impactful, what will impact people’s behavior the most, and, most importantly, what will inspire behavior change? In the public health field alone, decades of research have been conducted to understand what motivates behaviors and, in turn, how they can be changed. For example, consider smoking and the astronomical decline in use that has occurred since the 1960s, when smoking was at an all-time high. A variety of factors led to the rapid reduction in smoking rates – from the Surgeon General report of 1963, to increased policy restrictions, and an understanding of the health effects of secondary smoke. All of these factors influenced the public perception of smoking. Public health researchers were able to utilize these factors to influence behavior change. By creating health communication campaigns based on theories of change, they were able to shift the tides to turn smoking from something that was seen as cool and desirable to socially unacceptable. And that’s really the key to behavior change – you have to make the desired behavior the norm. 

Of course, it is important to not oversimplify an issue – smoking and climate change action are two completely different areas of focus. Thus, they require entirely different communication and outreach efforts. However, I think that, at its core, the lessons that were learned from the successful smoking cessation campaigns (one of the biggest public health challenges of the 20th century) can be translated to the work that is being done on climate change (one of the biggest public health challenges of the 21stcentury). Most public health theories of behavior change – such as the Health Belief Model and Social Cognitive Theory – have a component focused on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief that an individual is capable of change. For example, self-efficacy could be manifested in their confidence to quit smoking. Before any change can occur, a person’s self-efficacy must be raised. In a climate change context, self-efficacy can manifest as a person’s belief that their actions can help reduce climate change risks. A study by Bostrom et al. found that “self-efficacy beliefs are both directly and indirectly associated with greater support for reducing the risks of climate change, even after controlling for ideology and causal beliefs about climate change.”

When crafting outreach messaging for climate change, it is crucial to focus on this construct of self-efficacy. If we want people actively engaged in climate change issues, then we need to increase their self-confidence in their ability to do so. Many climate change messages tend to have a very pessimistic tone. Of course, climate change is a dire issue that needs immediate attention, but bombarding your audience with messages of doom and gloom doesn’t get anyone riled up to act. Instead, there needs to be a focus on positivity. An audience member needs to believe that there are concrete steps they can take to help this issue. In an age of information, this is even more important. You need to be able to catch your audience’s attention, convey to them the seriousness of the situation, and also make them feel empowered enough to take action on it. It’s not an easy ask. But achieving this balance is one of the most effective ways to change people’s attitudes and influence behaviors. And then maybe one day, climate change actions (such as policies, reducing a person’s carbon footprint, pressuring companies to go green) will no longer be a point of cultural contention but, instead, can become a social norm. After all, up until the 90s, you could smoke on an airplane – now the idea would seem preposterous. Why? Because social norms changed. They changed based on science and backed by effective policy action. For climate change, the science is there – it has been there for a long time and continues to build exponentially every day. Now, it is time for policy to catch up. We need to address social norms around climate change and make people realize that this is something that everyone needs to focus on. Everyone’s voice matters. Everyone’s actions matter. No one person can tackle the issue of climate change. But every person needs to contribute. 

By Sophie Jackson.

I don’t often question my use of everyday household products. I tend to assume that someone has tested them, and they have been proven safe, hence, why they have ended up in my shopping cart and onto a shelf in my home. However, as I scrolled through the news and came across an article about toxic metals found in tampons, I lost that sense of assurance.

The study analyzed 14 different brands of tampons for the presence of 16 metals. The metals evaluated were detected in each brand. Lead and arsenic are two of the metals highly emphasized in the findings of the study, with arsenic levels higher in organic brands and lead levels higher in non-organic brands. This emphasis is likely due to their harmful health impacts. Common health effects associated with lead exposure are brain, kidney, and reproductive issues. It is also important to note there is no “safe” level of lead exposure. Arsenic exposure is associated with skin, lung, and bladder cancers.

While the contamination source is currently unknown, researchers believe likely possibilities are manufacturing-related metal additions or the bioaccumulation of metals in cotton exposed to contaminated waters or soils.

Unfortunately, there are many unknowns. There is currently no research available to determine if metal presence in tampons is leading to an actual exposure to these metals or related to conditions like endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, cervical cancer, or infertility.

With an average of 52-86% of women in the US using tampons, these findings should be of interest to a majority of women. Many have been using tampons since their early teens and for a period of 3-7 days each month, thus facing a fairly regular risk of potential exposure.

This leaves women with many questions. Is this contamination a recent occurrence or have women potentially been exposed for years or even decades? Is tampon usage actually leading to metal exposure and does this result in accumulation of metals in the body? If so, which metals are more likely to accumulate? Answers to these questions are vital to provide clarity and create proper guidance for women.

To lower the potential for exposure, women can opt for alternative menstrual products. Pads and menstrual cups are two common options. However, studies must still be conducted to determine if pads face the same metal contamination as tampons, potentially acting as an additional exposure risk for women. Menstrual cups are another option. Although they are initially more expensive, they are cost-effective long term.

It is important to acknowledge that alternative products may not be accessible to all women. With 21% of women in the U.S. facing difficulty affording period products every month, precautionary actions are not always a valid option. These disparities carry over when addressing access to toxin exposure screenings and reproductive healthcare. While women wait to see the potential ramifications of these findings, we must do more to test everyday products and protect all groups of people from harmful chemical exposures.

By Prasa Thapa.

On a Sunday morning, as I flipped eggs in my non-stick Cuisinart pan, I recalled an article I had read the previous week about the “forever chemicals” and its presence in the non-stick cookware. This sparked a curiosity about the items I won that might have forever chemicals and I couldn’t resist myself as I started looking for articles as I had my breakfast.

Forever chemicals, also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic compounds known for their exceptional durability and resistance to degradation. These substances are present in most household items like-cleaning products, shampoos, cosmetics, nail polish, paints, fast-food wrappers, non-stick cookware, water resistance clothing, candy wrappers and even water. These synthetic chemicals do not break down naturally or easily in the environment and are known to accumulate in the human body, hence, they are known as forever chemicals.

In the US, approximately, 98% of the people have PFAS in their bodies. PFAS contamination have been detected in coastal waters, rivers and lakes, including drinking water supplies, which is a significant public health risk. Research also shows that people who consume high amounts of white rice, coffee, milk and seafood have been associated with higher level of toxic chemicals in their blood. In recent research done at WVU, several forever chemical hotspots were identified where “socioeconomic attributes like housing density, income and raw water intake sources” determined the level of PFAS. Communities that have manufacturing industries and the communities that use aquifers rather than natural source for water had higher levels of these chemicals. The identified hot spots were different counties in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, border of North Carolina and South Carolina, and Colorado.

A study predicted that the tap water in half of the states in the US are contaminated with at least one PFAS. EPA states that “There is no safe level of exposure to PFAS without health impacts.” The exposure to these chemicals is linked to wide range of health issues, including cancer, high-blood pressure, reproductive defects, thyroid, liver disease, compromised immune system etc. To lower the exposure, one can take steps for themselves. Filtering drinking water, avoiding food in paper/plastic containers, avoiding Teflon cookware and even limiting the consumption of fish from local freshwater could be few steps to minimize the exposure.

As the awareness regarding the risks of forever chemicals grow, there have been efforts to regulate and mitigate the use and impact of forever chemicals. Government, different organizations, stakeholder, researchers and public health department are working to understand the full extent of these chemicals, their alternative as well as safe disposal. However, the fight against these chemicals is ongoing and hopefully, there is a future where these persistent chemicals

By Claire Robinson.

In the summer, I love spending as much time outdoors as I possibly can. But in recent years, climate change has increased the frequency and severity of wildfires such that their smoke sometimes spreads even to states far away. This is how I found that wildfire smoke gives me migraines so serious that I have to stay inside. I am far from the only one whose disability is exacerbated by the effects of climate change. Krystal Vasquez, who has a chronic illness, similarly says that wildfire smoke makes her feel “really fatigued, really achy, really sore.”

For disabled people, the consequences of climate change are numerous and can sometimes be severe or even fatal. Indeed, disabled people are two to four times more likely to die in climate emergencies. People with limited or no mobility may not be able to evacuate from an area quickly or at all, which could make a wildfire or flood deadly for them. Even disabled people who do evacuate may lack access to vital medical equipment or medications at emergency shelters. 

Disabled people are also much more likely to be low-income and thus to face issues like food insecurity, issues that are worsened by climate change. Worldwide, 80% of disabled people live in low-and middle-income countries, meaning that these people are likely not just to be low-income but also to live in places that are especially affected by climate change.

These are just a few of the means through which disabled people are uniquely affected by climate change; there are many other ways as well. For example, immunocompromised people are particularly at risk from mosquito-borne illnesses, illnesses which will affect people in more locations as the earth warms, and people with mental health-related disabilities are three times more likely to die during heatwaves.

Disabled people are the world’s largest minority group: over a billion people worldwide are disabled. When the risks or impacts of climate change are calculated, though, disabled people often are not considered. Recently, human rights organizations have called for governments to include disabled participants when creating climate plans and policies, and scientists have stated that climate change research should include disabled people. Still, much of that work is yet to be done.

A note on identity-first language: In this post, I chose to refer to“disabled people,” not “people with disabilities.” Nowadays, this identity-first language is preferred by many, though not all, people in the disabled community. I personally prefer the term “disabled person” to “person with a disability” because my disability is inextricably part of me.