Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Opinion: America, this is what environmental justice is — and what we all stand to lose

News Feed
Friday, February 21, 2025

Editor’s note: A version of this op-ed was originally published on Matthew Tejada’s LinkedIn profile.There is a lot of misinformation out there, much of it quite intentional, about what environmental justice, or EJ, is.As a result, billions of dollars in funding and technical assistance that flows directly to communities and their partners has been jeopardized and the EPA EJ staff who oversee the use of these funds have largely been put on leave. The work of making our government more just —– work that has been pursued for decades —– has essentially been wiped from our federal government in a matter of weeks. The staff who’ve been put on leave were responsible for listening to the concerns of people across the U.S., supporting tribes and states and local governments in solving some of our most complex health problems, responding to emergencies to make sure the most vulnerable communities receive the help they need, and working to make sure the federal government serves everyone in our country.Critical tools such as EJScreen that were used for everything from transportation planning to disaster response have been taken offline. Powerful forums for the American public to engage their government, such as the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and National EJ Town Halls, have all been put on ice. For almost 11 years, I had the honor of running EPA’s environmental justice program. It pains me to see the dismantling of this flagship program for advancing equity and justice in our society. If folks could understand exactly what EJ is within our government from the perspective of someone who led the work, I believe they would understand what we all stand to lose. In the United States, we still have communities that do not have access to safe and reliable drinking water or access to sewer systems that are forced to pipe their waste into yards, ditches, or a nearby stream. There are communities across our country where, regardless of national air quality standards, people are breathing in things that cause cancers, asthma, cardiovascular issues, and pulmonary disease, among many other afflictions. There are communities in our country, in rural and farming areas out west and in Alaska and in our oldest cities, that face pollution levels many of us would refuse to live next to and certainly wouldn’t want to raise our children around. Yet people do. Every single day. Oftentimes, these are the only places they can afford to live or where they feel safe and have community and history. All people, no matter their ZIP code or bankroll, should be protected from pollution. This is as true for working class white communities as it is for migrant farmworker communities and residents in centuries-old Indigenous villages and historic African American neighborhoods. Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash Helping these communities become safe to raise a child in, to clean up pollution, to develop economically and build their capacity, to come together to have a hopeful vision of their future: this is the mission of environmental justice in our government.The challenges facing these communities are the toughest to crack — they are complex, entrenched, and long-lived beyond most folks’ imagination. Many communities don’t have sewer service because they are in rural areas where poverty has persisted for generations, neighbors are spread out over square miles, government agencies are not used to working with one another, and the very geology under the community makes digging a trench or situating a traditional septic tank cost-prohibitive, if not impossible. Sources of air pollution wound up in many places because they’re close to ports, railroads, highways, raw materials, and labor. Pollution made these places cheap, so low-income communities moved in and schools were built. More new pollution sources also came to these communities because they didn’t have the political power to say no, and our government institutions had neither the will nor an interest in protecting them. As a result, the U.S. has sacrificed whole communities — Black, brown, Indigenous, and low-income white — by allowing multiple dangerous sources of pollution to build up in already contaminated places and starving them of government resources without giving a second thought to the fact that we shouldn’t have families living and growing in those same places.Solutions to these problems must come from the bottom up, and they involve every person and every entity that has a stake in the problems and the solutions — community leaders and organizations, government at every level, philanthropy, academia, nonprofits, and the private sector. At EPA, the EJ program brings together all of these actors in pursuit of community-driven solutions to the problems standing between the community and their vision for their future. The EJ program supports communities that have never been involved in forming broad, complex collaborations, especially when so many of the necessary partners have typically been in opposition to them. The tough truth is many communities in our country have not been served well by our government, its systems, and its structures. They do not serve well those communities that have limited capacity to fight for a cleaner environment and future, those that aren’t near our centers of power, or those that have been targeted, forgotten, and marginalized throughout our history because of their skin color, their language, or how much they earn. The way we clean up the environment has been baked in over 50 years. Changing a policy, bringing in new and different data, challenging stale legal interpretations, and getting bureaucrats out of their cubicles and out into other spaces where they can take in the realities of how different people live in different communities is the work of environmental justice in our government. Photo by UUSC on FlickrIt is a difficult job confronting some of the toughest challenges in our society. EJ staff are often the ones who get the call to be the first government face in a room full of people who are beyond angry because they just found out that generations of their children have been playing on land full of lead. Or they learned that their drinking water is full of arsenic. Or they heard that yet another incinerator or metal shredder is moving in across the street. Or that they yet again are not going to get the funding to fix their sewers. EJ staff lift up their voices and realities when they go back to their colleagues at EPA, or a state capitol, or city hall, or a Tribal office and tell them what’s going on and ask them to do something differently, something new, something maybe a bit hard. As you’d expect, that is 99 times out of 100 a really tough sell. But that’s the job of the EJ professional, and they are damn good at it. Few bureaucrats have both the bravery and stamina to go into those hot rooms time and time again to face really angry human beings and absorb enough of their fire until folks get to a place of having a constructive conversation. Few bureaucrats’ jobs are to try to change the way everyone around them does their job so that it benefits more and more people in our country. Few people would take on a lifetime commitment knowing they will rack up way more losses than they ever do wins and come back again and again with a smile to try once more. Few bureaucrats regularly have their work — their passion — mischaracterized and abused as something nefarious or threatening when all they are trying to do is make our country work, and work well, for everyone. That is what we — our government, our country, our society — stand to lose if we lose environmental justice from EPA. We will lose the vanguard of courageous, talented, committed civil servants who work every single day to make our country better for everyone. We will lose the ones who are willing to represent our government in its toughest moments. We will lose the ones whose faces are often the first that communities across our country encounter that make them feel heard and understood by their government instead of ignored and pushed aside. The ones who make every person in this country feel that their government might actually treat them with the respect and dignity we all deserve. The ones who also work to make their government actually treat everyone with that respect and dignity. That is not just a loss for the communities that depend on our government to do better for them. That is a loss for all of us. It is a lost opportunity for our society to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our democracy to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our country to finally be one of equality and fairness. It is a loss we cannot afford to accept.

Editor’s note: A version of this op-ed was originally published on Matthew Tejada’s LinkedIn profile.There is a lot of misinformation out there, much of it quite intentional, about what environmental justice, or EJ, is.As a result, billions of dollars in funding and technical assistance that flows directly to communities and their partners has been jeopardized and the EPA EJ staff who oversee the use of these funds have largely been put on leave. The work of making our government more just —– work that has been pursued for decades —– has essentially been wiped from our federal government in a matter of weeks. The staff who’ve been put on leave were responsible for listening to the concerns of people across the U.S., supporting tribes and states and local governments in solving some of our most complex health problems, responding to emergencies to make sure the most vulnerable communities receive the help they need, and working to make sure the federal government serves everyone in our country.Critical tools such as EJScreen that were used for everything from transportation planning to disaster response have been taken offline. Powerful forums for the American public to engage their government, such as the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and National EJ Town Halls, have all been put on ice. For almost 11 years, I had the honor of running EPA’s environmental justice program. It pains me to see the dismantling of this flagship program for advancing equity and justice in our society. If folks could understand exactly what EJ is within our government from the perspective of someone who led the work, I believe they would understand what we all stand to lose. In the United States, we still have communities that do not have access to safe and reliable drinking water or access to sewer systems that are forced to pipe their waste into yards, ditches, or a nearby stream. There are communities across our country where, regardless of national air quality standards, people are breathing in things that cause cancers, asthma, cardiovascular issues, and pulmonary disease, among many other afflictions. There are communities in our country, in rural and farming areas out west and in Alaska and in our oldest cities, that face pollution levels many of us would refuse to live next to and certainly wouldn’t want to raise our children around. Yet people do. Every single day. Oftentimes, these are the only places they can afford to live or where they feel safe and have community and history. All people, no matter their ZIP code or bankroll, should be protected from pollution. This is as true for working class white communities as it is for migrant farmworker communities and residents in centuries-old Indigenous villages and historic African American neighborhoods. Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash Helping these communities become safe to raise a child in, to clean up pollution, to develop economically and build their capacity, to come together to have a hopeful vision of their future: this is the mission of environmental justice in our government.The challenges facing these communities are the toughest to crack — they are complex, entrenched, and long-lived beyond most folks’ imagination. Many communities don’t have sewer service because they are in rural areas where poverty has persisted for generations, neighbors are spread out over square miles, government agencies are not used to working with one another, and the very geology under the community makes digging a trench or situating a traditional septic tank cost-prohibitive, if not impossible. Sources of air pollution wound up in many places because they’re close to ports, railroads, highways, raw materials, and labor. Pollution made these places cheap, so low-income communities moved in and schools were built. More new pollution sources also came to these communities because they didn’t have the political power to say no, and our government institutions had neither the will nor an interest in protecting them. As a result, the U.S. has sacrificed whole communities — Black, brown, Indigenous, and low-income white — by allowing multiple dangerous sources of pollution to build up in already contaminated places and starving them of government resources without giving a second thought to the fact that we shouldn’t have families living and growing in those same places.Solutions to these problems must come from the bottom up, and they involve every person and every entity that has a stake in the problems and the solutions — community leaders and organizations, government at every level, philanthropy, academia, nonprofits, and the private sector. At EPA, the EJ program brings together all of these actors in pursuit of community-driven solutions to the problems standing between the community and their vision for their future. The EJ program supports communities that have never been involved in forming broad, complex collaborations, especially when so many of the necessary partners have typically been in opposition to them. The tough truth is many communities in our country have not been served well by our government, its systems, and its structures. They do not serve well those communities that have limited capacity to fight for a cleaner environment and future, those that aren’t near our centers of power, or those that have been targeted, forgotten, and marginalized throughout our history because of their skin color, their language, or how much they earn. The way we clean up the environment has been baked in over 50 years. Changing a policy, bringing in new and different data, challenging stale legal interpretations, and getting bureaucrats out of their cubicles and out into other spaces where they can take in the realities of how different people live in different communities is the work of environmental justice in our government. Photo by UUSC on FlickrIt is a difficult job confronting some of the toughest challenges in our society. EJ staff are often the ones who get the call to be the first government face in a room full of people who are beyond angry because they just found out that generations of their children have been playing on land full of lead. Or they learned that their drinking water is full of arsenic. Or they heard that yet another incinerator or metal shredder is moving in across the street. Or that they yet again are not going to get the funding to fix their sewers. EJ staff lift up their voices and realities when they go back to their colleagues at EPA, or a state capitol, or city hall, or a Tribal office and tell them what’s going on and ask them to do something differently, something new, something maybe a bit hard. As you’d expect, that is 99 times out of 100 a really tough sell. But that’s the job of the EJ professional, and they are damn good at it. Few bureaucrats have both the bravery and stamina to go into those hot rooms time and time again to face really angry human beings and absorb enough of their fire until folks get to a place of having a constructive conversation. Few bureaucrats’ jobs are to try to change the way everyone around them does their job so that it benefits more and more people in our country. Few people would take on a lifetime commitment knowing they will rack up way more losses than they ever do wins and come back again and again with a smile to try once more. Few bureaucrats regularly have their work — their passion — mischaracterized and abused as something nefarious or threatening when all they are trying to do is make our country work, and work well, for everyone. That is what we — our government, our country, our society — stand to lose if we lose environmental justice from EPA. We will lose the vanguard of courageous, talented, committed civil servants who work every single day to make our country better for everyone. We will lose the ones who are willing to represent our government in its toughest moments. We will lose the ones whose faces are often the first that communities across our country encounter that make them feel heard and understood by their government instead of ignored and pushed aside. The ones who make every person in this country feel that their government might actually treat them with the respect and dignity we all deserve. The ones who also work to make their government actually treat everyone with that respect and dignity. That is not just a loss for the communities that depend on our government to do better for them. That is a loss for all of us. It is a lost opportunity for our society to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our democracy to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our country to finally be one of equality and fairness. It is a loss we cannot afford to accept.



Editor’s note: A version of this op-ed was originally published on Matthew Tejada’s LinkedIn profile.

There is a lot of misinformation out there, much of it quite intentional, about what environmental justice, or EJ, is.

As a result, billions of dollars in funding and technical assistance that flows directly to communities and their partners has been jeopardized and the EPA EJ staff who oversee the use of these funds have largely been put on leave.


The work of making our government more just —– work that has been pursued for decades —– has essentially been wiped from our federal government in a matter of weeks.

The staff who’ve been put on leave were responsible for listening to the concerns of people across the U.S., supporting tribes and states and local governments in solving some of our most complex health problems, responding to emergencies to make sure the most vulnerable communities receive the help they need, and working to make sure the federal government serves everyone in our country.

Critical tools such as EJScreen that were used for everything from transportation planning to disaster response have been taken offline. Powerful forums for the American public to engage their government, such as the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and National EJ Town Halls, have all been put on ice.

For almost 11 years, I had the honor of running EPA’s environmental justice program. It pains me to see the dismantling of this flagship program for advancing equity and justice in our society. If folks could understand exactly what EJ is within our government from the perspective of someone who led the work, I believe they would understand what we all stand to lose.

In the United States, we still have communities that do not have access to safe and reliable drinking water or access to sewer systems that are forced to pipe their waste into yards, ditches, or a nearby stream. There are communities across our country where, regardless of national air quality standards, people are breathing in things that cause cancers, asthma, cardiovascular issues, and pulmonary disease, among many other afflictions. There are communities in our country, in rural and farming areas out west and in Alaska and in our oldest cities, that face pollution levels many of us would refuse to live next to and certainly wouldn’t want to raise our children around.

Yet people do. Every single day. Oftentimes, these are the only places they can afford to live or where they feel safe and have community and history. All people, no matter their ZIP code or bankroll, should be protected from pollution. This is as true for working class white communities as it is for migrant farmworker communities and residents in centuries-old Indigenous villages and historic African American neighborhoods.

Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash

Helping these communities become safe to raise a child in, to clean up pollution, to develop economically and build their capacity, to come together to have a hopeful vision of their future: this is the mission of environmental justice in our government.

The challenges facing these communities are the toughest to crack — they are complex, entrenched, and long-lived beyond most folks’ imagination.

Many communities don’t have sewer service because they are in rural areas where poverty has persisted for generations, neighbors are spread out over square miles, government agencies are not used to working with one another, and the very geology under the community makes digging a trench or situating a traditional septic tank cost-prohibitive, if not impossible.

Sources of air pollution wound up in many places because they’re close to ports, railroads, highways, raw materials, and labor. Pollution made these places cheap, so low-income communities moved in and schools were built. More new pollution sources also came to these communities because they didn’t have the political power to say no, and our government institutions had neither the will nor an interest in protecting them.

As a result, the U.S. has sacrificed whole communities — Black, brown, Indigenous, and low-income white — by allowing multiple dangerous sources of pollution to build up in already contaminated places and starving them of government resources without giving a second thought to the fact that we shouldn’t have families living and growing in those same places.

Solutions to these problems must come from the bottom up, and they involve every person and every entity that has a stake in the problems and the solutions — community leaders and organizations, government at every level, philanthropy, academia, nonprofits, and the private sector. At EPA, the EJ program brings together all of these actors in pursuit of community-driven solutions to the problems standing between the community and their vision for their future.

The EJ program supports communities that have never been involved in forming broad, complex collaborations, especially when so many of the necessary partners have typically been in opposition to them. The tough truth is many communities in our country have not been served well by our government, its systems, and its structures. They do not serve well those communities that have limited capacity to fight for a cleaner environment and future, those that aren’t near our centers of power, or those that have been targeted, forgotten, and marginalized throughout our history because of their skin color, their language, or how much they earn.

The way we clean up the environment has been baked in over 50 years. Changing a policy, bringing in new and different data, challenging stale legal interpretations, and getting bureaucrats out of their cubicles and out into other spaces where they can take in the realities of how different people live in different communities is the work of environmental justice in our government.

Photo by UUSC on Flickr

It is a difficult job confronting some of the toughest challenges in our society. EJ staff are often the ones who get the call to be the first government face in a room full of people who are beyond angry because they just found out that generations of their children have been playing on land full of lead. Or they learned that their drinking water is full of arsenic. Or they heard that yet another incinerator or metal shredder is moving in across the street. Or that they yet again are not going to get the funding to fix their sewers. EJ staff lift up their voices and realities when they go back to their colleagues at EPA, or a state capitol, or city hall, or a Tribal office and tell them what’s going on and ask them to do something differently, something new, something maybe a bit hard. As you’d expect, that is 99 times out of 100 a really tough sell. But that’s the job of the EJ professional, and they are damn good at it.

Few bureaucrats have both the bravery and stamina to go into those hot rooms time and time again to face really angry human beings and absorb enough of their fire until folks get to a place of having a constructive conversation. Few bureaucrats’ jobs are to try to change the way everyone around them does their job so that it benefits more and more people in our country. Few people would take on a lifetime commitment knowing they will rack up way more losses than they ever do wins and come back again and again with a smile to try once more. Few bureaucrats regularly have their work — their passion — mischaracterized and abused as something nefarious or threatening when all they are trying to do is make our country work, and work well, for everyone.

That is what we — our government, our country, our society — stand to lose if we lose environmental justice from EPA. We will lose the vanguard of courageous, talented, committed civil servants who work every single day to make our country better for everyone. We will lose the ones who are willing to represent our government in its toughest moments. We will lose the ones whose faces are often the first that communities across our country encounter that make them feel heard and understood by their government instead of ignored and pushed aside. The ones who make every person in this country feel that their government might actually treat them with the respect and dignity we all deserve. The ones who also work to make their government actually treat everyone with that respect and dignity.

That is not just a loss for the communities that depend on our government to do better for them. That is a loss for all of us. It is a lost opportunity for our society to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our democracy to be better. It is a lost opportunity for our country to finally be one of equality and fairness. It is a loss we cannot afford to accept.


Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Vietnam Rethinks Its Flood Strategy as Climate Change Drives Storms and Devastation

Vietnam is rethinking how it copes with floods after a year of relentless storms has collapsed hillsides and turned streets into rivers

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Vietnam is rethinking how it copes with floods after a year of relentless storms collapsed hillsides and left vast parts of cities under water. From mapping high-risk areas to reimagining “sponge cities” that can absorb and release water naturally, Vietnam is investing billions to adapt to what experts call a new era of climate extremes. Under a national master plan running through 2030, the government has pledged more than $6 billion to build early-warning systems and move communities out of danger. In smaller cities like Vinh in central Vietnam, these ideas are taking shape. Drainage networks are expanding, flood basins are being carved and riverbanks turned into green spaces that can absorb and then drain off after heavy rains. An onslaught of storms this year has underscored the urgency of that work: Ragasa, Bualoi, Matmo — each carved its own path of ruin. Record rainfall turned streets into rivers and sent slopes sliding, with barely any time for the land to recover between storms. As Typhoon Kalmaegi was gathering strength on its path toward Vietnam this week, scientists warned it may not be the last. It's a glimpse of the country’s climate future — warmer seas fueling storms that form faster, linger longer, and dump heavier rain, hitting the poorest communities hardest.“Vietnam and its neighbors are on the front lines of climate disruption,” said Benjamin Horton, a professor of earth science at City University of Hong Kong. Climate change is reshaping Vietnam’s storm season Scientists say the succession of storms battering Vietnam is not a fluke but part of a broader shift in how storms behave on a warming planet. Vietnam usually faces about a dozen storms a year, but the 2025 cluster was a “clear signal” of global warming, said Horton.Ocean waters are now nearly 1 degree Celsius (33.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than before the industrial era. So storms carry more moisture. The economic toll has been severe for Vietnam, a developing country that wants to become rich by 2045. Floods routinely disrupt farming, fisheries, and factories — the backbone of its economy. State media estimate extreme weather has cost the country $1.4 billion in 2025.Vietnam estimates it will need to spend $55 billion–$92 billion in this decade to manage and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Vietnam’s cities aren’t built for climate shocks About 18 million people, nearly a fifth of Vietnam’s population, live in its two biggest cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Both are on river deltas that once served as natural buffers against flooding. But as concrete spread over wetlands and farmlands, the cities lost their capacity to absorb downpours.Flooding in Hanoi in October lingered for nearly a week in some neighborhoods. The city of over 8 million has outgrown its infrastructure and its colonial-era drainage system failed as streets turned into brown canals. Motorbikes sputtered in waist-deep water and the Red River’s levees were tested.Vegetable seller Dang Thuan's home flooded knee-deep, spoiling her stock. Her neighborhood used to have several ponds, but they were filled in to build houses and roads. Now the water has nowhere to go.“We can’t afford to move,” she said, “So every time it rains hard, we just wait and hope.”In 1986-1996, the decade coinciding with ‘Doi Moi’ economic reforms that unleashed a construction boom, Hanoi lost nearly two-thirds of water bodies in its four core urban districts, according to a study by Kyoto University's Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Between 2015 and 2020, it lost water bodies spanning the area of 285 soccer fields, state media have reported.More than three-quarters of Hanoi’s area — including much of its densely populated core — is at risk of flooding, according to a 2024 study. Flooding in the city can’t be solved by building more, said Hong Ngoc Nguyen, lead author of the study and an environmental engineer at the Japanese consultancy Nippon Koei.“We can’t control the water,” she said, pointing to Singapore’s shift from concrete canals to greener riverbanks that slow and hold stormwater instead of rushing it away. A global problem with lessons in nature The idea of designing cities to “live with water” is gaining traction globally, including in Vietnam. Vietnam's recent floods have sparked a wider conversation about how cities should deal with storms. The former director of the National Institute of Urban and Rural Planning, Ngo Trung Hai, told the state-run newspaper Hanoi Times that the city must learn to live with heavy rainfall and adopt long-term strategies. European business associations have urged Vietnam’s financial capital Ho Chi Minh City to adopt a “sponge city” approach.Real estate developers have faced criticism in state media for improper building practices, such as building on low-lying land or roads unconnected to storm sewer systems and treating water bodies as “landscape features” rather than ways to drain storm water.Some of Vietnam’s biggest property developers have begun to adapt. In the coastal tourism hub of Nha Trang, the Sun Group is building a new township modeled as a “sponge city” with wetlands covering 60 hectares (148 acres), designed to store and reuse rainwater to reduce flooding and absorb heat.City planners must account for future climate risks, said Anna Beswick, who studies climate adaptation at the London School of Economics.“If we plan based on past experience, we won’t be resilient in the future,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Ancient Greeks and Romans knew harming the environment could change the climate

They worried deeply about the impact climate change would have on us as individuals, and on broader society.

Universal History Archive / Contributor/GettyHumans have known about, thought about and worried about climate change for millennia. Since at least the fourth century BC, the ancient Greeks and Romans recognised that the climate changes over time and that human activity can cause it. They worried deeply about the impact it would have on us as individuals, and on broader society. The earliest mention of climate change? Greek writer Theophrastus of Eresus (who lived roughly from 372 BCE to 282 BCE) was a student of Aristotle. He is sometimes credited with the earliest reference to climate change. In his treatise On Winds, Theophrastus notes people in Crete recognised their climate had changed over the centuries: [they say] that now the winters are longer and more snow falls, presenting as proof the fact that the mountains once had been inhabited and bore crops, both grain and fruit-tree, the land having been planted and cultivated. For there are vast plains among the Idaean mountains and among others, none of which are farmed now because they do not bear (crops). But once, as was said, they were in fact settled, for which reason indeed the island was full of people, as heavy rains occurred at that time, whereas much snow and wintery weather did not occur. It’s unclear how accurate Theophrastus’ account of Crete’s climate might be or what time period is meant by the word “once”. Modern scientific studies suggest that from 8000 BCE to 600 BCE Crete experienced various alternations of climate, for example from humid and warm to dry and warm to cold and humid, while in the time when Theophrastus was writing the climate is meant to have been relatively warm and dry. Theophrastus’ observation shows people handed down information about climate change from generation to generation. Ancient awareness of the role of humans in climate change In ancient Greek and Roman times, some were even aware that human actions could contribute to changes in climate. The Roman aristocrat Pliny the Elder (23/24-79 CE) wrote a work titled Natural History, in which he gave examples of human induced climate change. In one passage, Pliny noted that in the district of Larisa in Thessaly the emptying of a lake has lowered the temperature of the district. According to Pliny, because of this change of climate: olives which used to grow there before have disappeared, also the vines have begun to be nipped (by frost), which did not occur before. Pliny noted this kind of change caused by human activity had happened elsewhere in Greece: The city of Aenos, since the river Maritza was brought near to it, has experienced an increase of warmth and the district round Philippi altered its climate when its land under cultivation was drained. Ancient awareness of long-term climate changes Ancient Greeks and Romans understood the climate is not static over time. The Roman writer Columella (active around 50 CE) noted in his work On Agriculture that climate change had been mentioned by earlier writers: For I have found that many authorities […] were convinced that with the long passing of the ages, weather and climate undergo a change. Columella refers to the Roman writer Saserna (who was active in the early first century BCE). Saserna had observed how: Regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and the weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus (wine) in the greatest abundance. Saserna did not, however, attribute these long-term climactic changes to human activity. He suggested they were caused by the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun and the other planets, writing that: The position of the heavens has changed. Ancient responses to climate change Greek and Roman writers sometimes complained about the destruction being done to the environment. Roman writer Pliny the Elder said that: We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life. However, most ancient authors tended not to link environmental damage or pollution with climate change as much as we do today. The exception is when they talk about the draining of lakes or diversions of rivers, which worried many. Some ancient leaders, such as Roman emperor Nerva, took action to clean up the environment. Universal Images Group/Getty Ancient authors did, however, see protection of the environment as a serious concern. Their view was making the environment unhealthy would make people unhealthy, too. For example, the physician Galen (129-216 CE) said that in his time the Tiber River in Rome was so polluted that it was not safe to eat fish caught there. Nonetheless, many people ate the fish, got sick, and died. The main pollution sources were sewage and rubbish. Some ancient leaders took action to clean up the environment. For instance, the Roman emperor Nerva (who ruled 96-98 CE) undertook construction works that caused the appearance of the city to be “clean and altered” and made the air “purer”, according to the Roman writer Frontinus. What the modern world can learn Ancient Greek and Roman writings reveal ancient concerns about our negative impact on the environment. They show that places once rich and fertile later became desolate and barren. Although the Greeks and Romans linked environmental harm with climate change to a more limited extent than we do today, they nevertheless knew harming the environment could change the climate. This, they understood, can ultimately bring harm to ourselves personally and to our societies as a whole. Konstantine Panegyres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The Ideal Shower Is This Many Minutes Long, According To Experts

Here’s what your skin, the planet and your wallet wish you knew.

The more stressed some of us get, the more we can find ourselves wanting to double (or triple) down on our self-care routines. Case in point: the “everything shower.” It all started on TikTok, and now the platform is exploding with people demonstrating hours-long shower sessions that include exfoliation, shaving, hair masks, body scrubs, face masks, oils, serums and more. The appeal, in large part, lies with the fact that it’s a way to take control of one small part of your life, when so much else seems out of control.It’s a little bit washing up, a little bit spa treatment and a whole lot performative wellness ritual — and even more water. Many everything shower proponents describe it as a reset after a hard week and a way to “start over” with a scrupulously groomed body, head to toe. They sing the praises of time spent focused just on themselves, tending to each square inch of flesh and treating themselves with kindness and devotion.But is it a little too much? Should our skin be under running water for such a long period of time? And what about a long shower’s impact on our increasingly drought-ridden planet? Here’s what science-based experts, not TikTok influencers, have to say about the everything shower trend. Cleansing our skin is important, but stripping it can be detrimental.You need to keep your skin clean for all sorts of reasons, said dermatologist Dr. Nada Elbuluk, a professor of clinical dermatology at the University of Southern California. “Cleansing is important for removing dirt, dead skin cells and other contaminants that we may come into contact with throughout the day, such as bacteria, viruses and fungi,” she added. FG Trade via Getty ImagesKeep it to five minutes, sir.You should make sure you’re keeping “hot spots” clean, said dermatologist Dr. Mojgan Hosseinipour: “There are a few areas you should always wash daily, including armpits, groin, feet and face, because those accumulate sweat, bacteria and oil more quickly.” Hosseinipour also recommended showering after every workout, and possibly more frequently if you live in a hot and humid climate or are prone to sweating and body acne.But overdoing it is a strong “no” from these doctors. “Overwashing the skin may strip natural oils and lead to excessive dryness,” Elbuluk said. “Avoid hot water, too, because the hotter water is, and the longer the exposure to it, the more it ultimately dries out the skin.”“My motto is: keep it simple,” Hosseinipour said. “Occasionally adding a few extra steps to create a spa-like self-care experience can be enjoyable, but regularly taking an everything shower isn’t necessary. My main concern lies with exfoliation, because excessive scrubbing or over-exfoliating can cause redness, dryness and itching, and it can even damage the skin barrier. A gentle, consistent routine is far more beneficial for long-term skin health.”In summary, an everything shower might make you feel like a brand-new person, but it can also leave your skin barrier feeling prematurely old and excessively dehydrated, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you were hoping to accomplish. The environmental impact is significant.With droughts and water shortages increasing globally, long showers also raise real sustainability concerns. Reducing the length of your shower doesn’t just protect your skin, but also results in fewer gallons being drawn from overstressed reservoirs and less energy being used to heat and pump that water. Significant water shortages are already an issue for some parts of the world, and many of us can anticipate that the situation will have a negative impact on our lives in the near future. The United Nations projects that within just five years, global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40%. The need for water is increasing, thanks to the emergence of “megadroughts” that have recently affected the West Coast, southern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa. Reducing the time you spend in the shower may seem like a small act, but enough of us taking action together can reduce community demand on fragile freshwater systems and the energy required to treat, heat and move that water to our homes. In the United States, for example, the average shower lasts for 7.8 minutes and uses approximately 15.8 gallons of water, according to the nonprofit organization Alliance for Water Efficiency. The organization states that the duration of the shower has a direct impact on water usage. If you’re doing a full-blown 30- to 45-minute “everything shower,” you could be burning through 75 to 110 gallons of water. Every time. That’s basically the equivalent of running three loads of laundry for just one shower.Many of us act as though water appears like magic when we turn on a faucet, but the city you live in has to pump, treat and distribute every gallon, which is an energy-intensive process. The EPA estimates that water and wastewater treatment often consumes 30 to 40% of a city’s total energy consumption. Wasting water doesn’t just affect your own household’s water and heating bill — it also puts a strain on your area’s systems and reserves. Shorter showers save you money.Acting to help the planet can also have a positive impact on your monthly energy and water bills, too. According to the EPA, the average American family of four uses approximately 400 gallons of water per day, so any way to reduce that amount can make a significant difference. Cutting your shower time from a typical 10-minute one to five minutes saves roughly 10 to 12 gallons each time.Besides saving on water, shorter showers save on the energy needed to heat the water you’re using, so less time spent under warm or hot water is a savings of fuel, as well. Research has shown that reducing shower durations from six to 10 minutes to four minutes can lead to energy savings ranging from 0.1 to 3.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person per day. These shorter showers represented a combined water and energy cost savings of between $37 and $500 per household per year.So, how long should a shower be? “In general, dermatologists recommend no more than 5 to 10 minutes of warm water exposure per day for showers,” Elbuluk said. If you have atopic dermatitis and/or very dry skin, you may want to stay closer to, or under, the 5-minute point.From an environmental standpoint, taking shorter showers, around five minutes, is considered an effective way to conserve water. Can you stick to a five-minute shower routine? If you prep everything before turning on the water, including getting out shampoo and locating your washcloth or scrubber, it’s more than possible. If you have to wait for hot water to reach the shower before you can step in, you can save even more water by collecting that initial “run off” of cold water in a bucket for watering plants. If you need to do more than a quick shampoo, conditioner and body wash, turn the water off while you shave or deep condition.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready a member? Log in to hide these messages.Some environmentally conscious folks set a five-minute timer as soon as they turn on the faucet, or sing a few choruses of their favorite song, timed in advance. One British energy company has even issued a “Short Shower Playlist” of tunes that run no longer than five minutes. With a little focus and some preplanning, you may be able to turn an “out in five” shower into a win-win for your skin, your household expenses and the planet.

Global emissions on pace to exceed Paris goals despite progress: UN report

The world is still on track to exceed the Paris Agreement’s warming goals, though it has made some progress since last year, according to a new report from the United Nations. The report found that if the plans submitted by nations around the world are followed, global warming will be limited to between 2.3 degrees...

The world is still on track to exceed the Paris Agreement’s warming goals, though it has made some progress since last year, according to a new report from the United Nations. The report found that if the plans submitted by nations around the world are followed, global warming will be limited to between 2.3 degrees Celsius and 2.5 degrees Celsius, or 4.14 and 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.  That 2.3 to 2.5 degree estimate is down from last year’s report, under which national plans would have resulted in 2.6 to 2.8 degrees Celsius of warming.  If actual policies are followed, which tend to fall short of national goals, the world is expected to warm by 2.8 Celsius, 5.04 degrees Fahrenheit. That warming is considered an average temperature on the Earth’s surface: The temperature change experienced on land may be higher.  Under the Paris Agreement, countries around the world have called for limiting warming to 2 degrees celsius as part of an effort to limit the worsening extreme weather caused by climate change. The report comes as the Trump administration is poised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and will be decoupled from its commitment in next year’s report, as the withdrawal will become effective next year. This will result in a 0.1 degree Celsius, or 0.18 degree Fahrenheit, increase in next year’s estimate, the report said. The estimates are based on emissions cuts stemming from country pledges and while the U.S. exit may mean there are fewer climate commitments on the books, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the accompanying emissions increases will actually occur.  The State Department “does not support” the report, per a statement included in a footnote. “The United States does not support the Emissions Gap Report,” the U.S. government said. “It is the policy of the United States that international environmental agreements must not unduly or unfairly burden the United States. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of State notified the UN Secretary-General of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on January 27.” 

Climate-fighting efforts show slight gain but still fall far short, UN says

All nations of the world had homework this year: submit new-and-improved plans to fight climate change. But the plans they handed in “have barely moved the needle” on reducing Earth’s future warming, a new United Nations report finds. And a good chunk of that progress is counteracted by the United States' withdrawal from the effort,...

All nations of the world had homework this year: submit new-and-improved plans to fight climate change. But the plans they handed in “have barely moved the needle” on reducing Earth’s future warming, a new United Nations report finds. And a good chunk of that progress is counteracted by the United States' withdrawal from the effort, the report adds. The newest climate-fighting plans — mandated every five years by the 2015 Paris Agreement — shaves about three-tenths of a degree Celsius (nearly six-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit) off a warming future compared with the projections a year ago. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's policies, which range from rolling back environmental regulations to hindering green energy projects, will add back a tenth of a degree of warming, the U.N. Environment Program's Emissions Gap report said Tuesday. “Every tenth of a degree has ramifications on communities, on ecosystems around the world. It is particularly important for those vulnerable communities and ecosystems that are already being impacted,″ said Adelle Thomas, vice chair of a separate U.N. scientific panel that calculates climate impacts. ”It matters in heat waves. It matters in ocean heat waves and the destruction of coral reefs. It matters long-term when we think about sea level rise. ″ Global average temperature increase is mainly caused by the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which happens when fuels like oil, gas and coal are burned. So the plans that countries turn in must detail how, and how fast, they will cut emissions of such gases. Within the next decade, Earth is likely to blow past 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1800s, which is the internationally agreed-upon goal made in Paris. If nations do as they promise in their plans, the planet will warm 2.3 to 2.5 C (4.1 to 4.5 F), the report calculates. Current policies put the world on path for 2.8 C (5 F) of warming, providing context for upcoming U.N. climate talks in Belem, Brazil. Even super fast and deep cuts in emissions from coal, oil and natural gas will still more than likely mean global temperatures go up at least 1.7 C (3.1 F) this century with efforts then to bring them back down, the report says. Ten years ago, before the Paris Agreement, the world was on a path to be about 4 C (7.2 F) warmer. “We are making progress,'' UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen told The Associated Press. "We have to go faster." The United States — which submitted a climate-fighting plan in 2024 from the Biden administration but now will exit the Paris agreement in two months — changes the future outlook significantly. Until the Trump administration decided to get out of the climate-fighting effort, the U.S. plan was promising some of the most significant cuts in future emissions, the report said. UNEP said the U.S. did not provide comments on the report by their deadline and asked for emissions data about the U.S. to be removed. The UNEP declined but included a footnote at the U.S. request, saying that it doesn’t support the report. Now the U.N. is calculating that the rest of world must cut an additional 2 billion tons a year of carbon dioxide to make up for what the report projects is growing American carbon pollution. Last year, the world pumped 57.7 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the air and needs to get down to about 33 billion tons a year to have a chance of limiting warming to near the goal, the report said. Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare, who helps run a separate emissions and temperature projecting report called Climate Action Tracker, said that his calculations show the same as the report. The numbers indicate “a lack of political will,” he said. ___ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.