It is impossible not to be at least aware of the notion of climate change, even for those who don’t believe the threat is real. Most people, however, today accept that climate change is at hand. They see the related dangers in warming temperatures, rising sea levels and perhaps a growing trend toward extreme weather conditions. All this can be pretty unsettling, but the related dangers are often seen as something that won’t have a widespread impact for years to come, leaving many to believe climate change will ultimately impact future generations. Many scientists warn that’s not the case. More importantly, they claim that the personal health risks associated with climate change go beyond getting caught up in rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions. What are those risks? Saskia Salak, a research scientist at NYU Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab, spoke to WellWell recently on exactly what dangers are at hand and how individuals can begin to mitigate the short- and long-term climate change health risks.
There’s a great awareness of the phrase climate change. Do you believe there’s a realization of what’s at stake when it comes to climate change?
I think there’s more awareness than there ever has been. And that’s something we can feel in our lived experience. If you’re looking at media coverage, extreme weather, emissions tracking, climate policy—all have a really dominant presence in our news cycle. But the data is also there to support those claims. And Yale’s program on climate communication does a really great study on this topic. And what they found is that in the United States, 73 percent of adults believe that climate change is happening. and 59 percent think that it’s a man-made phenomenon, which is a really important piece that we’ll get into later. But those numbers have increased 14 percent and 11 percent, respectively, over the last 10 years. So, we do see this growth of knowledge.
But then it’s also important to think internationally. So again, in the developed world, that’s North America, Europe and Japan, more than 90 percent of the public is aware of climate change. But then when we start to consider the developing world, that changes significantly. And you have countries like Egypt, Bangladesh and India, where 65 percent of the population hasn’t heard of climate change. They don’t have any awareness. And so, when we take all of these countries into consideration, we see the global average is about 40 percent of adults haven’t heard of climate change. And while it varies from country to country, the biggest predictor of that knowledge is education. And that’s not surprising; education is important. Our younger generations are especially informed in the United States. And slowly but surely we see climate change making its way into the American curriculum. About 44 states now have climate change incorporated into their curriculum. And I think it’s really important to note that this is something that over 80 percent of parents and teachers want. They’re supportive of that.
So now when we get to this idea of what’s at stake, I think it gets a little bit more complicated and the perception changes a little bit. And that’s understandable, like you said, it’s not everybody’s a subject matter expert nor do they need to be. It’s hard to wrap your head around some of the scientific elements of climate change and also the scale and scope of the impact. It’s hard to think about how melting ice caps and rising sea levels are going to affect me while also understanding the scope of the damage. It’s not a pleasant thing to think about. One of the polls that we see out of the Yale program is that while Americans recognize the growing threat of climate change, 70 percent of people think of it in the context of it affecting future generations. About 57 percent think that it is going to harm others in the United States now or in the next 10 years. And then about 46 percent, so less than half the population, think it is going to impact them directly. And when we think about that jump from the 70 percent of the future generations to the less than half who think it’s going to feel that impact, that’s significant.
What’s a working definition of climate change? It’s more than just polar ice caps melting and that’s significant.
Climate change refers to a shift in global climate patterns over the last century tied to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. That’s the textbook definition. We want to put it a little bit more simply. The climate is changing and it is the result of manmade activity. That’s kind of the meat that you want to get to. Now, when we want to talk about the scope of what is included with that, as you’ve already alluded to, it’s significant. There’s a lot covered there. So that includes things like rising temperatures, tipping points like the melting ice caps, and the deterioration of natural carbon sinks. So that would be things like deforestation, the degradation of our soil system, our ocean and our atmosphere. It includes things like the renewable energy transition and energy in general. And then we’ve also got things to consider like food and water scarcity, which is going to arise as the climate shifts. And then another element that I don’t know that enough people are familiar with is forced migration. As more and more territory becomes uninhabitable due to climate change, you’re going to have a large, proportion of people who are displaced and climate migrants.
I think another way to contextualize climate change is to think about the response. And there are two responses to climate change, kind of two and a half. The first is mitigation. So that approach looks at how we lessen or mitigate the things that are driving climate change. It’s generally not exclusively in terms of limiting emissions. An example of that would be replacing something like a coal plant with a solar power plant or another form of renewable. So that’s an example of mitigating. And then the second way is adaptation. And that looks at climate through a different lens of the climate has already changed. We now have to adapt to this new environment. The example that I like to give here is something like a sea wall. So, to follow that logic, the climate has changed, the temperature has risen, sea levels are up and our coastal communities are no longer safe. And in order to protect them, we are going to put up a sea wall to act as a barrier so that we can live in this new climate. And there was a time when people pushed this idea that we needed to focus on mitigation so that we don’t get to adaptation. The reality is now we can no longer pursue adaptation policy. Our climate has already changed and we need to incorporate this into our reality. Then there’s the last version, which I hesitate to mention, and that’s geoengineering. This is the idea to reverse the effects of climate change. A lot of people rightly so feel like this is sort of in the realm of sci-fi because the technology is virtually non-existent and the impacts are unknown. But for example, that would be something like releasing particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s light away. Again, not something that’s really happening right now. However, I’m calling it out because I do think that it’s going to be a part of the conversation as the climate narrative evolves.
Why do you think so many people still don’t accept climate change as a reality or as a manmade obstacle?
I think this goes back to one of those earlier statistics where again, you have almost three-quarters of Americans who think that climate change is happening and you’ve got that 60 percent who recognize it as a manmade phenomenon, which we now understand is a crucial part of the definition. Climate change has to be considered that manmade phenomenon. That’s the textbook definition. And then we’ve got this 40 percent of Americans and about 14 percent see no evidence of climate change. Those will be climate deniers. They don’t believe it. And then you’ve got this 26 percent. And I believe that’s the group that you’re referring to who again recognize that the climate is changing but attribute it to national cycles or patterns as you said. Pew Research are the ones who released the initial study and they did a really interesting follow-up to it. They did 32 in-depth interviews to understand some of the reasons why that is. Before we get into the interviews, I think part of the reluctance to accept the manmade phenomenon is because if we accept that the climate is changing and the driver is manmade, then the reaction has to be a change in individual behaviors and habits in addition to government and collective efforts. And change is scary. Also, Americans don’t like being told what to do. But in these follow-up interviews, we see again this theme where it’s not necessarily that people are resistant to renewables or electrification, but their resistance to the pace and the sense of urgency that they feel is being forced on them.
There’s also this huge problem of trust. And this is something that’s not limited to the climate movement. Lots of groups don’t trust the media anymore. It’s seen as being biased or having an agenda. And that’s a huge problem when it is one of the groups that is tasked with providing crucial information on the topic. And that can be anything from a disaster is coming, here’s what to expect, here’s the damage, think fire or flood. It can also be challenging when we’re talking about measuring emissions. And I think the other thing that’s tricky and you’ve kind of pointed this out already, but not everybody needs to be an expert. Unless you’re someone like me who’s in the field and a researcher, chances are you’re not going to read the fifth National Climate Assessment. And that’s okay. It’s long, it’s technical, it’s dry. You don’t want to comb through the data and that’s totally fine. But I think what happens is then there’s this information disconnect when you don’t want to or can’t read the raw data, but you don’t trust the sources that are providing a summarized version of that data. So, you’ve got that happening. As I mentioned earlier, Americans are very sensitive to their individual freedoms and choices. And we see that play out in the space as well. So. we’re really open to climate policy as long as it’s not infringing. You see support for things that are more like opt-in or choice. Americans are supportive of recycling or limiting waste. But if you see something like a policy that looks to eliminate gasoline engines, that’s something that’s going to get a lot of pushback. And it’s also something that is actively being explored federally and in many states.
And again, not that you’re looking for an additional layer of complexity, but we also have to take into account emotion. just even looking specifically at vehicles and fuel and gasoline. Americans have this really deep emotional connection to gasoline. We’re really sensitive to it. If gas prices rise, we see that. It’s like a hardwired signal to us that the economy is in bad shape. And there’s history for that. But if an administration is looking to ease concerns or curry favor with the American people, one of the first things they’re going to do is try to tackle gas prices. there’s this long pride and history associated with American-made manufacturing within the automobile industry. And that doesn’t mean that it can’t be recreated with electrification, but it’s going to be a change. and one final point, you also have to take into account the impact of geopolitical events. For instance, in 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 61 percent of Americans were in favor of increasing natural gas production and exports to Europe even though 44 percent of Americans were concerned about the climate implications of that move. My larger point to this is that climate policy and adoption is complicated and emotional and nothing really happens in a vacuum.
Are there more unrealized personal health risks that we can connect to climate change?
Yes, I would challenge that we are all experiencing the effects of climate change to varying degrees of severity. But as a thought exercise, I would encourage everyone to reflect on their own living memory. So, for me, it’s something like snow days, growing up I remember lots of snow days. I remember sledding, I remember white winters and white Christmases being an active part of my childhood. And I don’t know that children today would have that same sense. In the U.S., 57 percent of weather stations have reported a decline in snow since the 1930s. Not that that’s my childhood. That would look great. 80 percent of states are reporting a decrease in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow. But we can get less anecdotal than that. The fifth National Climate Assessment highlights that one of the four most frequent ways that Americans are going to feel the impact of climate change is through the frequency and intensity of extreme weather. So, you’re talking about floods and degradation, but I think it’s more common than maybe you realize.
For reference, last year, the United States experienced $28 billion in weather and climate disasters, that cost about $94 billion in damage and caused about 500 deaths. This year so far, we’ve had $19 billion in disasters and 149 deaths. And the economic impacts are still being calculated. It’s important to understand that none of this is happening in isolation. A climate disaster in one state or one territory can affect people in a different one. And a great example here is wildfires. Wildfires burning in one area, the smoke can carry down and affect people in different areas where the fires aren’t burning. And again, as an example, I’m in New Jersey, about two miles outside New York City. And last year in 2023, the Canadian wildfires had a severe and visible impact on New York City’s air quality. When we talk about impact and how you’re feeling it, that’s a visible example. If you have multiple mega fires burning at once, followed by back-to-back hurricanes, that’s going to put a tremendous strain on FEMA and the resources that it’s able to deliver to people in that sense. The damage that climate change causes is really expensive. You’re going to feel that expense is potentially through taxes as your community is looking to install climate-resilient infrastructure or simply recover from the damage. Another thing to think about is flood insurance, which is now more expensive because it’s happening more frequently. And areas that historically would not have required flood insurance are going to. And again, that’s just flooding. So just things to keep in mind when we talk about the impact.
Do you think people are making a connection between the wildfires, the air quality and the overcast sense and linking it as an element of climate change?
It can be a little bit complicated to try and grapple with or understand how climate change is going to increase the frequency and severity of these events. I think that’s probably more of a challenge for maybe that 26 percent of Americans who think it’s a natural system. People who are open to the belief that climate change is real and happening now are more able to accept that.
What’s the impact of heat on people?
I’m so glad that you brought that up because it’s something that climate scientists have been warning about for decades. Unfortunately, it is here now and it is an active part of our reality. In August alone, and we’re not even done with the month yet, 57 million people were at risk for extreme heat. In July, half the population of the United States was at risk for extreme heat. And then if we want to look at the mortality of heat-related deaths, in 2021, you had 1,600 people die. By 2023, that number’s gone up to 2,300. So that’s a significant jump in only three years. heat does increase the risk of hospitalizations for heart disease. Heat exhaustion can lead to heat stroke, which can then lead to brain injury or death. You certainly have asthma worsening as heat increases. Of course, we have dehydration, which is dangerous in and of itself, but then can then lead to kidney and blood pressure problems. And then there are also mental health and substance use issues, including loss of sleep and slowing of brain function. I also think it’s really important to talk about the strain that this is putting on our electrical grid, which wasn’t built to have peak load occur in summer. It was built to have that happen in winter. We have all of this demand that’s not just from air conditioning, but that’s a huge part of it impacting our electrical grid. And then the other thing to consider is also access to cooling. So, you have a lot of cities setting up public cooling centers for people to come in and cool down because they understand the risk. The other part of that is, not everyone has access to air conditioners. 11 percent of American households don’t have an air conditioner and 5 percent of households can’t afford to turn one on. And that number grows significantly when we are talking about Black and Hispanic households.
And so again, when we talk about all of these issues, the justice element is incredibly important. According to the UNEP, 99 percent of people breathe air that’s higher than what the World Health Organization recommends through its safety guidelines. And that’s going to lead to 8.1 million premature deaths a year. And there are many parts of the United States where air quality standards are above what the EPA considers safe. And the EPA just a couple of weeks ago released its app. It’s called Air Now and it lets you check the air quality of your community and those around you, anyone you want, I suppose, to determine if it is safe to go outside. So not only go outside but is it safe to work outside or do labor outside? It’s a little surreal to think about. Imagine 10 years ago. Being like, I don’t know if I can go outside. I need to check the air quality first. that’s just a part of our normal life.
There are a lot of people who suffer from skin cancer. Is there a relationship between climate change and the rising skin cancer numbers?
Climate is a massive space. I do think it’s helpful to understand the connection between the ozone and global warming. The hole in the ozone is the result of the release of chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs. While global warming or climate change is the result of greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly methane and carbon. Where the overlap happens is that CFCs are technically a greenhouse gas. However, they represent a really small proportion of greenhouse gases, so the connection isn’t as prominent. The hole in the ozone actually has a slight cooling effect on the climate, something like 2 percent. in terms of the impact of climate on radiation, or radiation on UV rays, I would imagine the way it affects cloud cover could come into play. The other thing that I would call out is that I would recommend doing some more research. Ironically, things like smoke from wildfire and pollution act kind of like a cloud cover in and of itself and prevent UV rays from coming in. Something I would point out just as a helpful tool to people listening is on your phone, if you look at the weather app, it gives you an hour-by-hour temperature. It also calls out when UV radiation when it’s at its peak. So that’s something when we talk about is it safe to go outside, which is a wild thought, but our reality now, that’s something else you want to consider is what level is the UV ray at? And if I have to go outside during PQV, am I adequately protected? Do I have a hat? Do I have sunscreen? Do I have those things to make sure that I’m safe in this new climate?
It’s been reported many times that warming temperatures both in terms of water and air seem to accelerate vector-borne diseases. Is this something that you would agree with?
That’s correct. Rising temperatures do favor things like agricultural pest diseases and disease vectors. If we think about that, climate change has already created conditions that are more conducive to the spread of certain infectious diseases. And that would include things like Lyme disease, waterborne diseases like you mentioned, mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.
What about the impact of climate change on food safety?
What’s concerning is that there are food and water scarcity issues that are going to arise from climate change. And we’re going to feel that all over. And, even if you’re still able to have access to food, you may see the price go up as globally the supply goes down. That’s basic economics. Scarcity issues in one region can affect prices in another. I’m going to tackle water really quickly as well because it’s related. Heat leads to more evaporation. So, we have less water, which is problematic in a lot of different ways. It’s hard to grow without water. But when we think about agriculture, population growth requires that we have more food. And so, we’ve seen, understandably so, the rise and dominance of large-scale commercial farming, and through that chemical fertilizer. Again, in a lot of ways, this has been really beneficial because it’s allowed us to make a lot of food quickly in areas that maybe wouldn’t be able to farm before. The problem with this is if we take out the water element that over farming and over-fertilization, our soil is unable to grow food anymore. It’s depleted. that’s where you have these scarcity issues. And then beyond that, once the soil is depleted, it’s no longer able to store carbon. And it’s our second largest carbon sink. Soil stores more carbon than forests. When we think about food and access to food and prices, there is a tremendous opportunity to incorporate regenerative agricultural practices to restore this balance.
Are depression and anxiety a personal byproduct of these changes?
Mental health is a huge part of it. The reports are there. It’s especially prevalent in younger generations, which is tough because they’re the most informed and potentially the ones who need to be the most engaged. In this space, we call this climate doom or climate fatalism. It’s where people take the stance of being too far gone. There’s nothing left to do. I should just throw my hands up. And breaking that narrative is so crucial to any sort of success that we are going to have in this space. Because what we need is action at every single level of society. We need more action. So, what we need to do is replace climate fatalism and climate doom with climate realism. What can we do? You also have a mental health crisis arising from people who have survived climate disasters. Think about the trauma associated with surviving these fires and floods. And again, hurricane pictures depict the aftermath as really something like post-apocalyptic.
Do you think any group is particularly more at risk from the personal health impacts of climate change?
I think it depends because as we’ve established, the scope is so broad. If you are thinking of something like a climate disaster, certainly people with limited mobility, whether that’s age, disability or pre-existing conditions, are going to be more vulnerable. Children, of course, when we think of things like air quality, people who are outside more, the same thing with various forms of exposure. The overarching theme through all of this, I’ve kind of alluded to it before, but I really want to hammer it down, is that climate change affects different people differently. Certain communities face disproportionate effects and damage from climate change. And when we talk about that here in the United States, that is, communities that are low income, communities of color, often immigrant communities that don’t have proficiency in English. These are communities that not only continue to face the brunt of the damage but also lack the resources to recover. And then when we talk about this internationally, we talk about it in the context of developing nations or low-income nations that have not contributed to the brunt of the emissions which are causing climate change and global warming. However, they are facing the brunt of the damage. And because they are developing and potentially have weaker economies, they don’t have the resources to establish or build climate-resilient infrastructure. So, when they get hit with one of these disasters, they’re hit hard and their economy weakens. And then they lack the resources to put that infrastructure in and they get hit with another one and they keep weakening and weakening and weakening. And we see injustice happening both on the international stage and at the local level. And internationally, we call this the climate fragility and vulnerability nexus. And when we’re talking about it here, we talk about vulnerable communities. And we talk about it through the lens of climate justice. You really can’t have a conversation about climate change without incorporating climate justice.
On an individual or a personal level, what would you recommend people do?
Climate Week in New York City is an opportunity for organizations to host various events and showcase the work that they’re doing. I would encourage people to get curious, figure out what’s happening in their community, go attend, learn about these events and get inspired. A lot of the topics that we’ve covered today are somewhat heavy and almost a pessimistic approach, but I can’t emphasize enough how much progress is happening in the space and how exciting it is.
In terms of personal changes that people can make, I always suggest doing like an audit of your lifestyle and consumption habits. Do you throw away a lot of food? Maybe there is an opportunity to compost. Where are you buying your clothes? Are you buying a lot of clothes? Is that something that’s part of your routine? Is there an opportunity to either support sustainable brands or thrift? Are there other ways for you to participate in the secondhand economy? Do you have an outdoor space? Can you plant some native species that attract pollinators? There’s no shortage of things that you can do on a personal level. And a lot of them don’t require you necessarily to give anything up. I would explore that. If you’re feeling inspired, talk to your local representatives. Ask them what they’re doing regarding climate change. Ask for more information. You have a right to demand more. You have a right to demand clean air and clean water. So again, if you feel inspired, get involved. We need more of everything on every level.
So, one, what are the biggest misconceptions of climate change and what are we going to see in five or 10 years?
The biggest misconception is that 70 percent of people in America think that climate change is going to affect future generations. That’s who’s going to be hit. Understand that it is happening to you now even if it’s not at the scale that you see on TV. You’re still experiencing it and recognizing that while it is happening to you, it is also happening to other people disproportionately. And that’s a problem and we need to address it. Again, you cannot talk about climate change without talking about climate justice. In terms of the outlook, I am positive. I think about the paths and the technology that are present now, that weren’t present when I was growing up. Like even just from an academic lens, there are so many tracks now to get people into the climate space. Climate jobs are huge. There’s so much opportunity for people to be a part of the solution. So, I’m very optimistic about the future. I don’t think it’s going to be an easy road, but I certainly think we have the potential to be successful and we don’t have any choice but to be optimistic and to fight for it.
About Saskia Salak
Saskia is a research scientist at New York University’s Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab. She earned her master’s degree in 2023 from NYU’s Center for Global Affairs. During her studies at NYU, she worked as a research assistant for the program’s Associate Dean and as a climate consultancy writer for the Council on Foreign Relations. Prior to her work at the Center for Global Affairs, she received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from Marquette University and then spent almost a decade working in the private sector, predominantly in energy storage with Johnson Controls Power Solutions and Clarios. Please visit NYU’s Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab to learn more.
Note: Saskia Salak is the daughter of John Salak, WellWell’s Founder and Publisher.
