Wisdom Magazine's Monthly Webzine

Wisdom is a web compendium of information with articles, services and products and resources related to holistic health, spirituality and metaphysics.

Home About This Month's Articles Calendar of Events Classified Listings
Educational Programs Sacred Journeys & Retreats Holistic Resource Directory
Article Archives Wisdom Marketplace Web Partner Links
Advertising Information

EarthTalk®

by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss

Dear EarthTalk: In the aftermath of flood, we often hear about the immediate dangers of rising waters—drowning, swift currents and submerged vehicles. But what about the less visible threats? Specifically, do floodwaters contain toxic chemicals? -- Wil Hanson, Huntington, CT

Floodwaters are indeed treacherous, and their murky depths harbor more than just debris and silt. While the immediate risks of drowning and physical injury are apparent, the invisible hazards lurking within floodwaters can pose long-term health threats.

One of the unseen dangers in flooding is chemical contamination. Floodwaters aren’t merely brown from dirt; they can also carry a cocktail of noxious pollutants. These contaminants originate from various sources. Household waste from cleaning agents, pesticides and other household chemicals can seep into floodwaters. In industrial zones, toxic gases like methane and sulfur dioxide may escape. Also, industrial chemicals like benzene and butadiene—known carcinogens—can get into the water. Agricultural fertilizers, pesticides and liquid waste from farms also get in to the chemical soup. And as floodwaters scour soil and backyards, they unearth heavy metals like lead, mercury, and cadmium. These can persist in the water, posing risks to human health. In regions near coal-fired power plants, floodwaters may carry coal ash waste. This waste contains carcinogenic compounds like arsenic, chromium and mercury.

Besides outright pollutants, floodwaters contain bacteria and lead to wound infections. If you have cuts or abrasions, wash them with soap and clean water. Also, floodwater can cause skin rashes and irritation. Swallowing or coming into contact with contaminated water can lead to stomach ailments. Puncture wounds or those contaminated with feces need prompt attention. Tetanus boosters may be necessary. Less common but worrisome are Leptospirosis and Melioidosis, bacterial infections that can occur after exposure to contaminated water.

The most important thing to do is to stay out of floodwater whenever possible. If you come into contact with floodwater, wash the affected area with soap and clean water. Launder clothes contaminated by flood or sewage water in hot water and detergent. If you must enter floodwater, wear rubber boots, gloves and goggles. Also bear in mind that floodwaters may hide sharp objects, so be cautious to prevent injuries.

Many of us will be faced with floodwaters as global warming increases and causes more frequent and stronger storms. “Changes in the environment have already increased flooding across the United States, particularly in coastal and low-lying areas,” reports the non-profit First Street, which created an online tool that makes it easy for Americans to find their home’s risk. “As these trends continue into the future, 8.2 million more Americans will be at risk, and the damage and cost of flooding will continue to add up.”

Indeed, floodwater is more than just a murky inconvenience—it carries a hidden burden of toxins. Remember: Even when the waters recede, the risks may linger for months. If your region is vulnerable, make sure you know how to keep yourself and loved ones safe in the event of a flood where you live.

CONTACTS: First Street National Flood Risk Assessment, https://firststreet.org/research-library/the-first-national-flood-risk-assessment; Floodwater After a Disaster or Emergency, https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/floods/floodsafety.html; How Toxic Are Flood Waters? https://daily.jstor.org/how-toxic-are-flood-waters/.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com. To donate, visithttps://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Why are some companies backing off their previously stated commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions? How can we get them to turn it back around? -- K.V., Detroit, MI

In February 2024, three major investment companies stepped back from efforts to limit climate-damaging emissions. JPMorgan Chase’s and State Street’s investment arms have both quit a global investor alliance encouraging companies to avoid emissions, and BlackRock has largely limited its involvement. These companies aren’t the only ones backing out on climate agreements. In 2023, Amazon dropped an effort to zero out emissions of half its shipments by 2030, BP scaled back on its plan to reduce emissions by 35 percent by the end of 2030 and Shell Oil dropped an initiative to build a pipeline of carbon credits and other carbon-absorbing projects. There are hundreds of companies across the world backtracking on commitments toward green policies, despite growing concerns that the planet is reaching a crisis point.

The lack of government policy surrounding corporate emissions makes it easy for companies to abandon their promises. Net Zero Tracker, a group that monitors progress on corporate and government climate pledges, examined more than 1,000 companies that have made pledges to zero out their emissions by 2050. The group found that less than 4 percent of the 1,000 companies were doing the bare minimum to be considered in line with the goals of the 2015 Paris agreement. The rest of the companies were not even meeting the so-called “starting line criteria” laid out by the United Nations. The “starting line” calls for companies to track their carbon footprint across supply chains, cut emissions, create a plan for using carbon offsets, and have annual reports on meeting climate targets.

It’s obvious that letting companies make their own policies regarding greenhouse gas emissions is not effective. More government issued policies are crucial to making a real dent in carbon emissions. One recently-passed law in the U.S. is the Inflation Reduction Act, provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax subsidies to companies using wind and solar power, electric vehicles, or other carbon capture technologies. The idea is that by making it cheaper to go green, companies will find polluting a less attractive option.

Another method of corporate accountability is carbon pricing, which is putting a blanket tax on each ton of greenhouse gasses emitted by a company. Then there’s the oldest, most reliable method of accountability, mass protest. There are many climate action groups like Mission Possible Partnership or First Movers Coalition, that are looking to force companies to cut emissions. Most companies originally claimed to implement green policies to appeal to public interest. If the public continues to thoroughly and unrelentingly push the matter, companies will be forced to truly administrate green policies.

CONTACTS: Companies made big climate pledges. Now they are balking on delivering, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/12/03/climate-corporate-cop28/; Holding polluting sectors accountable for the climate crisis, https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/circular-economies/how-to-hold-polluting-sectors-accountable-for-the-climate-crisis; JPMorgan, State Street quit climate group, BlackRock steps back, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/jpmorgan-fund-arm-quits-climate-action-100-investor-group-2024-02-15/.

Dear EarthTalk: What is so-called New Denialism all about? -- Paul C., Baltimore, MD

For years, human-induced climate change has been a controversial topic, despite heaps of scientific evidence proving its existence. In the past, climate change deniers have used the rhetoric of simply denying that climate change was happening. New denialism is different because instead of focusing on the existence of climate change, it attacks the policies meant to combat global warming, denies the benefits of clean energy, and targets scientists and advocates pushing for change.

Early in 2024, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, or the CCDH, published on YouTube an analysis of online discourse studying the frequency of different types of climate denial. The CCDH is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to “protect human rights and civil liberties.” They do this by holding social media companies accountable for the content they publish. The CCDH’s study, The New Climate Denial, found evidence suggesting that the outright dismissal of climate change is no longer convincing, so deniers are instead shifting the argument away from blatantly denying climate change to denigrating solutions like the transition to clean energy.

The CCDH study found that new denial content now makes up 70 percent of all climate denial claims that are posted on YouTube, a significant rise from the 35 percent in 2018. Claims that climate solutions won’t work have also risen a significant amount over the same time frame, from 9 percent to 30 percent. YouTube as a host for this new denialism is especially worrying as it targets younger ages who could impact climate action decisions for the future.

Google, YouTube’s parent company, has policies in place which are supposed to block advertising money from content that rejects scientific certainties about the existent and causes of climate change. This should prevent YouTube creators spreading disinformation from monetizing on their content. The CCDH report claims that these policies are ineffective and that YouTube is potentially making up to $13.4 million per year from ads on videos containing climate denial. This is an issue of company PR, because it’s doubtful that many companies would want their advertising linked to climate denialism.

The fact is, scientists who study Earth systems have agreed for decades that the burning of fossil fuels creates an imbalance of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere that are continually warming the world. The warming causes melting ice, which in turn causes sea levels to rise. It also creates a host of other problems. New denialism has only started to become prominent because of the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Instead of fighting against well-known evidence, new denialism turns to discredit lesser-known solutions. By picking at clean energy solutions that are less established, new denialism continues to create doubt and delay the decisive actions that need to be taken to combat climate change.

CONTACTS: What is ‘new denial?’ An alarming wave of climate misinformation is spreading on YouTube, watchdog says, https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/climate/climate-denial-misinformation-youtube/index.html; The New Climate Denial, https://counterhate.com/research/new-climate-denial/; On YouTube, climate denialism takes a turn, https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/youtube-climate-denialism-takes-turn-rcna133651; A new kind of climate denial has taken over on YouTube, https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/16/24040015/youtube-google-climate-change-new-denial-advertising-report.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “Philanthro-activism” and who leads this movement? – K. Smith, via email

Philanthro-activism, which combines philanthropy (donating money) and activism, could be an important part of solving the climate crisis. In 2020, less than two percent of philanthropic capital was allocated to climate and environmental causes. Given the urgency to achieve the United Nations' goal of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2050, and to mitigate the impact of abnormal climate patterns on communities and ecosystems, it is imperative we allocate increased funding to address climate challenges. This is where philanthro-activism comes into play. Philanthropy provides needed funding to make positive change, while activism implements plans within communities.

Pioneering the philanthro-activist movement is One Earth, a foundation built around three objectives: funding environmental projects that closely interact with underserved communities; maximizing the benefits of these projects; and researching ongoing problems. With this framework, One Earth addresses three primary issues: (1) making food and fiber agriculture more efficient and regenerative, (2) protecting and restoring half of the planet’s land and ocean, and (3) converting to 100% renewable energy.

One Earth has a “Marketplace” where donors are matched with locally-based projects. This not only encourages financial backing for grassroots initiatives but also fosters a stronger sense of connection to environmental activism. These partnerships foster a collaborative atmosphere, correcting the perception that climate and ecological change are issues beyond individual control.

The current One Earth Marketplace is a network of over 140 vetted projects scattered all around the globe that target the three primary issues. Reforestation of over 5,000 hectares of land in Kenya and women-led restoration of the Colorado River Delta are examples of projects that contribute to the rehabilitation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. One Earth has pushed for cleaner energy through projects such as the distribution of affordable solar-powered home electricity generators in the Philippines.

But many of the projects with the most direct influence focus on regenerative agriculture. Over 20 percent of people in the Pursat Province of Cambodia earn less than $2.70 daily. Women often resort to labor-intensive work or migrate to garment factory jobs to support their families. Rural communities face great environmental challenges like floods and heat waves, compounded by monocropping practices damaging the land. One Earth paired with the Face-to-Face Project and their Victory Garden Campaign, which engages women in cultivating gardens that provide nutritious food and sustainable livelihoods. Through organic permaculture and community involvement, the campaign empowers 2,200 families, fostering food security, improved nutrition and financial independence, particularly among women caretakers.

One Earth is the pinnacle of the fusion of philanthropy and activism to address pressing ecological challenges at the ground level and beyond. In the future, the expansion of similar philanthro-activist initiatives holds the potential of creating sustainable solutions to environmental and social problems.

CONTACTS: One Earth, www.oneearth.org/why-philanthro-activism-is-key-to-solving-the-climate-crisis/; Philanthro-Activism: A New Way To Help People And The Planet, www.forbes.com/sites/joanmichelson2/2022/06/13/philanthro-activism--a-new-way-to-help-people-and-the-planet/.

Add Comment

Article Archives This Month's Articles Click Here for more articles by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss