Climate change is not only accelerating the spread of diseases; it’s also threatening our ability to combat them. This growing crisis has a cascading effect on public health, not just by introducing new illnesses, but by endangering the very tools we use to treat them.
Approximately 25% of all prescribed medicines are derived from plants, including morphine (pain relief), quinine (malaria treatment), and camptothecin (a compound used in chemotherapy). Many of these plants grow in biodiverse, ecologically sensitive regions that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. As global temperatures rise, extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and wildfires become more frequent and severe, placing these natural resources at risk of extinction or drastically reducing their availability.
The consequences extend beyond environmental damage which often go unseen by those who are not localised to the disaster. For instance, waterways become contaminated and cause disease outbreaks like Cholera which spread rapidly in vulnerable communities where access to clean water, sanitation, and medical care is limited. If the plants needed to make cholera treatments are endangered or inaccessible, we face diseases like Cholera becoming untreatable.
Even if we continue to maintain supply, most medicines are manufactured in the US or India, therefore we must be prepared to overcome barriers such as tariffs and blocked transport routes which cause bottlenecks in supply chains, not only as a result of natural consequences but political decisions.
Animal-derived medicines are also at risk. Insulin, for instance, was originally extracted from the pancreas of animals before modern synthetic alternatives were developed. However, we rely on complex biological systems, sometimes involving animals. Climate change affects these systems through habitat loss, disease outbreaks in animal populations, and disruptions to the ecosystems they depend on.
It’s more important than ever to take individual responsibility for sustainability by picking up a few eco-friendly habits. Whether that be switching to reusable kitchen rolls, shopping second hand or buying local – it all helps.
As I’m sure most of you have heard, elites are introducing a new form of tourism… in space. I’ve had many conversations this week surrounding this topic following the launch of the all-female Blue Origin ‘space mission” and wanted to summarise and share my thoughts from a sustainable and just perspective.
What is the purpose of travelling to space?
Spacecraft are essential for space exploration, communication, and Earth observation, providing a way to study the universe, develop technologies, and understand our planet. This information is vital to understanding Earth’s future, in particular, the effects of climate change. The wealth of knowledge we can gather is invaluable; therefore, it makes sense that we send scientists to outer space, as it can benefit science, humanity, and Earth itself. However, I’m struggling to understand the reasons for sending elites into space on the grounds of ‘trourism’.
Let’s look at the official definition of tourism, according to the United Nations, it is defined as the movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for personal or business/professional purposes. It’s easy to see how scientists and academics may justify space travel as part of their professional or research-based pursuits. However, space is becoming a playground for the wealthy, marketed as the ultimate personal experience. Space tourism is emerging not out of necessity or contribution to humanity, but out of thrill-seeking and status. Currently, the aircraft is shot into space for an 11-minute round trip, of those eleven minutes, three are at zero-gravity.
Sustainability
Whilst Blue Origin’s New Shepard craft has taken on sustainability initiatives, it is not having a positive impact. It claims to be fully reusable, but the launch pad has a life of only 25 uses. Furthermore, there is no mention of where the materials to make the spacecraft are sourced from or the labour initiatives involved. The engine is fuelled by ‘highly efficient liquid oxygen and hydrogen’ meaning during flight, there is no release of carbon emissions. HOWEVER, anything that combusts at a high temperature converts nitrogen that’s already in the atmosphere into harmful nitrogen oxide gases that damage the ozone layer. Furthermore, water vapour itself is a greenhouse gas which is a foreign element to the upper layer of the atmosphere. So, can this actually be seen as sustainable? I don’t think so. It’s not always about what is released, but where it’s being released. It’s similar to when we discuss planting native trees, reforestation is only helpful if we plan trees which are non-invasive and can thrive in the environment, otherwise, we contribute to the problem we are trying to overcome.
Gender Equality
This week, an all-female ‘space mission’ took place, with two scientists and four celebrities on board, despite rumours, none of these space travellers are eligible to be astronauts as the spacecraft was designed so that onboard control of the flight was not possible. This ‘mission’ has been labelled as a triumph for gender equality, but it is nothing short of hypocrisy. When releasing greenhouse gases into space it is 500 times more harmful than on Earth, this act is not just a step backwards for the planet, but a direct assault on the women most vulnerable to climate change. How can we champion empowerment while fueling a crisis that will hit them hardest?
At a time when Earth is facing climate and humanitarian crises, the race to escape our atmosphere for fun feels disconnected. What’s the draw in spending millions to float in orbit for a few minutes, when that same money and ingenuity could be redirected toward solutions that help the billions of people still grounded by inequality?
Whilst I cannot speak for female astronauts or scientists, I can bring my own perspective. If a celebrity were to come into the sustainability space, plant a single tree, and call themselves and climate activist it would be seen as greenwashing. I don’t see how this is any different. When stepping into a space built on the expertise, struggle, and contributions of women without engaging deeply, listening, or acknowledging that history and then positions themselves as a leading voice, it risks silencing the work of those who came before. Intentions might not be malicious, but the impact still matters. It’s not enough to show up; you have to show respect, do the work, and uplift those already who are already leading.
So to circle back, I still don’t understand the purpose of space tourism, we are pooling resources which fuel the crises we see today, people can’t afford basic necessities and are being displaced due to natural disasters enhanced by climate change. How can we be so ignorant?
Not My Monkey 