Sicker Planet, Sicker People: Environmental breakdown is eroding the foundations of human health

Sicker Planet, Sicker People: Environmental breakdown is eroding the foundations of human health

For decades, we’ve been told “we need to save the planet”. But the truth is, the planet will be fine. Over billions of years it’s weathered asteroid impacts, ice ages, and mass extinctions at a scale we can hardly imagine.

What’s at stake now is something far more fragile: us.

That’s the message at the heart of a new Lancet article which argues that as the climate warms and ecosystems falter, we are no longer facing a purely environmental crisis, but a full-scale public health emergency

The landmark study synthesises decades of scientific data to show how transgressing the nine planetary boundaries - which range from climate and biodiversity to pollution and freshwater - is already inflicting widespread harm on human health and is likely to drive a growing share of global disease in coming decades.

Land degradation and biodiversity loss are fuelling outbreaks of malaria, dengue, and other zoonotic diseases. Chemical and plastic pollution is driving developmental delays, hormonal disruption, and soaring rates of anxiety and depression. Rising temperatures are linked to pregnancy complications, kidney failure, and mortality spikes.

Ten days of extreme heat killed 2,305 people in a sample of 12 European cities last month. A recent analysis suggests that a single five-day heatwave in India could result in as many as 30,000 excess deaths.

This is the human face of the planetary crisis. Environmental breakdown is no longer altering only forests, coastlines, and deserts. It is disrupting the very foundations of human health and wellbeing: our bodies.

And yet, even now, we discuss planetary boundaries in impersonal abstract terms, parts per million of CO₂, functional species diversity, and nitrogen flow. These numbers matter of course, but they can conceal as much as they reveal.

The true costs of planetary breakdown are not found in charts. They are found in neonatal units and cancer registries, in stolen potential, and in the quiet grief of families facing wholly preventable illnesses and deaths.

Predictably, those least responsible suffer most: children, indigenous peoples, low-income communities, and those yet to be born.

Recognising that human and planetary health are inseparable should not just sharpen our sense of urgency, it must fundamentally reshape how we govern, invest, and lead.

Exactly ten years ago the Rockefeller Foundation, on whose board I now sit, supported the launch of the Planetary Health Alliance and a report published in The Lancet, an attempt to connect the dots between ecological breakdown and human wellbeing. Now, through the Planetary Guardians, we’re pushing to turn that knowledge into action.

Yet a decade on, despite everything we know, policymakers and business leaders remain wedded to outdated yardsticks. GDP growth and quarterly earnings reports dominate decision-making.

Using these metrics alone to chart 21st-century progress is like assessing national wellbeing by the miles of railway laid. Once a useful proxy, now totally incoherent. Meanwhile, most leaders lack a consistent framework for assessing ecological collapse or the human costs of rampant chemical pollution.

What is needed now is not marginal reform, but a wholesale upgrade to the operating system of modern leadership.

On a practical level, that begins with better metrics. Interest rates or earnings per share tell us little about whether we are securing the foundations of long-term wellbeing. We must track the integrity of ecosystems, the resilience of food and water systems, and the mental health of our populations.

We also require better tools that empower policymakers and business leaders to make decisions that link environmental risk with public health, social outcomes, and economic trajectories.

Tackling food insecurity demands attention to soil microbiomes and biodiversity. Securing supply chains means factoring in watershed stability and extreme heat. Ensuring robust economic fundamentals involves counting the real costs of pollution-induced illness.

The good news is that we already know what works.

Decarbonising our energy systems not only cuts emissions but reduces the air pollution that claims millions of lives each year.

Restoring nature can improve physical and mental health, enhance food security and nutrition, cool cities, and help buffer against the impacts of extreme weather.

And when we invest in people, by making it easier for households to adopt clean technologies, restore local ecosystems, or shift toward more sustainable diets and land use, we unlock a cascade of benefits: lower bills, stronger communities, and more equitable health outcomes.

This isn’t feel-good theory. It’s practical policy. The problem is that our institutions are still built for yesterday’s problems, and the piecemeal interventions of the past are no longer enough.

And time is short. The authors warn that we have perhaps one generation, twenty to thirty years, to reverse course. That is a perilously narrow window in which to reorient how we live, produce, and govern.

Doing so will require institutional architecture capable of bridging the gap between environmental science and public health and wellbeing. The authors’ proposed “planetary health dashboard” is one such innovation, an effort to monitor the state of both natural systems and human health with the same rigour applied to inflation or bond yields.

It’s a smart idea, and long overdue. But let’s not be naïve, no dashboard, however precise, can substitute for true leadership underpinned by moral courage.

For the last 150 years, we have been dismantling the very foundations of prosperity and doing so in the name of prosperity itself. There was a time where we could feign ignorance, but that time has long passed.

The science is clear. The risks are measurable. The costs are already being paid in hospital admissions, in economic disruption, and in the slow erosion of public trust.

What remains in doubt is not the data, but whether those in power are prepared to govern in accordance with the world as it is, not as it once was.

In the end, the defining failure of this era may not be ignorance, but the refusal to act on what we know.

Martin Studer

Regenerative Leadership | Governance | Impact Investor | Helping Businesses Align Performance with Purpose — and Thrive, Uncompromised

6d

Not a planet problem -- a people problem. And the cure starts with how we govern, invest, and care

Like
Reply
Cynthia-Christie Gripsnäs Jonströmer

Mom. Inventor. Tech Investor. Founder. CEO. FO. Board Director. Deeptech, Sustainability & Impact. Harvard Business School Alumni Club of Sweden

1mo

Paul’s words resonate with both moral clarity and sobering urgency. For too long, the climate debate has been framed in abstractions – parts per million, global averages, tons of carbon. While these metrics are vital, they risk masking the human dimension: the lived consequences on our bodies, our health, and our dignity. This reframing matters profoundly for governance and leadership. If we view the crisis solely as environmental, it becomes easy to defer action, to categorise it as external to the human story, something “out there” in the air, forests, water, glaciers, and oceans. But if we understand it as a public health emergency – one already measured in hospital wards, fertility clinics, cancer statistics, and community well-being – then the moral and political calculus shifts. It becomes about safeguarding people, here and now, not in some distant future. Ultimately, the question is not whether we have the data or the science. Both are unequivocal. The question is whether those with power and influence will have the courage to govern for reality as it is – interconnected, fragile, and urgent – rather than for the illusions of an outdated industrial age. #authenticleadership #regeneration #planetaryboundary

Like
Reply
Antje Hargarter (PhD)

Head Of School: Commerce | Senior Research Academic | PhD, MBA, CEFA | Higher Education Specialist | Sustainability & Risk Educator | Green Skills Strategist

2mo

What a sobering analysis Paul Polman. And where normally we advocate that we can all take small steps that will make a difference eventually, this one is much more difficult, because there is literally no way to exclude yourself from this. How do we tackle this and "become net positive" on this?

Like
Reply
Mauricio Corsi

Chief Operations Officer | Global Quality, Safety, Health and Environment & Crisis Manager | “Safety leadership: From 33 accidents to 0” | “Six Sigma: Over €1MM in savings” | Executive MBA at IE Business School

2mo

A sobering thought Paul Polman , and thank you for your commitment on this. In light of last week’s first global treaty on plastic pollution in Geneva, it’s evident that too many in power are still governing for the world as it once was, not the world as it is. It is up to us to keep fighting!

Like
Reply
Robert Beinstein, PE, ENV SP

Global Sustainability Integration Lead at AECOM

2mo

Thanks for using your platform for this message, Paul. This is in every class I teach on this topic, and always evokes some deep thought and introspection. It's all connected, and we look myopically at the individual components in a vacuum at our risk. The system must be attended to! Needs to be said repetitively!

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Paul Polman

Others also viewed

Explore content categories