Plastic pollution and climate change: insights from a One Health perspective

Both plastic pollution and climate change have been the focus of international negotiations, large, targeted science programs, and ongoing debate over the best solutions. The policy spaces for these two issues have developed separately but in parallel for decades (Borrelle et al. 2017;Kumar et al. 2021). While biodiversity loss is another environmental concern, recent conventions and targets now recognize both climate change and plastic pollution as central global threats to biodiversity under the recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (targets 7 and 8; https://www.cbd.int/gbf).Plastic pollution and climate change have shaped environmental priorities and policy agendas for over two decades. In their Frontiers in Science lead article, Kelly et al. (2025) outline several interactions between these stressors-some well-established, others less studied-and discuss potential solutions. Notably, they emphasize the hazards that both plastic pollution and climate change pose to the environment. It is this hazard framing that is important to note and perhaps warrants more critical evaluation.Beyond their interconnected sources and policy development, these two challenges share key similarities relevant to both hazards and solutions. Each threatens environmental and human health, and neither spares any region. Both are long-term global problems: even if solutions were implemented immediately, legacy emissions would continue to affect ecosystems and people for years to come. Therefore, while solutions are critical, we must also ask how environmental scientists can best advance research that supports evidence-based decisionmaking for improved outcomes?Working within a research group that is mandated to study wildlife health, including plastic pollution, contaminants, parasites, and pathogens through the lens of climate change, I often find concepts and tools that bridge ecotoxicology and disease ecology useful. Our group One Health, introduced more than two decades ago, has re-emerged as a global priority since the COVID-19 pandemic. While the One Health (or EcoHealth) approach is often interpreted as human-centered and pathogen-focused, there is growing momentum to broaden its scope beyond the gravitation pull of public health (Stephen et al. 2023). Historically, public health framing casts animals and the environment mainly as sources of harm (e.g. pathogens). Stephen et al. (2023), however, argues for re-centering One Health principles to consider harms to biodiversity and promote health equity across human groups and animal populations alike, an approach that can strengthen conservation outcomes. Health equity is particularly important when prioritizing solutions for climate change and plastic pollution.These challenges do not have universal solutions: actions effective in one region may fail in another. Solutions are best developed within a settings-based approach that accounts for local drivers of health and targets context-specific interventions to reduce hazards from these dual threats. While connecting plastic pollution and One Health is not a new concept (Prata et al. 2021), the continued escalation of these global environment threats demands further exploration of this integrated approach.One Health also emphasizes the link between research, policy and action through wholesystems thinking (Parkes 2021;Pepin et al. 2024). This approach is particularly important for climate change and plastic pollution science. Both discovery and applied research are critical, yet policy-driven science is essential during this era of policy formulation and implementation. No single policy can solve these issues; instead, a mosaic of municipal, regional, national and international policies is emerging. Whole-systems thinking helps identify policy gaps and understand the barriers and enablers that shape real-world solutions.Recognizing the policy landscape and its drivers are critical for designing research that reflects complex, interacting systems.Within the One Health framework, another useful concept for addressing multiple stressors is the Harm Reduction Approach, long used in public health sectors and now increasingly applied to environmental studies (Stephen et al. 2018;Gallagher et al. 2021). Harm reduction acknowledges that not all harm can be eliminated, focusing instead on actions that minimize it (Stephen et al. 2018). Both plastic pollution and climate change are omnipresent, arising as by-products of industrial advances that have improved health metrics of billions of people across the globe. The improvement in global health care systems due to plastic personal protection equipment and tools, and fossil fuels in powering health infrastructure illustrates this tension: technologies that enhance human health can simultaneously harm ecosystems.The challenge now is to reduce environmental damage without undermining human wellbeing -a goal aligned with harm reduction principles.As Stephen (2021) notes, harm reduction is both a goal and a process. Applying this approach to climate change and plastic pollution collectively encourages action and solutions where harm is greatest and prevention where systems remain intact. It directs attention to localized, collaborative solutions that minimize harm and enhance outcomes. The case of plastic straws illustrates this balance: campaigns to 'ban the straw'-motivated by images of a plastic straw being removed from the nose of a turtle-aimed to reduce harm to wildlife but inadvertently affected people with disabilities who rely on straws to consume fluids. The confusion between banning straws altogether and banning plastic straws exemplifies the importance of inclusive harm reduction thinking (Wong 2018). inform policy on both fronts-an approach that reflects One Health thinking. I urge researchers to take this further: design studies that examine how these threats interact and explore solutions that yield co-benefits. What kinds of research can reveal synergies between mitigation strategies? How can we prioritize regions or ecosystems most vulnerable to compounded harm? Granting agencies should support integrated research that advances solutions to these "wicked" problems.Lastly, we must consider how results are communicated and used by policymakers. We cannot rely on a "Field of Dreams" mentality-if we write it, they will use it. As researchers we must be active players in two-way exchanges with decision-makers to connect complex issues and co-develop harm reduction strategies that improve environmental health.Integrating One Health and Harm Reduction approaches is essential for shaping both science and policy around these dual threats and must be embedded throughout the full researchpolicy cycle.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.