SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
I believe climate change education for medical students should be mandatory, as these students will be the physicians that will have to care for patients most affected by climate change. (Photo: Joe Brusky/flickr/cc)
The clock is ticking faster than ever before.
The latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns us that we have only 12 years left to keep the maximum temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and, thus, avoid calamitous environmental devastation.
This report, over 1200 pages and written by 91 researchers across 44 countries, explains that global emissions will have to be slashed by 45 percent to reach this new target. Currently, it is estimated that the world's temperature will rise by 3 degrees Celsius should no new measures be taken. While the difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees Celsius may not seem substantial, make no mistake about it - the difference is absolutely staggering. At a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius, 18 percent of insects species, 8 percent of plants, and 4 percent of all vertebrates would lose more than half their habitat (as compared to 6 percent, 8 percent, and 4 percent respectively at 1.5 degrees Celsius). Furthermore, 50 percent more land would be converted from savannahs to deserts.
The impact on human health is most concerning to healthcare professionals like me: an estimated 420 million people will be regularly exposed to extreme temperatures, which translates to at least 250,000 additional deaths per year. Furthermore, extreme weather events such as more frequent hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis will cause thousands of more deaths per year. Add in the increased morbidity and mortality caused by changes that effect the social and environmental determinants of health - clean air, safe drinking water, and sufficient food sources- and it is clear that physicians must be uniquely and unequivocally aware of the impacts of climate change to safeguard their patients' health.
Given both the urgency of curtailing the rise in temperatures and the fact that tomorrow's physicians will have to deal with a patient population strongly affected by these forecasted conditions, climate change education should be a part of medical education. At Drexel College of Medicine, students like me are exposed to a voluntary seminar series on the impacts of climate change on their patient populations.
The series is broken into three different sessions: Session 1 is about climate change basics, including the science behind climate change, and answers the question, "Why should doctors care about this issue?" Last year, this first seminar was very well attended because many students were curious and had never been taught about the intersection of climate change and patient health. There is a hole in the medical education system when it comes to climate change, and there is a clear need for such a series.
Once medical students understood this linkage, we were motivated to attend the next two seminars that covered the topics of heat morbidity, public health emergency preparedness, air quality, and asthma. Each of the final two seminars ended with exercises and interactive activities that taught medical students to communicate these messages to their patients.
The end goal of the seminar series was not only to educate medical students about the impacts of climate change, but also to encourage and teach them to talk to their patients about this issue. Students at Drexel have always had plenty of opportunities to talk to patients - through community care practicum classes that require students to meet with patients once a week, volunteerism through free clinics, and other outlets. Now, we can leverage these new skills to have meaningful conversations about climate change during those opportunities. For example, with summers in Philadelphia getting hotter every year (as evidenced by the rising number of days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit), I spoke to a young mother and her five year old boy about signs of heat exhaustion and heat related morbidity. I wanted to make sure both the mother and her son understood proper precautions to take to avoid heat related illnesses. I found it particularly necessary to have this conversation with the mother since she couldn't always afford air conditioning at home, and her child played outside for hours on end.
My experiences with climate change education at Drexel have shown me that not only are medical students curious and willing to learn about climate change, but there is also a demand amongst patients to learn about how this will impact their health.
I believe climate change education for medical students should be mandatory, as these students will be the physicians that will have to care for patients most affected by climate change. Furthermore, medical students should also be used as a vector to spread awareness amongst people -- because of their stature and trustworthiness in the eyes of patients, doctors are uniquely positioned to explain the facts and myths behind climate change.
Climate change is here, climate change is in our face, and climate change is just as relevant to physicians as it is to lobbyists or politicians.
We have 12 years to curb the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Now more than ever, it is time for all hands on deck. Let's make sure we don't leave out the hands of medical students.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
The clock is ticking faster than ever before.
The latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns us that we have only 12 years left to keep the maximum temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and, thus, avoid calamitous environmental devastation.
This report, over 1200 pages and written by 91 researchers across 44 countries, explains that global emissions will have to be slashed by 45 percent to reach this new target. Currently, it is estimated that the world's temperature will rise by 3 degrees Celsius should no new measures be taken. While the difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees Celsius may not seem substantial, make no mistake about it - the difference is absolutely staggering. At a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius, 18 percent of insects species, 8 percent of plants, and 4 percent of all vertebrates would lose more than half their habitat (as compared to 6 percent, 8 percent, and 4 percent respectively at 1.5 degrees Celsius). Furthermore, 50 percent more land would be converted from savannahs to deserts.
The impact on human health is most concerning to healthcare professionals like me: an estimated 420 million people will be regularly exposed to extreme temperatures, which translates to at least 250,000 additional deaths per year. Furthermore, extreme weather events such as more frequent hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis will cause thousands of more deaths per year. Add in the increased morbidity and mortality caused by changes that effect the social and environmental determinants of health - clean air, safe drinking water, and sufficient food sources- and it is clear that physicians must be uniquely and unequivocally aware of the impacts of climate change to safeguard their patients' health.
Given both the urgency of curtailing the rise in temperatures and the fact that tomorrow's physicians will have to deal with a patient population strongly affected by these forecasted conditions, climate change education should be a part of medical education. At Drexel College of Medicine, students like me are exposed to a voluntary seminar series on the impacts of climate change on their patient populations.
The series is broken into three different sessions: Session 1 is about climate change basics, including the science behind climate change, and answers the question, "Why should doctors care about this issue?" Last year, this first seminar was very well attended because many students were curious and had never been taught about the intersection of climate change and patient health. There is a hole in the medical education system when it comes to climate change, and there is a clear need for such a series.
Once medical students understood this linkage, we were motivated to attend the next two seminars that covered the topics of heat morbidity, public health emergency preparedness, air quality, and asthma. Each of the final two seminars ended with exercises and interactive activities that taught medical students to communicate these messages to their patients.
The end goal of the seminar series was not only to educate medical students about the impacts of climate change, but also to encourage and teach them to talk to their patients about this issue. Students at Drexel have always had plenty of opportunities to talk to patients - through community care practicum classes that require students to meet with patients once a week, volunteerism through free clinics, and other outlets. Now, we can leverage these new skills to have meaningful conversations about climate change during those opportunities. For example, with summers in Philadelphia getting hotter every year (as evidenced by the rising number of days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit), I spoke to a young mother and her five year old boy about signs of heat exhaustion and heat related morbidity. I wanted to make sure both the mother and her son understood proper precautions to take to avoid heat related illnesses. I found it particularly necessary to have this conversation with the mother since she couldn't always afford air conditioning at home, and her child played outside for hours on end.
My experiences with climate change education at Drexel have shown me that not only are medical students curious and willing to learn about climate change, but there is also a demand amongst patients to learn about how this will impact their health.
I believe climate change education for medical students should be mandatory, as these students will be the physicians that will have to care for patients most affected by climate change. Furthermore, medical students should also be used as a vector to spread awareness amongst people -- because of their stature and trustworthiness in the eyes of patients, doctors are uniquely positioned to explain the facts and myths behind climate change.
Climate change is here, climate change is in our face, and climate change is just as relevant to physicians as it is to lobbyists or politicians.
We have 12 years to curb the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Now more than ever, it is time for all hands on deck. Let's make sure we don't leave out the hands of medical students.
The clock is ticking faster than ever before.
The latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns us that we have only 12 years left to keep the maximum temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and, thus, avoid calamitous environmental devastation.
This report, over 1200 pages and written by 91 researchers across 44 countries, explains that global emissions will have to be slashed by 45 percent to reach this new target. Currently, it is estimated that the world's temperature will rise by 3 degrees Celsius should no new measures be taken. While the difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees Celsius may not seem substantial, make no mistake about it - the difference is absolutely staggering. At a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius, 18 percent of insects species, 8 percent of plants, and 4 percent of all vertebrates would lose more than half their habitat (as compared to 6 percent, 8 percent, and 4 percent respectively at 1.5 degrees Celsius). Furthermore, 50 percent more land would be converted from savannahs to deserts.
The impact on human health is most concerning to healthcare professionals like me: an estimated 420 million people will be regularly exposed to extreme temperatures, which translates to at least 250,000 additional deaths per year. Furthermore, extreme weather events such as more frequent hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis will cause thousands of more deaths per year. Add in the increased morbidity and mortality caused by changes that effect the social and environmental determinants of health - clean air, safe drinking water, and sufficient food sources- and it is clear that physicians must be uniquely and unequivocally aware of the impacts of climate change to safeguard their patients' health.
Given both the urgency of curtailing the rise in temperatures and the fact that tomorrow's physicians will have to deal with a patient population strongly affected by these forecasted conditions, climate change education should be a part of medical education. At Drexel College of Medicine, students like me are exposed to a voluntary seminar series on the impacts of climate change on their patient populations.
The series is broken into three different sessions: Session 1 is about climate change basics, including the science behind climate change, and answers the question, "Why should doctors care about this issue?" Last year, this first seminar was very well attended because many students were curious and had never been taught about the intersection of climate change and patient health. There is a hole in the medical education system when it comes to climate change, and there is a clear need for such a series.
Once medical students understood this linkage, we were motivated to attend the next two seminars that covered the topics of heat morbidity, public health emergency preparedness, air quality, and asthma. Each of the final two seminars ended with exercises and interactive activities that taught medical students to communicate these messages to their patients.
The end goal of the seminar series was not only to educate medical students about the impacts of climate change, but also to encourage and teach them to talk to their patients about this issue. Students at Drexel have always had plenty of opportunities to talk to patients - through community care practicum classes that require students to meet with patients once a week, volunteerism through free clinics, and other outlets. Now, we can leverage these new skills to have meaningful conversations about climate change during those opportunities. For example, with summers in Philadelphia getting hotter every year (as evidenced by the rising number of days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit), I spoke to a young mother and her five year old boy about signs of heat exhaustion and heat related morbidity. I wanted to make sure both the mother and her son understood proper precautions to take to avoid heat related illnesses. I found it particularly necessary to have this conversation with the mother since she couldn't always afford air conditioning at home, and her child played outside for hours on end.
My experiences with climate change education at Drexel have shown me that not only are medical students curious and willing to learn about climate change, but there is also a demand amongst patients to learn about how this will impact their health.
I believe climate change education for medical students should be mandatory, as these students will be the physicians that will have to care for patients most affected by climate change. Furthermore, medical students should also be used as a vector to spread awareness amongst people -- because of their stature and trustworthiness in the eyes of patients, doctors are uniquely positioned to explain the facts and myths behind climate change.
Climate change is here, climate change is in our face, and climate change is just as relevant to physicians as it is to lobbyists or politicians.
We have 12 years to curb the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Now more than ever, it is time for all hands on deck. Let's make sure we don't leave out the hands of medical students.
"This was an illegal act," said U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis.
A federal court judge on Sunday declared the Trump administration's refusal to return a man they sent to an El Salvadoran prison in "error" as "totally lawless" behavior and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to repatriate the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, within 24 hours.
In a 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis doubled down on an order issued Friday, which Department of Justice lawyers representing the administration said was an affront to his executive authority.
"This was an illegal act," Xinis said of DHS Secretary Krisi Noem's attack on Abrego Garcia's rights, including his deportation and imprisonment.
"Defendants seized Abrego Garcia without any lawful authority; held him in three separate domestic detention centers without legal basis; failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer; and forcibly transported him to El Salvador in direct contravention of [immigration law]," the decision states.
Once imprisoned in El Salvador, the order continues, "U.S. officials secured his detention in a facility that, by design, deprives its detainees of adequate food, water, and shelter, fosters routine violence; and places him with his persecutors."
Trump's DOJ appealed Friday's order to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, but that court has not yet ruled on the request to stay the order from Xinis, which says Abrego Garcia should be returned to the United States no later than Monday.
"You'd be a fool to think Trump won't go after others he dislikes," warned Sen. Ron Wyden, "including American citizens."
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon slammed the Trump administration over the weekend in response to fresh reporting that the Department of Homeland Security has intensified its push for access to confidential data held by the Internal Revenue Service—part of a sweeping effort to target immigrant workers who pay into the U.S. tax system yet get little or nothing in return.
Wyden denounced the effort, which had the fingerprints of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, all over it.
"What Trump and Musk's henchmen are doing by weaponizing taxpayer data is illegal, this abuse of the immigrant community is a moral atrocity, and you'd be a fool to think Trump won't go after others he dislikes, including American citizens," said Wyden, ranking member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, on Saturday.
Last week, the White House admitted one of the men it has sent to a prison in El Salvador was detained and deported in schackles in "error." Despite the admitted mistake, and facing a lawsuit for his immediate return, the Trump administration says a federal court has no authority over the president to make such an order.
"Even though the Trump administration claims it's focused on undocumented immigrants, it's obvious that they do not care when they make mistakes and ruin the lives of legal residents and American citizens in the process," Wyden continued. "A repressive scheme on the scale of what they're talking about at the IRS would lead to hundreds if not thousands of those horrific mistakes, and the people who are disappeared as a result may never be returned to their families."
According to the Washington Post reporting on Saturday:
Federal immigration officials are seeking to locate up to 7 million people suspected of being in the United States unlawfully by accessing confidential tax data at the Internal Revenue Service, according to six people familiar with the request, a dramatic escalation in how the Trump administration aims to use the tax system to detain and deport immigrants.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security had previously sought the IRS’s help in finding 700,000 people who are subject to final removal orders, and they had asked the IRS to use closely guarded taxpayer data systems to provide names and addresses.
As the Post notes, it would be highly unusual, and quite possibly unlawful, for the IRS to share such confidential data. "Normally," the newspaper reports, "personal tax information—even an individual's name and address—is considered confidential and closely guarded within the IRS."
Wyden warned that those who violate the law by disclosing personal tax data face the risk of civil sanction or even prosecution.
"While Trump's sycophants and the DOGE boys may be a lost cause," Wyden said, "IRS personnel need to think long and hard about whether they want to be a part of an effort to round up innocent people and send them to be locked away in foreign torture prisons."
"I'm sure Trump has promised pardons to the people who will commit crimes in the process of abusing legally-protected taxpayer data, but violations of taxpayer privacy laws carry hefty civil penalties too, and Trump cannot pardon anybody out from under those," he said. "I'm going to demand answers from the acting IRS commissioner immediately about this outrageous abuse of the agency.”
"I think that the Democratic Party has to make a fundamental decision," says the independent Senator from Vermont, "and I'm not sure that they will make the right decision."
"I think when we talk about America is a democracy, I think we should rephrase it, call it a 'pseudo-democracy.'"
That's what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday morning in response to questions from CBS News about the state of the nation, with President Donald Trump gutting the federal government from head to toe, challenging constitutional norms, allowing his cabinet of billionaires to run key agencies they philosophically want to destroy, and empowering Elon Musk—the world's richest person—to run roughshod over public education, undermine healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and attack Social Security.
Taking a weekend away from his ongoing "Fight Oligarchy" tour, which has drawn record crowds in both right-leaning and left-leaning regions of the country over recent weeks, Sanders said the problem is deeply entrenched now in the nation's political system—and both major parties have a lot to answer for.
"One of the other concerns when I talk about oligarchy," Sanders explained to journalist Robert Acosta, "it's not just massive income and wealth inequality. It's not just the power of the billionaire class. These guys, led by Musk—and as a result of this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision—have now allowed billionaires essentially to own our political process. So, I think when we talk about America is a democracy, I think we should rephrase it, call it a 'pseudo-democracy.' And it's not just Musk and the Republicans; it's billionaires in the Democratic Party as well."
Sanders said that while he's been out on the road in various places, what he perceives—from Americans of all stripes—is a shared sense of dread and frustration.
"I think I'm seeing fear, and I'm seeing anger," he said. "Sixty percent of our people are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Media doesn't talk about it. We don't talk about it enough here in Congress."
In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Friday night, just before the Republican-controlled chamber was able to pass a sweeping spending resolution that will lay waste to vital programs like Medicaid and food assistance to needy families so that billionaires and the ultra-rich can enjoy even more tax giveaways, Sanders said, "What we have is a budget proposal in front of us that makes bad situations much worse and does virtually nothing to protect the needs of working families."
LIVE: I'm on the floor now talking about Trump's totally absurd budget.
They got it exactly backwards. No tax cuts for billionaires by cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for Americans. https://t.co/ULB2KosOSJ
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 4, 2025
What the GOP spending plan does do, he added, "is reward wealthy campaign contributors by providing over $1 trillion in tax breaks for the top one percent."
"I wish my Republican friends the best of luck when they go home—if they dare to hold town hall meetings—and explain to their constituents why they think, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it's a great idea to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut Medicaid, education, and other programs that working class families desperately need."
On Saturday, millions of people took to the street in coordinated protests against the Trump administration's attack on government, the economy, and democracy itself.
Voiced at many of the rallies was also a frustration with the failure of the Democrats to stand up to Trump and offer an alternative vision for what the nation can be. In his CBS News interview, Sanders said the key question Democrats need to be asking is the one too many people in Washington, D.C. tend to avoid.
"Why are [the Democrats] held in so low esteem?" That's the question that needs asking, he said.
"Why has the working class in this country largely turned away from them? And what do you have to do to recapture that working class? Do you think working people are voting for Trump because he wants to give massive tax breaks to billionaires and cut Social Security and Medicare? I don't think so. It's because people say, 'I am hurting. Democratic Party has talked a good game for years. They haven't done anything.' So, I think that the Democratic Party has to make a fundamental decision, and I'm not sure that they will make the right decision, which side are they on? [Will] they continue to hustle large campaign contributions from very, very wealthy people, or do they stand with the working class?"
The next leg of Sanders' "Fight Oligarchy' tour will kick off next Saturday, with stops in California, Utah, and Idaho over four days.
"The American people, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or Independents, do not want billionaires to control our government or buy our elections," said Sanders. "That is why I will be visiting Republican-held districts all over the Western United States. When we are organized and fight back, we can defeat oligarchy."