Three days ago, on September 11, the world marked 25 years since the terrorist attacks that brought down New York’s World Trade Center towers. The anniversary brought remembrance of those who died and reflection on the political and social changes that followed. But the attacks also left another, less dis cussed legacy, one that continues to affect people a quarter of a century later.The collapse of the towers released a massive cloud of dust and toxic material across lower Manhattan. Many first responders and others exposed to it later developed cancer, respiratory illnesses and other serious health problems. Some did not live to see this year’s anniversary. The full impact, however, may still not be known. Much of the research into the health effects of the disaster has focused on first responders and adults who were exposed. Researchers are now turning their attention to another group: people who were children, teenagers or even unborn at the time of the attacks, according to a Reuters report.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said last month that it would seek researchers to establish a World Trade Center Youth Research Coordinating Center. The proposed study would track people who were 21 or younger, or in the womb, and who lived in lower Manhattan or Brooklyn around September 11. A similarly aged group that was not exposed would be studied for comparison.The research is a reminder that environmental disasters can have consequences long after the immediate crisis. That lesson extends beyond 9/11, as the world confronts a much larger challenge: climate change. Global sustainability investment hit a record $2.4 trillion last year, according to a Bain & Co report cited by Reuters, with about 90% going to green energy, buildings and mobility.But where the money goes matters. Agriculture, manufacturing and materials, and natural capital — which Bain calls “stranded sectors” — account for 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions but re ceived less than 10% of sustainability investment. That gap matters. Industries responsible for a large share of emissions cannot remain outside the main flow of climate finance if the world is serious about slowing global warming.
Not every technology attracting investment will succeed. Alternative proteins, advanced chemical recycling and bio-based plastics have yet to prove commercially successful at scale. But technologies that appear weak today could become important as costs fall and new breakthroughs emerge. Green hydrogen is one example. Advances in elec trolyser technology and access to cheap renewable electricity could make it more competitive and eventually help transform industries such as steel, fertilisers and shipping.
The next phase of the transition may depend heavily on emerging economies. Jean-Charles van den Branden, a Bain partner and co-author of the report, told Reuters that India, China and Southeast Asia could be more decisive than the US and Eu rope. How quickly these economies move away from coal and towards electrification could signifi cantly influence global warming. The story of the toxic cloud after 9/11 offers a les son. Environmental consequences can remain long after an event has disappeared from the headlines. Those exposed to the dust could not have known what it might mean for their health decades later. To day, the world has something they did not: a warning. The challenge is to act on it, and ensure that decisions made now do not leave future generations dealing with consequences that could have been prevented.
(By Aveek Bhowmik)
