Türkçe
English
We are developing technologies that will extend human lifespan. But in what climate, at what temperature, and in what world will we live those extra years? I hope that COP31 in Antalya will also be a summit where we discuss the future of the long-life economy.
hree years ago, a story I heard at a Planetree meeting where hospitals shared best practices still sticks in my mind. Planetree, an international organization that originated in the United States and has spread globally, promotes a human-centered approach to healthcare. Its certification evaluates patient and family participation in care decisions, access to information, consideration of needs and preferences, and employee engagement in this culture. The goal is to see how well human-centered care is integrated into the hospital’s daily operations.
At a conference I attended, one of the speakers was an artist who had undergone breast cancer surgery. Before the operation, the artist had made an unusual request to the nurses: she asked them to collect all the medical and non-medical waste generated during her hospital stay, including the surgery and care. She planned to use it for an art project. She recounted that on the day she was discharged, six large bags of garbage were brought to her room. These were the wastes from a single patient’s treatment process.
Next to a person’s healing story stood an environmental footprint consisting of six large bags of waste! The artist, who is also an environmental activist, transformed this waste into a work of art, exhibited it at an art event, and won an award. But what stayed with me more than the award itself was the question it raised: As we heal people, what kind of footprint do we leave on the environment that sustains the health of us all?
Of course, not all waste in healthcare is preventable. Sterility, infection control, and patient safety are essential. However, this necessity should not prevent us from questioning and controlling the quantity of materials we use, their packaging, our procurement choices, and waste management. Those six bags made us think about how the healthcare sector should evaluate its own success. When looking at the outcome of treatment, we also need to consider the impact that treatment leaves on the world.
Where will we spend the years we’ve earned?
Today, as I reflect on a long and healthy life, I return to the same story. We strive to detect diseases earlier, understand biological aging, and give people more healthy years. Artificial intelligence, medicines, vaccines, and biotechnology fuel this hope. But in what world will we live those extra years? What will happen if we can’t keep our hearts healthy for longer and the air we breathe clean? What if we can maintain our mobility in old age but can’t go outside because of extreme heat, or if, while we manage to live longer, the areas where we can live safely are shrinking?
The Longevity approach focuses our attention on the inside of our bodies: cells, metabolism, muscle mass, immune system, biological age… Yet our bodies don’t function independently of their environment.
The World Health Organization emphasizes that extreme heat can worsen heart, respiratory, and kidney diseases, and that the elderly are particularly vulnerable. Heat waves can also disrupt electricity, transportation, and healthcare services. The population whose lifespan we are trying to extend is also the population that will need more protection in a warming world. We can strengthen our muscles, detect diseases early, and improve treatments. But no personal health program can replace access to safe water, clean air, and a city resilient to extreme heat.
The agenda of COP31 is coming together in our bodies.
COP31, held in Antalya from November 9-20, should be viewed from this perspective as well. Climate policy determines the infrastructure for a long and healthy life. The summit’s announced thematic program includes food and health, energy and transportation, resilient cities, finance and trade. Digitalization and artificial intelligence are also among the topics of the Science, Industry and Technology Day. The common intersection in all these topics is the human body. If a street without shade makes it difficult for an elderly person to move around, this is a matter of healthy aging. If a heat-resistant hospital can continue to provide services during a crisis, this is also an investment in longevity.
The paradox that an artist made visible three years ago with six garbage bags now confronts the global economy. While we are increasing investments to extend human lifespan, are we including the protection of the planet that will sustain that life in the same investment calculation?
What future is money buying?
Artificial intelligence and biotechnology offer investors a powerful promise: new products, new markets, and measurable revenue.
The return on investment in climate adaptation is often seen in the losses prevented: fewer hospital visits, uninterrupted production, and fewer lives lost.
I think this difference is important for understanding capital’s preferences. It’s easy to see the sale of a drug on the income statement. It’s harder to price the deaths prevented during a heatwave with the same clarity. But a benefit that is less visible is not necessarily less valuable economically.
It’s important to read the data correctly here. Will the budgets and decisions that governments allocate for climate change be sufficient in a future where we will need more energy than ever before?
According to UNEP’s 2026 Adaptation Gap Report, international public adaptation financing from developed countries to developing countries reached approximately $28–32 billion in 2024. This represents an increase of about one billion dollars compared to the previous year. In contrast, the estimated annual adaptation need for developing countries for 2035 is approximately $305 billion. These figures show a specific flow of financing and need, not the total global climate spending. The issue is not simply whether the budget increases or decreases. The real question is whether the allocated resources can keep up with the growing risk…
Therefore, comparing public budgets and private sector technology investments as if they were the same pool of money would be misleading. However, we can consider them together: Which risks are different actors in the economy willing to finance, and which are they postponing to the future?
The energy appetite of the intelligence that will heal us.
Artificial intelligence stands at the very heart of this debate. We expect it to contribute to the early detection of diseases, drug research, and the efficiency of healthcare services. This capacity has a physical infrastructure: data centers, power grids, and cooling systems.
According to the International Energy Agency’s updated projections, data center electricity consumption could rise from 485 terawatt-hours in 2025 to approximately 950 terawatt-hours in 2030. This is the total consumption of data centers, not just artificial intelligence.
Therefore, when calculating the value of a health technology, we cannot simply ask how many patients it will benefit. We must also consider how the energy to operate it will be generated, what burden it will place on infrastructure, and how efficiently it will use resources. Artificial intelligence can also help manage energy systems more efficiently. What will determine the outcome is which energy sources and which rules we use to scale up the technology.
How many countries will keep their promise?
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has 198 parties. But participation in the summit is not a guarantee of implementation. We cannot honestly count today how many countries will implement which decisions and to what extent. However, we can determine how to measure success: Is there an approved budget to match the stated target? Are the resources actually being spent? Is the project’s responsible party and timeline clear? Are emissions and the risks to people decreasing?
The UNFCCC’s 2026 assessment shows progress in incorporating climate into public policy, but also indicates that collective emissions reductions fall short of scientific requirements. Therefore, in the near future, we must question not only the implementation of promises made for our health, but also the adequacy of those promises. We should focus less on the number of statements made from Antalya and more on which budgets and investments have changed since then.
The greatest inequality of longevity
What truly concerns me about the future is this: some people will have access to advanced treatments, cool homes, safe water, and protected living spaces. Others will live with the same temperature, but with less protection. If we measure the success of the long-life economy solely by the treatments developed, we may overlook the difference in the possibilities for maintaining good health. We must add clean energy, resilient healthcare facilities, temperature early warning systems, and age-friendly cities to investments in pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and biotechnology. These are investments that complement each other.
The question that artist posed with six garbage bags, we are asking today on a much larger scale: While we protect a life, how well do we protect the environment in which that life continues? The question, “Will we live long and die because of climate change?” is not a prophecy. It is a tough question directed at our current investment decisions.
Science can save us more time. Whether we can leave behind a world where we can live that time is a decision our budgets will make.
I hope for a COP31 conference that will produce sustainable decisions.
1: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the first intergovernmental environmental agreement on global warming signed under the auspices of the United Nations.
