|
Climate change is a problem of such broad
dimensions that it is difficult to break down
conveniently in terms of specific impacts on
specific sectors. The environmental consequences
of climate change are the most obvious,
but there are also political, economic,
social and security concerns that come into
play. All of these concerns were debated, with
varying degrees of success, during the United
Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali,
Indonesia (Dec. 3–14), but what went largely
ignored at the conference were the direct
and indirect effects of climate change on
human health.  FEVER PITCH: Overcrowding in a Cambodian hospital forces parents to accept makeshift treatment for children suffering from last summer’s wet-season outbreak of dengue fever. The world’s poor are by far the most vulnerable to effects of climate change. Photo: Reuters
Margaret Chan, director general of the
World Health Organization (WHO), has
stated publicly that climate change will be
this century’s “defining issue for public
health.” Given the worst-case climate change
scenarios that scientists have modelled (and
even some of the more optimistic ones),
Chan is not engaging in hyperbole. In fact,
nearly every single climate change phenomenon
will carry health-related consequences in
some way or other. As a result, various healthsector
professionals and journalists are trying
to come up with ways to communicate more
clearly and effectively the close relationship
between climate change and health. In the
words of WHO’s Roberto Bertollini:
“Climate change has moved to the forefront,
but not with health as the focus.”
Bertollini agrees with claims that global
warming is contributing to an increase in
extreme weather events, and is also concerned
that many of the major killers (viruses
and vector-borne diseases) are climate sensitive.
He believes that health professionals and
agencies need to study the observable effects
of climate change in order to provide tangible
links between climate change and health.
Precise details are important, he says, because
mere predictions and forecasts can be risky in
trying to convince target audiences.
Bertollini adds, however, that such prognosticating
can be useful in terms of trying to set
specific health organisation goals.
Walking the talk
Robin Stott, vice chair of Medact and cochair
of the BMJ-initiated Climate and
Health Council, has spent his entire professional
life in the medical field and is a strong
advocate for taking personal and collective
responsibility for human impact on the environment.
Drawing inspiration from figures
such as Ivan Illics and Nelson Mandela, Stott
echoes the inspirational South African’s call
for people to find a way to “live in the world
without destroying it”—to bring about
instead a “flourishing global civilisation.”
Stott believes that the two greatest problems
confronting global society are climate
change and the widening resource gap
between rich and poor populations. And
while many people are deeply concerned
about these very issues, he insists that each of
us needs to “walk the talk” in terms of changing
our lives and habits in order to reduce our
environmental impact on the planet, and that
failure to do so undermines anymoral authority
behind any ostensibly green advocacy.
Speaking in Geneva at a late-January
‘dialogue’ between journalists and health
professionals, Stott asked how many people
in the room knew the size of their carbon
footprint, and then if they knew the infant
mortality rate of the country in which they
lived. From the number of hands that went
up (or rather, how many did not), it became
clear that many in the room lacked some
basic information and awareness of—and,
perhaps, commitment to—the very issues
that were being discussed.  THE HEALTH EXPRESS: Nutritious fast-food restaurants, like this one in Athens, can help to promote healthier lifestyles. Photo: Reuters
According to Stott, the United States
produces 20 tonnes per person in annual carbon
emissions. European Union residents
produce half that amount on average, while
Chinese and Indian totals are just 3 tonnes
and 1.5 tonnes respectively. But the truly
alarming figure is that our planet only has
the capacity to sustainably absorb annual carbon
emissions of 1.4 tonnes per person.
Clearly, our current emission levels need to
come down, and quickly. Stott even warns
that if we are somehow able to reach a global
CO2 emissions target of 450ppm, there is
still a fifty-fifty chance of very serious climate
change taking place.
In the face of such dire warnings, Stott
remains adamantly optimistic that disaster
can be averted if enough people commit
themselves to reducing consumption. “Not
only are there ways to shrink our personal
carbon footprint, we can also make the effort
to ensure that the organisations we are associated
with do likewise,” he says. “What I think
is imperative is that we advocate for a healthpromoting
post-Kyoto arrangement.”
Greener lifestyles, better health
Implementing real policy change at
national, regional and municipal levels
requires clear vision, lots of money, widespread
cooperation—and time. Such policy
changes will be vital in the long run toward
mitigating the effects of climate change, but
there are several ways that individual citizens
in all parts of the world can make efforts today
to not only green the planet, but to enjoy better
health. While schools and educational
institutions can help tremendously with information
campaigns to get young people
involved with ways to save energy at home,
hospitals, doctors and medical organisations
(such as WHO) can encourage more active
lifestyles and healthier diets that can lead to
many other environmental and social benefits.
Anna Coote, commissioner of health at
the UK Sustainable Development
Commission, argues that health systems
must more effectively prevent people from
needing to go to hospital to begin with, but
warns that terms such as ‘prosperity’ and ‘the
bottom line’ first need to be broadly redefined
in order to avoid providing what could
actually be described as an “illness service.”
Coote lists walking and cycling as activities
that not only benefit respiratory and
overall health, but also decrease the amount
of motor traffic, which in turn leads to fewer
motor vehicle accidents and injuries. In termsof diet, encouraging people to buy food
from local producers and markets is
another win-win strategy, according to
the health commissioner. Not only does
this lead to reduced consumption of fast
food (a major cause of obesity), but
locally grown foods contain fewer chemicals,
and require less packaging and
transport. Buying fresh, near-to-home
products (even if they are a little bit more
expensive) helps to stimulate local
economies, and an economically healthy
community is also better for mental
health, Coote explains.
From the mouths of babes
The two-day Geneva discussion on
climate change and health concluded on
an upbeat note with some enthusiastic
participation from members of the
Australian Youth Delegation to the
Model United Nations. More than a
dozen young people articulated a range
of opinion about climate change and
health, and suggested several ways that
health organisations and green campaigns
can communicate to young people
more effectively, as the right kind of
messages can have significant and lasting
effects: One delegate, for example,
described his youngest brother as the
family’s environmental conscience and
‘energy policeman’.
Other delegates were more cynical
and expressed frustration with politicians,
governments and polluting industries
that either fail to make environmental
commitments or pay such problems
the merest lip service. Such pessimism is
well founded indeed, but the general consensus
among these charismatic young
delegates and their listeners was that positive
messages need to be sent out, and in
such a way that each person feels that
they can make an important difference.
And, hopefully, health issues will soon
begin to be mentioned in the same breath
with climate change concerns.
You can link to a full report of the
World Health Editors Network meeting in
Geneva on the WHEN pages of the
WHCA. |