I was debating whether to write this blog about the small plastic boxes I bought recently to freeze rice, or about global population growth. My dilemma is very neatly summed up in ‘act local, think global’, so surely the answer is to do both!  The question is can I say something at all engaging on either (let alone both) in 400 words? Let’s see.

It seems wrong to start with my habit of freezing leftover rice into portions, so I’ll start with population. I scared myself looking into this. A bit of googling brought me to this website http://www.populationmatters.org/ which looks like a great resource. It has some stats that pop up as well as a handy ‘world population’ counter, which was at 7,154,609,605 when I first glanced at it. Then - wait I can’t keep up - seconds later it was 7,154,609,832 – that’s 227 more literally in 20 seconds. I dread to look now. The website points out that this is an uncomfortable issue (see BMJ 2008;337:39575.691343.80). If, like me, you don’t know a lot about this topic, both links are worth a read. One statistic that stays with me is this one: over 200 million women have an unmet need for modern contraception.

Being early for an appointment recently I nipped across the road to a shop that sells all kinds of stuff ‘for the home’, just for a look. I immediately spotted some small colourful plastic boxes. Rice portion size! I thought. Noting happily that they were BPA-free and something else-free, I bought them, and stuffed them into my backpack feeling slightly smug about foregoing the proffered plastic bag. But then I wondered ... using leftover rice is probably a Good Thing; foregoing the one-use-only freezer bag has got to be a Good Thing; but what about these little containers? I am actually replacing plastic with plastic. What should I be considering in this transaction? There is the sourcing/manufacture (sustainable or otherwise), and there must also be the disposal of the waste which eventually – bags or containers – is likely to go into landfill. This is a small dilemma I know, but perhaps typical of the kinds of things we as individuals consider – or need to consider - on a daily basis. 

By Alessandro R Demaio, Harvard Medical School and The University of Copenhagen

This is likely to cause controversy, but I am going to draw a line in the sand. We have a number of massive Global Health challenges to address as a society, but to me, there are none more pressing, threatening or crucial to act upon than Climate Change and Non-Communicable Disease (NCDs).

The BIG Two

At face value, one could be forgiven for seeing these two defining global health challenges as unrelated. Forgiven for thinking of them as separate problems with distinct causes for which we need two groups charged with the implementation of unique solutions.

But take a closer look, and you will realise a few things. These are two massive challenges largely resulting from, and solved by, the same determinants. Also, that the immediate and long-term benefits of addressing one are enormous, dwarfed only by the benefits and co-benefits of addressing both together.

The global health community has a lot to do in the coming decades, with increasingly less. Limited fiscal, human and natural resources available – compounded by austerity and economic conservatism during what could be a lengthy or permanent downturn in government budgets and overseas aid. As a collective, we must look more to opportunities for common progress and gains, and less to siloed initiatives as we have seen in the past few decades. We must seek out social investments which will maximise the benefits returned. One way of doing so, is to look for measures which will solve multiple problems, or address problems which are caused by the same determinants.

We must acknowledge that slicing major challenges into verticalised problems diminishes or precludes opportunities for common progress.

You see, NCDs and Climate Change do in fact share the same causes and largely require the same solutions. Carbon-intensive and labour-conserving lifestyles; highly-processed food requiring large energy inputs; larger portions of meat and higher calorie diets; increasing air pollution… Yet we separate their responses and those commanded with their mitigation. Health is dependent on a healthy environment, both urban and natural.

The GOOD News.

What’s exciting though, is that given their shared causes and mitigation strategies, by addressing one we will also be addressing the other. By tackling climate change, in addition to bringing the health benefits associated with this alone, we could also bring co-benefits of a reduced burden of chronic disease. By investing in ways to make healthier, less-processed food more affordable we reduce the carbon-intensiveness of our diets but are also likely to see a reduction in diet-related diabetes and heart disease. Providing safe public environments conducive to biking or active living will not only reduce carbon emissions and environmental pollutants, but may also reduce community rates of asthma, lung disease and even cancers.

This idea, or the inter-linked nature of Climate Change and NCDs is not new. But it continues to largely fly under the community radar. A greater awareness could lead to further discussion, engagement, collaborative mitigation and collective action.

–

For more on global health, explore Translational Global Health, from Alessandro and PLoS.

Alessandro R Demaio does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Denmark is usually thought, as a very green, environmental and sustainable society, and the image of a typical Dane, I would imagine, would be on a bicycle. Indeed that is very true when it comes to the major cities, such as Copenhagen, Aarhus and Odense, and it’s suburban areas, but the rest of the country is lacking behind. The infrastructure is indeed very different from the cities; with longer distances so of course a challenge. This means that in the countryside (majority of Denmark) – EVERYONE has a car, there are almost no carpooling possibilities, and the public transport is less frequent, expensive and just not being used by the community.

In the center of one of the major cities, obesity is rare, the general urban population is fit, in good health, and that is partly because of the bike ride to and from the office, but of course many other factors play a role. Even though the social inequalities are less than in most countries, there is still major differences in all aspects of life, including supply of goods. The other day I was an hour outside of Copenhagen, and went into a supermarket to pick up lunch, and the difference in supply was so striking, that I almost couldn’t believe it. Usually salads would be easily available, but here the only possible lunch was something from the deli, where basically everything was fried, consisting of meat, or if I preferred - a pizza or a kebab. I had a look around, and the whole foundation of the supermarket was different, of course it’s supply and demand, but can the demand really be so different? The greens department was much smaller, and the area with coolers and ready-made food, was much larger, there were tons of soda, and I have never seen such a big area with candy. Even in the dairy section, the majority of the yoghurts where the unhealthy ones, with a lot of added sugar and so on. It all made me think about Ian Roberts book “The Energy Glut”, and how we don’t have to carry our own food home, and thereby can take home much larger quantities than needed.

In Denmark we face the inequalities in health with health promotion, education and frightening campaigns, but is that really the best way to deal with these challenges? At the end of the day it’s an environmental problem, and I would argue an exacerbater of underlying social conditions, but the question is how do we make the connection clear to our politicians?

In the age of climate change, the health sector finds itself on the front lines, confronting and adapting to a changing landscape and shifting burden of disease. By working to reduce carbon pollution in the atmosphere, while developing forward looking adaptation strategies, we can protect human health, saving lives and money. Indeed, the health sector can play a leadership role in developing and modeling climate solutions for the rest of society.

In an article published by Forbes, HCWH Founder and President, Gary Cohen, discusses the connection between health care and climate change, the need for hospitals to model the transition to a post-fossil fuel economy and become leading climate advocates. Read the article here.