I’m new to the Climate Health Council so I’ll start by introducing myself: I’m a fraud. I am not a doctor, nurse, clinical scientist, radiographer, dentist, paramedic, dietician or in fact anything clinical. I am the Environment Officer for Worcestershire NHS and in my own enviro(mental) way; I’m trying to save lives.

In summer 2011 I will be introducing a Green Travel Plan for Worcestershire NHS that will encourage our employees, patients and visitors to think sustainably and walk, cycle, skateboard (why not?), take public transport or car share rather than take their car by themselves when on Trust business. To promote the Plan and because I believe environmentalists need to start doing as well as saying, I will be running to work on 13th May 2011 as part of Living Streets Walk to Work week. This may sound easy but it means I’ll start running from my home at 2am in Birmingham, run 30 miles to my workplace at Evesham for 8.30am and then do a full day’s work. In parallel, I will be raising money for the Campaign for Greener Healthcare (http://greenerhealthcare.org/)

Fat tax in The Netherlands?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/03/health_minister_threatens_legi.php

“There’s a 50% chance that humans will be extinct by the end of the century because of climate change,” said Hugh Montgomery, director of the UCL Institute for Human Health, at last week’s conference on environmental sustainability. I’d heard that before, but it made me think of my daughter, who can expect to live for most of this century. And what about any children she might have? And then I wondered if the apocalyptic vision, true as it might be, is the best way to spur people to act on climate change.

One of the issues we health professionals make very little of is this simple fact:  even if climate change were NOT happening (and remember the evidence that it is happening, both quickly, dangerously, and by humankind, is stronger than the evidence for a lot of our clinical interventions) we would want to make the health service more sustainable ANYWAY.  Not just fro environmental reasons, but because it will be better for health NOW  (more prevention, better food, better ways of moving, care closer to home, more involvement, control, and empowerment  from patients).  We often refer to these win-wins as co-benefits.  Benefit now AND benefit later for human health.

A recent report from Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism analyses the way that climate scientists and journalists interact, and the effects which this is having on public policy and public opinion.

The book launch last night included an interesting panel discussion including:

 
Fiona Fox, Science Media Centre (chair), Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC news website, Ben Jackson, Environment editor, The Sun, Tom Clarke, Professor Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, Professor Mark Maslin, University College London, Dr Emily Shuckburgh, British Antarctic Survey and Dr David Viner, British Council.

Another interesting day.

Firstly, Japan. On June 1st, the Japanese PM reaffirmed its wish to target a 25% in GHG emissions by 2020 over 1990 levels. However, pressure is building to abandon this, citing loss of nuclear reactors as the cause. The government is still pressing internationally to abandon the Kyoto protocol. Russia, Canada and Australia (Oil, Tar Sands, Coal) are also pressing for the same. Business conversations are also concerning: 'Cancun deal only goes to 2020. Any curve to decline will be over 60-80 years, so the short term goals are meaningless'. Really?

An interesting webinar discussing issues related to climate change and health was held recently, in a joint production between the Security and Sustainability Forum and the American Public Health Association. The webinar offered me the opportunity to further my knowledge relating to climate change and health gained thus far as part of a Masters in Public Health at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 1200 people from around the globe listened in to a panel of experts discuss the potential impacts of climate change on health and current adaptation measures by health systems. The vast benefits to health, including reduced health care costs, from many measures to mitigate climate change were also presented. Dr. Jonathan Patz, Dr. Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Dr. Andy Haines, Dr. Ann Lion and Dr. Alistair Woodward made up the panel, representing a range of organizations including the World Health Organization, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases and Abt Associates.

 

Interesting points raised included:

Peter Carter MD. British Columbia. Canada. 1 November 2010.  
    www.climate-change-emergency-medical-response

We are today deciding the state and habitability of planet Earth for thousands of years. The prognosis is grave.

• Potentially catastrophic planetary changes are already happening many decades ahead of computer projections.
• No institution is acknowledging we are beyond dangerous climate interference, or that we face the risk of climate catastrophe.
• The UN negotiations for a new climate treaty are stalled - for a great many years if nothing changes.
• In the US political and public support for fast effective measures is low. 

Population and Consumption are two sides of the same coin.

Many in the rich world demonise the increasing population in the poor world as the central issue we need to tackle in our attempts to mitigate climate change. Whilst not denying the importance of population stabilisation, examining the relative environmental impacts of different communities allows us to view the burgeoning global population in a broader context.