Cutting Greenhouse Pollutants Could Directly Save Millions of Lives Worldwide

Today, new studies published in the Lancet show that strategies to reduce greenhouse gases also benefit human health. The Lancet series highlights case studies on four climate change topics — household energy, transportation, electricity generation, and agricultural food production. Researchers say that cost savings realized from improving health will offset the cost of addressing climate change and, therefore, should be considered as part of all policy discussions related to climate change. Key researchers and public health officials gathered in the Unites States and Britain gathered together via satellite simulcast to unveil new research.

The studies were commissioned to help inform discussions at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December 2009. Funding for The Lancet Health and Climate Change series was provided by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health, and British partners including the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Department of Health, the Economic and Social Research Council, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the National Institute for Health Research, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Wellcome Trust.

“We are learning that the health of our planet and the health of our people are tied together. It’s difficult for one to thrive without the other,” said U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Climate change is not a problem that one country or one organization can solve on its own. It’s a problem that affects us all.

“If we work to reduce pollution,” added Secretary Sebelius, “we will also reduce deaths from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.”

“These papers demonstrate there are clear and substantive improvements for health if we choose the right mitigation strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of the NIEHS and National Toxicology Program, one of the key sponsors of the international event. “We now have real-life examples of how we can save the environment, reduce air pollution and decrease related health effects; it’s really a win-win situation for everyone.”

The household energy paper showed that introducing low-emission stove technology, specifically replacing biomass stoves in India, could improve respiratory health and is one of the most cost-effective climate-health linkages, given that indoor air pollution from inefficient cooking stoves increases respiratory infections in children and chronic heart disease in adults. The transportation study showed that cutting emissions by reducing motor vehicle use and increasing walking and cycling would bring substantial health gains by reducing heart disease and stroke by 10-20 percent, dementia by eight percent, and depression by five percent.

The electricity study demonstrated that changing methods of generation to reduce carbon dioxide, such as using wind turbines, would reduce particulate air pollution and yield the greatest potential for health-related cost savings in China and India. The final study showed that the food and agriculture sector contributes about 20 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions, and that a 30 percent reduction in consumption of saturated fats from animal sources would reduce heart disease by about 15 percent while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Each study in the series examines the health implications of actions in high- and low-income countries designed to reduce the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Climate change due to emission of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel energy sources causes air pollution by increasing ground-level ozone and concentrations of fine particulate matter.

“Climate change threatens us all, but its impact will likely be greatest on the poorest communities in every country,” said Kirk R. Smith, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, and author on several of the papers. “Carefully choosing how we reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have the added benefit of reducing global health inequities.”

Senior doctors launch global movement to tackle climate change

Senior doctors from across the globe have come together to form the International Climate and Health Council. Their aim is to mobilise health professionals across the world to help tackle the health effects of climate change.

The Council will be officially launched on Wednesday 25 November 2009 to coincide with a series of papers being published by the Lancet on the public health impact of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Founding members include Professor Ian Gilmore, President of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Muir Gray, Director of the Campaign for Greener Health Care, Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of Council at the British Medical Association, Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal and Lancet Editor, Dr Richard Horton.

Together with colleagues from Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas, they are calling for urgent government-led international action to reduce carbon emissions and promote the universal adoption of low carbon sustainable lifestyles.

Failure to agree radical reductions in emissions spells a global health catastrophe, they say.

“Climate change is already causing major health problems,” say Professor Mike Gill and Dr Robin Stott, co-chairs of the UK Climate and Health Council. “This is the first step towards a global network of health professionals which by speaking out has the potential to protect and improve the health of people in both rich and poor worlds.”

“The public places trust in health professionals, and will listen to those who play their part in protecting human health from climate change,” they add. “This is why health professionals must put their case forcefully now and after Copenhagen. We must give the world’s politicians and policy makers no room for doubt on what action they need to take.”

“Politicians may be scared to push for radical reductions in emissions because some of the necessary changes to the way we live won’t please voters,” says Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of the BMJ. “Doctors are under no such constraint. On the contrary we have a responsibility as health professionals to warn people how bad things are likely to get if we don’t act now. The good news is that we have a positive message - that what is good for the climate is good for health.”

Photo by Rick Harrison. CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

Possibly Related Posts:

• Aquatic ‘Dead Zones’ Contributing to Climate Change
• New Study Debunks Myths About Amazon Rain Forests
• ARS Sends Third Seed Shipment to Norway Seed Vault
• Carbon Emissions ‘Outsourced’ to Developing Countries
• Environmental Engineers Receive Award for Investigation of Lead Poisoning of Washington D.C. Children