Climate and health debate
The World Health Organisation estimates that 150,000 deaths each year can be attributed to the effects of climate. Will this figure rise as a result of global warming? What do we know about the likely effect of climate change on our health? And how should we manage new risks?
So goes an introduction to three articles on climate and health prefacing a live debate in London on 8 March.
The articles are worth reading for the contrast in thinking they display and the way they rehearse issues, or claims, that are not always well spelt out.
Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford writes:
Tougher tests are required before we can conclude that greenhouse gas emissions are killing people. The signal may just now be becoming strong enough for these tougher tests to be passed, but it is crucial for the credibility of the whole science of attribution that we don't blow the whistle too early.
Nevertheless, he says, there are no grounds for complacency:
For example, the heatwave in the summer of 2003 is estimated to have caused between 20,000 and 30,000 'excess deaths' (above what would be expected in a typical August) across Europe. The epidemiological evidence is reasonably clear, and there was no marked decrease in mortality following the heatwave, so these were not deaths due to a simple 'harvesting' effect that were brought forward by only a few weeks: many of the victims would otherwise have survived for years. In a paper published in December 2004, we argued that past human influence on climate is likely to have increased the risk of such a heatwave by at least a factor of two, more likely a factor of four or more.
Kaplinsky, a science writer, does not take account of Allen’s argument,
but makes the case that climate change has only marginal impacts which can be
better dealt with as societies develop, and that spending is better directed to aggressive
health promotion programmes in poor and
vulnerable countries than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
more than 100,000 people die on average each
year as a result of cold temperatures during the winter months… A warming of
2.5 degree Celsius would lower the annual death rate by 40,000 in the USA alone while reducing medical costs by almost $20bn per year.
Allen looks to have a stronger, if more cautious, opening position for the debate (incidentally, his article The blame game is worth reading. A striking combination of scientific and legal thinking co-written with the lawyer Richard Lord, it notes that English law takes a more flexible approach to questions of causation, with a 2002 case in the House of Lords (Fairchild v. Glenhaven) suggesting that "material increase in risk" may sometimes be an appropriate test).
Kaplinsky and Peiser may have chosen their ground less carefully. Not least, they don’t appear to have fully taken account of the way climate change – more accurately climate instability – may have multiple effects that will be hard to manage and could cause increased mortality in numerous ways. A good place to start on this is www.stabilisation2005.com
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Climate and health debate:
Caspar - isn't this conference a little suspect?
See Invasion of the Entryists
I'm not saying it is - I'm just asking your opinion...
Posted by: Robin Grant | 3 Mar 2005 22:14:02
Myles Allen is a first rate climate scientist.
The conference? A good question. By setting the agenda in this way, the organisers achieve superficial plausibility. Useful to understand how that works.
Further to your links, see also: http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=124&threadID=43882&tstart=0
Posted by: Caspar Henderson | 5 Mar 2005 15:57:15
Suspect? Superficial plausibility?
From where I'm standing, you could quite easily apply those words to the World Health Organisation's figure of 150,000 deaths due to climate change - rather than to a conference which aims to debate such issues.
Posted by: Courtney Hamilton | 7 Mar 2005 13:24:28
In his essay for Spiked, Myles Allen writes:
" the correct interpretation of the WHO statistic...is that climatic changes, to which human influence may have contributed although we cannot yet say how much, were responsible for 150,000 deaths in the year 2000. This doesn't sound particularly dramatic. But suppose regional studies focusing on provincial scales drew similar conclusions to those we drew for Southern European area-averaged temperatures regarding the contribution of human influence to the risk of extreme temperatures observed in the summer of 2003. Then we will be able to say, in a statistical sense, that past emissions of greenhouse gases killed several thousand elderly Europeans that summer. And that has some serious implications".
Larger questions here, which the conference ignores, include: will climate change be limited to a 2 degree temperature rise?; will this rise be uniform across regions?; what will be other predictable and unpredictable consequences of changing atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, etc, etc, etc, etc.
The conference is framed as "butter knives in first class cabins on the Titanic: good or bad?"
Posted by: Caspar Henderson | 7 Mar 2005 18:57:16
I agree that the conference ignores many important aspects of climate change, which you have highlighted. But what I find interesting about this forthcoming event (as well as confusing) is the apparent link between global warming and health – or death in some cases.
There is only 3 hours to interrogate this alleged causal link. I’ll be interested to hear Myles Allen’s response to the idea that other powerful forces came to bare on those unfortunate, mainly French elderly citizens in that fateful summer of 2003.
So, in a sense, I hope the conference does what it says on the tin – as for the Titanic…
Posted by: Courtney Hamilton | 8 Mar 2005 16:35:57
The comments to this entry are closed.