Archive for Health

Powerful alliances pushing for action on climate change, locally and globally

by CAHA
June 23rd, 2015

by Mark Hayes
via Croakey

The threat to human health from climate change is so great that it could undermine many of the gains in development and global health of the last fifty years.

And yet according to the report, actions to tackle climate change could be the greatest opportunity to improve global health.

The initial 2009 Lancet report titled, Managing the health effects of climate change, labelled climate change as “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”. Climate change is known to impact on health directly through increased injuries and deaths from heat stress, floods, droughts, and storms.

Beyond these, there are potentially greater indirect impacts: the spread of climate-sensitive infectious diseases; air pollution affecting respiratory diseases; food insecurity; nutritional problems; mass migration and conflict; and mental health.

However, the momentous new release, to be marked by launch events all over the globe and starting in Melbourne, provides comprehensive new evidence that actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change have significant direct and indirect positive health benefits.

Six years on from the 2009 report, the new multidisciplinary and international Commission draws on experts from a range of fields, including public health; climate science; geography; ecology; engineering; economics; political science; and public policy.

They conclude that many mitigation and adaption responses to climate change are “no regrets policies” that are possible right now, and accrue health co-benefits.

In particular, the report cites health and economic gains from reduced air pollution and transition to sustainable cities that promote healthy lifestyles. It recommends rapidly phasing out coal as part of an early and decisive policy package aimed at reducing the health burden of particulate matter and other air pollutants.

Moreover, the development of energy efficient buildings; low cost active transport; and green urban spaces will not only clean up the air we breath, but will also reduce road traffic accidents, obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke.

The report emphasises that achieving a decarbonised global economy, and the associated public health benefits, is no longer a technical or economic question, but rather it is now a political one.

In the lead up to the pivotal UN climate negotiations in Paris this December this report calls for bold political commitment.

Echoing this call for action are leading health and medical groups in Australia who have welcomed the new publication. The Nossal Institute for Global Health, Australian Medical Association (Victoria), Public Health Association of Australia (Victoria), the Australian Medical Students Association, the Climate and Health Alliance and the Melbourne Sustainable Societies Institute are cohosting a forum in Melbourne, with Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty set to launch the publication in Australia.

Australian National University, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, University of Western Australia, the Climate Council, and Adelaide University are all hosting events in the following days and months.

With the Australian government expected to release its revised emission reduction targets in mid-July, time will soon tell if our leaders will hear the calls from health professionals.

The solutions are available and effective. Health communities around the globe agree that we can, and must, act now to protect our health now and into the future.

Source: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2015/06/23/powerful-publishers-pushing-for-action-on-climate-change-locally-and-globally/

Categories Carbon, Climate, Governance, Health, Medical, Mitigate
Comments (0)

Climate mitigation – the greatest public health opportunity of our time

by CAHA
June 23rd, 2015

by Fiona Armstrong
via The Conversation

Cutting emissions will limit health damages and bring about important health improvements. Pedro Ribeiro Simões/Flickr, CC BY

Tackling climate change is the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century, a team of 60 international experts today declared in a special report for The Lancet medical journal.

The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate report comes six years after the groundbreaking first Commission report – a collaboration between The Lancet and University College London – which described climate change as the “biggest global health threat of the 21st century”.

The latest report shows many mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change can directly reduce the burden of ill health, boost community resilience, and lessen poverty and inequity.

In particular, switching to clean renewable energy sources, energy-efficient buildings and active transport options will reduce air pollution and have flow-on health benefits. This includes reducing rates of heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, mental illness and respiratory disease.

The commission also reveals these health co-benefits associated with emissions reduction strategies offer extraordinary value for money. The financial savings associated with avoided ill-health and productivity gains can outstrip the costs of implementing emissions-reduction strategies – if they are carefully designed.

What if we wait?

The commission makes it plain we cannot afford to wait. There are limits to the level and rate of warming humans and other species can adapt to.

With “just” 0.85°C warming since the pre-industrial era, many predicted health threats around the world have become real. Long, intense heatwaves and other extreme weather events such as storms, floods, fires and drought are having direct health impacts. The impacts on ecosystems affects health indirectly, through agricultural losses, as well as contributing to spread of disease.

Mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change can directly reduce the burden of ill health. Vaclav Volrab/Shutterstock

Climate change is affecting economies and social structures, which also cause health impacts, particularly when associated with forced migration and conflict. Given the risks of climate change-induced “regional collapse, famine and war”, the commission notes mitigation-focused investment “would seem to be the prudent priority at a global level”.

How does this affect Australians?

Climate change is driving record temperatures in Australia, with heatwaves now hotter, longer and more frequent. People die from heat exposure during these events. Many others seek medical attention, leading to massive surges in demand for ambulances, emergency services, and health-care services. Deaths from heatwaves in Australian cities are expected to double in the next 40 years.

Hotter summers are leading to more bush fires, which cause injuries and fatalities. People lose their homes and businesses. Communities lose schools and health care. After bush fires, communities also face a higher rate of general illness, increased in alcohol and drug abuse, and more mental illness.

Extreme rainfall and cyclones cause direct fatalities and injuries. Floods and cyclones can severely affect health care services. In 2011, floods in Queensland caused the cancellation of 1,396 surgical cases, increasing waiting times for vital procedures by 73%.

Rising temperatures are leading to increases in deadly foodborne illnesses, disruptions to food production and water security, and worsening air quality, increasing respiratory illnesses.

Finally, infectious diseases are becoming more common, as are vector-borne diseases such as Ross River fever and zoonotic diseases, which are spread from animals to humans.

What does the future hold?

The report notes that since the first commission six years ago, emissions have risen beyond the “worst case scenario”.

Without mitigation, the authors warn “large-scale disruptions to the climate system” (not currently included in climate modelling and impact assessments) could “trigger a discontinuity in the long-term progression of humanity”.

In lay terms, they mean “wipe us out”.

At the very least, or at least put another way, the authors suggest likely temperature rises may be “incompatible with an organised global community”.

A prescription for action

Cutting emissions, the commission says, will limit health damages, as well as bring important health improvements associated with improved air quality, increased mobility from better public transport, and better physical and mental health from greener spaces and more energy efficient homes.

There is no need to wait. The commission says it is technically feasible to transition to low-carbon infrastructure now. The technologies have been available for at least 40 years, and some since the 19th century.

The financial savings associated with avoided ill-health and productivity gains can outstrip the costs of implementing emissions-reduction strategies. TCDavis/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

There is potentially significant economic savings associated with the health benefits of climate policies. One study suggests savings from avoided ill-health arising from the implementation of an emissions trading scheme could return up to ten times the cost of implementation.

Policies to achieve this must include carbon pricing, the commission argues – either carbon taxes or emission trading schemes. Where these are not appropriate, it recommends taxes on energy products. Feed-in tariffs (for electricity fed back to the grid) should drive renewable energy deployment, while perverse subsidies to fossil fuels should be abolished.

A key recommendation is the rapid phase out of coal – part of “an early and decisive policy package” to target emissions from the transport, agriculture and energy sectors.

Timing is everything

In order to have a 66% likelihood of limiting global warming to less than 2°C, the remaining global carbon budget will be used up in the next 13 to 24 years.

As all good health professionals know, treatment is of most value when it addresses the cause – in this case, largely fossil fuels. Scaling of low-carbon technologies policy options is vital.

The commission doesn’t spell this out, but in order for global emissions to begin to fall, we must use our remaining carbon budget to make the switch to low-carbon technologies and resources. Doing so will create many new jobs, and help avoid expensive adaptation costs.

Questions for Australia

The Lancet commission makes a clear case for climate action based on health benefits alone. This raises important questions for the Australian government, which abolished the carbon price, wound back policies to support renewable energy, and committed to supporting coal as an energy source:

Why is it failing to protect the health of Australians from this very serious threat? And why are the health benefits associated with climate policies not being factored into policy decisions, given the billions of dollars in savings for health budgets?

Australians should themselves be asking these questions, but at least now we know the Commission will also be listening for the answers.

Source: https://theconversation.com/climate-mitigation-the-greatest-public-health-opportunity-of-our-time-43549

Categories Climate, Energy, Energy policy, Extreme weather, Governance, Health, Mitigate, Public health
Comments (0)

Climate change: a great threat to health, but not as generally conceived

by CAHA
June 2nd, 2015

by Professor Colin Butler
via Croakey

Prior to the 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference the Lancet published a 41 page article called “Managing the health effects of climate change”. The text postulated that “climate change is potentially the biggest global health threat in the 21st century” but the executive summary was unambiguous: “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”. Later this month, in the lead up to the Paris climate change summit, the Lancet is to again publish a major report on climate change and health. I had no role in either, though I edited a recent book on the subject.

A WHO-led study found that in 2000 the burden of disease (BOD) of climate change caused about 5.5 million lost disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), mainly due to climate change-related undernutrition, with minor contributions from infectious diseases. This sounds significant, but was less than 0.4% of the global BOD in 2000. In contrast, HIV/AIDS, the leading cause of lost DALYs in the “baseline” scenario for 2030, contributes about 12% of the total – or about 30 times as much as climate change in 2000. Climate change is a risk factor, not a disease, so it is likely to cause an increased BOD for several health conditions. However, each of those conditions (such as undernutrition) has several causes; attributing the fraction that climate change is responsible for is bound to be disputed. Tobacco smoke, closely followed by childhood underweight, was found to be the leading risk factors in an updated BOD study published in 2013, each causing about 8% of the total burden, or about 20 times as much as that of climate change in 2000.

The claim that climate change will emerge as the greatest threat to global health this century is striking and surely calls for strong evidence, if to be taken seriously. But though some health workers do take it literally, my contention is that most don’t. Outside health, even fewer do. I suggest several explanations.

The first may lie with the Lancet paper itself. It is vague, repetitive, and in part overstated. At one point it comments “a 13-m rise [in sea level] would cause the flooding and permanent abandonment of almost all low-lying coastal and river urban areas. Currently, a third of the world’s population lives within 60 miles of a shoreline and 13 of the world’s 20 largest cities are located on a coast. More than a billion people could be displaced in environmental mass migration.” That sounds plausible, except that neither the IPCC nor any other authority suggests any such extent of sea level rise is likely this century. Few if any peer reviewed articles suggest more than 2 metres of sea level rise this century is plausible. A perception of exaggeration may reduce the impact of this paper, contrary to the authors’ intention.

The Lancet paper identifies six main health effects from climate change: (1) changing patterns of disease and morbidity, (2) food, (3) water and sanitation, (4) shelter and human settlements, (5) extreme events, and (6) population and migration. However, no attempt is made to rigorously quantify the health effects for any of these. I can understand why, but this risks creating a perception of “hand waving”.

Another reason for the comparative lack of impact of this paper is that although its authors are consciously inter-disciplinary, the consensus in many other disciplines is far more conservative. This is exemplified by the issue of conflict. The possibility that climate change may contribute to violent climate was first raised in the health literature in 1989 (in a Lancet editorial), but has rarely surfaced since. A recent paper, by 26 leading gatekeepers to the political science literature confirmed the resistance of this discipline to this idea, although, outside political science, the idea is gaining more currency. The 2009 Lancet paper also reviews the literature at that time concerning food security and climate change. While not quantifying the risk, the message is consistently more downbeat than that of the IPCC reports, though the 2013 IPCC food chapter is less optimistic than its predecessors. If disciplinary specialists do not share the anxiety of the Lancet authors then why should generalists?

There is another reason that neither health workers nor the wider community takes the Lancet paper’s claim seriously: general incredulity. Conceding that our species is capable of critically undermining the environmental and social determinants that make civilisation possible appears to stretch our species’ collective cognitive capacity. While many scientists (such as Will Steffen in this excellent recent lecture) and an increasing number of lay and business people (including Elon Musk) do understand this – and are rightly apprehensive, about “business as usual” the understanding that most of the world’s population has of climate science seems not much better than of evolution a century ago. Adding to this difficulty, of course, are powerful vested interests that deliberately confuse and cloud public understanding and, to an extent, inherent scientific conservatism.

The final explanation I’d like to raise here is of causal attribution, also related to cognitive biases. The late Professor Tony McMichael coined the term “prisoners of the proximate” to encourage his epidemiological colleagues to think more deeply about cause. Of course, McMichael was not the first to do this; causal theory is as old as philosophy. However, despite this vintage, many people, including scientists, get stuck with their preconceptions, and many have trouble conceding not only that there may be additional causal factors, but that these may co-exist with, rather than supplant their current causal preference. This tension is obvious concerning conflict. Military theorists are happy to conceive climate change as a “risk multiplier” for conflict, but not (yet) political scientists.

Climate change can indeed be conceptualised as the most important risk to health this century, but it is only one element in a risky milieu. Lowering the risk from climate change requires reducing the risk of many of its co-determinants of civilisation health. Among these, the most important factor may be complacency.

Source: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2015/06/02/climate-change-a-great-threat-to-health-but-not-as-generally-conceived/

image source: WWF

image source: WWF

Categories Climate, Health, Health professionals, Public health, Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Electronic networking does work!

by CAHA
May 28th, 2015

A report from the ‘Environmentally sustainable practice in hospitals and community settings’ seminar 15 May 2015

Janet Roden, Professional Officer in the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association (NSWN&MA), and Peter Sainsbury, Director of Population Health in South Western Sydney Local Health District, met in 2014 on a Global Green and Healthy Hospitals webinar organised by CAHA Convenor Fiona Armstrong.

Out of that meeting the two of them organised an ‘Environmental Health Seminar’ attended by 50 health professionals at Liverpool Hospital on 15 May 2015 – a first in NSW for collaboration between a local health district and the NSWN&MA on environmental sustainability.

The focus of the seminar was on environmentally sustainable practices in hospital and community settings and the 50 health professionals present heard a tremendous array of knowledgeable speakers, all of who have runs on the board promoting environmental sustainability in their own workplaces.

Debbie Wilson, Sustainability Officer with the Counties Manukau District Health Board in New Zealand, focused in her keynote speech on outlining the activities of the Global Green and Healthy Hospitals network and the environmental initiatives they have introduced in Manukau. In the afternoon, Debbie talked about the identification and management of toxic chemicals in health services.

Other speakers included Chris Hill talking about the initiatives taken to promote environmental sustainability at the Mater Hospital in Brisbane; Terrona Ramsay and Aileen Thomas describing the very innovative approaches adopted to make the small regional health service at Kooweerup in Victoria greener; Michelle Skrivanic and Alison Brannelly talking about the initiatives nurses can take in large hospitals, for instance reducing and separating waste in operating theatres; and Matt Power from St Vincent’s Health Australia describing how health services can improve energy efficiency. And somewhere amongst all that we found time for lots discussion with the audience, much of it focussing on the practicalities of (and problems associated with) encouraging health services to become more environmentally sustainable.

All in all, a very practical and enjoyable day … and all because of professional speed dating.

Click on the links below for podcast recordings of the presentations:

Categories Behaviour change, Climate, Environment, Health, Health professionals, healthcare, Hospitals, Medical, Nursing, Sustainability, sustainability
Comments (0)

Are you going to stand back and let the coal industry determine our future? Or are you going to fight for it?

by CAHA
November 14th, 2014

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

As you know, the G20 Leaders Summit is on this weekend in Brisbane and world leaders are gathering to talk about issues ranging from development, employment, taxation, infrastructure, investment and trade.

But not climate change.

Meanwhile the coal industry is at the G20, working to secure greater subsidies and less regulation of their deadly product. Coal causes hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year, largely from exposure to air pollution from coal fired power plants in developing nations.

Leading climate and energy scientists from around the world say any further expansion of coal is incompatible with avoiding dangerous climate change. Coal must be quickly substituted for zero emission technologies, and the majority of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground.

However the Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared “coal is good for humanity” and “coal is essential for the prosperity of the world”.

The Qld Premier Campbell Newman recently claimed those opposing Australia’s coal exports are “condemning people in China, but particularly in India, who live in poverty, condemning them to that poverty.”

He went on to say: “To take 1.3 billion people in India out of poverty is going to require significant energy, and coal particularly is what they’re after.”

India doesn’t want our coal

This might come as something of a surprise to the people of India, wrote Indian energy policy analyst Shankar Sharma in an open letter to the Qld Premier last week:

“This statement, if reported correctly, indicates to me that you did not have the benefit of effective briefing by your officers.

Not only is it “highly irrational to assume that everyone in 1.3 billion is poor,” writes Mr Sharma, but “it is surprising that it seems that you have not been briefed on the social and environmental aspects of burning large quantities of coal in a densely populated and resource constrained country like India.”

The Indian Energy Minister Piyush Goyal has just told the World Economic Forum they will be investing US$100bn in renewable energy in the next five years.

Coal isn’t the answer to energy access. Access to electricity for poor people in the developing world can be provided much more cheaply and cleanly with renewable energy, with none of the risks to health posed by fossil fuels, or the associated greenhouse gas emissions.

The coal industry plan to expand, regardless of the damage they cause

Coal industry leaders know their days are numbered. That’s why they have engaged Burson-Marsteller, the PR company which handled the PR for the 1984 Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India and formerly made a living spruiking the benefits of tobacco.

Now they’ve helped Peabody Energy and others set up the Advanced Energy for Life campaign, aimed at influencing world leaders to help them “fight energy poverty” and suggesting that without access to coal, the developed world will forever be consigned to poverty. In an extraordinary display of hubris, they even claim “coal is key to human health and welfare, along with a clean environment.”

As they make plain in this video, their goal is to secure policy commitments from world leaders at the G20 that support the expansion of coal.

We can’t let this happen!

As health and medical professionals, we can’t just stand back and allow the coal industry to wreck the planet and cause the deaths of thousands of people in this callous and calculated pursuit of profit.

The industry is on the attack – just last week, when CAHA President and Australian National University climate and health researcher Dr Liz Hanna responded to the sobering findings of the latest IPCC report by pointing to the dangers of Australian coal exports, Minerals Council CEO Brendan Pearson responded by suggesting Dr Hanna was “unable to distinguish between ideological prejudice and scholarship”!

What can you do?

Write a letter to the editor or an opinion piece for publication in one of the major newspapers or online publications expressing your concerns about the unfettered expansion of coal in Australia and the risks it poses to people’s health and the climate.

Contact details:

Courier Mail use this online form

Brisbane Times use this online form

The Australian [email protected]

Sydney Morning Herald [email protected]

The Age use this online form

The Adelaide Advertiser use this online form

The Canberra Times [email protected]

The West Australian [email protected]

The Hobart Mercury use this online form

Northern Territory News use this online form

Croakey (health blog at Crikey) [email protected]

Climate Spectator [email protected]

Renew Economy [email protected]

The New Daily [email protected]

Hit the airwaves

ABC Radio Brisbane 1300 222 612

4BC 13 13 32

ABC Radio National 1300 225 576

Get cracking on social media

  • Twitter – tweet the Premier @theqldpremier and let him know your thoughts on the matter (use these hash tags: #climate #coal #climate2014 #renewables #G20)
  • Facebook – share these infographics here here and here and some of the links below

Need more information?

Here are some links to recent reports:

Here are some useful newspaper articles:

Here are some recent health / medical journal articles:

Here are some resources on coal and health:

More useful resources on http://endcoal.org/

Categories Coal, Energy, Energy policy, Health professionals, Public health, Public policy, Research, Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Greening the Healthcare Sector Think Tank 14th Oct 2014

by CAHA
September 15th, 2014

Hosted by Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association (AHHA) and Climate and Health Alliance (CAHA) in partnership with Global Green and Healthy Hospitals

Event Title: ‘The Health Sector as a Leader in Low Carbon Transformation’

When:  Tuesday 14th October 2014

Where: Mater Hospital, South Brisbane

Featuring case studies and experts on the following themes:

  • Building healthy and sustainable healthcare infrastructure
  • Waste not – the transformation of disposal in healthcare
  • Engaging others – making sustainability everyone’s business
  • Building a  national and global community for healthy, sustainable healthcare

Opportunities to improve environmental sustainability in the healthcare sector are rapidly expanding. There are increasingly substantive economic drivers supporting a growing cohort of health and sustainability professionals in implementing strategies in their organisations for cutting carbon, reducing waste, minimising chemicals, and greening the supply chain.

The Greening the Healthcare Sector Think Tank provides an opportunity for those working in the sector to hear first hand case studies of change, talk to experts, hear about opportunities for collaboration, and contribute to a discussion about how we can work together to accelerate progress within the health sector towards sustainable healthcare and hospital practices.

This Think Tank will allow participants to hear from industry leaders and professionals and engage in discussions about strategies to improve environmental sustainability and population health while reducing pressure on health sector budgets. Building green healthcare facilities, engaging staff for institution-wide change, reducing waste and saving money will be some of the topics covered in this dynamic and interactive event.

The Think Tank will be facilitated by leading sustainability educator and consultant Ian McBurney, and will feature snap shot presentations from professionals, followed by engaging and interactive discussions.

Beamed in live from Washington state will be Nick Thorp, Global Community Manager of the Global Green and Healthy Hospitals network. Hear about this rapidly expanding network and the innovative platform that is enabling health and sustainability professionals to connect with one another around the world.

If you are looking for tools and resources to support sustainability initiatives and want to know how to succeed through collaboration with others – look no further!

Download the program here. Register now! Click on this link to register.

 

Categories Advocacy, Carbon, Climate, Emissions, Energy, Energy policy, Health, Health professionals, healthcare, Healthy, Hospitals, Mitigate, Sustainability, Sustainable, Uncategorized, Waste, Well-being
Comments (0)

CAHA and Climate Council Joint Statement on Coal and Health

by CAHA
September 3rd, 2014

Joint Statement on the Health Effects of Coal in Australia

The Climate and Health Alliance and the Climate Council have released a Joint Statement on the Health Effects of Coal in Australia in response to the Inquiry report from Hazelwood coal mine fire in Victoria, saying:

“Australia’s heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation and massive coal industry expansion present significant risks to the health of communities, families and individuals.”

The Joint Statement calls for: health risks to be considered in all energy policy and investment decisions;  independent air, water and soil quality monitoring at and around every coal mine and power station in Australia; and funding for research into health, social and environmental impacts of coal.

The Joint Statement is accompanied by a Briefing Paper on Health Effects of Coal in Australia which outlines the scientific health and medical literature on the impacts on health from the production of coal.

The Joint Statement is signed by Professor Fiona Stanley, Professor Tim Flannery from the Climate Council and Dr Liz Hanna, President of Climate and Health Alliance on behalf of CAHA’s 27 member organisations.

The Joint Statement reads:

“We, the undersigned, accept the clear evidence that:

1. coal mining and burning coal for electricity emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air, water and land;
2. coal pollution is linked to the development of potentially fatal diseases and studies show severe health impacts on miners, workers and local communities;
3. Australia’s heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation and massive coal industry expansion present significant risks to the health of communities, families and individuals; and
4. emissions from coal mine fires, like the recent Hazelwood mine fire in Victoria, and the release of heavy metal and organic compounds, pose health risks for surrounding populations, such as respiratory and heart disease, cancers and other health conditions.

“We believe that Federal and State governments must urgently research and account for these risks to human health starting with consistent air, water and soil quality monitoring at and around every coal mine and power station in Australia.

“We are calling on governments and industry to acknowledge the significant human health risks associated with the whole lifecycle of coal production – mining, transportation, combustion and the disposal of waste – and to urgently fund research and account for these risks in policy, planning and investment decisions in Australia.

“While we recognise the role coal played in the industrial revolution – as an important energy source helping advance economies
and improve livelihoods – studies now show that every phase of coal’s lifecycle presents major human health risks and contributes to ecological degradation, loss of biodiversity and climate change.

“In addition to the release of greenhouse gases, which are the primary cause of climate change, coal mining and electricity generation emit known toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air, water and land. These emissions include mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, nitrogen oxides and inhalable airborne particulates.

“Authoritative studies in Europe and the United States show severe health impacts from coal emissions on miners, workers and local communities. These studies link coal pollution to the development of potentially fatal diseases, resulting in thousands of premature deaths and costing national economies tens to hundreds of billions of dollars every year. In the United States, the Physicians for Social Responsibility found that coal contributes to four of the five leading causes of mortality: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic respiratory diseases.

Health risks are not limited to mining and combustion. Emissions from coal mine fires are linked to lung cancer, bronchitis, heart disease and other health conditions. At home, despite Australia’s heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation – it provides 75% of our electricity supply – research and monitoring of the resulting health effects is limited. Most research has been conducted overseas, whereas in Australia – one of the world’s leading producers, consumers and exporters of coal – the burden of disease remains under investigated.

Furthermore, the disease burden will escalate as the massive coal industry expansion underway in Australia presents additional risk to human health in Australia and overseas. The significant health costs associated with coal are not currently reflected in the price of coal-fired electricity in Australia. In 2009, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) estimated coal’s health impacts cost taxpayers $2.6 billion every year.

“A dire lack of monitoring and research in Australia is letting down coal mining communities.”

Recommendations:

1. Coal’s human health risks must be properly considered and accounted for in all energy and resources policy and investment decisions.
2. We also encourage the investment in education and training opportunities to support coal mining communities to transition away from fossil fuel industries towards new industries.
3. National standards for consistent air, water and soil quality monitoring at and around every coal mine and power station in Australia conducted by an independent body with no relationship to the coal industry.
4. Adequate funding allocated for research to evaluate the health, social and environmental impacts of coal in coal mining communities.

This joint statement is signed by Professor Tim Flannery, Professor Fiona Stanley, the Climate Council of Australia and the Climate and Health Alliance representing its 27 health organisations as members.

Professor Tim Flannery, Chief Councillor, The Climate Council of Australia

 

Professor Fiona Stanley, Distinguished Research Professor, School of Paediatrics and Child Health (SPACH), The University of Western Australia, a Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Melbourne and the Patron of the Telethon Kids Institute.

 

 

 

Dr. Liz Hanna, President of the Climate and Health Alliance

 

Categories Advocacy, Children, Climate, Coal, Emissions, Energy, Energy policy, Health, Health policy, Public health
Comments (0)

Webinar: Global Green and Healthy Hospitals

by CAHA
August 24th, 2014

CAHA’s recent Webinar provided participants with an introduction to the rapidly growing initiative that is the Global Green and Healthy Hospitals (GGHH) network.

Some of the topics GGHH Global Community Manager Nick Thorp discussed included:

  • Opportunities to improve sustainability in healthcare
  • Introduction to GGHH
  • What GGHH can offer for your hospital or health organisation
  • A global communications platform: GGHH Connect
  • How to join GGHH

Slides from the Webinar are available here.

For more information about GGHH in Australia or New Zealand, contact [email protected]

Categories Health, healthcare, Sustainability, sustainability
Comments (0)

Tragic loss and untimely death of CAHA board member, Assoc Professor Erica Bell

by CAHA
July 29th, 2014

The CAHA Committee of Management and Membership is shocked and saddened by the untimely death of Committee of Management member and Expert Advisory Committee member Associate Professor Erica Bell, who died on Saturday following a massive stroke early last week.

Erica has been a tireless supporter of the Climate and Health Alliance (CAHA), attending its inaugural meeting in 2010, serving on its Committee of Management and Expert Advisory group since its establishment, amid an incredibly demanding role at University of Tasmania, previously as Deputy Director, University Department of Rural Health, and more recently in the Translational Health Services Group in the Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre.

Erica championed and led the development of the CAHA expert advisory group, which has been pivotal to the organisation’s credibility and reputation. Erica was influential in building support for CAHA particularly in the rural and remote education sector, and her innovative approaches to community engagement in climate and health research and emphasis on rural and remote health, as well as her insights into integrating policy and research, were extremely valuable and will influence research for decades to come.

Erica was much admired in the CAHA community and her support of CAHA and its work deeply appreciated.

 

Categories Climate, Health
Comments (0)

Webinar on Health and Climate Change in Mongolia – The Policy Response

by CAHA
July 17th, 2014

Webinar with Tsetsegsaikhan Batmunkh from the Ministry of Health in Mongolia who will discuss the steps her country is taking to adapt and mitigate the health impacts of climate change. 

Monday 21st July 2014 at 12pm-1.00pm

– Please note you will need a microphone and speakers to join using your computer, and need to download the Webex software in order to join.

Join the webinar (please try and join about 5-10 minutes prior) 

Event number: 641 660 046
Event password: climate

If you are unable to join using your computer, you can follow this link for information about using your phone to join the Webinar via audio

Webinar program details:

How is Mongolia responding to the health impacts of climate change?

Mongolia’s geographical position and climate situation, along with the traditional nomadic way of life make it very sensitive to climate change. The climate change impacts are obvious and affecting Mongolia in different ways. The annual mean temperature has increased by 2.14C during the last 70 years, while the precipitation has decreased.

Recent research shows negative impacts on health, particularly for most vulnerable population, such as children, herders and aging population.

About the presenter:

Tsetsegsaikhan Batmunkh graduated from People’s Friendship University in Russia as a medical doctor in 2001. She obtained a PhD degree in microbiology from People’s Friendship University in 2005, and has just completed Master in Public Health/Health Management at UNSW, Australia.

Her work experience includes:2004-2005 Embassy of Mongolia in Russian Federation; 2005 – Central Joint Laboratory of the State Inspection Agency; 2007-2013 Ministry of Health, Officer in charge of Environmental Health, local focal point for the WHO Environmental Health Programme. She is a Member of International Solid Waste Association and member of Global Green and Healthy Hospitals Network. Tsegi has published approximately 30 books and articles on environmental health in Mongolia.

Categories Children, Health, Health policy, Mitigate, Public policy, survival, Uncategorized
Comments (0)
Next Page »
Climate & Health Alliance
Copyright © 2015 All Rights Reserved
iThemes Builder by iThemes
Powered by WordPress