• home
  • about
    • members
    • governance
    • priorities
    • contact
  • projects
    • healthy energy
    • the human cost of power
    • green healthcare
    • hunter coal
  • media
    • media releases
    • CAHA in the media
  • publications
    • annual reports
    • briefing papers
    • caha reports
    • newsletters
    • position statements
    • submissions
  • resources
    • reports
    • research
  • campaigns
    • national strategy for climate & health
    • healthy energy
    • water for health
    • protect our children
    • federal election 2013
  • get involved
    • donate
    • volunteer
    • join
  • blog

Archive for impacts

Climate and health at Melbourne Sustainable Living Festival 2013

by CAHA
February 28th, 2013

Climate and health at the Sustainable Living Festival 2013

The Climate and Health Alliance hosted three very successful events at this year’s Sustainable Living Festival in Melbourne – a Climate and Health Clinic; The Heat is On – a forum on climate change, health and extreme heat; and Our Uncashed Dividend – a session on the health benefits of climate action.

Professor David Karoly, Fiona Armstrong, Dr Liz Hanna and Dr Tony Bartone. By shotbykatie.

A full report, more photos and a blog featuring some of our marvellous volunteers coming soon!

 

 

Categories Advocacy, Climate, Extreme weather, Health, Health professionals, Heat, Heatwaves, Sustainability
Comments (0)

Have you signed the DOHA Declaration on Climate, Health and Well-being?

by CAHA
February 4th, 2013

Health Must Be Central to Climate Action

The international health and medical community have developed a joint statement on climate health and wellbeing calling for health to be central to national and global climate action.

Signatories include the World Medical Association, the International Council of Nurses, International Federation of Medical Students, Health Care Without Harm, Climate and Health Alliance, European Public Health Association, Public Health Association of Australia, Royal College of General Practitioners (UK), Climate and Health Council, OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate & Health Council, NHS Sustainable Development Unit, Umeå Center for Global Health Research, Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) and many others.

The Doha Declaration outlines why health experts are extremely worried about slow progress on climate action, and highlights how the health co-benefits of emissions can build support for ambitious climate strategies.

If you want to support this statement, sign up here: www.dohadeclaration.weebly.com

Categories Advocacy, Climate, Emissions, Energy, Health professionals, Uncategorized
Comments (0)

DOHA Declaration on Climate, Health and Wellbeing

by CAHA
December 3rd, 2012

The international health and medical community have developed a joint statement on climate health and wellbeing calling for health to be central to climate action during the COP18 international climate change negotiations in Doha, Qatar.

Signatories to the Doha Declaration for Climate, Health and Wellbeing include the World Medical Association, the International Council of Nurses, International Federation of Medical Students, Health Care Without Harm, European Public Health Association, Royal College of General Practitioners (UK), Climate and Health Council, OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate & Health Council, NHS Sustainable Development Unit, Umeå Center for Global Health Research, Climate and Health Alliance, Public Health Association of Australia, the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, Doctors Reform Society, Australian Association of Social Workers, and the Australian Medical Students Association and many others.

The Doha Declaration calls for health to be central to climate action, and highlights the opportunities to improve health through emissions reductions – pointing out that reducing fossil fuel consumption and moving to low carbon energy systems can deliver many benefits to health worldwide.

“The impact of climate change on health is one of the most significant measures of harm associated with our warming planet,” the Declaration says. “Protecting health is therefore one of the most important motivations for climate action.”

This effort builds on the collaboration at the 2011 global climate and health summit among the health and medical community in advocate for climate action.

The Doha Declaration outlines why health experts are extremely worried about the slow progress at the international climate negotiations, and highlights how the health co-benefits of emissions can build support for ambitious climate action.

This joint statement from the global health community reiterates policy demands from the 2011 Durban Declaration and Global Call to Action urging countries to consider the health implications of climate change as well as the health benefits of climate action – which can provide savings that either largely or completely offset the costs of mitigation and adaptation.

This statement will be used in discussion with policy makers in Doha, but also serves as roadmap of future action.

See the CAHA media release here.

If you want to support this statement, sign up here: www.dohadeclaration.weebly.com

Categories Advocacy, Allied health, Children, Climate, Emissions, Health, Health professionals, Medical, survival, Sustainability, Transformation
Comments (0)

A “dismal” response to “big, unprecedented, threats” to human survival: McMichael on McKeon

by CAHA
October 8th, 2012

This post was first published on Croakey as http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2012/10/06/more-mckeon-malarkey/ on 7th October 2012.

In an email to CAHA he agreed to make public, Professor Tony McMichael provides another critique of the McKeon review’s narrow approach to health and medical research.

This McKeon Review ‘consultation paper’ contains, for the wider social enterprise of public health research, a dismal but predictable set of recommendations.  The name  ’NHMRC’ incorporates the words ‘Health and Medical’, but the McKeon Review panel membership comprised ‘medical’ rather than ‘health’ persons — eminent researchers in laboratory and clinical science — along with a strong representation of the private for-profit business (including biotech) sector.

Of course, it’s easy to rail against this McKeon Review output and the restricted, orthodox, and somewhat closed-shop NHMRC mentality. However, the document also provides a sobering reminder of the fundamental problem that societies face today in their need to expand their concern, research effort, resources and policy to abating the big, and unprecedented, systemic threats to population health and survival from human-caused climate change and other extraordinary global environmental changes. These threats to health are of a kind not previously faced, and a broad and distinctive genre of research in relation to them is required.

The committee members are very able people who, variously, have great intellectual, reputational and financial investments in the status quo; they are at the top of their professional pyramids; and they probably cannot imagine a different world in the near future with a radically different spectrum of health-risk issues.

History has seen it all before. As prolonged droughts closed in on the Maya civilisation in the ninth century, contributing greatly to the weakening of the agricultural base (already stretched by a population that had expanded substantially), the rulers and opinion-leaders opted for ever larger edifices and grander ceremonies. They had, presumably, little understanding or interest in the increasingly precarious longer-term prospects of their society. Hay was to be made while the sun shined. It was business as usual, but always with a growing appetite for ever-more resources.

Dubai today is following suit, in a region of the world where they have had to give up trying to grow their own grains, now that their once-only aquifer supplies have been depleted. Meanwhile, the sheikhs and financiers opt for world-tallest buildings and creating (and selling) artificial island ‘nations’ in the Gulf that have been built to a mere couple of metres above the (rising) sea level.

The McKeon Review perspective is of a kind with these assumptions of business-as-usual (in a stable world).  It is not surprising that the Chief Executive of Medicines Australia, Brendan Shaw, has been quoted as saying this week: “We are encouraged by the McKeon Review’s recognition of the importance of clinical research both as generator of economic benefit, but more importantly as a generator of health benefits for Australian patients, and the recognition of the important role the medicines industry plays in this.

Categories Climate, Health, Research, survival, Sustainability
Comments (0)

Health ministers’ attacks on climate change action are just sick

by CAHA
August 12th, 2012

This article was published on The Conversation on 10 August 2012 via the following link: http://theconversation.edu.au/health-ministers-attacks-on-climate-change-action-are-just-sick-8671

By Stephan Lewandowsky and Fiona Armstrong

The ACCC has been vigilant about following up the 45 or so carbon price gouging complaints it gets each day. But who can stop the politicians? Their relentless carbon price scare campaigns seek to frighten, rather than inform, an increasingly polarised public who should be getting the facts on health and climate change.

Take, for example, the Liberal Health Minister in Victoria, David Davis. His recent contribution to the climate discussion was a leaflet for distribution across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs which suggested that the “carbon tax will hurt patients”. He said that hospitals will face a $13 million “tax bill” because “Julia Gillard doesn’t care.”

In actual fact, there is no such tax bill. Even if electricity costs rose by $13 million, it would reflect less than 0.1% of total health expenditure. Given that the Commonwealth will be footing the bill for 50% of the cost of hospital care from 2014, the states can hardly claim the burden as their own.

The most effective method of protecting the health sector against future price rises would be to invest in energy efficiency and distributed energy generation systems. This would help manage future price increases as well as reduce harmful air pollution from burning fossil fuels for electricity. Air pollution puts many people in hospitals with respiratory disease and cancer. Because of this, the previous Victorian government set aside $460 million to make public buildings, such as hospitals, more energy efficient and therefore healthier.

Carbon pricing is in fact a health protection measure. The World Health Organisation, the World Medical Association, the CSIRO, the United Nations Human Development Program, and the Australian Medical Association all call, and have been calling for years, for a policy to discourage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of the harm they pose to human health.

Motor vehicle pollution is a killer: moves to reduce it should be welcomed. According to the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, between 900 and 2,000 early deaths occur annually in Australia from motor-vehicle related air pollution alone. Coal-fired power generation carries a similar toll – creating a health burden that, if reflected in the costs of electricity would effectively double the cost of coal-fired power.

Mr Davis is Health Minister of a wealthy state in a developed nation. He cannot possibly claim to be unaware of the substantial body of evidence, present in thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals over several decades, that climate change poses far bigger risks to health than a small rise in energy prices – especially when it is offset by generous subsidies to prevent those on low incomes from energy poverty. Indeed, the EU expects that a substantial proportion of the costs of emission reductions will be offset by co-benefits arising from improved health. And the cumulative health benefits are doubled if action is taken immediately, rather than delaying till 2015.

The basis for Mr Davis’s claims is a report commissioned by the Victorian Government. It was prepared by commercial consultant Sinclair Knight Merz and released to the Herald Sun, but otherwise not available publicly. According to the Herald Sun, it estimates an increase of $13 million in health care costs as a direct result of the carbon price.

Mr Davis is not alone in making such claims; similar statements have been released by the NSW and Queensland governments. The Federal Shadow Health Minister Peter Dutton has attacked the (Labor) Tasmanian Premier for refusing to frighten her electorate with similar claims.

These politicians have the job of preserving and safe-guarding public health. Instead of heeding the recommendations of every major medical body, those politicians see fit to attack a measure that is in their constituents’ best interests. In addition to the direct harm to health from fossil fuels, climate change already claims 300,000 human lives annually.

If not from science, where are Mr Davis and others getting their advice? Could it be from the Sunshine coast doctor responsible for the recent LNP motion to ban climate science from schools in Queensland, who thought he could disprove 150 years of physics in his back yard with two eskies and glad wrap?

While the current legislation is hardly a sufficient effort to reduce emissions to the extent required, it is in line with widely accepted policy settings around the world and it is a first step in the right direction.

What are the likely consequences of Mr Davis’s claims and other egregious misrepresentations of the price on carbon?

There is good reason to fear that those claims may be quite successful: we know that once a myth has been put into the public arena, it often resists any corrective effort, no matter how readily it can be debunked. Claims that arouse fear can be politically very effective, especially when combined with a seductively simple antidote – getting rid of the carbon tax.

The Australian media are notoriously incapable of differentiating fact from fiction, especially when it comes to the price on carbon. Indeed, we are not aware of any challenge to Mr. Davis’s claims, and those of his colleagues, in the corporate media.

George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” has been enshrined into Western culture as a symbol for the chilling inversion of reality that results when facts become irrelevant and propaganda paramount.

Victorians should be concerned that their “Ministry of Health” may likewise become known for opposing, rather than facilitating, public health measures that are aimed at managing the consequences of climate change.

Authors

Stephan Lewandowsky

Australian Professorial Fellow, Cognitive Science Laboratories at University of Western Australia

 

 

Fiona Armstrong

Convenor, Climate and Health Alliance

Categories Advocacy, Climate, Energy, Health, Health policy, Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Health sector ill-prepared for climate change

by CAHA
July 16th, 2012

The Climate and Health Alliance made the following statement to the Productivity Commission’s public hearing in Melbourne for the Commission’s Inquiry into Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation on Monday 16 July 2012:

The Climate and Health Alliance has responded to the Productivity Commission Draft Report on Climate Change Adaptation out of concern that the issue of health protection through effective adaptation is being overlooked in Australia’s adaptation responses and in the Commission’s report.

In 2009, the international medical journal The Lancet identified climate change as the biggest threat to global health of the 21st century.

The risks posed by the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, fires, floods and storms and the injuries, deaths and trauma – physical, emotional, financial – to health, require careful planning to help minimise harm. Rising temperatures lead to increased harmful air pollution and aeroallergens as well as increased risk of food borne disease; the changing climate affects food and water security; there are increased risks from vector borne diseases; and psychological impacts from a changing environment, ranging from solastalgia from a loss of the familiar natural environment to anxiety about the societal failure to respond, to bereavement, injury, displacement associated with extreme events. Health services are placed under increasing pressure during extreme events; supply chains of pharmaceutical and medical supplied impacted; and health professionals and emergency professionals themselves impacted personally, limiting their ability to respond.

A temperature spike of eight degrees above normal led to 56,000 deaths in the Russian summer of 2010. In 2009, Victoria experienced temperatures between 12-15 degrees above the average. That single heatwave saw a 62% increase in mortality, from both direct heat related illnesses and associated exacerbations of chronic medical conditions. The Victorian Department of Human Services reported that during this five day event, ambulances had a 46% increase in demand; emergency departments experienced an eight-fold increase in heat related presentations; a 2.8 fold increase in cardiac arrests; and a threefold increase in patients dead on arrival.

Monitoring these risks and preparing for them e.g. to track the health consequences of climate change and assess the adaptive processes in place should be an integral responsibility of government. Clear accountability for this responsibility is vital, as is the reporting of such monitoring so it is clear what adaptation strategies are in place and how effective they are.[1]

The fact there is no submission from any health service agencies to this Inquiry reflects the lack of understanding within health departments and the health sector more broadly about the risks posed to health from climate change and the importance of protecting health through effective adaptive responses. We acknowledge and commend the submissions from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health and the Australian Psychological Society which provide important perspectives on health but we regret the lack of broader engagement from other professions and health departments and health service providers. There are in fact excellent examples of some health services demonstrating leadership in helping communities adapt to climate change, such as the Southern Grampians and Glenelg Primary Care Partnership and Women’s Health in the North here in Victoria, but too often these initiatives depend on the passion and commitment of individuals and much more work is needed to institutionalize a responsiveness to climate change across the whole health sector.

This responsiveness however requires an understanding of the issue.

Climate change poses serious risk to health and to health services and yet the understanding of those risks among the professionals groups required to respond is very limited. The lack of engagement with this Inquiry and with the issue itself suggests that health professionals and the healthcare sector have largely failed to grasp the risks posed to Australian communities from a failure to develop effective adaptation strategies or for the need for urgent mitigation.

One of the key strategies for protecting health from climate change must be to enhance awareness of climate change and health among health and medical practitioners. This requires leadership from the instruments of government i.e. the public service in developing policies and programs to address this.

And yet, despite, climate change being the biggest threat to public health we face this century, there is no-one in the federal department of health clearly responsible for developing policy to protect health from climate change. There is no-one in the federal department of climate change who has a clear mandate for policy development that acknowledges and reflects the risks to health. While there has been an energetic public discussion about the need a national policy response to climate change for several years, there has been little acknowledgement by any government of the imperative to protect health though climate policy. The Climate Commission has produced a report on climate change and health, but its messages are yet to reach the majority of health professionals.

Communities can only effectively adapt to climate change is they understand the risks. One of the most cited reports on climate change adaptation in Australia is Community Engagement and Climate Change: Benefits, Challenges and Strategies produced by the McCaughey Centre in the School of Population Health at the University of Melbourne. This report states the development of effective adaptation and responses to climate change require: “assisting citizens and communities develop informed understandings of climate change”, and that key success factors in using community engagement require “government policy frameworks to support and promote community engagement”. While these may appear in a limited way among some local governments, deliberate and sustained community engagement on climate change has been missing in federal government initiatives until the recent establishment of the Climate Commission and sporadic at state government levels.

While there have been some limited evaluations of climate literacy among health professionals internationally, little is known about the level of understanding about climate change among Australian health professionals. International evaluations reveal public health bureaucrats[2] and public health nurses [3] are ill prepared to respond to climate change and have not yet made climate change adaptation a priority. One study of public health department directors in the US suggests climate change adaptation and prevention are not currently major activities at most health departments, and that all will require assistance in making a transition to doing so. The 2012 evaluation of public health nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding climate change suggests they lack a thorough understanding of the evidence regarding human induced climate change and its implications.

Improving climate literacy among health professionals is a key adaptive strategy that has so far been overlooked in Australian policy responses. This requires engagement of the existing as well as the future workforce. Continuing professional development programs about climate change and health are needed for the current healthcare workforce, and education of the future health workforce must be made a priority.[4] Curricula for all health disciplines on the health impacts of climate change are needed – all healthcare professionals should be trained from undergraduate through to postgraduate level on how to respond to the risks of climate change to health at the population, community and individual levels. A better understanding among health professionals will also contribute to better community understanding, given the important role of health professionals as communicators, educators, and civil society leaders.

A paper in Australian Health Review by Weaver et al identifies six strategies for preparing the health system for climate change: health promotion; health protection; disaster preparedness; workforce development; strategic and service planning; and healthcare financing.[5]

All these elements require specific focus and additional resourcing in the Australian health sector.

Healthcare infrastructure itself faces risk from climate change.[6] More information is needed about future demand for health services, likely physical impacts on facilities and their ability to cope with these, strategies to improve coping capacity, associated costs, as well as integrated disaster plans to ensure health services can continue to function during extreme weather events.[7]

There are many opportunities for the health care sector to respond to climate change in ways that reduce energy use, reduce waste, save money and improve health. The health sector needs to be supported to begin to implement adaptive strategies that will improve its resilience to climate change impacts, improve its capacity to deliver services and to provide an example of leadership in beginning to demonstrate the economic and health benefits of low carbon operations.

Health care providers should be supported to reduce the environmental footprint of the sector in ways that will protect them from future shocks in terms of energy prices, water shortages and resource shortages. Adaptation measures that create a sustainable and resilient healthcare sector will provide ongoing benefits for the community.

The Climate and Health Alliance recommends:

  1. The development of a National Plan for Health in Responding to Climate Change (Adaptation and Mitigation).
  2. A national community engagement campaign to build understanding about the risks from climate change.
  3. The development and implementation of programs to increase awareness among health professionals about the health risks from climate change to assist in developing more effective adaptive responses.
  4. A substantial increase in the funding available for climate and health research in Australia, including regional health impact assessments, and a specific emphasis on evaluating the health benefits of effective adaptation and mitigation.
  5. Increased investment in research on climate change communication to support translation of evidence into policy action.   
  6. Improvements in disease surveillance, health risk monitoring, early warning systems, emergency response and disaster preparedness.
  7. Improving community resilience through greater investment in health promotion and disease prevention.
  8. Evaluation of projected health care demand from climate change; physical impacts on health care infrastructure from climate change; and projected associated costs.
  9. Increasing health sector resilience through initiatives to ‘green’ the health sector.

The Climate and Health Alliance’s earlier submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation can be found here: http://caha.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAHA-Submission-PC-CC-Adaptation-Inquiry-June-2012.pdf


[1] Samet, J. Public Health: Adapting to Climate Change, Issue Brief, Resources for the Future, March 2010.

[2] Maibach, E.W. et al. Change change and local public health in the United States: Preparedness, Programs and Perceptions of Local Public Health Department Directors, Climate Change and Health, PLoS One, 3:7, 2008.

[3] Polivka, B. et al. Public Health Nurses’ Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Climate Change, Environmental Health Perspectives, 120:3, 2012.

[4] Weaver, H. et al. Climate change and Australia’s healthcare system, Australian Health Review, 2010.

[5] Weaver, H. et al. Climate change and Australia’s healthcare system, Australian Health Review, 2010.

[6] Carthey, J. Et al. (2009) “Adapting Australian health facilities to cope with climate-related extreme weather events“, Journal of Facilities Management, 7:1, pp.36 – 51.

[7] Carthey, J. Et al. (2009) “Adapting Australian health facilities to cope with climate-related extreme weather events“, Journal of Facilities Management, 7:1, pp.36 – 51.

Categories Advocacy, Climate, Health, Health policy, Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Recent Posts

  • Powerful alliances pushing for action on climate change, locally and globally
  • Climate mitigation – the greatest public health opportunity of our time
  • Launch of landmark new research report
  • Climate change: a great threat to health, but not as generally conceived
  • Electronic networking does work!

Categories

  • Advocacy
  • Allied health
  • Behaviour change
  • Carbon
  • Children
  • Climate
  • Coal
  • Ecology
  • Emissions
  • Energ policy
  • Energy
  • Energy policy
  • Environment
  • Ethics
  • Extreme weather
  • General
  • Governance
  • Health
  • Health policy
  • Health professionals
  • health promotion
  • healthcare
  • Healthy
  • Heat
  • Heatwaves
  • Hospitals
  • Medical
  • Mitigate
  • Nursing
  • Psychology
  • Public health
  • Public policy
  • Research
  • Social policy
  • Solar
  • survival
  • Sustainability
  • sustainability
  • Sustainable
  • Transformation
  • Uncategorized
  • Waste
  • Well-being
  • Wellness
  • Wind

Archives

  • June 2015 (4)
  • May 2015 (1)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (3)
  • November 2014 (3)
  • October 2014 (1)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (2)
  • July 2014 (2)
  • May 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (1)
  • March 2014 (2)
  • November 2013 (3)
  • October 2013 (1)
  • September 2013 (3)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (1)
  • March 2013 (1)
  • February 2013 (5)
  • January 2013 (1)
  • December 2012 (4)
  • November 2012 (3)
  • October 2012 (3)
  • September 2012 (2)
  • August 2012 (2)
  • July 2012 (3)
  • June 2012 (2)
  • May 2012 (1)
  • April 2012 (1)
  • March 2012 (1)
  • January 2012 (1)
  • December 2011 (3)
  • November 2011 (2)
  • October 2011 (1)
  • August 2011 (1)
  • July 2011 (1)
  • May 2011 (1)
  • April 2011 (1)
  • March 2011 (1)
  • February 2011 (1)
  • January 2011 (1)
Climate & Health Alliance
Copyright © 2015 All Rights Reserved
iThemes Builder by iThemes
Powered by WordPress