A day before the most recent UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) began, a group of global experts convened by The Lancet published a report about the adverse health effects of climate change. Their conclusion was as jarring as it was straightforward: Human health is at the mercy of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, health remained at the bottom of the priority list at COP27. To be sure, some important health-focused conversations took place at the WHO’s side pavilion. These discussions were particularly timely, given the surge of COVID-19, fueled by the newest Omicron subvariants of SARS-CoV-2, in Europe and the US.
However, beyond a blink-and-you-miss-it mention in the preamble, the COP27 declaration makes no substantive mention of the climate-health nexus.
It is a glaring omission. The connection between climate and health is deep and multifaceted. Consider, for example, how warming temperatures and unprecedented flooding have encouraged the spread of mosquitoes — carriers of diseases such as dengue fever, malaria and the Zika virus — well beyond their traditional breeding grounds. If nothing is done, Zika could threaten an additional 1.3 billion people by 2050, and dengue fever would affect 60 percent of the world’s population by 2080.
Similarly, climate-driven migration and shrinking animal habitats increase the risk that viruses and bacteria will jump from animal hosts to humans — just as SARS-CoV-2 likely did. This makes another pandemic increasingly likely.
Global warming is also worsening air pollution and, in turn, chronic noncommunicable diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Arvind Kumar, who founded the New Delhi-based Lung Care Foundation, said that most people in India have the health profile of a smoker, simply because of air pollution, and almost 1.7 million Indians die every year from its effects.
The people most affected by these climate-related health issues have often done the least to create them. Many residents of Bangladesh, Mozambique and Pakistan do not even own cars, yet they are suffering from the floods, cyclones and rising sea levels that have resulted from emissions in developed countries.
Fortunately, key lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic response can help us tackle the health challenges that climate change raises. There needs to be a revolution in data collection and analysis. Global systems to capture and share health data progressed significantly during the pandemic, but the world only uses a small share of the information generated. Worse, the data tend to be divided into silos.
To get a more complete picture of the health effects of climate change, clinical, epidemiological and genomic data from health systems must be integrated with diverse non-health data, including on weather patterns, wastewater surveillance, consumer behavior, and even social media and mobility. New open-source platforms such as Global.health are a step in the right direction, but much more must be done.
Another lesson from the pandemic is that, to avoid slipping back into the cycle of panic and neglect, any resilience agenda requires sustainable financing. When COVID-19 emerged, scores of global actors — particularly in the arena of vaccine research — acted with unprecedented speed and coordination.
However, while large amounts of funding supported short-term initiatives, not nearly enough investment has been channeled subsequently toward pandemic prevention and preparedness. Likewise, while governments have responded to some of the immediate dramatic effects of climate change, such as natural disasters, interventions to address the climate crisis remain meager.
As a first step, world leaders should back the Bridgetown Agenda, which seeks to reform global finance for the 21st century, including by ensuring that it supports climate action and pandemic prevention. They should also take every opportunity to connect climate and health issues in international forums, including at this month’s UN Biodiversity Conference in Montreal.
A final critical lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic is that an effective response depends on community trust and engagement. As with masks and vaccines, community-based organizations and civil society play a pivotal role in determining whether there is broad public buy-in for a bold agenda that covers climate and health.
This requires a comprehensive, policy-shaping discussion that establishes a common language and shared intentions across sectors. Where should we aim to prevent the health consequences associated with climate change, and where should we mitigate them? Where should we adapt to the health effects of a warming planet, and why is an adaptation agenda becoming increasingly urgent?
In October, the UN confirmed that the world is far from meeting the goal, established in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and we might instead be headed to a catastrophic 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century. As British COP27 representative Alok Sharma said after the conference, the 1.5°C goal is on “life support.”
Concerted action must be taken to revive it — and that starts with recognizing that climate and health are part of the same conversation. They can and must be tackled together.
Naveen Rao is senior vice president of the Health Initiative at the Rockefeller Foundation. Eloise Todd is executive director and cofounder of the Pandemic Action Network.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers