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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US