The View from New York, By Ned Groth

Climate Change and Public Health

The debate in Europe over the nature and magnitude of adverse public-health effects of climate change is going on here, too. Academics and public health officials have projected several kinds of likely public health consequences of global warming:

Spread of Tropical Diseases

As tropical climates move northward, so will diseases and their insect or rodent vectors from the tropics, reviving diseases once wiped out here, like yellow fever, and introducing new ones, such as dengue.

Food supply disruptions

Changes in rainfall patterns, more frequent or severe droughts and/or flooding, changes in pest ecology associated with warmer climate, submersion of coastal lands and intrusion of sea water into wetlands, all could have harmful effects on the US’s agricultural productivity. While it seems unlikely that Americans would starve, there could be price effects that could hurt some people’s, especially low-income people’s, ability to afford nutritious diets. Lower dietary quality could harm public health over the long run (e.g., more obesity.)

More weather-related illnesses and deaths

Heat waves, extremely cold periods, hurricanes, floods and the subsequent growth of molds in damp housing, could increase morbidity and mortality, in particular in vulnerable subgroups like infants and the elderly.

Air and water quality effects

Changes in average air temperature could increase formation of photochemical smog, worsening air pollution. Weeds whose pollen causes allergies, such as ragweed, would flourish in a warmer climate. Warmer water could allow waterborne pathogens like cholera to spread into new areas.

None of these health effects are certain to occur, but many experts believe they are likely. Some positive effects on health could also be imagined (such as less severe winters and fewer deaths from freezing, or bigger harvests due to longer growing seasons). Of course, the negative effects require more attention, in the form of proactive, preventive planning.

The November 2008 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine was devoted in its entirety to the topic of climate change and health. The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each devote sections of their web sites to the topic. A lot of good information has been developed.

Political debate here has not always reflected the reality that public health officials are girding for. The Bush Administration was famous for suppressing and censoring science that suggests possibly severe consequences of climate change; fearing the economic impacts of cutting back carbon emissions, they chose to deny the problem.

One famous case of censorship involved testimony before Congress in October, 2007 by Bush’s CDC director, Dr. Julie Gerberding. She was planning to testify at length about the public health effects of climate change, but the White House demanded that she omit those remarks from her testimony. She agreed to the censorship, prompting a huge outcry from supporters of scientific integrity.

Before he even took office, President Obama asked Dr. Gerberding to resign, which she did. The new Administration is committed to transparent, science-based policy-making on issues such as climate change, and it looks as if they mean business. At last America has begun the hard work of dealing with climate change and its consequences.

That’s my view from New York.

Ned, a biologist by training, worked for many years at Consumer Union, the US sister of Consumentenbond, and has advised WHO and FAO on food safety issues. It goes without saying that Ned and his wife, who live just outside New York City, adhere to the principles of CSR: Consumer Social Responsibility.

Feel free to respond to this column at info@schuttelaar.nl.

Ned Groth