Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Climate change and health – Authors' reply

2006; Elsevier BV; Volume: 367; Issue: 9527 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68874-0

1474-547X

Anthony J. McMichael, Rosalie Woodruff, Simon Hales,

Climate Change and Health Impacts

Stuart Derbyshire's central proposition is correct. There are many ways in which human societies could lessen the adverse health effects of climate change. Indeed, lessening or eliminating risks to the health of communities is at the core of all of public health research and action. However, his concern that we have a “passive view of humanity” which has led us to “neglect many possibilities for offsetting the negative health effects” is misplaced.First, our Abstract states that the identification of adverse health risks “will also guide priorities for planned adaptive strategies”. Indeed, our use of the word “risks” in the title of the paper connotes an important distinction from actual health outcomes. Risks refer to potential outcomes; public health interventions seek to reduce those risks. Although we pointed out that detailed consideration of adaptive strategies was beyond the scope of the paper, we nevertheless provided a succinct overview of the different levels and types of adaptations that are relevant, and cited a textbook on the links between public health and adaptation to climate change (to which two of us contributed chapters).1Ebi KL Smith J Burton I Integration of public health with adaptation to climate change: lessons learned and new directions. Taylor and Francis, Leiden2005Crossref Google ScholarSecond, yes, those of us who live in rich countries can reasonably expect to ameliorate at least some of the risks by using various adaptive strategies. However, most of the adverse effects of climate change are likely to occur in poorer regions of the world where other social, economic, and public health problems already weigh heavily.2Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2001Google Scholar Adaptations will cost money, and will incur opportunity costs where money is limited.Two other considerations follow. Who is going to pay, especially since most of the change in world climate so far (and for the next decade or two) is due to the past industrial activities of today's rich countries? And when might the limits of our adaptive capacity be reached? Will the USA build sea walls 10 m high around its coastline later this century? And Bangladesh?Adaptation should be viewed as a necessary, but hopefully transitional, response. The crucial task is to avert the underlying global problem of human-induced climate change.The elucidation of risks to population health will help to focus our collective mind on the profound significance of climate change as a process that is beginning to disturb the planet's life-support systems. As we stated in our abstract, that realisation should strengthen the case for pre-emptive strategies. Averting climate change by reducing the global emission of greenhouse gases would be true primary prevention.All the authors have been or are involved in the scientific review activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Stuart Derbyshire's central proposition is correct. There are many ways in which human societies could lessen the adverse health effects of climate change. Indeed, lessening or eliminating risks to the health of communities is at the core of all of public health research and action. However, his concern that we have a “passive view of humanity” which has led us to “neglect many possibilities for offsetting the negative health effects” is misplaced. First, our Abstract states that the identification of adverse health risks “will also guide priorities for planned adaptive strategies”. Indeed, our use of the word “risks” in the title of the paper connotes an important distinction from actual health outcomes. Risks refer to potential outcomes; public health interventions seek to reduce those risks. Although we pointed out that detailed consideration of adaptive strategies was beyond the scope of the paper, we nevertheless provided a succinct overview of the different levels and types of adaptations that are relevant, and cited a textbook on the links between public health and adaptation to climate change (to which two of us contributed chapters).1Ebi KL Smith J Burton I Integration of public health with adaptation to climate change: lessons learned and new directions. Taylor and Francis, Leiden2005Crossref Google Scholar Second, yes, those of us who live in rich countries can reasonably expect to ameliorate at least some of the risks by using various adaptive strategies. However, most of the adverse effects of climate change are likely to occur in poorer regions of the world where other social, economic, and public health problems already weigh heavily.2Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2001Google Scholar Adaptations will cost money, and will incur opportunity costs where money is limited. Two other considerations follow. Who is going to pay, especially since most of the change in world climate so far (and for the next decade or two) is due to the past industrial activities of today's rich countries? And when might the limits of our adaptive capacity be reached? Will the USA build sea walls 10 m high around its coastline later this century? And Bangladesh? Adaptation should be viewed as a necessary, but hopefully transitional, response. The crucial task is to avert the underlying global problem of human-induced climate change. The elucidation of risks to population health will help to focus our collective mind on the profound significance of climate change as a process that is beginning to disturb the planet's life-support systems. As we stated in our abstract, that realisation should strengthen the case for pre-emptive strategies. Averting climate change by reducing the global emission of greenhouse gases would be true primary prevention. All the authors have been or are involved in the scientific review activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change and healthAnthony McMichael and colleagues (March 11, p 859)1 describe a series of negative health effects that might occur in the wake of global warming: increased mortality from heart attack and stroke, more cases of food poisoning, and a greater incidence of cholera and malaria. Full-Text PDF