Global Warming Kills 150,000 People a Year, Warns UN
By Terry Kirby
Independent UK

Global warming is killing about 150,000 people a year, mostly in deprived and tropical areas, and the toll could rise dramatically if efforts are not made to combat climate change, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned yesterday.

The United Nations agency said the health of millions of people was under threat as a consequence of rising temperatures and uncertain weather patterns, which many scientists claim are caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

The WHO said climate change could cause increases in malaria and other insect-born diseases, malnutrition and pollution-related diseases, as well as deaths from extreme one-offs such as this summer's heatwave in Europe.

The report, which has been published this week to coincide with the UN conference in Milan on climate change, blamed global warming for 2.4 per cent of diarrhea cases and 2 per cent of all cases of malaria worldwide. It estimated that, by 2030, climate change could cause 300,000 deaths annually and that a further 5.5 million years of healthy living had been lost worldwide due to debilitating diseases caused by rising temperatures.

The report said: "The 1990s were the hottest decade on record and the upward trend in the world's temperature does not look like it is abating. In Europe this past summer, for example, an estimated 20,000 people died due to extremely hot temperatures."

Much of Europe suffered heavily in the heatwave because air conditioning is not common in homes, in part because of high energy costs. The conference heard on Wednesday insurance estimates which suggested that the European heatwave cost $10bn (£5.7bn). Hospitals in London had reported an increase in admissions of young children suffering renal problems. Dr Bettina Menne, a WHO hygiene specialist, said the problems were probably linked to dehydration during the heatwave.

The WHO said that installing air conditioning in homes, workplaces, hospitals or residences for the elderly would also risk increasing the emissions of gases from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

Kerstin Leitner, the WHO assistant director general, said: "There is growing evidence that changes in the global climate will have profound effects on the health and well-being of citizens in countries around the world."

The report said that even a rise of a few degrees in average annual temperatures could expose millions more people to the threat from malaria. This would be by both extending the malaria season in countries, where it is already endemic, and also by allowing the malaria mosquito to live in countries where, at present, it cannot survive, such as Europe. Other diseases spread by mosquitoes, such as dengue fever, could also increase.

Hotter and wetter conditions are also likely to increase the spread of diarrhoeal disease, which is particularly dangerous to children. And people living in deprived conditions who cannot afford proper refrigeration are more likely to eat food tainted with increased bacterial contamination, caused by higher temperatures. Countries which are heavily dependent on a predictable monsoon season for the cultivation of rice crops - such as India, Bangladesh and Burma - are more likely to suffer increases in malnutrition if the changes affect the reliability of the rainy season.

The report also said that increasing air pollution might lead to a rise in allergic conditions, such as asthma, and lung and respiratory complaints.

Note how the trend runs parallel with industrialization and economic expansion. Practitioners of neo-classical economic theory believe that constant economic growth is the only viable model. However, many economists and environmentalists feel that this is only half the picture as it does not take into account environmental and health costs, and is not sustainable with a rapidly expanding population.

Note also that the tracking of temperatures stops in 2000 - it is no longer updated on the EPA's website as the government works diligently to see that scientific data not aligned with the "values" of big business does not see the light of day. Profits prevail over environment and health. The following excerpt from a New York Times article is one of many examples of this shortsighted and ill-conceived practice.

White House Makes Hefty Changes to E.P.A. Report
By Andrew C. Revkin and Katharine Q. Seelye
The New York Times

The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.

The report, commissioned in 2001 by the agency's administrator, Christie Whitman, was intended to provide the first comprehensive review of what is known about various environmental problems, where gaps in understanding exist and how to fill them.

Drafts of the climate section, with changes sought by the White House, were given to The New York Times yesterday by a former E.P.A. official, along with earlier drafts and an internal memorandum in which some officials protested the changes. Two agency officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the documents were authentic.

The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems.

Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.

"Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science," said Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation. "This is like the White House directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture."

Drafts of the report have been circulating for months, but a heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April raised protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report.

An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Another memorandum circulated at the same time said that the easiest course would be to accept the White House revisions but that to do so would taint the agency, because "E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science."

The changes were mainly made by the Council on Environmental Quality, although the Office of Management and Budget was also involved, several E.P.A. officials said. It is the second time in a year that the White House has sought to play down global warming in official documents.

Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution that for six years had contained a section on climate was released without one, and the decision to delete it was made by Bush administration appointees at the agency with White House approval.

Other sections of the coming E.P.A. report — on water quality, ecological conditions, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and other issues — all start with a summary statement about the potential impact of changes on human health and the environment, which are the two responsibilities of the agency.

But in the "Global Issues" section of the draft returned by the White House to E.P.A. in April, an introductory sentence reading, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was cut and replaced with a paragraph that starts: "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future."

So, that's the current explanation and the prevailing attitude: "It's complicated, therefore, we shouldn't even bother trying to understand it. We're going to ignore it and hope it just goes away. Let the next generation fix it if it must be fixed."

Not good enough! We owe it to future generations, our children and theirs, to be responsible with the Earth, it's environment and finite resources. They deserve clean air to breath and safe water to drink. These things are part of our "commonwealth," and belong to each of us. No one has the right to contaminate them for the entire planet, regardless of the profit margin.



	home \| issues \| products & services \| gallery & studios \| background \| resources \| contact


		Global Warming Kills 150,000 People a Year, Warns UN By Terry Kirby Independent UK Friday 12 December 2003 Global warming is killing about 150,000 people a year, mostly in deprived and tropical areas, and the toll could rise dramatically if efforts are not made to combat climate change, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned yesterday. The United Nations agency said the health of millions of people was under threat as a consequence of rising temperatures and uncertain weather patterns, which many scientists claim are caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The WHO said climate change could cause increases in malaria and other insect-born diseases, malnutrition and pollution-related diseases, as well as deaths from extreme one-offs such as this summer's heatwave in Europe. The report, which has been published this week to coincide with the UN conference in Milan on climate change, blamed global warming for 2.4 per cent of diarrhea cases and 2 per cent of all cases of malaria worldwide. It estimated that, by 2030, climate change could cause 300,000 deaths annually and that a further 5.5 million years of healthy living had been lost worldwide due to debilitating diseases caused by rising temperatures. The report said: "The 1990s were the hottest decade on record and the upward trend in the world's temperature does not look like it is abating. In Europe this past summer, for example, an estimated 20,000 people died due to extremely hot temperatures." Much of Europe suffered heavily in the heatwave because air conditioning is not common in homes, in part because of high energy costs. The conference heard on Wednesday insurance estimates which suggested that the European heatwave cost $10bn (£5.7bn). Hospitals in London had reported an increase in admissions of young children suffering renal problems. Dr Bettina Menne, a WHO hygiene specialist, said the problems were probably linked to dehydration during the heatwave. The WHO said that installing air conditioning in homes, workplaces, hospitals or residences for the elderly would also risk increasing the emissions of gases from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. Kerstin Leitner, the WHO assistant director general, said: "There is growing evidence that changes in the global climate will have profound effects on the health and well-being of citizens in countries around the world." The report said that even a rise of a few degrees in average annual temperatures could expose millions more people to the threat from malaria. This would be by both extending the malaria season in countries, where it is already endemic, and also by allowing the malaria mosquito to live in countries where, at present, it cannot survive, such as Europe. Other diseases spread by mosquitoes, such as dengue fever, could also increase. Hotter and wetter conditions are also likely to increase the spread of diarrhoeal disease, which is particularly dangerous to children. And people living in deprived conditions who cannot afford proper refrigeration are more likely to eat food tainted with increased bacterial contamination, caused by higher temperatures. Countries which are heavily dependent on a predictable monsoon season for the cultivation of rice crops - such as India, Bangladesh and Burma - are more likely to suffer increases in malnutrition if the changes affect the reliability of the rainy season. The report also said that increasing air pollution might lead to a rise in allergic conditions, such as asthma, and lung and respiratory complaints. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2004 Note how the trend runs parallel with industrialization and economic expansion. Practitioners of neo-classical economic theory believe that constant economic growth is the only viable model. However, many economists and environmentalists feel that this is only half the picture as it does not take into account environmental and health costs, and is not sustainable with a rapidly expanding population. Note also that the tracking of temperatures stops in 2000 - it is no longer updated on the EPA's website as the government works diligently to see that scientific data not aligned with the "values" of big business does not see the light of day. Profits prevail over environment and health. The following excerpt from a New York Times article is one of many examples of this shortsighted and ill-conceived practice. - g.a.b. White House Makes Hefty Changes to E.P.A. Report By Andrew C. Revkin and Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times Thursday 19 June 2003 The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs. The report, commissioned in 2001 by the agency's administrator, Christie Whitman, was intended to provide the first comprehensive review of what is known about various environmental problems, where gaps in understanding exist and how to fill them. Drafts of the climate section, with changes sought by the White House, were given to The New York Times yesterday by a former E.P.A. official, along with earlier drafts and an internal memorandum in which some officials protested the changes. Two agency officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the documents were authentic. The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems. Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion. "Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science," said Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation. "This is like the White House directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture." Drafts of the report have been circulating for months, but a heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April raised protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report. An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change." Another memorandum circulated at the same time said that the easiest course would be to accept the White House revisions but that to do so would taint the agency, because "E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science." The changes were mainly made by the Council on Environmental Quality, although the Office of Management and Budget was also involved, several E.P.A. officials said. It is the second time in a year that the White House has sought to play down global warming in official documents. Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution that for six years had contained a section on climate was released without one, and the decision to delete it was made by Bush administration appointees at the agency with White House approval. Other sections of the coming E.P.A. report — on water quality, ecological conditions, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and other issues — all start with a summary statement about the potential impact of changes on human health and the environment, which are the two responsibilities of the agency. But in the "Global Issues" section of the draft returned by the White House to E.P.A. in April, an introductory sentence reading, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was cut and replaced with a paragraph that starts: "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future." So, that's the current explanation and the prevailing attitude: "It's complicated, therefore, we shouldn't even bother trying to understand it. We're going to ignore it and hope it just goes away. Let the next generation fix it if it must be fixed." Not good enough! We owe it to future generations, our children and theirs, to be responsible with the Earth, it's environment and finite resources. They deserve clean air to breath and safe water to drink. These things are part of our "commonwealth," and belong to each of us. No one has the right to contaminate them for the entire planet, regardless of the profit margin. - g.a.b.