Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
|
MJA Careers
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS 
| Login | Buy full access
|
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
|
MJA Careers
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS |
Australia's economic argument on greenhouse gases is a health hazard
MJA 1997; 167: 567-568
|
Global climate change reflects the major social and economic issues of our time. Poverty, population growth, unequal consumption of resources, energy production, the growth of cities and industries, and agricultural and food practices all now affect global ecology, and ecological changes, including the influences of greenhouse gas emissions on climate, will have adverse effects on the health of human beings.1,2 As major advisers on health matters, medical professionals should stay informed about the status of current negotiations in Kyoto about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Australia was one of the first countries to ratify the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.3 Only general principles were agreed, leaving specific targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to be negotiated at future meetings of the treaty parties. The Australian Government has threatened to walk away from negotiations to set binding uniform emissions targets in Kyoto this month,4 arguing that Australia's economic interest in protecting our fossil fuel industry requires a policy of "differentiation" or non-uniform targets. While the Australian Government notes "that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate",5 thus accepting that there is a problem, its solution remains a matter of international disagreement. According to our Ministry for the Environment, "differentiation" is intended to produce a "fair, achievable and therefore environmentally effective outcome. Uniform targets [for limits to greenhouse gas emissions] are flawed because they are unrealistic and impose different economic costs".6 It is possible that a form of "differentiation" could be equitable. Indeed, the 1992 climate change convention itself raises the possibility of different targets for developed and developing countries. The problem with the Australian position is its narrow focus on economic considerations. The Government has sought a balance between the threat of climate change and "the significant economic costs that will affect some countries far more than others". 6 Australia's arguments have alienated the United States, the European Union and Japan. More importantly, this stance downplays the threat to life on this planet. Although much of the pollution that has contributed to global climate change has been produced by developed countries, it is likely that the worst consequences will be felt by Third World nations and by future generations. The lack of resources to stem flooding and to adapt agricultural practices to climate change will increase the human vulnera bility that accompanies the exponential growth of poorly housed populations with inadequate infrastructure for health services. International cooperation will be needed to understand and prevent adverse health effects of global climate change, such as increased morbidity and mortality from a greater frequency of heatwaves and drought, and changes in the distribution, incidence and severity of vectorborne diseases.1,2,7 The role of public health research in this area is to provide forecasts of major consequences to inform pre-emptive policymaking.8 In our region, studies of climate-related arboviral diseases are under way,9 and projections of the numbers of heat-related deaths expected with global warming in Australian coastal cities are available.10 However, a health-based argument cannot and should not rest on local data. It is concern for human health worldwide, with the possibility of problems escalating over coming decades, that justifies setting serious greenhouse gas emission targets in Kyoto. The optimism that followed the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 has degenerated into a "babble of diplomatic doubletalk".11 The effort of the fossil fuel industry and other lobby groups to delay the setting of mandatory emission targets for developed countries beyond 2000 has been a perverse success. The climate change convention can only become effective at Kyoto if wealthy nations like Australia are active partners to any agreement reached. We need global action. The Canadian Medical Association has called on its federal government to reaffirm a position for achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Emeritus Professor John Last, University of Ottawa, personal communication). The Australian Medical Association could follow this example, thus adding to its significant role in the debate about global environmental matters in recent years.12,13 The (American) Institute of Medicine identifies three requirements for promoting participation in international health matters by developed nations, namely "protecting our people, enhancing our economy and advancing our international interests".14 However, unless more countries can meet those aims simultaneously, we are all likely to be losers in the climate change stakes.15 In the game of global sustainability, all nations are ultimately on the same side. In considering long-term policies across government sectors that will affect climate and health, we have to face the reality of "our common future", which for some has become merely a clichˇ.16 The Australian Government's position on "differentiation" arises from its wish to pay less for contributing to pollution, and from ignoring the "polluter pays" principle. "Differentiation" on economic grounds, as Australia would have it, may imply that countries with the highest emissions would be required to do the least to reduce them, while countries that have already done most to reduce their emissions could be required to do more.4 Regardless of whether the Australian Government's approach survives at Kyoto in the present state of uncertainty about the effects of climate change, the "precautionary principle" should apply. In the context of environmental conservation, the precautionary principle recognises the existence of uncertainty and ignorance, accepts that uncertainty should not be used as an excuse for doing nothing, and shifts the onus of proof away from opponents to proponents, who must demonstrate that, to a very high degree of probability, a project will not cause significant harm to the environment.17 Anticipatory and preventive actions are also central to this principle. Precautionary measures aimed at reducing greenhouse warming would soon demonstrate benefits for public health. For example, reduced use of private motor vehicles would bring immediate health gains (such as reduced air pollution and increased fitness). In turn, less air pollution would reduce health hazards from inadequate water quality (acid precipitation).1 It is also possible that economic benefits would accompany increased efficiency of energy consumption, an area that needs research and development.18 Concentrating on the economy without ensuring the health of human populations does not make sense. Rather than taking a narrow, short term view of national self-interest, Australia should play a major part in international agreements and action to abate greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation, or learning to live with climate change in the future, must not be considered an alternative to reducing the causes now. Charles Guest
|
Make a
comment -
©MJA 1997
|
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
| Terms of use
|
MJA Careers
|
More...
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS |
Readers may print a single copy for personal use. No further
reproduction or distribution of the articles
should proceed without the permission of the publisher. For
permission, contact the
Australasian Medical Publishing Company
Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>".
<URL: http://www.mja.com.au/>
© 1997 Medical Journal of Australia.
We appreciate
your comments.