Volume 195 - Issue 6
Health in the green economy
Author: Ray Moynihan
Med J Aust 2011; 195 (6): 317. || doi: 10.5694/mja11.11023
Published online: 19 September 2011
Published online: 19 September 2011
Health reporter Ray Moynihan welcomes the side effects of prescriptions to fight climate change
As one of the planet’s most polluting populations, it’s perhaps understandable that many Australians have a good deal of fear and loathing about cleaning up our act. What might lift our mood for change is the growing evidence that strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can directly improve the length and quality of human life.
The World Health Organization is currently assessing the health impacts of different climate change mitigation strategies, and it’s come to some compelling, though still tentative, conclusions. The project, called Health in the Green Economy, has found that although many policies will have benefits for both health and the environment, “some of those having the largest impact on mitigation may also deliver the largest health gains”.1
In housing design, for example, natural ventilation and better insulation are obvious energy-efficient measures, but they may also reduce allergies, asthma and, in some places, illnesses associated with cold and damp. In kitchens throughout the developing world, cleaner, more fuel-efficient stoves could cut rates of childhood pneumonia and adult lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the residential sector.
In the area of transport, the WHO has some strong words about the health benefits of shifting focus from the private car to public transport, pedal-power and pedestrians. Such a shift, it says, could reduce respiratory and heart disease from air pollution, cut injuries from road accidents, and help prevent obesity, diabetes and cancer by boosting physical activity, potentially saving millions of lives every year. “A shift to active transport (walking and cycling) and rapid transit/public transport”, says the WHO review of the evidence, “can yield much greater immediate health ‘co-benefits’ compared with improving fuel and vehicle efficiency, yet the latter has been the mitigation strategy most emphasized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.1
The health care sector itself has been identified as another key climate change culprit, with estimates that it contributes perhaps 8% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.2 Energy-intensive activities, gaseous wastes and huge use of water and transportation all contribute to health’s unhealthy carbon footprint, which until now has failed to attract much attention from those seeking to slow global warming.
The WHO review again suggests win–win strategies, including the “greening” of health care facilities, by using more renewable energy and procuring fewer medical products that ultimately remain unused. “[The health care] sector is worthy of special attention due to its size, its growth, and its direct impacts on health”, says the review.1
Other groups, such as the global non-government organisation Health Care Without Harm, are already working on more “ecologically sound” alternatives to existing health care practices. One of its current campaigns is promoting more sustainable management of toxic medical waste in a demonstration project across eight nations, designed to reduce polluting gases and improve the health and safety of health care workers.3
A futuristic vision of health care in the post-peak oil world appeared in the BMJ last year, complete with dreams of less energy-intensive therapies and non-petroleum-based pharmaceuticals, delivered via hospitals that are accessible to all by foot, bicycle and public transport.4
Whether that future appeals to you or not, it’s clear that as we finally face up to climate change, the business of health will increasingly be exposed to the glare of environmental scrutiny. In Australia, the newly formed Climate and Health Alliance is stressing the potential win–wins for health and the environment,5 and in December the world’s first Global Climate and Health Summit will meet in Durban, South Africa.
For anyone simply interested in an evidence-informed approach to decision making, the WHO is putting some fascinating new facts on the table that are helping to show which climate change strategies might have the biggest health benefits, and which carry risks.
At the launch of the Health in the Green Economy project earlier this year in Washington, DC, a leading WHO figure called for a “new alliance” of policymakers across the climate change, housing, transport and health sectors. Let’s hope the call was heard loud and clear down under.
Competing interests
No relevant disclosures.
References
- World Health Organization. Health in the Green Economy. Policy briefings: health co-benefits of climate change mitigation. http://www.who.int/hia/green_economy/en/index.html (accessed Aug 2011).
- Chung JW, Meltzer DO. Estimate of the carbon footprint of the US health care sector [letter]. JAMA 2009; 302: 1970-1972. 0_i1115286
- Health Care Without Harm [website]. http://www.noharm.org/global/ (accessed Aug 2011).
- Raffle AE. Oil, health, and health care [editorial]. BMJ 2010; 341: c4596. 0_i1115291
- Climate and Health Alliance [website]. http://caha.org.au (accessed Aug 2011).