1 of 57

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL HEALTH: A CALL FOR ACTION

20^th March 2019

Dr Andrew Harmer

2 of 57

“That we know global warming is our doing should be a comfort, not a cause for despair”

David Wallace-Wells, The Uninhabitable Earth. 2019.

3 of 57

Aims of today’s talk

Highlight the urgency of the climate crisis we are now facing and the need for urgent, direct action.

Contrast that urgency with a more conservative tone evident in the academic literature – evidenced by Haines and Ebi 2019

Review examples of direct action, for example the School strike (March 15^th) and the International Rebellion in April

4 of 57

5 of 57

Notes for Jonah:

Skills:

Self-sufficiency (food, water, heat, light)
Self defence/boxing
Knowledge of water supplies
Networking (informal)
Learn Russian
Understand mechanics
Learn…

6 of 57

7 of 57

Humanising health and climate change

“Describing the effects of climate change through a humanising lens would mean that instead of framing climate change with arbitrary deadlines of 2030, or 2050, we approach it intergenerationally: in 32 years’ time, a child born today will reach independent adulthood and the crises facing the next generation thus become defined by familial connections —which is how most people define their identity. Today’s babies, by adulthood, will live on a planet without an Arctic”.

Lancet Editorial, November 28^th, 2018

8 of 57

Climate action NOW!

https://vimeo.com/321735105

9 of 57

The warming trend

And so to the science. The warming trend – approx 0.97 C since the ‘pre-industrial period’ 1850. Since presenting this slide, the WMO has published its State of the Climate Report 2018 which has its own version of this graph (Figure 1 in the report). The upward trend records 1.2 C not 0.97 C. And as Paul Beckwith points out in his video summary of the WMO report, the 1850 baseline is on a sliding scale of possible baselines. The baseline used to be 1750, and if we were to return to that then we should add an additional 0.3 C of global warming - bringing us up to the 1.5 C threshold (that’s now!).

Note. The Met Office temperature anomaly from the base period 1961-1990. It is not possible to calculate absolute global average surface temperatures because weather stations aren’t spread evenly enough across the globe to offer meaningful measurements. Scientists instead have a relative measure called a “temperature anomaly” to track whether global temperatures are changing against a baseline. There is remarkable agreement between these three groups of scientists who tally temperature measurements.

10 of 57

Emission concentrations and associated temperature rise

IPCC – Inter-governmental panel on Climate Change - Assessment Report (AR)5

Emissions concentrations – measured in parts per million – we are currently at 411.75 ppm and year on year we are adding 2-3ppm (see the WMO 2018 report referenced in the previous slide (Figure 3) for a graph on the rate increase).

Depending on what we do now will determine along which Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) we proceed. The IPCC calls these ‘scenarios’ and they allow comparison based on agreed types of action

IPCC 5^th Assessment Report published in 2014 describes them thus:

RCP 2.6 assumes that global annual GHG emissions (measured in CO ₂ -equivalents) peak between 2010–2020, with emissions declining substantially thereafter.

RCP 4.5 peaks around 2040, then decline.

In RCP 6, emissions peak around 2080, then decline.

In RCP 8.5, emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century

11 of 57

Our carbon budget

“Cumulative CO2 emissions are kept within a budget by reducing global annual CO2 emissions to net zero. This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 GtCO2 for a two thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 GtCO2 for an even chance (medium confidence)”

IPCC SR1.5 Ch2, p96

12 of 57

Rate of emissions

“The associated remaining budget is being depleted by current emissions of 42 ± 3 GtCO2 per year (high confidence)”

IPCC SR1.5 Summary for policymakers

13 of 57

IPCC Special Report: 1.5 degrees

“this report gives an assessed likely range for the date at which warming reaches 1.5 ℃ of 2030 to 2052. The lower bound on this range, 2030, is supported by multiple lines of evidence”

IPCC SR1.5 Ch1, p66

When you do the maths, then - strictly speaking - it will take you ten years to breach the budget (i.e. 2029). The IPCC assessment is closely aligned with a study by Leach et al 2018 (IPCC 2018 SR15, Ch1 p66). It assumes emissions will peak and begin to reduce almost immediately. Here is the relevant text:

“Leach et al. (2018) use a central estimate of human-induced warming of 1.02C in 2017, increasing at 0.215C per decade (Haustein et al., 2017), to argue that it will take 13–32 years (one-standard-error range) to reach 1.5C if the current warming rate continues, allowing 25–64 years to stabilise temperatures at 1.5C if the warming rate is reduced at a constant rate of deceleration starting immediately. Applying a similar approach to the multi-dataset average GMST used in this report gives an assessed likely range for the date at which warming reaches 1.5C of 2030 to 2052”.

14 of 57

The challenge: zero emissions!

IPCC SR1.5 Summary for policymakers C1 p14

“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030… reaching net zero around 2050”

15 of 57

IPCC Report Ch2, Table 2.1

IPCC SR1.5 Summary for policy makers, p16

16 of 57

BECCS – Bioenergy with carbo capture and storage

17 of 57

To which RCP are we currently most aligned?

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1070786050811879424

18 of 57

Mission 2020: we must start reducing our emissions now

Figueres, 2017. Nature. https://tinyurl.com/y52fyg55

19 of 57

But global emissions are rising year on year

20 of 57

The difference 0.5 ℃ will make

Any increase in global warming is projected to affect human health, with primarily negative consequences (high confidence).
Lower risks are projected at 1.5℃ than at 2 ℃ for heat-related morbidity and mortality (very high confidence)
Urban heat islands often amplify the impacts of heatwaves in cities (high confidence).
Risks from some vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are projected to increase with warming from 1.5 ℃ to 2 ℃, including potential shifts in their geographic range

IPCC 2018 SR1.5 Summary for policy makers B.5.2

21 of 57

Haines and Ebi 2019 The Imperative for Climate Action to Protect Health. NEJM 380:263-273

22 of 57

Direct effects: e.g. heat

23 of 57

Direct effects: e.g. heatstroke

24 of 57

Effects mediated through natural systems: e.g. vector-borne diseases

Colon-Gonzalez 2018 Limiting global-mean temperature increase to 1.5–2 ◦C could reduce the incidence and spatial spread of dengue fever in Latin America. PNAS.

The authors argue in their paper that if we do nothing we can expect an increase of Dengue of 281% - from 4.5 – 7.8m cases by 2100! CC increases the length of the dengue transmission season AND increases the number of suitable geographical areas suitable for Dengue. The less warming the fewer cases.

Campbell-Lendrum et al 2015 describe the difference between Malaria and Dengue incidence thus: Malaria a parasitic single cell micro-organism that is passed into humans via an infected mosquito. The parasite travels to the human liver where it reproduces and causes malaria symptoms. There is a no effective vaccine but there are anti-malarials medications. Dengue, on the other hand, is a virus also spread by mosquitoes. Although 100m people are infected by Dengue every year, only about 20,000 develop serious version Dengue Haemorhaggic Fever. There is a vaccine.

In the case of malaria, there is a balance at the moment wrt CC – heat/drought balancing increased precipitation/wet areas for the mosquito. While incidence is likely to grow due to CC, with the right poverty-alleviation policies and treatment access then it should still be possible to push down malaria rates.

In the case of Dengue, like malaria, CC will also push up rates of Dengue. But disease control measures have been less effective. Consequently, we often see Dengue much more prevalent than malaria. Dengue transmission tends to be higher than malaria transmission in urban areas. Dengue tends to travel with migrants – and as CC increases migration to cities, you can see the relationship.

25 of 57

Effects mediated through socioeconomic systems

26 of 57

27 of 57

28 of 57

WHO Climate change is a health problem, 16^th March 2019

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1106517381998874626

29 of 57

The WHO underestimates mortality from climate change

World Health Organisation estimates of 250,000 deaths annually between 2030-2050 from CC-related heat, disease, flooding, and childhood stunting is conservative because it doesn’t include food shortages or heath systems disruption. Add these to the mix and you can expect an additional 13,225 additional deaths p.a.

30 of 57

Haines and Ebi’s call for action

“Investments in and policies to promote proactive and effective adaptation and reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions (mitigation) would decrease the magnitude and pattern of health risks, particularly in the medium-to-long term”.

31 of 57

The problem is, we’ve heard all this before!

32 of 57

But our government isn’t listening

33 of 57

Oh yes it is!

Commission on Climate Change 2018 Reducing UK emissions: Progress Report to Parliament

So here’s the rub - relatively speaking the UK is doing well in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions. According to the report “UK emissions fell by 3% in 2017. Measured from 1990, emissions have now fallen by 43%, over a period when the economy grew by over 70%. This is the most substantial emissions reduction in the G7, over a period when economic growth was above the G7 average”.

And, yes, in 2016, Amber Rudd set a 57% reduction in emissions by 2030.

However, the same report by the UK Committee on CC also points out:

Offshore is ok but onshore wind market has nosedived
Home insulation incentives are just 5% of 2012 levels – zero carbon homes plan scrapped
CCS Commercialisation program scrapped
Feed in tarrifs for renewable energy cut by 56%

Notes: 2008 UK Climate Change Act – commit UK to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.

The UK has five-yearly carbon budgets (2008-12; 2013-17, etc)

COP 21 (2015) The Paris Agreement: Signatories committed to a temperature limit of “well below 2C” with “efforts” to limit it to 1.5C.

34 of 57

No, it really isn’t! Intended Nationally Determined Contributions track to 3-4 degrees C

35 of 57

This is not a time for cautious assessments

“we need to shout from the rooftops that climate change is a health problem”

Anthony Costello, BMJ 2013 .

36 of 57

And yet Haines and Ebi are curiously conservative

They describe “a global mean temperature that is 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial times, which could occur within three decades [my emphasis] at current rates of warming”

37 of 57

And yet Haines and Ebi are curiously conservative

In relation to the impact of GHG emissions on asylum applications, they compare a “high-emission pathway” with an emissions pathway peaking in 2040, with the implication that the latter is somehow preferable?

38 of 57

Consider what is left out of the IPCC report

And so to feedback loops. One example of a feedback loop is the so-called albedo effect, illustrated in this slide.

There is extensive discussion of feedback loops in the IPCC SR 15 report. However, their effects on warming are not incorporated into the modelling it uses to provide its warming scenarios. Here’s the relevant text, and under-stated warning: “The reduced complexity climate models employed in this assessment do not take into account permafrost or non-CO2 Earth system feedbacks, although the MAGICC model has a permafrost module that can be enabled. Taking the current climate and Earth system feedbacks understanding together, there is a possibility that these models would underestimate the longer-term future temperature response to stringent emission pathways (Section 2.2.2)” (Ch2 p104).

39 of 57

The arctic is warming fast!

Global Linkages 2019: A graphic look at the changing arctic

40 of 57

That will mean…

Blue ocean events – prolonged periods without any ice in the Arctic

Increased risk of methane emissions from thawing permafrost

Ice melt will flood into the sea and prevent deep, cold water, slowing down Atlantic gulfstream and affect weather patterns

Increased sea level rise – Greenland = 1/3^rd of land-based ice

Loss of livelihoods > increased incidence of mental health problems

Multiple species extinctions

41 of 57

But when you consider that…

The IPCC does not factor these or any other feedback loops into its assessments;
But does acknowledge a geophysical warming commitment of 0.5℃ over the coming century;
And does acknowledge – under every scenario – more or less reliance on undeveloped technology (BECCS)
And warns that for every year of inaction, the window of opportunity reduces by two.

42 of 57

Then a target of 45% reduction of emissions by 2030 and zero emissions by 2050 seems, well…

43 of 57

44 of 57

So what to do?

45 of 57

“Why don’t we just bring the moon closer? It’s colder when the moon is out”

(Jonah, age 7)

46 of 57

The imperative for climate action

“Health professionals have leading roles to play in addressing climate change”

supporting health systems to adapt;
promote healthy behaviours;
support the healthcare system reduce its carbon footprint;
research and education.

47 of 57

48 of 57

#SchoolsStrike4Climate

“All revolutions are impossible until they happen. Then they become inevitable” The Used.

49 of 57

The imperative for climate action

50 of 57

��Three demands:

Tell the truth: Declare a climate emergency!

Zero emissions by 2025

A citizens assembly

51 of 57

If a climate emergency were declared

Govt prioritizes CO2 reduction over economic growth

Exploration for new fossil fuels not permitted

Fossil fuel subsidies ended

Policies to limit meat, dairy consumption & single-driver travel

BBC treats climate change with same priority it does sport

https://twitter.com/StuartBCapstick/status/1106297164668514304

52 of 57

Dear friends of planet Earth,

“Thank you for coming to the UN Headquarters today. I have asked you here to sound the alarm. Climate change is the defining issue of our time – and we are at a defining moment.

We face a direct existential threat. Climate change is moving faster than we are – and its speed has provoked a sonic boom SOS across our world.

If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us”.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, COP 24 Dec 2018

53 of 57

Thank you!��

54 of 57

Bitcoin

A crypto-currency

22 million people have bitcoin wallets

Computer servers uses 22 terawatt hours per year. Google uses nearly 6.

Ireland uses less electricity than Bitcoin!

It’s more electricity than all the energy generated through solar panels every year!

55 of 57

90 companies caused 2/3rds emissions (Goldenberg 2013)

56 of 57

An inconvenient truth

“In fact more than half of the carbon exhaled into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has been emitted in the past three decades. Which means we have done as much damage to the fate of the planet and its ability to sustain human life and civilization since Al Gore published his first book on climate than in all the centuries – all the millennia – that went before” Wallace-Wells 2019 p4

57 of 57

Detection and attribution: a 5 step process

Hypothesis formulation: identification of a potential climate change impact;
Observation of a climate trend in the relevant spatial and temporal domain;
Identification of the baseline behavior of the climate sensitive system in the absence of climate change;
Demonstration that the observed change is consistent with the expected response to the climate trend and inconsistent with all plausible responses to non-climate drivers alone (impact detection);
Assessment of the magnitude of the climate change contribution to overall change, relative to contributions from other drivers (attribution).

Hansen et al 2015 Linking local impacts to changes in climate: a guide to attribution