earthfluenza
planetary health posts - ecology. biodiversity. disease.
A project exploring how environmental change may influence the incidence of snake bite has received a boost from a new global health research fund.
Every year between 420,000 and 1.8 million people are exposed to snake venom after being bitten by snakes. Claiming up to 120,000 lives worldwide, the majority of these incidents occur in rural areas of developing countries, affecting mostly agricultural workers and subsistence farmers. A new collaboration between the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Tel Aviv University and the University of Kelaniya in Sri Lanka has been awarded over £500,000 to study the prevalence and drivers of snake bite, and explore how changes in climate and land use patterns may affect the likelihood of snake bite occurring. Read more here...
0 Comments
How eating less meat could help prevent extinction, climate change, cancer and the next pandemic9/20/2016 Grantham Lecturer in Global Change Ecology, Dr Kris Murray, explains why, from farm to fork, less is more when it comes to meat.
I’m not a vegetarian, and I’m unlikely to become one any time soon. I like making sausages and barbequing ribs, I love prosciutto crudo and lamb kebabs, and I’m a total sucker for a bit of bacon in my lettuce and tomato sandwiches. But it has long been recognised that animal-based meat production is one of the major global environmental challenges of our time.... Read the full post here On World Wildlife Day, Grantham Lecturer Dr Kris Murray explains why a US ban on salamander imports is critical to stemming the spread of a new lethal amphibian disease. I‘m not usually one for gambling, and certainly not for placing bets that I genuinely hope to lose. But last year I made a bet with a colleague that I ended up losing more quickly than I could possibly have hoped for. The subject of this wager was a petition calling for an emergency ban on imports of all live salamanders, submitted in May last year to the US Department of the Interior by the Centre for Biological Diversity and Save the Frogs.... go to full post: https://granthaminstitute.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/losing-a-bet-but-winning-the-war-fighting-the-deadly-chytrid-fungi/ Alpine salamander, Monstein, Switzerland. Photo credit: Kris Murray
Report by Grantham Institute Lecturer Dr Kris Murray following COP21 in Paris - Health and the Paris Agreement.
The Conference of the Parties, “… [a]cknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on … the right to health, … “ (Preamble) and “ [r]ecognizes the social, economic and environmental value of voluntary mitigation actions and their co-benefits for … health” (IV, 109, Enhanced Action Prior to 2020) And so goes the final version of text in the Adoption of the Paris Agreement, signed December 12, 2015. Well, at least the health related bits. The Agreement is binding – it commits signatories to limiting warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius”. And there’s the aspiration for a more ambitious 1.5 degrees Celsius cap. This means a long-term goal of reaching zero emissions. A regular review of national commitments every five years, starting in 2018, is supposed to keep this in check. But much still needs to happen to make that a possibility let alone an achievable aspiration. Ratcheting up ambitions and actions will be critical. A brief history of health and COP In 2001, scientists first recognised that there are considerable hidden health benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. A few years later, the term ‘health co-benefits’ emerged in a scientific paper looking at policies for accelerating access to clean energy, improving health, advancing development, and mitigating climate change. The term refers to the suite of human health benefits that accrue (e.g., reduction of heart disease) when we do things that are also good for the planet (e.g., riding a bike instead of driving to work). It’s a compelling argument - many things we can do to limit the impacts from climate change are also terrifically good for your health. And things that are good for your health are also often good for the wallet. Maintaining health is incredibly expensive, so reducing the health burden will often make economic sense. And the evidence? Well, unlike in the 4th IPCC report released in the lead up to the ill-fated negotiations at COP15 in Copenhagen back in 2009, health and health co-benefits formed the topic of an entire chapter of the IPCC’s 5th climate change report, which underpinned negotiations at COP21. That’s a half-decent indication of the growing evidence base. This goes a long way in explaining the inclusion of health and health co-benefits in the text of the Paris Agreement. So the Parties should consider health when taking action to address climate change, and they recognize the value of co-benefits for health. Of course it would have been nice to have even more references to health, most notably in the Purpose and particularly in combination with legally binding verbiage (e.g., shall instead of should), but at least it’s in there. And it does present a clear priority and a mandate for action over the next five years. More to be done COP21 saw unprecedented groundswell from health communities around the world calling for action on climate change. Prior to COP21, WHO released a Call to Action, as did many other health groups, to unify the voice of health professionals globally. At the half way point in the negotiations, these calls were put on the table as the largest medical consensus to date. Over 1,700 health organizations, 8,200 hospitals and health facilities, and 13 million health professionals announced their support for strong action on climate change. Health professionals also physically came to Paris, participating in debates, talking about the science, talking about the solutions. They came from every part of the health system and all parts of the world to demand action. They came with a clear message that a lack of ambition to curb emissions will cost lives. They came with the message that impacts are already being felt locally, a message of urgency, a message of certainty in the science, and a message of achievability in finding solutions. It’s critical that these messages endure, that they don’t get lost or deflated now that we have a decent global agreement. As the world now inevitably slips into a mood of postprandial relief, health needs to keep its foot on the accelerator. Health organisations are already calling for next steps. Genon Jensen, the Executive Director of the Health and Environmental Alliance, says “The real work will start now - encouraging countries to live up to their commitments for stronger climate action. As a public health community, our job will be even more important back home: to speed up activities, increase ambition, and monitor and articulate how people’s daily health and wellbeing will benefit from rapid implementation of the Paris Agreement. “ The health voice is hugely important. As a group, they’re loud. They’re smart. They’re respected. They’re effective. They have a track record of delivering big wins and mobilising big money to do it. This is some of the best news going for those concerned about the future of our planet, whatever your particular interest group is. -Lancet Commission on Health and Climate report launch
by Dr Kris Murray, Grantham Lecturer in Global Change Ecology Today the Lancet Commission on Health and Climate announced the release of their new report “2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change: Policy Responses to Protect Public Health”. Following a first report released in 2009, which concluded that “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”, today’s report has a proactive, positive take-home: “tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century.” go to full post: https://granthaminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/report-launch-lancet-commission-on-health-and-climate/ Dr Kris Murray, Grantham Lecturer in Global Change Ecology Our planet is ill. Ongoing loss and endangerment of species, degradation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems and their services, and manmade changes to the global climate are dramatic symptoms of a major decline in the planet’s environmental health. In glaring contrast, human health has improved, in some cases radically. Decreases in malnutrition, mortality due to infectious diseases and infant mortality rates, accompanied by substantial increases in life expectancy, can beobserved in every major region of the world. So why is health winning a war, while the environment is losing one? go to full post: https://granthaminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/win-win-solutions-for-health-and-the-environment/ New palm oil plantation in Sabah, Borneo. Image credit: Kris Murray
|