Category: Impacts & adaptation

The global health benefits of tackling climate change

The Climate and Environment at Imperial blog has moved. View this post on our new blog 

by Professor Paolo Vineis and Pauline Scheelbeek, School of Public Health
Cycling

It is sometimes claimed that addressing climate change with proper policies is too expensive and could lead to a further decline in the economy. However, the co-benefits of implementation of climate change mitigation strategies for the health sector are usually overlooked. The synergy between policies for climate change mitigation in sectors such as energy use (e.g. for heating), agriculture, food production and transportation may have overall benefits that are much greater than the sum of single interventions (Haines et al, 2009). Here we describe a few examples of climate change mitigation strategies that have important co-benefits for global health.

  1. Reducing CO2 admission by promotion of active transport

The transportation sector is often the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in urban areas. Policy makers have tried to reduce these emissions by discouraging car travel and promoting other means of (active) transport. Active transport, such as cycling and walking, increases daily physical activity. Physical inactivity is one of the leading causes of non-communicable diseases all over the world. It has been estimated that the combination of active travel and lower-emission motor vehicles would give large health benefits, notably from a reduction in the number of years of life lost from coronary heart disease (10-19% in London, 11-25% in Delhi according to Woodcock et al, 2009). Also obesity, which is increasing dramatically all over the world, particularly in children, could effectively be reduced by a more active lifestyle. A 30-minute walk per day could – on many occasions – be enough to even out slight caloric excess.

  1. Domestic energy management & reduction of cooking/heating emissions

Improving heating and cooking systems – for example by making them more efficient – reduces energy consumption. Improved models of stoves (electrical vs biomass) allow a 15-times reduction in the emission of particles and other pollutants, thus contributing to decreased emissions in the atmosphere. Especially in developing countries – where old stoves are common – these improvements could also have a considerable positive impact on health: cooking on simple wood or coal stoves currently forms a major source of indoor pollution and increases risk of certain chronic diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The potential effectiveness of this strategy was shown by Wilkinson et al: they calculated that if 150 million low-emission cookstoves were introduced in India, this could lead to the prevention of an estimated 1.3 million deaths from COPD and hundreds of thousands of deaths from other diseases such as coronary heart disease (Wilkinson, et al 2009). Air pollution is one of the biggest environmental causes of death worldwide, with household air pollution accounting for about 3·5-4 million deaths every year (Gordon et al, 2014).

  1. Reductions in CO2 through reduced meat production

meat production diagramMeat production is highly inefficient energetically: it requires an extremely high use of water and land per unit of meat.  One fifth of all greenhouse gases worldwide are related to methane production from livestock farms.  Reduction of meat intake by consumers would lower meat production and is therefore often promoted as climate change mitigation strategy. The figure shows that a high intake of meat is also associated with increased disease risk, in particular for certain cancers and cardiovascular disease (WCRF, 2007). Reduced meat consumption would therefore also have a major impact on public health. It has been estimated that a 30% reduction in livestock production in the UK would reduce cardiovascular deaths by 15% (Friel et al, 2009).

 

  1. Low carbon energy production

Non-renewable energy production, for example coal burning, is a major contributor to worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Many countries have adopted policies to reduce polluting energy production and stimulate production of (renewable) energy through cleaner sources. For example, since 2000, the government in the Chinese Shanxi province has promoted several initiatives (including factory shutdowns) with the goal of reducing coal burning emissions. The annual average particulate matter (PM10) concentrations decreased from 196 μg/m3 in 2001 to 89 μg/m3 in 2010, which – as a matter of fact – is still very high for Western standards. It has been estimated that the DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) lost in Shanxi had decreased by 56.92% as a consequence of the measures (Tang et al, 2014).  The IPCC 5th assessment report stresses that the main health co-benefits from climate change mitigation policies come from substituting polluting sources of energy for renewable and cleaner sources, with a considerable effect on the improvement of air quality.

 

Practical conclusions

The co-benefits from climate change mitigation for the health sector have not yet been completely identified and quantified. The topic does not appear on the priority list of political discourse: relevant sectors, including those involved in non-communicable disease prevention (Pearce et al, 2014), transportation, agriculture, food production and climate change (Alleyne et al, 2013), still work separately, while collaboration would improve the synergy between health improvement and climate change mitigation and maximise benefits for both.

 

References

Alleyne G, Binagwaho A, Haines A, Jahan S, Nugent R, Rojhani A, Stuckler D; Lancet NCD Action Group. Embedding non-communicable diseases in the post-2015 development agenda. Lancet. 2013 Feb 16;381(9866):566-74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61806-6

Friel S, Dangour AD, Garnett T, Lock K, Chalabi Z, Roberts I, Butler A, Butler CD, Waage J, McMichael AJ, Haines A.  Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture.  Lancet 2009; 374: 2016-25.

Gordon SB, Bruce NG, Grigg J, Hibberd PL, Kurmi OP, Lam KB, Mortimer K, Asante KP, Balakrishnan K, Balmes J, Bar-Zeev N, Bates MN, Breysse PN, Buist S, Chen Z, Havens D, Jack D, Jindal S, Kan H, Mehta S, Moschovis P, Naeher L, Patel A, Perez-Padilla R, Pope D, Rylance J, Semple S, Martin WJ 2nd. Respiratory risks from household air pollution in low and middle income countries. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 Oct;2(10):823-60. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70168-7

Haines A, McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Roberts I, Woodcock J, Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Campbell-Lendrum D, Dangour AD, Davies M, Bruce N, Tonne C, Barrett M, Wilkinson P. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet. 2009 Dec 19;374(9707):2104-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1. Epub 2009 Nov 26.

Pearce N, Ebrahim S, McKee M, Lamptey P, Barreto ML, Matheson D, Walls H, Foliaki S, Miranda J, Chimeddamba O, Marcos LG, Haines A, Vineis P. The road to 25×25: how can the five-target strategy reach its goal? Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Mar;2(3):e126-8. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70015-4.

Tang D, Wang C, Nie J, Chen R, Niu Q, Kan H, Chen B, Perera F; Taiyuan CDC. Health benefits of improving air quality in Taiyuan, China. Environ Int. 2014 Dec;73:235-42. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.07.016. Epub 2014 Aug 27.

Wilkinson P, Smith KR, Davies M, Adair H,  Armstrong BG, Barrett M, Bruce N, Haines A, Hamilton I, Oreszczyn T,  Ridley I, Tonne C and Chalabi Z. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy. 2009. The Lancet, 374: 9705 (P1917 – 29)

World Cancer Research Fund. Recommendations Booklet. Available from:  http://www.wcrf.org/

Woodcock J, Edwards P, Tonne C, Armstrong BG, Ashiru O, Banister D, Beevers S, Chalabi Z, Chowdhury Z, Cohen A, Franco OH, Haines A, Hickman R, Lindsay G, Mittal I, Mohan D, Tiwari G, Woodward A, Roberts I. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet. 2009 Dec 5;374(9705):1930-43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61714-1. Epub 2009 Nov 26.

Internship Experiences: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

The Climate and Environment at Imperial blog has moved. View this post on our new blog

by Peter Blair, Science and Solutions for a Changing Planet DTP student

Thames-Basin
The Thames Basin, a Map Highlighting Urban Areas

The Thames Basin is set to face many challenges in the future: climate change, a growing population and economic requirements all present developmental challenges, as well as major sources of uncertainty. Having previously worked on a voluntary project producing a vision for planning in the Great Lakes Basin over the next hundred years, Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM) were interested in applying the same methodology to the Thames Basin to determine how we may best plan for the future in this area.

During the summer of 2014, prior to starting the NERC Science and Solutions for a Changing Planet Doctoral Training Partnership at Imperial College, I undertook the exciting opportunity of an internship with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, looking at the future of planning of development in the Thames Basin.

Who are SOM?

SOM, short for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, are a world-leading firm of architects, structural engineers and urban planners. They have designed buildings such as the Burj Khalifa and the Broadgate Tower (where their London office is now based), and have worked on the Imperial College Campus master plan, amongst many other projects.

What did I do?

I used SOM’s Great Lakes investigation as an inspiration for looking at planning in the Thames Basin, identifying the assets that the basin has, for example extensive infrastructure, a thriving economy, a history of innovation and a rare depth of culture, the issues that it faces, including overcoming archaic governance boundaries, managing water in the face of both drought and flood, and coping with the change and uncertainty that climate change brings. I produced a booklet identifying first ideas for a vision of what planning in the Thames Basin could be built around in the future. Elements of this vision include integrating the various planning documents that exist into a more cohesive, basin-level plan, recognition of the positive feedback cycles that exist between ‘green’ and ‘blue’ policies and using infrastructure to develop a holistically connected basin.

What did I gain?

I had a fantastic time at SOM: I met a lot of great people with amazing ideas and skills, and was also able to develop myself while there. The internship gave me the freedom and time to develop new skills that are hugely useful, but which I would probably not have had the opportunity to investigate otherwise. One example would be ArcGIS, which allows for the creative display of map-based data, and which I will be able to utilise as part of my PhD, but which I may never otherwise have had to opportunity to learn. I was also able to ‘dip my toe’ into the corporate environment, without having to jump straight in. This showed me the different emphasis which is placed on various aspects of work in business compared to academia: the importance of delivering a positivist message and looking at the big picture, distilling a great amount of information into a short message and using images to convey meaning.

What did SOM gain?

Hopefully SOM feel as though they have gained from my undertaking of this internship as well. As I was a short-term member of the team, SOM were able to work on a different kind of project that was perhaps less corporate and which required different skills. While many other members of the team were working on multiple projects at any one time, I was also able to give my focussed attention to the Thames Basin project. This internship has also strengthened the link between SOM and Imperial College, and building links with academia is something that SOM have been very keen to do.

 

Find out more about Peter’s PhD project

How will Antartica’s ice-sheet contribute to 21st century sea level rise?

by Professor Martin Siegert, Co-director, Grantham Institute

Antarctic glacierOn 27th October I convened a meeting at the Royal Society of London to discuss the results of a recent 20-year research horizon scanning exercise for Antarctic Science (Kennicutt et al. 2014). Part of the discussion focused on the research needed to better quantify Antarctica’s likely contribution to sea level rise in the coming decades and beyond, as published in the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report.

The report states that, ‘Global mean sea level rise will continue during the 21st century, very likely at a faster rate than observed from 1971 to 2010, and will likely be in the ranges of 0.26 to 0.55 m [in the lowest emissions scenario] … and … 0.45 to 0.82 m [in the highest emissions scenario – the closest to “business as usual”]’. It also states that, ‘Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century.’ There is medium confidence that any additional sea level rise would be no more than tens of centimetres.

One of the speakers at the event, Prof. David Vaughan, the Director of Research at the British Antarctic Survey, supported the IPCC’s position by remarking that he knew of no glaciologist who would strongly advocate a different position to this, given the evidence at hand. As a glaciologist myself, I can easily accept Prof. Vaughan’s comment and I don’t believe it is controversial among the community. I was, however, provoked by it to consider the relevant issues a little further, given the uncertainties noted by the IPCC, and to take the opportunity to discuss it with colleagues at the meeting.

  Could ice sheet collapse lead to further sea level rise?

Historically, ice sheet responses to global warming have been responsible for sea level changes of a metre or more per century. As the glaciers retreated after the last ice age, sea levels rose by an average of over a metre per century between 20,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago – a total of 120 m. Records also show that the rate of sea level rise can exceed this, however. During the so-called ‘meltwater pulse 1a’ (MWP1a) episode around 15,000 years ago, an increase of around 7 m per century took place. The cause of MWP1a remains uncertain, with some pointing to the rapid decay of the North American ice sheet, whereas others link the change to Antarctica. It may be that both ice sheets were involved to some degree, and the details of the issue remain hotly debated. The point to note is that changes in the cryosphere are certainly capable of causing global sea level to rise at a higher rate than the IPCC suggests.

It is worth considering  whether we can rule out the possibility of a new meltwater pulse being locked in somewhere in Antarctica or Greenland, ready to be released to the ocean once some threshold has been reached. As the IPCC notes, several regions of the West Antarctic ice sheet (in particular) and East Antarctic ice sheet appear close to or at a physical threshold of change, where ground ice retreat into deeper (below sea level) terrain leads to further accelerated loss of ice to the sea (often referred to as marine ice sheet instability). Papers earlier this year by Joughin et al. (2014) and Rignot et al. (2014) point to such irreversible change having already begun in the Amundsen Bay region of West Antarctica. According to Joughin et al. (2014) the full effects of such change may take several hundred years, in line with the IPCC’s position. Evidence from the other side of West Antarctica demonstrates a region the size of Wales being highly sensitive to future ocean warming (Ross et al. 2012), and that such warmth may be delivered within a few decades (Hellmer et al. 2012). Across the continent in East Antarctica, the structure of the underlying bedrock reveals evidence of major ice recession in the past (Young et al. 2011), hinting that the ice sheet response to warming is not necessarily restricted to West Antarctica. Indeed while West Antarctica may be losing mass more quickly than anywhere else on the planet, the greatest potential for sea level change lies in East Antarctica, which about ten times greater in volume.

So, after considering Prof. Vaughan’s point that no glaciologist would differ markedly from the IPCC on Antarctic ice sheet collapse, I returned a question to him and those gathered: how can we be sure that the Antarctic ice sheet won’t respond to ocean warming more quickly than expected in certain regions? The answer is we can’t be certain even though, like Joughin et al. (2014), we may consider it unlikely. While I did not dispute Prof. Vaughan’s point, in the light of both recent findings and more established figures on how ice sheets can change during episodes of global warming, there is surely a non-zero risk of much greater sea level rise over the coming decades than the IPCC alludes to.

Quantifying this risk is difficult – maybe impossible at present – and as a consequence is likely to be highly controversial, which is why the IPCC does not tackle it. The problem is that quantifying a non-zero risk of global sea level rise over 1 m in the next 100 years is a far more challenging problem – for both scientists and decision makers – than restricting the debate to what we consider most likely. Maintaining this restriction on the debate is neither safe nor sensible, however.

Glaciologists will point to the research needed on the Antarctic ice sheet’s sensitivity to ocean warming to advance the debate. In 20 years as a glaciologist, I have been surprised on numerous occasions by what we discover about the flow and form of past and present ice sheets. I am utterly certain that amazing new discoveries lie ahead. For this reason, an appropriately sceptical scientific attitude is to accept that our knowledge of Antarctica remains woefully inadequate to be certain about future sea level rise, and to always challenge the consensus constructively.

The solution lies in our ability to model the ice-ocean system in a way that allows confident predictions of the ice sheet response to ocean warming. To do this we need two things. First is better input data, by way of high-precision landscaping beneath the ice sheet in regions most sensitive to change, and in areas where no data have been collected (and there are several completely unexplored parts of the continent). The data collected would also allow us to better understand the process of ice flow in key regions of potential change. A second advance needed is in the coupling of ice-sheet and ocean models. Both are challenging, but well within our abilities to achieve them. Indeed the horizon scanning exercise discussed last week made such investigations a priority.

7 Frightening Findings from the IPCC Report

By Helena Wright, Research Postgraduate, Centre for Environmental Policy

Helena Wright, an Imperial PhD student, looks at worst possible scenarios from the IPCC Working Group II report.cracked-earth

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released its latest report, featuring the most up-to-date science on global climate change.

As a researcher, I had an opportunity to contribute to a table in one of the chapters and have read through each of the 30 chapters of the Working Group II report (on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability).  Here is my personal take on seven of the most frightening findings from the WG2 report:

  1. CO2 levels of 1000ppm could impact on mental performance

The health chapter explains how climate change will affect global health, including direct impacts of heat stress, drought and extreme events, as well as indirect impacts on nutrition and mental health.

One extremely frightening direct effect could actually be from CO2 itself. A recent study found indoor  CO2 levels of 1000ppm (parts per million) can impair human decision-making performance and cognition.  Current atmospheric levels are 400ppm and rising fast.  Some scenarios have us reaching these levels by 2100. If these effects are confirmed, how will we be able to adapt?

 

  1. Climate stress affects children

One particularly frightening aspect of climate change is its impact on children.  This is a long term problem with implications for future generations.

Also, children, young people and the elderly are at increased risk of climate-related injury and illness. One study in Nepal found flood-related mortality was twice as high for girls as for women, and was higher for boys than men. Children are more vulnerable to impacts like malaria and diarrhoea for physiological reasons, and also more vulnerable to heat stress.

 

  1. Coral reefs would degrade under 2 degrees of warming

The coastal chapter explains carbonate reef structures would degrade under a scenario of 2°C by 2050-2100.  Increasing levels of  atmospheric  CO2 also cause the ocean to acidify, causing coral reefs to lose their structural integrity.  The North Atlantic and North Pacific are already becoming more acidic.

Coral reefs are important for biodiversity and account for 20-25% of fish caught in developing countries, as well as housing many other marine creatures.  Skeletal “dissolution” is expected to be widespread by 2100. The most frightening thing of all is that these are the impacts under business-as-usual scenarios.  Average global temperature has already risen by 0.8°C since 1880. Global leaders have only agreed to limit warming to 2°C of warming, a target they are currently missing.

 

  1. Climate extremes threaten our food security

Over 70% of agriculture is rain-fed, so agriculture and food security are highly sensitive to changes in rainfall.  Higher temperatures have an impact on crop yields.  Climate change will affect rivers and oceans as well. Some scenarios forecast widespread fish extinctions in rivers. In one study where data was available, as much as 75% of local fish biodiversity would be ‘headed toward extinction’ by 2070 due to climate change, particularly in tropical areas.

Food price rises triggered by climate shocks disproportionately affect the poor who tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on food.

 

  1. Global trade will be affected

Climate change will impact on international trade in both physical and value terms. For example, coffee is a major traded beverage which is sensitive to climate variability. Coffee crops will be forced to move to higher altitudes where they are available. Millions of rural people rely on coffee, tea and cocoa production.

The economic costs are expected to be huge.  For example, in Ethiopia, agricultural decline is projected to cause a 10% decline in GDP against benchmark levels.  While trade can help countries to adapt, for example by importing food, deficits may have to be met by food aid.

 

  1. Climate change will impact on migration, and could lead to conflict and even wars

High food prices can impact on socio-political stability.  For example, 14 countries in Africa experienced food riots in 2008 during the 2008-9 price spike.

People can also be displaced by extreme weather events. But migrants do not necessarily reach safety; with new migrants more at risk at destinations in cities. Sea level rise is projected to lead to permanent displacement as coastal areas become uninhabitable.   Under 2 metres of sea level rise, 187 million people are expected to be displaced.

Chapter 12 also examines research on links between climate change and armed conflict. Many of the factors that increase the risk of civil war are sensitive to climate change. US Military experts recently called climate change “a catalyst for conflict”.

 

  1. There are limits to adaptation

Finally, there are limits to adaptation.  This means we cannot adapt to many of these impacts. For example, 31 Native Alaskan villages are facing “imminent threats” due to coastal erosion and several decided to relocate – but their ability to relocate also depends on financial support.  Examples of ‘hard’ limits to adaptation include water supply in fossil aquifers, limits to retreat on islands, and loss of genetic diversity.  In such cases climate change will lead to irreversible losses.

There are various ‘tipping points’ in the earth system which, if crossed, could trigger rapid and catastrophic climate change. Only mitigation can avoid such risks.  Unfortunately little is known about where exactly these ‘thresholds’ lie, making the risks even more difficult to manage.

The limits to adaptation explain why global emission reduction is so vital for humanity.  3-4 degrees of warming would be much more difficult to adapt to than 2 degrees to and could result in the collapse of systems. Yet current climate pledges leave us heading to a world 3.7 degrees warmer.  The IPCC shows global emissions are still rising rapidly and show no signs of stabilising.  We are entering a radically different world.

However, there are reasons for hope. The UNFCCC negotiations took place again last month in Bonn, with the aim of reaching a global climate deal. There are signs of leadership from the US and China, the worlds’ two biggest emitters, offering renewed hope that collectively we can tackle this problem.

Workshop on climate science needed to support robust adaptation decisions

By Dr Simon Buckle

I just wanted to highlight the great event we held last week with Judy Curry at Georgia Tech on how we can use climate science to help us make better decisions – in business, government, health and development.  Do have a look at the presentations from the really diverse group we managed to assemble in Atlanta, from international organisations, business, development agencies, NGOs and research.

A few  points strike me as worth (re)emphasising:

  • Climate models are extremely valuable tools for assessing climate change over the rest of this century, but even the most advanced climate models are not yet able to provide detailed information with sufficient confidence on the variability and change of regional climate in the next few decades. This will take time and money (higher resolution, more computational power).
  • So trying to forecast the climate in 5, 10 or 20 years time is right at the research frontier, but many decision makers aren’t as hung up over the uncertainties in climate projections as the scientists.  They’re used to dealing with uncertainty and some of the factors they need to take into account are way more uncertain than how the climate will change;
  • It’s the holistic view of risk that matters. In other words, how climate variability and change interacts with other factors such as population, urbanisation, economic growth, degradation of ecosystems, land use change etc;
  • Scientists working on decision relevant issues need to think really hard about the decision making context.  Who is making decisions? What is the motivation? What is being decided and what are the relevant timescales? And are the research methods and outputs relevant and informative? Are there alternative approaches that might increase the robustness of decision making in the face of uncertainty? Are the limitations of the research transparent to the decision makers who might use it?
  • Many different approaches are emerging from collaboration among decision makers and scientists that can supplement the valuable insights gleaned from climate models and help inform robust decision making in the face of climate variability and change.
  • Even if some prominent UK politicians still have their heads in the sand over climate risks, major businesses, governments and development organisations are already factoring climate into their decision making.

You can read a more detailed summary of the workshop on the Grantham Institute website.

Climate change and health risks – new commission launched

By Siân Williams, Research postgraduate, Department of Physics and Grantham Institute for Climate Change

healthv3
Georgina Mace and other panelists at the UCL Institute of Global Health event on 16 January. Photo: S. Williams

In 2009 a joint report between University College London and The Lancet stated, “Climate change is the biggest risk to global health of the 21st century”. The work highlighted extreme weather events, changing patterns of disease and food and water insecurity.

Now a second UCL-Lancet commission is underway. Last month, UCL’s Institute of Global Health hosted a launch event for the report entitled ‘Climate crisis: emergency actions to protect human health’.

The event was chaired by UCL’s Anthony Costello, head of the first Lancet commission. Panellists involved in the new commission include scientists and economists from UCL, Tsinghua University in Beijing and the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

The new commission is structured with five working groups. Its aims range from drawing out the key implications of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report on health through to assessing the financial and policy mechanisms available to governments to protect their citizens against the worst impacts of climate change.

The format of the event allowed a wide range of issues to be discussed. These included the impacts of climate on mental health and the disillusion felt by many towards the COP international climate negotiation process.

Isobel Braithwaite, from the student-led Healthy Planet organisation, commented that “The first UCL-Lancet commission really served to shift the discussion away from climate change being just about ice caps and polar bears to an issue that’s ultimately about people’s health, so it’s exciting to hear that a second commission’s now underway. It sounds like this second one will go into much more depth on the actions we need to take to avert the major health crisis posed by unmitigated climate change”.

At the most recent COP negotiations in Warsaw, Healthy Planet formed part of the protest movement against Poland’s plans for future coal plants. The topic of climate and health will continue to be in the spotlight during Health Planet’s national conference, which will take place over the first weekend of March. Tickets for the event are available here.