 |
Margaret Goes to Washington
On November 29th, OCICE board member, Margaret Mapes, traveled to Washington D.C. as a guest of the PEW Environmental Trust Group, to participate in an internal strategy session pertaining to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The PEW Environmental Trust Group was grateful to have representation from faith-based and other groups from across the country at the strategy session.
The roadless rule protects 58.5 million acres of pristine national forest in 39 states from destructive logging, mining and road building. These activities have the potential to destroy old-growth ecosystems, pollute water and increase the risk of forest fires.
The roadless rule has been embraced by the public because it protects wildlife, habitats, drinking water, and also offers refuge and recreation for outdoor enthusiasts.
The strategy session was critical, as protection of the roadless areas has never been greater with energy demand at an all time high. Oil and logging companies have opposed the rule since its creation, leaving the wildlands with an uncertain fate. Since its inception in 2001, large areas of the forest system have been exempted by the Bush Administration for development by oil and gas.
On Tuesday, strategy session attendees had an opportunity to convey their concerns about the fate of these protected areas to the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsak, who was present for part of the session. Support from the Obama administration and congressional leadership is critical in preventing any further exemptions to the roadless rule. Upon his departure, Secretary Vilsak was presented with a beautiful photograph of a wilderness area in Colorado protected by this rule. All strategy attendees had an opportunity to sign the photograph.
On day two of the session, attendees visited the Capitol and met with congressional leadership who continue to support this rule. They too were presented with a token of appreciation from the PEW Environmental Trust Group for their unwavering commitment to this cause. Later that day, attendees met with congressional leadership from their districts to talk directly to him or her about the status of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. |
|
The Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change
And
Public Health Implications of Global Warming
By: Dr. Amer El-Ahraf, Dr.P.H., REHS Professor of Health Sciences and Vice President Emeritus
California State University, Dominguez Hills and
Editor of The Science Page of Al Masry Al Mohager
(Advisor to OCICE Board of Directors)
The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark in the period of December 7-18 surrounded with high hopes that a framework for the mitigation of the adverse effects of climate change beyond the year 2012 would be reached. But, it ended with no binding accord. Rather, it produced a document described by the American Administration as a “meaningful agreement” with the US, China, South Africa and Brazil contributing heavily to its draft. That was a disappointment. The hope now is that the following two international meetings in Germany and Mexico, scheduled six months apart, will produce a binding accord on climate change. Yet, the Copenhagen meeting, in my view, has its positive sides. One major positive side is the fact that many world leaders, representing the full international spectrum, including President Obama of the U.S. and President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives showed great interest and knowledge of the subject matter. Climate change might be the first ecological issue that most world leaders have invested the time and effort to gain an environmental education. Yet, more is needed to produce an environmentally educated citizenry world–wide in order to support the political process and political courage that are needed to reach a truly meaningful and binding accord. This article is a step in that direction. It is intended to provide a viewpoint on climate change and its potential impact on public health.
The basic emphasis of this viewpoint on global warming is public health. This major environmental change may have wide ranging implications on health. Therefore, I will start by providing a definition of health that captures the essence of such relationship between the environment in general and human health in particular. El-Ahraf and Hanson developed the “Ecological Definition of Health” that was first presented before President Nixon’s Committee on Health Education in 1972. The definition is based on that of the World Health Organization while expanding it into the environmental arena and recognizing the complex and reciprocal interactions between environmental health and public health. It is stated as follows: “Health is a complete sense of physical, social, psychological and environmental wellbeing and not simply the absence of illness, disability, or eco- pathological conditions “(El-Ahraf and Hanson). The issue of global warming and its implications on health is of concern to the public at large including faculty and students. I find that to be particularly true when I exercise my privilege as a Permanent Guest Professor at the University of Applied Sciences at Fulda, Germany. When I allow freedom of choice in selecting a research project, a sizable number of my European students choose global warming. Fewer, but still a significant number, of my students at Dominguez Hills express a similar concern.
Human activities seem to be a major influence on environmental changes, including those related to climate where there is a buildup in carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and chlorofluorocarbons. These are known as greenhouse gasses that are likely to cause an undesirable increase in temperature causing a sequence of ecological changes. The UN sponsored international scientific assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that the average surface temperature has increased since 1861. In addition, the IPCC has stated in clear terms “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Humans are the recipients of any possible adverse effects of their own actions. The influences of such environmental changes on public health will vary according to the severity of ecological conditions and the vulnerability of a certain population as determined by factors such as aging, nutritional status, environmental health standards and uses of technology. In general, as temperature increases, precipitation changes, soil moisture elevates and sea level rises with potential adverse public health conditions resulting from heat waves, changes in air and water quality, droughts, floods, storms and the resulting displacement of populations. It is important to note that we can not identify these effects with high degree of certainty. However there are enough bases of knowledge, data from simulation models and experience with historical epidemiological episodes to make certain reasonable predictions. McMichael, et al., 1996 provided such an analysis in conjunction with a study on the impacts, adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Health consequences of rising temperatures are already documented in the heat wave that affected Chicago in 1995 resulting in 465 deaths. Under certain climate change scenarios, heat related fatalities would increase in certain American cities by the year 2050. On the other hand, cold-related death would decrease. While health effects of global warming would vary by region, scientists predict based on preliminary data that there will be a net increase in human fatalities. Global warming is also expected to adversely affect air quality where an increase in temperature levels can also elevate the level of formation of secondary air pollutants including ground level ozone known for its negative health effects. The continuation of burning fossil fuel and its contribution to the production of carbon dioxide will continue to intensify the greenhouse effect and aggravate health conditions. Air pollution is known to affect the respiratory and cardiovascular systems negatively. We know of the resulting adverse effects of the combined factors of weather conditions and air pollution. The acute air pollution episodes that happened in London, England in 1952 claimed the lives of 4000 to 8000 people. The rise in surface temperature and sea level my affect the status of marine ecology resulting in the flourishing of certain algae that produce toxic metabolites that can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of shellfish. The floods that may result from climate change can have devastating direct and indirect health effects. Past episodes can give us a glimpse of a possible future. The 1993 Mississippi River Flood resulted in 483 injuries and illnesses in Missouri with 60,000 people displaced which increased their exposure to additional injury and disease. The National Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) noted an increase in mosquito and rat reports in Iowa as a result of that flood. Heavier agricultural and urban runoff due to floods can also result in greater exposure to toxic chemicals. Floods, also, interfere with delivery of medical services when it is most needed. The recent floods and consequent environmental and public health damages occurring in New Orleans, Louisiana as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2006 illustrate this fact. The increase in sea level can result of intrusion of seawater in a manner that threatens fresh water supplies available to humans, plants and animals. The spread of infectious diseases is another concern of global warming. The habitat of disease carriers such as mosquitoes may be affected by changes in temperature, humidity and surface water resulting in increasing its geographic range or changing the seasonal patterns of communicable diseases. According to one simulation model, climate change may result in increase in global burden of disease by adding 50-80 million cases of malaria per year. There are indications that a severe influenza-like disease known as Dengue has spread to higher elevation in Mexico. These are areas that have not previously reported Dengue cases. American health officials are concerned about the implication of that change on the human population in the US southern territories. In areas where drought is likely to occur, rising malnutrition will threaten the health of the population in affected regions. The images of hunger in Africa due to recent drought episodes are still vivid in our memory.
On a global level, Africa will be affected the most by the consequences of global warming including its public health implications. But, California is not immune either. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other international scientific organizations predict that by the year 2100 temperature in California could increase by approximately 5F in the winter and summer and somewhat less than that in the fall and spring. This may mean an intensification of the effects of heat waves. They, also, projected an increase in precipitation by 20-30 % in spring and fall, with an increase in the winter and none projected for the summer. This means the possibility of longer wet spells and a lessening of the number of long dry spells. Californians need to think of future strategies to deal with possible climate changes and their public health implications. It is encouraging to note that the state of California has recently addressed global warming as a serious issued and is formulating an action plan. Similar activities are taking place in New Mexico and other western states.
Of course, some of the public health effects can be mitigated. For example, air conditioning can be used to reduce the impact of rising temperature, pesticides can be used to control disease-carrying insects and desalination plants can be used to replace lost fresh water due to drought or salt water intrusion. But, as Barry Commoner noted in his book “ The Closing Circle”, there are four Laws of Ecology; one of which is that “ There is no free lunch” (Commoner, 1966). An increase in use of air conditioning will increase consumption of energy and production of greenhouse gases; and air conditioning is not always available especially in most impacted areas by global warming. The use of pesticides may expose humans to additional health risk. Desalinization plants have their drawbacks as they impact marine ecology negatively and their product is not truly equivalent to natural fresh water. Additionally, increased frequency of floods and drought conditions has no real countermeasures except to reverse the environmental changes that lead to these consequences.
Perhaps, the best approach is to apply the cautionary public health principle that requires preventive environmental management approach and protective public health measures even in the absence of clear evidence today that some of these adverse conditions may occur tomorrow. I recognize that there are those who chose not to act until they are sure beyond any doubt that global warming and its effects are self-evident. This is not a wise approach when we are dealing with such major impact on the global ecological system. A lesson should be drawn from the debate that arose in the early days of discussion about the necessity to take precautionary and preventive measures to avoid the ozone layer depletion. Those who won the argument of delaying any serious countermeasures until the case is clearly proven have caused humanity a great damage. The human population has been saddled with the reality of increased rate of skin cancer among other public health problems caused by increased exposure to ultra violet (UV) radiation and the economic burden now required for mitigation of the ozone layer problem. In the case of global warming, reductions of human activities that increase pollution level and increase the surface temperature, such as burning fossil fuel, harmful land use policies and employing environmentally unfriendly technology, are worthwhile activities. Such measures are likely to improve public health conditions today and prevent a possible ecological disaster tomorrow. If we do not learn from past ecological and public health experiences and insist on repeating similar mistakes, then we must start planning to mitigate potential adverse public health implications. This will require truly comprehensive disaster preparedness programs, better health promotion and disease prevention measures including improved surveillance of disease trends, enhanced vaccination programs and better public health monitoring and public education techniques. On the academic level, we must start training personnel for what Patz of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health calls “ecologically based” environmental hazards. I believe he is correct in calling for interdisciplinary cooperation and research methodology that will allow for proper investigation of the system based ecological processes and the complex interaction of all of the factors identified in the “Ecological Definition of Health” introduced by El-Ahraf and Hanson as previously noted.
Finally, the pronouncement of a comprehensive public policy towards environmental quality and public health is an essential ingredient in achieving an enlightened approach towards human ecological systems. Science based approach is essential, but it is not sufficient to reflect facts into a public policy. During some of the debate on the stratospheric ozone layer issue, I was a faculty member at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). There, I tried to explore with my students the wisdom of taking a predictive approach to environmental management and not to wait until the ozone layer depletion leaves the stage of preventive measures and reaches the stage of curative requirements. At the California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB), I continued my interest in the subject and conducted interdisciplinary research on the effects of increased rate of exposure to UV radiation with my colleagues from the San Bernardino campus and the University of Benha, Egypt. Other scientists produced other evidence of the public health damage resulting from the depletion of the protective ozone layer. However, in the final analysis it was the decision by policy makers that resulted in international treaties and the beginning of reversing of the damaging process. Today, we need more interdisciplinary research effort to understand the ecological relations between seemingly diverse issues such as climate change, ozone layer depletion and endangered fisheries, but in reality they are interacting issues impacting public health in a significant manner. That interdisciplinary cooperation must reach out to policy makers in a positive manner to enact wise public policy decisions on global warming and other ecological concerns affecting public health and wellbeing.
It is important to note that the examination of the potential impact of global warming on public health has other dimensions beyond the significance of scientific investigation and the practice of environmental and public health. These include the broader issues related to environmental ethics and the moral obligation towards the preservation of ecological systems, conservation of natural resources and the promotion of global health. These dimensions are addressed in another manuscript currently being prepared by the author of this paper.
Re-printed with permission of Dr. Amer El-Ahraf, Ph.D., All Rights Reserved
Selected Bibliography
Commoner, Barry. The Closing Circle. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 1972
El-Ahraf, Amer, M. Qayoumi and R. Dowd. The Impact of Public Policy on Environmental Quality and Health. Quorum Books, Westport, CT and London. 1999.
McMichael, A.J. et al. Human population health. In Climate change—Impact, adaptations and mitigation of climate change scientific-technical analyses. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1996.
Patz, J.A., et al. Global climate change and emerging infectious diseases. JAMA, 1966; 275
--------------------------------------------------
About The Author:
Dr. Amer El-Ahraf is a Professor of Health Sciences and Vice President Emeritus at California State University, Dominguez Hills. He has a full range of academic and administrative experiences in the public and private educational sectors including the University of California and the California State University Systems as well as in international universities. He is the Past President of the California Environmental Health Association, the National (US) Environmental Health Association and the International Forum of Environmental Health Faculty. He has an extensive list of publications in public health, environmental management and higher education administration including books such as “The Impact of Public Policy on Environmental Quality and Health” and “Internationalizing the University Curriculum.”
Dr. El-Ahraf has a multifaceted interest in environmental and public health that cover scientific, historical and ethical considerations. Among other related activities, he served on the Board of Directors of the Orange County Interfaith Coalition on the Environment and conducted workshops on various interfaith perspectives on the environment.
Dr El-Ahraf is the recipient of the prestigious Mangold Award for Outstanding Performance in Environmental Health. He is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in Health Care. He is a graduate of the UCLA School of Public Health where he obtained his Doctorate “With Distinction.”
|
