scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Climate change and human survival.

26 Mar 2014-BMJ (British Medical Journal Publishing Group)-Vol. 348
TL;DR: The IPCC report shows the need for “radical and transformative change” in the face of climate change.
Abstract: The IPCC report shows the need for “radical and transformative change” Next week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish its report on the impacts of global warming. Building on its recent update of the physical science of global warming,1 the IPCC’s new report should leave the world in no doubt about the scale and immediacy of the threat to human survival, health, and wellbeing. The IPCC has already concluded that it is “virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate system” and that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” is anthropogenic.1 Its new report outlines the future threats of further global warming: increased scarcity of food and fresh water; extreme weather events; rise in sea level; loss of biodiversity; areas becoming uninhabitable; and mass human migration, conflict and violence. Leaked drafts talk of hundreds of millions displaced in a little over 80 years. This month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) added its voice: “the well being of people of all nations [is] at risk.”2 Such comments reaffirm the conclusions of …

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Climate change and human survival
The editorial by McCoy and colleagues (BMJ 2014;348:g2351,
doi:10.1136/bmj.g2351) stated that “The release of just another
275 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would probably commit us
to a temperature rise of at least 2°C—an amount that could be
emitted in less than eight years.” Instead the text should have
read, “The release of just another 275 gigatonnes of carbon
would probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least
2°C—an amount that could be emitted in less than 25 years.”
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g2510
© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014
For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
BMJ 2014;348:g2510 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2510 (Published 2 April 2014) Page 1 of 1
Corrections
CORRECTIONS
on 9 August 2022 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.g2510 on 2 April 2014. Downloaded from
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
09 Jun 2016-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: Negative environmental and public health outcomes were estimated through economic input-output life cycle assessment (EIOLCA) modeling using National Health Expenditures (NHE) for the decade 2003–2013 and compared to national totals.
Abstract: The U.S. health care sector is highly interconnected with industrial activities that emit much of the nation’s pollution to air, water, and soils. We estimate emissions directly and indirectly attributable to the health care sector, and potential harmful effects on public health. Negative environmental and public health outcomes were estimated through economic input-output life cycle assessment (EIOLCA) modeling using National Health Expenditures (NHE) for the decade 2003–2013 and compared to national totals. In 2013, the health care sector was also responsible for significant fractions of national air pollution emissions and impacts, including acid rain (12%), greenhouse gas emissions (10%), smog formation (10%) criteria air pollutants (9%), stratospheric ozone depletion (1%), and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic air toxics (1–2%). The largest contributors to impacts are discussed from both the supply side (EIOLCA economic sectors) and demand side (NHE categories), as are trends over the study period. Health damages from these pollutants are estimated at 470,000 DALYs lost from pollution-related disease, or 405,000 DALYs when adjusted for recent shifts in power generation sector emissions. These indirect health burdens are commensurate with the 44,000–98,000 people who die in hospitals each year in the U.S. as a result of preventable medical errors, but are currently not attributed to our health system. Concerted efforts to improve environmental performance of health care could reduce expenditures directly through waste reduction and energy savings, and indirectly through reducing pollution burden on public health, and ought to be included in efforts to improve health care quality and safety.

474 citations


Cites background from "Climate change and human survival."

  • ...For GHGs specifically, climate change mitigation efforts have been specifically called for by the WHO and other leading health care bodies [38]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that arguments against medicalization are valuable insofar as they highlight the unwarranted epistemic privilege frequently afforded to medical institutions and medicalized models of phenomena, and a consequent need for greater epistemic humility on the part of health workers and researchers.
Abstract: Many critics of medicalization (the process by which phenomena become candidates for medical definition, explanation and treatment) express concern that the process privileges individualised, biologically grounded interpretations of medicalized phenomena, inhibiting understanding and communication of aspects of those phenomena that are less relevant to their biomedical modelling. I suggest that this line of critique views medicalization as a hermeneutical injustice—a form of epistemic injustice that prevents people having the hermeneutical resources available to interpret and communicate significant areas of their experience. Interpreting the critiques in this fashion shows they frequently fail because they: neglect the ways in which medicalization may not obscure, but rather illuminate, individuals’ experiences; and neglect the testimony of those experiencing first-hand medicalized problems, thus may be guilty of perpetrating testimonial injustice. However, I suggest that such arguments are valuable insofar as they highlight the unwarranted epistemic privilege frequently afforded to medical institutions and medicalized models of phenomena, and a consequent need for greater epistemic humility on the part of health workers and researchers.

71 citations


Cites background from "Climate change and human survival."

  • ...The health community has frequently attempted to act on social determinants of health and illness by engaging with these issues qua social problems—on climate change and energy use (McCoy et al. 2014), alcohol (Bonner and Gilmore 2012), employment and poverty (Marmot et al. 2010), amongst others....

    [...]

  • ...The health community has frequently attempted to act on social determinants of health and illness by engaging with these issues qua social problems—on climate change and energy use (McCoy et al. 2014), alcohol (Bonner and Gilmore 2012), employment and poverty (Marmot et al....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The weight of evidence suggests that when sited properly, wind turbines are not related to adverse health, and a number of recommended best practices for wind turbine development in the context of human health are provided.
Abstract: The association between wind turbines and health effects is highly debated. Some argue that reported health effects are related to wind turbine operation (electromagnetic fields (EMF), shadow flicker, audible noise, low frequency noise, infrasound). Others suggest that when turbines are sited correctly, effects are more likely attributable to a number of subjective variables that result in an annoyed/stressed state. In this review we provide a bibliographic-like summary and analysis of the science around this issue specifically in terms of noise (including audible, low frequency noise and infrasound), EMF and shadow flicker. Now there are roughly 60 scientific peer-reviewed articles on this issue. The available scientific evidence suggests that EMF, shadow flicker, low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines are not likely to affect human health; some studies have found that audible noise from wind turbines can be annoying to some. Annoyance may be associated with some self-reported health effects (e.g., sleep disturbance) especially at sound pressure levels >40 dB(A). Because environmental noise above certain levels is a recognized factor in a number of health issues, siting restrictions have been implemented in many jurisdictions to limit noise exposure. These setbacks should help alleviate annoyance from noise. Subjective variables (attitudes and expectations) are also linked to annoyance and have the potential to facilitate other health complaints via the nocebo effect. Therefore, it is possible that a segment of the population may remain annoyed (or report other health impacts) even when noise limits are enforced. Based on the findings and scientific merit of the available studies, the weight of evidence suggests that when sited properly, wind turbines are not related to adverse health. Stemming from this review, we provide a number of recommended best practices for wind turbine development in the context of human health.

55 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Mindful Climate Action curriculum is designed to help people improve their health while simultaneously lowering their carbon footprints, and combining mindfulness-based practices with the Stages of Change theory to enhance public health and environmental sustainability.
Abstract: Greenhouse gases from human activities are causing climate change, creating risks for people around the globe. Behaviors involving transportation, diet, energy use, and purchasing drive greenhouse gas emissions, but are also related to health and well-being, providing opportunity for co-benefits. Replacing shorter automobile trips with walking or cycling, or eating plants rather than animals, for example, may increase personal health, while also reducing environmental impact. Mindfulness-based practices have been shown to enhance a variety of health outcomes, but have not been adapted towards environmental purposes. We designed the Mindful Climate Action (MCA) curriculum to help people improve their health while simultaneously lowering their carbon footprints. Combining mindfulness-based practices with the Stages of Change theory, the MCA program aims to: (1) improve personal health and well-being; (2) decrease energy use; (3) reduce automobile use; (4) increase active transport; (5) shift diet towards plant-based foods; and (6) reduce unnecessary purchasing. Mindfulness practices will foster attentional awareness, openness, and response flexibility, supporting positive behavior change. We plan to test MCA in a randomized controlled trial, with rigorous assessment of targeted outcomes. Our long-term goal is to refine and adapt the MCA program to a variety of audiences, in order to enhance public health and environmental sustainability.

49 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
30 Apr 2009-Nature
TL;DR: A comprehensive probabilistic analysis aimed at quantifying GHG emission budgets for the 2000–50 period that would limit warming throughout the twenty-first century to below 2 °C, based on a combination of published distributions of climate system properties and observational constraints is provided.
Abstract: More than 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2 degrees C or below (relative to pre-industrial levels) as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate change risks, impacts and damages. However, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions corresponding to a specified maximum warming are poorly known owing to uncertainties in the carbon cycle and the climate response. Here we provide a comprehensive probabilistic analysis aimed at quantifying GHG emission budgets for the 2000-50 period that would limit warming throughout the twenty-first century to below 2 degrees C, based on a combination of published distributions of climate system properties and observational constraints. We show that, for the chosen class of emission scenarios, both cumulative emissions up to 2050 and emission levels in 2050 are robust indicators of the probability that twenty-first century warming will not exceed 2 degrees C relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Limiting cumulative CO(2) emissions over 2000-50 to 1,000 Gt CO(2) yields a 25% probability of warming exceeding 2 degrees C-and a limit of 1,440 Gt CO(2) yields a 50% probability-given a representative estimate of the distribution of climate system properties. As known 2000-06 CO(2) emissions were approximately 234 Gt CO(2), less than half the proven economically recoverable oil, gas and coal reserves can still be emitted up to 2050 to achieve such a goal. Recent G8 Communiques envisage halved global GHG emissions by 2050, for which we estimate a 12-45% probability of exceeding 2 degrees C-assuming 1990 as emission base year and a range of published climate sensitivity distributions. Emissions levels in 2020 are a less robust indicator, but for the scenarios considered, the probability of exceeding 2 degrees C rises to 53-87% if global GHG emissions are still more than 25% above 2000 levels in 2020.

2,432 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A cumulative emissions framing is used, broken down to Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 nations, to understand the implications of rapid emission growth in nations such as China and India, for mitigation rates elsewhere and suggests little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature at or below 2°C.
Abstract: The Copenhagen Accord reiterates the international communitys commitment to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. Yet its preferred focus on global emission peak dates an...

420 citations

23 Jan 2014
TL;DR: Kim as discussed by the authors discussed on the future economies to invest in clean and healthy that will bring growth, jobs, and competitiveness and challenged the notion that responding to climate change is not affordable.
Abstract: This report discusses the remarks delivered by Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank. Press Conference at the World Economic Forum of the taking action on climate change. He was grateful to the organizer who conducted this conference to given this opportunity to meet collective leadership. He discusses on the future economies to invest in clean and healthy that will bring growth, jobs, and competitiveness. The 1.9 trillion dollars in subsidies can be redirected to support investment in clean growth. This challenges the notion that responding to climate change is not affordable. He concludes by saying that we lead to the new technologies and we can bring in the virtuous circle that we have all been waiting for.

3 citations

Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (1)
Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Climate change and human survival" ?

McCoy and colleagues this paper stated that the release of just another 275 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least 2°C, an amount that could be emitted in less than eight years. 

Trending Questions (3)
What has climate protection to do with survival of humanity?

The paper discusses the threats to human survival, health, and wellbeing due to climate change, including increased scarcity of food and water, extreme weather events, rise in sea level, loss of biodiversity, and mass human migration.

What are the impacts of IPCC?

The paper mentions that the IPCC's report on the impacts of global warming will highlight threats to human survival, health, and wellbeing, including increased scarcity of food and water, extreme weather events, rise in sea level, loss of biodiversity, and mass human migration, conflict, and violence.

Is global warming threatens the survival of humankind?

Yes, the paper states that global warming poses a threat to human survival, health, and wellbeing.