By Paul Homewood
The Lancet is back on the climate change bandwagon again with this latest report.
Climate change is commonly discussed in the context of its future impact, but the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change by Nick Watts and colleagues, published on Oct 30, exposes the urgency for a response as environmental changes cause damaging effects on health worldwide now. The comprehensive Review describes the first results of a global initiative, which will annually report on indicators of climate change and its effects on health. One alarming finding is how rising temperatures have influenced the transmission of infectious diseases. Vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus has increased since 1990, with tangible effects—notably, the doubling of cases of dengue fever every decade since 1990.
The report shows a 46% increase between 2000 and 2016 in the frequency of extreme weather events. The disparity in the resulting economic losses is clear, with proportional costs in low-income countries almost double to those in high-income countries (average annual loss US$1·45 vs $2·65/$1000 gross domestic product in high-income vs low-income countries). Strikingly, 99% of losses in low-income countries are uninsured, destroying people’s homes and crop land, taking away livelihoods, and turning the story from economics to health, and the crisis from environmental to humanitarian.
With the USA’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, plans to develop one of the world’s largest coal mines in Australia, and uncertainty surrounding the effects of the European Union losing the UK, its leading advocate for ambitious climate change policy, it is easy to feel discouraged about the future of climate change. However, many countries are leading in their own ways: France has committed to completely phase out coal power by 2023, one in five cars sold in China are to run on alternative fuel by 2025, and Sweden’s Climate Act is a commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
The message of this report is clear: urgent action is needed now. The foundations have been laid, but the past 25 years of inactivity have not been without consequence. Now is the time to build on the small achievements made by some countries and perpetuate engagement to reach political consensus in the race against anthropogenic climate change.
Their apocalyptic findings are centred around these themes:
Indicator 1.2: Health effects of heatwaves
This indicator reports that between 2000 and 2016, the number of vulnerable people exposed to heatwave events increased by about 125 million, with a record 175 million more people exposed to heatwaves in 2015. The health impacts of extreme heat range from direct heat stress and heat stroke, to exacerbations of pre-existing heart failure, and even an increased incidence of acute kidney injury from dehydration in vulnerable populations. Elderly people, children younger than 12 months, and people with chronic cardiovascular and renal disease are particularly sensitive to these changes.
Our definition of a heatwave is a period of more than 3 days during which the minimum temperature is greater than the 99th percentile of the historical minima (1986–2008 average). This metric therefore focuses on periods of high night-time temperatures, which are crucial in denying vulnerable people vital recuperation between hot days. Heatwave data were calculated against the historical period 1986–2008. The population for the exposure calculations was limited to people older than 65 years (as this age group is most vulnerable to the health impacts of heatwaves), and data were obtained on a per country basis from the UN World Population Prospects archives for each year considered.
The highest number of exposure events was recorded in 2015, with about 175 million additional people exposed to heatwaves (figure 2). Over time, the mean number of heatwave days experienced by people during any one heatwave (exposure-weighted) increases at a much faster rate than the global mean (area-weighted) number of heatwave days per heatwave (figure 3) because of high population densities in areas where heatwaves have occurred.
Nowhere in the Executive Summary can I find any mention of changes in cold weather extremes. (It may be in the detailed paper, but how many people read that?)
And there is certainly no mention of the fact that cold kills far more people than heat.
What makes this omission even worse is that it was a study published in the Lancet itself in 2015 that found that:
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.
And this did not only apply to cold climates, but hotter countries too.
In any event, the claim that more people are exposed to heatwaves is highly misleading, because of their definition of what a heatwave is.
In reality, these people have always been exposed to extremely hot weather, even if it might be a fraction of a degree hotter than now.
The real answer is to provide the inhabitants of countries particularly vulnerable to hot summers with access to reliable and affordable energy, air conditioning, clean water, medical services and the rest.
Indicator 1.3: Change in labour capacity
This indicator reports that global labour capacity in rural populations exposed to temperature change is estimated to have decreased by 5·3% from 2000 to 2016.
Higher temperatures pose profound threats to occupational health and labour productivity, particularly for people undertaking manual, outdoor labour in hot areas. This indicator shows the change in labour capacity (and thus productivity) worldwide and for rural regions specifically, weighted by population (appendix p 18). Loss of labour capacity has important implications for the livelihoods of individuals, families, and communities, especially those relying on subsistence farming.
Estimation of labour capacity is based on wet bulb globe temperatures, as described by Watts and colleagues. We estimated change in outdoor labour productivity as a percentage relative to the reference period (1986–2008) (figure 4). Labour capacity is estimated to have decreased by 5·3% between 2000 and 2016, with a dramatic decrease of more than 2% between 2015 and 2016. Although there are some peaks of increased labour capacity (notably in 2000, 2004, and 2008), the overwhelming trend is one of reduced capacity. These effects are most notable in some of the most vulnerable countries in the world (figure 5).
This is just another of those ridiculous statistical models, which can be used to prove whatever you want.
If we take two of the countries highlighted as problem areas, India and Brazil, we find that the value of agricultural production (at constant prices) has risen in leaps and bounds since 1960, a warmer climate or not.
These are the real facts, not some imagined loss in labour productivity.
Indicator 1.4: Lethality of weather-related disasters
This indicator reports that the frequency of weather related disasters has increased by 46% from 2007 to 2016 (compared with the 1990–99 average), with no clear upward or downward trend in the lethality of these extreme events.
Weather-related events have been associated with more than 90% of all disasters worldwide in the past 20 years. As expected, considering its population and area, Asia is the continent most affected by weather-related disasters. 2843 events were recorded between 1990 and 2016, affecting 4·8 billion people and killing 505 013 people. Deaths from natural hazard-related disasters are largely concentrated in poor countries. Crucially, this must be understood in the context of potentially overwhelming health impacts of future climate change, worsening profoundly in the coming years. Indeed, the 2015 Lancet Commission estimated that an additional 1·4 billion drought exposure events and 2·3 billion flood exposure events will occur by the end of the century, showing clear public health limits to adaptation.
Disaster impact is a function of hazard and vulnerability, with vulnerability from a climate change perspective sometimes defined as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. This indicator measures the ratio of the number of deaths to the number of people affected by weather-related disasters. Weather-related disasters include droughts, floods, extreme temperature events, storms, and wildfires. The health impacts of weather-related disasters expand beyond mortality alone, including injuries, mental health impacts, spread of disease, and food and water insecurity. Data for the calculations for this indicator come from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). Here, in line with the EM-DAT data used for analysis, a disaster is defined as either: (1) ten or more people killed; (2) 100 or more people affected; (3) a declaration of a state of emergency; or (4) a call for international assistance.
Between 1994 and 2013, the frequency of reported weather-related events (mainly floods and storms) increased substantially. However, this trend might be partially accounted for by information systems having improved in the past 35 years, and statistical data are now more available because of increased sociocultural sensitivity to disaster consequences and occurrence. From 2007 to 2016, EM-DAT recorded an average of 306 weather-related disasters per year, an increase of 46% from the 1990–99 average. However, owing to impressive poverty reduction and health adaptation efforts, this increase in weather-related disasters has not yet been accompanied by any discernible trend in number of deaths or in number of people affected by disasters (or in the ratio of these two; figure 6). Indeed, separating out the disasters by the type of climate and weather hazard associated with the disaster, we found a significant decrease in the number of people affected by floods worldwide, equating to a decrease of 3 million people annually. Importantly, best available estimates and projections expect a sharp reversal in these trends in the coming decades, and it is notable that mortality associated with weather-related disasters has increased in many countries, many of which are high-income countries, illustrating that no country is immune to the impacts of climate change.
This claim is based solely on the EM-DAT database of disasters, which I have already taken to the cleaners here.
As even the Lancet admit, “however, this trend might be partially accounted for by information systems having improved in the past 35 years, and statistical data are now more available because of increased sociocultural sensitivity to disaster consequences and occurrence.”
This alone should invalidate any conclusions they have arrived at. And if more evidence was needed, their Figure 6 surely provides it:
On the top graph, the red plot of occurrences takes a huge upward step change after 1998, since when it has stabilised. Yet there appears to be no trend in numbers of deaths or people affected.
This is strong evidence that all we are seeing is an increase in the numbers of extremely minor occurrences, which affect only a small number of people. In other words, exactly the sort of disasters which previously went unreported.
Indicator 1.5: Global health trends in climate-sensitive diseases
This indicator reports that global health initiatives have improved the health profile of populations around the world—a trend that unmitigated climate change is expected to undermine.
Disease occurrence is determined by a complex composite of social and environmental conditions and health service provision, all of which vary geographically. Nonetheless, some diseases are particularly sensitive to variations in climate and weather and might therefore be expected to vary with both longer-term climate change and shorter-term extreme weather events. This indicator draws from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2015 mortality estimates to show trends in deaths associated with seven climate-sensitive diseases since 1990 (figure 7).
These disease trends reveal worldwide increases in dengue mortality, particularly in the Asia-Pacific, Latin American, and Caribbean regions, with some peak years (including 1998) known to be associated with El Niño conditions. Beyond climate, likely drivers of dengue mortality include trade, urbanisation, global and local mobility, and climate variability. The association between increased dengue mortality and climate change is therefore complex. It naturally follows that an increased spread of the disease resulting from climate change will be an important contributing factor in the increased likelihood of an associated increase in mortality.
Again, the study highlights the likely drivers of dengue mortality – trade, urbanisation, global and local mobility.
Prof Duane Gubler is one of the world’s leading experts on vector-borne diseases. In 2011, he published a paper, Dengue, Urbanization and Globalization: The Unholy Trinity of the 21st Century, which had this to say:
Abstract
Dengue is the most important arboviral disease of humans with over half of the world’s population living in areas of risk. The frequency and magnitude of epidemic dengue have increased dramatically in the past 40 years as the viruses and the mosquito vectors have both expanded geographically in the tropical regions of the world. There are many factors that have contributed to this emergence of epidemic dengue, but only three have been the principal drivers: 1) urbanization, 2) globalization and 3) lack of effective mosquito control. The dengue viruses have fully adapted to a human-Aedes aegypti-human transmission cycle, in the large urban centers of the tropics, where crowded human populations live in intimate association with equally large mosquito populations. This setting provides the ideal home for maintenance of the viruses and the periodic generation of epidemic strains. These cities all have modern airports through which 10s of millions of passengers pass each year, providing the ideal mechanism for transportation of viruses to new cities, regions and continents where there is little or no effective mosquito control. The result is epidemic dengue. This paper discusses this unholy trinity of drivers, along with disease burden, prevention and control and prospects for the future.
In an earlier paper, Gubler also described how the principle mosquito vector, A. aegypti, had been almost eradicated from large parts of Central and South America in the 1950s and 60s, following the instigation of proper mosquito control.
Sadly, this eradication programme was discontinued in the early 1970s, with the result that by the 1990s A. aegypti had nearly regained the geographic distribution it held before eradication was initiated.
If climate plays any role at all in the spread of dengue fever, it is very much a bit part.
Indicator 1.7: Food security and undernutrition
Isolating the impact of climate change on health through the indirect impacts on food security is complicated because policies, institutions, and the actions of individuals, organisations, and countries strongly influence the extent to which food systems are resilient to climate hazards and adapt to climate change and whether individual households are able to access and afford sufficient nutritious food. For example, with respect to undernourishment, vulnerability has been shown to be more dependent on adaptive capacity (such as infrastructure and markets) and sensitivity (such as forest cover and rain-fed agriculture) than exposure (such as temperature change, droughts, floods, storms). In view of the role human systems have in mediating the links between climate, food, and health, the chosen indicators focus on abiotic and biotic indicators and population vulnerabilities, considering both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Undernutrition has been identified as the largest health impact of climate change in the 21st century.
As has already been pointed out, agricultural production has increased massively in recent decades.
Undernutrition, where it exists, has nothing at all to do with climate change.
Indicator 1.8: Migration and population displacement
This indicator reports that climate change is the sole contributing factor for at least 4400 people who are already being forced to migrate, worldwide. The total number of people vulnerable to migration might increase to 1 billion by the end of the century without significant further action on climate change.
Is this really the best they can come up with? Seriously?
CONCLUSION
This study, which is the work of 63 authors, runs to 50 pages long. Yet all it can come up with is that summers are a fraction of a degree warmer than 30 years ago, and that sea levels are a few inches higher than a century ago.
Yet they claim that climate change is already causing damaging effects on health worldwide.
Needless to say, the study goes to great lengths to tell us all that we should all stop using fossil fuels, pay carbon taxes and rely on renewable energy.
At its heart, this is not a serious study, but simply a political document prepared to twist the facts to suit its preconceived agenda.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
November 3, 2017 at 02:15PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 