Global environmental change, of which profound alteration to
the climate is but one aspect, is now widely accepted as a
reality. This new phase of Earth system history has been
called the ‘Anthropocene’ e an era in which the collective
force of one species, it is recognized as changing the planet'soperating system. Here, the social causes of the Anthropocene,
and manifestations including climate change, the
world food system, and the prospects for health are briefly
considered.
Climate change is part of a larger syndrome of systemic
environmental changes, including stratospheric ozone
depletion, biodiversity losses, ocean acidification, disruption
of the global cycling of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, anddepletion of fertile soils, freshwater supplies and marine
productivity. These great changes, all of which intensified in
the latter third of the twentieth century (though some only
became evident in this time), are unprecedented at global
scale. They reflect the excessive, escalating, demands that the
still-expanding global human population is now putting on
the biocapacity of the planet e the capacity to generate,
replenish and absorb. The best approximate estimate is that,
globally, people are living well beyond Earth'smeans, using 1.5
times as much as can be supplied on a continuing basis. That
move into deficit ecological budgeting emerged just 35 years
ago, and is increasing every decade.
In consequence, Earth's long-term human life support system
is faltering as people subsidize their ways of living by
raiding nature's capital stock; and so the natural resource base
shrinks.1 Average global life expectancy and population size
continue to rise, andmainstreamforecasts are for these trends
to continue for decades tocome.But while someof this increase
is due to technological improvement, a large fraction of these
phenomena has been underwritten by the combustion and
consequent degradation of irreplaceable planetary material e
especially fossil fuel.2 The biosphere has been altered enormously
in order to meet human needs and wants, but its
transformation risks exceeding a threshold, beyond which the
health of human populations will decline. The risks that have
been faced are likely to accelerate over the coming decades and
beyond. They will, inevitably, impinge unevenly in populations
around the world, reflecting differences in geographic region,
local physical environments, economic resources, levels of
frank poverty, know-howand governance.Many of the energyintensive
technological choices, production methods and
commercially-cultivated consumer behaviours that erode
human health, especially in richer modernising populations,
aremajor contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change and type II diabetes are both substantially
the outcome of resource over-consumption e and they are
linked. Fossil fuel-based energy, by far the dominant source of
the human-generated greenhouse pollutants, powers the
basic needs (lighting, hot water, communications, most of the
public transport and the industrial food system), laboursaving
devices (mechanized industrial production, private
cars, ride-on lawnmowers), and production and distribution
of the superfluous material goods that those with abundant
money (or credit) buy. Labour-saving devices at home and
work, private transport, and consumption of increasingly
processed diets high in energy, especially fats and sugars,
have been major contributors to the rise in obesity and subsequent
type II diabetes. Solar and other new forms of
renewable electrical energy, which preserve fossil fuels and
which do not worsen climate change, are growing rapidly, but
from a very low base.3
At core these are ecological issues, referring to the ways
that societies live. They do not conform to conventional
'environmental health hazards' in the same way as localized
toxicity or physical (e.g. radiation) injury, rather they signify
the weakening of global/regional life-support systems which
underpin human health and survival. The current system of
bio-spherically charged production and consumption is much
more complex, and in this sense is hard to classify as a public
health issue as the authors explore in the coming sections.Climate change
The slow pace of public understanding of human-caused
climate change appears to have historical analogies in heliocentricism
and evolution, previous revolutionary shifts in
human consciousness for which acceptance was delayed not
only by denial and suppression but by their cognitive
complexity. The realisation that this species, collectively, is a
driver of planetary change appears too large a cognitive
challenge for many people. Recognition is further delayed by a
coalition of forces organized particularly by those who profit
from the burning of fossil fuels,4 using denialism, well-known
in public health circles from previous campaigns to obscure
the recognition of health hazards from tobacco to asbestos.5
Even so, doubts about the reality of climate change are
fading with a growing list of governments introducing policies
to curb carbon emissions, to adapt to increased warming and
torrential downpours. The world has warmed by around 0.6 C
since the 1970s, and has done so much faster at high northern
latitudes (northern Norway has warmed by 2 C). Current
modelled estimations by international climate science indicate
a rise of 3e5 C by 2100, and twice that in the Arctic region.
This is well-over the 2 C ‘guardrail’ formerly accepted as
the maximum tolerable.6 As global temperatures, adjusted for
year-to-year modulations due to natural forcings (the El Ni~no/
La Nina cycle, volcanic emissions and minor variations in
solar activity), continue to rise,7 there is some partial offset by
aerosols of anthropogenic origin, such as from the burning of
coal and biomass, which slow climate change, but harm
health through non-climatic pathways.8 While most of the
energy released from this combustion benefits human wellbeing,
some is lost through inefficiencies, including energy
transmission, poorly insulated dwellings and the use of private
instead of public transport,9 and through various wasteful
uses.
The influences of climate change on health outcomes are
predominantly on whole communities, even whole populations.
Certainly, individuals and sub-groups are often more
or less vulnerable than the group average, but the main point
stands: the impacts of climate change are of an ecological kind.
At their simplest they result from exposures that impinge on
all people in a community (such as heatwaves or exacerbated
air pollution) and at levels that also influenced by characteristics
of the shared living environment. Many other risks
result from climate-related changes in environmental conditions,
ecosystems, the distribution of species and, hence, in
the internal relations and dynamics within that complex. Two
major examples are: first, changes in infectious disease patterns,
reflecting altered microbial activity and distribution,
human contact with animals, microbes and with one another
and changes in infection transmission probabilities; and second,
changes in food yields and hence in food prices, availability,
nutritional states and child and adult health. It is no
surprise that the first two of the biblical Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse were Pestilence and Famine. There are many
other indirect, often deferred and diffuse, health impacts of
climate change e including the oft-overlooked anxieties,Types of climate-related health impacts
There
Global environmental change, of which profound alteration tothe climate is but one aspect, is now widely accepted as areality. This new phase of Earth system history has beencalled the ‘Anthropocene’ e an era in which the collectiveforce of one species, it is recognized as changing the planet'soperating system. Here, the social causes of the Anthropocene,and manifestations including climate change, theworld food system, and the prospects for health are brieflyconsidered.Climate change is part of a larger syndrome of systemicenvironmental changes, including stratospheric ozonedepletion, biodiversity losses, ocean acidification, disruptionof the global cycling of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, anddepletion of fertile soils, freshwater supplies and marineproductivity. These great changes, all of which intensified inthe latter third of the twentieth century (though some onlybecame evident in this time), are unprecedented at globalscale. They reflect the excessive, escalating, demands that thestill-expanding global human population is now putting onthe biocapacity of the planet e the capacity to generate,replenish and absorb. The best approximate estimate is that,globally, people are living well beyond Earth'smeans, using 1.5times as much as can be supplied on a continuing basis. Thatmove into deficit ecological budgeting emerged just 35 yearsago, and is increasing every decade.In consequence, Earth's long-term human life support systemis faltering as people subsidize their ways of living byraiding nature's capital stock; and so the natural resource baseshrinks.1 Average global life expectancy and population sizecontinue to rise, andmainstreamforecasts are for these trendsto continue for decades tocome.But while someof this increaseis due to technological improvement, a large fraction of thesephenomena has been underwritten by the combustion andconsequent degradation of irreplaceable planetary material eespecially fossil fuel.2 The biosphere has been altered enormouslyin order to meet human needs and wants, but itstransformation risks exceeding a threshold, beyond which thehealth of human populations will decline. The risks that havebeen faced are likely to accelerate over the coming decades andbeyond. They will, inevitably, impinge unevenly in populationsaround the world, reflecting differences in geographic region,local physical environments, economic resources, levels offrank poverty, know-howand governance.Many of the energyintensivetechnological choices, production methods andcommercially-cultivated consumer behaviours that erodehuman health, especially in richer modernising populations,aremajor contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions.Climate change and type II diabetes are both substantiallythe outcome of resource over-consumption e and they arelinked. Fossil fuel-based energy, by far the dominant source ofthe human-generated greenhouse pollutants, powers thebasic needs (lighting, hot water, communications, most of thepublic transport and the industrial food system), laboursavingdevices (mechanized industrial production, privatecars, ride-on lawnmowers), and production and distributionof the superfluous material goods that those with abundantmoney (or credit) buy. Labour-saving devices at home andwork, private transport, and consumption of increasinglyprocessed diets high in energy, especially fats and sugars,have been major contributors to the rise in obesity and subsequenttype II diabetes. Solar and other new forms ofrenewable electrical energy, which preserve fossil fuels andwhich do not worsen climate change, are growing rapidly, butfrom a very low base.3At core these are ecological issues, referring to the waysthat societies live. They do not conform to conventional'environmental health hazards' in the same way as localizedtoxicity or physical (e.g. radiation) injury, rather they signifythe weakening of global/regional life-support systems whichunderpin human health and survival. The current system ofbio-spherically charged production and consumption is muchmore complex, and in this sense is hard to classify as a publichealth issue as the authors explore in the coming sections.Climate changeThe slow pace of public understanding of human-causedclimate change appears to have historical analogies in heliocentricismand evolution, previous revolutionary shifts inhuman consciousness for which acceptance was delayed notonly by denial and suppression but by their cognitivecomplexity. The realisation that this species, collectively, is adriver of planetary change appears too large a cognitivechallenge for many people. Recognition is further delayed by acoalition of forces organized particularly by those who profitfrom the burning of fossil fuels,4 using denialism, well-knownin public health circles from previous campaigns to obscurethe recognition of health hazards from tobacco to asbestos.5Even so, doubts about the reality of climate change arefading with a growing list of governments introducing policiesto curb carbon emissions, to adapt to increased warming andtorrential downpours. The world has warmed by around 0.6 Csince the 1970s, and has done so much faster at high northernlatitudes (northern Norway has warmed by 2 C). Currentmodelled estimations by international climate science indicatea rise of 3e5 C by 2100, and twice that in the Arctic region.This is well-over the 2 C ‘guardrail’ formerly accepted asthe maximum tolerable.6 As global temperatures, adjusted foryear-to-year modulations due to natural forcings (the El Ni~no/La Nina cycle, volcanic emissions and minor variations insolar activity), continue to rise,7 there is some partial offset byaerosols of anthropogenic origin, such as from the burning ofcoal and biomass, which slow climate change, but harmhealth through non-climatic pathways.8 While most of theenergy released from this combustion benefits human wellbeing,some is lost through inefficiencies, including energytransmission, poorly insulated dwellings and the use of privateinstead of public transport,9 and through various wastefuluses.The influences of climate change on health outcomes arepredominantly on whole communities, even whole populations.Certainly, individuals and sub-groups are often moreor less vulnerable than the group average, but the main pointstands: the impacts of climate change are of an ecological kind.At their simplest they result from exposures that impinge onall people in a community (such as heatwaves or exacerbatedair pollution) and at levels that also influenced by characteristicsof the shared living environment. Many other risksresult from climate-related changes in environmental conditions,ecosystems, the distribution of species and, hence, inthe internal relations and dynamics within that complex. Twomajor examples are: first, changes in infectious disease patterns,reflecting altered microbial activity and distribution,human contact with animals, microbes and with one anotherand changes in infection transmission probabilities; and second,changes in food yields and hence in food prices, availability,nutritional states and child and adult health. It is nosurprise that the first two of the biblical Four Horsemen of theApocalypse were Pestilence and Famine. There are manyother indirect, often deferred and diffuse, health impacts ofclimate change e including the oft-overlooked anxieties,Types of climate-related health impactsThere
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
