Something extraordinary happened in mid-September: 231 medical journals around the world all published the same editorial, titled 鈥淐all for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.鈥�
Led by a group of chief editors from world-leading journals such as The Lancet, The BMJ and The New England Journal of Medicine, as well as the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the editorial stated, bluntly: 鈥淭he greatest threat to global 颅public health is the continued failure of world leaders to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees C and to restore nature.鈥�
Tellingly, notes the editorial, the latter 鈥� the destruction of nature 鈥� 鈥渄oes not have parity of esteem with the climate element of the crisis.鈥� This is an important point. As recent UN reports have begun to recognize 鈥� and as governments, by and large, have not 鈥� we face not just climate change but multiple and interacting human-driven 颅ecological crises.
This is well illustrated by the concept of planetary boundaries, first proposed in 2009. Nine major Earth systems are 颅identified and boundaries are suggested, beyond which we should not go if we wish to avoid 颅destabilizing our planetary life support 颅system. One of these, of course, is global warming exceeding 1.5 to 2 degrees C.
The most recent updating of this model was in 2015; at that point we were already in a zone of high risk for species extinctions and nitrogen and phosphorus flows, in a zone of increased risk for land system and climate change and approaching it for ocean acidification. Troublingly, boundaries could not even be established for a couple of the Earth systems.
The editorial lists some of the health impacts that are already apparent as a result of these changes, including a 50 per cent increase in heat-related mortality among older adults in the past 20 years and a host of other health problems related to climate change. But it also points out that 鈥渢hriving ecosystems are essential to human health and the widespread destruction of nature, including habitats and species, is eroding water and food security and increasing the chance of pandemics.鈥�
Moreover, the clear link between 颅unsustainable development and inequality is made clear. Not only are the most 颅vulnerable people 鈥� 鈥渃hildren, older populations, ethnic minorities, poorer communities, and those with underlying health problems鈥� 鈥� 颅disproportionately affected, so, too, are 颅low-income countries and communities.
Ironically, these are places that 鈥渉ave contributed least to the problem鈥� 鈥� which historically, and still today, is 颅disproportionately caused by high-income countries. Yet these low-income countries and communities have less capacity to deal with the problems caused by these global ecological crises. The burden of 颅ecologically related ill health thus falls most heavily on those least able to deal with it.
Which is why the editorial insists that 鈥渆quity must be at the centre of the global response鈥� and that wealthy countries 鈥� such as sa国际传媒 鈥� will have to make larger and more rapid changes to address these crises. In fact, the editors all agree, 鈥渙nly 颅fundamental and equitable changes to 颅societies will reverse our current 颅trajectory.鈥�
The good news, they point out, is that the dramatic changes we must make bring with them 鈥渉uge positive health and economic outcomes.鈥�
These include improved air quality 鈥� which 鈥渁lone would realize health benefits that easily offset the global costs of emissions reductions鈥� 鈥� better diets, more physical activity, improved housing and high-quality jobs.
Now doubtless this will all be dismissed by the same ranting fools that deny the reality and severity of climate change and COVID. But their uneducated and 颅unscientific opinions simply can鈥檛 be allowed to count. Nor for that matter can we accept the self-interested views of the major 颅corporations and their government partners that make vast sums of money through their war on nature. They profit from the status quo and business as usual, and have no 颅interest in 鈥渇undamental and equitable changes to societies.鈥�
But those of us who do actually care about the well-being of both the population and the Earth鈥檚 systems that support our wellbeing (and the well-being of the myriad species with which we share the Earth) must, as the editorial puts it, 鈥渄o all we can to aid the transition to a sustainable, fairer, resilient and healthier world.鈥�
Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the University of 颅Victoria鈥檚 School of Public Health and Social Policy.
