Climate Q&A: will we be less healthy because of climate change?



Climate change, together with other ecological pressures, may well undo the gains we have made in health.
from http://www.shutterstock.com, CC BY-ND

Alexandra Macmillan, University of Otago

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

Do you expect an increase in health issues due to the effects of climate change? – a question from Christine in Wellington

Some of the negative health effects of climate change are already upon us, but it’s not all doom and gloom. There is a huge opportunity for better health through well designed action to reduce our emissions and by adapting to the changes we are facing.

You may already be experiencing one of the potential impacts of climate change on our mental health. In recent years, the New Zealand Psychological Society has reported seeing some cases of anxiety, helplessness and depression about climate change. This is most evident when individual concerns are expressed collectively in the form of protest such as the school strikes for climate. Thousands of young people around New Zealand – and reportedly more than a million globally – have been striking to express their fears about the future.




Read more:
Climate change: seeing the planet break down is depressing – here’s how to turn your pain into action


The grief and depression that can result from the destruction of places and landscapes people love led Australian environmental philosopher Glenn Albrecht to create a new word: “solastalgia”.

Global warnings

In New Zealand, the past half century has seen ongoing improvements in the health of the overall population, with an expectation that our children will have better health, life expectancy and quality of life than their parents.

But as a number of reports have found, including medical journal The Lancet’s Countdown 2018 report, climate change may well undo these health gains in tandem with other ecological pressures we have created. Global measures of health mask unequal gains between populations and groups between and within countries. Climate change will make these health inequalities worse.

The pathways between climate change and human health, from a global report on climate change and health.
2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change, CC BY-NC-ND

The Lancet’s report warns that “the nature and scale of the response to climate change will be the determining factor in shaping the health of nations for centuries to come”.

Climate change and health in New Zealand

In New Zealand, warmer winters may reduce the number of people who die (currently about 1600 each year), mostly from heart and lung disease. But unfortunately, the overall impact will be negative on a wide range of other causes of illness and mortality. It is likely that climate change will bring diseases unfamiliar in New Zealand (especially infectious diseases, such as dengue fever), but more importantly, climate change amplifies chronic and infectious diseases we already suffer from, such as the impacts of heat on heart disease, and changing rainfall patterns on waterborne illnesses.

One major direct impact on health was made evident by the huge outbreak of campylobacter, a bacterial infection that causes gastroenteritis, in Havelock North during the winter of 2016. Some 5,500 people in a town of 14,000 residents became unwell, with 45 people hospitalised. A government inquiry attributed the outbreak to a combination of extreme rainfall that washed sheep faeces into a pond near a water bore and poor drinking water management. The outbreak may even have contributed to three people’s deaths.

Warming of freshwater and more extreme rainfall events are both part of climate change, increasing the likelihood of outbreaks like the one in Havelock North.

Indirect effects on health will be as important, but they are more difficult to measure and predict. Climate change undermines many of the building blocks of good health: clean air, plentiful safe drinking water, affordable healthy food, affordable dry houses, and economic stability and peace. The threat to food security and therefore nutrition is just one worrying example.




Read more:
How climate change affects the building blocks for health


Changing seasonal temperatures and weather extremes are already reducing harvests of important staples like wheat, while warming oceans are reducing our ability to harvest fish and shellfish. Both are staples in New Zealand’s diet. We already have a problem with many families not being able to afford to always put a meal on the table, let alone a healthy one. When this worsens, the result is, perversely, an increase in obesity and diabetes, accompanied by nutrient deficiencies, as families rely on cheap, highly processed foods to get by.

Overall, many New Zealanders are experiencing better health than in the past, but we have persistent health inequalities as a result of multiple structural injustices, including poverty. People on low incomes, Māori and Pasifika, the elderly and children will be worst affected by climate change, but wealth and white privilege do not confer immunity.

The overwhelmingly negative effects of climate change on health are a strong argument for urgent action to reduce our climate pollution.

But well designed action also offers opportunities to address New Zealand’s biggest causes of death and disease: cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. For example, if we reduce our transport emissions by improving access to safe walking and cycling routes and electric public transport, air quality will improve and we build physical exercise back into our daily lives. Shifting our farming sector from a heavy focus on producing milk powder towards plant-based food production would not only change our national diets for the better, but also ensure we are resilient to global food price shocks and improve our fresh and drinking water.

Our health system will need significant strengthening if we are to be in a good position to weather the coming climate disruptions. This is particularly so in public health, which sets up systems for dealing with outbreaks and emergencies. We also know from our experiences of past major calamities such as earthquakes, that the resilience that comes from strong communities is a huge advantage. Taking co-ordinated action together can be crucial for health during upheaval.The Conversation

Alexandra Macmillan, Senior Lecturer in environmental sustainability and public health and co-convenor of OraTaiao: NZ Climate & Health Council, University of Otago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Increasing tree cover may be like a ‘superfood’ for community mental health



Imagine Hyde Park in Sydney without its tree cover … the impact on this space and the many people who spend time in it would be profound.
EA Given/Shutterstock

Thomas Astell-Burt, University of Wollongong and Xiaoqi Feng, University of Wollongong

Increasing tree canopy and green cover across Greater Sydney and increasing the proportion of homes in urban areas within 10 minutes’ walk of quality green, open and public space are among the New South Wales premier’s new priorities. Cities around Australia have similar goals. In our latest study, we asked if more of any green space will do? Or does the type of green space matter for our mental health?

Our results suggest the type of green space does matter. Adults with 30% or more of their neighbourhood covered in some form of tree canopy had 31% lower odds of developing psychological distress. The same amount of tree cover was linked to 33% lower odds of developing fair to poor general health.

We also found poorer mental and general health among adults in areas with higher percentages of bare grass nearby, but there’s likely more to that than meets the eye.




Read more:
Green for wellbeing – science tells us how to design urban spaces that heal us


Treed neighbourhoods have a natural appeal to people.
Tim Gouw/Unsplash

How did we do the research?

Our research involved tracking changes in health over an average of about six years, for around 46,000 adults aged 45 years or older, living in Sydney, Newcastle or Wollongong. We examined health in relation to different types of green space available within a 1.6 kilometre (1 mile) walk from home.

Our method helped to guard against competing explanations for our results, such as differences in income, education, relationship status, sex, and age. We also restricted the sample to adults who did not move home, because it is plausible that people who are already healthier (for instance because they are more physically active) move into areas with more green space.

So is the answer simply more trees and less grass? Not exactly. Let’s get into the weeds.




Read more:
Green space – how much is enough, and what’s the best way to deliver it?


Trees make it cool to walk

Imagine you’re walking down a typical street on a summer’s day in the middle of an Australian city. It’s full of right angles, grey or dark hard surfaces, glass structures, and innumerable advertisements competing for your attention. Then you turn a corner and your gaze is drawn upwards to a majestic tree canopy exploding with a vivid array of greens for as far as you can see.

A tree-lined street like Swanston Street in Melbourne is a more walkable street.
kittis/Shutterstock

Let’s get the obvious out of the way. Walking down this green street, you may instantly feel some relief from the summer heat.

Studies are linking high temperatures with heat exhaustion and mental health impacts. Research has suggested trees, rather than other forms of green space, may be best at reducing temperatures in cities. It may also simply be more comfortable to walk outside in cooler temperatures – not to mention going for a run or bike ride, both of which are good for mental health.




Read more:
Our cities need more trees, but some commonly planted ones won’t survive climate change


Feeling restored and alert

But as the minutes of walking beneath this natural umbrella of lush foliage accumulate, other things are happening too. The vibrant colours, natural shapes and textures, fresh aromas, and rustling of leaves in the breeze all provide you with effortless distraction and relief from whatever it was you might have been thinking about, or even stressing over.

Trees can provide a soothing sensory distraction from our troubles.
Jake Ingle/Unsplash

Studies back this up. Walks through green space have been shown to reduce blood pressure, improve mental acuity, boost memory recall, and reduce feelings of anxiety. The Japanese have a name for this type of experience: shinrin-yoku.

Friends, old and new

You walk past groups of people on the footpath taking time to catch up over coffee in the shade. Some research has found that tree cover, rather than green space more generally, is a predictor of social capital. Social capital, according to Robert Putnam, refers to the “social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness” that may have important influences on our life chances and health.

Dogs and trees both contribute to building healthy social relations.
Liubov Ilchuk/Unsplash

You walk further and a chorus of birdsong soars through the neighbourhood noise. Trees provide shelter and food for a variety of animals. Research suggests tree canopy tends to be more biodiverse than low-lying vegetation.

Increased biodiversity may support better mental health by enhancing the restorative experience and also via the immunoregulatory benefits of microbial “Old Friends” – microorganisms that helped shape our immune systems but which have been largely eliminated from our urban environments.

Green spaces with tree canopy are settings where communities can come together to watch birds and other animals, which can also be catalysts for new conversations and developing feelings of community belonging in the neighbourhoods where we live … just ask dog owners.




Read more:
Reducing stress at work is a walk in the park


So, what about the grass?

Our research did not show a mental health benefit from more bare grassed areas. This does not mean grass is bad for mental health.

Previous research suggests adults are less likely to wander in green spaces that are relatively plain and lacking in a variety of features or amenities.
This may also be partly attributable to preferences for green spaces with more complex vegetation, such as parks that mix grass with tree canopy.

Parks with a variety of vegetation, including trees and grass, may be more attractive for a wider range of outdoor activities than those with few trees.
Author

Furthermore, large areas of bare grass in cities can make built environments more spread-out and less dense. Without tree canopy to shield from the midday sun, this may increase the likelihood of people using cars for short trips instead of walking through a park or along a footpath. The result is missed opportunities for physical activity, mental restoration, and impromptu chats with neighbours. Previous work in the United States suggests this might be why higher death rates were found in greener American cities.

Grassed areas can occupy a large amount of space for surprisingly little mental health benefit.
chuttersnap/Unsplash

Large open areas of grass can be awesome for physical activity and sport, but let’s make sure there is also plenty of tree canopy too, while also thinking about ways to get more people outdoors in green spaces. Here are some suggestions.

Making Australia greener and healthier

As the density of Australian cities continues to increase and more of us live in apartments and/or work in high-rise office blocks, it is great to see strategies to invest in tree cover and urban greening more generally across Australia. Cities with such plans include Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Bendigo, Fremantle, and Wollongong.

You can get involved and have some fun at the same time too. Lots of evidence says gardening is really great for your mental health. So why not grab a mate and spend a couple of hours planting a tree on July 28 for National Tree Day!The Conversation

Both the act of planting a tree and its presence over the decades are good for us.
Amy Fry/flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

Thomas Astell-Burt, Professor of Population Health and Environmental Data Science, NHMRC Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellow, University of Wollongong and Xiaoqi Feng, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and NHMRC Career Development Fellow, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Expanding gas mining threatens our climate, water and health


Melissa Haswell, Queensland University of Technology and David Shearman, University of Adelaide

Australia, like its competitors Qatar, Canada and the United States, aspires to become the world’s largest exporter of gas, arguing this helps importing nations reduce their greenhouse emissions by replacing coal.

Yes, burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning coal. Yet the “fugitive emissions” – the methane that escapes, often unmeasured, during production, distribution and combustion of gas – is a much more potent short-term greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.




Read more:
Who gets to decide whether we dig up coal and gas?


A special report issued by the World Health Organisation after the 2018 Katowice climate summit urged governments to take “specific commitments to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants” such as methane, so as to boost the chances of staying with the Paris Agreement’s ambitious 1.5℃ global warming limit.

Current gas expansion plans in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, where another 2,500 coal seam gas wells have been approved, reveal little impetus to deliver on this. Harvesting all of WA’s gas reserves would emit about 4.4 times more carbon dioxide equivalent than Australia’s total domestic energy-related emissions budget.

Gas as a cause of local ill-health

There are not only global, but also significant local and regional risks to health and well-being associated with unconventional gas mining. Our comprehensive review examines the current state of the evidence.

Since our previous reviews (see here, here and here), more than 1,400 further peer-reviewed articles have been published, helping to clarify how expanding unconventional gas production across Australia risks our health, well-being, climate, water and food security.




Read more:
Chief Scientist CSG report leaves health concerns unanswered


This research has been possible because, since 2010, 17.6 million US citizens’ homes have been within a mile (1.6km) of gas wells and fracking operations. Furthermore, some US research funding is independent of the gas industry, whereas much of Australia’s comparatively small budget for research in this area is channelled through an industry-funded CSIRO research hub.

Key medical findings

There is evidence that living close to unconventional gas mining activities is linked to a wide range of health conditions, including psychological and social problems.

The US literature now consistently reports higher frequencies of low birth weight, extreme premature births, higher-risk pregnancies and some birth defects, in pregnancies spent closer to unconventional gas mining activities, compared with pregnancies further away. No parallel studies have so far been published in Australia.

US studies have found increased indicators of cardiovascular disease, higher rates of sinus disorders, fatigue and migraines, and hospitalisations for asthma, heart, neurological, kidney and urinary tract conditions, and childhood blood cancer near shale gas operations.

Exploratory studies in Queensland found higher rates of hospitalisation for circulatory, immune system and respiratory disorders in children and adults in the Darling Downs region where coal seam gas mining is concentrated.

Water exposure

Chemicals found in gas mining wastewater include volatile organic compounds such as benzene, phenols and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, as well as heavy metals, radioactive materials, and endocrine-disrupting substances – compounds that can affect the body’s hormones.

This wastewater can find its way into aquifers and surface water through spillage, injection procedures, and leakage from wastewater ponds.

The environmental safety of treated wastewater and the vast quantities of crystalline salt produced is unclear, raising questions about cumulative long-term impacts on soil productivity and drinking water security.

Concern about the unconventional gas industry’s use of large quantities of water has increased since 2013. Particularly relevant to Australian agriculture and remote communities is research showing an unexpected but consistent increase in the “water footprint” of gas wells across all six major shale oil and gas mining regions of the US from 2011 to 2016. Maximum increases in water use per well (7.7-fold higher, Permian deposits, New Mexico and Texas) and wastewater production per well (14-fold, Eagle Ford deposits, Texas) occurred where water stress is very high. The drop in water efficiency was tied to a drop in gas prices.

Air exposure

Research on the potentially harmful substances emitted into the atmosphere during water removal, gas production and processing, wastewater handling and transport has expanded. These substances include fine particulate pollutants, ground-level ozone, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde, diesel exhaust and endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Measuring concentrations and human exposures to these pollutants is complicated, as they vary widely and unpredictably in both time and location. This makes it difficult to prove a definitive causal link to human health impacts, despite the mounting circumstantial evidence.




Read more:
Why Australians need a national environment protection agency to safeguard their health


Our review found substantially more evidence of what we suspected in 2013: that gas mining poses significant threats to the global climate, to food and water supplies, and to health and well-being.

On this basis, Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) has reinforced its position that no new gas developments should occur in Australia, and that governments should increase monitoring, regulation and management of existing wells and gas production and transport infrastructure.The Conversation

Melissa Haswell, Professor of Health, Safety and Environment, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland University of Technology and David Shearman, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Explainer: what is Murray Valley encephalitis virus?


Ana Ramírez, James Cook University; Andrew Francis van den Hurk, The University of Queensland; Cameron Webb, University of Sydney, and Scott Ritchie, James Cook University

Western Australian health authorities recently issued warnings about Murray Valley encephalitis, a serious disease that can spread by the bite of an infected mosquito and cause inflammation of the brain.

Thankfully, no human cases have been reported this wet season. The virus that causes the disease was detected in chickens in the Kimberley region. These “sentinel chickens” act as an early warning system for potential disease outbreaks.

What is Murray Valley encephalitis virus?

Murray Valley encephalitis virus is named after the Murray Valley in southeastern Australia. The virus was first isolated from patients who died from encephalitis during an outbreak there in 1951.

The virus is a member of the Flavivirus family and is closely related to Japanese encephalitis virus, a major cause of encephalitis in Asia.

Murray Valley encephalitis virus is found in northern Australia circulating between mosquitoes, especially Culex annulirostris, and water birds. Occasionally the virus spreads to southern regions, as mosquitoes come into contact with infected birds that have migrated from northern regions.




Read more:
After the floods come the mosquitoes – but the disease risk is more difficult to predict


How serious is the illness?

After being transmitted by an infected mosquito, the virus incubates for around two weeks.

Most people infected don’t develop symptoms. But, if you’re unlucky, you could develop symptoms ranging from fever and headache to paralysis, encephalitis and coma.

Around 40% of people who develop symptoms won’t fully recover and about 25% die. Generally, one or two human cases are reported in Australia per year.

Since the 1950s, there have been sporadic outbreaks of Murray Valley encephalitis, most notably in 1974 and 2011. The 1974 outbreak was Australia-wide, resulting in 58 cases and 12 deaths.

It’s likely the virus has been causing disease since at least the early 1900s when epidemics of encephalitis were attributed to a mysterious illness called Australian X disease.

Traditional monitoring of mosquito-borne diseases relies on the collection of mosquitoes using specially designed traps baited with carbon dioxide.
Cameron Webb

Early warning system

Given the severity of Murray Valley encephalitis, health authorities rely on early warning systems to guide their responses.

One of the most valuable surveillance tools to date have been chooks because the virus circulates between birds and mosquitoes. Flocks of chickens are placed in areas with past evidence of virus circulation and where mosquitoes are buzzing about.

Chickens are highly susceptible to infection so blood samples are routinely taken and analysed to determine evidence of virus infection. If a chicken tests positive, the virus has been active in an area.

The good news is that even if the chickens have been bitten, they don’t get sick.

Mosquitoes can also be collected in the field using a variety of traps. Captured mosquitoes are counted, grouped by species and tested to see if they’re carrying the virus.

This method is very sensitive: it can identify as little as one infected mosquito in a group of 1,000. But processing is labour-intensive.




Read more:
How Australian wildlife spread and suppress Ross River virus


How can technology help track the virus?

Novel approaches are allowing scientists to more effectively detect viruses in mosquito populations.

Mosquitoes feed on more than just blood. They also need a sugar fix from time to time, usually plant nectar. When they feed on sugary substances, they eject small amounts of virus in their saliva.

This led researchers to develop traps that contain special cards coated in honey. When the mosquitoes feed on the cards, they spit out virus, which specific tests can then detect.

We are also investigating whether mosquito poo could be used to enhance the sugar-based surveillance system. Mosquitoes spit only tiny amounts of virus, whereas they poo a lot (300 times more than they spit).

This mosquito poo can contain a treasure trove of genetic material, including viruses. But we’re still working out the best way to collect the poo.

Mosquito poo, shown here after mosquitoes have fed on coloured honey, can be used to detect viruses like Murray Valley encephalitis.
Dagmar Meyer

Staying safe from Murray Valley encephalitis

There is no vaccine or specific treatment for the virus. Avoiding mosquito bites is the only way to protect yourself from the virus. You can do this by:

  • wearing protective clothing when outdoors

  • avoiding being outdoors when the mosquitoes that transmit the virus are most active (dawn and dusk)

  • using repellents, mosquito coils, insect screens and mosquito nets

  • following public health advisories for your area.

The virus is very rare and your chances of contracting the disease are extremely low, but not being bitten is the best defence.The Conversation

Ana Ramírez, PhD candidate, James Cook University; Andrew Francis van den Hurk, Medical Entomologist, The University of Queensland; Cameron Webb, Clinical Lecturer and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney, and Scott Ritchie, Professorial Research Fellow, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How Australian wildlife spread and suppress Ross River virus



File 20181230 47292 1isykoi.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Mozzies feed on many native species, including the Nankeen Night Heron.
Janis Otto/flikr

Eloise Stephenson, Griffith University; Cameron Webb, University of Sydney, and Emily Johnston Flies, University of Tasmania

Ross River virus is Australia’s most common mosquito-borne disease. It infects around 4,000 people a year and, despite being named after a river in North Queensland, is found in all states and territories, including Tasmania.

While the disease isn’t fatal, it can cause debilitating joint pain, swelling and fatigue lasting weeks or even months. It can leave sufferers unable to work or look after children, and is estimated to cost the economy A$2.7 to A$5.6 million each year.

There is no treatment or vaccine for Ross River virus; the only way to prevent is to avoid mosquito bites.




Read more:
Explainer: what is Ross River virus?


Mosquitoes pick up the disease-causing pathogen by feeding on an infected animal. The typical transmission cycle involves mosquitoes moving the virus between native animals but occasionally, an infected mosquito will bite a person. If this occurs, the mosquito can spread Ross River virus to the person.

Animal hosts

Ross River virus has been found in a range of animals, including rats, dogs, horses, possums, flying foxes, bats and birds. But marsupials – kangaroos and wallabies in particular – are generally better than other animals at amplifying the virus under experimental infection and are therefore thought to be “reservoir hosts”.

The virus circulates in the blood of kangaroos and wallabies for longer than other animals, and at higher concentrations. It’s then much more likely to be picked up by a blood-feeding mosquito.

Kangaroos are a common sight around Australia’s coastal wetlands.
Dr Cameron Webb (NSW Health Pathology), Author provided

Dead-end hosts

When we think of animals and disease we often try to identify which species are good at transmitting the virus to mosquitoes (the reservoir hosts). But more recently, researchers have started to focus on species that get bitten by mosquitoes but don’t transmit the virus.

These species, known as dead-end hosts, may be important for reducing transmission of the virus.

With Ross River virus, research suggests birds that get Ross River virus from a mosquito cannot transmit the virus to another mosquito. If this is true, having an abundance of birds in and around our urban environments may reduce the transmission of Ross River virus to animals, mosquitoes and humans in cities.

Other reservoir hosts?

Even in areas with a high rates of Ross River virus in humans, we don’t always find an abundance of kangaroos and wallabies. So there must be other factors – or animals yet to be identified as reservoirs or dead-end hosts – playing an important role in transmission.

Ross River virus is prevalent in the Pacific Islands, for instance, where there aren’t any kangaroos and wallabies. One study of blood donors in French Polynesia found that 42.4% of people tested had previously been exposed to the virus. The rates are even higher in American Samoa, where 63% of people had been exposed.




Read more:
The worst year for mosquitoes ever? Here’s how we find out


It’s unclear if the virus has recently started circulating in these islands, or if it’s been circulating there longer, and what animals have been acting as hosts.

What about people?

Mosquitoes can transmit some viruses, such as dengue and Zika between people quite easily.

But the chances of a mosquito picking up Ross River virus when biting an infected human is low, though not impossible. The virus circulates in our blood at lower concentrations and for shorter periods of time compared with marsupials.

Stop mozzies biting with insect repellents.
Elizaveta Galitckaia/Shutterstock

If humans are infected with Ross River virus, around 30% will develop symptoms of joint pain and fatigue (and sometimes a rash) three to 11 days after exposure, while some may not experience any symptoms until three weeks after exposure.

To reduce your risk of contracting Ross River virus, take care to cover up when you’re outdoors at sunset and wear repellent when you’re in outdoor environments where mosquitoes and wildlife may be frequently mixing.




Read more:
Mozzie repellent clothing might stop some bites but you’ll still need a cream or spray


The Conversation


Eloise Stephenson, PhD Candidate, Griffith University; Cameron Webb, Clinical Lecturer and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney, and Emily Johnston Flies, Postdoctoral Research Fellow (U.Tasmania), University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Heatwaves threaten Australians’ health, and our politicians aren’t doing enough about it


Paul Beggs, Macquarie University; Helen Louise Berry, University of Sydney; Martina Linnenluecke, Macquarie University, and Ying Zhang, University of Sydney

Extreme heat affects the mental health of Australians to the same degree as unemployment, yet Australia’s policy action on climate change lags behind other high-income countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom.

As Australia approaches another summer, we face the inevitability of deadly heatwaves. Our report published today in the Medical Journal of Australia concludes that policy inaction, particularly at the federal level, is putting Australian lives at risk.

The report, The MJA–Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Australian policy inaction threatens lives, builds on an earlier publication in The Lancet medical journal, which concluded climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.




Read more:
Climate mitigation – the greatest public health opportunity of our time


Australia is the first to prepare its own country-level report. Developed in partnership with the Lancet Countdown – which tracks the global connections between health and climate change – it adopts the structure and methods of the global assessment but with an Australian focus.

How Australians’ health suffers

Australians are already facing climate change-related exposures that come from increasing annual average temperatures, heatwaves and weather-related disasters. Australian deaths during the 2014 Adelaide heatwave and Melbourne’s 2016 thunderstorm asthma event are examples of the risk climate poses to our health.




Read more:
Keeping one step ahead of pollen triggers for thunderstorm asthma


Our report was produced by a team of 19 experts from 13 universities and research institutes. We aimed to answer what we know about climate change and human health in Australia and how we are responding to this threat, if at all.

To do this, our team examined more than 40 indicators that enable us to track progress on the broad and complex climate change and human health issue. Health impact indicators included the health effects of temperature change and heatwaves, change in labour capacity, trends in climate-sensitive diseases, lethality of weather-related disasters and food insecurity and malnutrition.

We also developed an indicator for the impacts of climate change on mental health. This involved examining the association between mean annual maximum temperatures and suicide rates for all states and territories over the last ten years.

We found that, in most jurisdictions, the suicide rate increased with increasing maximum temperature. In Australia’s changing climate, we urgently need to seek ways to break the link between extreme temperature and suicide.

Across other indicators, we found workers’ compensation claims in Adelaide increased by 6.2% during heatwaves, mainly among outdoor male workers and tradespeople over 55 years.

And we found the length of heatwaves increased in 2016 and 2017 in Australia’s three largest cities – Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Heatwave length varied from year to year, but between 2000 and 2017, the mean number of heatwave days increased by more than two days across the country.

Policy action we need

Australia’s slow transition to renewables and low-carbon electricity generation is problematic, and not only from a climate change perspective. Our report shows that pollutants from fossil fuel combustion cause thousands of premature deaths nationwide every year. We argue even one premature death is one too many when there is so much that we can do to address this.

Australia is one of the world’s wealthiest countries with the resources and technical expertise to act on climate change and health. Yet Australia’s carbon intensity is the highest among the countries we included in our comparison – Germany, United States, China, India and Brazil.

A carbon-intensive energy system is one of the main drivers behind climate change. Australia was once a leader in the uptake of renewables but other nations have since streaked ahead and are reaping the benefits for their economies, energy security and health.

Despite some progress increasing renewable generation, it’s time we truly pull our weight in the global effort to prevent acceleration towards dangerous climate change.

Policy leaders must take steps to protect human health and lives. These include strong political and financial commitments to accelerate transition to renewables and low-carbon electricity generation. The government lacks detailed planning for a clean future with a secure energy supply.




Read more:
What would a fair energy transition look like?


Our MJA-Lancet Countdown report will be updated annually. Now that Australia has begun systematically tracking the effects of climate change on health – and given its poor performance compared with comparable economies globally – further inaction would be reckless.The Conversation

Paul Beggs, Associate Professor and Environmental Health Scientist, Macquarie University; Helen Louise Berry, Professor of Climate Change and Mental Health, University of Sydney; Martina Linnenluecke, Professor of Environmental Finance; Director of the Centre for Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Finance, Macquarie University, and Ying Zhang, Associate Director, Teaching and Learning, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why daily doses of nature in the city matter for people and the planet



File 20181120 161612 jduiq9.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Brisbane’s South Bank parkland isn’t exactly getting out in the wild, but experiences of urban nature are important for building people’s connection to all living things.
Anne Cleary, Author provided

Anne Cleary, Griffith University

The environmental movement is shifting away from focusing solely on raising awareness about environmental issues. Many environmental agencies and organisations now also aim to connect people with nature, and our new research suggests daily doses of urban nature may be the key to this for the majority who live in cities.

Every year in the United Kingdom the Wildlife Trusts run the 30 Days Wild campaign. This encourages people to carry out a daily “random act of wildness” for the month of June. The International Union for Conservation of Nature recently launched its #NatureForAll program, which aims to inspire a love of nature.

This shift in focus is starting to appear in environmental policy. For example, the UK’s recent 25-year environment plan identifies connecting people with the environment as one of its six key areas. Similarly, in Australia, the state of Victoria’s Biodiversity 2037 plan aims to connect all Victorians to nature as one of two overarching objectives.

The thinking behind such efforts is simple: connecting people to nature will motivate them to act in ways that protect and care for nature. Evidence does suggest that people who have a high nature connection are likely to display pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours.

Looking beyond the park

What is less clear is how to enhance an individual’s nature connection – that is feeling that they are a part of nature. Over half of all people globally, and nine out of ten people in Australia, live in urban environments. This reduces their opportunities to experience and connect with nature.

Our new study may offer some answers. A survey of Brisbane residents showed that people who experienced nature during childhood or had regular contact with nature in their home and suburb were more likely to report feeling connected with nature.

The study used a broad definition of urban nature to include all the plants and animals that live in a city. When looking to connect urban residents with local nature we need to take a broad view and look “beyond the park”. All aspects of nature in the city offer a potential opportunity for people to experience nature and develop their sense of connection to it.

Raffles Place, Singapore – all urban nature should be seen as an opportunity for nature connection.
Anne Cleary, Author provided

The study also looked at the relationship between childhood and adult nature experiences. Results suggest that people who lack childhood experience of nature can still come to have a high sense of nature connection by experiencing nature as an adult.

There have been focused efforts on connecting children to nature, such as the Forest Schools and Nature Play programs. Equal effort should be given to promoting adult nature experiences and nature connection, particularly for people who lack such experiences.

The benefits of nature experience

We still have much to discover about how an individual’s nature connection is shaped. We need a better understanding of how people from diverse cultural and social contexts experience and connect to different types of nature. That said, we are starting to understand the important role that frequent local experiences of nature may play.

In addition to boosting people’s sense of nature connection, daily doses of urban nature deliver the benefits of improved physical, mental and social wellbeing. A growing evidence base is showing that exposure to nature, particularly in urban environments, can lead to healthier and happier city dwellers.

Robert Dunn and colleagues have already advocated for the importance of urban nature experiences as a way to bolster city residents’ support for conservation. They described the “pigeon paradox” whereby experiencing urban nature, which is often of low ecological value – such as interactions with non-native species – may have wider environmental benefits through people behaving in more environmentally conscious ways. They proposed that the future of conservation depended on city residents’ ability to experience urban nature.

As new evidence emerges we need to build on this thinking. It would seem that the future of our very connection to nature, our wellbeing and conservation depend on urban people’s ability to experience urban nature.The Conversation

The pigeon paradox: interactions with urban nature – here in London’s Hyde Park – may help make city dwellers more environmentally conscious.
Anne Cleary, Author provided

Anne Cleary, Research Fellow, School of Medicine, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.