Here's to Your Health

     By now, we have heard so much back and forth about Climate Change and how it is affecting the planet. Human activities are having an effect on the environment despite what the Big Business/Fossil Fuel contingent keeps saying. But what is ignored or brushed aside most often, is the effect that carbon emissions and other pollution is having on the health of the human race.

     I have heard politicians and Big Business types spout off about how anthropogenic global warming is not happening. Many also say that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing, that a warming atmosphere will make plants flourish with an abundance of greenhouse gases that raises temperatures and makes growing conditions more optimal and how it would benefit the human race. (I will skip over the obvious contradictions here, where in one breath AGW is denied out right and then in the next breath CO2 is trumpeted as a great boon for the people of Earth due to the increased warmth it would bring.) To think that a warmer climate would benefit us all shows a failure to recognize that the risks and damage far outweigh the so called "benefits" of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

     Melting ice, from mountain glaciers and polar ice caps, would raise sea level, inundating coastal areas, where a large percentage of the Earth's inhabitants happen to live. Floods like these are almost aways accompanied by diseases such as typhoid, cholera and hepatitis A, to name but a few. Ignoring the displacement of hundreds of millions of people from their homes due to the loss of land to the sea due to these floods, and focusing just on the spread of these types of diseases, it is more then plausible that we could be facing a global health crisis like we have never seen. I am not talking about a pathogen that spirals into a pandemic, but multiple infectious diseases spreading over vast areas year after year as the flood waters rise.

Courtesy of Mother Nature Network: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/8-before-and-after-images-of-ice-melt

     If you consider the terrible conditions that exist in Bangladesh on an annual basis and how difficult it is to treat the residents there during such outbreaks, imagine how hard it would be to  deal with conditions one hundred times greater. Do you think our hospitals and doctors offices are equipped to handle this? Not to mention the shortage of vaccines and treatment drugs due to the fact hundreds of millions of people would need to be treated, not just a few hundred thousands. The logistics of something like this would be near implausible.

Courtesy of The Watchers: http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/07/27/bangladesh-floods-displace-thousands/

     Higher global temperatures would also lead to the proliferation of more vector born diseases, like malaria, West Nile Virus, yellow fever and dengue fever. As the climate warms, more and more of those disease carrying insects that flourish in warmer climates to the south, would migrate north. The tiger mosquitoes that carry West Nile that have invaded the US could soon be joined by mosquitoes carrying dengue fever or malaria. Then, it would not be so absurd to hear of malaria outbreaks in Raleigh, North Carolina or yellow fever scares in New York City, would it?

(Image credit: CDC Public Health Image Library)   

     As for the claim that a warmer climate is better for plants, that actually can be true...but only for certain types of plants. This would lead to much higher concentrations of pollen in the air, which would make conditions for allergy sufferers even worse. People with pollen allergies would have to visit the doctor more frequently and buy stronger meds that may or may not help. Those of us with mild allergies could develop more chronic symptoms. That means more over-the-counter antihistamines and other drugs and chemicals being pumped into our bodies. That means higher health insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses for just about everyone.

     The new standards set forth by the Obama Administration look to reduce CO2 emissions at increased cost while taking into consideration the reduced health costs associated as a result. That seems to be missing in the studies from those opposed to the new EPA standards. They seem to dismiss the reduced health costs when they state that reducing CO2 emission will be too expensive and bring about certain economic doom. It is selective argumentation, cherry picking data and ignoring facts to give one's argument the appearance of being sound and complete. Those opposed to the new standards are focusing only on the bottom line and not the broad, long term picture. They are more focused on business and money, with little regard for the health of those very customers they need to stay in business.

     This is not about science, its about money and power. Big Business is not concerned about helping the everyday person save money, they are concerned about making money for themselves. There needs to be a line drawn to ensure the health and well being of the population over profits.  We live in a society where money is valued more then the well being of the people that live in that society. From my point of view that is not a sustainable business model.



World Health Organization, "Flooding and communicable disease fact sheet". 2014. Web, 27 Aug, 2014. http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/ems/flood_cds/en/
   
Gilmour, J. "Climate Change policies pay for themselves". 25 Aug, 2014. Web. 27 Aug, 2014.   http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0825/Climate-change-policies-pay-for-themselves-study-says