Toxic: Schools in the city of Gurgaon, near New Delhi in India, closed because of the hazardous level of pollutants in the atmosphere. (Parveen Kumar/Hindustan Times/Getty Images)
ENVIRONMENT
The climate crisis is a health crisis. The same emissions that cause global warming are largely responsible for polluting the air we breathe, causing heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and infections.
Although air pollution threatens us all, children, older people, pregnant women and adults with weakened immune systems are the most at risk.
Smoking tobacco causes severe harm. That is why the tobacco industry’s lobbying and advertising campaigns have been strictly regulated around the world. Globally, steps were taken to safeguard existing health policies, and to force these companies to tell the truth — that their product kills.
And yet the reaction is very different when we learn that air pollution from burning fossil fuels is just as deadly. Where are the policies to prevent the fossil fuel industry from lobbying governments, or to end the $370-billion in subsidies lavished on coal, oil, and gas companies every year? Why are we still paying for a product that is killing us?
Ending harmful fossil fuel use will require scaling up current policy interventions and social-mobilisation efforts. Some multilateral financial organisations have recognised the opportunity that such a change represents.
Recently, the European Investment Bank announced it would end its funding for unabated fossil fuel projects, and use its position to funnel public and private capital toward renewable energy.
The choice between phasing out fossil fuels and continuing on the current path is black and white — it is a matter of life or death. We either will decide to prevent seven million premature deaths a year by cleaning up our air and providing people with clean energy sources, or we won’t. We either will decide to prevent four million childhood asthma cases a year from traffic fumes, or we won’t. The lifetime health of a child born today will be profoundly affected by the decisions we make about climate change now.
That is why the World Health Organisation (WHO) has made climate change a top institutional priority.
Climate change should be a priority for all businesses, governments, and multilateral organisations, too. Keeping the issue high on the agenda provides the necessary motivation to make difficult choices. By taking action now to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limit global warming to no more than 1.5°C relative to the pre-industrial level, we would not only ensure that our planet remains hospitable, we could also save at least a million lives a year, according to the WHO’s estimates.
Moreover, in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, eliminating air pollution would save the economy 4% of gross domestic product a year in averted healthcare costs. In China and India, reducing emissions enough to limit global warming to 1.5°C would more than pay for itself when accounting for the attendant health benefits. Likewise, transforming our food and transportation systems would save still more lives, by providing healthier diets and encouraging more physical activity — all while cleaning the air and stabilising the climate.
The right to a healthy life and a sustainable future is increasingly being enforced through legal systems, and officials that fail to uphold these rights are being held accountable.
In France, for example, a court found that the government had failed to do enough to limit air pollution around Paris, and in Indonesia, Jakarta residents similarly took legal action against the government because of air pollution.
At this year’s United Nations general assembly, many governments answered the WHO’s call to achieve “air quality that is safe for citizens, and to align climate change and air pollution policies by 2030”. Now, many of the countries with the heaviest health burden from air pollution need to phase out their highest pollution energy sources.
Like the pollution that causes it, climate change does not observe national borders; it does not save its effects just for those who pollute. On the contrary, inequality is a key feature of the climate crisis. Those least responsible for the problem — children, the poor and the Global South — must bear a disproportionate share of the health burden.
It is clear that we need an international and just response to this increasing strain on public health. Future efforts must reflect the real costs of our fossil fuel economy and aid those most affected.
To achieve this, we will need all signatories to the Paris climate accord to strengthen their national climate plans by 2020. Beyond that, we need to establish new, robust mechanisms for protecting the most vulnerable and helping people adapt to the realities of climate change. Health must be at the heart of our Paris commitments.
The pollution that is choking our air and warming our planet has been accumulating for generations. We cannot afford to take that long to fix the problem. — © Project Syndicate
Maria Neira is director of the department of public health, environmental and social determinants of health at the WHO