Youth Voices: Climate Change is a Health Issue

Note: This is the first contribution to our new Youth Voices project. For more information, please click here.

By Ramon Lorenzo Luis R. Guinto , GEG Youth Voices Contributor

My message is clear and direct: Climate change is, first and foremost, a health issue.

This is not an original concept—dozens of papers from all over the world have already explained the impact of climate change on human health. In 2009, the commission formed by Lancet and the University College London (UCL) called climate change “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”—proof that human health and the environment are by design interconnected and inseparable. Some of the health threats studied and predicted in these papers are already being felt today, especially in developing countries. Infectious diseases like dengue fever and cholera remain on the rise. The increases in severity and frequency of natural disasters, specifically typhoons and cyclones, have already caused tremendous morbidity and mortality in many countries, just like in my home, the Philippines. On the other hand, drought in Africa heightened the problem of undernutrition among children. The list of health consequences of climate change is endless.

Unfortunately, whether at international negotiation tables or in community-based education situations, little emphasis has been given on the health impact of climate change. More often than not, climate change is presented to both leaders and the public as an economic issue, a political issue, or merely an environmental issue. Very few local and international climate activists talk about climate change as a health issue — as a global concern crucial to the survival of humanity.

And the result of such approaches to global climate change is a lack of collective agreement on how we will respond to it as a global family. Copenhagen is the most perfect example.

The politics and economics of climate change

I believe that a purely economic or political view to the issue of climate change will not make any progress towards “sealing” a climate change deal. Economic and political superpowers will exploit such an approach to influence the negotiations to favor their own interests. Look at the economic giants—they always look after each other, making sure that they are not in a position of greater economic disadvantage compared to the other. The United States and China are concrete examples. China asserts its right to develop its fast-growing economy, regardless of how economic growth will impact its natural environment. On the other hand, the United States, which until now has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is fearful of China’s domination of world economy, will only agree to steep reductions in carbon emission if competitors such as China will do the same. This economic battle will only end the moment these countries start to suffer the ill effects of climate change.

Furthermore, countries with well-developed economies will reason that if they continue to flourish their economies, they would be able to raise financial resources to provide assistance to less-privileged countries that will be affected by climate change. Foreign aid to affected countries will be used as an excuse by developed countries to continue doing business as usual. Such a paradigm also accepts that the rate of climate change, not climate change itself, is inevitable, and thus all we can do is to provide assistance to people who will be affected. This is not a strategy for climate change mitigation and adaptation—this is social and environmental injustice at its highest form.

On the other hand, should we choose to deal with climate change the political way, global decisions will surely be swayed by countries with huge control of intergovernmental agencies such as the United Nations. These developed countries provide the bulk of the UN budget annually. It cannot be denied that their voice will be given greater weight compared to those who do not contribute to the UN budget at all. In addition, political relationships between member countries will matter at the sidelines. The stands on the climate change issue of former colonies of superpowers, recipients of foreign aid or military assistance, or important economic partners that benefit from developed nations will be put to test. Remember how the Philippine government, which is greatly dependent on the US and other superpowers, ejected an eminent Filipina negotiator from its team just because she had spoken strongly against developed countries on behalf of poor countries since Kyoto.

Personal, national economic and political interests are much inferior to the global interests of our common humanity. Instead of building consensus and understanding, these interests heighten tensions and create disagreements. Therefore, an economic or political solution to climate change will not succeed.

How about an environmental perspective to climate change?

Unfortunately, just like an economic or political approach to climate change, a solely environmental perspective will also not succeed. Even among environmental groups, there are some disagreements about the science of climate change and the ways climate change can be solved. Different environmental groups also do their campaigns and lobbying differently—some are for diplomacy and dialogue, while others adhere to unconventional, even violent means. This shows that the environmental movement alone cannot put an end to the issue of climate change.

Moreover, various people regard the environment in many varying ways, and this diversity of beliefs may delay the progress of climate change negotiations. Most people see it as a source of food and other resources, more often from an economic perspective—and, as mentioned, an economic view of climate change will not work. Others appreciate the environment for its scientific value, focusing on the protection of species and biochemical degradation of ecosystems. Such a perspective, alone, will alienate people who are not into the science of environment. Some cultures regard the natural environment as sacred, calling it “Mother Earth” and other such names. Sadly, not everyone on this planet sees the environment as a spiritual gift, or else our world leaders could have much earlier arrived at a global consensus for the protection of this immeasurable blessing to humanity which is planet Earth, our only home. Sometimes cultural and religious beliefs even become the root of tension and misunderstanding.

Health unifies all

This search for a unifying element in the issue of climate change had led me to conclude that climate change should be reframed as a health issue. It is because every human being, no matter where he or she comes from, has health that needs to be protected from climate change. And as I mentioned at the start, it is well established that climate change has a direct negative impact on human health, some of which are already palpable today.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.” In short, every human being has a right to health. Every member state of the United Nations and signatory of this declaration is accountable to its citizens in ensuring that this right is fully attained by all. This indicates that climate change is not just a health issue, but a human rights issue. How can this right to health be enjoyed if governments delay the “sealing” of a climate deal that will protect every human being from the health consequences of climate change? This must be a cause for alarm for all countries of the world, especially the economic and political superpowers, because inaction is both a denial of people’s right to health and a violation of human rights at large.

Thus, I recommend that in its separate education efforts, the global environmental movement should put more emphasis on the impact of climate change on human health, because it is what directly affects the people and because health issues bring people together. Communities may not easily comprehend the terms “carbon emission,” “cap-and-trade” or even “climate change” itself, but they clearly understand how water and food scarcity can threaten their children’s nutrition, or how global warming may affect the life cycle of malaria-bearing mosquitoes, or how flooding can lead to leptospirosis, injuries, or even death. Once people realize that these environmental phenomena will lead to ill changes in their physical and mental health, they will eventually join the cause and be moved to positive action.

Creating a Global Health and Environment Movement

This October, the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA), a federation composed of 1.2 million medical students worldwide, launched an online petition pushing governments to put “health back into the climate change negotiations” (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ifmsa/). In the petition, IFMSA calls for “full participation and consultation of the international health community in the international negotiations within the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change),” in the hope that the negotiations will “achieve a fair, ambitious and legally binding global treaty.”

This is a happy development, and a bold and admirable act from medical students from around the world. This should send a signal to the World Health Organization, the World Medical Association, and all other international nongovernmental organizations and foundations working for health and inspire them to join the cause and even take leadership in this new movement. The 2009 Lancet-UCL Commission already resounded this in its paper: “We call for a public health movement that frames the threat of climate change for humankind as a health issue. Apart from a dedicated few, health professionals have come late to the climate change debate, but health concerns are crucial because they attract political attention.”

I agree with the Commission that health may serve as a political magnet, but this reasoning should not be the main motivation of global health’s engagement in the issue of climate change. We want health to be in the climate negotiations table because health is a right of every human being and anthropogenic climate change, most of it caused by highly industrialized countries, poses a grave threat to the full attainment of this basic human right.

With regards to public health’s participation in the climate change issue, I think our struggle for a fair climate deal will not succeed if we relegate the “reframing” of climate change as a health issue to the public health sector alone. I believe that both global health and global environmental movements should make use of this momentum for potential global change already initiated by young people. Presently, among the many issues our world faces today, both human health and the environment are less prioritized, if not at all neglected, but these are global issues that require urgent action from all stakeholders—governments, NGOs, the business sector, and even young people. Sadly, these two arenas have been compromised by the forces of global capitalism and political interests of a few powerful countries. This shared sentiment will serve as impetus for greater cooperation and integration between the two movements.

What should be done by these two movements is to pool together resources, efforts, and voices. Funding for separate health and environmental initiatives can be fused together to come up with holistic high-impact development projects that address health, environment, and even poverty. A global forum on environment and health must be created to allow environment and health activists to gather together, discuss and analyze the issues through the combined lens of environment and health, and arrive at a global strategy for collaborative action. This should not be difficult because environment and health are deeply intertwined; they’re like Romeo and Juliet—one cannot live without the other.

No one will be spared

In sum, if we look at climate change as a health issue, I am certain that everyone will be in agreement and that countries will arrive at a fair climate deal sooner rather than later. Again, it is because every human being—from President Obama to the poorest child in a village in Uganda—has health that needs to be protected from the already-present threat of global climate change. Climate change sees no boundaries; no one will be spared. Therefore, no one has an excuse to think for self-interests and not for the collective future of humanity. To the leaders who will go to Cancún, Mexico this December 2010, please think not only of yourselves, but also of your families, your countrymen, and every single human in this world, because climate change is a health issue, a human rights issue, a survival issue.

About the Author

Ramon Lorenzo Luis R. Guinto (Renzo) is a medical student from the University of the Philippines Manila. He is also the founder of UP One Earth, a student organization focused on health and environment, and the current president of the Asian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA)-Philippines, which is a member of the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA). Renzo got involved in the Global Environmental Governance Project when he attended the 2010 Study of the United States Institute for Student Leaders on Global Environmental Issues last May-June 2010 at the East-West Center in Hawaii and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC as a US State Department scholar.