Tag: environment

The BBC and The IPCC working group 2 report on Climate Change

The BBC and The IPCC working group 2 report on Climate Change.  30th March 2014.


As part of its periodical Assessment Reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published working group 2’s (WGII): Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’. Before I get onto the content, the spin, has inevitably begun but sadly on the BBC radio 4 today programme. The chair of WGII was interviewed by Justin Webb who is gaining a reputation as a climate change sceptic. As part of the interview Webb focused on the economist Dr. Richard Tol’s withdrawal of his name from the report on the grounds that the report was not positive enough on the benefits of extra carbon dioxide. The report, Tol said, was too alarmist. His disagreement is how science actually works, but Webb’s focus on this point supports those who think the science is not settled enough.  The report itself was a result of a team of 70 scientists working on revisions so it is not surprising that at least one will disagree with the final report and will wish to remove their own name.

Tol’s argument appears to centre on farmer’s ability to adapt to new circumstances and that carbon dioxide is actually good for plants, a point accepted by WGII. The IPCC, in their video,  state that yields would not have improved without climate change which is neither alarmist or underplayed. It is a fact.  Adaptation is now clearly on the stage as well as mitigation, they are complimentary according to WGII. Adaption will bring benefits to some sectors and populations, but clearly mitigation (reducing emissions) has to run alongside adaptive responses. If we don’t try to mitigate, we run the risk of the climate overpowering adaptive systems. Low probability but high impacts events like the melting of the Greenland Ice sheets should lead us to consider insuring against that risk and trying to prevent it.

We might ask if the media is responsible for supporting scepticism on climate science; Does the media, in the interests of ‘balance’ give too much time to climate change sceptics?

Alistair Burnett , editor of the World tonight argued in 2009 “From the BBC’s perspective, the answer to this question is that our journalistic role is not to campaign for anything. Impartiality means not taking sides in a debate, while accurately representing the balance of argument. So, in the case of climate change we need proportionately to reflect the sceptical view but also, for example, reflect the debate among climate scientists about the most effective way of dealing with global warming”.

The word here is ‘proportionate’.  So 1 scientist in 70 wants his name removed from the final report. Perhaps Webb could have mentioned this and moved on the explore the more substantial discussion regarding adaption and mitigation.

More recently, February 2014, the BBC responded to complaints regarding the inclusion of Lord Lawson on the Today programme: “We believe there has to be space in the BBC’s coverage where scientific consensus meets reasonable argument about the policy implications of that consensus view. That said we do accept that we could have offered a clearer description of the sceptical position taken by Lord Lawson and the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the introduction. That would have clarified in the audience’s minds the ideological background to the arguments”.


There are very real debates to be had on this issue and the adaptation and mitigation angle is very pertinent. The good news is that, at last apart from a very few,  most accept the fact of climate change. It is what we do about it that is causing the heat. The BBC can help by reflecting the science, and ensuring we know what the ideological positions of prominent, and financially supported, sceptics are.

Planetary and Public Health – its in our hands ?

From public to planetary health: a manifesto.

The Lancet (Horton et al, 2014) has just published  a manifesto for transforming public health.

You can read the full one page easy to read manifesto here.

This is a call for a social movement at all levels, from individual to the global, to support collective action for public health. Public Health has been widely defined in this manifesto and draws upon the ideas of Barton and Grant’s health map which has climate change, biodiversity and global ecosystems as the outer ring of the determinants of health.

The current definitions of public health, for example from the Faculty of Public Health,  draw upon Acheson’s 1998 definition “The science and art of promoting and protecting health and well-being, preventing ill-health and prolonging life through the organised efforts of society”.  However this definition may now be outdated as there is no mention of environmental or ecological determinants of health and no express action on planetary health at all.

Therefore this manifesto is an implicit call to redefine what public health means. Currently you can read the FPH’s approach to public health and fail to consider issues around climate change, biodiversity loss or the crossing of planetary boundaries which delineate a ‘safe operating space for humanity‘. This needs changing.

The main points within this manifesto  include a definition of ‘planetary’ , rather than ‘public’ health which they argue is an “attitude towards life and a philosophy for living… emphasising people not diseases, and equity not the creation of unjust societies”.  There is a strong focus in the manifesto on the unsustainability of current consumption patterns of living, based on the harms this has on planetary systems. They argue “overconsumption…will cause the collapse of civilisation”. Jared Diamond is worth a read on the collapse of civilisations,  and this argument is in line with his analysis.

Interestingly, an overt political statement is introduced: “We have created an unjust global economic system that favours a small wealthy elite over the many who have so little”. They attack the idea of progress, and of neoliberalism  including ‘transnational forces”, for deepening this ecological crisis and for being socially unjust. There is also a hint of the ‘democratic deficit‘ in which trust between the public and political leaders is breaking down.

The call is for an urgent transformation in values and practices based on recognizing our interdependence and interconnectedness, a new vision of democratic action and cooperation.  A principle of ‘planetism’ is invoked which requires us to conserve and sustain ecosystems upon which we rely.

Finally they suggest that public health and medicine can be independent voices of conscience who along with ’empowered communities’ can confront entrenched interests.

So far so good, and in a one page document the detail is necessarily missing.  The principles outlined in this manifesto and the analysis focusing on neoliberalism and ‘entrenched interests’ point us in a direction. However, there is now a need for a map.

I am not convinced that public health, medicine and certainly not nursing, is sufficiently politically aware of the scale of the issue and the sheer force and dynamic of capitalism to even begin constructing the map. That may be an unfair criticism because the education of health care professionals is ‘ahistoric’ and ‘apolitical’ by nature,  they simply lack a sociological or political imagination underpinned by a critical theory of capitalism. And for good reasons.

However, if doctors and nurses are to engage with this manifesto and to debate and argue for an alternative world view, then there is an urgent need to understand the forces railed against them. This manifesto rightly points out the political nature of the issue and the authors no doubt have a clear idea what they mean, however I doubt very much if the majority of healthcare professionals really understand, or even perhaps care about,  the concept of neoliberalism.

In the UK we will be having an election in 2015, in which we will be offered similar versions of the system that is causing the mess. There will be little in the way of mainstream reporting or argument on radical alternatives to consumption or finance capitalism. Indeed parties will be arguing over who can best manage the system.  The only exception will be the Green party who are a fringe party, in terms of votes.

As an example of the scale of the problem, consider Bill McKibbens’  ‘three numbers‘ argument: 2 for two degrees, the threshold beyond which we should fear to tread; 565 gigatons of CO2 we might be able to put into the atmosphere and have some hope of staying below or around 2 degrees; 2795 gigatons which is the amount of carbon in current reserves, but is the the amount of carbon we are planning to burn!  Further, the wealth of investors is tied up in this number and would evaporate like petrol in a hot day should we globally decide that this reserve should stay in the ground. This is an example of an entrenched interest backed by neoliberal politics which is antithetical to global and governmental regulations. The current TTIP negotiations which is trying to establish a free trade area between the US and the EU,  possibly exemplifies the powerlessness of states in the face of lawsuits by corporations if George Monbiot is correct. TTIP is a public health issue and forms part of the backdrop to this manifesto.

I welcome this manifesto, and would urge public health bodies to become overtly political in their statements about public health, perhaps revisiting Acheson and redefining public health to include planetary health.

Following that observation, a new publication published in February 2014, appears to address the politics in an overt way. The Lancet – University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health argues in a document called ‘The political origins of health inequity: prospects for change’ : “Although the health sector has a crucial role in addressing health inequalities, its efforts often come into conflict with powerful global actors in pursuit of other interests such as protection of national security, safeguarding of sovereignty, or economic goals.”

This then sets up political determinants of health which sit alongside the social determinants of health. Whether it goes as far as critiquing the underlying dynamic of various forms of capitalism remains to be seen.

Your health depends in where you live

Your health depends in where you live

Skip to toolbar