Topic: Climate health costs: Bug-borne ills, killer heat
Melanie Reber
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 3707
posted
Climate health costs: Bug-borne ills, killer heat
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters
(to see photo, use bottom link) A man fishes in a river polluted with algae in Beijing. Algae blooms in water could be more frequent, increasing the risk of diseases like cholera.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tree-munching beetles, malaria-carrying mosquitoes and deer ticks that spread Lyme disease are three living signs that climate change is likely to exact a heavy toll on human health.
These pests and others are expanding their ranges in a warming world, which means people who never had to worry about them will have to start. And they are hardly the only health threats from global warming.
The Lancet medical journal declared in a May 16 commentary: "Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century."
Individual threats range from the simple to the very complex, the Lancet said, reporting on a year-long study conducted with University College London.
As the global mean temperature rises, expect more heat waves. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects 25 percent more heat waves in Chicago by the year 2100; Los Angeles will likely have a four-to-eightfold increase in the number of heat-wave days by century's end.
These "direct temperature effects" will hit the most vulnerable people hardest, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, especially those with heart problems and asthma, the elderly, the very young and the homeless.
The EPA has declared that carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. is a danger to human health and welfare, clearing the way for possible regulation of emissions.
At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on a bill that would cap emissions and issue permits that could be traded between companies that spew more than the limit and those that emit less.
RISING SEAS, SULTRY AIR
People who live within 60 miles of a shoreline, or about one-third of the world's population, could be affected if sea levels rise as expected over the coming decades, possibly more than 3 feet (1 meter) by 2100. Flooded homes and crops could make environmental refugees of a billion people.
As it becomes hotter, the air can hold more moisture, helping certain disease-carriers, such as the ticks that spread Lyme disease, thrive, the EPA said.
A changing climate could increase the risk of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever and various viral causes of encephalitis. Algae blooms in water could be more frequent, increasing the risk of diseases like cholera. Respiratory problems may be aggravated by warming-induced increases in smog.
Other less obvious dangers are also potentially devastating.
Pine bark beetles, which devour trees in western North America will be able to produce more generations each year, instead of subsiding during winter months.
They leave standing dead timber, ideal fuel for wildfires from Arizona to Alaska, said Paul Epstein of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University.
"TREMENDOUS" HEALTH COSTS
Other insects are spreading in the United States, and while immediate protection is possible, the only real solution is to curb climate change, Epstein said in a telephone interview.
"You can tuck your pants into your socks and be very vigilant, but ultimately, if we don't stabilize the climate, it's going to continue to increase ... infectious diseases," Epstein said.
Carbon dioxide emissions, from coal-fired power plants, steel mills and petroleum-fueled cars, trucks and boats, among other sources, do more than modify climate, Epstein said. They also stimulate ragweed, some pollen-bearing trees and fungi, extending the spring and fall allergy and asthma seasons.
It is hard to quantify the potential financial cost of U.S. climate-change-related health problems, said Dr. Chris Portier of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Some costs might actually decline if programs are put in place to cut greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels, which would also reduce some types of toxic air and water pollution.
Without cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, that pollution will remain, and the other unhealthy effects of climate change will continue, including more severe floods, droughts, heat waves and storms.
"You'll get more extreme weather events that will occur more frequently ... and so it just piles on in terms of the human health effects," Portier said. "And the cost will be tremendous, there's little doubt of that."
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
With due respect for you and all you do here, Melanie, this article is a pretty much a load of cr*p.
`Global' temperatures have been flat for the last 10 years, and in the next 10 years there is an expected cooling trend. Yet CO2 levels continue to rise..... so obviously, Co2 is NOT a cause of the `warming'. The historical graphs showing increase in CO2 do NOT coincide with the historical `global warming' trend. But graphs of solar activity DO.
And how can our increasing CO2 levels explain the increase in temperatures of planets like Mars and Jupiter? It can't. Our SUN is the cause.
All this climate change crap - including the horrifying, economically crippling `Cap and Trade' legislation - will do nothing but put zillions of dollars in the pockets of Al Gore and those investors poised to reap giant profits from a manufactured problem. If you think your utility bills are high NOW, just wait.
And another thing..... if our government, the EPA, and all the environmental groups REALLY wanted to do something about climate change and CO2 levels, we would see some sensible legislation on controlling our own population in the USA. Instead of decreasing benefits for Social Security recipients - people who actually contributed money for their own benefit - we should concentrate on putting stop to public funding of all the babies being born whose parents have no prayer - or intention - of supporting their own offspring. Procreation is NOT a human right if somebody else is paying for it.
To be fair, everybody makes bad decisions once in awhile, and children should not suffer for the idiocy of their parents. So, everybody gets to make ONE mistake during their life and have ONE child that they can't afford. At that point, though, birth control (implants) should be mandatory until such time as both parents can afford to raise the child themselves. And if some religions don't believe in birth control, well, then their `church' can pay for all the kids their followers crank out.
We've got to start getting REAL about the actual cost to society of uncontrolled population growth - socially, financially, and environmentally. Every child born in this country should have a decent shot at success in life, and it's up to us as a society to do our best to make that happen. Clearly, dependence on public Welfare doesn't fit the bill or we would see a much different social picture emerging in the USA.
Sorry, Melanie - I'm sure your intent was to provide evidence about diseases and ticks, etc. But this article is WAY more propaganda than fact..... not your fault.
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Melanie Reber
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 3707
posted
Actually, my intent is to find information that is being put 'out there' whether I agree with it or not.
I feel it is important to stay abreast of what is being published... and I rarely judge it because I feel that the members of this board are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.
I qualify with the word 'rarely' because like you and others, I am also very passionate on certain issues. That is my right as it is yours.
Because my passion and profession have to do with the environment, I especially look at those particular articles and abstracts, because I want to understand all sides a bit better. I would never suggest to anyone that I have all the answers, but I do know a thing or two about this topic.
What I know for sure, is that we are polluting our environment every day on many levels. And I also know that it is not necessary to do this to reap the benefits we seek.
That is MY point. And I thank you for adding yours as well. I personally believe respectful dialog from all fronts is important to hear and to try and understand. That does not necessarily mean agreement, but that is not the goal.
Posts: 7052 | From Colorado | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Truthfinder
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8512
posted
I understand, Melanie.
Getting information from all sides is critical, especially if your profession lies in that realm.
I don't know about you, but I find that it's very easy to draw the wrong conclusions. As a prime example, I keep hearing that the deer here locally have moved into town because they are being `crowded' by people moving out into the country. Seems logical on the surface (though when you look out at zillions of miles of rural landscape around here, you'd have to wonder about that idea).
But the real truth of the matter is that we didn't have any deer in town UNTIL our city started enforcing the leash laws for DOGS. Within 10 years, the deer were moving right in like they owned the place. All because we restrained our dogs. Prior to that time, most dogs ran free here. We've saved a lot of dogs from injury by cars, but now our City refuse department picks up 50 dead deer a year that have been hit by cars. We traded one problem for another.
Likewise, there are a number of reasons why we are seeing more diseases, more ticks, etc.
I certainly agree, though, that our environment is getting `polluted' on many levels.
IMHO, until we stop ingesting `safe chemicals' and `drugs' in nearly everything we consume - not to mention genetically-altered foods and some other accepted `safe' practices - none of our efforts to save the environment will mean anything.
The genuine `inconvenient truth' is that the truth is so hard to find.
Lymies here are intelligent, but they are also sick, tired, and preoccupied at the very least. It takes energy to search and sort through information, and that's more effort than many can afford right now.
.... which is exactly why `political' statements aren't allowed on LymeNet. Once an opinion gets posted, those who disagree feel compelled to refute it. And so it goes.
In any event, thanks for allowing me to present `another side of the story'.
-------------------- Tracy .... Prayers for the Lyme Community - every day at 6 p.m. Pacific Time and 9 p.m. Eastern Time � just take a few moments to say a prayer wherever you are�. Posts: 2966 | From Colorado | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Melanie Reber
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 3707
posted
Well... you know I lived in CO for about 20 years so yes, I do indeed understand the deer issues you are referring to. I have witnessed them in action myself.
When we had a free roaming dog or two, we rarely saw deer on our property, however, when the dogs were gone, the deer appeared and stayed.
Not only that, but when I decided to start landscaping our property...
I basically hung out the 'salad bar' sign to them as well. This is another very valid reason the deer have come into urban areas... free food. And that doesn't only apply to deer, as you know.
Another reason that the deer population has exploded in that area is because the ranches have decided to eliminate natural predictor species of the deer. THAT debate continues to rage on, and I am not sure if it will ever be solved. There is just too much money tied into ranching there.
So, of course some changes are without a doubt man made, and I feel it is our responsibility to try and figure out our role in those changes.
Posts: 7052 | From Colorado | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic