Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
When will we learn?
- David Warriner (4 April 2008)
-
Hopeless
- Andrew Montgomery (5 April 2008)
-
Activities we can do without
- Tze Wai Wong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong (7 April 2008)
-
Wrong reference
- John C Chambers (8 April 2008)
-
End of discussion?
- Ivan P. Hudecek (8 April 2008)
-
How should health professionals take action against climate change?
- colin bannon (10 April 2008)
-
We know what to do
- Stuart Martin Galey (10 April 2008)
|
|
|||
|
David Warriner, Foundation Year 2 Doctor Derwent Surgery, Malton, North Yorkshire
Send response to journal:
|
A few simple suggestions: Walk or cycle or car share to work.
It really isn't that hard. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew Montgomery, locum Auckland
Send response to journal:
|
If one believes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis- and its putative ecological consequences -then one must be entirely pessimistic with regard to the future of mankind. I am fatalistic. There are three scenarios wrt to future climate. 1. No net change 2. Moderate change 3. Marked change. There are three possible outcomes for earth's ecology 1. No change 2. Moderate change 3. Marked change The pessimists regard any change regardless of cause as having negative ecological consequences. Unfortunately - independent of opinion - there is zero chance that emerging Asian economies and established Western economies will make the changes necessary to reduce CO2 emmissions to levels demanded by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming. The reason being that the economic (ie human cost) will be simply too great to support the measures supposedly required. With regard to the points made above, both global warming and global cooling carry with them ecological risks. Adaptation combined with a parsimomious approach to the use of earth's resources is the way forward. Attempts to stand in the way of climate change will meet with failure and much wasted human energy. Competing interests: use a car 4 kids live in nz fly overseas long distances economy dependent on dairy industry import goods from China etc etc etc...... |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tze Wai Wong, professor Department of Community & Family Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor In addition to the simple lifestyle advocated by Dr. David Warriner, I suggest that the following activities should be stopped: 1. Motor car racing: Serves no transportation purpose; wastes valuable fossil fuel, creates toxic fumes, greenhouse gases and noise. 2. Firework display: Performed ritualistically every Lunar New Year in Hong kong, and nightly in Disneyland theme park; an optical illusion only! creates toxic fumes in the atmosphere, scatters lots of toxic metals in the environment, wastes several million (HK) dollars for each "big show". Money better spent elsewhere, e.g. health care, social services. Some activities we doctors (and other professions as well) are so used to also needs a re-think: 1. Overseas conferences: Is it really worth the energy spent in jet travel to attend conferences overseas? Could such activities be substituted by videoconferencing? The above might constitute a small proportion of the overall energy expenditure, but it is time to be thrifty with energy use. The more obvious culprit of casualties, sufferings and indiscriminate use of energy and resources, and that we can certainly do without, is war. Conflicts in Iraq, Palestine and other parts of the world all add up to the list of long-lasting damages to the environment, besides the immediate pain and sufferings they cause. Doctors have an obligation to speak out against them. Tze Wai Wong Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John C Chambers, Medical Director Katharine House Hospice, East End, Adderbury, OX17 3NL
Send response to journal:
|
Rather confusingly, there are two government documents entitled "Securing the future". One of them is "Securing the future: Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales" and the other is "Securing the Future - UK Government sustainable development strategy". It is the latter and not the former document that is relevant to this editorial, and the web link is http://www.sustainable- development.gov.uk/publications/uk-strategy/index.htm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ivan P. Hudecek, Consultant Anaesthetist Manor Hospital,Walsall,WS2 9PS
Send response to journal:
|
Anna Coote says in her editorial:”…time for debate is over” - almost certainly meaning that the science behind climate change (euphemism for global warming) is settled. This is a very bold statement to publish in a scientific journal. I shall not go into the arguments regarding contribution of carbon dioxide (however I still believe that the Bier law stands) but I would like to quote a few figures from the Stern report itself (http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/media/5/9/Part_I_Introduction_group.pdf) . It gives projected temperature increases for given greenhouse gases concentrations (expressed as CO2 equivalents in particles per million). I shall quote a few figures from some of the studies: 450 ppm of CO2 – temperature increase by 6.4 degrees Celsius, 500 ppm of CO2 – temperature increase by 1.3 degrees Celsius, 750 ppm of CO2 – temperature increase by 13.3 degrees Celsius, 1000 ppm of CO2 – temperature increase by 2.2 degrees Celsius, Confused? You should be. O course, there are other studies giving different figures. In fact you can find any figure you like (from 0.6 to 17.1 degrees Celsius) in the quoted studies. We certainly shall be wiser (and still alive) in 10 years time. What should health professionals do to save the planet? Anna Coote mentions the usual chestnuts like cycling and drinking tap water. To her credit she does cast her doubts on Al Gore’s method of decreasing carbon footprint through buying of carbon credits. This method does indeed take us to the Middle Ages (and thus lower temperatures) as it is exactly the same as buying indulgences from the church. Anna Coote does not mention the other great idea i.e. biofuels (Please see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975-1,00.html) - a clear environmental disaster which is also contributing to the doubling of staple food prices and the decrease of world grain stocks to dangerously low levels – in other words this presents the real threat to the well- being of millions. I somehow doubt that health professionals will give up driving prestige cars, stop living in oversized houses, move within walking distance of their hospitals, forsake exotic conference locations or start adopting polar bears as their pets. Perhaps they should concentrate on being good at their job. Effective diagnosis and treatment, avoidance of unnecessary x-rays and CT scans, banning the use of nitrous oxide etc. may in the end prove more useful than removing foie gras from the menu. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
colin bannon, GP principal The mannamead surgery, 22 eggbuckland road, Plymouth Pl3 5HE
Send response to journal:
|
Anna Coote is absolutely correct to highlight the lack of action to combat climate change despite the voluminous evidence that climate change is taking place and the equally impressive mountain of documents regarding sustainable development in response. The best science we can muster is clear on the dangers - it is hardly surprising we are in trouble as we have emitted, to date, about 2 trillion tonnes of CO2 into an atmosphere, which is only a couple of miles high over the last century, and it unfortunatley has a very long half life. If we consider with this the poor and declining state of the oceans and the pressure on land and water resources then it is little more that common sense to see that the future is looking less than rosy. There is no need to await further evidence as many of the changes we need to make will benefit humanity in the medium and long term - transport systems based on bikes, feet and buses, local systems for food production and stronger communities will all improve health. We will have to reduce the need for travel, consumption and ultimately, health care. Indeed, the sort of health care we are offering now may well soon be irrelevant in a world of food and energy shortages, economic difficulties and political and social strife - food riots are happening around the world already and our own agricultrual industry is weak. However if we really care about human health in the next few decades as well as the centuries beyond, as doctors I beleive we have to tell it as it is. From any informed standpoint, we are in for some big and potientially painful changes, it simply depends whether we wish to be in control of them, or not. Competing interests: Member of the Green Party |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stuart Martin Galey, Occupational Health Physician Gloucester GL1 2HZ
Send response to journal:
|
If we accept that climate change is occuring and that it is being driven by the exponential growth (forecast by the Club of Rome report in the 1970s)of human activity, we are all culpable and need to act as individuals as well as via the political process. Our most powerful tool remains our daily vote with our wallet and the choices we exersice through our patterns of consumption. I do not believe that as a community of highly educated and ethically driven people we need any more information. The end game is being played like russian roulette except we are pointing the gun at our childrens heads. Sooner or later the chamber will be full. If we do nothing else this year simply don't fly. Next year we can do all the rest. Yours sincerely Competing interests: None declared |
|||