Reducing the carbon footprint of medical conferences
BMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39125.468171.80 (Published 15 February 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:324
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Climate Change and Medicine
In a recent editorial in BMJ, Roberts and Godlee correctly described
how much air travel to medical conferences contributes to emissions of
carbon dioxide and thus to global warming (1), and it is timely to reflect
on the various connections between the world of medicine and climate
change, apparently the greatest challenge to current forms of life.
The medical literature on climate change has dealt almost exclusively
with the important issue of human diseases that are likely to follow from
climate change. They include famine, infectious diseases, thermal stress
and many others (2-4). In contrast, the FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization), in a report on the impact on the environment and global
warming of raising cattle, sheep, pigs and other livestock, has recently
connected climate change with another group of diseases.
The FAO estimated that raising livestock accounts for 18% of
greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and noted that foods
derived from animal products are associated with cardiovascular disease,
diabetes and some cancers. Since the demand for such food increases with
per capita income, the FAO wrote that “the environmental damage by
livestock may be significantly reduced by lowering excessive consumption
of livestock products among wealthy people.”
The figure indicates the distinction between human diseases that
share causes with climate change and human diseases that follow from
climate change. The former are associated with physical inactivity as well
as eating food from animal sources. It is certainly possible to be
sedentary without burning oil or coal, but we rely primarily on the
automobile and numerous other forms of the motorized equipment, directly
or indirectly fueled with oil, coal or natural gas, to avoid physical
activity.
The connections between climate change and diseases of affluence are
fairly obvious, but specialization, a hallmark of contemporary medicine,
discourages interest in the larger societal contexts of disease, and
current strategies for prevention are based primarily on drugs and
individual life-style changes. Population-based strategies have been shown
to work (5), but they enjoy less attention than preventive efforts
directed at individuals. Indeed, advances in identification and treatment
of individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease seem to justify
arguments that population-based preventive efforts are no longer
competitive (6).
The connections indicated in the figure present a sombre, new
opportunity for population-based prevention of obesity, type II diabetes
and cardiovascular disease in the measures that government, industry and
agriculture must adopt to try to mitigate the consequences of global
warming and climate change, and recent impetus for political action comes
in fact from reports from national and international government (7-9).
Whether reductions of fossil fuel consumption are motivated by concern
about climate change or energy security, some of the measures taken could
be fashioned in a manner that will also combat diseases of affluence.
Agricultural policies that encourage farmers to produce less
livestock and more fruits, vegetables and grains for human rather than
animal consumption would simultaneously reduce our ecological footprint
and rates of obesity, diabetes, etc.. And driving a hybrid car rather than
a four wheel drive vehicle reduces emissions of carbon dioxide by 70%
(10), but it does not increase physical activity. Biclycling, made safe by
planning cities with bicycle paths, reduces emissions of carbon dioxide by
much more than 70%, and it obviously increases physical activity. Cars
fueled only with a petroleum product or bioethanol do not need to be fully
replaced by newer technology cars.
Professional societies of physicians and clinical scientists should
consider explicitly supporting the advice that the FAO and colleagues in
climatological research have provided to poltitical and industrial
leaders. They can argue that it will be easier and cheaper to mitigate the
consequences of climate change if effective measures to reduce obesity,
type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease are entered into the equation.
The arguments can be made electronically. They don’t require air
travel.
Reference List
(1) Roberts I, Godlee F. Reducing the carbon footprint of medical
conferences. BMJ 2007; 334:324-325.
(2) Leaf A. Potential health effects of global climatic and
environmental changes. N Engl J Med 1989; 321(23):1577-1583.
(3) Godlee F. Health implications of climatic change. BMJ 1991;
303(6812):1254-1256.
(4) McMichael AJ, Woodruff RE, Hales S. Climate change and human
health: present and future risks. Lancet 2006; 367(9513):859-869.
(5) Pekka P, Pirjo P, Ulla U. Influencing public nutrition for non-
communicable disease prevention: from community intervention to national
programme--experiences from Finland. Public Health Nutr 2002; 5(1A):245-
251.
(6) Manuel DG, Lim J, Tanuseputro P, Anderson GM, Alter DA, Laupacis
A et al. Revisiting Rose: strategies for reducing coronary heart disease.
BMJ 2006; 332(7542):659-662.
(7) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
(8) Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan
C. Livestock's long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006.
(9) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. 2007. Geneva.
(10) Flannery T. The Weather Makers. The History & Future Impact
of Climate Change. Melbourne: Text Publishing, 2005.
Figure: connecting medical and climatological concerns
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Not only is the air travel contributing to the carbon foot print left
by medical conferences, there are also numerous other wasteful practices
that contribute to the bludgeoning of our environment contributed by these
events. I'm always appalled at the lack of recycling available for the
materials which are easily recycled such as paper, aluminum, and plastics.
Hospitals and other medical facilities are also guilty of producing excess
waste by this lack of social responsibility. Physicians and other
healthcare providers must lead by example and push for reduction in waste
and carbon emissions.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Thank-you Roberts and Godlee for your timely and important editorial.
Climate change will increasingly effect the health of underdeveloped
nations as well as our own.. it is in our power to prevent it and flying
in particular has become a moral and ethical issue. I congratulate the
authors.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
An amazingly simple win-win opportunity stares us in the face: a
global switch to a plant-food based diet will solve the diseases of
overnutrition and put a big dent in global warming with one U-turn—since
the up-to now insatiable appetite for foodstuffs made from livestock
(cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens) are at the root of both disasters.
The 2006 United Nations report, Livestock’s Long Shadow
–Environmental Issues and Options, concludes, “Livestock have a
substantial impact on the world’s water, land and biodiversity resources
and contribute significantly to climate change.” —accounting for 18
percent of the greenhouse gasses.
The human health crisis is pandemic with more than 1.1 billion people
overweight and 312 million obese, 197 million have diabetes, and 1 billion
have hypertension.2 One final and fatal result of these three chronic
conditions is 18 million people die of heart disease annually.2 Mounting
levels of sickness march side by side with escalating environmental
catastrophes: Extremes of weather are intensifying with droughts and
severe flooding, many species of plants and animals are threatened with
extinction, diseases are spreading, and crops are failing. You would think
by now doctors worldwide would have launched serious measures to reverse
all this human suffering by attacking the primary cause—eating meat and
dairy products. An initial step of good faith would be to serve only vegan
meals when medical conferences are held; providing an excellent example
for others.
1)
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
2) Hossain P, Kawar B, El Nahas M. Obesity and diabetes in the
developing world--a growing challenge. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan
18;356(3):213-5.
Competing interests:
Founder of the McDougall Program where patients are treated with low-fat vegan diet and exercise
Competing interests: No competing interests
Three cheers for Dr Roberts and Dr Godlee.Travel,in all its
forms,should be rationed;including petrol rationing;and us retirees should
have a very small ration indeed.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Choice of venue
The impact of international conferences can be mitigated by more than
the decision not to fly. Choice of venue could do much to send a message
to conference organisers and governments. I first heard Ian Roberts'
concerns about excessive conference air miles at the Cochrane Colloquia in
Australia (he sent a letter), a country which refuses to ratify the Kyoto
protocol, is the second largest global producer of greenhouse gases per
capita and is suffering the worst drought in recorded history. A boycott
of this country by all international medical conference attendees would
send a clear message to conference organisers, and indirectly to
governments, that Australia's ignorance and arrogance about climate change
is not acceptable to the thinking people of this planet.
Our next door
neighbour, New Zealand, has a much better track record. Given that the
air miles are about the same, New Zealand is a better choice. The same
could be said for Canada compared with the US. Then hold the conference
in a conference centre run on renewable energy, with stringent waste and
water recycling. Surely those fabulous market forces can drum up
something of the kind! And while we're at it, I'd be very happy to never
again receive a tacky conference bag, tattooed with drug company logos and
made in a sweat shop.
Danielle Wheeler
Competing interests:
Danielle Wheeler is a contributor and editor for the Cochrane Collaboration and Research Manager of the Cochrane Child Health Field
Competing interests: No competing interests