Global warming must stay below 1.5°C
BMJ 2018; 363 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4410 (Published 22 October 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;363:k4410
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.
I am somewhat surprised by the tenor of this piece – as if scientific knowledge is decided democratically. Galileo, Semmelweis, Lister and, more recently, Warren and Marshall – had to struggle against democratically ‘accepted wisdom’.
Mankind have long blamed themselves for natural disasters, and felt the need to placate the gods by ‘mending their ways’.
No one individual knows enough about all the sciences involved in the earth’s temperature – whether our sun’s place in our galaxy, our sun’s behaviour, effects of the other planets, influence of the moon, the behaviour of the earth’s fiery core, the causes and effects of volcanic eruptions, the causes of tectonic shifts and earthquakes, and the potential influence of all these physical factors on the climate – to synthesise that knowledge and explain 'climate change’, let alone ‘global warming’ – and then to blame it unequivocally on human behaviour.
This article forecasts doom and destruction – unless we mend our ways. “Poverty, food insecurity, water stress, forced migration, and conflict between states and communities” have, even before the arrival of H sapiens, reflected the simple economic truth that resources are always scarce. Hence rivalry between families, clans, tribes and nations – a rivalry seen throughput the plant and animal world.
Our natural behaviour is to ‘discount the future’. Which of our pitifully few democratic governments is going to ‘penalise’ their present citizenry economically because of a possible adverse effect on future generations – and expect to remain in office?
Why is it assumed that ‘extreme weather events’ are a phenomenon of our times? They have been around for aeons.
Why use the pejorative ‘denialists’ – for those of us skeptical about the science, about the misapplication of democracy to science and about the unlikelihood of any elected government to implement theoretically effective countermeasures to an imagined and unproven man-made threat? Why are the few well-qualified doubting scientists (I am merely a skeptical onlooker) treated so scornfully? Does scientific knowledge progress by such derision?
Competing interests: No competing interests
Law, Sanders, Middleton and McCoy shout out loud and clear.
The rapid responders echo them and call for education.
Not enough, ladies and gentlemen. You can shout till the cows come home.
Please tell us what YOU, individually, are doing. We would then know that you have thought about what WE the readers can do or try to do.
In my rapid response I have said what I am doing and trying to do.
Competing interests: No competing interests
“We are facing a global emergency and should organise accordingly. Twelve years to act or we will face catastrophic climate change.”
So where shall we begin if we are to halt this headlong rush to destruction?
Governments always seem a good place to start. Apart from the US government [1] of course and the Australian government and now the newly elected Brazilian president [2]. But what can we expect from politicians who assume they are measured purely on how much they materially provide for their voters before the next election? It’s the economic growth stupid.
What about big business? They certainly bear significant responsibility for the situation and they generally have the funds and manpower to create change. But how do you explain to your shareholders that this year’s dividend is being cut because of the companies switch away from plastics? How does The City take to a profit warning caused by the decarbonising of your factory? What chief executive would sign off their own removal just to avoid an invisible future event?
Obviously then we need to address this emergency at an individual level. Get the population to understand that if we carry on flying south for a quick blast of heat very soon we are going to have more heat than we would ever want and without having to travel. Surely the young, who have most future to lose, must hear the IPCCs urgent message? Surely those who are older must address the real legacy they are leaving their children or grandchildren?
But I don’t think anyone wants to hear this inconvenient truth. If they did would they not realise the absurdity of, say, driving their dogs to the park or driving themselves to the gym? Would they base their own sense of self-worth on the number of holidays they take per year or the size of cars that they own? Would they not put on a jumper rather than the central heating?
All of us must realise we have a responsibility – politicians, businesses and individuals – because global warming is, eventually, egalitarian. The carbon molecule you needlessly place into the atmosphere is just as likely to harm you in the future as one placed by me. I don’t know when we will start to make the huge changes necessary to deal with a threat that dwarfs all others.
It already seems like an emergency but with far too many bystanders.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/sep/02/this-govern...
2 http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/25/europe-can-bolsonaro-attacks...
Competing interests: No competing interests
Hmm! I wonder? 1C higher than pre-industrial times? Which pre-industrial times are we talking about? 1700AD, the height of the little ice age? I would certainly hope so, we would be in dire straits if we were colder. The medieval warm period? At least as warm as now. The Roman warm period, probably warmer.
CO2 levels much higher in the past, consider the carboniferous era. Optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 ppm, and commercial greenhouses add CO2 to get somewhere near this. Perhaps we could go back 10 or 20 years, look at the predictions and see how many have come about? My granddaughters and I published a response in this journal showing tree ring growth in this location has fallen by half or more since 2000 (BMJ 2014;348). Although this finding could be confirmed or falsified in anyone's garden for nearly zero cost, no-one has done this.
I support alternative energy sources (the non-propulsion energy on my boat is entirely provided by solar panels) but there is little critical appraisal of the real carbon costs of such things. An industrial windmill with a 2MW output at maximum has a life expectancy of about 30 years. Add up the carbon footprint of the stuff needed to make it (steel, concrete, copper, various expensive metals, silicon and the like) and put it in its operating place, it's a marginal benefit.
This week's journal has a substantial paper that shows more people die of cold than heat. The IPCC does not consider stuff like tropical deforestation as it's politically inconvenient. This issue needs good reproducible science. Instead it has political rhetoric aiming at redistributing wealth.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The authors state the obvious. Everything already known to our and other governments.
Prof Woody Cann and his 93 other rebels might stir the slumbering, slothful Brits. Or, might not.
Might I suggest a few simple things that we could all do? Collectively, they could move the Earth before it hurtles in to oblivion.
Do not consume food if it has travelled half-way round the world. Starting with your cups of tea, coffee and hot chocolate.
I have cut down on all three.
Do not buy potatoes imported from abroad.
I already follow my advice. And sometimes I bury a potato in the garden. Home grown new potatoes, once in a while. My decrepitude stops me from greater gardening.
Do not buy apples, plums from further afield than northern Europe.
I don’t. Sadly my plums, pears, gages, cherry have not given ME any fruit - though birds and bugs have had plenty of nourishment.
A mass movement on these lines will mean fewer ships on the high seas. They all run on diesel. Even though we say “ They sail”. Less pollution will result.
There are plenty of other things I could suggest.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Yes, indeed "we need to decarbonise our energy system".
Yesterday, 94 of us agreed that governments have shown inaction and flagrant dereliction of duty (Green et al, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/facts-about-our-ecol... ) so the time has come to plan an Extinction Rebellion. In my discipline, public health, advocacy for health is a core activity and we teach about Dr. John Snow responding to a cholera outbreak by putting the Broad Street Pump out of action. In the face of today's climate crisis, one response is "respectful disruption".[1] Across our imperiled Planet, thousands of John Snows are needed. Powerful regimes and some very rich individuals are heavily invested in fossil fuels. It will take the co-operation of millions of people to shift such vested interests.... but the alternative (status quo) will threaten EVERY country with a hellish future.
Samuel Johnson's wise words come to mind: "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
[1] Taylor M. Hundreds ready to go to jail to highlight climate crisis. The Guardian 2018; 27 October: 7.
[2] Boswell J. The Life of Samuel Johnson. 1791 (currently in print from Penguin Classics, London).
Competing interests: Survival of our species
Well stated. The core message of the IPCC is loud and clear. Abundant evidence of the dangers to humans, ecosystems, livelihoods has been generated. In most parts of the globe, the natural disasters attributable to environment deterioration have been experienced with aid in all forms being required to be rushed. The issue remains - development at what cost? The crux of the problem is the attitude and approach for the action (and its pace and tempo). Technical expertise appears to have fallen short to impress and convince the policy makers on the urgency of global action. Inaction or slow action carries enormous detrimental consequences for global health.
Dr Murar E Yeolekar, Mumbai.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Global warming must stay below 1.5°C
We were delighted to read your recent editorial on global warming and fully support the call to action for the medical community.
As clinicians we are taught to value evidence based interventions that benefit health and wellbeing. We look for the causes of disease and aim to change behaviour to improve outcomes. We hold a position of respect in the community and as a collective have a powerful voice.
Interesting isn’t it that despite this, when it comes to the most important health issues of our generation, we are barely whispering?
Human health is entirely dependent on the environment to provide us with air to breathe, food to eat and water to drink in a habitable climate.
The problem is that we are destroying the Earths ability to support human life. Climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are beginning to threaten our very survival.
As you rightly say, despite much hype, the UN climate summit, the Kyoto agreement, the Paris agreement have achieved little. Global emissions have risen year on year and stand at least 60% higher than in 1990.
Make no mistake, we are heading for at least 1.5oC of warming by the 2030’s and, unless our current trajectory changes, significantly more by the end of the century. This won’t just mean we’ll see more videos of emaciated polar bears and that it will be hotter in the Summer – it will mean famine, as crops fail, massive migrations of people, fleeing uninhabitable regions, and war over dwindling resources. Looking beyond the next thirty years gives even more cause for concern. According to a 2012 report by the World Bank, “We are currently on track for 4o warming by 2100. There is no certainty that adaptation to a 4o world is possible.” Surely with this level of threat we should be demanding urgent action from our leaders?
What can you do? The answer is - everything. We believe it is our duty as doctors to coordinate high level sustained lobbying of our governments and industries to address these issues. We are some of the most trusted voices in society and have more power than we think. So we have the ability to change the future if we have the will.
Doctors have spoken out and continue to do so. Back in 2016, fifteen health bodies, including seven Royal Colleges, called for rapid phasing out of coal. The Royal College of General Practitioners has just pledged to stop investing in fossil fuels. We have a UK Health Alliance on Climate Change which is doing fantastic work. The NHS Sustainable Development Unit has succeeded in reducing total emissions from the NHS. The Centre for Sustainable Healthcare works to embed true sustainability in the heart of NHS strategy and indeed the NHS is the world leader in reducing emissions, its water impact and waste. On the international stage the Global Climate and Health Alliance (GCHA) along with the Planetary Health Alliance are building a international movement of health professionals to drive action at a global level.
This is all very positive but, as you have read above, it is not enough! We want climate change and biodiversity loss to be amongst the main priorities for all healthcare professionals. Why? Because these are the most important factors that will influence the health and wellbeing of our population and we simply cannot afford to wait any longer.
Remember there is no economy, no health and, in fact, there is nothing on a dead planet.
The rapid transition to a low carbon economy is entirely possible. The technology exits and is proven, the economics make sense to the majority. This is about money, will and power. Currently held by the few, for the few, with little regard for the future.
We must also recognise the disconnect that exists between society and nature. This underpins a lot of the reasons why we find ourselves in this situation. We undervalue it, take it for granted and barely pay its value lip service in our strategies and policies. We need clinicians to publicly recognise the critical importance of a healthy environment. To not be afraid to speak out and to set an example to our communities. We must lobby government for a legal framework that incentivises green and penalises fossil energy sources. Our government needs to become a world leader in adopting a robust ‘polluter pays’ principle. Fossil fuel companies have never paid a penny for treating our shared atmosphere as a rubbish dump. This has been described by the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change as “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen”.
So what is the ask of you as a doctor? It is quite simple, be brave enough to challenge yourself and your organisations. Ask yourself is what I am doing part of the solution and, if not, what do I need to do to make it so? Sign up to and support the work of the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change and the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare. What is the worst that can happen if we invest in this work? We create a better future for our families and communities. It doesn’t seem that much of a risk to us.
We want you to listen to that uncomfortable feeling you get when you read about more rainforest being cut down, fracking starting in the UK, emissions rising. Listen to it but remember, thinking alone will not make this right – we need clear, coordinated action. The exciting thing is that together we can start to make a difference.
We are not tree huggers or fanatics. We are doctors, fathers and realists who listen to the science. This is not about saving the planet – it will continue quite happily without us – it is about saving ourselves as a species. Humans are said to have the gift of reason. Will we use it?
Can a whisper become a roar?
Dr James Szymankiewicz
Executive Partner, Combe Coastal Practice, Ilfracombe
Vice Chair North Devon GP Collaborative Board
Chair Devon Local Nature Partnership
Dr Niall Macleod
“Ambassador for Sustainability and Health - SW England”
Dr Simon Jones
GP, Litchdon Medical Centre, Barnstaple
NEW Devon CCG locality board member
STP lead for prevention
Competing interests: No competing interests