05/11/2020

We Can Avert Irreversible Climate Change

Financial Times - 

Action is both essential and affordable — but it demands international leaders’ co-operation

© James Ferguson

Author
Martin Wolf is chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, London. He was awarded the CBE (Commander of the British Empire) in 2000 “for services to financial journalism”.
A renewed presidency for Donald Trump is likely to be nowhere more consequential than for climate change. The coming decades will determine whether the threat of damaging and irreversible change is averted, or not.

Without active US engagement, success seems inconceivable. Even with it, it would be unlikely. But, crucially, it would be conceivable. We know what to do and we know, too, that it is affordable. What is unaffordable is not to do what we need to do. But will we? That is the question.

It is indicative of the shift in the perspective of the global policy establishment that a chapter of the IMF’s October World Economic Outlook focuses on “mitigating climate change” — that is, preventing it — via “growth-and-distribution-friendly strategies”. In brief, the IMF insists that humanity can have its cake and eat it: both higher incomes and a safe climate.

As a result of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, global average temperatures are already about 1C above pre-industrial levels. On present trends, this could reach around 1.5C in a decade and 2C half a decade later. At that point, warn climate scientists, dangerous and irreversible tipping points in the climate are likely to be passed. Most governments do at least pretend to agree. Thus, in the Paris accords of December 2015, they committed themselves to keeping temperatures below these levels, even if their promises fell short of what was needed to achieve this.





As the IMF notes: “Sizeable and rapid reductions in carbon emissions are needed for this goal to be met; specifically, net carbon emissions need to decline to zero by mid-century.” If this is to happen, emissions need to fall sharply this decade and keep on falling thereafter. That would represent a huge turnround from previous trends.

What sort of programme might deliver this outcome? The answer, suggests the fund, is a combination of front-loaded green investments, aggressive funding of research and development, and a credible long-term commitment to rising carbon prices. This is in line with other studies, notably Making Mission Possible: Delivering a Net-Zero Economy, a September 2020 report from the global Energy Transitions Commission. The latter also emphasises complementary regulation, to accelerate changes in behaviour. Compensation of poorer losers against the higher fuel prices will be needed as well.




Is a move towards zero net emissions by 2050 affordable? The answer is: surprisingly so, particularly given the economically depressed post-Covid starting point. The IMF estimates that achieving this aim might lower world output by 1 per cent, relative to its “baseline” under unchanged policies, once one adds in the benefits of damages avoided. Even so, this must be put in the context of expected cumulative global growth of 120 per cent over the next 30 years. It also ignores the benefits of far lower local pollution.

Some estimates suggest that temperature increases of as much as 5C by 2100, in the absence of mitigation, might lower global output by 25 per cent. This does not take account of the massive non-economic disruptions to humanity, indeed all life, to be expected from such an unprecedentedly rapid upheaval in the climate.


Given these estimates of the modest short-term cost of mitigation against the far greater long-term costs of failure to do so, the argument for action is overwhelming. It becomes more so when one allows for the scale of the uncertainty created by unmitigated climate change, as well as its irreversibility. 

Taking action might make sense even if the costs were many times as large as now expected. So why is it not happening? One explanation is that it involves changes in lifestyles, which we dislike. Another is that it requires thinking in decades, which is unnatural. But the most important explanation is that it requires long-term co-operation, which we usually find impossible.


Co-operation among five players — China, the US, the EU, India and Japan — would deliver a huge part of what is needed. Unfortunately, this hardly looks likely right now. A shift in the US presidency towards someone sane would be a big help. Without that, sanctions against the US might be necessary. But a more aggressive shift by China than planned will also be essential.

If needed policy shifts are to happen soon enough, it will take statesmanship of a high order indeed. Domestically, programmes must compensate the most vulnerable losers, which is a good reason for using a carbon tax. Internationally, leaders must co-operate far more effectively than they did even on the Paris accord. If they are to do what is needed, leaders must overcome two other obstacles to wise action: the fossil-fuels-forever resisters; and the ecological fanatics, who argue in favour of a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the end of growth — by tomorrow, please.


The only realistic hope is technocratic problem-solving and co-operative policies. These must be guided by moral purpose, but not infused by fantasies of revolutionary transformations. Cries of “repent, for the end of the world is nigh” will not solve this emergency. Humanity is at its best when it uses its head. Climate is at bottom a crisis of technology and behaviour; it can be tackled only by changing incentives throughout the system.

As I have argued before, this is now extremely urgent. If we want to prevent a dangerous shift in the planet’s climate, we need to act far more decisively than hitherto. We are drinking fossil fuels in the earth’s last-chance saloon. The time has come for humanity to sober up.

Links

(AU) We Should Stop Backing Losers In The Climate Change Cup

Sydney Morning Herald - Ross Gittins

Author
Ross Gittins is the Herald's economics editor.
The big question for Scott Morrison and his colleagues is whether they want to be a backward-looking or forward-looking government.

Do they want to enshrine Australia as the last giant of the disappearing world of fossil fuels, and pay the price of declining relevance to the changing needs of our trading partners, with all the loss of jobs and growth that would entail?

Illustration: Simon Letch

Or do they have the courage to seize this opportunity to transform Australia into a giant in the production and export of renewable energy and energy-intensive manufactures, with all the new jobs and growth that would bring?

In recent weeks, the main customers for our energy exports – China, Japan and South Korea – have done something we’ve so far refused to do: set a date for their achievement of "carbon neutrality". Zero net emissions of greenhouse gases.

Faced with this, and the free advice from fellow conservative Boris Johnson that he should get with the program, Morrison has defiantly declared that Australia would make its own "sovereign decisions".

This is infantile behaviour from someone wanting to be a leader, like the wilful child who shouts, "You’re not the boss of me!"

It goes without saying that Australia will make its own decisions in its own interests. No other country has the ability or desire to force its will on us. But nor can we force our will on them. They will go the way they consider to be in their best interests, and it's clear most are deciding to get out of using fossil fuels.

We remain free to change our export offering to meet our trading partners’ changing needs, or to tell them all to get stuffed because producing coal and gas is what we’ve always done and intend to keep on doing. Our sovereignty is not under threat. No one can stop us making ourselves poorer.

Australia can be a global source of secure and reliable renewable power. Credit: Photo: Reuters


A report issued on Monday by Pradeep Philip, head of Deloitte Access Economics, called A New Choice attempts to put figures on the choices we face in responding – or failing to respond – to global warming. I’m not a great believer in modelling results, but the report does much to illuminate our possible futures.

In last year’s election, Morrison made much of Bill Shorten’s failure to produce modelling of the cost to the economy of his plan to reduce emissions in 2030 by much more than the Coalition promised to do in the Paris Agreement.

Had he been sufficiently dishonest, Shorten could easily have paid some economic consultancy to fudge up modelling purporting to show the cost would be minor, but for some reason he didn’t. However, Morrison didn’t resist the temptation to quote the results of someone who, over decades of modelling the cost of taking action to reduce emissions, had never failed to find they would be huge.

Our sovereignty is not under threat. No one can stop us making ourselves poorer.

It’s true that the decline of our fossil fuel industries will involve much expensive disruption to those businesses and the lives of their workers, as they seek out new industries in which to invest their capital and find employment. But what’s a lot more obvious today than it was even last year is that this cost will be incurred whether it happens as a result of government policy or because the decline in other countries’ demand for our fossil fuel exports leaves us with what financiers call "stranded assets" – mines and other facilities that used to turn a profit, but now don’t.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Energy Minister Angus Taylor. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen


Last year it was possible for the cynical and selfish to ask why we should get serious about climate change when no one else was. Today the question is reversed: how can we fail to act when everyone else is?

One of Morrison’s great skills as a politician is his ability to draw our attention away from some elephant he doesn’t want us to notice. In the election he got us to focus on the cost of acting to reduce our emissions. The bigger question we should have been asking is, what’s the cost to the economy if we and the others don’t act to stop future global warming?

Whatever number some modeller puts on that cost, our "black summer" should have left us needing little convincing that climate change is already happening and already imposing great destruction, pain and cost on us. Nor is it hard to believe the costs won’t be limited to drought, heatwaves and bushfires, and will get a lot worse unless we stop adding to the greenhouse gas already in the atmosphere.

On a more positive note, Deloitte adds its support to those experts – including Professor Ross Garnaut and the Grattan Institute’s Tony Wood – finding that "in a global economy where emissions-intensive energy is replaced by energy from renewables, Australia can be a global source of secure and reliable renewable power. Countries such as Japan, South Korea and Germany have already come to Australia asking for us to export renewable hydrogen for their own domestic energy consumption."

We have a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to simultaneously boost economic growth, create sustainable jobs [and] build more resilient and cleaner energy systems".

Links

Born In The Ice Age, Humankind Now Faces The Age Of Fire – And Australia Is On The Frontline

The Guardian - Tom Griffiths

The bushfires and the plague are symptoms of something momentous unfolding on Earth – an acceleration of our impact on nature

‘For the beleaguered Coalition government, Covid seemed to provide the escape it wanted from climate politics.’ Photograph: Adwo/Alamy

Author
Tom Griffiths is a Professor of History in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, Canberra, and Director of the Centre for Environmental History at the ANU.
This essay is part of an anthology, Fire, Flood and Plague, edited by Sophie Cunningham to be published by Penguin Random House in December.
What has been the most shocking event of 2020? Was it awakening on New Year’s Day to more news of terror in Australia’s southern forests, to the realisation that the future was suddenly here, that this spring and summer of relentless bushfire was a planetary event? Was it the silent transmission of Covid-19, already on the loose and soon to overwhelm the world and change the very fabric of daily life everywhere at once? Or was it the surging race riots and protests, especially across America, where police brutality triggered grief, anger and outrage about the inequality and injustice still faced by black people? Could we even distinguish them from each other, this overlapping sequence of horrors? 

Fire, plague and racism are always with us, percolating away, periodically erupting, sometimes converging. They came together in the colonisation of Australia when the conquering British brought smallpox, scorned Indigenous rights and fought Aboriginal fire with gunfire. Systemic racism is the virus, declared Black Lives Matter protesters.

In mid-June the historian Geoffrey Blainey, writing in the Australian in defence of colonial statues, looked back on the first day of the year. His opening gambit was this sentence: “On New Year’s Day, no major economist, no famous medical scientist and no political leader had predicted that this would be a tumultuous year.” Only a defiant climate sceptic could have been so uncurious about the events unfolding that day and so dismissive of expertise. 

For on New Year’s Eve, the savage summer had pulsed into frightening ferocity on the New South Wales south coast and in East Gippsland. Eight people died that day in the fires. Sleepless tourists and residents faced the dawn of the new year without power, fuel or mobile-phone reception, and some without homes. The day brought evacuations, road closures, panic buying, collective fear and a surge of dire predictions. For months, experts and bush residents had been preparing for a tumultuous fire season and here on the first day of 2020 was a frightening climax.

Throughout 2019, fire experts had pleaded with the federal government to hold a bushfire summit to prepare for the dreaded summer, but the prime minister had refused. The crisis could not be acknowledged in case it gave credence to the need for climate action.

As if neglect and omission in the face of the fire threat were not enough, Coalition politicians and their apologists then hastily encouraged lies about the causes of the fires, declaring that they were started by arsonists and that greenies had prevented hazard-reduction burns. Yet these fires were overwhelmingly started by dry lightning in remote terrain, and hazard-reduction burning is constrained by a warming climate. The effort to stymie sensible policy reform after the fires was as pernicious as the failure to plan in advance of them.

Scott Morrison attends a state memorial honouring victims of the Australian bushfires in Sydney. Photograph: Loren Elliott/Reuters

There was barely a moment to breathe between bushfires and Covid. Australians had been in lockdown for months even before the year began, fighting fires that had started at the end of winter, cowering indoors from smoke, heat and ash, and wearing masks on their brief forays outside. People spoke courageously of “the new normal” but did not yet understand that “normal” was gone. Just as they finally stepped outside to sniff the clearer autumn air, it was declared dangerous again. Their masks were still in their pockets.

Despite the connections between these crises, politicians were keen to separate them, as if one blessedly cancelled out the other, not least because the pandemic gave the prime minister a chance to reset after his disastrous summer. Instead of forcing handshakes he was forced to withhold them. For the beleaguered Coalition government, Covid seemed to provide the escape it wanted from climate politics.

Australians were forbidden from talking about the obvious relationship between bushfires and climate, so how will we manage to interrogate the common origins of climate change and the pandemic? The fires and the plague are both symptoms of something momentous that is unfolding on Earth: a concentration and acceleration of the impact of humans on nature. As the environmental scientists Inger Andersen and Johan Rockström argued in June: “Covid-19 is more than an illness. It is a symptom of the ailing health of our planet.”

Or, as the US science writer David Quammen succinctly put it: “We made the coronavirus epidemic.” Not in a laboratory but in the scary, runaway experiment humans are conducting with Earth. Historians and scientists predicted the unpleasant surprises. Like most infectious diseases in the history of humanity, Covid-19 spilled over from wild animals to humans and became a pandemic because of ecosystem destruction, biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution, the illegal wildlife trade and increased human mobility. “So when you’re done worrying about this outbreak,” Quammen warns, “worry about the next one. Or do something about the current circumstances.”

Doing something about it means more than finding a vaccine; it means urgently addressing the causes of the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis. It means understanding how dire the current rupture is in the long-term relationship between humans and nature.

Could people be alive down there?

In November 2019, as forest fires worked their way down the eastern seaboard, I walked for a week in the Australian Alps, my annual pilgrimage to the high country. The wild granite tors, the delicate beauty of the snow gums and the exhilarating freedom of the alpine herb fields have always lifted my spirits. In late spring and early summer this landscape still carries the memory of snow, of a magic, ethereal otherworld I came to know on skis as a child. Slicks of ice remained tucked under crags. It is a place apart, of subtle colours and sharp air, where ranges of cerulean blue cascade in receding waves to the horizon. But this time the mountains had all gone, swallowed by an apocalypse.

The entrance to Kosciuszko national park after it was closed during January’s bushfirees. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian


From high in the Kosciuszko national park, I felt like a refugee from the suffering world of the plains, finding solace in the snowgrass and minty alpine forests. I could see nothing of the world below. In every direction I looked down upon a strange, suffocating orange blanket. This was no mystic lake of fog that would evaporate in the morning sunshine; it was something sinister and malevolent, infusing every scarp and canyon with its sickness. There below me, Australia was burning. Could people still be alive down there, in such dense, acrid smoke? Could they breathe? In the mornings, a temperature inversion kept the ugly blanket below me, but each afternoon my eyes started smarting as smoke infiltrated the alpine valleys, turning the sun red. That smoke killed 10 times more people than the flames. It was coming for me and I couldn’t go any higher.

This experience of looking down on a burning world brought home to me, perhaps more forcibly than facing the flames below, what the future might hold. One way to make sense of this critical tipping point is the idea that we are now living in the Anthropocene, having left behind the relatively stable Holocene epoch, the period since the last ice age. The Anthropocene – the age of humans – places us on par with other geophysical forces such as orbital variations, glaciers, volcanoes and asteroid strikes, and recognises our power to change the planet’s atmosphere, oceans, climate, biodiversity, even its stratigraphy. Earth was first jolted into the Anthropocene by the industrial revolution in the late 18th century, when people began digging up and burning fossil fuels.

Australian National University historian Tom Griffiths. Photograph: Black Inc Books
But as I gazed down on the smoke, I remembered an alternative name for this era that has been proposed by the historian Stephen Pyne. It is the Pyrocene: a fire age, comparable to past ice ages. The Pyrocene puts fire at the centre of the human ecological story and contrasts it with ice. Fire is alive and ice is dead. Fire is at the heart of human civilisation, for we are a fire species. Yet we are also, paradoxically, creatures of the ice. We were born in the Pleistocene, a geological epoch that began 2.5m years ago and introduced a series of rhythmic ice ages – or, to be precise, one long ice age punctuated by regular brief interludes of interglacial warmth. The repetitive glaciations of the Pleistocene, which demanded innovation and versatility, promoted the emergence of humanity on Earth.

The Pyrocene is a more radical category than the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene declares the end of the latest interglacial period. The Pyrocene goes further, by declaring the end of the much longer and older Pleistocene, the whole epoch of ice ages. It announces the end of the age of ice, the beginning of the age of fire, and the end of what was truly the age of humans. Not the beginning of the age of humans, as is suggested by the smugly named Anthropocene, but the end. And Australia is on the frontline of the Pyrocene. This is what I pondered as I watched the acrid orange blanket snake up the alpine gullies towards me. Are we witnessing the beginning of the end? Is this what the Pyrocene looks like? Nowhere to go but up, and no up to go to?

The Anthropocene is primarily a geological signature, whereas the Pyrocene is biological; they are both acts of historical imagination that rupture the conventional periods within which we imagine our existence. They ask us to see human history not as something defined by documents or brought into being by the invention of writing, but as a diverse cultural odyssey that is also a biological story – even a geological one. If humans have become so powerful that they can change the condition of the planet’s oceans and atmosphere, then we urgently need to think in deeper time, on a scale where we might better understand the environmental rhythms we are so profoundly disturbing.

Before and after: the 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge site that was destroyed by Rio Tinto in May. Photograph: PKKP Aboriginal Corporation


And yet, at the beginning of Reconciliation Week in Australia, amid the climate and Covid emergencies and as race riots escalated in the US, the corporate mining giant Rio Tinto detonated 46,000 years of human history at Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara. It was an act of sacrilege committed even as George Floyd’s death unleashed avowals around the world that Black Lives Matter. In the age of Covid, people rallying against black deaths in custody donned masks and carried banners inscribed with Floyd’s final words: “I can’t breathe.”

Several years before Juukan Gorge was destroyed, archaeologists found a 4,000-year-old belt made of plaited hair in one of its rock shelters. Its DNA was associated with today’s Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura traditional owners. Chris Salisbury, Rio Tinto’s chief executive of iron ore, apologised for “the distress” caused by the destruction of the site but not for the act itself, which he defended. Here is staggering evidence of Australia’s continuing inability to empathise or identify with the peoples who discovered this continent and who today are still fighting for recognition, justice, respect and equality before the law.

It is confirmation that in the 21st century our country remains a colony, still unable to accept (as the Uluru statement puts it) that “this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood”. The deep environmental and cultural inheritance of this continent, with all the wisdom and perspective it might offer about living in this place, about survival, species and cultural burning, about fires, plagues and rising seas, is not yet important enough to Australians. When will it be, if not now? The insidious smoke is coming.

Links

04/11/2020

(AU) Australian Doctors Accuse Government Of Failing On Climate Change

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

A group of more than 700 Australian doctors has written to Prime Minister Scott Morrison to accuse Energy and Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor of failing in his duties by not acting to protect Australians from the impacts of climate change.

“We are health professionals and organisations bearing witness to the harm Mr Taylor’s failure to reduce emissions is causing to the health of Australians,” says the letter, whose signatories include Professor Nick Talley, the editor-in-chief of the Medical Journal of Australia, Dr Clare Skinner, who is the incoming president of the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine and Professor Peter Sainsbury of the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health.

Angus Taylor and Scott Morrison are taking a bet on hydrogen in the government's imminent energy technology road map. Credit:Adam McLean

“We are also united by our concern about the climate crisis and the impact it is having on the safety and wellbeing of Australians and our neighbours. Public health is inextricably linked to climate health. Climate damage is here now – and it is killing people.”

The doctors accuse Mr Taylor of failing in his ministerial duties by directing public money to fossil fuel projects, failing to adequately reduce Australia’s emissions obligations and by not committing Australia to a 2050 net zero emissions target.

A spokesman for Mr Taylor said in response, “The Morrison Government is delivering record levels of investment in renewables, cutting emissions, and reducing energy prices for Australian households. Facts that Labor, the Climate and Health Alliance and other activist groups choose to ignore.”

How Joe Biden and a global pandemic might overturn climate politics
“As a result, Australians are already seeing higher rates of respiratory illness, diarrhoea and morbidity requiring hospital admission during hot days, and higher rates of suicide in rural areas during drought years.

In the letter the doctors said there is already a noticeable health impact from increased frequency and intensity of bushfires, floods, dust storms, drought and extreme heat in Australia.

“The burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gas that drives global warming is also a major contributor to air pollution – this silent killer is linked to the premature deaths of 3000 Australians each year.

Higher levels of air pollution are also associated with increasing illness and death related to ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive airways disease, lung cancer and asthma.”

They wrote that the annual cost to Australia from air pollution mortality alone is estimated to be $11.1-$24.3 billion.

The letter was co-ordinated by the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Links

(AU) Rest Super Fund Commits To Net-Zero Emission Investments After Brisbane Man Sues

 ABC News - Michael Slezak

Mark McVeigh successfully sued his super fund for failing to tell members how they plan to address the financial risks of global warming. (ABC News: Michael Slezak)







Key Points
  • Mark McVeigh sued Rest in 2018 for failing to provide details on how it will minimise the risk of climate change
  • Mr McVeigh's lawyer says the case sets an important precedent
  • It's the first time a superannuation fund has been sued for failing to consider climate change

 A 25-year-old man from Brisbane has successfully sued one of Australia's biggest super funds over its handling of climate change, forcing it to commit to net-zero emissions for its investments by 2050.

In 2018, Mark McVeigh sued Rest, his superannuation fund, in the Federal Court after it failed to provide him with information on how it was managing the risks of climate change.

Mr McVeigh alleged Rest had breached the Superannuation Industry Act and the Corporations Act by failing to manage those risks — which could include fossil fuel companies plummeting in value or infrastructure being damaged by extreme weather.

The law requires trustees of super funds to act with care, skill and diligence to act in the best interest of members — including managing material risks to its investment portfolio.

In an 11th-hour settlement reached on Monday while the case was adjourned, Rest agreed its trustees have a duty to manage the financial risks of climate change.

Because the case was settled out of court, the outcome doesn't carry the same weight as a legal precedent decided in court. But Mr McVeigh's lawyer, David Barnden, head of Equity Generation Lawyers, said the case still sets an important precedent globally.

"This outcome should represent a significant shift in the market's willingness to tackle climate risk — a shift which should set a clear precedent for the industry in Australia, and also pension funds around the world," Mr Barnden said.

David Barnden from Equity Generation Lawyers. (ABC News: Brendan Esposito)

Martijn Wilder, a lawyer at Pollination, another climate-focussed law firm, said the settlement meant the impact of the case could fall short of what some were expecting.

"It has not [produced] a clear legal decision by a court which clarifies the obligations and duties of directors under the law," he said.

"However, there is widespread acceptance in the legal and business community that these obligations regarding climate clearly exist."

In a statement, Rest outlined the agreement it made with Mr McVeigh, and said: "The superannuation industry is a cornerstone of the Australian economy — an economy that is exposed to the financial, physical and transition impacts associated with climate change."

An historic agreement

 In the statement, Rest said that "climate change is a material, direct and current financial risk to the superannuation fund".

Rest went further and agreed to manage its investments so they would be responsible for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

It also agreed to immediately begin testing its investment strategies against various climate change scenarios, publicly disclose all its holdings and advocate for companies it invests in to comply with the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims to stop global warming at 1.5C.

The case was the first time an Australian superannuation fund had been sued for not doing enough on climate change.
"Today's settlement gives me, and Rest's almost two million members, the reassurance that we need to know that our retirement savings will be invested responsibly in the face of the climate crisis," said Mr McVeigh.
His lawyer, Mr Barnden said the implications were far-reaching for investors, and for the climate.

"This marks the first time a major Australian superfund has agreed to settle litigation about the material financial risk of climate change and what needs to be done to protect members. It is clear that the buck stops with board members, and managing climate risk cannot be delegated away," he said.

In its statement, Rest said: "Rest agrees with Mr McVeigh to continue to develop its management processes for dealing with the financial risks of climate change on behalf of its members."

Mark McVeigh says the heart of his legal action is about making super funds transparent with their plans for climate change. (ABC News: Michael Slezak)

Mr Wilder said it was "quite clear" that the action between Mr McVeigh and Rest has caused the fund to re-evaluate its position on climate change. 

"The initiatives that rest are now pursuing are ones that one would expect Australian super funds to be doing in any event," he said.

"This brings them into line with a number of other super funds in Australia already doing this."

In another case, Mr Barnden is representing all young people around the world in a class action against the Australian Environment Minister, alleging she has failed in her duty of care to protect young people from climate change.

Mr Barnden is also representing 23-year-old Katta O'Donnell, who is suing the Australian Government for failing to disclose the risks that climate change could have on government bonds.

Action picking up pace

The news comes amid a wave of developments around the world, indicating increased action on climate change.

Over the past month, China, Japan and South Korea have all announced goals of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions at around the middle of this century. Those three countries buy 75 per cent of Australia's exported thermal coal and nearly 60 per cent of our exported gas.

Last week, Australia's third-biggest bank confirmed it was ceasing its lending to thermal coal by 2030.

In 2019, the ABC reported on a leaked ANZ memo showing that it would slash its lending to thermal coal by about $700 billion by 2024.

Links

(AU) Centre-Right Thinktank Warns Morrison Government Of 'Grave Future For Coal Exports

The Guardian - 

Pandemic should be ‘catalyst for change’, warns Blueprint Institute, which has close ties with former Liberals including Christopher Pyne

A report to be launched by NSW environment minister, Matt Kean, warns Australia is lagging behind its peers on net zero emissions and that China’s declaration to achieve net zero by 2060 could have ‘significant economic consequences’. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters

A centre-right thinktank with links to former Liberal ministers Robert Hill and Christopher Pyne warns failing to commit to net zero emissions by 2050 will diminish Australia’s international standing and harm our economic competitiveness.

The arguments are laid out in a new report that will be released on Friday by the Blueprint Institute. The report will be launched by the New South Wales environment minister, Matt Kean, who this week declared his party needed to better represent the interests of voters committed to climate action, and end the pointless, backward-looking arguments.

The report, called Powering the Boom, notes that Australia has committed to full decarbonisation “by some point this century”. But it says if domestic ambition isn’t increased soon, “the decision may be forced upon us”.

This week Japan pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero. The Blueprint Institute report notes that development and points out the United Kingdom and the European Union have also made net zero commitments, while China has pledged to reach net zero by 2060, and Canada has an economy-wide carbon price.

“Failing to commit to net zero by 2050 will diminish our international standing, and harm our competitiveness,” the report says.

But it says the mid-century commitment isn’t, of itself, enough. It notes Australia is “lagging behind our peers” with most other rich developed nations achieving much larger reductions in per-capita emissions over the past two decades.

The report says Australia should agree to meet its commitments under the Paris climate agreement without using Kyoto credits. During Senate estimates hearings this week, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed no other country, apart from Australia, had yet indicated its intention to use Kyoto carryover credits in order to meet its pledges under the Paris agreement.

The report says Australia can deliver that pledge if it commits to halving emissions from electricity within 10 years.

The Blueprint Institute is a relatively new thinktank drawing staff that have worked for federal Liberal MPs, including Julie Bishop and Dave Sharma, as well as policy experts. A number of board members have worked in state politics, and the strategic council of the organisation includes Hill, Pyne, former NSW Liberal parliamentarian Michael Photios and former state and federal minister Bruce Baird.

The report says there are five components of a successful decarbonisation strategy:
  • The net zero commitment and agreement to meet the Paris targets without Kyoto credits.
  • Beefing up investment in transmission infrastructure.
  • Mapping a fair transition for coal communities.
  • Further support for the commercialisation of low emissions technologies.
  • Pressing ahead with green hydrogen, steel and aluminium.
It says the coronavirus pandemic should be “a catalyst for change” rather than a barrier to progress. “Leaders in many of our peer nations and major trading partners have pledged ambitious climate action during the crisis,” it says.

The report says the scientific case for action is clear but there is also an economic case. It says as major trading partners accelerate their decarbonisation, Australia faces two risks – a rapid decline in demand for carbon-intensive exports, such as coal and gas, and the possible introduction of carbon tariffs.

It notes that China and Japan – two countries on the path to decarbonisation by mid-century – “together account for 52% of our coal exports and 90% of our iron-ore exports”.

“China’s declaration that it will achieve net zero by 2060 should be of particular concern to Australia,” the report says. “While this might be viewed with some scepticism, the boldness of the commitment portends a grave future for our coal exports.”

“A fall in our coal export volumes would have significant economic consequences.”

The report notes that an economy-wide carbon price, via a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, would be the lowest-cost way to decarbonise the Australia economy, but it acknowledges this will be difficult to implement given the decade long climate wars.

It says one option for achieving a functional cap-and-trade system would be to reboot the safeguard mechanism that the Coalition implemented when it repealed the carbon price in 2014. “The system could be expanded to cover all or more companies … and the permitted emissions reduced to align with emissions reduction targets,” the report says.

The decision by Australia’s major trading partners to sign up to net zero has renewed the domestic debate about the adequacy of the Morrison government’s climate and energy policies.

The move towards net zero was raised by the British prime minister Boris Johnson during a call with Morrison on Tuesday night. According to the British readout of the conversation, Johnson raised the importance of net zero emissions, and “stressed” to Morrison that “we need bold action to address climate change, noting that the UK’s experience demonstrates that driving economic growth and reducing emissions can go hand in hand”.

The next day Morrison declared Australia would make its own decisions about targets and pathways. The Australian prime minister said Johnson understood the importance of national sovereignty because he had withdrawn the UK from the European Union.

The foreign minister, Marise Payne, was asked this week whether Australia welcomed the new net zero commitments by Japan and South Korea. Payne said the commitments were “acknowledged” but it was not up to Australia to welcome them.

The government said it will approach the long-term abatement challenge using “technology not taxes”. It has identified “clean” hydrogen, energy storage, “low-carbon” steel and aluminium, carbon capture and storage and soil carbon as priority technologies slated for investment as part of its technology roadmap.

But it has also not ruled out adopting a mid-century target.

Payne said on Thursday the government would set out its long-term abatement strategy before the next international climate conference, due to be held in Glasgow late next year.

Links

03/11/2020

Mapped: How Climate Change Disproportionately Affects Women’s Health

Carbon Brief - Daisy Dunne

Women and children collect drinking water from a water logged area in Dhaka, Bangladesh, June 2017. Credit: Mehedi Hasan/Alamy Stock Photo.


From supercharging extreme weather events to boosting the spread of infectious diseases, climate change is already having a huge impact on human health across the world.

 But this impact is not being felt equally. A growing body of research suggests that the world’s most disadvantaged people are also the most vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change and the least likely to be able to adapt.

Gender is just one of many factors that can influence a person’s standing in society. This in-depth explainer looks into how climate change can have differing impacts on the health of men and women around the world.

An analysis of 130 peer-reviewed studies – visualised below on an interactive map – finds that women and girls often face disproportionately high health risks from the impacts of climate change when compared to men and boys.

The analysis shows that 68% (89) of the 130 studies found that women were more affected by health impacts associated with climate change than men.

For example, it shows women and girls are more likely to die in heatwaves in France, China and India and in tropical cyclones in Bangladesh and the Philippines. In many world regions, women are more likely than men to suffer poor mental health, partner violence and food insecurity following extreme weather events.

However, in some cases, men can face higher risks. For example, several studies suggest men face a higher risk of suicide following extreme weather events and are more at risk of certain health issues associated with working outdoors.

Mapped

The map below displays 130 studies that investigate how the health of men and women is affected by impacts associated with climate change. These impacts include: death and injury from extreme weather; food insecurity; infectious disease; mental illness; and poor reproductive and maternal health.

On the map, each icon represents one study. The colour of the icon indicates whether the study finds that women (orange) or men (purple) are most affected by the climate change impact. (Grey indicates there is no difference between men and women.)

IMAGE ONLY
The interactive map displays 130 studies that investigate how men and women are affected by climate change.
Data source: Global Gender and Climate Alliance (2016). Additional analysis by Carbon Brief. Map by Joe Goodman for Carbon Brief. 
[The software used to make the map currently only works with a Web Mercator projection (as used by virtually all major online map providers). It is worth noting that this – like all map projections – offers a somewhat distorted view of the world.] 

The data comes from a 2016 research report on gender and climate change authored by Dr Sam Sellers, a climate change and health researcher formerly based at the University of Washington. The report itself was commissioned by the Global Gender and Climate Alliance, a UN-NGO alliance focused on gender and climate change. (The report focuses on the social construct of gender, rather than biological sex.) 

To collect the data, Sellers carried out an extensive literature review to find any study mentioning gender alongside climate change or its associated health impacts from 2005-16. For this article, relevant papers published since 2016 have also been added to the review.

The review also includes studies that do not specifically reference climate change, but investigate impacts that are known to be affected by it.

This includes, for example, a study finding that women were more likely to have died than men in a 2010 heatwave in Ahmedabad, India. (Though the study does not specifically cite climate change as the cause of death, it is known that heatwaves are becoming more likely and intense as a result of warming.)
Pie chart displaying the findings of 130 studies on climate change and health: 89 studies found women were more affected than men, 30 found men were more affected than women and 11 found no difference in how men and women were affected. Rounding errors mean the proportions may not add up to exactly 100%. Data source: Global Gender and Climate Alliance (2016). Additional analysis by Carbon Brief.

Out of the 130 climate and health studies analysed, around 68% (89) found that women were more affected than men.

Across the world, women are more likely than men to be affected by climate-related food insecurity and are also more likely to suffer from mental illness or partner violence following extreme weather events.
Bar chart showing the proportion of men and women affected by climate change impacts, including: death and injury from extreme weather; food insecurity; infectious disease; mental illness; and poor reproductive and maternal health. Data source: Global Gender and Climate Alliance (2016). Additional analysis by Carbon Brief.

The heightened risks faced by women most often reflect their standing in societies around the world – rather than a physiological difference between men and women, explains Kim Van Daalen, a PhD student in global public health at the University of Cambridge. (In February, Van Daalen wrote a letter to the Lancet on how women can face disproportionate health risks from climate change.) She tells Carbon Brief:
“It has more to do with societal roles rather than physiological differences. I tend to say climate change is exacerbating existing inequalities, be that gender or other inequalities.”
One exception to this is climate change’s impact on maternal health, she says. The review shows that pregnant women often experience heightened health risks and reduced access to reproductive and maternal care services as a result of climate change impacts.

A pregnant woman is evacuated from her home by rescue workers during a flood in Malaysia. Credit: Reuters / Alamy Stock Photo.

Meanwhile, 30 of the climate and health studies included in the review found that men were more affected than women. 

According to the review, men are more likely than women to face a higher risk of suicide following extreme weather events and, in some regions, are more likely to be killed in floods and during wildfires. Van Daalen says:
“In some places, boys and men face increased risks to the climate change impacts on health – and that is particularly, for example, in regions where they may be exposed to extreme weather events because they are working outside.”
In addition, 11 studies found there to be no difference between how men and women were affected.

Overall, there has been little research into the gendered impacts of climate change – making it difficult to draw firm conclusions, says Van Daalen:
“Most of the studies that are being done are based in low- and middle-income countries. But I think there hasn’t been enough research to assume that gender inequalities are higher for low- and middle-income countries. I think the gender differences are definitely there in high-income countries, we just haven’t researched them enough.”
In addition, there has been even less research into the health impacts of climate change for non-binary and transgender people, she adds:
“For non-binary people, there’s literally no data on that and I think that’s quite problematic.”
Extreme weather

Across the world, climate change is causing many extreme weather events to become severe and more likely to occur. 

This is particularly true for heatwaves. For example, research finds that this year’s long-lasting Arctic heatwave was made 600 times more likely by climate change. Research also shows that the northern hemisphere’s unprecedented 2018 heatwave would have been impossible without climate change.

There is growing evidence, too, to suggest climate change is playing an increasingly large role in more complex extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts and wildfires.

The analysis includes 53 studies that examine rates of death and injury for men and women during extreme weather events.
Pie chart displaying the findings of 53 studies examining the rate of death and injury from extreme weather events: 32 found women were more likely to suffer death or injury from extreme weather than men, 12 concluded that men were more likely than women and six found no gender difference. Rounding errors mean the proportions may not add up to exactly 100%. Data source: Global Gender and Climate Alliance (2016). Additional analysis by Carbon Brief.

 Almost two-thirds (34) of these studies found that women were more likely to suffer death or injury from extreme weather than men, 13 concluded that men were more likely than women and six found no gender difference.

The factors behind who is most likely to die in extreme weather events vary from country to country, says Van Daalen:
“In a lot of regions, women and girls are more impacted – but in other regions, it’s actually boys and men that are more impacted. It’s very regionally specific and dependent on the roles people take up in society in each region.”
In many low- and middle-income countries, women’s lower societal status can put them at greater risk of dying during extreme events, she says.

For example, some research suggests that, in Bangladesh, social expectations placed upon women could lessen their ability to survive tropical cyclones and flooding events.

According to one study conducted in Bangladesh, cultural expectations for women to wear the sari – a long dress that can restrict movement – could make it more difficult for women to escape from floodwaters.

Women walking on a flooded footpath in Bogura, Bangladesh. Credit: SOPA Images Limited / Alamy Stock Photo.

Another study found that, after a 1998 flood in Dhaka, women were less likely than men to leave their homes to seek medical help. The researchers suggest that this was likely linked to cultural norms that restrict women from leaving their homes without a male chaperone. 

In addition, a study published in 2016 drawing on data from 85 low- and middle-income countries over two decades found that women were more likely to be killed by extreme weather events in countries where their socioeconomic status was below that of men.

However, other studies suggest that women in high-income countries could also be more at risk than men of dying in certain extreme events.

For example, a string of research papers have found that women are more likely to die than men in heatwaves in France. One study, published in 2012, found that female deaths were more likely in nine European cities, including London, Paris and Rome.

A woman shelters from the sun in downtown Rome as a heatwave hits Italy. Credit: Reuters / Alamy Stock Photo.


The reasons why women in Europe could be more at risk from heatwaves are not yet fully understood. However, several research papers suggest that older women with underlying health conditions could be particularly vulnerable to increasing heat in Europe.

By contrast, several studies in the US and Australia have found that men are more likely to die in heatwaves than women.

For example, a US national health report found that, from 2006-10, the death rate from extreme heat was 2.6 times higher for men than women across the country. 

One reason men could be more at risk from heat in the US is the country has a high proportion of socially-isolated elderly men, Sellers says in his review:
“In the US, the vulnerability of males to heatwave deaths is attributed in part to the social isolation that many elderly men experience.”
Another reason could be that, in the US and other high-income countries, men more frequently work and spend leisure time outside and so could be more exposed to increases in heat, says says Prof Kristie Ebi, a researcher in public health and climate change from the University of Washington. She tells Carbon Brief:
“Retired men can be in the category of people more at risk from heat. Often they go out in the afternoon, sit in the park and spend time outdoors – and so have higher heat exposure than women who stay indoors.”
A study published in 2018 found that, across 50 different US cities, men faced a higher risk of outdoor heat exposure than women.

Men in the US, Australia and China can also face a higher risk than women of dying in floods, according to several studies. One reason for this could be that men are more likely to assist in rescue efforts, research suggests.

Two men are rescued by the National Guard after their canoe tips over in the flooded streets of Guernville, California. Credit: ZUMA Press, Inc. / Alamy Stock Photo.

In addition to raising the risk of death, extreme weather events can also raise the risk of injury and personal safety issues. The review finds that women are often disproportionately affected by many of these health impacts. 

For example, after Hurricane Katrina struck the US city of New Orleans and its surrounding areas in 2005, researchers found that women faced higher rates of partner violence and sexual assault.

Further research in New Zealand found that cases of domestic violence increased after flooding in 2004. A study for ActionAid Bangladesh also observed an increase in violence against women after flooding in 2007. 

Food insecurity 

Climate change is affecting food insecurity across the world in a number of ways. Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns are affecting crop yields, while extreme weather events, such as droughts, are causing unpredictable harvest losses.

In low- and middle-income countries, food insecurity can be strongly linked to poor health. 

The review finds that, in low- and middle-income countries, climate-driven food insecurity can have a disproportionately large effect on the health of women.
Pie chart displaying the findings of 14 studies examining the links between climate change, food insecurity and health: 11 found women were more likely to suffer food insecurity than men, two concluded that men were more likely than women and one found no gender difference. Rounding errors mean the proportions may not add up to exactly 100%. Data source: Global Gender and Climate Alliance (2016). Additional analysis by Carbon Brief.

Out of 14 studies examining links between climate change, food insecurity and health, 79% (11) found that women were more affected than men. (Two studies found men were more affected than women and one found no difference in the impact on men and women.)

Understanding why women are more affected by climate-driven food insecurity requires an understanding of historic social hierarchies in many low- and middle-income countries, says Dr Raman Preet, a global health researcher at Umeå University in Sweden. She tells Carbon Brief:
“If there is less food available, then who gets to eat more food? In a lot of cases, it’s men. That’s not new, these gender roles have been around for thousands of years.”
Girl returning from a days work on a large farm in Niger, West Africa. Credit: Mike Goldwater / Alamy Stock Photo.

Studies show that, during times of climate-driven food insecurity, women were more likely than men to forgo food in India, Iran, South Africa, Ghana and Nicaragua.

In many regions, female children are also more likely than male children to go without food, says Preet:
“There’s always a preference for how you feed. This has gone on for centuries. Are we ready to accept that if there’s food insecurity then the girl child gets lower priority?”
For example, a study in the Philippines found that, in the months following typhoons, female children face a greater risk of infant mortality, whereas male children do not face a heightened risk. The researchers attribute this to the preferential feeding of male children when resources are scarce.

Though women are often more affected by food insecurity, there are certain cases where men can bear the brunt of the impacts.

A study in South Greenland found that men are finding it more difficult to hunt Arctic prey as a result of population declines linked to climate change. According to the study, this is increasing men’s economic reliance on their female partners. (However, the study also found that hunting failures were linked to increases in domestic violence.)

Sealer transporting two dead seals on his dog sledge, Greenland. Credit: Blickwinkel / Alamy Stock Photo.

Infectious disease

Rising temperatures are causing wildlife and the diseases they carry to move into new areas. This, in turn, is heightening the susceptibility to some vector-borne and other infectious   diseases. 

For example, research published in 2019 found one billion more people could become exposed to mosquito-borne diseases by 2080 as result of rising temperatures.

In May, Carbon Brief reported on how warming temperatures could also heighten exposure to thousands of novel animal-borne – or “zoonotic” – diseases. (Covid-19 is an example of such a disease.)

In addition, research shows that sea level rise could also play a role in heightening exposure to infectious diseases.

Young man in water as low lying island Funafuti Atoll is flooded by sea water. Credit: Nature Picture Library / Alamy Stock Photo
.
This is because some infectious bacteria thrive in slightly salty – or “brackish” – water. Sea level rise is causing brackish water to move closer to where people live, heightening their exposure to disease.

Ocean warming could also aid the spread of marine bacteria, research shows.

The review looks at how several infectious diseases that are known to be affected by climate change are currently impacting men and women.
Pie chart displaying the findings of 14 studies examining how infectious diseases currently impact men and women: nine found men were more likely to suffer from infectious diseases than women; four concluded that women were more likely than men; and one found no gender difference. Rounding errors mean the proportions may not add up to exactly 100%. Data source: Global Gender and Climate Alliance (2016). Additional analysis by Carbon Brief.

Out of 14 studies, 64% (9) found that men faced a higher risk than women of contracting infectious diseases. (Four studies found women faced a higher risk, whereas one study found no difference between the genders.)

Men are often at a greater risk of being exposed to infectious diseases because they more frequently work and spend leisure time outdoors, Sellers says in his review:
“There is some evidence that males are at greater risk of schistosomiasis infection than females, particularly at younger ages as boys tend to spend more time playing near water where the disease is transmitted.”
Schistosomiasis – also known as “bilharzia” – is a debilitating disease caused by parasitic worms that pass from person to person in contaminated water. It mostly affects tropical Africa. Research shows that rising temperatures are likely to increase transmission of schistosomiasis.

Several studies in North America have also found that men are at a greater risk of suffering from Lyme disease, a bacterial infection spread through tick bites. One reason for this is because men spend more time working outdoors in wild environments and so are more likely to come into contact with ticks.

Research finds that Lyme disease exposure could “substantially increase” further northwards in the US and Canada as a result of warming temperatures.

A tick embedded into human skin. Credit: Chris Robbins / Alamy Stock Photo.

While men face a heightened risk of disease when outside, women can face heightened risks at home, the review shows.

Several studies have found that women face a greater risk of malaria than men. One reason for this is that, in low- and middle-income countries, women can come into contact with contaminated water sources in and around the home, says Van Daalen:
“If you are surrounded by a lot of stagnant water sources, you are more likely to be exposed to the mosquitoes that carry malaria.”
Mental illness

The links between climate change and poor mental health are complex. Research suggests that extreme weather events can aggravate the risk of mental illness through bereavement, injury and economic losses. 

Prof Helen Berry, inaugural professor of climate change and mental health at the University of Sydney, explained the links in a guest post for Carbon Brief in 2018. She said:
“Climate change is increasing the frequency and ferocity of weather-related extremes year-on-year. More people are being exposed – or, worse still, the same people are exposed more frequently – to injury, loss of homes and businesses, environmental damage and even loss of lives.
“All of these have profound, often long-term effects on mental health. Yet there remains relatively little research on this topic and even less commitment to doing anything about it.” 
The review includes 28 studies that examine links between climate change, mental illness and gender.
Pie chart displaying the findings of 28 studies examining the links between climate change and mental illness: 19 found women were more likely to suffer from mental illness than men; six concluded that men were more likely than women; and three found no gender difference. Rounding errors mean the proportions may not add up to exactly 100%. Data source: Global Gender and Climate Alliance (2016). Additional analysis by Carbon Brief.

Out of these studies, 68% (19) found that women are more affected than men. Meanwhile, six studies found men were more affected than women and three studies found no gender difference.

A woman stands at the wreckage of her home, in Banshkhali, Bangladesh. Credit: Majority World CIC / Alamy Stock Photo.

Studies show that women faced a greater risk than men of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following tropical cyclones in the US, Australia and Myanmar, and following flooding in the UK and China.

The reasons why women tend to be more likely than men to suffer from PTSD after extreme weather events are not fully understood.

The World Health Organization notes that women are the largest single group of people to be affected by PTSD – and that this is linked to a high prevelance of sexual violence worldwide. Studies show that the risk of sexual violence can rise during and after extreme weather events (see: Extreme weather).

In addition to PTSD, studies also show that women tend to face a higher risk of depression and emotional distress following extreme weather events.

By contrast, several research papers have found that men can face a higher risk of suicide than women following extreme weather events.

Research in both India and rural Australia suggests that male farmers could be at a particularly high risk of suicide after events such as droughts, which can cause rapid crop failures.

For example, one study in Australia found that the risks facing male farmers could in part be attributed to “a dominant form of masculine hegemony that lauds stoicism in the face of adversity”. A study in India, meanwhile, found the risks facing male farmers were linked to unfavourable cash-crop prices and debt.

Farmer stands over his failed wheat crop on his farm near the town of West Wyalong, Australia. Credit: Reuters / Alamy Stock Photo. 

In addition, research in South Korea found that increases in daily temperature were associated with increases in suicide rates for men from 2001-5. 

Across the world, the suicide rate for men is twice as high as for women.

(In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. Other international hotlines are also available.)

Reproductive and maternal health

Women and others that carry children are uniquely threatened by climate change’s impact on reproductive and maternal health.

Climate change threatens reproductive and maternal health in two main ways. First, it can raise the health risks for expecting mothers and foetuses. Second, it can limit access to reproductive and maternal health services, explains Van Daleen:
“Climate change is increasingly putting strains on healthcare systems. It can quite directly destroy hospitals through extreme weather events, but it can also just indirectly put more strain on healthcare services.
“When this happens, what we generally see is that reproductive and maternity health services are most impacted because they are already undervalued in comparison to other services and so not prioritised.”
The review includes 21 studies that explore how climate change can affect reproductive and maternal health.

Studies show that exposure to extreme weather events can heighten health risks for expecting mothers and their foetuses.

Pregnant woman sitting in the shade under water vaporisers on a hot day. Credit: Davide Zanin / Alamy Stock Photo.

For example, maternal and newborn health problems have been linked to hurricane exposure in Texas and Florida and heatwave exposure across 19 African countries, Italy and Spain.

The exposure of expectant mothers to heat, in particular, is known to have an impact on newborns, says Ebi:
“We do know there’s an impact on the growing foetus from studies that are showing that there is an increased incidence of problems such as low birth weight.”
In addition, studies in Haiti and Thailand show that exposure of pregnant women to infectious diseases, such as malaria, could heighten the risk of miscarriage and other serious maternal health issues. 

(Malaria is a mosquito-borne disease that is being boosted by climate change in some regions. See: Infectious diseases.)

A study published in 2007 found that young women struggled to access reproductive health services following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

However, further research into how climate change could affect access to reproductive healthcare is so far lacking, Sellers says in his review. 

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative