Vast tracts of land are still underwater in India.(AP: Anupam Nath)
Key Points
The floods inundated most of India's Kaziranga National Park, home to thousands of rare rhinos
Nepal's Home Ministry said 117 people have died in monsoon-related incidents
More than 1 million people have been marooned since floods hit Bangladesh late last month
Floods and landslides triggered by heavy monsoon rains have killed at least 221 people across South Asia over the past month, officials say.
More
than 1 million people have been marooned in Nepal, Bangladesh and India
and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes for higher ground.
Indian
officials said floods and mudslides killed another 16 people in the
northeast and eight people were killed in building collapses in Mumbai,
raising the death toll in the country to 101.
Nepal reported at least 117 deaths over the past month and Bangladesh reported three.
Rains
caused the Brahmaputra River, which flows through Tibet, India and
Bangladesh, to burst its banks in India's Assam state late last month,
inundating large swathes of the state, triggering mudslides and
displacing about 3.6 million people, officials said.
Vast tracts of land are still underwater, with 26 of the state's 33 districts badly affected.
Authorities
rescued about 4,000 people trapped by the surging flood waters in
various parts of Assam, India's Disaster Management Authority said.
About 36,000 people whose homes were destroyed or submerged have taken shelter in nearly 300 government-run relief camps.
The
floods also inundated most of India's Kaziranga National Park, home to
an estimated 2,500 rare one-horned rhinos, authorities said.
A one-horned rhinoceros and calf wade through flood water at a wildlife sanctuary. (AP: Anupam Nath)
In
the eastern state of Bihar, at least nine rivers swollen by heavy
downpours in Nepal rose beyond their danger levels and inundated many
villages.
One of them, the Gandak River, swept away
the connecting roads of a newly built multimillion-dollar bridge in
Bihar's Gopalganj district, disrupting transportation in the area.
The Meteorological Centre in the state capital, Patna, forecast heavy rain over the next 48 hours.
Nepal's
Home Ministry said 117 people have died in monsoon-related incidents,
including landslides in mountainous areas and flooding in the southern
plains.
At least 47 people were reported missing and 126 have been injured in the past month, it said.
Rains caused the Brahmaputra River, which flows through Tibet, India and Bangladesh, to burst its banks in India's Assam state. (AP: Anupam Nath)
In
Bangladesh, the Ministry of Disaster and Relief said at least three
people have died and more than 1 million people have been marooned since
floods hit the country late last month.
Officials
said heavy rainfall and the onrush of river waters from upstream India
were creating havoc in Bangladesh, a delta nation of 160 million people
that is crisscrossed by 230 rivers.
Bangladesh's
Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre said that flooding could worsen at
the beginning of next week because of growing devastation in the vast
region along the Brahmaputra and Teesta rivers.
It said the situation would remain unstable over the next two weeks, causing further suffering for affected people.
Annual
monsoon rains hit the region in June-September. The rains are crucial
for rain-fed crops planted during the season, but often cause extensive
damage.
American voters face a fork in their own road this November — stay on
the Trump expressway to environmental degradation and catastrophic
climate change, or shift to the road, bumpy as it may be, to a cleaner
environment and more sustainable future of wind, solar and other energy
sources that do not involve burning fossil fuels.
The COVID-19
pandemic understandably has seized the nation’s attention, but that
hasn’t lessened the risk we all face from air and water pollution and
carbon-fed global warming. Trump has unabashedly sought to dismantle
federal regulatory structures to speed up construction projects while
forging a national energy plan based on producing and burning fossil
fuels.
His embrace of the oil, gas and coal industries defies the
global scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse
gases that make the Earth less habitable by warming the atmosphere,
feeding stronger and more frequent storms, triggering devastating
droughts that propel human migration, and pushing up sea levels so that
they encroach on cities and other human settlements.
In fact, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week
that unusually high tides led to record flooding among one-quarter of
Atlantic and Gulf Coast communities where the agency maintains tide
gauges. Climate change is no dystopian vision of the future; it is here.
Trump’s efforts to eviscerate regulatory oversight of the environment is rooted in his
belief that regulations are for the most part unnecessary hurdles to
economic progress. He bewails the amount of time it takes for projects
to clear environmental reviews and related court challenges, adding
what, in his mind, are unnecessary costs and delays.
To be honest, he
may have something there. NEPA came into being five decades ago — signed into law
by President Nixon — and it’s not out of line to suspect that there are
places where the law and the regulations that arose from it could use
some reasonable revising. But Trump and his industry-connected advisors
are not the ones to trust with such a task.
These
new rules are not reasoned updates. By requiring environmental impact
analyses to be completed within two years (now they often take twice
that), the administration seeks to cut short the consideration of those
most affected by major projects — often people of color and low-income
households — and disarm the environmental activists fighting to ensure
that necessary environmental protections are respected.
The rules also
would require regulators to no longer weigh the cumulative effects of a
proposed project and limit their review to effects “that are reasonably
foreseeable” and “have a close causal relationship” to the work being
done. So, for example, a proposed project’s emissions could not be added
to those of other nearby emitters to determine whether their cumulative
impact creates an excessive burden on a specific community.
Separately, the Government Accountability Office reported last week that the administration tweaked the formula
for measuring the “social cost of carbon” so that estimates of the
potential harm from emissions are seven times lower than they used to
be. It’s foolhardy — and dangerous — to look at environmental impacts
through such a narrow lens.
Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic nominee
Joe Biden, after lengthy negotiations with progressive environmentalists
who had backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), released a $2-trillion plan for quickly shifting the nation from its reliance on fossil fuels to renewable sources.
It’s not the controversial “Green New Deal”
that progressives have been pushing, but it’s in the neighborhood.
Getting such a measure through Congress even if both chambers were
controlled by Democrats would be no easy task, but Biden’s proposal at
least recognizes the dire future we all face if the nation — and the
world — do not fundamentally alter how we produce and consume energy.
The
world cannot afford to backslide on environmental protections and the
all-important fight to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
Yes, jobs are important, but survival more so. The errors and
consequences of the past are crystal clear. The question is, will we
heed those lessons?
Letter also signed by Greta Thunberg urges EU leaders to act immediately on global heating
A climate protest in Duesseldorf, Germany, last week. Photograph: Sascha Steinbach/EPA
Greta Thunberg
and some of the world’s leading climate scientists have written to EU
leaders demanding they act immediately to avoid the worst impacts of the
unfolding climate and ecological emergency.
The letter,
which is being sent before a European council meeting starting on
Friday, says the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that most leaders are able
to act swiftly and decisively, but the same urgency had been missing in
politicians’ response to the climate crisis.
“It is now clearer than ever that the climate crisis has never once
been treated as a crisis, neither from the politicians, media, business
nor finance. And the longer we keep pretending that we are on a reliable
path to lower emissions and that the actions required to avoid a
climate disaster are available within today’s system … the more precious
time we will lose,” it says.
Greta Thunberg calls for immediate action on 'existential crisis' of climate emergency – video
The EU unveiled its green new deal proposal this year, aiming to transform the bloc from a high to a low-carbon economy
without reducing prosperity and while improving people’s quality of
life, through cleaner air and water, better health and a thriving
natural world.
But the authors of the letter dismiss its target of
net zero emissions by 2050 as dangerously unambitious. “Net zero
emissions by 2050 for the EU – as well as for other financially
fortunate parts of the world – equals surrender,” they say.
They add that the target is based on a carbon budget that gives only a
50% chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial
levels, the figure set out in the 2015 Paris agreement.
“That is just
a statistical flip of a coin, which doesn’t even include some of the
key factors such as the global aspect of equity, most tipping points and
feedback loops, as well as already built in additional warming hidden
by toxic air pollution. So in reality it is much less than a 50%
chance.”
The letter also argues that the climate and ecological
emergency can only be addressed by tackling the underlying “social and
racial injustices and oppression that have laid the foundations of our
modern world”.
It says the EU, with its political and economic clout, has a moral
obligation to lead the fight to create a fair and more sustainable
world.
“We understand and know very well that the world is
complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy. The changes
necessary to safeguard humanity may seem very unrealistic. But it is
much more unrealistic to believe that our society would be able to
survive the global heating we’re heading for, as well as other
disastrous ecological consequences of today’s business as usual.”
Thunberg and the other signatories – including the scientists Michael Mann and Johan Rockström
– call on EU leaders to immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel
exploration and extraction and end subsidies. They say the EU must
advocate to make ecocide an international crime and establish annual,
binding carbon budgets.
The review flagged legally enforceable "national standards" to stop the decline of Australia's natural environment.(Supplied: Paul Fahy)
Key Points
The 124-page interim report comes 20 years after the laws were first implemented by the Howard government
The report's author has called for a "strong, independent cop" on the environment beat
The Federal Government has accepted some recommendations, but rejected the report's call for an independent regulator
A landmark review into Australia's national environment laws has called for a major overhaul, including establishing an "independent cop" to oversee them.
The independent review into the 20-year-old Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC), released this morning, also flagged legally enforceable "national standards" to stop the decline of Australia's natural environment.
"The foundation of the report was that there is too much focus on process and not enough focus on outcomes and that should be changed entirely," Graeme Samuel, the review's independent author, said.
He concluded that Australia's environment was getting worse under the laws designed to protect it.
"Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat," he said.
"The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable."
Environment Minister Sussan Ley immediately moved to rule out an "independent cop", which was policy taken to the last federal election by the Opposition.
But the Federal Government accepted the recommendation for national standards, which she said would form the basis of agreements with states, allowing federal approvals to be devolved to the states.
If brought into law it would establish a "one-stop shop" or "single-touch approvals".
Sussan Ley said the Government would not "support additional lawyers of bureaucracy". (ABC News: Ian Cutmore)
The devolving of federal approval powers to states has long been the aim of the Federal Government.
The report calls for the Government to maintain the power to step in on any decisions it deems important, or when a failure of state processes has been identified.
The 124-page interim report comes 20 years after the laws were first implemented by the Howard government.
"Not surprisingly, the statutory review is finding that 20-year-old legislation is struggling to meet the changing needs of the environment, agriculture, community planners and business," Ms Ley said.
"It is time to find a way past an adversarial approach and work together to create genuine reform that will protect our environment, while keeping our economy strong," she said.
The laws were first introduced by the Howard government in 1999 in an attempt to modernise environmental protection. (Greg Wood: AFP)
The report was boiled down to 10 "key reform directions", which Professor Samuel said would improve the laws he described as "ineffective", "complex" and "costly".
Those reforms included:
No expansion to regulate additional environmental matters, including no new "climate trigger" argued for by many conservationists
New national environmental standards, which ensure development is conducted in an ecologically sustainable manner
Devolution of assessment, approvals, compliance and monitoring to states, reducing duplication
A focus on environmental restoration, resulting in habitat growing, rather than declining
Independent cop call
In his review, Professor Samuel, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, said a "strong, independent cop on the beat is required".
Professor Samuel rejected calls for a federal environment agency, but instead called for an 'independent cop'. (AAP: Julian Smith)
"An independent compliance and enforcement regulator, that is not subject to actual or implied political direction from the Government Minister, should be established," he said.
"The regulator should be responsible for monitoring compliance, enforcement and assurance. It should be properly resourced and have available to it a full toolkit of powers."
The call echoes Labor Party policy from the last election, which called for a federal environmental protection agency — a move backed by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).
ACF chief executive, Kelly O'Shanassy, said at the moment protecting nature was "optional".
Regardless, Ms Ley moved quickly to rule out any new regulator.
"The Government will take steps to strengthen compliance functions and ensure that all bilateral agreements with states and territories are subject to rigorous assurance monitoring," she said.
"It will not, however, support additional layers of bureaucracy such as the establishment of an independent regulator."
Australia's bushfire crisis, itself an environmental disaster, delayed the report's findings. (ABC News: Brendan Esposito)
Speaking after the release of the report, Shadow Environment Minister Terri Butler said the Opposition would look at it carefully before "commenting in depth".
"We're in an environment crisis," Ms Butler said.
"We [need] robust decision making, high quality decision making and strong and robust environmental protection to actually stand up for our iconic native species, for our native places and for our native environment."
Funding cuts and approval delays
The review began in November 2019 but its findings were delayed by the bushfires and then the coronavirus crisis.
Federal Labor analysed those findings and concluded that since the Coalition came to power, there had been a 510 per cent blowout in the number of environmental approvals delayed beyond time frames indicated in the laws.
The delays came as the government cut funding to the environment department, which Labor said was now 40 per cent lower than it was before the Coalition came to power.
The Government has argued its attempts to speed-up the process — including by giving states the rights to approve projects under federal law — were blocked by Labor.
If we listen to them, Lomborg says, we will waste trillions of dollars, achieve little and the poor will suffer the most. Science has provided a way to carefully balance costs and benefits, if we would only listen to its clarion call.
And, of course, the villain in this “false alarm,” the boogeyman for all of society’s ills, is the hyperventilating media.
Lomborg doesn’t use the term “fake news,” but it’s there if you read between the lines.
For Bjorn Lomborg, climate change is real. Yes, we should do something about it. But, goes his message, let’s be real, there are other problems, too. Credit...Jonathan Nackstrand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
As with
others in Lomborg’s camp, there’s the pretense in this book of balance
and reference to careful studies. Yes, climate change is real. Yes, we
should do something about it. But, goes his message, let’s be real,
there are other problems, too. Resources are scarce. The more money we
spend on climate change, the less we have to grow the economy; and as we
all know (or do we?) everybody benefits from growth, especially the
poor. And besides, there’s not much we can do about climate change.
He’s
not completely fatalistic. He urges imposing a carbon tax and investing
much more on innovation, both good ideas, although neither is a
panacea, especially since the carbon price he suggests is far too low.
Among the many contradictions within the book is that while he seems to
say that innovation may be our savior, he also suggests that the model
he relies on shows that we’ve invested all we wisely can in innovation.
We’ve done all we should. Evidently, we’re supposed to pray that nature
be more forgiving as it bestows good fortune on our research efforts.
Bjorn Lomborg Credit...Charlotte Carlberg Bärg
Somehow, missing in his list of good policy measures are easy things like good regulations — preventing coal-burning electric generators, for example. Lomborg, a Danish statistician, exhibits a naïve belief that markets work well — ignoring a half-century of research into market failures that says otherwise — so well, in fact, that there is no reason for government to intervene other than by setting the right price of carbon.
Assessing
how best to address climate change requires integrating analyses of the
economy and the environment. Lomborg draws heavily on the work of
William Nordhaus of Yale University, who came up with an estimate of the
economic cost to limiting climate change to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius
above preindustrial levels.
While Nordhaus seems to think it’s enormous,
an international panel chaired by Lord Nicholas Stern and me (called
the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices), supported by the World
Bank, concluded that those goals could be achieved at a moderate price,
well within the range of what the global economic system absorbs with
the variability of energy prices.
A
second mistake — which biases the results in the same way — is
Nordhaus’s and Lomborg’s underestimation of the damage associated with
climate change. In early discussions of climate change the focus was
often on global warming. It was natural for people to ask: “Surely a few
degrees of temperature change couldn’t make that much difference? And
besides, wouldn’t it be nice if we could swim in the ocean off Nova
Scotia?”
But climate change is much more than that. It includes
increasing acidification and rising sea levels (another aspect of
climate change that Lomborg doesn’t mention is that Wall Street could be
underwater by 2100 — a seeming benefit until one realizes that almost
surely the bankers would find a way to force all of us to pay for their
move to higher ground).
Climate
change also includes more extreme weather events — more intense
hurricanes, more droughts, more floods, with all the devastation to
life, livelihood and property that accompanies them. In 2017 alone, the
United States lost some 1.5 percent of G.D.P. to such weather-related
events.
A
third critical mistake, compounding the second, is not taking due
account of risk. As the atmospheric concentration of carbon increases,
we are entering uncharted territory. Not since the dawn of humanity has
there been anything like this.
The models use the “best estimate” of
impacts, but as we learn more about climate change these best estimates
keep getting revised, and, typically, in only one direction — more
damage and sooner than had been expected.
Economists
emphasize the importance of avoiding bad outcomes. The whole
multibillion-dollar insurance industry is predicated on risk aversion.
If there were another planet we could all move to, that would be one
thing. But there isn’t. So that means we have to be cautious.
And
caution is especially warranted once we realize how bad things could
get. Damages can increase disproportionally with increased carbon
concentrations, and when those bad outcomes occur, our ability to
weather the storm (metaphorically and literally) will be greatly
diminished.
A fourth related concern
is that those like Lomborg and Nordhaus who don’t believe we should take
forceful action today discount the value of the environmental impacts
of climate change on future generations. How do we trade off costs today
with benefits in the future?
The Trump administration, for instance,
has been using a 7 percent discount rate — which means that we shouldn’t
spend more than 3 cents today to avoid a dollar of damage to our
children in 50 years. This is ethically indefensible and economically
nonsensical. But they’re the kinds of numbers spewed out by the models
Lomborg loves, the same kinds of models that say we should blithely
accept a 3.5 or 4 degree Celsius increase in global warming.
Bjorn
Lomborg has long insisted that there is a consensus — what he calls the
Copenhagen Consensus — around his do-nothing agenda, which he claims to
be the reasonable scientific
approach. Consider the mission of his Copenhagen Consensus Center, which
says its focus is on “cost-effective solutions to the world’s biggest
challenges. … Our analyses take into account not just the economic, but
also health, social and environmental benefits.”
Who could object? He
assembles expert panels to review the issue, to reach a consensus on
what should be done, carefully weighing costs and benefits. Again, who
could object? But when one looks at the list of “experts,” one sees the
conservative bias — all distinguished economists, but most with a
particular bent, and not including any of the true experts in climate
science who might have raised an objection.
Anyone
not familiar with the literature might think from his frequent quoting
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the panel,
representing the scientific consensus, is on board with his ideas.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In 2019 the I.P.C.C. put out a
report explaining how much worse a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature
would be than a 1.5 degree Celsius rise.
It takes only a little care in
reading beneath the surface of the plodding scientific prose to realize
how worried these scientists are. Understandably so: We have not seen
these levels of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since
the Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago, when the polar ice
caps were much smaller and global sea levels were 10 to 20 meters higher
than today. (Full disclosure: I was a lead author of the I.P.C.C.’s
Second Assessment.)
Lomborg is
correct that climate change is not the only problem the world faces. But
he poses a false choice, because it is possible to walk and chew gum at
the same time. As the advocates of the Green New Deal point out,
investments that reduce climate change can usher in a new era of
prosperity; as our commission emphasized, the green transition can
promote economic growth — correctly measured.
As
a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that deserve to
be panned. You only make enemies. Even a slight barb opens a wound the
writer will seldom forget. In the case of this book, though, I felt
compelled to forgo this policy. Written with an aim to convert anyone
worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborg’s work would be
downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading anyone that there
was merit in its arguments.
This book
proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. It’s
nominally about air pollution. It’s really about mind pollution.
Wildfires were made more severe by high temperatures and strong winds. Getty Images
A record-breaking heatwave in Siberia would have been almost impossible without human-caused climate change, a study has found.
The Russian region's temperatures were more than 5C above average between January and June of this year.
Temperatures
exceeded 38C in the Russian town of Verkhoyansk on 20 June, the highest
temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic circle.
The Arctic is believed to be warming twice as fast as the global average.
An
international team of climate scientists, led by the UK Met Office,
found the record average temperatures were likely to happen less than
once every 80,000 years without human-induced climate change.
That
makes such an event "almost impossible" had the world not been warmed
by greenhouse gas emissions, they conclude in the study.
In a news release, the scientists describe the finding as "unequivocal evidence of the impact of climate change on the planet".
It is, says Prof Peter Stott of the Met Office, the strongest result of any attribution study to date.
In the latest episode of Climate Check, Sarah Keith-Lucas look at the record temperatures in the Arctic Circle
Attribution studies attempt to work out the role that human-induced climate change plays in major weather events.
Climate scientists use computer simulations to compare the climate as
it is today with the climate as it would have been without human
influence to see how likely different weather events would have been.
The
researchers say that the current Siberian heat "has contributed to
raising the world's average temperature to the second hottest on record
for the period January to May".
What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic
The changing Arctic climate is of huge importance here in the UK.
Four
of the six main systems that determine this country's weather are
driven by conditions in the Arctic, said Dr Katharine Hendry of Bristol
University.
The so-called "Beast from the East", in the winter of 2018, is one.
It
involved Arctic air blasting the country, driving temperatures below 0C
for several days. Over half a metre of snow fell in some areas.
Arctic land surface temperature anomalies from 19 March to 20 June 2020. NASA
The storm is reckoned to have caused over £1bn of damage and claimed 10 lives.
The
paper published last month also cites the storms and floods in February
this year and ones back in 2015 as other possible examples of
Arctic-linked changes.
"The link between the Arctic and UK weather
is through the jet stream," said Prof Stott, referring to the ribbon of
fast-moving air high up in the atmosphere.
The jet stream helps move weather systems around the globe.
But sometimes it creates "blocking" patterns that can cause weather systems to stall.
The
unusually sunny spring experienced in the UK this year was caused by a
blocking pattern that allowed high pressure systems to dominate the UK
for months on end.
State of emergency
The heatwave in Siberia was caused by the same pattern but with even more dramatic results.
The
extreme temperatures led to a cascade of natural and human disasters
which prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to declare a state of
emergency in early June.
A vast fuel spill was caused by the
collapse of a reservoir containing 20,000 tonnes of diesel near the
Russian city of Norilsk in late May.
The BBC's Steve Rosenberg travels to the forest to see how Russians tackled 2019's wildfires
Arctic wildfires are estimated to have led to the release of 56 megatonnes of CO2 in June.
At
the same time, there has been widespread melting of the permafrost and
reports of unusually large swarms of Siberian silk moths that have
damaged trees, making them more susceptible to fire.
Uncertain future
It is well-known that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet.
Arctic temperatures are estimated to have risen 2C since 1850 compared with 1C globally.
What impact that will have on the world's weather is less certain.
"Looking
at the geological record, we don't think we've had CO2 levels as high
for about five million years," said Dr Hendry. "So we really don't know
what to expect into the future."
"We are," she said, "in uncharted territory".
This year's Siberian heatwaves shows just how extreme conditions can become.
What
worries many scientists is that this new climate era we are entering
means many places now experience weather conditions beyond anything
local ecosystems - or indeed human communities - have evolved to endure.
Some Singapore health care staff have been working in stifling heat. Image copyright Ng Teng Fong General Hospital
Millions of people
around the world could be exposed to dangerous levels of heat stress - a
dangerous condition which can cause organs to shut down.
Many live in developing countries, and do jobs that expose them to potentially life threatening conditions.
These include being out in the open on farms and building sites or indoors in factories and hospitals.
Global warming will increase the chances of summer conditions that may be "too hot for humans" to work in.
When we caught up with Dr Jimmy Lee, his goggles were steamed up and there was sweat trickling off his neck.
An emergency medic, he's labouring in the stifling heat of tropical Singapore to care for patients with Covid-19.
There's
no air conditioning - a deliberate choice, to prevent the virus being
blown around - and he notices that he and his colleagues become "more
irritable, more short with each other".
And his personal protective equipment, essential for avoiding
infection, makes things worse by creating a sweltering 'micro-climate'
under the multiple layers of plastic.
"It really hits you
when you first go in there," Dr Lee says, "and it's really
uncomfortable over a whole shift of eight hours - it affects morale."
Working in PPE in a tropical climate can be extremely uncomfortable. Image copyright Ng Teng Fong General Hospital
One danger, he realises, is that overheating can
slow down their ability to do something that's vital for medical staff -
make quick decisions.
Another is that they may ignore the
warning signs of what's called heat stress - such as faintness and
nausea - and keep on working till they collapse.
What is heat stress?
It's
when the body is unable to cool down properly so its core temperature
keeps rising to dangerous levels and key organs can shut down.
It
happens when the main technique for getting rid of excess heat - the
evaporation of sweat on the skin - can't take place because the air is
too humid.
Dr Angie Bone of Public Health England offers some tips and dispels some myths on staying cool
And as Dr Lee and other medics have found, the impermeable
layers of personal protection equipment (PPE) - designed to keep the
virus out - have the effect of preventing the sweat from evaporating.
According
to Dr Rebecca Lucas, who researches physiology at the University of
Birmingham, the symptoms can escalate from fainting and disorientation
to cramps and failure of the guts and kidneys.
"It can become very serious as you overheat, and in all areas of the body."
How can we spot it?
A
system known as the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) measures not only
heat but also humidity and other factors to give a more realistic
description of the conditions.
Back in the 1950s, the US military used it to work out guidelines for keeping soldiers safe.
When the WBGT reaches 29C, for example, the recommendation is to suspend exercise for anyone not acclimatised.
Yet that's the level Dr Lee and his colleagues are regularly experiencing at Singapore's Ng Teng Fong General Hospital.
And
at the top of the scale - when the WBGT registers 32C - the US says
strenuous training should stop because the risk becomes "extreme".
But levels that high have recently been recorded
inside hospitals in Chennai in India by Prof Vidhya Venugopal of the Sri
Ramachandra University.
She's also found workers in a salt pan
enduring a WBGT that climbs during the day to 33C - at which point they
have to seek shelter.
And in a steel plant, a ferocious level of
41.7C was recorded, the workers being among the most vulnerable to what
she calls "the huge heat".
"If this happens day-in, day-out,
people become dehydrated, there are cardiovascular issues, kidney
stones, heat exhaustion," Prof Venugopal says.
What impact will climate change have?
As
global temperatures rise, more intense humidity is likely as well which
means more people will be exposed to more days with that hazardous
combination of heat and moisture.
Prof Richard Betts of the UK Met
Office has run computer models which suggest that the number of days
with a WBGT above 32C are set to increase, depending on whether
greenhouse gas emissions are cut.
The US military developed heat stress guidelines to keep its soldiers safe. Image copyright Getty Images
And he spells out the risks for millions of people
already having to work in the challenging combination of extreme heat
and high humidity.
"We humans evolved to live in a particular
range of temperatures, so it's clear that if we continue to cause
temperatures to rise worldwide, sooner or later the hottest parts of the
world could start to see conditions that are simply too hot for us."
Another
study, published earlier this year, warned that heat stress could
affect as many as 1.2bn people around the world by 2100, four times more
than now.
What solutions are there?
According to Dr Jimmy Lee, "it's not rocket science".
People need to drink plenty of fluid before they start work, take regular breaks and then drink again when they rest.
His hospital has started laying on "slushie" semi-frozen drinks to help the staff cool down.
But he admits that avoiding heat stress is easier said than done.
For
him and his colleagues, going for rests involves the laborious process
of changing out of PPE and then back into a new set of equipment.
Avoiding heat stress is easier said than done. Image copyright Getty Images
There's a practical problem as well - "some people do not want to drink so they can avoid having to go to the toilet," he says.
And
there's a professional desire to keep working whatever the difficulties
so as not to let colleagues and patients down at a time of crisis.
People
who are highly motivated can actually be at the greatest risk of heat
injury, says Dr Jason Lee, an associate professor in physiology at the
National University of Singapore.
It's
spearheaded by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the US weather and climate agency
Noaa.
Dr Lee says that as well as measures like rest and
fluids - and shade for outdoor workers - a key strategy for resisting
heat stress is to be fit.
"By keeping yourself aerobically fit, you're also increasing your heat tolerance, and there are so many other benefits too."
And
he sees the challenge for medics, sweating inside their PPE as they
deal with Covid-19, as "almost like a full dress rehearsal" for future
rises in temperature.
"This climate change will be a bigger
monster and we really need a coordinated effort across nations to
prepare for what is to come.
"If not," he says, "there'll be a price to be paid."
