Organizations such as the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change have released reports detailing the nearly exponential increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, confidently suggesting that this increase is the consequence of the last century of human practices (1).  These practices are a byproduct of the lifestyle that has developed in the Global North since cities started 5,500 years ago (2).  Since the onset, city life has been desirable even though cities were initially plagued with disease (2). Disease arouse due to the close quarters people lived in and the lack of sanitation and disease control practices (2). This caused the mortality rate to be very high but did not deter people from moving out of the countryside and into the city (2). This constant influx allowed for urban populations to be sustained and for city life culture to develop (2). Establishing a culture of overconsumption, which required agricultural expansion in order to sustain the increased demand for food and goods (2).

By the 1880’s the emergence of cheap fossil fuels allowed cities to expand even further, while also increasing the output of the agricultural sector in order to ensure that urban lifestyles could be sustained (2). During this time sanitation and disease prevention practices also increased substantially, allowing cities to be relatively healthier places (2). Infectious and contagious diseases were no longer rampant but the cultivation and burning of fossil fuels instigated a new set of health risks (2). The burning created a very thick smog over the cities that did not allow very much sunlight to penetrate through, preventing children from producing vitamin D and making them vulnerable to the disease rickets (2). Also, the particulates left in the air from the burning collected in adults’ lungs and caused the development of emphysema as well as other lung disorders (2). This suggests that from the onset cities have been vectors for disease.

Contagious and infectious diseases and more recently diseases from the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels have historically afflicted urban populations. Presently, overconsumption culture and the use of fossil fuels are jointly impacting the health of the Global North.  For instance, overconsumption is one the main factors that has lead to the substantial increase of obesity in urban populations (3). Individuals who are obese are able to develop this condition by having access to large amounts of food and to transportation that promotes physical inactivity (3). This is important to keep in mind when visualizing the relationship between health and global warming. Since the sector that deals with meat production releases some of the most potent greenhouse gases, it would be beneficial for the Global North to reduce their meat intake (3). Reducing meat consumption to 90 grams a day would greatly decrease instances of obesity and diseases associated with it (3). Individual transportation that has also allowed for physically inactive lives account for almost half of the world’s use of oil (3). An increase in accessibility of active transportation such as walking and cycling would also see health improvements and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (3). This example highlights the importance of looking at the relationship between health and global warming in order to find solutions that holistically increase the world population’s quality of life. Perhaps educating the public about the environmental benefits of a healthier lifestyle will increase their desire to modify their lifestyle.

(1) “The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases.” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change. 2007. Web. 9 June 2013.

(2) McNeill, J.R. (2010). The First Hundred Thousand Years.  Frank Uekoetter, ed., The Turning Points of Environmental History (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 13-28.

(3) Butler, C.D., McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Uauay, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The Lancet, 370 (9594), 1253-1263. DOI:10.1016/S0140- 6736(07)61256-2

In order to achieve environmental justice, a broader definition of the environment needs to be introduced (1). Bullard suggests that the environment is not only the natural world but also the cultural world, which includes where we live, work, study and play (1).  I believe it is important to view the cultural world on an international scale in order to include the entire human population. Since environment justice necessitates the need for legislature and policies that protect the socially disadvantaged as they are often the ones harmed by environmentally damaging practices (1). Internationally, disadvantaged countries need to be protected from the effects of global warming produced by the Global North, as they do not have the capacity to deal with issue they did not create. Although the entire world is affected by global warming and disadvantaged countries are feeling the effects. For example, Africa is experiencing climatic conditions that are favorable to disease transmission in areas that were previously protected (2).

Historically, the highland areas acted as a natural barrier from malaria as they did not have the desirable conditions for breeding the mosquitoes that carry the disease (2). However in the past two decades countries such as Ethiopia, Western Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, which are part of the highlands, have seen an uncharacteristic malaria epidemic  (2). It is believed that global warming has attributed to this by increasing the temperature of the highlands, creating a survivable habitat for mosquitoes, which is currently having a very serious impact on public health (2). These nations are not well equipped to deal with global warming induced disease and need the Global North to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (2). It has become quite evident that the Global North has a long way to go and that responsibility and action needs to be taken in order to protect vulnerable individuals and nations.

(1) Schweizer, E. (1999). Environment justice: An interview with Robert Bullard. Earth First! Journal. Retrieved from http://www.ejnet.org/ej/bullard.html

(2)  Tesi, Moses. (2011). Global warming and health: The issue of malaria in Eastern Africa’s Highlands. Centre for International Governance Innovation: Africa Initiative.

As indicated above, urban life is intimately connected with disease and the environment. It seems it would serve us better to focus on increasing our health and allowing this to function as a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, rather then the current scare tactics various organization are employing.

For example, Buckner posted of the ForestEthics blog that (1):

“I joined at least a thousand people at the Civic Center, all converging for a public forum to demand a humane response from Chevron and the City of Richmond. Our demands included basic health care, compensation for damages, perhaps even a promise to address critical structural issues at that Chevron refinery.

After all, only a few days prior, Chevron’s Richmond refinery had exploded. Negligence to fix corroding pipes resulted in a catastrophe that sent 15,000 residents to the hospital.”

Clearly, Chevron is directly responsible for negatively affecting the health of 15,000 residents. Perhaps it would serve us better to focus on how dangerous the company is and the imminent risk that surrounds the people who live near it, rather than condemning it for refining oil. Obliviously the two are closely related but perhaps this change in perspective will reduce public apathy. Since recent research has demonstrated that the public comprehends climate change and that their apathy stems from a conflict of interest, I believe shifting the issues away from controversial socio-political issues to the basic human right of health could alleviate this (2).

Although, an interesting article in Forbes would disagree with me. The author suggests that American’s are aware of climate change and think it is an issue that governments, political groups and scientists are working jointly on and does not necessitate individual response (3).

“In a Gallup survey from 1989, 35% of respondents told interviewers they worried a great deal about global warming. In its March 2009 poll, nearly the same number, 34%, said they did. Further, the issue ranked dead last–20th of 20 issues–when the Pew Research Center asked respondents to list top priorities for President Obama and Congress. In an ABC/ Washington Post poll on the same topic, global warming ranked 11th out of 11 issues.

The issue sprang to life in the late 1960s, and it soon became clear from the polls that Americans wanted a clean and healthy environment and were willing to take reasonable steps to achieve it.

The environment became a core value. When we as a nation agree on the goals policy should serve, we usually step back from the discussions about the means by which those goals should be achieved. Most of us are busy, and we don’t have time to read the latest reported changes in water quality or global temperature over the past century.

In other words, we follow debates casually. As a back-handed compliment to our system of representative democracy, we are content to let competing interest groups, political parties and others debate the next policy steps, reasonably confident that good policy will result from the clash of interests. This understanding of how public opinion forms explains why global warming isn’t a top priority.”

Regardless of the source of apathy, I believe it is important find a mechanism that inspires individuals to change their current way of life and promote a healthy environment that is not only based on the natural world but also the international cultural world.

(1) Buckner, E. (2013, Aug 2). This Saturday, the San Francisco Bay area says ‘no’ to tar sands refining in Richmond. ForestEthics Blog.Retrieved from http://forestethics.org/blog/saturday-san-francisco-bay-area-says-no-tar-sands-refining-richmond

(2) Braman, D., Kahan, D.M., Mandel, G., Ouellette, L.L., Peters, E., & Wittlin, M. (2012)  The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732-735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547

(3) Bowman, K. (2009, April 20). American apathy and global warming. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/17/global-warming-earth-day-polls-opinions-columnists-environment.html