Climate change is bad for our health
Rochester Business Journal by Abigail McHugh-Grifa
April 1, 2024
When I first became concerned about climate change, I didn’t think of it as a public health issue. Now I know better. Climate change and fossil fuel use negatively impact our health in myriad ways, both directly and indirectly, and over the short and long term. Climate change exacerbates existing health problems and causes new health concerns. Here are a few locally-relevant examples to give you a sense of what I’m talking about:
For a few days last June, our region had some of the worst air quality in the world, thanks to wildfire smoke that blew down from Canada. As a result, asthma-related emergency room visits spiked. It’s fair/accurate to blame climate change for this, because a warmer climate increases the frequency and severity of wildfires by creating hotter, drier, more flammable landscapes. Unfortunately the wildfire season in Canada has begun early this year and is expected to be worse than last year, so we may be breathing nasty air again soon.
The air we breathe is also negatively impacted by the fossil fuels we burn inside our homes (and outdoors). Gas stoves, for example, can emit a surprising array of pollutants, both when they are in use and when they are off, including nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, formaldehyde, benzene, and methane. Except for methane, these pollutants are directly harmful for our bodies (e.g., causing cancer and respiratory illness). Methane (the primary component of natural gas) is a very potent greenhouse gas that leaks from pipes all along the supply chain (including, in some cases, at the point of use), indirectly jeopardizing our health by causing average global temperatures to rise and all the problems associated with that, such as the wildfires described above. When burned, methane/natural gas turns into carbon dioxide, which is a less potent greenhouse gas, but since it stays in the atmosphere for a much longer time, it’s still very problematic. These same pollutants can also come from gas furnaces, but because building codes require better ventilation for furnaces, they are less likely to cause poor indoor air quality.
Unfortunately, gas stoves have become a remarkably controversial and polarizing issue in our country, because disinformation and fear mongering have created widespread confusion about what the real health consequences and proposed solutions are. This is disheartening, but not unusual when science demonstrates that profitable products are harming human health. As someone who has been using an induction cooktop and living in an all-electric home for several years, I sincerely believe that most people would gladly choose these technologies, if politics weren’t a factor, because they simply work better and are better for us.
Climate change also increases the frequency and severity of major storms and flooding. Our region has seen quite a bit of this over recent years. Last July, for example, Canandaigua was hit by torrential rain that made roads impassable, caused widespread power outages, and flooded many homes, requiring residents to be evacuated. Two facilities for people with disabilities were severely impacted, displacing the residents and causing $1.4 million in damages for those properties alone. Though no local people died, the Hudson Valley was also hit hard by this storm, and a woman there was swept away and drowned.
Because I don’t want to depress you too much, I’ll mention just a few other ways that climate change and fossil fuel use impact our health – Lyme disease, toxic algal blooms, climate anxiety, heat-related illness – though it’s important to note that I’m only scratching the surface of this enormous and complex issue.
But we are not doomed! We know exactly what is causing these health problems, so we just need to stop doing the thing that is harming us (viz., using fossil fuels). I’m not saying it will be easy, because of course there are many powerful forces that are holding the problem in place (e.g., inertia and misaligned financial incentives), but if we value our personal health and the health of our community, there are plenty of achievable, win-win solutions that we could implement in the near term, with minimal associated costs or risks.
Here’s an obvious example: Getting a free energy audit for your home to (1) identify health and safety hazards, (2) identify energy and cost saving opportunities, and (3) give you the information you need to start planning your home’s transition to clean energy. One caveat: Because most energy audits are performed by contractors who are trying to sell you something, they don’t always have your best interests at heart and may therefore lead you astray. So if they tell you that a heat pump won’t work in your house, you should probably get a second (and maybe third) opinion. I would also invite you to have a conversation with one of our Energy Advisors, who have no financial stake in what you decide to do with your home. You can get in touch with them via the AMPED website, or just email me for a referral.
If our region’s hospital systems were to serve more locally-sourced, sustainably-produced, plant-based meals, that would be a win-win-win-win-win solution at the systems level. The benefits would include (1) improved patient health, (2) lower greenhouse gas emissions, (3) cost savings, (4) improved soil quality, and (5) financial stability for local farmers. There is clear evidence that this kind of approach works: A hospital system in New York City achieved a 36% reduction in their food-related carbon emissions and cut costs by ~59 cents per tray by making plant-based meals the default option for patients. Based on the very high satsifaction ratings they receive, it’s also clear that patients enjoy these meals.
Implementing climate solutions within hospital systems is critically important, because the healthcare industry is currently responsible for ~8.5% of our country’s total emissions. That’s a lot, but Rochester Regional Health provides a great local example of how this industry can clean up its act, while improving the health of our community and reducing healthcare costs. According to the sustainability page on their website, RRH saves more than $2.4 million annually as a result of their energy efficiency, renewable energy, and waste reduction initiatives. Even if climate change weren’t a concern, that would still be a smart way to do business.
In 2021, New York State’s Climate Action Council conducted a cost-benefit analysis to understand the financial implications of NY’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which requires net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050. They found that implementing the law would require a minimum investment of $10 billion per year, with annual increases. This seems like a lot until you consider the return on that investment. Their analysis showed that the cost of inaction would exceed the cost of action by more than $115 billion. Additionally, “improvements in air quality, increased active transportation, and energy efficiency interventions in low-to-moderate income homes generates health benefits ranging from approximately $155 billion to $160 billion,” and “reduced greenhouse emissions avoids the economic impacts of damages caused by climate change equaling approximately $240 to $255 billion.” So in other words, implementing the law would make us healthier, safer, and richer. That sure sounds like good policy to me.
If you’re curious to learn more about the connection between climate and health, please consider attending our upcoming Climate Solutions Summit. We have many fantastic speakers lined up, who will be digging into this topic in detail and identifying concrete next steps that our community can/should prioritize to keep ourselves healthy, safe, and cool, both now and in the future. All are welcome. No previous knowledge or experience needed. I look forward to seeing you there!