It+Ain't+Easy+Being+Green-The+politics+of+climate+change+and+public+health

Sarah Carroll Student #8094292 Tutor: Colleen Niland

"//Climate change is about what we consume, the types of energy we produce and use, whether we live in a city or on a farm, whether we live in a rich or poor country, whether we are young or old, what we eat, and even the extent to which women and men enjoy equal rights and opportunities//." UN //State of the World Population 2009// "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population, and Climate"

Cultural Artefact


This artefact is a comic from the United States news publication “USA Today”. It is a satirical depiction of a presentation being given at the United Nations Global Climate Change summit held in Copenhagen in December 2009. The comic also depicts an audience member, asking an ironic, yet realistic, question of the presenter.

Public Health Issue
The public health issue this artefact represents is climate change. The Greens have been the most vocal advocates of aggressive climate change policies for Australia. Environmental factors stemming from climate change will have numerous adverse effects on the quality of public health and the Greens believe government has a responsibility as stewards to guide Australians to an increased level of environmental consciousness. However, this is not just a "Greens issue." The many benefits attributed to combatting climate change are routinely overshadowed by the politicization of climate change science. Australians need to see their elected officials constructively debating the implications of this issue instead of a hostile Parliament embroiled in a bitter political power struggle. This moves the debate away from the urgency of climate change, away from the merits of mitigation policies, and further exacerbates the population’s limited knowledge of the issue by making them focus on who to trust instead being informed and active participants in combating climate change.

Literature Review
Over the last decade, climate change has been increasingly scrutinized on the world stage and a general consensus has emerged that human activity has had a direct effect on the environment (Frumkin & McMichael, 2008). New innovations in climatology enable the scientific community to reframe the issue of global warming from an abstraction that is relegated to hapless polar bears afloat the Arctic Sea on fragments of melted glaciers. Scientists are now able to more accurately report and predict data to connect this urgent environmental occurrence to consequences that will directly and indirectly effect many aspects of human life.

Public health is one area climate change will most certainly effect. Understanding how far reaching and detrimental these effects are to the public’s health validates immediate execution of mitigation efforts. Mitigation policies reduce exposure to harmful environmental factors, thereby creating co-benefits for public health (Kinney, 2008). Ozone, for example, which increases with heat and the burning of fossil fuels, causes decreased lung function, and worsens asthma problems (Kinney). Curbing the burning of fossil fuels not only improves air quality but also protects the public from excessive inhalation of a health-damaging toxin. Also, higher temperatures and changes in the pattern of rainfall will lead to an increase in bushfires and the prevalence of flooding (Bambrick, Capon, Barnett, Beaty & Burton, 2011). Both of these events have direct, immediate effects on mortality, as the country recently witnessed in Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires and Queensland’s flooding (Haines, Kovats, Campbell-Lendrum & Corvalan, 2006). The loss of resources and human lives are compounded with long term effects of these disasters such as survivors left to deal with the emotional anguish and loss of loved ones, leading to increases in mental health issues such as depression.

Another potential problem caused by climate change is food security (Bambrick et al, 2011). The world reached a milestone on 31 October 2011 with the birth of its seven billionth person. The United Nations most recent State of the World Report examines the effects of climate change on the expanding population and if climate change remains unchecked it will have devasting impacts on immigration, economics, and personal livelihoods (United Nations Protection Fund, 2011). The growing population will also increase demands on food producers, which in turn can have a detrimental effect on the environment, if status quo industry manufacturing and consumption patterns are maintained. Food prices, preferences, dietary quality, and even food availability will be adversely affected if measures are not taken to protect and advance production methods and resources (Edwards et al, 2011). A change is consumer diets can have a positive impact on both the environment and public health. The most energy intensive foods to produce are the most heavily processed; refined foods from which public health practitioners recommend the public abstain. Eating more fruits and vegetables, and eating less meat can greatly decrease the emissions generated from livestock and food processing plants, and also reduce incidences of overweight, obesity, heart disease and Type II diabetes (Frumkin & McMichael, 2008). Additionally,higher temperatures discourages outdoor physical activity, further worsening the obesity problem in Australia and encourages the increased use of air conditioners, which increases energy demand (Bambrick et al, 2011).

These are just a few of the many public health implications of unmitigated climate change, but they inarguably demonstrate the direct link between environmental sustainability and public health. The scientific community is working to report the best evidence compiled through observation, statistical analysis of empirical relationships in historical records and modelling to predict future environmental events, and in extension, the likely effect on the human population (Haines et al,2006). Although an obvious limitation to predicting the future effects of climate change is the lack of absolute certainty of cause and effect, however just based on the past few years' global natural disasters, the devastation left in the wake of earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding and bushfires are irrefutable. Considering the significant impacts climate change will continue to have on not only public health, but on many other levels as well, why is the government seemingly more preoccupied with their own political interests instead of the population's?

Politically speaking, environmental issues are generally relegated to environmentally aligned parties, such as the Australian Greens. Both major Australian parties have been complicit in attempting to ruin the credibility of the Greens for their own political gain. Former Labour leader Mark Latham publicly referred to the Greens as, “a bunch of nutters” (//The Age//, 2011). Framing the Greens as an overzealous band of educated hippies that spout apocalyptic environmentalist nonsense may win the major parties more votes, but experienced politicians should remember that politics is all about perception, and the gravity of climate change is getting lost in their toxic spin cycles. Edwards et al also identify that competing interests and agendas in the government and private sectors are "muting" the complexities that must be understood to accomplish real and effective policy changes (p. 101).

Tackling climate change is proving to be a slow and laborious process both globally and in Australia. Globalization has made the world a smaller place and introducing climate change policies demands countries protecting their respective interests, must also forge some semblance of global cohesion in policy making (Boston & Lempp, 2011). The Australian government represents a microcosm of this problem within Parliament. However, regardless of the scale of compromise, the focus should remain firmly on improving environmental conditions and not scoring political points. Members of government should not be compounding the already arduous process by antagonising and alienating constituents who are largely unsure and undereducated about climate change. The recent global financial crisis has made Australians acutely aware of the power the government has over their lives, especially monetarily.This puts climate change policy at the distinct disadvantage of requiring "short term pain for long term gain" (Boston & Lemp, 2011). Garnering public support for mitigation policies will be difficult in the present economic climate, but is necessary and in Australia's best interest globally and domestically. Instead of being the hindrance to environmental progress by standing between credible scientific evidence and the people it will benefit, the government needs to show it can act in interest of the people instead of their own.

Culture and Social Analysis
The groups that influence and are affected by this issue are the political parties and the voters, respectively. Boston and Lempp in their article "Climate Change: Explaining and solving the mismatch between scientific urgency and political inertia," outline what they describe as "significant asymmetries" that discourage the process of making progress with climate change policies: voting asymmetry, cost-benefit asymmetry, and interest group asymmetry" (2011). These asymmetries are also a cross examination of cultural and societal factors in a democratic society and the process of effecting change.

Voting asymmetry postulates that voters generally do not think in terms of the big picture, but tend to think short term and also tend to "underestimate future benefits and overestimate present costs" (Boston and Lempp, 2011). One explanation for this mentality is the biological disposition humans possess to consume short-term resources as a survival mechanism (Irving, 2009). This is culturally demonstrated with society's addiction to technology, fast food, and ongoing debates of superannuation investment, public health, and climate change. It also appears to be a possible explanation as to why the issues of climate change and the environment are so easily marginalized to small fringe parties like the Greens and off of major political party agendas. Parties in power generally avoid policies with long term objectives because voters are reluctant to support initiatives from which they may not benefit. The government, not just environmental groups must effectively reduce the bigger picture of climate change to a smaller scale, like personal health impacts; something the average voter can relate to. This is especially vital to rural, low income voters as they are the demographic most negatively impacted by climate change and its associated public health risks due to limited access to quality healthcare and decreased ability to recover from financial setbacks due to environmental disasters like flooding and bushfires.

Cost-benefit asymmetry examines the perceived imbalance between the costs and benefits of proposed mitigation efforts. Research shows that these efforts are generally costly, and the prospect of an increased financial burden in the wake of a global financial crisis is undesirable and unpopular with voters (Boston and Lempp, 2011). In the short term, policies like the carbon tax, will incur immediate costs. While acknowledging the economic reality of adapting to climate change is important, using the carbon tax as a vehicle to demonise the Gillard government's policyas irresponsible by employing the same loathsome scare tactics conservatives rail against, is counterproductive to gaining the population's support and fostering genuine debate on the issue. The long term benefits of climate change policy may be difficult for the public to accept, especially because future generations are more likely to benefit from the present generation's investment (Boston and Lempp,2011). However, as with any technological advancement, the more that is invested, the lower the costs become as the process becomes as efficiency and cost-efficiency increase ( Anderson, 2007).

Interest group asymmetry is a politically charged hindrance to climate change policy. Big polluters will bear a more direct financial burden from climate change policies than the general public, as in the carbon tax policy. These big industries have much more incentive to mobilise politically to save their bottom lines, and give generously to political parties that will protect their interests. Considering the $500,000 Clive Palmer, CEO of mining conglomerate, Mineralogy, donated to the Liberal Party last year, it it isn't hard to believe that Tony Abbott made his melodramatic "blood oath" to repeal the carbon tax if he replaces Julia Gillard as prime minister (Australian Electoral Commission, 2010). Corporations are beholden to their stockholders, not the public; however, the government most certainly is (Anderson, 2007). Continuing to shield the country's biggest polluters perpetuates the status quo and stalls industrial innovation. It also sends the message to voters that deep pockets and political donations determine government policy and not democracy. This further exacerbates apathy, mistrust, the two previously mentioned asymmetries.

Analysis of the Artefact
This artefact represents how the public, despite credible evidence, can easily negate the benefits of policies on climate change or public health. People want to believe they are capable of making informed, responsible decisions and because climate change is such a complex issue, they are more sensitive to the possibility of being manipulated. This results in an increase in the inherent tension between the government and the governed. In respect to climate change, the fear of being railroaded by scientific evidence cloaked in the political rhetoric of which they are already suspicious, redirects their focus to the exact question being asked in the cartoon, and totally ignoring the fact combatting climate change will, in fact, make the world a better place.

Learning Reflections
I, like many other people in the world, have not before now pursued the topic of climate change. I have always had a keen interest in politics and health, so have come across the issue of climate change in a political context, but not a public health perspective. I think if the public health impacts of climate change were more widely known, more people would take an active interest in trying to understand the issue and more importantly, how they can personally make a difference. This assignment has definitely reinforced the importance of seeking out as much information as you can, from credible, independent sources, and use what you learn to form your own opinions; but always be learning.

Learning Engagement and Reflection Task
'Children Waiting For The Day They Feel Good' - The Salience of Depression in Adolescence and Young Adulthood Feedback: I thought your article was very well researched and presented. With most of this class being involved one way or another in public health, I think it's frustrating to think that a something like depression can be so marginalised in the effect is has on people, especially children. In a world of quick fixes and unrealistic expectations, that someone can just "be happy" whenever they want and not succumb to depression, just further exacerbates the problem. Great job with this wiki! Sarah Carroll

Are you still hungry? The consequences of media pressure on Generation Y. Feedback: You have done a wonderful job communicating the urgency of this issue. The Dove adverstisement was just perfect-really showed the frenzy and chaos of trying to be "perfect." This issue is so important for women of both Generation X and Y. Generation X is aging, and this onslaught of unattainable beauty standards has a detrimental effect on older women who feel they may be "losing their looks," in addition to Gen Y who have grown up being engrained with these images. I think "The Beauty Myth" should be required reading for all high school girls!! Excellent work! Sarah Carroll