Today, a top government health official announced that climate change will have a "significant impact" on health, particularly the elderly and children, in the "next few decades."
Howard Frumkin, a senior official of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gave a detailed summary on the likely health impacts of global warming at a congressional hearing. But he refrained from giving an opinion on whether carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, should be regulated as a danger to public health.
Frumkin presented some details about the type of public health impacts from climate change. This was important testimony of our government admitting that global warming is not a myth, that the impacts will include much more than warmer temperatures, and that the time frame of impacts happening is the "next few decades." However, this information would have been released a year ago if the WH had not censored the testimony that was presented at that time.
The CDC tried to stay on the sidelines of the issue whether the EPA should be regulating CO2 under the federal Clean Air Act. However, Frumkin did admit the following:
"To the science, there is strong evidence the carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas ... and that there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health in many ways."
A year ago, the US Supreme Court stated what most everyone knew, CO2 is a pollutant under federal law, and directed the EPA to "determine whether CO2's link to climate change endangers public health or welfare. If it does, it must be regulated, said the court." The EPA has apparently obediently maintained a familiar Bushie strategy of delaying compliance with the law.
Frumkin informed Congress of a range of "major anticipated health" issues that will be caused by climate change:
Among them, the prospects of more heat waves that are of special danger to the elderly and the poor; more incidents of extreme weather posing a danger of drought in some areas and flooding in others; increase of food-borne and waterborne infectious diseases; more air pollution because of higher temperatures; and the migration into new areas of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases such as Lyme disease, West Nile virus, malaria or dengue fever as seasonal patterns change.
The health issues also include
"injuries and illnesses from severe weather, floods, and heat exposure; increases in disease caused by allergies, respiratory problems, and illnesses carried by insects or in water; and threats to the safety and availability of our food and water supplies. Less direct effects can include worry, depression, and the negative impacts of mass migration and regional conflicts."
Last week, the American Public Health Association (APHA) issued a report to kick off its campaign to inform Americans about the impacts on public health from climate change, including anticipated regional impacts:
Midwest and Northeast. Major cities such as New York and Chicago could see temperatures that would mean more heat stress and heatstroke. The poor and the elderly would be hit especially hard.
Northwest. Heavy rainfall may lead to flooding and overflow of sewage systems, causing an increase in the spread of disease.
Southwest. Higher temperatures and decreased rain are likely to strain already limited water sources, increasing the likelihood of wildfires and air pollution.
Great Plains. Increased temperatures could mean scorching summers and more mild winters — which would significantly hurt food production.
Southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coast. Hurricanes and other weather events are expected to last longer and be more intense. That would mean bigger storm surges, more damage to buildings and roads, and contaminated food and water.
Last October, the CDC's director, Julie Gerberding, testified before a Senate Committee, but presented a generally perky picture filled with those Orwellian Bushie phrases, like "Healthy Forest Initiative" which sounds legit until you hear the logging companies chopping down the trees:
An effective public health response to climate change can prevent injuries, illnesses, and death and enhance overall public health preparedness. Protecting Americans from adverse health effects of climate change directly correlates to CDC’s four overarching Health Protection Goals of Healthy People in Every Stage of Life, Healthy People in Healthy Places, People Prepared for Emerging Health Threats, and Healthy People in a Healthy World.
However, CDC officials soon disclosed that the WH had "heavily edited" her testimony, which would have included more information on health risks had it not been censored. One CDC official said her testimony had been "eviscerated," noting that it was customary for testimony to be changed by the WH, but this review cut the document from 14 pages down to 4 pages.
The White House’s deletions included "details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels."
Of course, this is not the first time that the Bushies have censored what information government scientists and officials may disclose to the public on global warming:
The Bush administration has not only repeatedly attempted to suppress global warming facts, but has also muzzled its officials from speaking out. A January report found 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years. The administration also attempted to censor the government’s top global warming scientist, James Hansen, who has been outspoken about the dangers of climate change.
The other key issue is when will climate change impacts be happening? Many discuss the impacts of global warming today in our temperatures, severity and frequency of storms, shorter seasons, etc. However, oftentimes I read that if climate change indeed happens, then the time period discussed is over the next 50-100 years, as if it is something that we need not worry about now.
Now, a government official is talking about climate change impacts in the next few decades. Yet, we still do not have effective laws to regulate greenhouse gases, no federal regulation over CO2, no real measures to not just address global warming, but how to prepare for climate change impacts now. What if there are several global warming storms at the same time in different parts of the country? If Bush could not handle Katrina, how would he respond to several severe storms?
Is it time yet to at least move the importance of global warming up a notch or two on our lists of primary issues to be handled by Congress?