Cover Image: March 2009 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Global Warming and Your Health

You should care about global climate change because it threatens your health














Share on Tumblr

The litany of direct health impacts associated with climate change is becoming well known. A rapidly warming world brings more heat-related deaths, more disease spread through contaminated food and water and by insects, and more injuries from more extreme storms. The most vulnerable individuals are the elderly, the very young and the medically infirm. And the most vulnerable people live in the poorest nations, which are least responsible for causing climate change and least able to cope with the consequences. But a pair of ailments is rising faster in rich nations than in poor ones: asthma and allergies.

These two respiratory illnesses are epidemic in the developed world, and the numbers are rising. In the U.S. alone, at least 50 million people suffer from allergies, costing $18 billion annually in health care. Asthma affects one in 14 American adults, almost one in 10 children, and is the leading cause of school absences. The more people are exposed to air pollution and pollen, the worse their symptoms are, and the more likely they are to develop additional allergies.

Climate change is measurably raising the concentrations of airborne substances that trigger such illnesses, notably ozone and pollens, and researchers are documenting a corresponding increase in cases. Ozone, the primary component of smog, is a powerful respiratory irritant that initiates wheezing in asthmatics, particularly children. Exposure to ozone during childhood can also impair normal lung growth and development and may contribute to new asthma, which can start at any age. Ozone is created when sunlight cooks pollutants in the atmosphere, some of which are from natural sources but most of which are from burning fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants and industrial processes. Of course, the more we burn, the more we produce those man-made precursor pollutants, such as nitrous oxides and so-called volatile organic compounds. Even without any increase in the precursors, hotter air driven by climate change will produce more ozone.

Pollens released by flowering plants and trees cause hay fever and can trigger asthma attacks. Many studies show that rising global temperatures have resulted in earlier and longer pollen seasons. Some studies also indicate that certain allergens, such as the pollen in ragweed, are being produced in higher quantities and have more potent allergenic components in warmer temperatures and in air with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. Finally, studies are emerging that directly link increased ambient temperatures, longer pollen seasons and higher daily pollen counts with more doctor visits for allergic symptoms. No doubt: a warming climate promotes more respiratory suffering.

Certain interventions can reduce the aggravation. First, all asthmatics and allergy sufferers need access to health care and appropriate medication. At-risk individuals can also be taught how to understand air-quality indices and daily pollen counts and to avoid excessive outdoor time and heavy exercise when airborne contaminants are abundant. But these are only Band-Aids. Ozone and pollen will simply get worse unless nations pursue aggressive emissions controls and a rapid transition to low- or no-carbon energy systems. Perhaps an increasing number of teary-eyed, sneezing, sleep-deprived, wheezing people who are missing work and school will generate sufficient political will in the wealthiest nations to stop greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the global climate. Gesundheit!

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Beware of Warming Sickness".


Buy This Issue
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Katherine M. Shea is a practicing physician and an adjunct professor of maternal and child health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


8 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. randydutton 04:23 PM 3/25/09

    Society has a very short term perspective on CO2. CO2 is down 85% from 540 million years ago when CO2 was 7000 ppm. Over the long-term CO2 is dropping at a linear rate. We were at 250 ppm 200 years ago and now are at 385 ppm. At 150-180 ppm most plant life on Earth DIES. And plant growth increases with higher CO2. We currently have about 30% more productivity because of the increased CO2.
    Here are the questions:
    1. Do you want to lower CO2 concentrations, which will cause lower agricultural production and thus cause massive global starvation?
    2. How low do you want CO2 to go? It will never "stabilize" because nature is always sequestering carbon underground, which places it inaccessible to recirculation.

    At pre-industrial revolution concentrations, and with a linear drop in CO2, Earth had about 10 million years to go before plant life starved to death. Mankind has inadvertantly increased longevity of the plant cycle on Earth. For those who hate mankind, it is an undeniable truth that man has benefited Earth's flora in the long-term.

    Write about that!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. randydutton 05:17 PM 3/25/09

    Guess what ecosolution increases the ozone mentioned in the article - ethanol. The very fuel ecopoliticians mandate us to use as fuel additive creates ozone. In fact, the WA State Dept of Ecology found that any more than 2% ethanol puts ozone rates about the limit in Seattle. Ethanol also increase formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions.

    Further, 3% of the fertilizer used to grow the corn for ethanol gets emitted into the air as N2O, which is 296X worse than CO2.

    Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. Shoshin 08:44 AM 4/27/09

    randydutton:

    Thanks for some common sense in this debate. I recently visited a Believers website that stated that when Antarctic ice was melting, it was evidence of AGW. Now that it is growing, that too is evidence of AGW. Talk abut wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

    I also find it sad that the Believers have abandoned the "Greenland Ice sheet is melting" argument, as now it isn't melting, so that apparently doesn't count.

    Or the "Alaska Glaciers are melting" as now they are growing, so that doesn't count either.

    They seem to have retreated to "These changes are all within the normal trend of global warming".

    That's what we Skeptics have said all along, except we add that the warming and cooling trends are ALL within the normal trend of the Earth's long term climate.

    I expect that AGW will eventually fade away into "All that stuff that we Believers said; Nevermind.."

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. dadoxin 05:38 AM 5/2/09

    RandyDutton,
    You are right in one aspect that global temperatures flucuate, and we will get hotter and colder. I think that if you read Hot, Flat and Crowded by Freeman it will open your eyes. He does not call our problem Golabal Waarming, he refers to it as Global Climate Change.
    I do not agree with the rest of your arguement. What is wrong with changing the way we as Americans do things? We can produce the same amount of agriculture and be clean about it at the same time. Read Freeman's book I have a copy that I would be willing to give you if you want.
    I know that you will not read it, because either one you are in a state that relies on polluting to earth, or 2 you are a true conservative that thinks the only way is the Republican way. I am a Republican also, however; we as a party need to reevaluate some of our principals or we will never be in power.


    Respectfully,
    Mike

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. pgtruspace 02:36 AM 5/28/09

    The last 5,000 years should have have taught us that Global Climate Change is normal and that cooling is very bad.
    As a farmer of over 50 years I will attest that the author of the article is lacking in real knowlage of the effects of climate warming.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. pgtruspace 02:50 AM 5/28/09

    Oh yes and I have lived in many different climate areas and as an asthmatic and allergy sufferer I can tell you that cool and damp is the worst condition, there is no best for an asthmatic as that's stress caused.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. mchellmer 02:29 PM 6/23/09

    ...Heat deaths rise yes, but cold deaths lower. For every extra person that dies of a heat related injury, there are ten that survive a possible cold injury.

    Also, more people lose there homes due to extreme environmenal conditions because more people can afford to live near beaches etc.

    Read Bjorn Laumbergs "Cool It"

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. andi123456 06:08 AM 7/14/09

    We should take care of global warming....


    Thanks for sharing...

    ___________________
    Andrew
    <a href="http://www.directstartv.com/jump.html?referID=oa-0-173189">Entertainment at one stop</a>

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

More to Explore

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Global Warming and Your Health: Special Editions

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X