CDC's climate and health program started in 2009, though Luber laid the groundwork for it on his own beginning in 2005. Its work began with a focus on science but has expanded to helping state and local health officials integrate climate change into their other operations. It now funds programs in 16 states and two cities.
The program took off under the Obama administration, but Luber said it has more to do with the state of science than the state of politics. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report established that man-made global warming was happening, which required health scientists to take it seriously.
Luber dismissed the continued debate over climate science in the political sphere.
"The whole dialogue about climate deniers, that's irrelevant to me," he said. "I look at the science, and if somebody is a denier, they should look at the science, too."
Knowlton of NRDC, who worked with Luber and a team of contributing health scientists to write the chapter last year, said it was intended to educate the American public, including policymakers.
"The effort is intensely policy-relevant, but it can't be policy prescriptive," she said. While the assessment will help lawmakers have a clearer sense of the state of the science on climate and health, she said, it makes no policy recommendations.
But Knowlton was not shy about advocating for funding for climate and public health programs, which are expected to face tighter budgets in the coming years.
"The budget is at risk on this issue, at a time when both exposures and vulnerability is increasing," she said. "It benefits all of us to support that in the strongest possible way."
Some of these proposed reductions are coming from the White House itself. The president's budget for fiscal 2013 asked for only $4.8 million for CDC's climate change programs, down from $7.4 million the previous year. The budget is yet to be acted on by Congress.
HHS' climate-related programs are one example of a larger push by federal agencies to make strides on climate change adaptation and mitigation in the absence of action from Congress. Capitol Hill is expected to produce little or no climate-related legislation this Congress, but Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) has said she plans to reintroduce a bill soon that she sponsored in the 111th Congress to establish a strategy at HHS for addressing the public health effects of climate change.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentSome effects are less subtle than algae or illness. In 2010, Russia experienced the highest heat wave it had seen for 130 years. Subsequently, they stopped exporting wheat. Countries in the middle east are their major market. The 'Arab Spring' started as food price protests in Tunisia. Take a look at Table 10 here, http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/rr-impact-russias-grain-export-ban-280611-en.pdf. Tunisia was the poorest of the Russian customers, and that is where the unrest started. Coincidence? Unlikely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese kinds of heat waves have increased from 1 in more than 100-year events, to 1 in 10 year events, and the trend is upward. The Pentagon has it about right; climate change is a risk multiplier. We are inviting risk to the point where us suffering from it is becoming more likely than not.
More directly on same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://necsi.edu/research/social/food_crises.pdf
How come society as a whole has to pay for the damages from climate change while the fossil fuel companies that have profited from being able to spew their CO2 into the atmosphere FOR FREE get to laugh all the way to the bank? My only guess is that they got away with putting lead in gasoline or releasing acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide (among many other examples) for so long that they just expect the rest of us to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt also deletes comments that showed you're a science DENIER. In summary, I quoted the climate change statements from the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society and the American Physical Society all showing that people a lot smarter than you or I have determined that climate change is a problem and we neet to reduce emissions pronto.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart of the problem might be that they have successfully convinced many that their costs are the peoples' losses, and that it's just not worth paying a bit extra to accelerate the transition to greater efficiency and alternatives. No mention of 'future' costs though, for infrastructure, food and insurance etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should add that I fully appreciate the concerns of regular folks and business owners of modest means, who rely on the deeply ingrained fossil energy infrastructure for their livelihoods. But if we as a society are serious about this issue, some sort of international carbon pricing agreement is probably in order. And that may need to include a transitional dividend to at least lower income people, in order to allow time for a switch to newer technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this