Abstract
The editorial on climate change and biodiversity published in over 220 health journals in September had two main demands: keep global temperature increases below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid catastrophic damage to health; and accept that this can be achieved only by rich countries making bigger cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and transferring substantial resources to the countries’ most vulnerable the effects of climate change.1 Neither demand was fully met at COP26 in Glasgow. The editorial was also aiming to make the voice of the health community more prominent in global discussions on climate change and environmental destruction. Some progress was made with this aim, but again not enough. Although the mantra of COP26 was “keep 1.5°C alive,” the pledges made by countries to reduce emissions are insufficient to keep the temperature rise to below 1.5°C. Before COP26, the United Nations estimated that current pledges will lead to an increase of 2.7°C, a level that would lead to devastating effects on health through extreme weather events, crop failure, water shortages, forced migration, conflict, and a rise in sea level that will mean the disappearance of some island countries.2 Even with the additional pledges made at COP26, temperatures are expected to rise well above 2°C.3 We must encourage countries to be bolder in cutting emissions, promoting adaptation, supporting vulnerable countries – and do more to hold them to account. We must also concentrate on implementation, particularly within health systems where we have most influence.
Highlights
Christina Figueres, the head of the UN climate change convention in 2015 that achieved the Paris agreement, argues, that COP26 has made the aim of 1.5°C widely accepted, removing the aim of “below 2°C” that emerged in Paris.[4]
Broader damage to nature did not feature, which is partly because the UN process largely creates a separation between climate change, the focus of COP26, and biodiversity, which is being considered year at a conference in China
Net zero pledges made by businesses have attracted considerable doubts – and many remain full of loop holes, including allowing for continued investment in fossil fuels - leading the climate activist Greta Thunberg to call the conference “a global north greenwash festival, a two-week long celebration of business as usual and blah blah blah.”[7]. In response, the UN Secretary General has committed to establishing a “greenwashing” watchdog.[8]
Summary
Christina Figueres, the head of the UN climate change convention in 2015 that achieved the Paris agreement, argues, that COP26 has made the aim of 1.5°C widely accepted, removing the aim of “below 2°C” that emerged in Paris.[4]. The editorial in the health journals sought to connect the climate element of the environmental crisis with other damage to nature, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, harm to the oceans, and soil destruction.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
