I'm an author on the new #ipcc report and I study the connections between climate change and emerging diseases. 🧵: is climate change connected to Covid? Could it cause more pandemics? Here's some of what the report says. (And also my own shameless thoughts)
You probably know that wildlife trade, agriculture, and deforestation are all driving disease emergence. But the new #ipcc impacts report shows that climate change is the backdrop for all of that. (Ch. 2, p. 41)
There's a great FAQ in chapter 2: "How does climate change increase the risk of diseases?" The short version: climate change is transforming every aspect of ecosystems. Growing human-wildlife contact gives that a chance to play out in human health.
(Shameless plug: it's still just a preprint, but if you want to read more about how climate change will reshuffle the global virome in animals, we've got a great @viralemergence study on bioRxiv that talks about these changes!)
The problem is that it's incredibly hard to actually document the human health impacts of climate change. Almost all of our evidence is about vector-borne and diarrheal disease. See this from the heath chapter (Ch. 7):
This is partly because those are some of the diseases that matter most on the frontline of climate impacts - which is great. But it's also because these are the impacts that are the most directly related to climate hazards (easier to attribute, but not necessarily higher burden)
When it comes to zoonotic diseases (those that start in animals - like Ebola, SARS, or influenza), things get more muddled and multicausal, and the evidence base becomes murkier.
We desperately need to close that "attribution gap". Even for vector-borne and diarrheal diseases, we're lagging way behind methodologically. Take this stunning figure - this framework is *ancient* in climate years. It dates back to a 2004 study! apps.who.int/iris/handle/10…
(Another shameless plug: developing methods to solve this attribution problem is what my own personal research has focused on for the last few years! e.g., this study on growing plague risk. Another *very* cool preprint coming on this in a couple weeks.)
So how about attribution for the health burdens of a pandemic? Does climate change shape human-to-human transmission?
Respiratory viruses can be very climate-sensitive, but we don't have a great sense of the net impact on flu, and human behavior is often more important (as it was with Covid). Still work to do here, but changes in spillover probably more important. (p. 7-32, 7-33)
The biggest lessons from COVID-19 in this report are about how we handle life in a time of crisis. There's tons in Chapter 7 and elsewhere, so I'll just stick to this key message (p. 7-7)
(Final shameless plug: we wrote last year about how emergency response on the pandemic would crash into climate change impacts. Interesting to revisit in retrospect nature.com/articles/s4155…)
So, in summary:
🦇 ecosystem changes impact disease spillover
🦟 we know the most about vector-borne and diarrheal disease
📈 we need better ways to identify more complicated impacts on infectious disease
🏥 social vulnerability matters; health system strengthening is adaptation
Climate change has killed at least four million people. I wrote this because I felt like I was the only one who had noticed. If you ever read and share anything I've written, I hope it'll be this short piece, out today in @NatureMedicine nature.com/articles/s4159…
Cutting greenhouse gasses isn't enough anymore. National governments have to meet the challenge of climate and health with substantive commitments: access to essential medicines; access to high-quality care; access to food and clean water. And @WHO needs to give them a blueprint.
The present-day death toll of climate change exceeds every public health emergency of international concern before Covid-19 combined.
Eventually, @WHO will have to convene an Emergency Committee. The only question is whether @DrTedros wants it to be his legacy or the next DG's.
As an expert in climate change impacts on biodiversity, with half a decade of experience studying extinction, I think this kind of rhetoric from scientists toes the line on climate denial, and I think the way journalists relay it probably crosses that line theintercept.com/2022/12/03/cli…
There should be more perspectives from people who study climate-biodiversity relationships in these pieces as a counterfactual - it tells you something you don’t see those people espousing this framing. It’s really deeply troubling.
I also think it’s deeply telling that this framework mangles the idea of overshoot - an idea specific to passing policy targets temporarily with a long-term return, which is currently a top issue in climate - into a rephrase of safe operating spaces / planetary boundaries
Real talk, my most regretted pre-pandemic project idea that I shelved was putting together a podcast of climate scientists and writers doing 30 minutes of a climate-themed DnD campaign and 15 minutes of this-week-in-climate talkback. I'd still do it if I had the time!
It's especially hard not to go back to this idea after watching @dimension20show's A Starstruck Odyssey season, which I think plays with some of the same themes of capitalist dystopia that would make this a fun exercise while also keeping it light, fun, and meaningful
Absolutely fascinating because, among other things, absolutely all of this shit is completely and 100% made up. It's exactly as real a vision of the future as Spelljammer 5e. But, there are people who earnestly believe it, which is part of why science communication matters here
The geology, hydrology, ecology of this is 99% fabricated in service of an extremely real and consequential politic that imagines a second great era of colonialism. "Doomerism" isn't having a tired moment reading the newspaper: it's this specific accelerationist imaginary
I say this as someone who's famously skeptical about science communication: projects like Survive the Century from @beckbessinger, @EnviroSimon, and @christrisos matter here because they give the public tools to talk in the same terms about better futures survivethecentury.net
I know I've been quiet about work lately, between Verena ramp-up and a family medical emergency, so here are some other folks' work I'm very excited about or spending a lot of time with right now
The Polycrisis, over at @phenomenalworld and organized by @kmac and co., is an exciting new take on what's happening in the geopolitics and global strategy of climate and the things it touches 👇 phenomenalworld.org/interviews/geo…
The Climate Risk Lab at the University of Cape Town is doing a ton of important work right now on biodiversity, health, adaptation, justice, and the African continent - and I'm super excited to host @christrisos this week for a seminar on all of that! georgetown.edu/event/climate-…
The idea that "monkeypox spillback into rodents will prevent it from ever being eliminated" seems to be taking hold lately in some people's fears. At this stage, it's scientifically incorrect 🧵
1. Let's talk terminology.
A pathogen is eliminated when human-to-human transmission is fully interrupted (you achieve "zero human cases" for some length of time you decide makes sense).
A pathogen is eradicated when it's *gone* (think smallpox: only exists in labs).
(These terms are also generally used by global health practitioners to denote spatial scale - a country might eliminate a pathogen before it's globally eradicated; here I'm going to use both to mean global scale, as in, elimination is the end of "this" global outbreak.)