Health and ethics must be included in future climate change talks

Human health and health ethics considerations must be given equal status to economic considerations in climate change deliberations and furthermore, the health community, led by health ministers and the World Health Organization, must play a central role in climate change deliberations, argues an international expert in this week's PLoS Medicine.

Jerome Singh from the University of Kwazulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa, who also works at the University of Toronto, Canada, says: "The gap in ethics governance concerning climate change decision-making underscores the argument that policy-making on a variety of issues impacting climate change, including energy, transport, and development, needs to be underpinned by ethically sound principles, not just economic and legal considerations."

Dr Singh argues that the human health implications of climate change must receive greater prominence and be the main focus of future climate change deliberations. He makes the case for the responsibility of governments, the private sector, financiers, and society to practice socially responsible investment and to mitigate against the impact of climate change, particularly in relation to human health.

Going forward, Dr Singh argues that any ethics-based climate change guidance framework for investors, policymakers, and the private sector should incorporate relevant principles from the fields of bioethics, public health ethics, and global ethics."

Dr Singh concludes: "Given that deliberations for a binding international treaty commence at [The 18th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change] in Doha 2012, there is an urgent need to devise such a multi-disciplinary synergized framework so that it can influence deliberations at future [Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change] meetings especially in the run-up to 2015, when a legally binding agreement is expected to come into effect, as outlined in the Durban Platform."

More information: Singh JA (2012) Why Human Health and Health Ethics Must Be Central to Climate Change Deliberations. PLoS Med 9(6): e1001229. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001229

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN: Canada still obliged to fight climate change

Dec 13, 2011

The UN climate chief on Tuesday voiced regret over Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and said that the country still had legal obligations to work against global warming.

55 million years of climate change

Jun 27, 2011

State-of-the-art climate models, as used in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, could be giving a false sense of security in terms of upcoming abrupt change, suggests a Commentary ...

UN chief calls for urgent action on climate change

Sep 08, 2011

(AP) -- United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday that urgent action was needed on climate change, pointing to the famine in the Horn of Africa and devastating floods in northern Australia ...

Small nations push climate at Commonwealth talks

Oct 26, 2011

Pacific island and other small countries being punished by global warming will use a Commonwealth summit this week to ramp up pressure on powerful nations in the climate change debate.

Recommended for you

Hospital logs staggering 2.5 million alarms in just a month

9 hours ago

Following the study of a hospital that logged more than 2.5 million patient monitoring alarms in just one month, researchers at UC San Francisco have, for the first time, comprehensively defined the detailed causes as well ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2012
Save the planet?

Since nothing besides a comet hit is worse than a planetary climate crisis, I need the IPCC to be crystal clear in convincing me that my kids are really doomed to unimaginable suffering and a CO2 death. Can anyone find where the IPCC gives their deadly predictions of a climate hell without using the words possibly or potentially etc.?

Why are journalists not asking these questions?