Climate Change: Health

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Lord Donoughue

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Donoughue]

I accept that rebuke from the noble Lord. I trust that he will never in his life say 1% instead of one degree. It is 150 years since the cool cycle turned down, so it is not surprising if the climate turns up and gets a little warmer.

In the 21st century, the warming is virtually zero. Who knows what is going to happen? I certainly do not. Many alarmists claim to know, but I do not. Reason suggests that we are in a cycle, so warming will resume; I accept that. The question is whether it resumes at an alarming rate that will damage the planet and people’s health, as we are discussing. I do not deny that that may happen. However, the claims that it will certainly happen are based not on observational evidence but on 100-odd physical models making forecasts. They have not been successful so far in the 21st century. When they were published at the beginning of the century, they forecast significant warming during these first two decades, but that has not happened. However, as I say, it may.

On current observed facts, one sees modest warming—grounds certainly for concerned monitoring and for taking action as the facts emerge. We should monitor carefully and take measured mitigation measures. If the situation grows more alarming, I would be alongside the noble Lord in wishing to see urgent action taken. However, we do not see that situation now. When people talk about controlling climate change, I am always intrigued by how on earth they think they will do that. Climate change strikes me as a huge, dynamic force and I am not sure that we have the power to control it.

I know there is evidence that health issues arise in areas where the global warming cycle is having an effect, but global warming in itself does not seem to me—certainly in these early stages—to constitute a threat to health. For a start, it certainly does not increase mortality. It is estimated that in the United Kingdom three deaths per 100,000 of the population are heat related. That situation would presumably continue with global warming. However, 61 deaths per 100,000 of the population are cold related, so a cooling cycle, should it ever reappear, would be intrinsically more threatening to health than a warming one. Modest warming reduces temperature-related deaths. In the United States, a famous study at Stanford University concluded that warming there of 2.5 degrees centigrade would reduce deaths in the United States by 40,000 a year and reduce medical costs—

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Is my noble friend aware of a recent modelling study by Forzieri, which showed that extreme weather events of heat and cold, including other weather events promoted by climate change, are now estimated to cause 50 times the current number of deaths from both those factors? Therefore deaths from heat, drought, floods and windstorms outweigh the reduction in deaths from cold that he has outlined.

[Lord Donoughue]

I was aware of that study but we were discussing health today, and I was producing numbers on that.

In the United Kingdom, the forecast warming to 2050—if it continues at the present rate; if it increased it would be more—is forecast to cause an extra 2,000 heat-related deaths. However, we in the UK would of course benefit by 20,000 fewer cold-related deaths. People so far adapt better through technology to increases in heat than they do to increased cold, especially since the extra costs of renewable energy make heating for the poorer part of the population, who I should mention, pay the bulk of the cost for the climate change ventures, more than they can afford.

To get more particular, malaria is often referred to, and may be also today, as a kind of victim result of warming. In fact—I will try hard to get the fact correct in this case—deaths from malaria have fallen this century from 839,000 to 445,000 annually. My conclusion, shared by many who have studied the subject, is that malaria, like other diseases primarily in underdeveloped countries, is linked most to economic welfare—to GDP per capita. That being the case, the UK’s opulent overseas aid programme is perhaps a little misdirected in that it concentrates so much on renewables when it might go more to improving economic growth and the institutional provision of health.

The Lancet magazine recently joined the band wagon in blaming fossil fuels for global pollution. Those two articles have been subject to serious criticism, which noble Lords may wish to pursue, and they seem to ignore the research, especially by Lelisfeldt and others, which shows that the main cause of pollution, which is strongly related to health, in the main areas of the world where it is a problem—the Asian cities, China, India, and so on—is nothing to do with the source of your energy generation, such as fossil fuels, but due to domestic cooking and the burning of wood in that area.

On pollution, London is particularly concerned about this, and we certainly have a major problem here, which is of course more linked to diesel. As I said, when I was in government, I was aware of the pressures from our green friends, who tried to persuade the Labour Government to incentivise diesel vehicles.

Malnutrition is another major health problem, but it seems to derive more from the use of animal manure than it does from the source of energy generation.

I am aware that my views are not held by the majority in the House, but that gives me mild pleasure.