Lying global warmers try to piggyback on real pollution control systems
bo-no
particulates when it comes to be considered true pollutants, but that
is the impression global warmers are trying to promote. What sleazy
scum they are.
Climate policies 'improve health'
Cutting emissions to mitigate climate change will also make people
healthier, according to research.
A special series of articles, published in medical journal, the
Lancet, outlines how such policies could have a direct impact on
global health.
The series has been released ahead of the UN climate summit in
Copenhagen.
World Health Organization (WHO) director, Margaret Chan, said health
protection should be a criterion by which mitigation measures were
judged.
Dr Chan was just one of the key figures in global health research who
wrote a comment article that was published alongside the Lancet
reports.
Another was Professor Sir Andrew Haines, director of the London School
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who is chair of the international
task force of scientists that wrote the series.
KEY FINDINGS
# Food: High-producing countries should reduce livestock production by
30%. If this translated into reduced meat consumption, the amount of
saturated fat consumed would drop sharply, which could reduce heart
disease
# Transport: Cutting emissions through walking and cycling and
reducing use of motor vehicles would bring health benefits including
reduced cardiovascular disease, depression and dementia
# Household: In low-income countries, solid fuel stoves create indoor
air pollution. National programmes to introduce low-emission stoves
could avert millions of premature deaths and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
# Pollution: Short-lived pollutants including ozone and black carbon
contribute to climate change and damage health. Reducing emissions of
these would offer immediate benefits
# Energy: Decreasing the proportion of carbon-based electricity
generation would give health benefits worldwide, particularly in
middle-income countries such as India and China
He said that the public health benefits of mitigation policies had not
had "sufficient prominence" in international negotiations.
Dr Chan commented: "As this series shows, cutting greenhouse gas
emissions can represent a mutually reinforcing opportunity to reduce
climate change and improve public health."
Some of the key findings presented in the reports included evidence
that moving towards low carbon transport systems could reduce the
health impacts of urban air pollution and physical inactivity.
Researchers also found that changes in farming practice to reduce
livestock and meat consumption could improve health by lowering the
intake of saturated fat.
And in poor countries, reducing the need to burn solid fuel indoors
could have a significant impact on child and maternal health by
cutting indoor air pollution.
Dr Chan pointed out that the poorest countries were the most
vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change.
Cleaner energy
In one of the articles, scientists from the Basque Centre for Climate
Change in Bilbao, Spain, showed how decreasing fossil-fuel-dependent
electricity generation could have significant health benefits
worldwide.
The researchers said that the middle-income countries such as India
and China would benefit most. A reduction in pollution there could
prevent many of the premature deaths that are associated with heart
and lung damage caused by inhaling the polluting particles.
But the researchers also examined the health impacts in wealthier
countries.
One group of researchers described the results of an 18-year study of
the long-term health effects of pollution in the US.
The team, led by Professor Kirk Smith from the School of Public Health
at the University of California, Berkeley, US, pointed out that "short-
lived" greenhouse pollutants, such as particles of black carbon and
ozone, can directly damage the heart and lungs.
They said that "separate climate change agreements" might be needed
for these pollutants.
In another paper, scientists quantified changes that were needed in
the agricultural sector, which contributes 10-12% of total greenhouse
gas emissions worldwide.
They wrote that "high-producing countries" should reduce livestock
production by 30% to slow climate change. Should this translate into a
reduction in the consumption of meat, the scientists say that it could
also reduce heart disease.
Researchers called for health and climate change scientists to work
together and for more funding for such interdisciplinary projects.
Copenhagen hope
The editor of the Lancet, Dr Richard Horton cautioned against putting
too much pressure on the Copenhagen meeting.
He said: "By suggesting that Copenhagen is the 'last chance' for a
binding international climate change agreement, anything less will
seem a failure.
"Copenhagen is a beginning, not the end."
Professor Haines said: "The Copenhagen conference presents an
important opportunity to choose those policies that can not only
achieve needed reductions in greenhouse gases, but also move toward
development and health goals."
Eunometic
> Disgusting. C02 is hardly in the same class as sulfur dioxide or
> particulates when it comes to be considered true pollutants, but that
> is the impression global warmers are trying to promote. What sleazy
> scum they are.
>
> # Food: High-producing countries should reduce livestock production by
> 30%. If this translated into reduced meat consumption, the amount of
> saturated fat consumed would drop sharply, which could reduce heart
> disease
The above is not true.
Meat and milk from farm animals that have been naturaly grazed on
fresh grass are rich in Conjugated linoleic acids (CLA).
The microbial action in the gut produces this. CLA has several
effects: 1 Reduces cancer, 2 Reduces Weight, 3 Reduces Arterio
Sclerosis and 4 Increases muscle mass. Weight reductions and
increases in muscle mass of 22% have been observed in control studies
on humans taking 1 gramm with each meal for 3 months. Lab mice fed
CLA before puberty are immune to breast cancer inducing chemicals.
Australian grazed cattle meat and milk has 4.5 times more CLA than
grain fed.
Grain fed (or genetically engineered cattle) won't have the CLA as
they won't have the gut microbes. CLA is a natural substances that
neutralizes the negative effects of Saturated Fat.
Also both the 'lipid" hypothesis that Saturated Fats produce
arteriosclerosis is wrong. (That's why Inuit surviving of 100% bison
don't have degenerative disease) As is the choleserterol consumption
hypothesis (which is why you can eat eggs again)
The true culprits are big increase in sugar consumption and low
glycemic index starches as well as transfatty acids in vegetable oils
and margerines. Nature makes cis-fatty acids using enzymes trans-
fats are produced by heat damage and margerine maker. Even tiny
amounts can harm as it destroys the balance of lipids in the cells
membranes where reactions and transport of neutreants take place.
(Don't trust the heart foundation and their money grubbing tick paid
for by the margerine industry)
Heart disease went up with sugar and vegetable fat and synthetic
margerine consumption NOT meat consumtion.
Have you noticed that vegan militant animal liberationists, like the
author of the Stern report support AGW?
mark
ok stick to particulates. do a search for the harm being done. Nothing
much is changing global warming or not, at least for another decade.
We are screwing ourselves out of health and time and nothing is done.
We know more now about the consequences.