A new green initiative in the U.K. will do nothing for the climate, but it risks harming patients.
Leave it to Britain’s National Health Service (“envy of the world,” etc.) to find a way of taking the “race” to net zero to new levels of absurdity.
The NHS is to introduce electric ambulances, raising concerns that its drive for net zero is being put above patient safety.
Paramedics fear patients will be forced to wait longer because of the hours lost recharging the vehicles, with particular concern about coverage of rural areas, given the limited range.
And the NHS’s green transition doesn’t stop with ambulances. Brits are often told that “their” health service is in a state of financial crisis, but with a climate “emergency” upon us, there is, it seems, some money that can be diverted from, you know, health care.
The Daily Telegraph again:
NHS England has set up a Greener NHS team with a combined salary bill of £3 million a year, leaked documents reveal.
Officials created 48 roles, including five on six-figure salaries, as part of efforts to pursue an environmental agenda which means every medicine and product has to undergo an “evergreen assessment”.
This assessment is no small matter:
The 135-question process means that no decision can be taken without a product’s social values and contribution to emissions targets being considered.
A product’s “social values.”
I am torn between wondering whether this is just an unusually grotesque case of bureaucratic empire-building, quasi-religious fanaticism, or outright insanity.
Then again, it could be a bit of all three:
An extra layer of bureaucracy will be added next month, with every NHS supplier asked to draw up a carbon reduction plan.
Other eco-initiatives being rolled out include “climate-friendly pain relief” for mothers in labour…
It seems that all this is a consequence of the NHS having proudly become the world’s first health service to commit to reaching carbon net zero in October 2020. As a reminder, Boris Johnson, a Conservative, was prime minister at the time. The previous year, under his predecessor, Theresa May, also a Conservative, Britain became the first country to shackle itself with a legally binding commitment to net zero by 2050, mainly because May wanted a “legacy” as her failed premiership drew to a close.
The U.K. only accounts for about 1 percent of global greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, but May claimed the country’s commitment to net zero would inspire the world (or something like that), a claim echoed by Johnson and his successor Rishi Sunak, another Conservative. Those wanting to know more about how Britain’s climate policies are working out should read Rupert Darwall’s report, The Folly of Climate Leadership. The title is something of a spoiler.
In 2021, the chief executive of the NHS declared that “climate change is a health emergency.” The NHS is, according to the Daily Telegraph, currently responsible for about 5 percent of the U.K.’s GHG emissions. One percent is not a high number, and 5 percent of 1 percent is, well. . . .
So this initiative will do nothing for the climate, but it risks harming patients. It’s helpful, if not exactly cheering, to be reminded about climate fundamentalism’s priorities.
Back to the Daily Telegraph, which has a few details that will be all too familiar to those who take an interest in electric vehicles (EVs):
The West Midlands has already introduced the vehicles, although last year board papers from the West Midlands Ambulance Service revealed major concerns.
An evaluation of the pilot scheme found the ambulances took up to four hours to charge and travelled an average of 70 miles between charging, with the papers warning “range and recharge time is a significant limiting factor”.
While the vehicles had a range of 100 miles, which would cover a shift in urban areas, this would not be the case from most of its hubs, it states, adding: “Rural areas in particular are covering twice this mileage and more in a shift.” The report says that, as a minimum, ambulances need to be able to cover 160 miles.
Standard ambulances can cover up to 800 miles a day and be filled up in just minutes.
EVs, I am often told, represent a technological advance.
Needless to say, the Telegraph’s report includes a number of statements from officials stressing that patient safety comes first, but:
[M]any of those working in the NHS, and those trying to work with it, say that too often, clinical decisions are being distorted in a push to satisfy the green agenda.
And:
A whistleblower alleged that businesses with promising medical innovations were being ruled out for grant funding because of “net zero” and “diversity and inclusion” criteria. He said NHS leaders’ “pervasive eco ideology” meant they were putting “environmental concerns ahead of patient welfare”.
He cited an example where clinicians agreed a plastic cannula [a thin tube that can be inserted into the body] “would improve patient safety and comfort for a group of their patients, but could not use the product because it contained more plastic than the current product”. It is cheaper and safer than the metal needles used in patients requiring regular blood work, dialysis or chemotherapy, where the metal can damage blood vessels.
Then there’s this:
The health service has become an enthusiastic proponent of electric bikes — now being used by GPs as well as for chemotherapy delivery, despite concerns from fire chiefs.
In Oxford, e-bikes are used to deliver time-sensitive patient-tailored chemotherapy. . . . John Radcliffe and Churchill hospitals, part of Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, receives deliveries from a nearby manufacturer which claims the bikes are greener and quicker than driving the cargo across the city. GPs have also been using e-bikes to carry out home visits.
Their use comes despite warnings from authorities about the safety of the bikes, which can “start incredibly ferocious fires”. The service said it was called to put out an e-bike fire every other day on average in 2023.