I wonder if The Lancet’s editors also laud the keffiyeh Thunberg dons and her T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Yalla Intifada’?
The ideological activism of the medical and science journals has not slackened. An editorial in The Lancet (once again) extols redefining climate change as a health issue to allow technocrats to exert greater control over policy — and along the way even extols Greta Thunberg as an exemplar of the cause. From “Climate Change and Health: 10 Years On, What’s Next?”
Health has become a key aspect of climate policy. COP28 had the first official Health Day, elevating health in climate negotiations, and climate laws referencing health rose sharply after 2016. The Countdown has helped to drive that change, growing into a network of regional centres across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Oceania, and Small Island Developing States that produces locally relevant indicators and evidence that have shaped policy and held governments to account.
Despite their efforts, the editorial grouses, things are only getting worse. Blame the usual suspects!
The main barriers to action are political, commercial, and financial. The USA, one of the biggest emitters, has left the Paris Agreement and WHO. Fossil fuels continue to supply more than 80% of the world’s energy. The fossil fuel industry has influenced research and used lobbying and disinformation to delay action and protect profits. International funding covers less than a third of the health adaptation needs.
I’m sorry, Lancet editors, that people don’t want to become poorer. But they don’t.
What to do to overcome these nefarious impediments to attaining climate Utopia? First, use “health” as the pretext to seize greater control of policy because people are more likely to follow along under the authority of doctors:
Health is a powerful mobilising argument that humanises climate impacts. Framing climate change in terms of health can engage audiences more than framing around the environment or economy. Health professionals are among the most trusted voices in society and well placed to advocate for action on climate.
Second, go local:
Local action offers progress, particularly as multilateralism and national implementation falter. Cities, home to almost 60% of people and 70% of emissions, increasingly advance climate policy. Initiatives such as Local Health and Global Profits target local action to tackle the commercial determinants of health more broadly, including fossil fuels.
That’s why so many bike lanes are proliferating in cities — rarely used where I live and causing traffic jams, which, ironically, increase emissions. And we have all kinds of other proposals, once deemed wacky, emanating from local ordinances, such as banning natural gas appliances in new homes. With hard leftists now in control of our biggest cities, expect even more extreme actions going forward.
Third, follow Greta!
Social movements and coalitions can create the conditions for action. The School Strike for Climate, spearheaded by Greta Thunberg, put intergenerational injustice on the agenda, and the landmark advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on states’ climate obligations began with law students in Vanuatu. Given the inequities of climate change, there is great potential in allying with women’s, anti-racist, and anti-poverty movements. The new Lancet Commission on activism and health will build relationships between science and activism towards social justice and health equity, including on climate change.
I wonder if the editors also laud the keffiyeh Thunberg dons and her T-shirt bearing the slogan “Yalla Intifada“?
Of course, most people don’t give a fig about The Lancet’s editors’ ongoing efforts to metamorphize climate change policy into one of public health. Nor do they envision Thunberg as an avatar of sound environmental policy. But here’s the thing that matters: The globalists who want to control every aspect of our lives do. Editorials in professional journals such as The Lancet are a means to delegate power to “the experts.”
That won’t happen under Trump. But I fear that if the coming presidential election goes anything like the midterms we just experienced, the government of the United States will do a 180 in January 2029 and surrender sovereign control over environmental policy to international technocrats — to a standing ovation from their good friends, The Lancet’s editors.