DocMartin

I am writing regarding the article “Alarmism is not the way to tackle climate change”, by Kendra Okonski, of the International Policy Network. Finding the article highly unbalanced, I checked re the network, and learned it has received over US$390,000 from ExxonMobil – surely the most infamous supporter of global warming “sceptics”.

Given this, Okonski’s claim of “biases” – towards global warming “alarmism” – resulting from funding by “powerful interest groups” is ludicrous. Her piece is riddled with cherry picked facts, half truths, or worse.

It’s immensely deceptive to claim, “The science of climate change remains hotly contested.” No, it does not; witness the standpoints of august bodies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Britain’s Royal Society, and our own Hong Kong Observatory. Among all but a tiny minority of actual scientists, there is no longer debate over whether warming due to greenhouse gases is real – instead, any debates are now over just how severe it will be, and what measures are needed to ensure we don’t devastate the world as we know it.

Okonski asserts the International Government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “is also biased towards alarmism” – which is curious, given that some of the more alarming forecasts of scientists have been removed during the editing process. She appears oblivious to the fact that some observed changes – such as melting of Arctic ice, and expansion of the Tropics, have proceeded more swiftly than in even some of the more alarming forecasts.

While noting the number of people killed by weather disasters has fallen since good records began, Okonski fails to mention vastly improved warning systems, and Oxfam¡¦s report that the number of number of natural disasters has increased fourfold since two decades ago.

With no scientific foundation whatsoever, Okonski claims the best thing to do about climate change is adapting, while helping people create wealth. Here, she is seemingly blinded to the obvious: if the worst of climate change predictions come true, adaptation will prove impossible for countless people, and there will be widespread economic reversals.

Overall, it seems Okonski’s piece stems from fear of doing the right thing, and adopting measures that economists have suggested could cost 1 percent of world income. With climate change real, the outcomes uncertain yet potentially devastating, it is alarming to read calls for yet more procrastination.

The latest in a series of assessments of the pan-European environment published by the EEA over the past 15 years, the report assesses environmental progress in 53 countries
…
Despite some success with air pollution, current levels — mainly nitrogen oxide, fine particles and ground-level ozone — are estimated to shorten average life expectancy in Western and Central European countries by almost a year and to threaten the healthy development of children.

… “Athletes typically take in 10 to 20 times as much air,” and thus pollutants, with every breath as sedentary people do.
…
a 2004 review of pollution studies worldwide conducted by the University of Brisbane, Australia, found that during exercise, low concentrations of pollutants caused lung damage similar to that caused by high concentrations in people not working out.
…
there are long-term consequences. A study that used the mass of data included in the Women’s Health Initiative found that women who lived in communities with relatively high levels of air pollution in the forms of tiny particles — a k a soot — were far more likely to die because of heart attacks than women who lived in cleaner air. …

“Fine particulates are definitely something to worry about,” said Dr. Rundell, especially for athletes, who, in the process of exerting themselves, “can take in very elevated doses.”
…
Dr. Newby has seen, in action, the effects of those particles on active people. In 2005, he and his colleagues had 30 healthy volunteers ride exercise bikes inside a laboratory for 30 minutes, while breathing piped-in diesel exhaust at levels approximately those along a city highway at rush hour.

Afterward, the researchers … found that the vessels were abnormally dilated, meaning blood and oxygen could not flow easily to the muscles. … “Those are ideal conditions for a heart attack,” Dr. Newby said.
…
Still, it is not wise to give up outdoor exercise, even if, as Dr. Bell put it, there is a “trade-off between physical health from exercise and damage from air pollution.”

“Be sensible and try to cut back” on your exposure to particles, Dr. Rundell advised, but don’t use pollution as an excuse to cut back on exercise.

In the calculus of health concerns, “Breathing air pollution is not nearly as bad as smoking,” Dr. Lippmann said.

“The bottom line is that running and cycling are healthy and, over all, good for the heart,” Dr. Newby said. With proper care, he said, outdoor exercise does not have to be harmful — and, done en masse, could even ease pollution.

“I ride my bike back and forth to work every day,” he said. “If everyone else did that, too, we wouldn’t be having this problem at all, would we?”

You can minimize your exposure to air pollution by being aware of pollution and by following some simple guidelines: If you live in an area susceptible to air pollution, here’s what you should do:

* Do train early in the day or in the evening.

* Do avoid midday or afternoon exercise, and avoid strenuous outdoor work,if possible, when ozone smog or other pollution levels are high.

* Do avoid congested streets and rush hour traffic; pollution levels can be high up to 50 feet from the roadway.

* Do make sure teachers, coaches and recreation officials know about air pollution and act accordingly.

* Most important, do be aware of the quality of the air you breathe!

Don’t do the following:

* Don’t take air pollution lightly, it can hurt all of us!

* Don’t engage in strenuous outdoor activity when local officials issue health warnings.