- Welcome everyone to Wednesday
Nite @ the Lab.
I am Tom Zinnen.
I work here at the UW-Madison Bi
otechnology Center.
I also work for the Division
of Extension,
and on behalf of those folks and
our other co-organizers,
Wisconsin Public Television, Wisc
onsin Alumni Association,
and the UW-Madison Science Alli
ance,
thanks again for coming to Wedn
esday Nite @ the Lab.
We do this every Wednesday night
50 times a year.
Tonight, it's my pleasure to welc
ome back
to Wednesday Nite @ the Lab
Jonathan Patz.
He's the director of the Global H
ealth Institute.
He was born in Baltimore, Marylan
d,
and he went to high school there
at the Friends School in Baltimor
e.
Then he went to Colorado College
,
where he majored in biology,
and then went to Case Western Res
erve,
where he got his MD degree.
He got his master's of public he
alth
at Johns Hopkins University,
and he's been here for a quite a
while since then.
He's board certified in occup
ational environmental medicine
and in family medicine.
Tonight, he's going to talk with
us about
how might solving the global clim
ate crisis also create
the largest human health benefi
t of the century.
This is, in my opinion, the
greatest example
of turning lemons into limoncello
that I've ever seen.
I'm looking forward to hearing wh
at he has to say.
Please join me in welcoming
Jonathan Patz
back to Wednesday Nite @ the Lab
.
(audience applauding)
- Tom, it's a real pleasure to be
here,
and it was great to--
though we bumped into each other
in that blizzard
the other day and a little while
back.
I said I would only talk about
climate change in the summer,
not in the winter, so here I am.
Thank you all for coming.
You all know about climate change
and the global climate crisis
and how dangerous it is for human
society,
and I'll talk about how climate
change
is a human health issue, but solv
ing the problem,
I will show evidence why this cou
ld be
the greatest opportunity of our l
ifetimes.
Now, of course,
climate change is not fantasy.
It is real.
It's not your imagination that
summers are getting hotter.
I'm going to show you from James
Hansen,
this is surface temperature in t
he northern hemisphere,
and looking at summertime,
this is average summertime t
emperature
for the year
1951 to 1980,
and as you look at these year
s go forward,
look especially at the extrem
e temperatures.
Right here are very few, so here
we go.
Temperatures from 1951 to '80,
'83 to '93,
'94 to 2004,
2005 to 2015.
It is not your imagination.
It really is getting warmer.
And there are consequences we
're seeing around the world.
This is looking at Greenland's
ice is melting four times faster
than was thought, and that would
mean,
as far as Greenland, if Greenla
nd melts,
that's 23 feet or seven meters o
f sea level rise,
but Greenland is a lot smaller th
an the Antarctic.
If the Antarctic melts, that
's 57 meters,
or 180 feet,
of sea level rise,
and the Antarctic is losing six
times as much ice
as it was four decades ago,
so we're seeing what is happenin
g
as the Earth is heating up.
But if you live in Wisconsin, as
a little cautionary note,
global climate change, it re
quires a global perspective.
What impression do Wisconsin resi
dents have
about global warming after experi
encing nearly three weeks
of subzero temperatures thro
ughout the region?
And, of course, all of you now k
now about
the term of the polar vortex.
It's because the jet stream slows
down as the
temperature difference betwee
n the Arctic
and lower latitudes gets smaller
.
The Arctic is warming twice as f
ast
as anywhere else on Earth, so as
the Arctic is warming,
there's less temperature differ
ence by latitude,
and that's what drives the j
et stream.
This is co-discovered by Dr. Ste
ve Vavrus
here at the University of Wis
consin
in the Center for Climatic Resea
rch and the Nelson Institute
so as the,
as the jet stream slows down
, it gets wavier,
and you can see that y'know,
this is what we saw.
The Arctic temperatures dipp
ing way south,
but notice at either end of this
extension of Arctic air,
up here it's really warm.
They were canceling dog sled
races in Alaska
this past winter,
so extremely hot temperatures
where you don't expect it here
and extremely cold temperatures
as the Arctic is disintegrating
and the Arctic air is going furt
her south.
This past winter, I was lecturin
g out in Bozeman, Montana,
which is farther north in latitud
e,
and on Saturday, January 26th,
I was on the other side of t
he polar vortex.
It was plus 36 degrees Fahren
heit in Bozeman
at the same time it was nega
tive 24 in Madison.
60 degrees Fahrenheit difference
in temperature
on one side of the polar vortex,
so this is, again, what we experi
ence.
And there were a few people that
experienced the cold,
especially in the United States,
and you heard a few individuals
say,
"We could sure use some glob
al warming, it's so cold,"
but if you look at this map,
and this is the same thing happen
ed two years ago,
we had a polar vortex,
which color is dominating the glo
be?
The extreme cold blue?
Or the extreme hot orange?
And so this is why it's so impo
rtant
that people understand it's a
global issue.
The global climate crisis,
you can't look outside of you
r window and say,
"Aha, it's cold or it's hot.
I know what's going on around
the rest of the globe."
It's about global averages and
why it's so important that,
when it's a polar vortex in Wisc
onsin,
ask yourself, "What's the temper
ature in Alaska?"
Or in Finland at the same time,
and you'll know you'll get t
he answer.
It's probably extreme hot.
So, what about the future?
This is from the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on C
limate Change.
I served on the UN IPCC for 15
years,
which was really a great thing to
be part of,
and the United Nations IPCC is pr
ojecting that,
best case scenario,
if we have representative concen
tration pathways,
RCPs, of not so much more greenh
ouse gas emissions,
so we cut off fossil fuels an
d we calm down
and we don't burn so much dirty e
nergy,
well, we'll still warm on aver
age
about one degree centigrade,
but if we continue as business
as usual,
this is a higher representative
concentration pathway
of greenhouse gas emissions,
the Earth will on average warm s
even degrees centigrade
by the end of the century.
Seven degrees average warming fo
r the globe is huge,
and remember that the world
is mostly ocean,
so land surfaces, continents, wi
ll be warming even more.
This is extremely,
extremely rapid warming,
and at the moment, it's our foss
il fuel emissions.
We are trending worse than this
worst-case scenario,
according to the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on C
limate Change.
Now, you're going to have some c
limate lectures
at Wednesday Nite Labs,
and things on sea level rise
and flooding.
I'm a health person, so I ask
the question,
climate change and what does that
mean
when you look at rising temperatu
res,
sea level rise from thermal expa
nsion of saltwater
and also land-based glaciers slid
ing into the ocean,
but also extremes of the water
cycle, hydrologic extremes,
more droughts, floods, and fires.
Those are the physical attributes
of climate change.
For me, I say, "Well, so what?"
And for me, the so what is that t
here are so many pathways
through which climate affects ou
r health,
and every single one of these
pathways has these
health outcomes and multiple cl
imate-sensitive diseases.
It's why I have studied
this topic for more than two dec
ades.
I actually co-chaired the first
US National Assessment to Con
gress,
the health report of the Nati
onal Assessment
on Climate Change to Congress,
because I think climate chan
ge represents
the greatest public health challe
nge of our times,
when you think about so many ways
,
be it from direct heatwaves that
kill people
to air pollution, stagnant air
masses and heatwaves,
and the effect of air quality on
aero-allergens
and ground-level smog ozone,
to more biologically mediated im
pacts of climate change
through infectious diseases
especially carried by vectors,
like mosquitoes and ticks,
insect vectors that carry vector
-borne diseases,
and if we're thinking of extremes
of the water cycle,
more flooding and contamination
and waterborne diseases,
and, of course, our health depen
ds on adequate
water resources and food supplie
s, so
major climate-sensitive heal
th outcomes
and why climate change is absolu
tely a human health issue.
Now on the bottom, I'll talk brie
fly at the end about
mental health and climate change
,
and this bottom issue, enviro
nmental refugees,
may be one of the toughest things
to understand.
What was it, the extreme flood or
drought
that drove people out of their c
ountry,
or the corrupt politics?
Very hard to disentangle.
Personally, I think this issue
of environmental refugees
and displaced populations will b
e the iceberg
under the tip of the iceberg.
It will be a huge disruption to h
uman civilization.
One example, I don't expect
you guys to read these graphs,
but I'll just interpret that
the top graph
is looking at
rainfall, falling rainfall, in S
yria.
This is a few months before t
heir civil war.
Falling rainfall, increasing tem
peratures,
and the Drought Palmer Index
showed that
Syria experienced the most sever
e drought
in its instrumental record,
according to the study and th
e proceedings
of the National Academy of Scien
ces,
and it was documented that rural
to urban migration
was four to five times higher
than normal.
People are flooding into the cit
ies
because of the extreme drought.
There were food price shocks,
there were riots in the street.
We will never know and be abl
e to prove that
that severe drought caused the
civil war
and hundreds of thousands of deat
hs and millions of refugees
but it's associations like this
that are pretty strong associati
ons
that happen over and over again
where we ask the question,
such climate extremes and the st
ress on natural resources
and how it disrupts civilization
s
could really be destabilizing an
d y'know,
a very indirect effect,
but maybe one of the largest effe
cts
of climate disrupting civilizati
on.
Let me just pause on the most com
mon issue
and the concern of temperatures,
rising temperatures.
You all know about that heat
waves kill people.
The heatwave in Europe in 200
3 estimated
to have killed 70,000 people in
11 days,
a public health disaster.
We've done some modeling.
This is with Dan Vimont of the
Center for Climatic Research
here at UW showing that, right no
w,
New York City has, on average,
11 days
that are 90 degrees Fahrenheit
or 30 degrees centigrade or
hotter,
so 13 days right now,
right here, this under the curve.
13 days over 90 degrees Fahrenhe
it.
By mid-century, 40 years from no
w,
New York will have a tripling
in the number
of hot days over 90,
and we found this was true for al
l cities we looked at
east of the Mississippi.
Milwaukee will also see a near t
ripling
of the number of days that are ov
er 90 degrees, so
it's these extremes in temperatu
re,
the increased frequency of e
xtreme events,
that we're really concerned abou
t,
and it shows up in the modeling.
Now, this is a picture during the
Chicago heatwave.
Were any of you in Chicago in 199
5 during the heatwave?
It killed 700 people.
Notice the air quality.
We published this in the jour
nal ofNature,
and they subtitled, this was
on the cover,
and they subtitled this "The
Wheezy City"
because they thought our paper wa
s on air pollution.
Our paper was on heatwaves,
and during a heatwave, you get st
agnant air masses,
and it's estimated that a qu
arter to a third
of the deaths during heatwaves
are because of exacerbations in a
ir quality.
We've done modeling studies of a
ir pollution and climate.
Ground-level smog ozone is very t
emperature-sensitive,
so that brown haze smog is tempe
rature-sensitive.
There are models that show that t
hat will increase
with climate change.
Now let's look around the world,
estimates for future summer tempe
ratures,
and the top map is mid-century.
Let's focus on the bottom map,
which is by the end of the centu
ry.
Everything in this dark red color
will have a 90% probability
or greater
of having their hottest summ
er in history,
and what's concerning, especially
in tropical regions,
is that when you're growing crop
s
within a climatic envelope,
so you don't want it to be too
cold or too hot to grow food,
that these extreme temperatures
will
be devastating for crop yields,
and this is published in the
journalScience
about 10 years ago,
and similar studies are reinforc
ing these results
that estimate that today's 800 mi
llion people
at risk for hunger could double b
y mid-century.
That's a public health crisis
when you think about that effect,
but I do have some good news,
thinking about all these crop fai
lures.
There are some plants that will
benefit
from higher temperatures and more
CO2.
How many of you like ragweed
and poison ivy?
(audience laughing)
So poison ivy does well, ragweed
pollen does well
with more CO2 and warmer tempera
tures,
and this is a study from my home
town,
sorry, I'm not from Wisconsin,
my hometown of Baltimore where th
ey planted
ragweed plants on top of the Balt
imore Science Center,
that's demonstrated right, here w
e are, right here,
and then in the suburban area and
a rural area,
basically in the downtown urban c
ore,
it's warmer, urban heat island ef
fect,
and there's more CO2 from traffic
,
so ragweed plants produce much m
ore pollen
under those conditions of higher
temperatures and more CO2
compared to the rural areas.
So we were part of a study.
Wisconsin is monitoring ragw
eed pollen
on top of the hospital, on top o
f the roof there,
and if you look at ragweed season
across the United States,
notice that especially in the nor
thern latitudes
ragweed pollen season has increa
sed two or three weeks,
24 days here, Wisconsin it's
increased 13 days,
so ragweed pollen season is
13 days longer in Wisconsin,
and we've seen, of course, the no
rthern hemisphere,
CO2 has increased 27%.
Wisconsin has warmed since the 19
50s
by one degree Fahrenheit,
so increases in ragweed pollen
and that's a problem for children
who have asthma,
but, of course, global warming's
greatest threat
may also be the smallest.
Now what is being conveyed i
n this slide?
What is the difference betwee
n us mammals
and that mosquito on the slide,
besides the fact that we can't fl
y?
And Tom guaranteed me that at le
ast 85% of you
do not suck blood. (audience chuc
kling)
So we are warm-blooded.
Our body temperature's always
about the same,
but mosquitoes are cold-blooded,
so whatever the air temperature
is around that mosquito,
that's her body temperature,
and if she's carrying dangerous
parasites that cause malaria
or all sorts of different diseas
es carried by mosquitoes,
the temperature determines the de
velopment rate
of the pathogen inside the mosqu
ito.
This is a particular mosquito spe
cies.
Unlike the malaria mosquito, whic
h is the genus Culex,
I'm sorry, Anopheles, Culex carr
ies West Nile virus.
Anopheles mosquitoes carry malari
a,
Culex mosquitoes carry West Nile
virus
and equine encephalitis.
This is Aedes aegypti mosquito,
which carries yellow fever, deng
ue fever, and Zika virus.
Dengue fever is the most prevale
nt
mosquito-borne virus in the world
,
and it's the same family as Zika
virus.
When Zika virus erupted in B
razil and Colombia,
the climatic conditions were
very unusual.
In fact, just prior to the Zika v
irus epidemic,
which coincided with one of the l
argest
dengue fever epidemics, you
can see El Nino,
El Nino of 2015 brought historic
high temperatures into the regio
ns.
Temperatures, according to o
ur analysis,
were two standard deviations
higher than
a constructed 50 year average,
so it was really hot,
and the ability of that mosqu
ito to carry
dengue fever and Zika virus was
at its highest level,
as far as a biological transm
issibility of these viruses,
was at its highest level because
of these hot temperatures.
Now, the temperatures are not ev
erything.
There's international travel and
how did Zika get to
South America in the first place?
Probably from international trav
el,
but the extreme climate, we thin
k,
had something to do with the emer
gence of Zika
in South America.
Quick reminder, it's not just abo
ut temperatures.
Climate change is about extremes
of the water cycle.
We have noticed that in Wisconsi
n,
and I notice your next Wednes
day night lecture
is on flooding.
This is the Kickapoo River last y
ear.
Big problems, big flooding proble
ms for Wisconsin,
and this is not new.
We know that we have problems whe
n we have
extreme heavy rainfall, but wi
th climate change,
the issue is that it's not nece
ssarily going to rain
more or less in a particular tim
e.
Because hot air holds more moist
ure,
when it rains, it can rain reall
y hard,
so this is showing that
future projections with climate c
hange,
it's the type of rainfall that
is going to be increasing.
The heavy downpour events will b
e increasing,
and this is looking modeling acr
oss the globe,
and when it rains it will pour.
We've studied what the effect is
for water quality,
and right now in Chicago,
you get these combined sewage
overflow events.
When it rains too hard, ther
e is contamination.
We modeled the Chicago water basi
n
and found that there would be,
by the middle of the century,
because of more extreme heav
y rainfall,
a doubling in the number of thes
e
combined sewage overflow events.
So strains on water contaminatio
n,
and if you any of you are from M
ilwaukee,
you know the problems when it rai
ns too hard and you get
the rainfall and runoff
that goes out into Lake Michigan
into the bay there.
My colleague, Dr. Sandra McL
ellan at UWM,
she goes out and dips for bacter
ia, for E. coli bacteria,
after every rainstorm that Milwa
ukee has,
and if you can notice these
flaming blue hot
colors are right here at South S
hore Beach
and flaming red hot high counts o
f E. coli bacteria
on Bradford Beach.
Don't go swimming at these beache
s after a heavy rainstorm
because there's risk of recr
eational exposure,
so it's not surprising that incr
eases in heavy rainfall
are going to threaten our water
and, in this case,
recreational safety with water.
So when we think about climate ch
ange,
too often we think of climate c
hange
as an environmental risk,
and you see the picture of t
he polar bear.
I would argue that really these
are the new faces
of climate change.
Climate change absolutely is a h
uman health crisis,
looking at asthma, diarrheal dise
ase, refugees,
but also mental health.
Not only do climate disasters ca
use
post-traumatic stress disorder,
PTSD,
but there is now evidence of
pre-traumatic stress disorder.
People are becoming very anxious
about the looming crisis.
So I'll shift gears and take
a sip of water,
'cause I get choked up about thi
s.
So, there's another element here
,
and this is an ethical challenge.
We wrote a paper 12 years ago
calling climate change and healt
h
the greatest ethical dilemma of o
ur times.
If you look at these data-driven
cartogram maps,
on the bottom what we see are cl
imate-sensitive diseases,
malnutrition, diarrheal dise
ase, malaria,
those three in particular.
What countries are already experi
encing
increases in these climate-sensit
ive diseases?
It's these poor countries in sub-
Saharan Africa, India,
but then the question is
who's actually causing climat
e change?
Who's emitting the most greenhous
e gases
in the world that's causing th
e problem?
And you can see that's the top m
ap.
This is a 50 year aggregate of C
O2 emissions.
Africa's not causing the problem.
The United States is the number
one contributor historically
to greenhouse gas emissions,
and so for today's climate change
,
the United States is the number
one
most responsible country.
Now, China is out-polluting us n
ow,
and in a few decades, they may be
come number one,
although they're also number one
in solar energy investment and t
echnology,
so they're sort of hedging their
bets,
but right now, per capita
Americans are very responsible
for this problem that we have gl
obally.
On average, we emit six times mo
re CO2 per person
than an average global citizen
because of our energy consumption
.
So after publishing this, this g
ot a lot of visibility,
and I found myself in front of
His Holiness, the Dalai Lama,
showing him that exact map
and explaining to him how climat
e change is a health issue,
and that people are dying from c
limate change
for all sorts of things, all sort
s of health outcomes,
that I just showed you,
and he's a very smart man and he
said,
"Jonathan, if you know that p
ollution kills,
your country is not showing much
compassion, correct?"
At which point I got choked u
p a little bit,
and I said, "You know."
I started to say it's complicated
,
but I decided not to say that,
and I started to say, "We are a
fossil fuel-based economy
and we didn't know that ai
r pollution was bad."
Actually, you know what, I thin
k I did say this,
because I said, "We didn't know
"that air pollution was harmful
"until after the killer London s
mog episode of 1952,
and then we got smart about it
."
And then he looked at me, he said
,
"Yeah, well, how long have you
known about climate change?"
And I said, "Well, just abou
t 25 years ago."
And he said, "25 years ago,
you guys should be doing somethin
g by now."
Well, I told him I would get
back to him.
(audience laughing)
And so I thought about his challe
nge.
It's such a devastating crisis
and you're killing people.
Why aren't we doing something?
What's so hard about it?
So I went to the 2015
21st Conference of the Parties
of the United Nations Framework
Convention
on Climate Change, the big Paris
summit on climate,
and it was really exciting becau
se
countries came in with big pledg
es.
They pledged, I'll just show you,
these are these intended nat
ionally determined commitments,
the INDCs, intended nationally
determined commitments
to reduce greenhouse gases.
Now, business as usual takes us,
no action takes us up to eight de
grees Fahrenheit,
four and a half degrees cent
igrade warming,
or actually more now,
but these big commitments, 40% re
duction by the EU,
28% reductions by the US and Aus
tralia.
Big reductions.
Saying we promise in the next 15
years
to cut our emissions tremendously
,
that still, even if everyone live
d up to their bargain,
that still only gets us to this
reduction down to
three and a half degrees centigra
de warming,
and all the impact scientists th
at I've been working with
with the United Nations Inte
rgovernmental Panel
on Climate Change have pretty muc
h set two degrees,
two degrees centigrade,
as a level above which
there will be dangerous impacts.
Ecosystems will fall apart.
If the Earth warms above two degr
ees warming,
it's going to get nasty,
so please stay below two degr
ees centigrade.
Nothing magic about two degrees,
but these assessments have been
going on and on
every five years and they get be
tter and better.
The assessments are it gets nast
y above two degrees warming.
So how do we ratchet,
how do we get down there?
And here's my bias because I'm a
health guy, right?
To get immediate and substantia
l action,
I feel really strongly, and I've
felt this way for 20 years,
and keep feeling stronger about i
t,
that climate change is a health
issue
and it's really important to tal
k about it
with the health frame.
I think there's more common grou
nd
when you talk about the health
effects of climate change,
and there'll be more incentiv
e to go faster further
on solving the problem.
From the Paris Agreement,
the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
was asked a follow-up question.
Well, what would it take to stay
below two degrees centigrade?
What do we have to do with our e
nergy policies
to stay below two degrees centig
rade warming,
and, if possible, what would i
t take
to stay below one and a half de
grees centigrade warming,
and what might the difference be?
So, this report just came out in
October,
and this is a report, you all ha
ve heard this in the news.
Once I get to the punchline, I'l
l show you.
So, the report is called Global
Warming
of 1.5 Degrees Centigrade and an
assessment of that
and what does it take to stay tha
t.
To stabilize at one and a ha
lf degrees warming,
this is what you've heard in the
news,
that we will have to cut emissio
ns
mostly burning fossil fuels but a
lso
cutting rainforests is a problem
,
but we have to cut emissions 45%
by the year 2030
and be net carbon zero by 2050.
So you have heard, now it's 2019,
so by 2030, that's 11 years.
Last year you heard the big news
, we have 12 years.
You've heard Fridays for the Futu
re,
the children protesting, saying,
"Why should we go to school?
"What's our future?
"If you guys don't do someth
ing about climate change
"and we only have 11 years left,
"we have no future.
You are spending our future."
So, you saw this news, you've
heard about it.
This is the idea we have 11 year
s to get our act together
and really go be serious about cu
tting emissions.
Challenging.
Maybe.
I argue that cutting climate chan
ge could be free.
Even a net gain.
Remember the title of my talk?
Golden Opportunity in Solving th
e Climate Crisis?
We've started publishing on this
,
golden opportunities, solving th
e global climate crisis,
the greatest health opportunity
of our times.
Why?
Well, look at the energy sector.
From dirty energy,
and this is something you all
probably know already,
air pollution kills seven millio
n people every year
prematurely according to the Worl
d Health Organization
and the Global Burden of Disease
Report.
Air pollution kills a lot of peo
ple,
especially burning coal and oil
and dirty energy.
Food systems.
Chronic diseases from y'know,
cardiovascular disease, heart
attacks,
and strokes and diabetes,
having an unhealthy diet is also
environmentally unfriendly.
A high red meat diet is environm
entally unfriendly
and not great for our cardio
vascular systems.
In poor countries, I don't ad
vocate no meat.
Meat is important in many places
in the world,
but in very rich countries,
overabundance of red meat is a
problem with chronic disease,
and, finally, transportation.
It's estimated now that phys
ical inactivity,
mostly because of automobile ove
rdependence,
is killing more than five millio
n people every year
from sedentary lifestyles.
So if you look at these big
health problems,
a low carbon economy could be a h
uge boon,
a huge benefit for health.
Here's an analysis published in
Nature Climate Change.
Came out of MIT.
They looked at a systems approach
of a clean energy system for the
United States,
and it's complicated what it mean
s
to have this clean energy system,
but basically a clean energy econ
omy in the United States,
and, with that, what would the ai
r quality change be?
Cleaner air from cleaner energy?
And this is straight from their
abstract
that the health benefits could
offset the investment cost
of that clean energy
anywhere between 26% and 1050%
of the US carbon investment, tryi
ng to get to low carbon.
So the health benefit from clean
air
could be anywhere from a quar
ter to 10 times
greater in value than invest
ing in the clean energy.
This study was derived from a Un
iversity of Wisconsin study
done a little bit earlier wher
e we only looked at the US,
this is now looking globally,
that the investment cost of no
t emitting one ton of CO2,
so having clean energy so that y
ou avoid emitting
one ton of CO2, which is the most
abundant greenhouse gas,
might cost $30 in clean ener
gy technology.
It might cost $30.
Well, what happens when you
don't burn coal
and oil that creates greenhouse
gas emissions like CO2?
You also don't emit dangerous fi
ne particles,
PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, nitrog
en dioxide,
the nasty pollutants that we know
kill people.
So for every ton of CO2 you don'
t emit,
you're also not emitting all thos
e nasty,
harmful air pollutants,
so much so that the clean air be
nefit
from just looking at reduced fine
particles, PM2.5,
would be equivalent, would be $20
0
in avoided mortality and hospit
alization
from that improvement in air qua
lity.
So when I'm in the state legislat
ure,
I've asked 'em, I've said, "Okay
.
"I want you to take a deep breath
.
"I'm going to ask you a really
tough question based on this.
"Look at the $200 and look at th
e $30,
and ask yourself which number
is bigger."
(audience laughing)
And the answer I got was, "Well,
we were only thinking about
"the investment side on the left
.
"We didn't know, we weren't
thinking about,
well, the health benefit from
clean air would be enormous."
And I was happy that they said t
hat,
that they admitted that we re
ally hadn't thought of that,
but it's a much bigger number,
so the health benefits from clea
n energy are enormous,
and even much higher in places l
ike India and China
where you have really more seriou
s air pollution.
But looking at that $30, I questi
on if it's that expensive.
Look at the cost of solar energy.
It's dropped 99% in several decad
es,
and solar and wind have dropped
80% and 30% respectively
in the last seven years.
My colleague, Greg Nemet, just
came out with a book.
He got a grant to write a bo
ok on why on Earth
solar energy dropped way faster
than anyone ever imagined,
and he's a professor here who's a
nalyzed that,
you know what, we have been shoc
ked
by how fast the price of solar h
as dropped.
So we're not waiting for solution
s.
We're not waiting for cheap
energy solutions.
So renewables are here, they're
cheap,
but there's always an argument, r
ight?
What about jobs?
Hey, what about the fossil fuel
jobs?
Well, this is from the 2017 US
Energy and Employment Report
showing one million US jobs in re
newable energy.
That's five times more employmen
t
compared to jobs in coal, oil, a
nd gas combined,
as far as energy,
and, for me, jobs and income is
health.
So the job story.
Now, I have an MD behind my name
,
and so we would be really stupid
if we don't show serious compassi
on
for coal miners and coal mining
communities.
They will become a--
They're now a vulnerable populat
ion
in this energy transition.
We absolutely cannot burn anymore
coal,
but we better take care of t
hose communities
that depend on coal and be ser
ious about
investing in and helping those pe
ople,
'cause they are now a vulner
able population.
Absolutely have to take care
of coal miners,
but we cannot be burning more coa
l.
One of our superstar graduate st
udents did this report.
When asked y'know, can Wisconsin
create all of its energy
from in-state sources?
Right now, we spend 14 billio
n out of state.
We send 14 billion out of state
to bring in coal-fired electr
icity,
dirty electricity that we're ship
ping money out of state.
Can we create all that energy fro
m inside Wisconsin?
And the analysis was, number one,
switching to an entirely electric
economy
from 100% in-state clean power.
Is it possible? The answer was y
es.
The answer was yes and it was abo
ut
35% wind, 30% solar,
conservation measures, and ab
out 6% nuclear.
Keep nuclear, don't get rid of i
t, but don't expand it.
So those were some of the main e
nergy sources.
Yes, we can produce all of o
ur power in-state,
and it would create 162,000 net
new jobs.
You would save the $14 billion
and actually generate another
$13 billion for the state GDP,
and as far as health, the cl
ean air quality,
we're talking about avoided
health damages,
and a lot of this is mortality,
of $21 billion a year.
So, oh my God, why don't we do
this?
Why don't we save money in Wisco
nsin, create jobs,
have healthier environment and
let's go!
There's no reason not to do that
.
Okay, food sector, food systems.
Can you read that in the back?
"I am full of greenhouse gas, do
you have a steak in it?"
(audience laughing)
This is from the People's Cli
mate March
in New York a few years ago.
So this is something you all know
, that a high-meat diet,
this is looking at a high-meat di
et here,
is very harmful for the environm
ent.
This is looking at CO2 equivalenc
e,
as far as water, energy, fertiliz
er, feed,
all the stuff that goes into pr
oducing a gram of protein
from a high-meat diet is very har
d on the environment.
This is a low-meat diet, fish, ve
getarian, vegan.
So eating lower on the food c
hain is healthier
for the environment and for our
cardiovascular systems.
There's studies showing less
meat in the diet,
less saturated fat, reduce heart
attacks,
a bunch of studies like that.
We also have to think outside of
the box.
Thinking about food sources,
I know the Impossible Burger is
here,
y'know, plant-based,
plant-based food, but something
else.
I've got a student who's been,
actually she's a postdoc now work
ing on entomophagy.
Did any of you come to our Swarm
to Table event?
(audience murmuring)
You know, Farm to Table?
Swarm to Table, we had an expert
in edible insects,
a chef come from New York and the
n
the World Authority from Hol
land came over,
so we have to be thinking outsid
e of the box.
Think about, y'know,
look at this comparison in l
ooking at red meat,
so red meat and pork, chicke
ns, and crickets.
(audience chuckling)
Comparing the feed conversion,
how much food you have to pu
t into this,
and water and land use.
Cutting rainforests for pastures
, that's terrible, right?
So crickets for and insects for
feed for chickens,
or grinding up cricket powder,
which is a really amazing protei
n,
and putting it into things.
People don't have to eat insects
,
and there is the yuck factor in t
his country, and many,
but two billion people around
the world
eat insects by choice, not be
cause of poverty.
So we have to be thinking this
way about possible futures.
Okay, another one of my post
docs, Jason Vargo,
came up with this term, Metro sa
piens.
Since 2006, there are now more p
eople
for the first time in history th
at live in cities
compared to the countryside,
so more of us are urban dwel
lers, right,
so we are Metro sapiens.
I want to ask you another to
ugh question.
I want you to look at the next pi
cture,
and I want you to ask yourself,
"What's wrong with this picture?"
(audience laughing)
And many people would argue that
we have designed our cities
especially in the United States,
we've designed our cities to,
we've designed out routine exer
cise.
Now, if you're in a wheelcha
ir, of course,
you take the elevator around the
back.
You don't take an escalator.
So we've designed cities like th
is,
and US transportation, which is v
ery automobile-dependent,
has contributed to sedentary life
styles.
In our country, there are 60%
of Americans that do not even mee
t the minimum
level of physical activity.
So that's a crisis, that's a pro
blem.
And y'know, we have terrible y'k
now,
rates of obesity in adults and c
hildren
are very significant.
600,000 people die of heart atta
cks every year,
but here's the golden opportunity
.
Almost half of car trips are re
ally short trips.
I have a car.
Now, I bike because it's more con
venient in Madison,
and luckily we live in a city tha
t's very bikeable.
It's platinum-ranked for bikeabil
ity,
but most people in America li
ve in cities
that are not like Madison,
and it's really, it's criminal
that people do not have a choice
in their transportation.
I can choose to bike.
Well, when I lived in Baltimore,
when I was working--
when I was at Johns Hopkins Scho
ol of Public Health,
I rode my bike into work twice,
and I said, "Wow, is that too dan
gerous."
No way, that physical fitness, f
orget it.
By design, I'd be taking my life
in my hands.
So the fact that we have so man
y short car trips
that could be bikeable, we need
better mass transit.
Not everybody can bike, peop
le are injured,
People have--
not everybody can get around on
a bike or walking,
so we have to have really effect
ive transit, mass transit,
and options for active trans
portation, walking and biking.
When you look at these 60% of
Americans
don't even meet the minimum leve
ls of exercise.
Let me compare a couple plac
es in the US.
Looking at how driving drives
obesity,
in Washington, D.C.,
they ranked number one for leav
ing their car behind,
taking mass transit, either wal
king or biking,
they are ranked number one fo
r active travel,
and as far as disease, they would
rank number one,
but there's too much stress in Wa
shington,
so they rank number three,
versus Alabama,
they are dead last for driving,
they have terrible mass transit,
they don't take mass transit, the
y don't walk,
they don't bike because they can
't.
It's not personal choice,
and because of the incredible ob
esity rates in Alabama,
well, part of it is food, yes, f
ood is part of it,
but I would argue this is an
ethical challenge
that they don't even have access
if they wanted to
be able to commute in an active
way,
and Wisconsin, we're in the
middle somewhere.
So this is where urban design,
what a golden opportunity for im
proving our health.
So we've done studies looking at
what if you shifted transportati
on?
What if you had more biking?
Comparing cities around the
United States,
the cities with the highest rate
s of walking and biking
have obesity rates and diabetes
rates 20% and 23% lower
than the cities that have the
lowest rates of active travel.
And, of course, exercise has many
other benefits.
Heart disease reduction, cancer r
eduction,
dementia, depression, all these
things.
Exercise is really great.
One of my students, Maggie Grabow
, did this study where we
the headline was Swapping Tail P
ipes for Pedals:
Small Changes Could Pay Huge Div
idends
For Public Health and the Econom
y.
We found that if we could get th
ose short car trips
off the roads in the 11 larg
est cities in the Midwest,
just in the metropolitan area,
and turn half of those car trips
only in the summertime,
you don't need the studded tires,
just summertime biking half the
time
for those short car trips,
we would save 1300 lives every ye
ar
and billions of dollars in avoid
ed
mortality and hospitalization,
so golden opportunity.
And, finally, how we design our
cities
not only for active travel but fo
r green space,
and that there are studies, this
is a study out of Milwaukee
showing that green space reduces
depression, stress, and anxiety
very significantly,
almost like moving and divorce,
big numbers as far as mental
health effects of green space.
So designing cities for people,
for mental health,
for physical fitness, golden opp
ortunity.
This is a brand new study this y
ear out of Denmark
showing the association between
the relative risk
of developing any psychiatric di
sorder in children,
comparing the level of green spa
ce
across the urban environment, th
e suburban environment,
any place they went, they saw th
e more green space
led to less psychiatric diso
rders, so mental health benefit.
So I'll wrap up by talking about
attitudes on climate change.
This is a colleague of mine, E
d Maibach.
He's one of these really smart g
uys
that looks at climate change comm
unication and attitudes.
He and his colleague at Yale,
Tony Leiserowitz,
have published something called
The Six Americas
showing people that are alarmed,
alarmed, concerned,
cautious, disengaged,
what does that say? - [Audie
nce] Doubtful.
- Yeah, and then dismissive, righ
t? Right.
So never before in the United Sta
tes,
and this is from 2018 the most
recent survey across America,
never before in the US has a publ
ic been more ready
to hear about actions on the glob
al climate crisis.
Right now, almost 60% of people
are alarmed or concerned.
That's the highest it's been.
Forget about the politics in
Washington.
If you poll Americans, we're at a
very high level of concern
for doing something and, of cour
se,
there's now the Citizens Clim
ate Lobby has been working
through this bipartisan clim
ate coalition in Congress,
so in the House, there's this cli
mate solution,
this Energy Innovation and Carbon
Dividend Act,
the idea that it's not a carbon
tax,
but it's money back to people pu
tting a carbon dividend,
and, for my background in public
health, I'd say,
"What do we know about preven
tive measures
about one of the biggest killers
that we know, smoking?"
Youth smoking dropped precipitou
sly when
cigarette prices rose,
so I argue that,
like tobacco, it's time for a re
al price on carbon,
but parallel to the tobacco comp
anies,
the fossil fuel companies are pu
tting
tons of climate change disinforma
tion campaigns around
that climate change, it's not re
al, don't believe it,
but here's my argument.
Regardless of one's views on c
limate change science,
we can all agree on safe rou
tes to school,
physically fit children and adult
s
from cities designed for people,
not just for cars,
clean air from low carbon energy,
green jobs and lots of them,
reduced stress and depression
and anxiety from green cities.
So even if you don't believe in
climate,
climate change, it's real, it's n
ow, it's serious,
but even if you don't believe it
,
I mean, what a golden opportunity
.
A low-carbon economy gives us all
these
amazing health opportunities.
So with that, I want to reinforc
e that climate change
is absolutely a health issue,
and clean energy, a clean energy
economy,
offers health opportunities,
and because it's all about co
mmunication and talking more
about the global climate crisis,
not less,
to talk more about it,
you can take a 19-minute version
of this talk
that you just heard 'cause I did
a TEDx at Oshkosh,
so you can spread this to all
your networks.
I see some young people here.
You have bigger networks, right?
So spread this, help this go vir
al.
You can just Google my name and
TEDx
and take my 19-minute TEDx talk
and send it to all your friends,
so, with that, I thank you very m
uch for your attention.
(audience applauding)