“Surprised and deeply honoured” – our chief executive receives a knighthood

We’ve had some great news today – our chief executive Harpal Kumar has received a knighthood for services to cancer research.

This wonderful announcement acknowledges the significant impact he has had at Cancer Research UK during more than a decade at the charity.

Under his tenure, we’ve funded breakthrough scientific discoveries and secured a range of life-saving policy changes – most recently, the charity’s campaigning has been instrumental in the introduction of standardised cigarette packaging.

And there are many other life-saving advances he has overseen, with just a few listed here:

Cancer Research UK co-funded a trial of Bowel Scope Screening (also called flexi-scope or flexible sigmoidoscopy), which could save thousands of lives a year when fully rolled out in 2016. Pilots of Bowel Scope are underway in England, and soon everyone in England should be offered Bowel Scope Screening at 55, as well as the Faecal Occult Blood Test at 60.

Our scientists have played a key role in developing drugs called PARP inhibitors to target cancers carrying certain genetic faults. Olaparib is the first of these drugs to be approved for treating certain ovarian cancer patients.

Harpal has overseen the launch in 2013 of the world’s largest study of lung cancer patients. This trial is helping understand how tumours respond to treatment and change over time.

And in October this year, we launched the world’s largest clinical trial aiming to find out if aspirin can prevent some of the most common cancers coming back.

Cancer Research UK has also played a vital role in making sure more patients can have innovative radiotherapy treatments. For example, the number of patients in England who are able to have a modern type of radiotherapy called Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) has substantially increased thanks to the Radiotherapy Innovation Fund that we helped establish and deliver.

Harpal chaired the Independent Cancer Taskforce, an exceptional opportunity to oversee the development of the new NHS strategy for cancer in England. The strategy set out what needs to be done to transform cancer services in England over the next five years, from improving prevention, early diagnosis and access to treatments to ensuring patients have a experience of their care. Although it was only published less than 6 months ago, numerous changes are already being put in place.

And following on from his role with the Cancer Taskforce, Harpal will now chair an Independent Advisory Group to advise and oversee progress of the new strategy.

Harpal is dedicated to ensuring that patients are at the heart of everything we do. This can be clearly seen in our most recent research strategy, where he set out the ambition that three-quarters of people with cancer will survive the disease by 2034.

And under his leadership the amount of money the charity spends on life-saving cancer research has increased to £464 million in the last year.

“I am very surprised and deeply honoured,” Harpal tells us. “It is a privilege to lead Cancer Research UK.

“More than anything, this Honour recognises the extraordinary innovation and dedication of our scientists and clinicians to beating cancer, the creativity and passion of our fundraisers and amazing volunteers – with their commitment to maintaining the highest standards – and the tenacity and belief of our policy and information professionals in driving change at all levels, and in providing outstanding support for cancer patients and their families.

“I hope this Honour helps to both mark how far we have come in cancer, whilst also raising awareness of how far we have to go.”

Sir Harpal became Cancer Research UK’s chief executive in 2007, following on from his role as chief operating officer of the charity, to which he was appointed in 2004. He was previously chief executive of Cancer Research UK’s commercial arm, Cancer Research Technology, in 2002.

He is also a Trustee of the Francis Crick Institute, and chairs the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative.

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/22z4uhm

We’ve had some great news today – our chief executive Harpal Kumar has received a knighthood for services to cancer research.

This wonderful announcement acknowledges the significant impact he has had at Cancer Research UK during more than a decade at the charity.

Under his tenure, we’ve funded breakthrough scientific discoveries and secured a range of life-saving policy changes – most recently, the charity’s campaigning has been instrumental in the introduction of standardised cigarette packaging.

And there are many other life-saving advances he has overseen, with just a few listed here:

Cancer Research UK co-funded a trial of Bowel Scope Screening (also called flexi-scope or flexible sigmoidoscopy), which could save thousands of lives a year when fully rolled out in 2016. Pilots of Bowel Scope are underway in England, and soon everyone in England should be offered Bowel Scope Screening at 55, as well as the Faecal Occult Blood Test at 60.

Our scientists have played a key role in developing drugs called PARP inhibitors to target cancers carrying certain genetic faults. Olaparib is the first of these drugs to be approved for treating certain ovarian cancer patients.

Harpal has overseen the launch in 2013 of the world’s largest study of lung cancer patients. This trial is helping understand how tumours respond to treatment and change over time.

And in October this year, we launched the world’s largest clinical trial aiming to find out if aspirin can prevent some of the most common cancers coming back.

Cancer Research UK has also played a vital role in making sure more patients can have innovative radiotherapy treatments. For example, the number of patients in England who are able to have a modern type of radiotherapy called Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) has substantially increased thanks to the Radiotherapy Innovation Fund that we helped establish and deliver.

Harpal chaired the Independent Cancer Taskforce, an exceptional opportunity to oversee the development of the new NHS strategy for cancer in England. The strategy set out what needs to be done to transform cancer services in England over the next five years, from improving prevention, early diagnosis and access to treatments to ensuring patients have a experience of their care. Although it was only published less than 6 months ago, numerous changes are already being put in place.

And following on from his role with the Cancer Taskforce, Harpal will now chair an Independent Advisory Group to advise and oversee progress of the new strategy.

Harpal is dedicated to ensuring that patients are at the heart of everything we do. This can be clearly seen in our most recent research strategy, where he set out the ambition that three-quarters of people with cancer will survive the disease by 2034.

And under his leadership the amount of money the charity spends on life-saving cancer research has increased to £464 million in the last year.

“I am very surprised and deeply honoured,” Harpal tells us. “It is a privilege to lead Cancer Research UK.

“More than anything, this Honour recognises the extraordinary innovation and dedication of our scientists and clinicians to beating cancer, the creativity and passion of our fundraisers and amazing volunteers – with their commitment to maintaining the highest standards – and the tenacity and belief of our policy and information professionals in driving change at all levels, and in providing outstanding support for cancer patients and their families.

“I hope this Honour helps to both mark how far we have come in cancer, whilst also raising awareness of how far we have to go.”

Sir Harpal became Cancer Research UK’s chief executive in 2007, following on from his role as chief operating officer of the charity, to which he was appointed in 2004. He was previously chief executive of Cancer Research UK’s commercial arm, Cancer Research Technology, in 2002.

He is also a Trustee of the Francis Crick Institute, and chairs the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative.

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/22z4uhm

A spectacular auroral show to ring in the New Year (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“You cannot rob me of free nature’s grace,
You cannot shut the windows of the sky
Through which Aurora shows her brightening face.” -James Thomson

When the Sun emits a flare or a mass ejection in the direction of Earth, these fast moving particles are when Earth’s magnetosphere and atmosphere are of the utmost importance for shielding us. The magnetic field bends these ions harmlessly away from our planet, only funneling a small fraction down into a ring surrounding the poles. The atmosphere absorbs the impact, shielding all living creatures below from this radiation, while simultaneously putting on a show.

Image credit: public domain photo from Pixabay user skeeze, via http://ift.tt/1Oy5P3H.

Thanks to a coronal mass ejection on the 28th, the northern and southern lights will put on quite a display on the night of the 30th for all skywatchers at or above 50 degrees latitude, with chances that observers further towards the equator might have something to see, too. But the best views of all will belong to the unshielded astronauts aboard the ISS, who will pass around the Earth a full 7 times during our “night,” and at the peak of the storm.

Image credit: NOAA, of the Planetary K-index, courtesy of VE3EN at http://ift.tt/1rTfoZI.

Go get the whole pre-new-year’s story over at Forbes!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ktYLXW

“You cannot rob me of free nature’s grace,
You cannot shut the windows of the sky
Through which Aurora shows her brightening face.” -James Thomson

When the Sun emits a flare or a mass ejection in the direction of Earth, these fast moving particles are when Earth’s magnetosphere and atmosphere are of the utmost importance for shielding us. The magnetic field bends these ions harmlessly away from our planet, only funneling a small fraction down into a ring surrounding the poles. The atmosphere absorbs the impact, shielding all living creatures below from this radiation, while simultaneously putting on a show.

Image credit: public domain photo from Pixabay user skeeze, via http://ift.tt/1Oy5P3H.

Thanks to a coronal mass ejection on the 28th, the northern and southern lights will put on quite a display on the night of the 30th for all skywatchers at or above 50 degrees latitude, with chances that observers further towards the equator might have something to see, too. But the best views of all will belong to the unshielded astronauts aboard the ISS, who will pass around the Earth a full 7 times during our “night,” and at the peak of the storm.

Image credit: NOAA, of the Planetary K-index, courtesy of VE3EN at http://ift.tt/1rTfoZI.

Go get the whole pre-new-year’s story over at Forbes!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ktYLXW

Protecting kids is another reason that OSHA regulations are important [The Pump Handle]

During the holiday season, Kim, Liz and I are taking a short break from blogging.  We are posting some of our favorite posts from the past year. Here’s one of them, originally posted on August 12, 2015:

by Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH

“It’s just like the paper we read in class.” That was the email message I received last week from a former undergraduate student from a class I used to teach called “Health and the Environment.” She was referring to a report of two young children from the Cincinnati, OH area who were lead poisoned because the toxic metal wasn’t controlled at their father’s workplace. He worked at a facility that recycles electronic waste (e-scrap.)

My former student read about the case in the July 17, 2015 edition of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The 2 year-old girl and 1 year-old boy had elevated blood-lead levels (BLL) of 14 µg/dL and 18 µg/dL, respectively. (CDC recommends that public health authorities take action when a child’s BLL is 5 µg/dL or greater.)

The authors of the MMWR case note that the children’s primary care physician diagnosed the lead poisoning in 2010. The physician referred the family to the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSU) which triggered an evaluation of the family’s home by the Cincinnati Health Department’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The Health Department’s investigators determined there was no lead paint in the home or at the children’s daycare facility. That led to inquiries about possible work-related take-home contamination.

“The father worked at an e-scrap recycler company, crushing cathode ray tubes. …The family reported there was frequently visible dust in his hair, and the children often touched his hair. The father’s BLL was 25 µg/dL.”

The “it’s just like the paper we read in class” was one published in 2005 in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. That paper describes an individual with severe, recurring gastrointestinal symptoms and fatigue, and the round-about way he was ultimately diagnosed with work-related lead poisoning. His BLL, taken one week apart, were 159 and 164 µg/dL.

The gentleman worked as a “compounder” at a plant that manufactured customized PVC pellets. The authors described his job this way:

“This small employer custom compounds vinyl pellets from raw ingredients (powdered PVC resin, powdered stabilizer, and liquid lubricant). Lead sulfate was added as a stabilizer when formulating plastics for manufacturers of products such as insulated electrical wiring.”

The compounders “frequently (often daily) mixed batches that used pure lead sulfate as the stabilizer. Fifty-pound bags of lead sulfate were cut open and left unsealed in the production area; for each batch, a compounder hand-scooped six to eight pounds of pure lead sulfate powder and dumped it into a large mixing vat while wearing a paper dust mask.”

Investigators with the California Department of Public Health identified two co-workers at the plant who had BLL of about 110 µg/dL. They also noted:

“The employer was unaware that lead sulfate posed a serious health hazard or of his responsibilities under the OSHA lead standard. He had relied on the product Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for information on health effects and guidance on protecting his workers. The MSDS for this product did not mention the effects of lead on the central nervous system, blood-forming [or other health effects]… “and had inadequate information on appropriate respiratory protection.

The incomplete information on the MSDS, which was required to be prepared by the manufacturer of the lead sulfate, and the employer’s failure to comply with a whole host of precautions for lead-exposed workers, were violations of OSHA standards.

The case report was rich with information and was why I used it in my class. The paper also had a one-sentence bonus:

“Follow-up BLL testing of workers’ children identified one child, a 3-month-old infant, with an elevated BLL (10 µg/dL).”

That was the line that triggered my former student’s email to me: “It’s just like the paper we read in class.”

It was because of the bonus line— “a 3-month old infant with and elevated BLL”—that I especially liked using the paper in my class. It was a way for my students to recognize how toxic exposures in workplaces don’t necessarily stay there. It’s why OSHA regulations are not just about workers, but about the health and safety of families and communities.

The lead poisoning case reported in the July 17 MMWR has a second part of the story. The authors, researchers with CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), note that they didn’t know about the 2010 children’s lead poisoning cases. They learned about it in 2012 as part of their agency’s special initiative to learn more about hazards in the electronic waste-recycling industry. The NIOSH researchers happened to be evaluating the exact facility where the children’s father had worked. They write:

“The PEHSU investigator became aware of the NIOSH evaluation through a notification to a local affiliated occupational medicine training program.”

Among NIOSH’s findings about the lead hazards in the father’s e-scrap recycling workplace:

• “The local exhaust ventilation system at the cathode ray tubes crushing operation recirculated potentially contaminated air back into the production area. …(Cathode ray tubes are made from leaded glass, with lead concentrations in the funnel glass up to 25% and in the frit (where the panel glass joins the funnel glass) up to 85%.)”
• “There were no showers in facility A, and employees used brooms to sweep the work area, creating airborne dust.””…The changing area for employees who broke cathode ray tubes was not adjacent to the cathode ray tubes work area…. Employees could track lead-containing dust through the facility. Personal items, food, and work clothing and equipment were stored together in the changing area.”
• Lead (in lower concentrations) were found, among other places: the break room (e.g., floor, tables, and refrigerator handle), and the water fountain near the restrooms.
• “The hands of eight of 12 employees tested positive for lead, even though they had washed their hands with soap and water before testing. NIOSH also took a wipe sample from uniforms of employees’ front shoulder area. Twelve of 13 uniforms tested positive for lead.”

Had the employer been following OSHA’s lead standard, the workplace would not have been so contaminated with the toxic metal. More details on NIOSH’s findings are in the July 17 MMWR.  NIOSH published last year its assessment of hazards in the e-scrap recycling industry, with a special focus on lead and cadmium exposures.

It’s not the only time that parallel reports have been published on toxic exposures in the workplace and lead-poisoned children. NIOSH also published last year an evaluation of take-home lead contamination from a battery recycling plant in Puerto Rico. Investigators identified elevated BLL in children of the workers. Of 68 children aged <6 years who were tested, 39 (57%) had BLL ≥5 µg/dL. In this case, the company was violating OSHA standards, as well as EPA regulations.

There are plenty of lawmakers who disparage government regulations as burdensome and unnecessary. OSHA is often the target of their criticism. Maybe some of them might think twice if they realized the importance of workplace safety regulations for children’s health.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/22yHUFz

During the holiday season, Kim, Liz and I are taking a short break from blogging.  We are posting some of our favorite posts from the past year. Here’s one of them, originally posted on August 12, 2015:

by Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH

“It’s just like the paper we read in class.” That was the email message I received last week from a former undergraduate student from a class I used to teach called “Health and the Environment.” She was referring to a report of two young children from the Cincinnati, OH area who were lead poisoned because the toxic metal wasn’t controlled at their father’s workplace. He worked at a facility that recycles electronic waste (e-scrap.)

My former student read about the case in the July 17, 2015 edition of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The 2 year-old girl and 1 year-old boy had elevated blood-lead levels (BLL) of 14 µg/dL and 18 µg/dL, respectively. (CDC recommends that public health authorities take action when a child’s BLL is 5 µg/dL or greater.)

The authors of the MMWR case note that the children’s primary care physician diagnosed the lead poisoning in 2010. The physician referred the family to the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSU) which triggered an evaluation of the family’s home by the Cincinnati Health Department’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The Health Department’s investigators determined there was no lead paint in the home or at the children’s daycare facility. That led to inquiries about possible work-related take-home contamination.

“The father worked at an e-scrap recycler company, crushing cathode ray tubes. …The family reported there was frequently visible dust in his hair, and the children often touched his hair. The father’s BLL was 25 µg/dL.”

The “it’s just like the paper we read in class” was one published in 2005 in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. That paper describes an individual with severe, recurring gastrointestinal symptoms and fatigue, and the round-about way he was ultimately diagnosed with work-related lead poisoning. His BLL, taken one week apart, were 159 and 164 µg/dL.

The gentleman worked as a “compounder” at a plant that manufactured customized PVC pellets. The authors described his job this way:

“This small employer custom compounds vinyl pellets from raw ingredients (powdered PVC resin, powdered stabilizer, and liquid lubricant). Lead sulfate was added as a stabilizer when formulating plastics for manufacturers of products such as insulated electrical wiring.”

The compounders “frequently (often daily) mixed batches that used pure lead sulfate as the stabilizer. Fifty-pound bags of lead sulfate were cut open and left unsealed in the production area; for each batch, a compounder hand-scooped six to eight pounds of pure lead sulfate powder and dumped it into a large mixing vat while wearing a paper dust mask.”

Investigators with the California Department of Public Health identified two co-workers at the plant who had BLL of about 110 µg/dL. They also noted:

“The employer was unaware that lead sulfate posed a serious health hazard or of his responsibilities under the OSHA lead standard. He had relied on the product Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for information on health effects and guidance on protecting his workers. The MSDS for this product did not mention the effects of lead on the central nervous system, blood-forming [or other health effects]… “and had inadequate information on appropriate respiratory protection.

The incomplete information on the MSDS, which was required to be prepared by the manufacturer of the lead sulfate, and the employer’s failure to comply with a whole host of precautions for lead-exposed workers, were violations of OSHA standards.

The case report was rich with information and was why I used it in my class. The paper also had a one-sentence bonus:

“Follow-up BLL testing of workers’ children identified one child, a 3-month-old infant, with an elevated BLL (10 µg/dL).”

That was the line that triggered my former student’s email to me: “It’s just like the paper we read in class.”

It was because of the bonus line— “a 3-month old infant with and elevated BLL”—that I especially liked using the paper in my class. It was a way for my students to recognize how toxic exposures in workplaces don’t necessarily stay there. It’s why OSHA regulations are not just about workers, but about the health and safety of families and communities.

The lead poisoning case reported in the July 17 MMWR has a second part of the story. The authors, researchers with CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), note that they didn’t know about the 2010 children’s lead poisoning cases. They learned about it in 2012 as part of their agency’s special initiative to learn more about hazards in the electronic waste-recycling industry. The NIOSH researchers happened to be evaluating the exact facility where the children’s father had worked. They write:

“The PEHSU investigator became aware of the NIOSH evaluation through a notification to a local affiliated occupational medicine training program.”

Among NIOSH’s findings about the lead hazards in the father’s e-scrap recycling workplace:

• “The local exhaust ventilation system at the cathode ray tubes crushing operation recirculated potentially contaminated air back into the production area. …(Cathode ray tubes are made from leaded glass, with lead concentrations in the funnel glass up to 25% and in the frit (where the panel glass joins the funnel glass) up to 85%.)”
• “There were no showers in facility A, and employees used brooms to sweep the work area, creating airborne dust.””…The changing area for employees who broke cathode ray tubes was not adjacent to the cathode ray tubes work area…. Employees could track lead-containing dust through the facility. Personal items, food, and work clothing and equipment were stored together in the changing area.”
• Lead (in lower concentrations) were found, among other places: the break room (e.g., floor, tables, and refrigerator handle), and the water fountain near the restrooms.
• “The hands of eight of 12 employees tested positive for lead, even though they had washed their hands with soap and water before testing. NIOSH also took a wipe sample from uniforms of employees’ front shoulder area. Twelve of 13 uniforms tested positive for lead.”

Had the employer been following OSHA’s lead standard, the workplace would not have been so contaminated with the toxic metal. More details on NIOSH’s findings are in the July 17 MMWR.  NIOSH published last year its assessment of hazards in the e-scrap recycling industry, with a special focus on lead and cadmium exposures.

It’s not the only time that parallel reports have been published on toxic exposures in the workplace and lead-poisoned children. NIOSH also published last year an evaluation of take-home lead contamination from a battery recycling plant in Puerto Rico. Investigators identified elevated BLL in children of the workers. Of 68 children aged <6 years who were tested, 39 (57%) had BLL ≥5 µg/dL. In this case, the company was violating OSHA standards, as well as EPA regulations.

There are plenty of lawmakers who disparage government regulations as burdensome and unnecessary. OSHA is often the target of their criticism. Maybe some of them might think twice if they realized the importance of workplace safety regulations for children’s health.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/22yHUFz

Mapping technique reveals spatial clustering of workplace injuries and potential new venues for outreach [The Pump Handle]

During the holiday season, Kim, Liz and I are taking a short break from blogging. We are posting some of our favorite posts from the past year. Here’s one of them, originally posted on June 26, 2015:

By Kim Krisberg

A common hurdle in the field of occupational health and safety is delivering what can sometimes be life-saving information to the people who need it most. After all, not all employers are amenable to workplace health and safety education. But what if safety advocates could find and connect with the most at-risk workers out in the community? Perhaps even reach vulnerable workers with safety education before they experience an injury at work?

New research from the University of Illinois-Chicago School of Public Health could help safety advocates do just that. Linda Forst, director of the school’s Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, knew Hispanic and immigrant workers often face a higher risk of experiencing a severe work-related injury. She also knew that many such workers tend to live in the same communities. And so she wondered if one could map reported occupational injuries to certain neighborhoods. In other words, could researchers pinpoint geographic clusters of severe work-related injuries in a way that could provide insight into which communities are most in need of health and safety outreach?

“How do you reach workers who are difficult to reach in the workplace,” Forst told me. “People who work for small businesses, people who are employed in the cash economy, people employed as temporary workers — how do you reach them with prevention?”

To help answer that question, Forst and her colleagues cross-matched health care and publicly available databases by home ZIP code with incidences of work-related traumatic injuries reported to the Illinois state trauma registry between 2000 and 2009. The registry receives reports from level 1 and level 2 trauma centers. (Forst noted: “These are people hospitalized in a trauma unit for more than 24 hours — short of death, these are some of the worst injuries.”) In their study, which was published in the July supplement of the American Journal of Public Health, the researchers found that among the 23,200 occupational injuries reported, 80 percent of the cases were located in just 20 percent of ZIP codes and clustered in 10 locations. In addition, the numbers and clusters of injuries were associated with immigrant communities. Forst, Lee Friedman, Brian Chin and Dana Madigan write:

Adults generally live where there are opportunities for employment and housing. Low wage, immigrant, and minority workers and other persons employed in dangerous jobs are likely to cluster in areas with similar sociodemographic characteristics, influenced by the need for affordable housing, the familiarity of neighbors who are ethnically and linguistically similar, and services that cater to their cultural preferences. Because segments of low wage, minority, immigrant, and contingent workforces, small business employees and others who are at high risk for injury are difficult to reach in their workplaces, we sought to determine whether the need for occupational health and safety interventions could be identified at the community level.

In mapping the data, researchers found that within the 20 percent of ZIP codes with the highest rates of work-related injuries, nearly 2,750 injuries occurred. The study revealed 10 significant spatial clusters made up of 265 ZIP codes — nearly one-fifth of all ZIP codes in the state of Illinois — and within those clusters, about 8,300 traumatic work-related injuries occurred between 2000 and 2009. Researchers found an inverse relationship between occupational injuries and home ownership, a positive relationship between total employment and injuries, and a strong relationship between injuries and communities where immigrants tend to live.

Spatial clusters were typically found in mid-sized towns, outside of cities. Urban poverty levels were inversely related to work-related injury rates and the spatial clustering of injuries — in other words, the higher the poverty, the lower the injury rate. (Forst noted that this last finding was likely a result of high unemployment.) The study also reported that among the more than 23,000 workplace injuries studied, surgical intervention was required in nearly 51 percent of cases and more than 14 percent were treated in the intensive care unit.

“I wasn’t exactly sure what we would find with the study,” said Forst, who noted that to her knowledge, this was the first study to map the incidence of occupational injuries. “I suspected we would find a greater percentage of occupational injuries in immigrant communities, but I didn’t really know how clearly it would be demonstrated.”

Forst told me the study’s findings and its mapping technique could form the basis of interventions that offer education, occupational health and safety training, and information about labor and wage rights in the community setting, as opposed to the workplace setting. And in fact, because OSHA often struggles with tight budgets — and is now facing even more funding cuts— Forst said the mapping technique could help the agency more precisely target its prevention efforts and perhaps, get a bigger bang for its buck.

“Our investigation, which used existing health surveillance data, suggests that some neighborhoods might be disproportionately affected by traumatic occupational injuries,” the study stated. “On a practical level, predictors of vulnerability to workplace injury at a community level allow public health practitioners to reach at-risk workers in their neighborhoods.”

With growing public health interest in the association between a person’s health and where she or he lives, Forst told me the “relationship between place and work is clearly demonstrated in this project, and work really needs to be taken into account as a determinant in health.”

She noted that while the community-based interventions that could stem from the mapping technique certainly shouldn’t take away from workplace oversight — indeed, the high numbers of traumatic injuries make the case for such oversight even stronger — they could help workers take steps to protect their health and safety.

“I think awareness of labor issues, awareness of the existence of OSHA and workers’ rights, and awareness of some simple steps people can take to protect themselves at work can be transmitted in a community setting,” Forst said. “A lot of injuries don’t take a lot of equipment or a lot of power to prevent, so simple awareness can be very important.”

To read the full study, visit the American Journal of Public Health.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/22yHUFs

During the holiday season, Kim, Liz and I are taking a short break from blogging. We are posting some of our favorite posts from the past year. Here’s one of them, originally posted on June 26, 2015:

By Kim Krisberg

A common hurdle in the field of occupational health and safety is delivering what can sometimes be life-saving information to the people who need it most. After all, not all employers are amenable to workplace health and safety education. But what if safety advocates could find and connect with the most at-risk workers out in the community? Perhaps even reach vulnerable workers with safety education before they experience an injury at work?

New research from the University of Illinois-Chicago School of Public Health could help safety advocates do just that. Linda Forst, director of the school’s Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, knew Hispanic and immigrant workers often face a higher risk of experiencing a severe work-related injury. She also knew that many such workers tend to live in the same communities. And so she wondered if one could map reported occupational injuries to certain neighborhoods. In other words, could researchers pinpoint geographic clusters of severe work-related injuries in a way that could provide insight into which communities are most in need of health and safety outreach?

“How do you reach workers who are difficult to reach in the workplace,” Forst told me. “People who work for small businesses, people who are employed in the cash economy, people employed as temporary workers — how do you reach them with prevention?”

To help answer that question, Forst and her colleagues cross-matched health care and publicly available databases by home ZIP code with incidences of work-related traumatic injuries reported to the Illinois state trauma registry between 2000 and 2009. The registry receives reports from level 1 and level 2 trauma centers. (Forst noted: “These are people hospitalized in a trauma unit for more than 24 hours — short of death, these are some of the worst injuries.”) In their study, which was published in the July supplement of the American Journal of Public Health, the researchers found that among the 23,200 occupational injuries reported, 80 percent of the cases were located in just 20 percent of ZIP codes and clustered in 10 locations. In addition, the numbers and clusters of injuries were associated with immigrant communities. Forst, Lee Friedman, Brian Chin and Dana Madigan write:

Adults generally live where there are opportunities for employment and housing. Low wage, immigrant, and minority workers and other persons employed in dangerous jobs are likely to cluster in areas with similar sociodemographic characteristics, influenced by the need for affordable housing, the familiarity of neighbors who are ethnically and linguistically similar, and services that cater to their cultural preferences. Because segments of low wage, minority, immigrant, and contingent workforces, small business employees and others who are at high risk for injury are difficult to reach in their workplaces, we sought to determine whether the need for occupational health and safety interventions could be identified at the community level.

In mapping the data, researchers found that within the 20 percent of ZIP codes with the highest rates of work-related injuries, nearly 2,750 injuries occurred. The study revealed 10 significant spatial clusters made up of 265 ZIP codes — nearly one-fifth of all ZIP codes in the state of Illinois — and within those clusters, about 8,300 traumatic work-related injuries occurred between 2000 and 2009. Researchers found an inverse relationship between occupational injuries and home ownership, a positive relationship between total employment and injuries, and a strong relationship between injuries and communities where immigrants tend to live.

Spatial clusters were typically found in mid-sized towns, outside of cities. Urban poverty levels were inversely related to work-related injury rates and the spatial clustering of injuries — in other words, the higher the poverty, the lower the injury rate. (Forst noted that this last finding was likely a result of high unemployment.) The study also reported that among the more than 23,000 workplace injuries studied, surgical intervention was required in nearly 51 percent of cases and more than 14 percent were treated in the intensive care unit.

“I wasn’t exactly sure what we would find with the study,” said Forst, who noted that to her knowledge, this was the first study to map the incidence of occupational injuries. “I suspected we would find a greater percentage of occupational injuries in immigrant communities, but I didn’t really know how clearly it would be demonstrated.”

Forst told me the study’s findings and its mapping technique could form the basis of interventions that offer education, occupational health and safety training, and information about labor and wage rights in the community setting, as opposed to the workplace setting. And in fact, because OSHA often struggles with tight budgets — and is now facing even more funding cuts— Forst said the mapping technique could help the agency more precisely target its prevention efforts and perhaps, get a bigger bang for its buck.

“Our investigation, which used existing health surveillance data, suggests that some neighborhoods might be disproportionately affected by traumatic occupational injuries,” the study stated. “On a practical level, predictors of vulnerability to workplace injury at a community level allow public health practitioners to reach at-risk workers in their neighborhoods.”

With growing public health interest in the association between a person’s health and where she or he lives, Forst told me the “relationship between place and work is clearly demonstrated in this project, and work really needs to be taken into account as a determinant in health.”

She noted that while the community-based interventions that could stem from the mapping technique certainly shouldn’t take away from workplace oversight — indeed, the high numbers of traumatic injuries make the case for such oversight even stronger — they could help workers take steps to protect their health and safety.

“I think awareness of labor issues, awareness of the existence of OSHA and workers’ rights, and awareness of some simple steps people can take to protect themselves at work can be transmitted in a community setting,” Forst said. “A lot of injuries don’t take a lot of equipment or a lot of power to prevent, so simple awareness can be very important.”

To read the full study, visit the American Journal of Public Health.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/22yHUFs

London’s congestion charge and Seattle’s affordable transit [The Pump Handle]

During the holiday season, Kim, Liz and I are taking a short break from blogging. We are posting some of our favorite posts from the past year. Here’s one of them, originally posted on March 16, 2015:

by Liz Borkowski, MPH

In 2003, the city of London took a dramatic step in the battle against traffic congestion: It implemented a congestion charge of £5 for those driving private vehicles into an eight-square-mile central congestion zone on weekdays between 7am and 6:30pm. The fees were increased twice, and since 2011 have stood at £10. Drivers purchase day passes online, and a camera network and a license-plate-recognition system allow for enforcement and penalty collection. Motorcycles, bicycles, taxis, and buses are exempt from the charges.

An essential aspect of London’s system is that it invests the revenue fees in public transportation — helping to make transit more attractive as driving downtown has become more expensive. And even without spending on more buses or drivers, the fee system helped. After the congestion charge began, bus congestion delays dropped 50%, while ridership increased 14%.

While the program has certainly succeeded in reducing traffic congestion, safety advocates have raised concerns about the possibility of faster traffic speeds resulting in more crashes. Now, theWashington Post’s Emily Badger reports on new research with an encouraging finding: Central London’s roads have actually become safer since the congestion charge began.

Colin Green, John Heywood, and Maria Navarro of the Lancaster University Management School analyzed crash data, and find a “substantial and significant” decline in serious and fatal crashes both within the congestion zone and in the surrounding areas following the system’s implementation. Badger summarizes the findings:

In total, the researchers conclude that congestion pricing in Central London has been associated with 30 fewer crashes a month in the area, a drop of about 40 percent. Meanwhile, they estimate that the policy has led to about 46 fewer serious and fatal collisions a year — and 4.6 fewer deaths.

This wasn’t an obvious result when the city began this experiment a decade ago. Buses, taxis, motorcycles and bikes are exempt from the charge, which now costs £10 a day (it’s enforced through a series of video cameras and license plate readers). It’s possible that any safety gains from having fewer cars on the road might have been wiped out by other changes created by the policy — if, for instance, faster travel turned fender-benders into major crashes, or if more taxis and bikes flooded the roads, or if cars simply changed when and where they drive to skirt the congestion fee.

A system that reduces both pollution and congestion benefits public health. If a city is going to expect a large portion of its workers and residents to switch from driving to riding the bus, though, it had better have a high-quality, affordable bus system. Congestion reductions can make for a faster bus trip, but that’s little help if the bus doesn’t stop near your home or workplace, or if it’s not sufficiently usable for parents with small children or people with disabilities. Congestion fees can fund expansions in transit service, but voters are likely to be skeptical of new service that won’t materialize until a congestion-charge system is implemented.

As far as making transit more financially attractive than driving, Seattle recently began discounting fares for lower-income residents — specifically, those whose household incomes are at or below 200% of the federal poverty level ($47,700 for a family of four in 2014). Rides are now $1.50 — a discount of more than 50% off peak fares — when riders use an ORCA smart card. King County transit officials anticipate getting ORCA cards to 100,000 qualified people, in part by relying on an outreach network developed to enroll people in health plans that recently became available under the Affordable Care Act. One driving force behind Seattle’s program is concern for the region’s economy, explains the New York Times’ Kirk Johnson:

The problem it addresses is that many commuters from places like SeaTac, an outlying suburb, are too poor to live in Seattle, where prices and rents are soaring in a technology-driven boom. If they are pushed out so far that they cannot afford to get to work or give up on doing so, backers of the project said, Seattle’s economy could choke.

“I would characterize this as a safety valve,” said Dow Constantine, the King County executive and chairman of Sound Transit, a transportation agency serving multiple counties in the region. From 1999 to 2012, Mr. Constantine said, 95 percent of the new households in King County have been either rich or poor, earning more than $125,000 a year or less than $33,000, with hardly anything in between.

It’s in everyone’s interest for people to be able to get where they need to go without spending hours sitting in traffic. Studying outcomes in cities like London and Seattle that try bold new approaches to transportation gives us important data to inform future transportation policies.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ktM7bp

During the holiday season, Kim, Liz and I are taking a short break from blogging. We are posting some of our favorite posts from the past year. Here’s one of them, originally posted on March 16, 2015:

by Liz Borkowski, MPH

In 2003, the city of London took a dramatic step in the battle against traffic congestion: It implemented a congestion charge of £5 for those driving private vehicles into an eight-square-mile central congestion zone on weekdays between 7am and 6:30pm. The fees were increased twice, and since 2011 have stood at £10. Drivers purchase day passes online, and a camera network and a license-plate-recognition system allow for enforcement and penalty collection. Motorcycles, bicycles, taxis, and buses are exempt from the charges.

An essential aspect of London’s system is that it invests the revenue fees in public transportation — helping to make transit more attractive as driving downtown has become more expensive. And even without spending on more buses or drivers, the fee system helped. After the congestion charge began, bus congestion delays dropped 50%, while ridership increased 14%.

While the program has certainly succeeded in reducing traffic congestion, safety advocates have raised concerns about the possibility of faster traffic speeds resulting in more crashes. Now, theWashington Post’s Emily Badger reports on new research with an encouraging finding: Central London’s roads have actually become safer since the congestion charge began.

Colin Green, John Heywood, and Maria Navarro of the Lancaster University Management School analyzed crash data, and find a “substantial and significant” decline in serious and fatal crashes both within the congestion zone and in the surrounding areas following the system’s implementation. Badger summarizes the findings:

In total, the researchers conclude that congestion pricing in Central London has been associated with 30 fewer crashes a month in the area, a drop of about 40 percent. Meanwhile, they estimate that the policy has led to about 46 fewer serious and fatal collisions a year — and 4.6 fewer deaths.

This wasn’t an obvious result when the city began this experiment a decade ago. Buses, taxis, motorcycles and bikes are exempt from the charge, which now costs £10 a day (it’s enforced through a series of video cameras and license plate readers). It’s possible that any safety gains from having fewer cars on the road might have been wiped out by other changes created by the policy — if, for instance, faster travel turned fender-benders into major crashes, or if more taxis and bikes flooded the roads, or if cars simply changed when and where they drive to skirt the congestion fee.

A system that reduces both pollution and congestion benefits public health. If a city is going to expect a large portion of its workers and residents to switch from driving to riding the bus, though, it had better have a high-quality, affordable bus system. Congestion reductions can make for a faster bus trip, but that’s little help if the bus doesn’t stop near your home or workplace, or if it’s not sufficiently usable for parents with small children or people with disabilities. Congestion fees can fund expansions in transit service, but voters are likely to be skeptical of new service that won’t materialize until a congestion-charge system is implemented.

As far as making transit more financially attractive than driving, Seattle recently began discounting fares for lower-income residents — specifically, those whose household incomes are at or below 200% of the federal poverty level ($47,700 for a family of four in 2014). Rides are now $1.50 — a discount of more than 50% off peak fares — when riders use an ORCA smart card. King County transit officials anticipate getting ORCA cards to 100,000 qualified people, in part by relying on an outreach network developed to enroll people in health plans that recently became available under the Affordable Care Act. One driving force behind Seattle’s program is concern for the region’s economy, explains the New York Times’ Kirk Johnson:

The problem it addresses is that many commuters from places like SeaTac, an outlying suburb, are too poor to live in Seattle, where prices and rents are soaring in a technology-driven boom. If they are pushed out so far that they cannot afford to get to work or give up on doing so, backers of the project said, Seattle’s economy could choke.

“I would characterize this as a safety valve,” said Dow Constantine, the King County executive and chairman of Sound Transit, a transportation agency serving multiple counties in the region. From 1999 to 2012, Mr. Constantine said, 95 percent of the new households in King County have been either rich or poor, earning more than $125,000 a year or less than $33,000, with hardly anything in between.

It’s in everyone’s interest for people to be able to get where they need to go without spending hours sitting in traffic. Studying outcomes in cities like London and Seattle that try bold new approaches to transportation gives us important data to inform future transportation policies.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1ktM7bp

This Year in EPA Science

By Kacey Fitzpatrick

Our EPA researchers were hard at work in 2015—so to highlight that effort, we’ve put together a list of the ten most popular blogs from this year.

Happy New Year!

1. Bridging the Gap: EPA’s Report on the Environment
   Read about EPA’s Report on the Environment, an interactive resource that shows how the condition of the environment and human health in the United States is changing over time. It can be used by anyone interested in environmental trends and presents the best available indicators of national trends in five theme areas: Air, Water, Land, Human Exposure and Health, and Ecological Condition.

2. Release of Community Air Monitoring Training Videos
   Small, hand-held air quality sensors are now commercially available and provide citizens the ability to plan, conduct, and understand local environmental air quality as never before. Learn about how to use these tools yourself or educate interested groups and individuals about best practices for successful air monitoring projects.
3. Training Citizen Scientists to Monitor Air Quality
   Read about when Administrator Gina McCarthy joined New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka, and other community members at Newark’s Ironbound neighborhood Family Success Center to launch an EPA-Ironbound partnership for community air monitoring that is a first of its kind citizen science project.
4. Seeding Environmental Innovation
   Read about when EPA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) team attended a national conference and met with environmental entrepreneurs and successful SBIR awardees who have gone from an innovative seedling to a growing green business.
5. Moving Away From “High Risk”
   This year the Government Accountability Office released their biennial High Risk Report, which included EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System Program. Read the blog by EPA’s Lou D’Amico and Samantha Jones discussing the program’s progress.
6. Visit a Unique Air Monitoring Bench this Summer
   Read about how EPA has developed an air-monitoring system that can be incorporated into a park bench. The Village Green bench provides real-time air quality measurements on two air pollutants – ozone and particle pollution – and weather conditions. The data is streamed to a website and can be obtained at the benches using a smart phone. There are several benches throughout the country that you can visit!

7. Swimming with the Sharks
   Through Small Business Innovation Research contracts, EPA helps many great, environmentally-minded business ventures with potential, get the funding they need to get started. Read about some of our success stories—one of which was recently on the show Shark Tank—in this blog.

8. When Cooking Can Harm
   The process of cooking is one of the greatest health threats for the three billion people throughout the world who use biomass or coal-fed cookstoves to cook their meals and heat their homes. Read about how EPA supports research for cleaner technologies and fuels for cooking, lighting and heating in homes that have limited or no access to electricity or gas lines.

9. Are Some People at Greater Risk from Air Pollution?
   Read about how researchers at EPA and Duke University are using a database called CATHGEN to see how factors like age, sex, race, disease status, genetic makeup, socioeconomic status, and where a person lives can put someone at greater risk from the health effects of air pollution.
10. Indoor Air Quality in Schools – Concerns and Need for Low-Cost Solutions.
    Evidence has mounted regarding the contributions of poor indoor air quality and inadequate classroom ventilation toward student illnesses, absenteeism, and decreases in academic performance. Read about how a new EPA Science to Achieve Results grant will focus on high schools, a relatively under-studied school environment with numerous data gaps.

 

About the Author: Kacey Fitzpatrick is a student contractor and writer working with the science communication team in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1SmOc6I

By Kacey Fitzpatrick

Our EPA researchers were hard at work in 2015—so to highlight that effort, we’ve put together a list of the ten most popular blogs from this year.

Happy New Year!

1. Bridging the Gap: EPA’s Report on the Environment
   Read about EPA’s Report on the Environment, an interactive resource that shows how the condition of the environment and human health in the United States is changing over time. It can be used by anyone interested in environmental trends and presents the best available indicators of national trends in five theme areas: Air, Water, Land, Human Exposure and Health, and Ecological Condition.

2. Release of Community Air Monitoring Training Videos
   Small, hand-held air quality sensors are now commercially available and provide citizens the ability to plan, conduct, and understand local environmental air quality as never before. Learn about how to use these tools yourself or educate interested groups and individuals about best practices for successful air monitoring projects.
3. Training Citizen Scientists to Monitor Air Quality
   Read about when Administrator Gina McCarthy joined New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka, and other community members at Newark’s Ironbound neighborhood Family Success Center to launch an EPA-Ironbound partnership for community air monitoring that is a first of its kind citizen science project.
4. Seeding Environmental Innovation
   Read about when EPA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) team attended a national conference and met with environmental entrepreneurs and successful SBIR awardees who have gone from an innovative seedling to a growing green business.
5. Moving Away From “High Risk”
   This year the Government Accountability Office released their biennial High Risk Report, which included EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System Program. Read the blog by EPA’s Lou D’Amico and Samantha Jones discussing the program’s progress.
6. Visit a Unique Air Monitoring Bench this Summer
   Read about how EPA has developed an air-monitoring system that can be incorporated into a park bench. The Village Green bench provides real-time air quality measurements on two air pollutants – ozone and particle pollution – and weather conditions. The data is streamed to a website and can be obtained at the benches using a smart phone. There are several benches throughout the country that you can visit!

7. Swimming with the Sharks
   Through Small Business Innovation Research contracts, EPA helps many great, environmentally-minded business ventures with potential, get the funding they need to get started. Read about some of our success stories—one of which was recently on the show Shark Tank—in this blog.

8. When Cooking Can Harm
   The process of cooking is one of the greatest health threats for the three billion people throughout the world who use biomass or coal-fed cookstoves to cook their meals and heat their homes. Read about how EPA supports research for cleaner technologies and fuels for cooking, lighting and heating in homes that have limited or no access to electricity or gas lines.

9. Are Some People at Greater Risk from Air Pollution?
   Read about how researchers at EPA and Duke University are using a database called CATHGEN to see how factors like age, sex, race, disease status, genetic makeup, socioeconomic status, and where a person lives can put someone at greater risk from the health effects of air pollution.
10. Indoor Air Quality in Schools – Concerns and Need for Low-Cost Solutions.
    Evidence has mounted regarding the contributions of poor indoor air quality and inadequate classroom ventilation toward student illnesses, absenteeism, and decreases in academic performance. Read about how a new EPA Science to Achieve Results grant will focus on high schools, a relatively under-studied school environment with numerous data gaps.

 

About the Author: Kacey Fitzpatrick is a student contractor and writer working with the science communication team in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1SmOc6I

Why we need the next-to-impossible 1.5°C temperature target

Simon Donner is an Associate Professor of Climatology at the University of British Columbia. For the past decade, he has researched climate change impacts and the adaptation challenges facing the Pacific island countries.

The agreement signed at the United Nations climate summit in Paris has been hailed as historic, ground-breaking, and unprecedented.

At the same time, the targets are so ambitious that many climate analysts are rolling their eyes. The agreement aims to limit warming to “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and recognizes that avoiding 1.5°C of warming “would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”

The emissions reduction commitments made by the participating countries are not close to sufficient to achieve these targets. Carbon budget analyses show it will be next to impossible to avoid the 1.5°C limit without “negative emissions” – sucking carbon dioxide out of the air, using technologies that are unproven or not yet in existence. 

It is therefore understandable that Oliver Geden of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs would argue in his article, “Paris climate deal: the trouble with targetism,” that the temperature targets in the agreement are the height of hypocrisy. 

Yet Mr. Gedden and other critics of the Paris Agreement are missing the point of the climate negotiations. The issue facing international negotiators is not the statistical odds of staying within stated temperature limits. The issue is what happens if we do not.

After all, this is a global climate agreement. And to many countries, passing those temperature limits could be a disaster.

The temperature targets were included in the agreement out of respect for developing countries and small island states like the Republic of Kiribati, where I have conducted climate research over the past decade. In particular, the lower 1.5°C target is a signal to these countries that the world recognizes the existential threat that comes with more warming.

There is no scientifically definable “safe” amount of climate change. Science can provide us with a guide to the impacts of different levels of warming. The amount of warming we deem as “safe,” however, depends on our values and our perception of risk.

The 2°C target was informed by science, but it was chosen by developed countries – the same countries that are historically most responsible for climate change.

If you live in a small island nation in the tropics, more than 1.5°C of global warming certainly seems dangerous. With more than 1 meter of sea-level rise, around 90% of countries like Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, and Kiribati could become so prone to flooding as to be uninhabitable. While there’s large uncertainty about the rate of future sea-level rise, evidence from the distant past suggests that every 1°C of warming will eventually cause 2.3 meters of sea-level rise.

There’s even greater concern among larger countries like Fiji about coral reefs, a key source of food, income, and coastal protection in tropical countries. The world’s coral reefs are already in trouble due to warming and acidifying ocean waters. Research led by my colleague Dr. Katja Frieler shows that if warming can be kept to less than 1.5°C, two-thirds of the world’s coral reefs could be spared from serious degradation this century. With 2°C or more of warming, reefs covered with living corals could become an artifact of history.

The critics are correct in arguing that the world is unlikely to avoid 1.5°C of warming, or even 2°C of warming. Yet to dismiss the targets entirely is to dismiss the needs of countries that are full members of the international climate negotiations.

By agreeing on the temperature limits, we are officially recognizing the scientific evidence that harm will come with more warming. This helps ensure that countries like Kiribati which are most at risk will receive the needed international assistance, a key tenet of international climate policy since the creation of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Though they have not received much attention in the international media, the adaptation, capacity-building, and finance sections are as central to the Paris climate agreement as the sections on emissions and temperature targets.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1RRqYq4

Simon Donner is an Associate Professor of Climatology at the University of British Columbia. For the past decade, he has researched climate change impacts and the adaptation challenges facing the Pacific island countries.

The agreement signed at the United Nations climate summit in Paris has been hailed as historic, ground-breaking, and unprecedented.

At the same time, the targets are so ambitious that many climate analysts are rolling their eyes. The agreement aims to limit warming to “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and recognizes that avoiding 1.5°C of warming “would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”

The emissions reduction commitments made by the participating countries are not close to sufficient to achieve these targets. Carbon budget analyses show it will be next to impossible to avoid the 1.5°C limit without “negative emissions” – sucking carbon dioxide out of the air, using technologies that are unproven or not yet in existence. 

It is therefore understandable that Oliver Geden of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs would argue in his article, “Paris climate deal: the trouble with targetism,” that the temperature targets in the agreement are the height of hypocrisy. 

Yet Mr. Gedden and other critics of the Paris Agreement are missing the point of the climate negotiations. The issue facing international negotiators is not the statistical odds of staying within stated temperature limits. The issue is what happens if we do not.

After all, this is a global climate agreement. And to many countries, passing those temperature limits could be a disaster.

The temperature targets were included in the agreement out of respect for developing countries and small island states like the Republic of Kiribati, where I have conducted climate research over the past decade. In particular, the lower 1.5°C target is a signal to these countries that the world recognizes the existential threat that comes with more warming.

There is no scientifically definable “safe” amount of climate change. Science can provide us with a guide to the impacts of different levels of warming. The amount of warming we deem as “safe,” however, depends on our values and our perception of risk.

The 2°C target was informed by science, but it was chosen by developed countries – the same countries that are historically most responsible for climate change.

If you live in a small island nation in the tropics, more than 1.5°C of global warming certainly seems dangerous. With more than 1 meter of sea-level rise, around 90% of countries like Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, and Kiribati could become so prone to flooding as to be uninhabitable. While there’s large uncertainty about the rate of future sea-level rise, evidence from the distant past suggests that every 1°C of warming will eventually cause 2.3 meters of sea-level rise.

There’s even greater concern among larger countries like Fiji about coral reefs, a key source of food, income, and coastal protection in tropical countries. The world’s coral reefs are already in trouble due to warming and acidifying ocean waters. Research led by my colleague Dr. Katja Frieler shows that if warming can be kept to less than 1.5°C, two-thirds of the world’s coral reefs could be spared from serious degradation this century. With 2°C or more of warming, reefs covered with living corals could become an artifact of history.

The critics are correct in arguing that the world is unlikely to avoid 1.5°C of warming, or even 2°C of warming. Yet to dismiss the targets entirely is to dismiss the needs of countries that are full members of the international climate negotiations.

By agreeing on the temperature limits, we are officially recognizing the scientific evidence that harm will come with more warming. This helps ensure that countries like Kiribati which are most at risk will receive the needed international assistance, a key tenet of international climate policy since the creation of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Though they have not received much attention in the international media, the adaptation, capacity-building, and finance sections are as central to the Paris climate agreement as the sections on emissions and temperature targets.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1RRqYq4