Abstract
To the Editor:
Global climate change is humanity’s greatest challenge of the 21st century. Its impact on the environment is well known but it will also have impacts on public health—two of the pillars of the Wilderness Medicine Society (WMS). Recently, the WMS hosted a conference on environmental change and human health to review these issues.
This conference spurred much debate, including this ironic question: Why are we traveling thousands of miles and creating an enormous collective carbon footprint to talk about how we are going to reduce our carbon footprint? To provide some data on the impact from this small conference, I have estimated the total carbon footprint of the 50 attendees. Originating zip codes from the attendees were collected, and carbon emissions were estimated from those, using previously described methods. 1 –3
The total C
As medical professionals, we are uniquely positioned to make an argument on climate change from the perspective of global health. We can expect an increase in morbidity and mortality from effects of famine and dehydration, extreme weather events, tropical disease redistribution, heat illness, and asthma, among others. The burden will be carried disproportionately by the poor and undeveloped nations as well as by the elderly and young, despite the fact that the richest are responsible for most of the emissions.
Our window of opportunity is closing. We need to reevaluate what we are doing to our planet and to our health. Healthcare has a part to play in the dialogue, from changing our own practices to changing those of our patients. One part of this is reconsidering the need for travel, including to medical conferences.
There are many alternatives to traveling long distances for CME and conferences. Modern technology makes it possible to connect without travel through virtual teleconferences, e-mail, online chats, wikis, social media, and podcasts. These are new technologies, but as they mature and millennials enter medicine, I expect they will become more used and more useful. Alternatively, for the locavores and technophobes alike, there are many options for CME available in their local area that might benefit them even more than a national level conference by tailoring education and collaboration to regional issues.
On the contrary, it is difficult to put a value on national meetings. For instance, at the WMS environmental conference referenced here, we were able to pull together a collective of national and international minds that had a depth and breadth of expertise not found in most locales. There is something more human about in-person meetings, particularly the value of networking and serendipitous discoveries. And, of course, there are the perks of hosting conferences at desirable venues.
The ultimate question is one of ethics and values. Where do we draw the line of benefit and risk? The world is going to be experiencing climate change—that much is beyond debate to those who know it best. Are we going to change with it? Personally, I think the risk lies in inaction.