Balancing economic growth and environmental protection

{***Pause/Music***}

{***Noah***}

Coming up on Harvard Chan: This Week in Health…

How can countries grow their economies, while still protecting the environment?

{***Ian Scott Soundbite***}

(If we continue to gobble up natural systems at the rate we’ve been doing for a long time. That is the choice we don’t have. We’ve got to change the way we use the natural environment.

In this week’s episode: The unique challenges faced by leaders in emerging markets—and the warning from experts about the consequences of unchecked economic growth.

{***Pause/Music***}

{***Noah***}

Hello and welcome to Harvard Chan: This Week in Health…it’s Thursday, August 3, 2017. I’m Noah Leavitt.

{***Amie***}

And I’m Amie Montemurro.

{***Noah***}

Amie, more than half of the world’s population lives in so-called emerging markets: Countries like China, India, Brazil, and Mexico.

These are middle-income countries on the rise, experiencing rapid economic and population growth—and in many cases improvements in health.

{***Amie***}

These nations wield enormous economic power— but experts say that has come with environmental consequences.

And today we’ll be talking to two of the authors of a new report warning against what they call “unchecked economic growth.”

{***Noah***}

The report comes from the Emerging Markets Symposium, which was created in 2008 to address problems of human welfare in emerging markets.

Based at Green Templeton College at Oxford University, the symposium gathers experts from around the world to examine critical issues facing more than 20 countries.

{***Amie***}

The symposium’s latest report warns that unregulated economic growth could result in irreversible environmental destruction and disastrous economic and health consequences.

Coming up you’ll hear from Ian Scott, who is executive director of the Emerging Markets Symposium, and Ana Langer, professor of the practice of public health and director of the Women and Health Initiative at the Harvard Chan School.

{***Noah***}

The sources of pollution in these countries are varied—from coal-burning power plants to emissions from industrial agricultural—such as the fumes of livestock waste and nitrogen-rich fertilizers.

And we’re already starting to see some of the consequences of environmental degradation.

According to the report:

More than one death in seven worldwide is the consequence of environmental pollution, which is the single greatest cause of disease and death in poorer countries.

Air pollution accounts for over 6 million deaths worldwide: In 2015, outdoor air pollution was responsible for more than 4 million deaths, over half of which occurred in China and India, and an additional 2.8 million deaths occurred as a result of household air pollution.

The World Bank estimated that, in 2013, air pollution cost the world economy some $225 billion in lost labor income.

{***Amie***}

According to Scott, emerging markets are particularly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution, water pollution, and soil degradation.

Additionally, in these countries there is a wide range in access to health care and health services.

Some nations have seen sharp reductions infant mortality, poverty, and communicable diseases—but in other countries these remain major issues.

And there are huge income disparities.

{***Noah***}

Scott says that environmental destruction threatens the progress these countries have made—and in some cases may worsen existing disparities.

{***Ian Scott  Soundbite***}

(They’ve had to deal with incredibly rapid change, faster than any comparable period in history, I would say. They’ve got unresolved problems of income, education, health, poverty, economic inequality, social equity, and other determinants of human welfare and well-being. And as far as the most recent report that we’ve written is concerned, they’ve also got unresolved problems of cumulative and serious environmental damage. We created the symposium in 2008 because we felt that these countries, well though they had done and were doing, would eventually find that unless they resolved problems of poverty, inequality, inequity, and other welfare determinants, growth would slow down, social cohesion would diminish, and in many cases– they don’t have it now, but it would become worse– and political stability could be threatened.)

{***Noah***}

The pollution that is visible—such as smog in China—is linked to climate change which will have wide-reaching effects on health.

{***Amie***}

And the health effects of pollution and climate change are not gender neutral, says Ana Langer.

She says that women and children are particularly vulnerable largely because of the nature of the work they do.

{***Noah***}

In many of these emerging markets, women are responsible for domestic tasks—such as getting water for a family, growing crops, or tending to livestock.

Langer explains how a drought could make that difficult task even harder.

{***Ana Langer Soundbite***}

(Accessing water is backbreaking and time consuming, and it’s something that usually girls and women do. And it’s an activity that traps them in a cycle of poverty. Due two very unfortunate environmental changes, drought and deforestation are much more common now. So women and girls have to travel longer distances to access water and fuel, which increases the burden of domestic chores. This considerably reduces the time and the opportunities women have available for education and income generation activities and discriminates against women in the labor market.)

{***Noah***}

Ian Scott says countries ignore such medium and long-term consequences at their own peril.

He points out that given what we know about the health effects of air pollution and climate change that leaders cannot plead ignorance when it comes to environmental protection.

{***Amie***}

However Scott acknowledges that these countries face legitimate challenges. They are are facing sustained population growth—which drives demand for industrial growth.

{***Noah***}

But another factor is the perception that it’s impossible for countries to grow and care for the environment at the same time.

Scott says that’s not the case—and the Emerging Markets Symposium is pushing for world leaders to understand the economic growth and environmental health are not mutually exclusive.

{***Amie***}

Ana Langer agrees—especially when it comes to the health of women and children.

{***Noah***}

She points to South Africa’s large-scale electrification program, which helped expand electricity from just 35% of households in 1990 to 84% in 2011.

This meant that women no longer had to travel long distances to get firewood for example. And reduced the effects of indoor air pollution caused by wood-burning stoves.

{***Amie***}

This also had another important consequence—it gave women more time and freedom to further their education or enter the labor market.

Langer says that women’s health and economic growth are inextricably linked.

{***Ana Langer Soundbite***}

(Sustainable development needs women’s social, economic, and environmental contributions, which will increase when women are healthy, valued, enabled, and empowered to reach their full potential in all aspects of their lives, including in their roles as providers of health care. So we need to think of innovative approaches to let women fulfill their potential. And by improving the health and well-being of women, we will be also positively impacting the health and well-being of children and other members of the family.)

{***Amie***}

And there are other signs of progress at the governmental level—Scott points to the example of Beijing, which took steps to clean the air ahead of the 2008 Olympics.

{***Ian Scott Soundbite***}

(If you recall the Beijing Olympics a few years ago– it was realized that to have the Olympics in Beijing in the midst of normal levels of air pollution would create potentially disastrous consequences for the games and for, of course, the athletes. And so, in fairly short order, the Chinese government imposed a shutdown of industry and power generation for a sufficient time before the games to allow the situation to improve. And later they returned back to service. But things can be done. Some things are much easier to control than others. And some forms of air pollution do respond relatively quickly. And the Chinese are among the countries that are doing something about that.)

{***Amie***}

While successful, that was a stopgap solution and in this new report experts call for large-scale and more long-term solutions, such as policies that promote investment in alternative energy and a reduced reliance on animal protein.

{***Noah***}

But Scott admits that’s easier said than done, pointing to the livestock example.

{***Ian Scott***}

(For example, you can make a very cogent case for why we should not eat red meat. Now many people will make that case on the basis of the argument that red meat’s not good for you. Now I happen to enjoy red meat as much as many other people. But if I look at the consequences in terms of air pollution, because there’s a massive amount of gas generated from animals– people underrate the importance of agricultural air pollution. It is very important. And that is just an example of the difficulties that are faced by all leaders everywhere. How would they manage to say, right, no more red meat. It’s going to be banned. Well, you could have said the same thing about asbestos and tobacco some time ago. What happened was that research was done, which became conclusive, that showed there was direct links between health consequences and tobacco. Once you know about those things, the evidence suggests that you can build public agreement that those things are not good for us. They’re not good for everybody else. They’re not good for our children. And behaviors have changed. That is one thing that gives me hope.)

{***Noah***}

The other source of hope for Scott: The Paris Climate Agreement.

{***Amie***}

Last year nearly 200 countries pledged to hit voluntary targets to reduce the effects of climate change.

Recently the President Donald Trump announced the U.S. was withdrawing from the agreement.

{***Noah***}

Despite that, Scott views the Agreement as a step forward—not because of what each country pledged to do, but rather because it signified that the global community does recognize the threat posed by climate change.

{***Ian Scott  Soundbite***}

(The important thing about the climate agreement, I think, has much less to do with climate than it does with agreement. The fact is that that agreement between nearly 200 countries was the first time in modern history, in fact in history, when the countries of the world recognized the common threat and the absolute necessity of doing something about it collectively. Because none of them, none of them could possibly act to prevent the consequences becoming overwhelming by themselves. They could only do it conjointly. Because one of the distinguishing things about the problems of climate change and air pollution, water pollution, et cetera, is that all those natural systems move. Air moves. Climate moves. And we know that air pollution crosses the Pacific. Some air pollution on the West Coast of the United States is actually coming from Asia. And no one country could control any of these things, let alone resolve the problems arising. So the brilliant success of Paris, in my opinion, was that it brought the countries of the world to their senses and said, we have no choice. We must take collective action. It must be consistent. It must be firm. And it must be courageous.)

{***Noah***}

Scott says the path forward involves future agreements with more specific goals.

For example, outlining specific policies to protect the air, water, and soil on a global scale.

[***Amie***}

He adds that there is finally a growing acceptance that our natural resources are not infinite.

{***Ian Scott Soundbite***}

(If we continue to gobble up natural systems at the rate we’ve been doing for a long time. That is the choice we don’t have. We’ve got to change the way we use the natural environment. It will not be possible to sustain economic growth at levels which will be adequate to meet expectations and even basic needs unless we protect the environment. You can’t go on growing forever unless you deal with that. David Haynes, who is the Chairman of the Rockefeller Lancet Commission, a couple of years ago pointed out that we have, in fact, used up our quota, and then some, of our environmental resources. And we borrowed from the future. And we’re not going to be able to pay it back because the damage is done. But we have to put a brake on more damage. Environmental health has had less attention from global leaders than it deserves and needs. Because ultimately, we have to come back to the very simple premise, in a way, that if you don’t have health, you have nothing.

 

The economy depends on health. Society depends on health. Education depends on health. Health is, I think, the most basic element of human welfare.)

{***Amie***}

That was Ian Scott and Ana Langer on the environmental challenges faced by emerging markets.

{***Noah***}

If you want to learn more about the Emerging Markets Symposium, and read this latest report, we’ll have a link on our website, hsph.me/thisweekinhealth.

{***Amie***}

And a quick programming note: We’ll be taking a short summer break for the last few weeks of August, but we will return in September with all new episodes.

{***Noah***}

In the meantime, you can always find us wherever you get your podcasts—including iTunes, Stitcher, and Soundcloud.