As promised, here is the lowdown on the launch of The Lancet’s Energy and Health series. But not from me! Huge thanks to our two students working in The Lancet Offices at the moment, Jo Tuthill and Aditi Das.

(From left to right - Dr Paul Wilkinson, James Woodcock, Dr Richard Horton, Professor Andy Haines, Dr John Powles)

In the midst of the current debate over climate change, a vital and novel issue has been cast to the side line: the effect of energy on health. Yesterday, in response to this gap in knowledge, The Lancet hosted a Series on Energy and Health, with a press launch at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

A colourful debate was inspired by Richard Horton and experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Prof Sir Andy Haines, Dr Paul Wilkinson, James Woodcock, and Dr John Powles (Department of Public Health, University of Cambridge, UK).In the words of Richard Horton’s opening comment, “society suffers from a disordered global energy metabolism”. While affluent societies have an abundance of energy, 2 billion people worldwide lack clean energy and live in “energy poverty”. The authors of the Series stressed that the solution is not solely to implement technologies for energy efficiency, but that lifestyle changes are crucial. We, with pens poised and stern journalistic expressions at the ready, confess we were initially not well versed in the field. An hour later, however, we emerged enlightened and inspired to take action, ready even to forgo our chicken burger for a tofu treat. So, what did we learn and what exactly inspired this new-found vegetarianism? And are we aiming for a utopia?

Amongst talk of clean energy, it was stipulated that a lack of clean energy is causing significant mortality. 2.4 billion people burn solid fuels indoors for heating and cooking. Exposure to this household air pollution contributes to 1.6 million deaths per year. There needs to be a shift towards cleaner and renewable resources. Prof Haines believes that renewable options are “not insuperable if we develop other energy carriers”. These other carriers need to be reliable enough to counteract the intermittency of renewable sources-eg, wind. Nuclear energy also arose to shake its controversial head. Although debatable, the disadvantages of nuclear power-waste, accidents, proliferation, and the threat of terrorism-are not thought to outweigh its benefits in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and air pollution.

We all have a role to play in saving energy and switching to low-carbon low-energy transport. A radical proposal was to create car-free city centres, similar to Bogota, Columbia, which has weekly car-free days and major parking restrictions. The prospect of a car-free London was raised. A car-free inner London would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 48% and a car-free greater London would reduce such emissions by 72%. Only the car-free greater London scenario comes close to achieving the necessary emission reductions. This potential reform would not only play a part in averting climate change, but also have the potential to improve public health.

If, like us, you have ever contemplated ditching your car but lacked enthusiasm to walk or cycle, the following statistics could make you reconsider. By walking or cycling instead of driving, you burn on average an extra 15 g of fat a day or 4·5 kg of fat a year (equivalent to the results seen with most obesity drugs). Additionally, women could expect a 25% reduction in risk of breast cancer and men could enjoy a 20-40% reduction in premature mortality. Deaths from road-traffic accidents and noise pollution from traffic would also be decreased, and air quality would improve.

So, why are we both now so enthusiastic about tofu? According to John Powles we need to reduce average global meat intake to a target of 90 g a day (15 g less than an American quarter pounder) to decrease greenhouse-gas emissions. Livestock production actually accounts for more greenhouse-gas emissions than does transport, and these greenhouse gases don’t just arise from flatulent cows!

Is this series from The Lancet aiming for an unrealistic utopia? Comparisons can be drawn to the seismic shifts in changes in sanitation in London over the past 100 years and the implementation of the smoking ban last July. Such changes were also deemed to be too radical to succeed. However, if there is cooperation on a personal, national and global scale we believe that this utopia could become a reality.’

Thanks Jo and Aditi, and don’t forget to look at the whole series including a full audio version of the media launch.

Bookmark on delicious | Digg

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 13th, 2007 at 2:37 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can trackback from your own site.