Climate change: defeating misinformation with trusted knowledge
BMJ 2024; 387 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2211 (Published 10 October 2024) Cite this as: BMJ 2024;387:q2211
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
Policymaking to counter the effects of climate change on health is plagued with misinformation, with evidence of the reality of climate change and its link to population health denied by false narratives (1). Politics more than evidence is shaping policies (2). Unfortunately, the polarization is so strong in this area that misinformation denying the effects of climate change is too often countered by another type of misinformation made of evidence-free romantic proposals.
Hence, it is surprising to read that BMJ, a major and historical champion of evidence-based medicine and public health, quotes in an editorial a proposal to prescribe “walking home barefoot through nature”? (1). Nature-friendly recommendations to improve health and make greener healthcare systems are trendy. In a recent Swiss medical journal, there was a proposal to take a “foot bath at increasing temperature" rather than drugs for upper respiratory tract infections (3). Grandma’s and bogus medicine are however not a solution to prevent low-value care. More broadly, the problem is that these proposals are not based on scientific evidence. They reveal how medicine and public health are increasingly shaped by a romantic view of the alleged benefits of nature (4).
We should be more serious in countering misinformation on the relationship between climate change and health. Romantic public health will not help decarbonize the healthcare system, we must test and evaluate solutions within a scientific framework. More than ever, there is a need for evidence-based public health policymaking (5).
References
1) Abbasi K. Climate change: defeating misinformation with trusted knowledge BMJ 2024; 387: q2211
2) Chiolero A. Is science ever enough? Dare to play politics. Lancet 2021; 397(10268):23.
3) Sommer J, Bideau M, Corajod JY. Agissons pour la santé de la planète en faveur de la santé de l’humanité. Rev Med Suisse. 2024; 20(859): 279-280.
4) McCulloch CR. The horror of Romantic medicine and its befitting demise. Hist Philos Med 2022; 4(1):7.
5) Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health 2009; 99(9):1576-83.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
There is a difference between misinformation and critical informed comment. There is no doubt that the climate is changing, but many reputable scientists dispute the "settled science" opinion that such change is primarily due to mankind. The exact contribution of greenhouse gas emissions remains unclear and much of the catastrophising reporting is based on modelling, which as we know from the Covid experience (and others) is highly unreliable. There are many factors involved in changes, from sunspot activity through volcanic activity to variations in El Nino; carbon dioxide is currently at a low level compared with historical data; it will not rise forever but will plateau, and will anyway result in increased growth of vegetation. Furthermore it is important to note that much of the data on temperature comes from weather stations whose accuracy and siting is subject to serious concern; for example, increasing urbanization around a station will inevitable cause a rise in recorded temperature.
It remains a concern that the downside of attempting to achieve Net Zero is ignored. The demands on electricity supply from AI facilities and electric vehicles cannot be met from green sources alone, and the unreliability of solar and wind power will lead to power outages. Closing our generating capacity from oil and gas will leave us relying on imported gas. What if the supply is stopped? And is the devastation caused by lithium mining cost-effective? Can storage batteries ever be sufficient? Fuel poverty will become universal and this may well affect underdeveloped countries disproportionately. We cannot brush such worries under the carpet. Any discussion on any plan must include one vital piece of analysis: what could possibly go wrong? Several countries have begun looking at that, but the UK continues to be blind to the economic risks.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
Climate change and Hurricanes
Climate change can influence the impact of hurricanes by increasing the intensity and decreasing the speed at which they travel. This will result in more physical damage and mortality.
A warmer sea surface, rise in sea levels and change in atmosphere warming due to climate change are the contributing factors for the origin and Impect severity of hurricanes.
To prevent the worst impacts of hurricanes, communities in both coastal and inland areas need to become more resilient, along with the human contributions to mitigate climate change at all levels including in their activities of daily living.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Climate change: defeating misinformation with trusted knowledge
Dear Editor,
A recent BMJ editorial rightly focuses on broader global context, particularly the intersection of climate change and health. This is more than an operational shift-it is a call to action. It is commendable that BMJ choose to act now, not only to mitigate harm but to foster hope for a healthier, sustainable future (1).
More importantly, BMJ’s editorial offers a critical appraisal of how misinformation undermines public understanding of climate change and its health impacts, while suggesting practical steps to combat it. Embedding climate science into educational curriculums from a young age, ensuring that children and adults alike understand the foundational principles of environmental science, the health impacts of climate change, and how to critically evaluate information sources.
The rising concern about the climate crisis is having a profound impact on mental health, particularly among young people. We must address this by providing mental health resources alongside climate education to help people cope with the enormity of the crisis. Empowering individuals with both knowledge and emotional resilience will ensure they are equipped to engage in the issue productively rather than becoming paralyzed by fear (2).
Climate misinformation often thrives in environments where trust in traditional institutions-such as governments, academia, and health authorities-has been eroded. People entrenched in misinformation narratives often view scientific data through a lens of distrust, fed by ideological biases, fear, and competing economic interests (3).
For several decades now we have been acutely aware of the increasingly intensifying effect that environmental degradation has on human health. Health care leaders are becoming more and more concerned about the potential impact on public health. The medical community must become more aggressively involved in combating future global environmental problems (4).
The medical community’s growing awareness of the health impacts of climate change, along with the launch of the World Health Organization's Toolkit for Health Professionals, illustrates a growing alignment between healthcare advocacy and environmental responsibility (5). The inclusion of climate-related healthcare reform as a priority reflects the foresight needed to address emerging health threats that extend beyond the traditional healthcare domain.
References:
(1). Abbasi K. Climate change: defeating misinformation with trusted knowledge- BMJ 2024; 387 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2211 (Published 10 October 2024)
(2). Jeng W, Huang YM, Chan HY, Wang CC. Strengthening scientific credibility against misinformation and disinformation: Where do we stand now? J Control Release. 2022 Dec; 352:619-622. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.10.035. Epub 2022 Nov 4. PMID: 36334856; PMCID: PMC9634494.
(3). Clayton S, Manning C, Krygsman K, Speiser M. Mental health and our changing climate: Impacts, implications, and guidance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica. 2017 Mar.
(4). Desapriya EB. Climate change and health. CMAJ. 2005 Aug 16;173(4):339-40; author reply 340. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1050104. PMID: 16103485; PMCID: PMC1188197.
(5). World Health Organization. Communicating on climate change and health: Toolkit for health professionals. World Health Organization; 2024 Mar 22
Competing interests: No competing interests