As widely expected, the WHO annual meeting that just concluded included calls to declare climate change a PHEIC (Public Health Emergencyc of International Concern), just like Ebola and COVID before it.
WHO Commission: Climate Crisis Is a Health Crisis
The Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health (PECCH) is calling on the World Health Organization (WHO) to “declare climate change a public health emergency of international concern.” The Commission believes that climate change is no longer a future environmental threat but rather an immediate and deepening crisis. This crisis is already affecting people’s health, food, water, energy, and security. Yet governments are not responding at the necessary level or with measures proportionate to the gravity of the situation, writes WHO.
The Commission on Climate and Health, chaired by Iceland’s former Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir and comprising ministers, former heads of government, and representatives of key organizations from 53 countries, has therefore presented the WHO with 17 recommendations on what governments should do next. “The climate crisis is a threat to our safety and security, social cohesion, human rights, and health,” noted Commission Chair Jakobsdóttir, adding: “Far from being a problem solely for future generations, it is a real and present threat to us right now in Europe. Climate action is not merely a necessity. It is a high-return investment for a more just and resilient society. We all have a political and moral responsibility to act now.”
Among the Commission’s proposals are recommendations to treat climate change as a health security threat, make health systems more climate-resilient, scale up local action, and reform financial systems that continue to support fossil fuel use. The Commission calls on the WHO to designate climate change as “a public health emergency of international concern.” This is the highest level of health alert, as used, for example, during the COVID-19 crisis. In this way, the Commission hopes to trigger an international response to climate threats, including extreme heat, infectious diseases, food security, and air pollution.
One of the Commission’s main concerns is dependence on fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels causes air pollution, climate change, and energy crises, which is why the Commission warns that oil and gas subsidies increase public health risks. However, if revenues from taxes were invested in wind and solar farms, public transportation, nutrition, and climate-resilient healthcare, it would save lives and reduce long-term costs.
What do they mean by nutrition? Eating bugs for protein to avoid cow burps containing methane? What do they mean by climate-resilient healthcare: getting your healthcare via a screen so no one has to travel to receive care? And then getting it entirely from the computer?—Nass
In addition to calling for a phase-out of fossil fuels, the Commission argues that climate and health should be added to the agendas of national security councils, covering defense, energy, and finance ministries. The Commission appeals to the nations’ conscience, emphasizing that the geopolitical situation has led countries to spend increasingly more on security. Yet “climate change is itself a primary security risk; one that is already disrupting infrastructure, health systems and food and water security across the region, and one whose costs will compound with every year of delayed action.”
Therefore, the Commission finds that current international rules were designed for epidemics and are not suited for a climate health crisis, nor do they account for its scale. Since the WHO has not declared an official emergency, governments can treat climate change as a background factor rather than an acute and escalating threat. In this regard, the World Health Organization appears to largely agree, as Dr. Hans Henri P. Kluge, Regional Director for Europe, stated: “The case for acting on climate now is not just environmental. It is a security argument, a health argument, and an economic argument, all at once. And it is a moral imperative.” @hans_kluge
At the same time, even the so-called mainstream of climate science has moved away from the most extreme climate scenario, according to which the world was supposed to warm by 4–5°C by 2100, leading to catastrophe. In other words, the abrupt climate change and impending catastrophe that were previously often highlighted in high-end projections are now considered less likely under updated scenarios.
As long as our nations pay for these meetings and these climate “science” blowhards are rewarded for making up the climate change science and suppressing the actual climate anomalies cause by geoengineering, and they ignore things like the movement of the earth’s magnetic poles, we will continue to hear “garbage out” from the designated propagandists, excuse me, designated experts.
IPAK-EDU is grateful to Meryl’s CHAOS letter (Critical Health Analysis and OpinionS) as this piece was originally published there and is included in this news feed with mutual agreement. Read More
Science-based knowledge, not narrative-dictated knowledge, is the goal of WSES, and we will work to make sure that only objective knowledge is used in the formation of medical standards of care and public health policies.
Leave a Reply