If you look on the bright side, when you think of
the health effects of climate change you probably think of fewer
sub-zero spells and, therefore, fewer cold-related illnesses and deaths.
Maybe. But in a warmer world, as I wrote last year, poison ivy and
ragweed will get more prevalent and more toxic, and tropical diseases
such as malaria and dengue fever will reach toward the poles. Those, it turns out, are only the tip of the (melting) iceberg. This morning, the Wildlife Conservation Society released a report listing 12 disease-causing microbes
that threaten to spread into new regions as a result of climate change.
What does a wildlife organization have to do with this? By monitoring
wildlife, scientists will be able to detect these spreading pathogens
before they cause a human epidemic. Or so they hope. As Steven E.
Sanderson, President and CEO of the WCS, said, “The health of wild
animals is tightly linked to the ecosystems in which they live and
influenced by the environment surrounding them, and even minor
disturbances can have far reaching consequences on what diseases they
might encounter and transmit as climate changes. Monitoring wildlife
health will help us predict where those trouble spots will occur and
plan how to prepare.” Think avian flu
which, with other livestock diseases that have reemerged since the
mid-1990s have cost the global economy an estimated $100 billion. The report’s “deadly dozen”:
|