Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 33 20. I UNDERSTAND FROM THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 EDITION OF SCIENCE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE, THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HELD A CONFERENCE IN SEPTEMBER ABOUT THE LINKAGE BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE AND HEALTH EFFECTS. 20A. PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS LINKAGE, AND PROVIDE THE PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES SUPPORTING THIS LINKAGE. Answer: Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) critically assessed the scientific literature which studied the linkages between climate change and human health. The list of references of chapter 18 of IPCC is attached. The key conclusions of IPCC WG II are: Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on humans health, with significant loss of life. These impacts would arise by both direct and indirect pathways, and it is likely that the indirect impacts would, in the longer term, predominate. Direct health effects include increases in (predominantly Indirect effects of climate change include increases in the potential transmission of vector-borne infectious diseases (e.g., malaria, dengue, yellow fever, and some viral encephalitis) resulting from extensions of the geographical range and season for vector organisms. Projections by models (that entail necessary simplifying assumptions) indicate that the geographical zone of potential malaria transmission in response to world temperature increases at the upper part of the IPCC-projected range (3-5° C by 2100) would increase from century. This could lead to potential increases in additional annual cases, relative to an assumed global Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response D. 34 non-vector-borne infectious diseases--such as salmonellosis, cholera, and giardiasis-- also could occur as a result of elevated temperatures and increased flooding. Additional indirect effects include respiratory and Quantifying the projected impacts is difficult because 20B. PLEASE IDENTIFY ALL THE CONFERENCE SPONSORS AND THE FEDERAL FUNDS THAT WERE EXPANDED. Answer: The Conference was co-sponsored by the Institute of 20C. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONFERENCE, IN A BREAKOUT DISCUSSION GROUP ON PUBLIC OUTREACH RISK COMMUNICATION, DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE PRESENTED BY AN EPA OFFICIAL. ONE DESCRIPTION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTS THAT THEY INVOLVE CONSIDERABLE USE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS TECHNIQUES, SUCH AS PREPARING PRESS KITS, AUTHORING ARTICLES, USING THE INTERNET, AND DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE FOR DOCTORS TO GIVE PATIENTS. PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, EXPLAIN THEIR STATUS, AND INDICATE WHAT ROLE THE GOVERNMENT Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response P. 35 Answer: There were 6 breakout sessions at the Conference on Human Health and Global Climate Change: 1) Implications for Global Health Surveillance and Response; 2) Implications for Disease Prevention; 3) Implications for Education of the Medical and Public Health Communities; 4) Implications for International Cooperation; 5) Implications for Research and Development Needs, and 6) Implications for Public Outreach and Risk Communication. The purpose of each of these was to think about next steps to improve our understanding of and our ability to respond to changing disease patterns. The overall Conference was really a landmark for bringing together 2 communities--environment and health--and having them simultaneously think about climate change and the potential for cooperation and efficient use of resources. The group on public outreach and risk communication consisted of federal, state, and local representatives as well as NGO and industry stakeholders. They discussed a paper developed by HHS that outlined the difficulties of explaining complex scientific issues and comparative risk to the layperson. Dr. Bill Farland, Director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment, EPA, served as the chair of the breakout session. The conclusions of that session were that for climate change, as well as for many other complicated issues, a risk communication strategy must include: 1) involving the public by encouraging awareness and discussion; and 2) continuing to build bridges between the relevant technical communities--in this case, the medical and environmental communities. The participants recommended working through existing networks and infrastructure, not necessarily creating new ones. they suggested interaction through the internet, as well as fostering broader environmental health awareness in popular articles, journal articles, and op eds. Thus, Many analogies to explaining the dangers of nuclear war were made. Concerns about both extremes--environmental alarmism and environmental complacency, were voiced. Education of the public about what is known and what is not known is an important step. The Government is not planning any formal implementation of the recommendations from Panel 6, per se. However, we certainly do endorse the continued interaction of the health and environmental communities in raising the level of scientific literacy and understanding of risk in the general public. The report of the entire workshop is being written by the Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response P. 36 21. THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 EDITION OF SCIENCE ALSO REPORTS THAT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE HAS SENT A PROPOSAL TO THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR A THREE-YEAR STUDY COSTING $1 MILLION CONCERNING THE LINKAGE BETWEEN GLOBAL CHANGE AND HUMAN HEALTH. PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL AND EXPLAIN ITS STATUS AND THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THE PROPOSAL, IF ADOPTED. Answer: The proposal was submitted to EPA as the lead agency for funding, with copies going to U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease, (USAMRIID), NOAA, NASA, CDC and NSF. The proposal requested total contributions of $75,000. A decision to fund the study has not been made at this time. |