often than not environmental public goods have been taken for granted. But
when these goods begin to deteriorate then civilizations have provided means of
protection, at least in terms of local environmental public health goods, in order
to limit the ‘tragedy of the commons’. —
Awareness of damage to local environmental public health goods can be traced
to the recognition of soil salination by the ancient Sumerians. However,
concerns for what we now recognize as environmental global public goods has
been much more recent, — and led to the first United Nations global
environment conference, held in Stockholm in 1972. In the past decade there has
been an encouraging increase in global public awareness of the importance and
fragility of many aspects of the global environment, but with an inability to
translate this into effective action.
The scale of human occupation and transformation of the environment is now
truly global. It is therefore time to recognize not only the importance of
environmental global public goods for health, but also the contribution to be
made by the emerging subdiscipline of ecological economics. Unlike classical
economics, ecological economics bridges the divide between economics and the
natural sciences. It sees the purpose of economics as that of a means rather
than an end — that is, as the efficient attainment of socially-agreed goals, rather
than as the embodiment and indexation of ongoing compulsive gains in material
wealth. These perspectives, if integrated into our scientific and social assessments,
will enhance our capacity to deal with the challenges ahead.
These challenges are great, and it is important to emphasize that the
complexity of these large-scale environmental issues means that there is
inevitably a hierarchy of uncertainties that bear on scientific assessments and
policy decision-making. It is for this reason that there is an emerging accommodation
with the ideas of the Precautionary Principle as a means of decision-making in
situations of uncertainty and potentially great future risk. Our review of the
human-induced environmental damage in Section 2 shows that all too often we
have ignored our environmental heritage and dependency.
The adverse health effects of this ignorance may have been limited, as the
environmental damage was on a local scale. However, in today’s world our
activities are having an impact at a global scale, and global environmental change
will become a major theme in public health research, social policy development,
and political advocacy in the 21st century. The conceptualization of the
environment as a global public good for health should go some way not only in
increasing an appreciation for this heritage and dependency, but should also
enhance the interface between research and policy. This increased awareness and
interface between key stakeholders might lead to effective action to ensure a
sustainable future for current and future generations.
P. Dasgupta, Proc. Brit. Acad., 1996, 90, 165.
G. Gardner, in State of the World 2001, ed. L. Starke, New York, 2001.
T. Jacobsen and R. M. Adams, Science, 1958, 128, 1251.
R. Carson, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, 1962.
P. R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, Ballantyne, 1968.
H. A. Mooney and P. R. Ehrlich, in Nature’s Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems,
ed. G. C. Daily, 1997.
E. O. Wilson, Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge, Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
Global Environmental Changes and Human Health
159
when these goods begin to deteriorate then civilizations have provided means of
protection, at least in terms of local environmental public health goods, in order
to limit the ‘tragedy of the commons’. —
Awareness of damage to local environmental public health goods can be traced
to the recognition of soil salination by the ancient Sumerians. However,
concerns for what we now recognize as environmental global public goods has
been much more recent, — and led to the first United Nations global
environment conference, held in Stockholm in 1972. In the past decade there has
been an encouraging increase in global public awareness of the importance and
fragility of many aspects of the global environment, but with an inability to
translate this into effective action.
The scale of human occupation and transformation of the environment is now
truly global. It is therefore time to recognize not only the importance of
environmental global public goods for health, but also the contribution to be
made by the emerging subdiscipline of ecological economics. Unlike classical
economics, ecological economics bridges the divide between economics and the
natural sciences. It sees the purpose of economics as that of a means rather
than an end — that is, as the efficient attainment of socially-agreed goals, rather
than as the embodiment and indexation of ongoing compulsive gains in material
wealth. These perspectives, if integrated into our scientific and social assessments,
will enhance our capacity to deal with the challenges ahead.
These challenges are great, and it is important to emphasize that the
complexity of these large-scale environmental issues means that there is
inevitably a hierarchy of uncertainties that bear on scientific assessments and
policy decision-making. It is for this reason that there is an emerging accommodation
with the ideas of the Precautionary Principle as a means of decision-making in
situations of uncertainty and potentially great future risk. Our review of the
human-induced environmental damage in Section 2 shows that all too often we
have ignored our environmental heritage and dependency.
The adverse health effects of this ignorance may have been limited, as the
environmental damage was on a local scale. However, in today’s world our
activities are having an impact at a global scale, and global environmental change
will become a major theme in public health research, social policy development,
and political advocacy in the 21st century. The conceptualization of the
environment as a global public good for health should go some way not only in
increasing an appreciation for this heritage and dependency, but should also
enhance the interface between research and policy. This increased awareness and
interface between key stakeholders might lead to effective action to ensure a
sustainable future for current and future generations.
P. Dasgupta, Proc. Brit. Acad., 1996, 90, 165.
G. Gardner, in State of the World 2001, ed. L. Starke, New York, 2001.
T. Jacobsen and R. M. Adams, Science, 1958, 128, 1251.
R. Carson, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, 1962.
P. R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, Ballantyne, 1968.
H. A. Mooney and P. R. Ehrlich, in Nature’s Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems,
ed. G. C. Daily, 1997.
E. O. Wilson, Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge, Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
Global Environmental Changes and Human Health
159