In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) urged hospitals to reduce their carbon footprint as the health sector is one of the most energy-intensive sectors (click here for article). Now it seems that not only hospitals must reduce their carbon footprints, but certain GP practices in the UK (and doubtless in other parts of the world too) are also keen to get involved. This initially sounds like a great idea, until the ways in which they choose to pursue this initiative are investigated. A certain practice in England recently told an elderly lady that she should move her patronage to another practice that was closer to home, as her two-mile round trip was not considered to comply with their low-carbon threshold (click here for article). Naturally, the patient was displeased to hear about this and there were allegations that there were ulterior motives involved in suggesting her relocation, but setting this aside, the underlying issue is: misinformed (and often informed) people and sectors seem to be taking the issue of carbon footprints into the realm of personal agendas as well losing perspective on the whole issue.
It is difficult to believe that a two-mile round trip to visit a doctor pushes the boundaries of one’s ‘allocated’ carbon footprint. It is highly unlikely that all of the practice’s doctors, receptionists and administration staff comply with this self-professed regulation. What is even more unlikely is that they all drive small-displacement, high-efficiency vehicles, never fly to local or international locations (for business of pleasure) and walk, cycles and car-pool wherever possible. So it becomes an issue of hypocrisy. It seems in this day and age where laws protect every domain of the client or employee, the effective (and seemingly vogue) way of accomplishing another agenda is to jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon. This clearly gives the carbon footprint initiative a bad name, and is detrimental to the progression of a necessary and important way for individuals to make a practical and positive contribution to retarding global warming.
What follows on from this, is misinformed people in positions of authority categorically stating that x and y must be implemented in sector z in order to reduce the carbon footprint of sector z. It may seem like a sound principle on paper, but quickly loses perspective in reality. By way of example, WHO suggests that hospitals install solar panels and wind turbines to supplement power supply. The former is certainly possible but the latter could lead to some controversy. Wind turbines in built-up areas cannot provide high-consumption facilities such as hospitals with appreciable and reliable energy supply. Micro-scale turbines aside, there is a minimum distance between the position of a utility-scale wind turbine and an inhabited structure, which is very difficult to achieve in urban areas. On the topic of wind turbines and health, numerous Canadians have objected to the construction of wind turbines near their properties in Ontario as they are worried that it will negatively affect their health (click here for article). Protesters then went on to say that they were concerned that their properties would suddenly become worthless due to the presence of turbines in the general vicinity. It seems to me that the protesters initially used health concerns as an attempt to discourage the erection of turbines as they perceived that they would achieve their objective by gaining the sympathy of the misinformed. However, even the misinformed would struggle to find a reason as to why health would be affected by wind turbines erected according to sector regulations. So the protesters went on to rant about property values. Again, a case of false evidence to advance ulterior motives.
As hospitals tend to have a large fleet of fossil-fuel burning vehicles, WHO also suggested that hospitals cut down the amount of time that their vehicles spend on the road and invest in vehicles that operate on more environmentally-friendly fuel types. While this might be a good idea in theory, speed and reliability are the most important requirements and, currently, the internal combustion engine is the only affordable choice available to the medical sector. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect a sudden change in the carbon footprint of hospitals’ transport sector, when saving lives is the primary aim in every case.
Unfortunately, energy efficient light-bulbs, though improving, are of a relatively poor standard in South Africa. To expect these to be used in hospitals where the best lighting techniques available should be utilized, energy efficiency will always come second to application.
You may be wondering if I’m against the whole idea of trying to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Of course I’m not. I think it is an excellent initiative, but just needs to be applied in the correct fashion and to the correct sector. It’s about perspective and common sense. Let’s not focus on the more trivial cases, such as patients travelling to doctors, or ambulances rushing off to an accident scene; let’s focus on the bigger picture: reducing the carbon footprints of massive factories and industries and implementing large-scale wind and solar farms that don’t power a hospital, but help power a city.
Laura Hodgkinson
I can see Rudi’s point in that, we as a species have made use of the Earth for what has been our entire existence and now has come the time to give back, which is the base of all climate mitigation projects surely, to lessen our negative effect on the earth and prolong its state of ‘health’ so to speak. However I still have to question if in the greater scheme of things, hospitals are really the place to begin. Firstly the funding of the replacement within the transport sector would have to be taken on by someone, and not that I am an expert on the matter, but i do not see hospitals as housing unspent millions. As Myra said the “primary aim in every case is saving lives”, surely the hazard of achieving this goal when contrasted with the effect it may have on either the state funding the operation, or the hospital itself, may not seem as necessary as other sectors perhaps especially in light of the fact that loss of funding or production would be affect just that, human lives. I will not attempt to deny the room for increased action towards and awareness of carbon footprint depletion, however i cannot see the necessity of change within hospitals especially the transport sector as being above that of sectors such as mining, energy production and the like.
Rudi
This article was very iirntestneg, I didn’t realize how much. This save the earth thing as been going on for a while and we know some way we can save but this expanded my out look about all things we do as humans that do impact the earth most times for the bad.I read an another article that based on the resources we use as humans it take the earth one year and six months to recover but since we don’t leave the earth and really can’t you can imagine the difference! My score was 3 to 3.5 earths which I think was pretty good considering my lack on knowledge on maybe sheer stubbornness.We as humans since the beginning of time we used the earth and that is in no way wrong in fact it would be past all moral sense to otherwise, I’m saying that recognize that now the earth needs something from us:to help keep it alive and the same good and wholesome earth that we have relied on for billions of years.
Myra
I agree. While the carbon footprint initiative is great it needs to be applied in the “correct fashion” and using common sense. It is “unreasonable to expect a sudden change in the carbon footprint of hospitals’ transport sector, when saving lives is the primary aim in every case”.
And hospitals and health care systems could however, implement other smaller measures or goals to reduce their footprint (e.g. the reduction and safe disposal of waste OR purchasing and serving sustainably grown food and/or sustainable products), although – arguably – such measures would not have as great an impact as wind or solar farms (as you have mentioned).
Stefaan
While the spokesperson from WHO makes bold claims about matters such as that hospitals are able to have a significant impact on reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, no figures are supplied of the actual relative current contribution of the health sector to GHG emissions, to what extent various reasonable measures would reduce the GHG emissions from hospitals. Without very particular suggestions and thorough source-to-consumption studies that support the capacity of capacity of such measures to affect real change, it is exceptionally difficult to know what would reasonable to expect the health sector to do. For example, if you write of a diesel powered ambulance now, will the additional ecological cost of producing a new, cleaner, more efficient, or even electrically-powered van, to be employed as an ambulance, be off-set by the reduced exhaust emissions? As far as I know, this is still an open question and one that needs to be urgently addressed.
cwallington
Interesting. A case of a top order shouting orders down that have good intentions but give little thought to the on the ground practicality. Engaging with the people is key.
CL
Another type of climate extreme…?