Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/09/2008 12:38:27 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - A top government health official said Wednesday that climate change is expected to have a significant impact on health in the next few decades, with certain regions of the country — and the elderly and children — most vulnerable to increased health problems.
Howard Frumkin, a senior official of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gave a detailed summary on the likely health impacts of global warming at a congressional hearing. But he refrained from giving an opinion on whether carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, should be regulated as a danger to public health.
"The CDC doesn't have a position on ... EPA's regulatory decisions," said Frumkin, determined to avoid getting embroiled in the contentious issue over whether the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate CO2 under the federal Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court a year ago declared CO2 a pollutant under the federal air quality law and told the EPA it must determine whether CO2's link to climate change endangers public health or welfare. If it does, it must be regulated, said the court. But the EPA has been slow to respond to the court directive, saying it must review such a regulation's broad impact on emissions from everything from cars and power plants to schools.
"To the science, there is strong evidence the carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas ... and that there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health in many ways," responded Frumkin, carefully gauging his words, when pressed by Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., on the issue.
Frumkin, director of CDC's National Center for Environmental Health, outlined the range of "major anticipated health" issues as a result of climate change.
Among them, the prospects of more heat waves that are of special danger to the elderly and the poor; more incidents of extreme weather posing a danger of drought in some areas and flooding in others; increase of food-borne and waterborne infectious diseases; more air pollution because of higher temperatures; and the migration into new areas of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases such as Lyme disease, West Nile virus, malaria or dengue fever as seasonal patterns change.
"Over the next few decades in the United States, climate change is likely to have a significant impact on health," Frumkin told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
The Atlanta-based CDC is considered the government's premier disease tracking and monitoring agency.
Frumkin's testimony focused in greater detail and more directly on the likely human health risk of global warming than testimony given last October by the agency's director, Julie Gerberding, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
It was later learned that the White House had heavily edited Gerberding's testimony, deleting whole sections of the prepared remarks including one entitled "Climate Change is a Public Concern."
"CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern," Frumkin told the House committee Wednesday.
Frumkin said he recognized the issue of global warming and public health "remains controversial, and some of my testimony may not necessarily reflect broad consensus across the administration."
But Solis, who chaired the hearing, said she suspected that "a layer of screening" continues to limit what CDC officials are allowed to say, particularly regarding the agency's ability to deal with the health risks.
Solis said she was perturbed that the administration did not give the committee Frumkin's testimony in advance, as is customary, and that he did not have more to say "on how we could empower the CDC. I don't think we heard that."
Jonathan Patz, professor of environmental and health sciences at the University of Wisconsin, told the committee the CDC doesn't have the money "to support the efforts to protect us from climate change."
"I think their hands are tied," said Patz.
The president has asked Congress for $8.8 billion for the CDC during the 2009 fiscal year, $412 million less than Congress provided this year.
Pressed on the budget issue by several lawmakers, Frumkin replied: "We're doing everything we can with existing resources now. ... With further resources we would be able to do more."
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov
—
The Supreme Court a year ago declared CO2 a pollutant under the federal air quality law and told the EPA it must determine whether CO2’s link to climate change endangers public health or welfare. If it does, it must be regulated, said the court. But the EPA has been slow to respond to the court directive, saying it must review such a regulation’s broad impact on emissions from everything from cars and power plants to schools.
We exhale therefore we pollute.
Shame on you. ;-)
From left, Secretary General of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize 2007 winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri of India and Hungarian Minister of Environment and Water Management Gabor Fodor hold a press conference before the opening session of the 28th conference of IPCC in the Budapest Convention Centre in Budapest, Hungary, Wednesday, April 9, 2008. The conference is attended by over 300 specialists and researchers of IPCC engaged in the issue of global climate change. (AP Photo/MTI, Laszlo Beliczay)
They will soon look mighty silly....some of them must realize that their 15 minutes of fame credibility is just about over.
I’m unaware of any effect a degree change in environmental temp can have on anyone. I’m also unaware of any reason that energy should distribute itself in order to maximize dire consequences.
Your freedoms are going to be taken away. Your income is going to be taken away. You can't manufacture. You can't generate electricity. You can't BBQ, you can't drive, no more 4th of July fireworks.
Laugh at this all you want but the Stalinists are winning this fight, folks.
Howard Frumkin? Boy, now there’s an authoritative name.
Notice how quickly it’s gone from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’
Notice how quickly it’s gone from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’
Oh geez, they’re trotting out this old pony again.
The Global Warming article that can never be topped was the one in the San Fran Chronicle a few months ago that cited two studies, one saying that “Climate Change” was going to cause drought for coastal California, while the other predicted severe flooding for the same areas. The paper itself, not surprisingly, did not note the obvious contradiction.
‘Laugh at this all you want but the Stalinists are winning this fight, folks.’
They sure are, and if the Fairness Doctrine kicks in, we are going to be in deeper trouble. This is coming to a fight.
Oh, and we're doomed. Bush's fault.
No, what brings health risks is the diversion of scarce resources, time, attention and expertise to an arrogant ego-masturbation like trying to micromanage the planet's climate to within 0.1 degrees F.
We can't control the dynamic nature of our climate. But we can harden our society against its effects.
yeah, when the climate changes in the autumn, the kids and I do tend to get sick more often....
ASSOCIATED PRESS: “WORLD TO END TOMORROW- WOMEN AND CHILDREN AFFECTED MOST”
They forgot the poor and minorities!!!!!!
How dare the AP forget about the poor and miniorites when doing a story on who is become a victim of evil Capitialism or Republican policies.
That must have missed the AP censors, I mean Editors.
FYI, for the better part of a year now I have posted on virtually every Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ thread, usually with a variety of links to AGW™ Skeptic sites.
I constantly harangue about how offended I am, as one who has degrees in the sciences, at the prostitution of science to promote the AGW™ hoax and supranational big government.
But you know what? Once in a while you just have to sit back and laugh at the clowns.
Try this thought experiment: Imagine much of North America under a mile or 2 high glacier. Now how are the elderly and children doing?
“I’m unaware of any effect a degree change in environmental temp can have on anyone.”
Cold weather can have a high impact and kill many.
It is not the same, however, with warm temperatures.
The MWP, from about 900 to 1400 was a great period for development in Europe.
It was followed by the little ice age that killed many people.
Cold climate is far more deadly then warm climate.
And if global warming is a hoax, what are the health risks then? Maybe those folks could undertake that study and get back to us with their findings. :)
" Cold weather can have a high impact and kill many."
The effect of GW is one degree >4 decades from now. No one can discern a 1 degree change. If they're cold, or hot, they'll need at least a 3 degree change to feel a slight diff.
C’mon, where is the “Aw geez, not this #### again” image?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.