Climate change and health in Earth's future

Threats to health from climate change are increasingly recognized, yet little research into the effects upon health systems is published. However, additional demands on health systems are increasingly documented. Pathways include direct weather impacts, such as amplified heat stress, and altered ecological relationships, including alterations to the distribution and activity of pathogens and vectors. The greatest driver of demand on future health systems from climate change may be the alterations to socioeconomic systems; however, these “tertiary effects” have received less attention in the health literature. Increasing demands on health systems from climate change will impede health system capacity. Changing weather patterns and sea-level rise will reduce food production in many developing countries, thus fostering undernutrition and concomitant disease susceptibility. Associated poverty will impede people’s ability to access and support health systems. Climate change will increase migration, potentially exposing migrants to endemic diseases for which they have limited resistance, transporting diseases and fostering conditions conducive to disease transmission. Specific predictions of timing and locations of migration remain elusive, hampering planning and misaligning needs and infrastructure. Food shortages, migration, falling economic activity, and failing government legitimacy following climate change are also “risk multipliers” for conflict. Injuries to combatants, undernutrition, and increased infectious disease will result. Modern conflict often sees health personnel and infrastructure deliberately targeted and disease surveillance and eradication programs obstructed. Climate change will substantially impede economic growth, reducing health system funding and limiting health system adaptation. Modern medical care may be snatched away from millions who recently obtained it

Climate change, conflict and health

Future climate change is predicted to diminish essential natural resource availability in many regions and perhaps globally. The resulting scarcity of water, food and livelihoods could lead to increasingly desperate populations that challenge governments, enhancing the risk of intra- and interstate conflict. Defence establishments and some political scientists view climate change as a potential threat to peace. While the medical literature increasingly recognises climate change as a fundamental health risk, the dimension of climate change-associated conflict has so far received little attention, despite its profound health implications. Many analysts link climate change with a heightened risk of conflict via causal pathways which involve diminishing or changing resource availability. Plausible consequences include: increased frequency of civil conflict in developing countries; terrorism, asymmetric warfare, state failure; and major regional conflicts. The medical understanding of these threats is inadequate, given the scale of health implications. The medical and public health communities have often been reluctant to interpret conflict as a health issue. However, at times, medical workers have proven powerful and effective peace advocates, most notably with regard to nuclear disarmament. The public is more motivated to mitigate climate change when it is framed as a health issue. Improved medical understanding of the association between climate change and conflict could strengthen mitigation efforts and increase cooperation to cope with the climate change that is now inevitable

Mental health, cognition and the challenge of climate change

This chapter explores the links between mental health and climate change and describes the mental health effects (e.g., anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder) of the primary, secondary and tertiary manifestations of climate change. The cognitive obstacles to dealing with climate change and the cognitive solutions for addressing climate change are discussed

What Do Public Health Graduates Do and Where Do They Go? An Analysis of Job Destinations and Mismatch in Australian Public Health Graduates

Background: It is not well understood what occupations public health graduates have after graduation, nor is it well known whether their education provides them with the relevant knowledge and skills to feel well matched to their occupations. Furthermore, it is commonly presumed that public health graduates work in government, and investments in education would bolster this workforce. Methods: We aimed to describe the common occupations of Australian public health graduates, describe the heterogeneity of graduate destinations, describe the level of mismatch that graduates report, and compare these results with other fields of study. We used eight years of Australian graduate survey data (2008–2015) from the Graduate Destinations Survey, examining outcomes data from 8900 public health graduates from four levels of education. We compared occupation and industry heterogeneity, and level of occupational mismatch between public health graduates, and graduates from other fields of education. Results: Public health graduates report having a broad set of occupations in a broad set of industries after graduation, and this breadth is dissimilar to most health degrees. Furthermore, public health graduates tend to have average or lower-than-average rates of mismatch. Conclusions: Despite going into a broad set of occupations and industries, graduates from public health tend to report being well prepared given their education. Given that both occupation and industry outcomes are heterogeneous for graduates, an investment in public health education does not guarantee an increase in the governmental public health workforce