The Rising Tide of Greenhouse Emissions
In his first statement on becoming leader of the Labor party, Kevin Rudd listed four priority items for action. Climate change was one of his four priorities. He has plenty of work to do. The Global Carbon Project records the following facts. In 2000, 6.8 Gt of carbon was spewed into the atmosphere. In 2005 this had risen to 7.9 Gt. Prior to 2000 emissions rose by less than 1% per year, they are now increasing at more than 2.5% per year. The World Meteorological Organization confirms the rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the last few years. In Australia, emissions have increased by 10% over the past 10 years. This topic is discussed further together with other climate change and health topics on www.dea.org.au "Whats new".

The main indictment of the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review is that it uses figures to present nuclear power in the most favourable light. This is not the means whereby an informed national debate can take place. A more cogent criticism is one of process. It is inappropriate to review one energy modality in isolation. All options have to be considered and compared.

Let us look at one example, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) These plants produce electric power by converting the sun's energy into high-temperature heat using various mirror configurations. The heat is then channelled through a conventional generator. The plants consist of two parts: one that collects solar energy and converts it to heat, and another that converts heat energy to electricity. CSP is reviewed under “Solar thermal” in DEA’s integrated energy policy www.dea.org.au An extensive study commissioned by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, National Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany www.solarspaces.org indicates that covering 0.5% of the world’s deserts with CSP, will provide the entire world’s electricity needs, together with desalinated water for these desert regions.

By Vicente Navarro
23 October 2006
Vicente Navarro is Professor of Health and Public Policy, School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University; Director of the Public and Social Policy Program, Pompeu Fabra University – The Johns Hopkins University; Founder and Past President of the International Association of Health Policy; and Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Health Services.

From World War II until the early 1980s, the World Health Organization was an important point of reference for those in the international community who were concerned with the health and well-being of populations. During the postwar period, the WHO subscribed to the dominant consensus in the international community that government and the public sector were responsible for guiding economic and social activities and correcting the social inequalities created by unrestrained market forces. This active role of the public sector led to establishment of the welfare states in the developed countries and to the planting of seeds for breaking with underdevelopment in the countries of the developing world. As a consequence of these public policies, the populations of both developing and developed countries experienced significant improvements in health and social conditions. The high point of the WHO of those years was the approval by the World Health Assembly of the Alma-Ata Declaration,1 which stated that health required a public health approach, much broader than medical care interventions. This declaration was followed by many specific proposals that emphasized the social, economic, and political determinants of health. Needless to say, some of these proposals had their problems, but the approval of the Alma-Ata Declaration was a major step toward redefining the health interventions that are needed to improve the health and social conditions of populations. And in many countries, those improvements did indeed occur.2

Towards Global Health Equity
by Colin Butler, member of the Management Committee DEA

For three days in September (19-21) I attended a workshop at Flinders University, organised by the South Australian Community Health Research Unit, and presented by Professor Ron Labonté, who is from the University of Ottawa. Ron is acknowledged as a world authority on globalisation and health, and is a penetrating critic of many of the arguments used by market enthusiasts.

Globalisation, of course, is not new, but its scale and rate has accelerated in recent decades. This is evident in myriad ways, such as the speed of travel, the ease of communication, and the increasingly global nature of trade, ideas, media, weaponisation, and environmental change. However, the most recent phase of globalisation – that which John Gray calls “wild globalisation” has been characterised by the selective dismantling of trade barriers and by an increased polarisation between rich and poor, both within many nations and between rich and poor populations worldwide.

by David Shearman, Hon Secretary, Doctors for the Environment Australia.

This article was published in The Independent Weekly on June 24, 2006 This is a SA publication with a circulation of 39,000

“The reality is that climate change of the order and time frames predicted by climate scientists poses fundamental questions of human security, survival and the stability of nation states which necessitate judgments about political and strategic risk as well as economic cost.”

This an introductory statement from a collaborative paper “Heating up the Planet; Climate Change and Security” from the Lowy Institute for International Policy written by Alan Dupont, Senior Fellow for International Security at the Institute and Graeme Pearman, former Chief of Atmospheric Research at the CSIRO.

Nuclear Policy
There has been some delay in the completion of the Doctors for the Environment policy. At the AGM in November 2005 it was resolved that DEA would develop a position on nuclear energy which would be encapsulated within a policy on the health aspects of energy generation. Work commenced on “An Energy Policy for Australia” at the end of 2005. The intent was to place nuclear energy in the context of all the measures necessary to address the climate change threat. During the final preparation of this policy the nuclear issue became debated nationally when the Federal government made statements for the need to consider the use of nuclear energy in Australia as a greenhouse saving measure. This was followed by the announcement on a “Review of Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy". It is possible to see this Review as the economic justification for nuclear developments in Australia. The composition of the Committee leads credence to this interpretation.