scholarly journals The Economic, Climate Change and Public Health Edges of the Geopolitics of COVID-19: An Exploratory Bibliometric Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Pierre Doussoulin ◽  
Benoît Mougenot

We are in the middle of the storm and this does not allow us to see clearly what is coming. This often generates partial analyses of the issues of the situation. Therefore, this manuscript attempts to generate an integral perspective on the issues of the crisis. This chapter proposes a discussion of the Coronavirus crisis following analysis and comparison of the most important outstanding conversations of general public health, economics and environmental issues. The objective of this chapter is to travel on the far side of the discussion of the articles presently planned within the academic world and that were analyzed within the bibliometric review, that consist of these three issues. This analysis that integrates these dimensions allows to give an additional prospective answer to the queries exposed by the COVID crisis, conjointly taking into consideration geopolitics as a forgotten dimension within the public discussion. Our paper helps to indicate the positions of every one of those ideas and enrich the literature on the environmental sciences and public health by providing analysis of the consequences of international policies.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Jevtic ◽  
C Bouland

Abstract Public health professionals (PHP) have a dual task in climate change. They should persuade their colleagues in clinical medicine of the importance of all the issues covered by the GD. The fact that the health sector contributes to the overall emissions of 4.4% speaks to the lack of awareness within the health sector itself. The issue of providing adequate infrastructure for the health sector is essential. Strengthening the opportunities and development of the circular economy within healthcare is more than just a current issue. The second task of PHP is targeting the broader population. The public health mission is being implemented, inter alia, through numerous activities related to environmental monitoring and assessment of the impact on health. GD should be a roadmap for priorities and actions in public health, bearing in mind: an ambitious goal of climate neutrality, an insistence on clean, affordable and safe energy, a strategy for a clean and circular economy. GD provides a framework for the development of sustainable and smart transport, the development of green agriculture and policies from field to table. It also insists on biodiversity conservation and protection actions. The pursuit of zero pollution and an environment free of toxic chemicals, as well as incorporating sustainability into all policies, is also an indispensable part of GD. GD represents a leadership step in the global framework towards a healthier future and comprises all the non-EU members as well. The public health sector should consider the GD as an argument for achieving goals at national levels, and align national public health policies with the goals of this document. There is a need for stronger advocacy of health and public-health interests along with incorporating sustainability into all policies. Achieving goals requires the education process for healthcare professionals covering all of topics of climate change, energy and air pollution to a much greater extent than before.


Sustainability and nutrition 380 Sustainable development 382 Food security 383 Climate change and obesity 384 Useful websites and further reading 388 The public health nutrition field has identified a need to encompass the inter-relationship of man with his environment (The Giessen Declaration, 2005). Ecological public health nutrition places nutrition within its wider structural settings including the political, physical, socio-cultural and economic environment that influence individual behaviour and health. As a consequence, it includes the impact of what is eaten on the natural environment as well as the impact of environmental and climate change on all components of food security, i.e. on what food is available, accessible, utilizable and stable (...


Author(s):  
Melinda R. Weathers ◽  
Edward Maibach ◽  
Matthew Nisbet

Effective public communication and engagement have played important roles in ameliorating and managing a wide range of public health problems including tobacco and substance use, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, vaccine preventable diseases, sudden infant death syndrome, and automobile injuries and fatalities. The public health community must harness what has been learned about effective public communication to alert and engage the public and policy makers about the health threats of climate change. This need is driven by three main factors. First, people’s health is already being harmed by climate change, and the magnitude of this harm is almost certain to get much worse if effective actions are not soon taken to limit climate change and to help communities successfully adapt to unavoidable changes in their climate. Therefore, public health organizations and professionals have a responsibility to inform communities about these risks and how they can be averted. Second, historically, climate change public engagement efforts have focused primarily on the environmental dimensions of the threat. These efforts have mobilized an important but still relatively narrow range of the public and policy makers. In contrast, the public health community holds the potential to engage a broader range of people, thereby enhancing climate change understanding and decision-making capacity among members of the public, the business community, and government officials. Third, many of the actions that slow or prevent climate change, and that protect human health from the harms associated with climate change, also benefit health and well-being in ways unrelated to climate change. These “cobenefits” to societal action on climate change include reduced air and water pollution, increased physical activity and decreased obesity, reduced motor-vehicle–related injuries and death, increased social capital in and connections across communities, and reduced levels of depression. Therefore, from a public health perspective, actions taken to address climate change are a “win-win” in that in addition to responsibly addressing climate change, they can help improve public health and well-being in other ways as well. Over the past half decade, U.S.-based researchers have been investigating the factors that shape public views about the health risks associated with climate change, the communication strategies that motivate support for actions to reduce these risks, and the practical implications for public health organizations and professionals who seek to effectively engage individuals and their communities. This research serves as a model for similar work that can be conducted across country settings and international publics. Until only recently, the voices of public health experts have been largely absent from the public dialogue on climate change, a dialogue that is often erroneously framed as an “economy versus the environment” debate. Introducing the public health voice into the public dialogue can help communities see the issue in a new light, motivating and promoting more thoughtful decision making.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-San Hung ◽  
Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak

AbstractScientists and the media are increasingly using the terms ‘climate emergency’ or ‘climate crisis’ to urge timely responses from the public and private sectors to combat the irreversible consequences of climate change. However, whether the latest trend in climate change labelling can result in stronger climate change risk perceptions in the public is unclear. Here we used survey data collected from 1,892 individuals across Taiwan in 2019 to compare the public’s reaction to a series of questions regarding climate change beliefs, communication, and behavioural intentions under two labels: ‘climate change’ and ‘climate crisis.’ The respondents had very similar responses to the questions using the two labels. However, we observed labelling effects for specific subgroups, with some questions using the climate crisis label actually leading to backlash effects compared with the response when using the climate change label. Our results suggest that even though the two labels provoke similar reactions from the general public, on a subgroup level, some backlash effects may become apparent. For this reason, the label ‘climate crisis’ should be strategically chosen.


2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1006-1014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roni A Neff ◽  
Iris L Chan ◽  
Katherine Clegg Smith

AbstractBackgroundThere is strong evidence that what we eat and how it is produced affects climate change.ObjectiveThe present paper examines coverage of food system contributions to climate change in top US newspapers.DesignUsing a sample of sixteen leading US newspapers from September 2005 to January 2008, two coders identified ‘food and climate change’ and ‘climate change’ articles based on specified criteria. Analyses examined variation across time and newspaper, the level of content relevant to food systems’ contributions to climate change, and how such content was framed.ResultsThere were 4582 ‘climate change’ articles in these newspapers during this period. Of these, 2·4 % mentioned food or agriculture contributions, with 0·4 % coded as substantially focused on the issue and 0·5 % mentioning food animal contributions. The level of content on food contributions to climate change increased across time. Articles initially addressed the issue primarily in individual terms, expanding to address business and government responsibility more in later articles.ConclusionsUS newspaper coverage of food systems’ effects on climate change during the study period increased, but still did not reflect the increasingly solid evidence of the importance of these effects. Increased coverage may lead to responses by individuals, industry and government. Based on co-benefits with nutritional public health messages and climate change’s food security threats, the public health nutrition community has an important role to play in elaborating and disseminating information about food and climate change for the US media.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Hanna

Abstract Background Humans have wandered this planet for hundreds of thousands of years, yet in the last 160 years we have dramatically disrupted planetary systems upon which we depend. Humanity has polluted the oceans, rivers, air and soils. Our persistent burning of fossil fuels to power opulent lifestyles is now perilously close to permanently disrupting global climatic systems. Problem It is clear. The problem is us. Australia's summer of horrors provides a terrifying glimpse into our collective future. This rich and exquisitely advantaged nation has voted for governments that have ignored fragile ecosystems, dismantled environmental protection laws, ignored climate science and expanded its fossil fuel exploration, extraction, consumption and exportation. It has systematically silenced science, ignored its duty of care to protect its present and future citizenry. Evidence The 2019-2020 summer brought unprecedented disasters to a country familiar with disasters. After the hottest and driest year on record came the world's largest bushfire, which started in winter, and burned uncontainable for 7 months across 5 states. Billions of animals perished, thousands of homes & businesses destroyed, 33 people burned alive. Continental-wide temperatures of 42oC. Smoke levels exceeded hazardous levels by a factor of 25, lingered 6weeks in the national capital, circumnavigated the southern hemisphere. 80% of Australians were affected by the fires in some way, and the nation fell into a deep grief. The public health challenge As the world faces new climate regimes, the associated health challenges are elevating to unheralded and unforeseen levels. Public health preparedness for past situations will inevitably fail. Events are no longer singular, short lived or readily managed. Today's events are multifaceted, expansive and protracted. Their sheer magnitude and scale prevent response activities, interrupt transport and supply chains and shut down power and communications. Key messages Unfettered human development has degraded planetary systems upon which humanity depends for survival and flourishing. Climate change is disrupting all our key environmental determinants of health. Environmental degradation and climate change now present a rapidly intensifying health emergency. Australia’s summer of disasters demonstrates we need an explosion of public health preparedness.


10.2196/25108 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. e25108
Author(s):  
Joanne Chen Lyu ◽  
Garving K Luli

Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a national public health protection agency in the United States. With the escalating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on society in the United States and around the world, the CDC has become one of the focal points of public discussion. Objective This study aims to identify the topics and their overarching themes emerging from the public COVID-19-related discussion about the CDC on Twitter and to further provide insight into public's concerns, focus of attention, perception of the CDC's current performance, and expectations from the CDC. Methods Tweets were downloaded from a large-scale COVID-19 Twitter chatter data set from March 11, 2020, when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, to August 14, 2020. We used R (The R Foundation) to clean the tweets and retain tweets that contained any of five specific keywords—cdc, CDC, centers for disease control and prevention, CDCgov, and cdcgov—while eliminating all 91 tweets posted by the CDC itself. The final data set included in the analysis consisted of 290,764 unique tweets from 152,314 different users. We used R to perform the latent Dirichlet allocation algorithm for topic modeling. Results The Twitter data generated 16 topics that the public linked to the CDC when they talked about COVID-19. Among the topics, the most discussed was COVID-19 death counts, accounting for 12.16% (n=35,347) of the total 290,764 tweets in the analysis, followed by general opinions about the credibility of the CDC and other authorities and the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines, with over 20,000 tweets for each. The 16 topics fell into four overarching themes: knowing the virus and the situation, policy and government actions, response guidelines, and general opinion about credibility. Conclusions Social media platforms, such as Twitter, provide valuable databases for public opinion. In a protracted pandemic, such as COVID-19, quickly and efficiently identifying the topics within the public discussion on Twitter would help public health agencies improve the next-round communication with the public.


Author(s):  
Shirley S. Ho

In comparison to fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases, nuclear power plants are a cleaner energy source that could help to mitigate the problems of climate change. Despite this, the general public often associates nuclear energy with risks that include nuclear accidents, nuclear waste contamination, nuclear weapons proliferation, and many others. People’s experience with the 1979 Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine have caused a sharp decline in public support for nuclear energy over the past few decades. In addition, media images of the 2011 Fukushima-Daichii nuclear accident are still fresh in the minds of the public. These now iconic media images and portrayals have perpetuated a perception of nuclear energy as a risky technology. Against these backdrops, scientists, communication practitioners and other key stakeholders increasingly face an uphill struggle to communicate about nuclear energy as a possible strategy for addressing climate change. Though the general public may reluctantly accept nuclear energy for climate change mitigation, research suggests that messages emphasizing the benefits of nuclear power for energy security and economic growth appear to have greater impact on public acceptance of the technology. Furthermore, public perception of nuclear energy is shaped by a host of other factors such as trust in nuclear governing institutions, knowledge, political inclinations, geographical proximity, and socio-demographic variables. At the same time, nuclear experts and the general public differ in their perceptions of risk, in nature and strength, relative to nuclear energy. Understanding these key differences between the experts and the public, and how beliefs, values, and perceptions influence public acceptance of nuclear energy is necessary to formulate effective public communication and engagement strategies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document