: Mr. Schmiemann, to what extent is climate change already affecting human health today?
Guido Schmiemann: That cannot be quantified. But in the medical journal The Lancet it was already stated in 2009 that human-caused climate change is the greatest threat to human health. Yet statements such as “more than …” are impossible precisely because there are huge differences: Do I live in northern Germany or in the Global South in a region where in a few years the temperatures will be so high that human existence there will no longer be possible?
: Isn’t it also a problem that the influence of climate change has many different manifestations?
Schmiemann: Exactly! You can divide that into direct and indirect consequences.
: What does a direct threat look like?
In the interview: Guido Schmiemann
is a general practitioner in a group practice in Verden. He is also a research fellow in the Department of Health Services Research at the Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research at the University of Bremen
Schmiemann: It is getting warmer and this heat has many effects. We know that we do not feel well when it is too hot. UV exposure from sunlight is higher and aggressive behavior toward one another increases after crossing a comfort threshold.
: And what about the indirect consequences?
Schmiemann: Biodiversity loss, for example, plays a major role here. And the risk of new infectious diseases and pandemics increases significantly.
: Are there already data showing the influence of climate change on general health?
Schmiemann: There is, for example, an increase in allergies, which is caused by stronger and longer pollen exposure. And due to extreme weather events, anxiety as well as mental illnesses are rising.
: The talk you are giving on Monday in Delmenhorst is titled “Climate Change and Health: Opportunities and Risks.” Are there still opportunities?
“Climate Change and Health: Opportunities and Risks”: Monday, 9 March, 7:30 PM, Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg, Lehmkuhlenbusch 4, Delmenhorst
Schmiemann: I believe that if we only talk about how dangerous all this is that is coming at us, it can quickly lead to an inner paralysis. We must instead focus on what we can do—and what we gain from doing something. This is an approach that plays a very large role in medicine and in health care. If I do something good for myself, it could be that I am also doing something good for the environment. If I travel more journeys without motorized transport, I reduce my risk of a heart attack as well as many cancers, and thereby fewer pollutants are released.
: Doesn’t that simply align with common sense?
Schmiemann: Of course, but in total we do not behave in the way that common sense would dictate. For many people, they still do not think about the consequences of their actions in the way one would expect.
: And what consequences should, in your opinion, be drawn by the medical profession from this?
Schmiemann: We know that the health care system consumes a lot of resources and is responsible for around 5 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. If there are medications that cause high climate damage, they could be replaced with other means that have a significantly lower impact. Chronic respiratory diseases, which can also be caused by climate-related increases in fine particulate matter, are treated, for example, with inhaled medications. In some medications, propellants are used that amplify climate change.
: By treating the effects, are you thereby amplifying the causes of the disease?
Schmiemann: Exactly! There are, however, inhaled medications that contain the active ingredient in powder form. Most people can handle these powder inhalers well and adequately treat their disease. If we were to shift the remedy in this direction, it would be a win for the environment.
