Scientific research says its now healthier up North!

Vulnerability to the mortality effects of warm temperature in the districts of England and Wales

Original article published in Nature Climate Change here

James E. Bennett,Marta Blangiardo, Daniela Fecht, Paul Elliott & Majid Ezzati

Warm temperatures adversely affect disease occurrence and death, in extreme conditions as well as when the temperature changes are more modest. Therefore climate change, which is expected to affect both average temperatures and temperature variability, is likely to impact health even in temperate climates.

Climate change risk assessment is enriched if there is information on vulnerability and resilience to effects of temperature. Some studies have analysed socio-demographic characteristics that make individuals vulnerable to adverse effects of temperature.

Less is known about community-level vulnerability. We used geo-coded mortality and environmental data and Bayesian spatial methods to conduct a national small-area analysis of the mortality effects of warm temperature for all 376 districts in England and Wales.

In the most vulnerable districts, those in London and south/southeast England, odds of dying from cardiorespiratory causes increased by more than 10% for 1 °C warmer temperature, compared with virtually no effect in the most resilient districts, which were in the far north.

A 2 °C warmer summer may result in 1,552 (95% credible interval 1,307–1,762) additional deaths, about one-half of which would occur in 95 districts. The findings enable risk and adaptation analyses to incorporate local vulnerability to warm temperature and to quantify inequality in its effects.

 

  1. Percentage increase in the odds of cardiorespiratory death (women) for 1 [deg]C increase in mean daily summer temperature above district-specific thresholds and the posterior probabilities that the estimated effect size is different from the national average.
    Figure 1
  2. Percentage increase in the odds of cardiorespiratory death (men) for 1 [deg]C increase in mean daily summer temperature above district-specific thresholds and the posterior probabilities that the estimated effect size is different from the national average.
    Figure 2
  3. Figure 3

    The number of additional cardiorespiratory deaths in the districts of England and Wales that would be expected during five summer months if temperatures were warmer by 2 [deg]C.

Advertisements

Biofuels worse than gasoline on global warming

 

CornStubble

US Government study conclusion: 7% more greenhouse gases in early years

Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a new study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

A $500,000 study – paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change – concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7% more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.

While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won’t meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.

The conclusions deal a blow to proponents of cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.

The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticised the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.

“The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense,” said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.

Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200m-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100% better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The research published in Nature Climate Change is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 corn belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.

“I knew this research would be contentious,” said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “I’m amazed it has not come out more solidly until now.” Continue reading

ATTACKING FOREIGNERS DOESN’T DEFEND WORKERS’ RIGHTS

 

UKIPposterEmail400pixwide2

Green Party MEP Jean Lambert has pointed to the chasm between UKIP claiming to defend British workers jobs, while doing nothing to defend their rights at work.

Speaking on the BBC today, she said: “Today an anti-EU poster campaign has been launched, suggesting that UK jobs are under threat from EU migrants, these posters represent crocodile tears for British workers.”

“There is no fixed number of jobs so it is misleading to assume that a British worker loses out every time a non-UK national gets a job. We should also not assume that every vacant job has a local applicant with the necessary skills.

“We should be ensuring everyone in work has the same rights and earns a living wage. UKIP has not once defended workers’ rights in the European Parliament and frequently speaks of such rights – to control working time, to parental leave, to equal treatment – as “barriers to business”.

She added: “This xenophobic campaign is just nasty: it is anti-foreigner and leaves many EU migrants – that’s more than a million people in London alone, and British citizens from diverse backgrounds, wondering whether they should be here at all.

“The Green Party believes the UK should be at the heart of the EU, with a prime seat at the decision-making table: not only to boost employment and workers’ rights, but to ensure we influence EU standards on air quality, its responses to climate change and that the UK has a voice on key decisions about how and where we get our energy from in future.”