Fuel Poverty: The Nordic Paradox

Over the winters of 2012-2016, nearly 120,000 people in England and Wales died of cold weather, or factors associated with it - including influenza. Winter is considered to be December-March in this research, and sadly far exceed the numbers dying in alternate seasons. This has become known as 'excess winter deaths'. 

Therefore, it would be natural to expect a correlation between cold weather and high mortality rates. For example, you'd be expecting Finland, with harsh winters and an average snow lying length of 90-120 days, to surely have a much higher rate of winter deaths? Well, you'd be wrong! Nordic countries with much colder weather, have far lower winter mortality rates, and Finland reports no difference in mortality at all between the summer and winter months!

Nordic Flags

Weather seems to play a small role in winter deaths, and many argue there are more pressing issues to blame...

(Fuel) Poverty

Poverty is often considered the significant factor behind excess winter deaths, particularly among campaigners. Age UK state that in 2014/15, excess winter deaths was a record high for the 21st century. They attributed this to 'cold, poorly insulated homes'. Citing a combination of cold homes, high energy bills and a lack of policy enabling reasonable home insulation for the elderly to provide a deadly combination. Research seems to support this. Poverty rates for women are much higher than for men, particularly amongst pensioners and female winter deaths thus leapt 150% in a single year, from 2013/14 to 2014/15. Although government fuel poverty schemes are widely criticised, the issue is clearly recognised as a factor as the government produce a comprehensive report each year. However, the UK's rate of fuel poverty is still much higher than that of Sweden.

Fuel Poverty - Getty Images

Wellbeing and Mental Health

However, others would argue that wellbeing and mental health are the real concern. Sadly, pensioners often face social exclusion and loneliness, with age-related loss of identity leading to escalated levels of depression. The winter months themselves bring stress to the majority of us, but it can also emphasise the feeling of loneliness. The Samaritans responded to nearly 200,000 calls over the festive period of 2014 - they then found that over 23% of those they surveyed the following year found their problems to be much worse at Christmas. Although surprisingly suicide is actually more common in the Spring, poor wellbeing has been found to affect physical health which could perhaps explain a portion of the excess winter deaths.

Nordic Healthcare

On a global scale, the Nordic countries provide a similar level of healthcare to their population. Quite significantly, Sweden reportedly has the best healthcare system in the world! In the same year, 2013, the UK was ranked 13th out of 15 European countries when it comes to investment in healthcare - which when faced with an elderly demographic seems completely absurd.

Healthcare - Getty Images

When looking at potential factors to explain excess winter deaths statistics, the 'nordic paradox' perhaps seems less mystifying. Low levels of fuel poverty and strong healthcare could be behind the lack of winter deaths and also paves a path for other countries to follow. The rest of Europe, the UK especially, should improve investment in affordable energy and healthcare alongside implementing an accessible, affordable scheme to allow our most vulnerable members of society a warm home and a longer life.

A Moral Storm: Ethics of Climate Change

Climate change is potentially the most global and intergenerational ethical issue that we will face. When investigating climate change, the initial questions that come to mind (What causes climate change? What will be the effects of this change? What can we do to stop it?) all can be answered through falsifiable scientific research. Although it's expected that a small portion of the research may be contested or abstract, we all have the opportunity to hold a broader understanding of climate change and how it may affect our lives. But delve deeper and the ethical considerations begin to complicate this understanding, raising other questions that are significantly more complex to answer.

Wealth considerations

Should the economy grow, future generations are likely to be much wealthier than us, so who should fund the changes? 

 An interesting take on the ethical issues of climate change from Broome is to consider what sacrifices we, the relatively poor (present generation), must make for the relatively wealthy (future generations). The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change undertook a (mainly) cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the benefit gained by reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be far greater than the cost of reducing them. This suggests that we should prioritise the wellbeing of the future generations, as the expenses involved will be offset by the socio-environmental conditions that we will experience. However, these benefits are likely not to be felt for at least another century, so the present generation will bear the economic burden, as well as a lifestyle overhaul without firsthand experience of the rewards. This leads us to the next question...

What are the implications for us, should we give absolute priority to the future?

Firstly, there are the obvious economic implications to overhaul energy infrastructure, transport mechanisms and frankly the entire economy. If greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are reduced by 670 million metric tons a year (11% of 2008's USA emissions), the annual economic cost is projected to be $35 billion annually. This gives us an idea of the sheer scale involved in overhauling an economy, even though this is not nearly enough to reduce anthropogenic emissions entirely. There would also be the obvious social impacts - our lives are completely ruled by our consumption-heavy society. There would be an immediate impact on the livelihood of those working within the fossil fuel sector (2.5 million U.S. jobs in 2015) and due to our current infrastructure, there is likely to be complete chaos should we rapidly reduce emissions.

Getty Images/Digital Vision

Will our response to climate change address social justice?

As previously discussed, reducing emissions will bring significant economic cost. Geographically, many areas are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including many islands and coastal areas. Should they be responsible for the cost of sea walls or even extensive climate migration despite the fact they will be affected through no fault of their own? For example, Bangladesh was named the most vulnerable country to climate change in 2014, but they are ranked 142nd out of 183 countries in 2015's Human Development Index. Should they have to fund their adaptations to the changing climate? Should this fall to the corporations and businesses who profit from releasing emissions? Or should we all take equal responsibility and share the costs globally? As pressing as these questions may be, these arguments over culpability take away from the urgent need to act now.

Where does international development fit in?

Furthermore, some would argue that developing countries have a right to continue emitting greenhouse gases. In fact, Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, spoke about this at the start of the COP 21 Conference in Paris, referring to 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. This highlights the moral issues that arise when developed countries, who have grown their economies through emissions, try to enforce low-emission policies in countries where poverty is rife.

Bangladesh

(And finally...) What are our obligations to different species and nature as a whole?

Global warming is (almost certainly) anthropogenic in nature, but the natural world and other species are likely to be affected as much - if not more so - as ourselves. The common rhetoric in the media and in discussions is the implications for the future of the human race, but in fact, all species are vulnerable. In the last century, extinction rates have climbed up to 100 times higher! Morally, we have a duty to protect these animals, particularly when the responsibility for this change lies at our doorstep.

There are so many more ethical issues to be explored due to the enormity of the subject, however, this should not be used as an excuse to halt negotiations or decisions relating to action on climate! Climate change agreements cannot be paused or ignored in order to gauge responsibility or hide from costs, as despite all the talk about ethics, those involved would be committing the single most morally corrupt crime in history.

Is Meat Off the Table?

Vegetarian Cuisine

It only takes a trip to the supermarket or a browse through social media to see that plant-based diets, including vegetarianism and veganism, are becoming increasingly popular. People are readily choosing to reduce their meat intake and these decisions are even reflected in market trends - sales of meat alternatives rose by 8% between 2010 and 2012. But why is this relevant to the rest of us?

Earth from Space - NASA

Well, for some of us, it may be obvious - climate change! Animal agriculture is directly responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is actually more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. Unbelievably the impact of agriculture on the environment has only recently begun to be more widely discussed in popular culture. The 2014 documentary film 'Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret', although controversial amongst environmental groups, has brought the issue into the public domain. The film is now accessible in over 190 countries through Netflix's streaming services, exposing agriculture's environmental impacts to a much broader audience.

Organic cow at Strauss Family Creamery

Traditionally eating large quantities of meat, particularly beef, has been associated with western cultures, but due to increase in personal wealth meat is now more accessible and affordable than ever. Because of this, meat consumption per person more than doubled between 1950 and 2005, whereas global meat consumption increased from 47 million tons to 260 million tons. This has huge implications for climate change and as a result many environmentalists are trying to turn back the tables.

Restored land for grazing in Tanzania

The effects are considerably amplified by regional variations in meat production. A recent study published in 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' provides an insight into these disparities. Developing countries are responsible for 75% of the global greenhouse-gas emissions from cattle and other ruminants. Additionally the study found that poor feed quality in impoverished countries means that cattle are likely to consume as much as ten times more feed (mostly grasses) than a cow raised in more fertile regions. The inefficiencies of livestock farming in developing countries lead to a production of up to 1000kg of carbon for every kilogram of protein produced.

That's ten times higher than the amount of carbon released per kilogram in rich, fertile land in America and Europe!

Canadian grain

Beside the obvious impact on climate change, there are also huge sociopolitical implications arising from variations in food production and distribution! Roughly 1.3 billion tonnes of food is either lost or wasted globally due to inefficiencies. This, combined with the grain unavailable for human consumption due it being used for feeding livestock, leads to an enormous amount of food that the world's hungriest 795 million people are going without. As we can grow enough food to feed ten billion people, there are huge ethical concerns as to this unjust distribution, how can we warrant feeding purpose-bred livestock when there are millions of people without regular access to food?

For those that are concerned about these issues, one thing everyone can do, even today, is raise awareness about the issue! Creating a dialogue around the inefficiencies and impacts of agriculture is key to future change. This will educate the next generation and allow them to make an informed decision about the future of the planet, and inevitably the rest of the population.