Dr Kerryn Phelps, AMA President, and Mr Don Henry, Executive Director, Australian Conservation Foundation, AMA Environmental Health Summit 2002, Hilton Melbourne International Airport

QUESTION: Kerryn, why is it that you believe the Federal Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

PHELPS: I think there is clear evidence that has emerged that global warming will have implications for health. And the concern of the AMA is that if we don't put in place protocols that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that if the Australian Government is not at least seen to be engaged in that process, then we will not be taking the urgent action that we believe is necessary to stop the destruction of environment that may well come with global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

I think politically the issue of the Kyoto agreement is that it's only the USA and Australia of the wealthy nations who have not signed this agreement. And I believe that it should be more than just a symbolic gesture, but an actual real commitment to reducing rather than increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the next five to ten years.

QUESTION: How likely is it that the AMA will give support to your personal stance?

PHELPS: I think it's highly likely. I'm told that when you're looking at environmental and conservation groups, that doctors are very highly represented on these groups. The medical profession has long had a great deal to say about the effect of the environment on health, and we will continue to do so.

The AMA has now indicated its willingness to proceed with environmental health as a major policy direction for the next year, and we will be developing a position statement.

QUESTION: What sort of health risks are we facing because of global climate change?

PHELPS: We're facing a vast range of potential problems, and if we're looking at the increased frequency of extreme events like droughts and floods, then that clearly has immediate effects in terms of provision of food supply.

It has implications in terms of quality of water. It has implications in terms of destruction of property, but also in terms of the mental health of people who are affected, whose homes are destroyed, whose livelihoods are destroyed.

When we look at issues of global warming, there's a potential for changes to things like the insect population. And where you have mosquito-borne viruses such as Barmah Forest Virus, Ross River Virus, Japanese Encephalitis, and diseases such as malaria, also borne by mosquitos, then if we get a change in the mosquito population, then we could well see an increase in these types of infections.

As we have seen, for example, with Ross River outbreaks in Tasmania in recent times, and the malaria outbreak in northern Queensland. These are just some of the issues that could be raised by global warming.

QUESTION: So, do you think it really is possible we could see a re-introduction of malaria into Australia because of global warming?

PHELPS: Just in the last couple of weeks there's been an outbreak of malaria in northern Queensland. I'd like to think that that's an isolated event, but I don't think that we can be in any way complacent.

We've also seen an epidemic of West Nile Virus across the United States in an alarming rapidity of spread across the US. And whether or not that's related to climate change is yet to be seen, but I think we at least there have an illustration of the potential of climate change affecting insect populations, which can therefore influence human health.

QUESTION: Now, you're also looking for funding to promote research in this area as well, to see just exactly what health risks we are facing, is that correct?

PHELPS: I think it's important that we do promote research, and in order to do effective good-quality research, there must be funding that's attached to that.

QUESTION: What sort of areas would you be looking at?

PHELPS: I think we need to look at the whole range of environmental health issues, from atmospheric pollution to water quality to ways of reducing greenhouse gases, renewable energy sources. Don, can you think of any other sorts of areas of research?

HENRY: And also just energy efficiency. There's some very important ways that Australia can reduce our emissions, apart from taking a leadership role, and making sure we ratify the Kyoto Protocol, because this is a global problem.

There's a lot we can do here, and we really should be ensuring we're promoting renewable energy, being much more efficient with the use of energy in our cities, and more efficient with our transport as well. And of course there are simple things we can all do in our own lives.

So, we need a combination of good government leadership, and taking some personal responsibility to make sure we don't pollute this beautiful old planet to death, which is the risk we're facing at the moment.

PHELPS: I think we can see -- and Don makes a very good point -- that we can make macro changes, but also the changes than individuals make in their own homes has an enormous effect.

And I mean, just a decade or so ago, you wouldn't have dreamed that very household would be prepared to recycle their garbage. But in making that practically possible at a household level, that's made an enormous difference to the way that we deal with our garbage rubbish problem, and biodegradables.

And to be able to recycle and have renewable sources of materials rather than turning Australia into a dumping ground I think is very important too.

QUESTION: How much effect do you think this will actually have? Because I think Dr Kemp came out yesterday still saying that Australia will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol after a meeting with major environmental lobby groups. So, how much impact do you think you will actually have on Government thinking?

PHELPS: Well, I think that we can only do our best to encourage the Government to ratify the Kyoto agreement. The targets, I think, are not unrealistic. They're certainly way below what really needs to be achieved in order to have a sustainable environment. And unless we do, our future as a globe is at stake.

HENRY: I think the key thing is, we've got to think what's in our interest as Australians, and we now know that the Great Barrier Reef is at risk from climate change. We now know that we face increased droughts and bushfires from climate change. And today, we've got a clearer indication than ever that our health is at risk from climate change.

And there's three compelling reasons why, as Australians, it's in our national interest to ensure there's global action, we ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. And I would hope the Federal Government will listen very carefully to those voices coming in from all parts of Australian society.

QUESTION: This has obviously been high on your agenda for quite some time, with the Conservation Foundation. You're obviously welcoming now the AMA coming on board as well.

HENRY: I think it's highly significant that the AMA, representing doctors, is saying, look, there's a very important health dimension to climate change. We've spoken for a long time about the environment dimensions of it, and that is extremely important.

But it's essential that people realise that climate change has the potential to touch each of our lives, and particularly through issues like health. And it's just another compelling reason why we should get on with the job of tackling climate change, and ratify the Kyoto Protocol as our first step.

QUESTION: Is the AMA seeking a place at the table where the Government's developing its policy about greenhouse?

PHELPS: I think the AMA is in a position in representing the medical profession to be able to make that essential link between the environment and health. And as much as we can certainly assist in providing evidence in putting forward the views of the medical profession, we're very prepared and willing to do that.

QUESTION: As you've said, this is the first stage in developing a policy. What's the timeframe for that, do you think?

PHELPS: Well, I'd like … obviously, with a policy of this nature it can be a work in progress. But I would like to see a substantial policy framework in place within the next six months. And we will be consulting widely.

I mean, today is certainly a way of fast-tracking that process by bringing together the major players in environmental and conservation areas, and we have people from the Australian Conservation Foundation, from Greenpeace, from the CSIRO, from the scientific research and conservation communities.

And to be able to share that expertise in one forum with the medical profession, I think we will be able to progress this issue quite rapidly. And then of course it will go through our committee processes, and I believe that we will come up with a policy statement that will reflect the views of the medical profession, and advance the environmental health agenda.

QUESTION: As you said in your speech, one of the best things that could be done now is to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. How would you use the AMA's position statement to influence the Government's thinking in that regard, and the kind of policy they set?

PHELPS: In linking climate change with health, I think that we have a compelling argument for Government policy that indicates a willingness to stick to the Kyoto agreement. Now, the Kyoto agreement at the moment allows Australia to in fact increase greenhouse gas emissions.

I'd certainly like to see the Government looking to … not only limiting the increase but looking at ways of being able to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions. And to be a good global citizen.

QUESTION: You're obviously quoting research here as well, to link health risk with global climate change. What exact research is this coming from?

PHELPS: I think there's research globally -- Don, do you want to handle that question?

HENRY: Look, we're seeing a lot of research come through from the UK and from the tropics, and as Kerryn's mentioned earlier, relates across a range of dimensions.

If you look at the problems with insect-borne disease, there's a lot of research going on in the tropics at the moment that is showing movement of, for instance, mosquitos, mosquito species that carry some of these diseases, the malaria mosquito, for example.

There's clear research across the world on issues of heat stress, and some of the issues relating to water and heat. And so, if you look at medical journals around the world, now, you're starting to see articles come through across what is a very broad range of potential impacts on health and so they're highly credible, well-researched, compelling cases that have been put forward.

And you may even want to grab Tony, inside, as well, because he is one of the world's leading researchers in this area and highly respected across this area of research. I wouldn't pretend to speak as an expert Doctor, at all.

QUESTION: How does this issue rank in the AMA's plethora of policies and issues of significance, given that the last time that this was discussed at an AMA forum was in 1996, I believe, before the Kyoto Protocol.

PHELPS: This is a topic of great concern now to the Public Health Committee of the AMA. Each year we look at what our major policies areas are, and there is no question that environmental health is now at the forefront of the AMA's public health concerns.

We will be putting our resources from our public health area into environmental health until we have a policy position that we are happy with.

And we would like to, as much as possible, create and maintain linkages with the conservation, scientific, and research community involved in environmental health, so that the medical profession is very much a stakeholder, and very much an opinion leader in this area.

QUESTION: Does that represent a shift in the AMA thinking? Are we talking about a sea change here?

PHELPS: I think the views of the medical profession evolve all the time. And as I said before, one of the interesting features of conservation and environmental groups is that there have very high representations of doctors, so at individual levels, doctors are very much interested in how the environment impacts on health.

At an organised level, it perhaps hasn't been quite as strident as it might have been, in the past, but we're looking forward to a future where I believe the medical profession will be at the forefront of the debate on environmental health.

Thank you all.

Ends