Croakey is closed for summer holidays and will resume publishing in the week of 15 January 2024. In the meantime, we are re-publishing some of our top articles from 2023.
This article was first published on Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Introduction by Croakey: More than 500 people are registered to attend the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse inaugural annual policy symposium, ‘Extinction thwarted? The nexus between climate change, social equity and health’, at the Australian National University in Canberra tomorrow (Wednesday, 13 September).
Alison Barrett will tweet the discussions for the Croakey Conference News Service from @CroakeyNews, and you can also follow the hashtag on Twitter, #HothouseSymposium.
The symposium addresses three major, interconnected challenges – climate change, social inequality and premature death and disease.
“Governance approaches to date have failed to address these problems, and in many cases have made the situation worse by approaching these issues and their common drivers in isolation from each other,” according to the symposium program.
“For a governance response to be commensurate with the challenges faced by society, a more holistic approach is needed that brings disciplines and sectors together, and recognises the importance of addressing the common structural drivers of planetary health inequity.”
Hosted by Professor Sharon Friel, Director of the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse, with opening remarks from ANU Vice-Chancellor, Professor Brian P. Schmidt AC, and Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care Ged Kearney, attendees will hear government, non-government and academic experts discuss the political, economic, and social dimensions of planetary health equity.
The symposium aims to identify the how to create systemic transformation to enable the equitable enjoyment of good health for all within the context of a stable, sustainable ecosystem, and shift governance practices toward a more effective modern paradigm. It comprises four sessions: Setting the Scene; Follow the Money; Advancing Progressive Policy, and Thwarting Extinction: Making it Happen.
A taster of some of the discussions follows below, thanks to a tag-team of guest tweeters who covered a Future Leaders Program hosted by the Hothouse last week. They were tweeting via Croakey’s rotated Twitter account @WePublicHealth.
A collaborative, collective tweeting effort
This webinar recording is a great way to get up to speed on the background of the @PHEHothouse body of research.
I said in my intro that I am a researcher (though I have many other identities). But with my researcher hat on, @SharonFrielOz is asking us to think about ‘research, for what purpose?’.
I’m motivated by the potential for research to inform action and have social impact.
Around the room, we had a passionate discussion about whether we do research for academic esteem, and what that even means.
What is knowledge? And what forms of knowledge are valued, and seen as valid? In the Western research/science world, value and validity is often given to types or research higher up the ‘hierarchy of evidence’, with randomised-control trials at the top.
So far today, we’ve had a lively discussion about knowledge. Knowledge systems (for example, Indigenous, Western, non-Western). In my world, there is usually (always?) a dominance of Western knowledge.
Am passing over this afternoon to @DrCGodziewski and @edjegasothy.
Hi everyone, @edjegasothy here! I’m tweeting with @DrCGodziewski on this afternoon’s session. I’m an environmental epidemiologist who is really interested in how to address socioeconomic inequalities.
Hi – @DrCGodziewski here. Along with @edjegasothy, I’ll be tweeting from the @PHEHothouse Future Leaders Program. Exciting discussion this afternoon: pathologies of 21st century capitalism with Prof Susan Sell from @ANURegNet.
What an enlightening presentation and discussion on the political economic dynamics leading to erosion of labour right and extreme concentration of power and wealth.
We’re getting a very accessible insight into the last 100 years of capitalism, and our financial systems and governance. This is fantastic for someone who is otherwise pretty economically illiterate. These are the fundamental sources of health inequity.
There was an erosion of the relative value of production itself and increase in value of IP and other non-production components through protective regulation and corporate practices. This meant a widening of inequalities and devaluing of “blue collar” labour.
“Embedded liberalism” rose from the post WWII recovery. The transition from this to neoliberalism meant that corporate governance moved away from inherent social responsibility to prioritising shareholder value. This is enshrined now in legislation.
I was curious about what changed in terms of the motivation/incentives. It seems that there while previously there was a responsibility to workers and society, this had changed to the shareholder in many neoliberal economies.
The example of Germany was given by @DrCGodziewski as an exception, where corporate governance still prioritises involvement of workers as key stakeholders. Prof Sell noted that this was under stress.
The question that remains for me is what are the drivers that appear to push towards this prioritisation of profits? Or what was the cause of this diffuse power and the prioritisation of workers and social licence in the past?
The labor movement can take credit? but where did its power in numbers come from? Was it just the massive shock of WWII? I’m any case, despite progress in that time we still saw many countries and people left behind and exploited.
Was the more equal moment (within the west perhaps) of the post-war period just an aberration?
The point of action now is to prevent massive impacts on societies and the environment and correct injustices. We need leadership in the absence of political necessity. But how do we get that kind of leadership?
Systems thinking requires us to think about how the problem has been changing over time. Our group picked “consumption of goods” and “income inequality” as two of the factors driving the problems of planetary health equity.
Thanks for capturing the great discussion on systems thinking this morning, Sarah! I’m Belle Workman, researching how we develop healthier climate and energy policies. This afternoon we’ll cover governance with Christian Downie. Stay tuned!
How we can study global governance: identify the literature gaps (who are the actors?), then the research questions, design and methods. @DownieChristian
External events (e.g. environmental shocks) and/or internal events (for example, multiple sources of authority) can lead to the rearrangements of global rules.
The afternoon will be @SharonFrielOz on the Commercial Determinants of planetary health equity, with with commentary from @c_hunnisett of @Healthy_climate and Sandra Samantela from @UPLBOfficial.
Tomorrow, for Day 4 of the Future Leaders Program, we start with @ktrebeck on the economics of arrival.
@meganamarthur – @PHEHothouse Research Fellow – and @BettyWemimo of @WesternILUniv – will be sharing their reflections throughout the morning.
This morning we are having an interactive conversation with Katherine Trebeck about the economics of arrival that drives global inequalities.
A highlight: failure demand. Consumptogenic systems drive climate disaster, social inequity and ultimately individual health inequities. How do we balance adaptation while ensuring prevention via climate change mitigation? – @MeganAMArthur
Failure demand – for example, that in some locations, more people are employed as guards/in security than are employed as teachers/in education.
We are still having conversations about what governments need to focus on; Well-being approach to policy design. Can policy instruments help us?
Purchasing of social license – like through sponsorship of sports – is an extremely effective way commercial interests connect and create brand loyalty. Can regulation be a catch all cure?
Hi everyone! this is Sandra Samantela, @ssamndy, environmental planner and faculty member from @UPLBOfficial. Continuing on the commercial determinants of health, we discuss about how the government can regulate industries.
Some thoughts: How do we measure success for planetary health equity? How do we deal with complicated actors?
In small groups, we talked about how new or alternative business models can focus on equity.
Productive and mind-stimulating Thursday! I must say. Excited to hear tomorrow’s individual presentations.
I am glad that @planethealthph, a community of Filipino planetary health advocates, scholars, and practitioners led by Dr @RenzoGuino has been formed to advance planetary health in the Philippines. Looking forward to getting involved! @ssamndy signing off.
Day 5 of the Future Leaders Program brings ‘work in progress’ presentations.
@nicholasVfrank – @PHEHothouse Research Fellow will tweet in the morning, and @gio_dallalibera, Hothouse PhD researcher, in the afternoon.
I’m Nick Frank @NicholasVFrank – Laureate Research Fellow @PHEHothouse.
Sarah Boddington, a PhD candidate at the ANU, is doing fascinating work on social norms and climate change in Australia, and notes that “all social constituencies need to understand how climate action is in their interests”.
Giorgia Dalla Libera Marchiori, Laureate PhD candidate at @PHEHothouse, is presenting on her PhD journey.
Francis Nona @FrancisNona1 is giving a brilliant presentation on working with Torres Strait knowledges to advance planetary health equity.
There is strength in Indigenous knowledges, and we need to draw on this to address planetary health equity.
Sandra Samantela @ssamndy presenting on the role of land use planning in supporting PHE outcomes.
@edjegasothy is making a call for “swimming upstream” and addressing the root causes of social inequalities to advance planetary health objectives.
Last day of the Future Leaders Program. It has been amazing to be part of this so far. I’m Gio @gio_dallalibera – PhD candidate at @PHEHothouse – and I will keep you in the loop of our work this afternoon.
Hridesh (Desh) Gajurel notes that rising shareholder payouts are linked to a lack of investment in employees, greater wealth inequality, and a lack of investment in sustainability and green innovation.
Can we change it? Yes we can, and we can take the better examples like Germany and Japan as a place to start.
Warm thanks from Croakey to all guest tweeters who contributed to the post above.
Make sure to follow @WePublicHealth again this week, where Remy Shergill from the Climate and Health Alliance is covering the #GreenHealthForum23 on Thursday and Friday.
Support Croakey’s climate and health journalism by becoming a regular donor via Patreon.
