Related Articles


  1. 1

    John Mendoza

    I agree with Melissa’s point. Climate change is likely to become over the next few decades the most important social-environmental determinant of human health. On the available modelling, we can envisage:
    > millions of people being displaced as a result of coastal inundation and loss of other argicultural lands;
    > the number and severity of extreme weather events increasing bringing with them greater loss of life, reduced living standards, reduced access to essential resources like clean water and sanitation, loss of food security
    > the increasing loss of human life impacting most severely on the poorer and more vulnerable (as we have seen in Australia this summer).

    Nicholas Stern says it very simply – the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action. I think we can see this is already the reality with the full economic cost of this years events in Australia alone toping 1.5% of GDP in one year. The cost of the Oppositions “practical action” or the likely carbon tax are far less.

  2. 2


    How did this article also get turned into a Climate Change article? I thought it was about a new website focusing on a wide range of issues, in particlar radioactive poisoning, and we would discuss health? Oh well…

    Professor Mendoza, if you consider the very real possibility that the planet’s climate is very slowly and very naturally altering, then it follows that the cost of action (tens of billions on futile preventive measures + inevitable loss of life) is actually considerably higher that the cost of inaction (zero spent with the same inevitable loss of life).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2020 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design


Follow Croakey