SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.37 número4Uso de máscaras de buceo modificadas para aplicación segura de ventilación no invasiva. Estudio piloto índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados



Links relacionados


Revista Médica del Uruguay

versión impresa ISSN 0303-3295versión On-line ISSN 1688-0390

Rev. Méd. Urug. vol.37 no.4 Montevideo  2021  Epub 01-Dic-2021



Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health. Wealthy nations must do much more, much faster

Llamamiento a adoptar medidas urgentes para limitar los aumentos de temperatura en el mundo, restablecer la biodiversidad y proteger la salud. Las naciones ricas deben hacer mucho más y con mayor rapidez

Chamado por medidas urgentes para limitar os aumentos de temperatura no mundo, restaurar a biodiversidade e proteger a saúde. As nações ricas devem fazer muito mais e mais rápido

Llamamiento a adoptar medidas urgentes para limitar los aumentos de temperatura en el mundo, restablecer la biodiversidad y proteger la salud. Las naciones ricas deben hacer mucho más y con mayor rapidez

Chamado por medidas urgentes para limitar os aumentos de temperatura no mundo, restaurar a biodiversidade e proteger a saúde. As nações ricas devem fazer muito mais e mais rápido

Lukoye Atwoli1 

Abdullah H. Baqui2 

Thomas Benfield3 

Raffaella Bosurgi4 

Fiona Godlee5 

Stephen Hancocks6 

Richard Horton7 

Laurie Laybourn-Langton8 

Carlos Augusto Monteiro9 

Ian Norman10 

Kirsten Patrick11 

Nigel Praities12 

Marcel Olde Rikkert13 

Eric J. Rubin14 

Peush Sahni15 

Richard Smith16 

Nick Talley17 

Sue Turale18 

Damián Vázquez19 

1Editor jefe, East African Medical Journal, Nairobi, Kenia

2Editor jefe, Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition. Reino Unido.

3Editor jefe, Danish Medical Journal. Dinamarca.

4Editor jefe, PLOS Medicine. Estados Unidos.

5 Editor jefe, The BMJ. Reino Unido.

6 Editor jefe, British Dental Journal. Reino Unido.

7Asesor principal, The Lancet. Reino Unido.

8 Asesor principal, UK Health Alliance on Climate Change. Londres, Reino Unido.

9 Editor jefe, Revista de Saúde Pública. Brasil.

10 Editor jefe, International Journal of Nursing Studies. Reino Unido.

11Editor jefe interino, CMAJ. Canadá.

12Editor ejecutivo, Pharmaceutical Journal. Reino Unido.

13 Editor jefe, Dutch Journal of Medicine. Amsterdam, Países Bajos.

14 Editor jefe, NEJM. Estados Unidos.

15 Editor jefe, National Medical Journal of India. India.

16Presidente, UK Health Alliance on Climate Change. Londres, Reino Unido.

17 Editor jefe, Medical Journal of Australia. Sídney, Australia.

18 Editor jefe, International Nursing Review. Estados Unidos.

19 Editor jefe, Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública. Estados Unidos.

The UN General Assembly in September 2021 will bring countries together at a critical time for marshalling collective action to tackle the global environmental crisis. They will meet again at the biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, and the climate conference (COP26) in Glasgow, UK. Ahead of these pivotal meetings, we-the editors of health journals worldwide-call for urgent action to keep average global temperature increases below 1.5 °C, halt the destruction of nature, and protect health.

Health is already being harmed by global temperature increases and the destruction of the natural world, a state of affairs health professionals have been bringing attention to for decades1. The science is unequivocal; a global increase of 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse2,3. Despite the world’s necessary preoccupation with covid-19, we cannot wait for the pandemic to pass to rapidly reduce emissions.

Reflecting the severity of the moment, this editorial appears in health journals across the world. We are united in recognising that only fundamental and equitable changes to societies will reverse our current trajectory.

The risks to health of increases above 1.5°C are now well established2. Indeed, no temperature rise is “safe.” In the past 20 years, heat related mortality among people aged over 65 has increased by more than 50%4. Higher temperatures have brought increased dehydration and renal function loss, dermatological malignancies, tropical infections, adverse mental health outcomes, pregnancy complications, allergies, and cardiovascular and pulmonary morbidity and mortality5,6. Harms disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, including among children, older populations, ethnic minorities, poorer communities, and those with underlying health problems2,4.

Global heating is also contributing to the decline in global yield potential for major crops, falling by 1.8-5.6% since 1981; this, together with the effects of extreme weather and soil depletion, is hampering efforts to reduce undernutrition4. Thriving ecosystems are essential to human health, and the widespread destruction of nature, including habitats and species, is eroding water and food security and increasing the chance of pandemics3,7,8.

The consequences of the environmental crisis fall disproportionately on those countries and communities that have contributed least to the problem and are least able to mitigate the harms. Yet no country, no matter how wealthy, can shield itself from these impacts. Allowing the consequences to fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable will breed more conflict, food insecurity, forced displacement, and zoonotic disease-with severe implications for all countries and communities. As with the covid-19 pandemic, we are globally as strong as our weakest member.

Rises above 1.5°C increase the chance of reaching tipping points in natural systems that could lock the world into an acutely unstable state. This would critically impair our ability to mitigate harms and to prevent catastrophic, runaway environmental change9,10.

Global targets are not enough

Encouragingly, many governments, financial institutions, and businesses are setting targets to reach net-zero emissions, including targets for 2030. The cost of renewable energy is dropping rapidly. Many countries are aiming to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 203011.

These promises are not enough. Targets are easy to set and hard to achieve. They are yet to be matched with credible short and longer term plans to accelerate cleaner technologies and transform societies. Emissions reduction plans do not adequately incorporate health considerations12. Concern is growing that temperature rises above 1.5°C are beginning to be seen as inevitable, or even acceptable, to powerful members of the global community13. Relatedly, current strategies for reducing emissions to net zero by the middle of the century implausibly assume that the world will acquire great capabilities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere14,15.

This insufficient action means that temperature increases are likely to be well in excess of 2°C16, a catastrophic outcome for health and environmental stability. Critically, the destruction of nature does not have parity of esteem with the climate element of the crisis, and every single global target to restore biodiversity loss by 2020 was missed17. This is an overall environmental crisis18.

Health professionals are united with environmental scientists, businesses, and many others in rejecting that this outcome is inevitable. More can and must be done now-in Glasgow and Kunming-and in the immediate years that follow. We join health professionals worldwide who have already supported calls for rapid action1,19.

Equity must be at the centre of the global response. Contributing a fair share to the global effort means that reduction commitments must account for the cumulative, historical contribution each country has made to emissions, as well as its current emissions and capacity to respond. Wealthier countries will have to cut emissions more quickly, making reductions by 2030 beyond those currently proposed20,21 and reaching net-zero emissions before 2050. Similar targets and emergency action are needed for biodiversity loss and the wider destruction of the natural world.

To achieve these targets, governments must make fundamental changes to how our societies and economies are organised and how we live. The current strategy of encouraging markets to swap dirty for cleaner technologies is not enough. Governments must intervene to support the redesign of transport systems, cities, production and distribution of food, markets for financial investments, health systems, and much more. Global coordination is needed to ensure that the rush for cleaner technologies does not come at the cost of more environmental destruction and human exploitation.

Many governments met the threat of the covid-19 pandemic with unprecedented funding. The environmental crisis demands a similar emergency response. Huge investment will be needed, beyond what is being considered or delivered anywhere in the world. But such investments will produce huge positive health and economic outcomes. These include high quality jobs, reduced air pollution, increased physical activity, and improved housing and diet. Better air quality alone would realise health benefits that easily offset the global costs of emissions reductions22. These measures will also improve the social and economic determinants of health, the poor state of which may have made populations more vulnerable to the covid-19 pandemic23. But the changes cannot be achieved through a return to damaging austerity policies or the continuation of the large inequalities of wealth and power within and between countries.

Cooperation hinges on wealthy nations doing more

In particular, countries that have disproportionately created the environmental crisis must do more to support low and middle income countries to build cleaner, healthier, and more resilient societies. High income countries must meet and go beyond their outstanding commitment to provide $100bn a year, making up for any shortfall in 2020 and increasing contributions to and beyond 2025. Funding must be equally split between mitigation and adaptation, including improving the resilience of health systems.

Financing should be through grants rather than loans, building local capabilities and truly empowering communities, and should come alongside forgiving large debts, which constrain the agency of so many low income countries. Additional funding must be marshalled to compensate for inevitable loss and damage caused by the consequences of the environmental crisis.

As health professionals, we must do all we can to aid the transition to a sustainable, fairer, resilient, and healthier world. Alongside acting to reduce the harm from the environmental crisis, we should proactively contribute to global prevention of further damage and action on the root causes of the crisis. We must hold global leaders to account and continue to educate others about the health risks of the crisis. We must join in the work to achieve environmentally sustainable health systems before 2040, recognising that this will mean changing clinical practice. Health institutions have already divested more than $42bn of assets from fossil fuels; others should join them4.

The greatest threat to global public health is the continued failure of world leaders to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5°C and to restore nature. Urgent, society-wide changes must be made and will lead to a fairer and healthier world. We, as editors of health journals, call for governments and other leaders to act, marking 2021 as the year that the world finally changes course.


1. Letter to G20 Heads of State. In support of a health recovery. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for policymakers. En: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Special report: global warming of 1.5°C. Geneva: IPCC, 2018. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

3. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: IPBES, 2019. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

4. Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Beagley J, Belesova K, et al. The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises. Lancet 2021; 397(10269):129-70. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32290-X. [ Links ]

5. Rocque R, Beaudoin C, Ndjaboue R, Cameron L, Poirier-Bergeron L, Poulin-Rheault R, et al. Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2021; 11(6):e046333. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046333. [ Links ]

6. Haines A, Ebi K. The imperative for climate action to protect health. N Engl J Med 2019; 380(3):263-73. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1807873. [ Links ]

7. United Nations Environment Programme. International Livestock Research Institute. Preventing the next pandemic: zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission. Nairobi: UN, 2020. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

8. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Summary for policymakers. En: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. IPCC, 2019. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

9. Lenton T, Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rahmstorf S, Richardson K, Steffen W, et al. Climate tipping points too risky to bet against. Nature 2019; 575(7784):592-5. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0. [ Links ]

10. Wunderling N, Donges J, Kurths J, Winkelmann R. Interacting tipping elements increase risk of climate domino effects under global warming. Earth Syst Dynam 2021; 12(2):601-19. doi: 10.5194/esd-12-601-2021. [ Links ]

11. High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People. Web site. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

12. The Global Climate and Health Alliance. Are national climate commitments enough to protect our health? Disponible en: initiatives/healthy-ndcs/ndc-scorecards/. (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

13. Carbonbrief Clear on Climate. Climate strikers: open letter to EU leaders on why their new climate law is "surrender". London: Carbon Brief, 2020. Disponible en: mate-law-is-surrender. (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

14. Fajardy M, Köberle A, MacDowell N, Fantuzzi A. BECCS deployment: a reality check. Grantham Institute briefing paper 28. London: Imperial College of London, 2019. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

15. Anderson K, Peters G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 2016; 354(6309):182-3. doi: 10.1126/science.aah4567. [ Links ]

16. Climate action tracker. Web site. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

17. Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat. Global biodiversity outlook 5. Montreal: CBD, 2020. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

18. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell S, Fetzer I, Bennett E, et al. Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015; 347(6223):1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855. [ Links ]

19. United Kingdom Health Alliance on Climate Change. Our calls for action. London: HACC, 2021. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

20. Climate Action Tracker. Warming projections global update: mayo 2021. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

21. United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions gap report 2020. UNEP, 2020. Disponible en: (Consulta: mayo 2021). [ Links ]

22. Markandya A, Sampedro J, Smith S, Van Dingenen R, Pizarro-Irizar C, Arto I, et al. Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health 2018; 2(3):e126-e133. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30029-9. [ Links ]

23. Paremoer L, Nandi S, Serag H, Baum F. Covid-19 pandemic and the social determinants of health. BMJ 2021; 372:n129. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n129. [ Links ]

Note: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and FG serves on the executive committee for the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change and is a Trustee of the Eden Project. RS is the chair of Patients Know Best, has stock in UnitedHealth Group, has done consultancy work for Oxford Pharmagenesis, and is chair of the Lancet Commission of the Value of Death. None further declared.

Note: Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecom- Corresponding email:

Note: This editorial is being published simultaneously in many international journals. Please see the full list here:

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons