©Paul Tearle/Getty Images
DCL
While some estimate that climate change already contributes to 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses a year, others disagree. Kevin Lafferty, an ecologist with the U.S. geological survey, says, "Climate change isn't going to increase infectious diseases but change the disease landscape." He concedes that many of the changes will not be positive, but argues that ultimately, climate change may have the effect of reducing some infectious diseases rather than increasing them.
Parasites, for example, that depend on the estimated 55,000 species that go extinct a year, could be in trouble if they have no other host to turn to. "Listen, you don't want to be a parasite of a polar bear or a penguin," says Lafferty.
Others, like John R. Christy, a climatologist and the director of Alabama's Earth System Science Center, argue that wealth is the primary factor in determining which populations are most vulnerable or able to adapt to threats. "Non-democratically accountable governments," he said, "have no real incentive to create a healthy populace with free markets and therefore free people."
That's not to deny outright any connection between disease and climate change; it's just a caution to be sure the whole picture is accounted for when planning for disease prevention. Lafferty, for example, advocates for ecologists to use already-developed tools to study intricate ecosystems in order to extricate the individual factors that contribute to disease—including climate change. If scientists consider all possibilities before arriving at climate change as the dominant factor in the spread of disease, argues Lafferty, constructing a plan based on that is more certain to be successful, rather than just a guess, however educated.
