Friday, 8 January 2016

Happy 2016

Classified as - update, progress report


Seasons' greetings to all.

Here's a beautiful image from the Sydney New Years Eve to start the year.

Indigenous people could be understandably cynical about images like this, but let's hope it stands for something. I find it an inspiring message. It's always been a theme of this project, right from the first workshop back in 2011, that we can learn from Indigenous people and a culture that has survived for 60,000 years.


I've just come back to Monash after my break, to find that ethics approval for the final stage of this research project has been granted.

I've recently completed a draft 40,000 word report on the project. I would like to present the key points from this to participants before completing my thesis in 2016.

I'm hoping to hold a workshop in each of the three research areas. This will be an opportunity to get final feedback from participants, and also an opportunity to say thank you and celebrate the work that participants have been doing, as there will be lunch or afternoon tea provided.

I will be in touch with participants soon regarding possible dates and times for the workshops. 




Sunday, 13 December 2015

The Paris agreement

Classified as: politics

A quick note - I haven't written much on the blog lately, but this is a historic moment. Countries have agreed to try to limit global warming to below 2C and to aim for 1.5C in the Paris agreement. It is not binding and some people have expressed great cynicism about it, including James Hansen who suggested it was "bullshit".

Lenore Taylor in the Guardian, describing herself as a "cynical optimist" thinks it might "just be enough to start turning the tide".

I think it could be also. It is just a start and we have to keep working, we can't take the pressure off, but it is a start.

More later.

Belated update- here's a few more reactions:

The One Million Women blog saw the Paris Agreement as an "extraordinary achievement' but also noted the gap between what countries have pledged to do and what they need to do. Current pledges on emissions won't even keep warming to 2C let alone the safer target of 1.5C, so countries urgently need to increase their emissions reductions targets.

Reneweconomy was very positive, saying:

Years from now, the Paris climate conference may be seen as the point where ambitious long term global climate policy was finally enshrined in an international agreement, and where the world found a formula that enables consistent action.

However they also acknowledged that there is a "massive" gap between current national pledges and what is needed.

John Quiggin on his blog was also positive, in Turning the Corner:

The agreement just announced from the Climate Conference in Paris isn’t by any means, a solution to the problem of avoiding climate change. But, along with other developments over the past year, it signals the fact that the world community has turned the corner on this issue. 

He saw the biggest political potential danger as a Republican victory in the 2016 US Presidential election, but felt that even that would not be enough to stop the momentum that has now been established world wide.



I think the biggest risk is that the Agreement is seen as an end in itself, and people now think that it's all settled and we don't have to worry about it. Sara Phillips on the ABC noted that Australian concern about climate change seemed to diminish after the carbon price was introduced, possibly because people now felt the problem was solved.

I think there are usually more immediate issues than climate change in most people's lives - cost of living, caring for children, job security, and so on - so the temptation to focus on them and forget about 'distant' problems like climate change is always there, especially if the distant problems appear to be solved. However, as Sara Phillips writes, the advent of the Abbott government in Australia showed that action on climate change can be wound back, even after it has begun - and so there is no room for complacency. One positive thing perhaps is that now there has been such a large scale world wide agreement that action on climate change is important, it will be much more difficult for any politicians in future to wind it back in the way the Abbott government did.
 

Thursday, 24 September 2015

Who's playing this war game? - Updated.

Classified as: reflections, war and peace again, 'non-playing characters'

Updated 4 October - Stop calling it collateral damage

A US airstrike that killed up to 20 aid workers and patients in a M√©decins Sans Fronti√®res (MSF) hospital in Afghanistan constitutes a “grave violation of international law”, the charity’s president has said

...

"US forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am [local time] on 3 October against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation,” said Col Brian Tribus, spokesman for international forces in Afghanistan.

See more

If Professor Ranson is right that 85% of those who die in wars now are civilians (see original post below) as I'm sure he is, then the least we can expect is that those waging war stop using terms like collateral damage. It's not collateral damage, it's what wars do. Pacifists like me (or more famous ones like say, Joan Baez or the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom) oppose war in general, but I fail to see how anyone can justify it now that the vast majority of those killed are civilians.

Original post 24 September:

Today Professor David Ranson, of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, gave a talk to students in the Climate Change and Public Health unit I'm teaching in this semester.

David was talking about emergencies and disasters, and in the talk he spent some time talking about war. He mentioned that in recent wars, from about the 1980s, 85% of those who die are civilians.

Part of the reason that more of the deaths are civilians now than they used to be (although apparently about half the deaths had been civilians for a long time) is the huge investment that goes in to protecting soldiers, including rapid and massive forensic investigations when soldiers die.  In discussion, David suggested that nations are reluctant to lose soldiers because they invest so much in them. (My apologies to David if I've misunderstood in any way, but this is what I remember).

But I've been thinking about this, and am seeing it in a different way. Recently on the blog Crooked Timber, Belle Waring wrote a couple of posts about NPCs, or non-playing characters, in computer games.

NPCs: What Are They, Even?

by BELLE WARING on AUGUST 28, 2015
... It’s pretty simple. Let’s say you play a FPS (first person shooter) or even a third-person shooter (you see the character you control as if he were the star of a movie). You generally roam around the game shooting alien monsters or zombies or Nazis or zombie Nazis or whatever. But there will be people on your side, or fellow members of the space marines, or bystander city-dwellers—people with whom you can interact but don’t need to/can’t shoot. These characters may have only one thing to say, or they can say one thing when first approached (or when you say a certain thing) and one or more other things later (or when you say that other thing). Alternately and more generally in all sorts of games an NPC can be someone you share endless experiences with, or are trained by, or you start a romantic relationship with, or you lose your shit over when they die ... Basically, in a single-player game, you’re the player, and the non-player characters—even if they look just like you—are merely generated by the game, just like the rendered terrain itself or the monsters or the weapons/spoils of war/scrolls, etc.
You can read it here
Belle was using NPCs mainly as an analogy to talk about sexism. But I started thinking that civilians in wars were like NPCs - expendable characters. Of course soldiers aren't 'supposed' to shoot (or bomb, or whatever) civilians, but loads of civilians die, because they're not key characters. 
Except of course in Belle's analogy, the player identifies with the character. Whereas in war, there are lots of 'characters' (soldiers) and many more 'non-player characters' (civilians). But there isn't one person (player) who identifies with each soldier. There's other people - politicians, arms manufacturers, owners of capital, senior military, diplomats, even (often in an ill-informed way), some of the citizenry in the countries that aren't being invaded - who control or direct the game. The soldiers are used, a few of them get destroyed, but they are defended. They're not in charge, but they are important. Whereas the citizens of the country that's being invaded are just, as Belle says, like the "terrain".
Only then I started thinking about chess, and the similarities. Chess is a game of war, and the pawns in chess are a bit like like non-playing characters, or citizens, although I think they're really foot soldiers. They can move, they can even get to be queens, if they're lucky, although they're largely expendable. 
So in some ways these war games have been around for a long time. But now when you think about how many civilians die, and how much investment goes into the soldiers, who are still just expensive characters, not players - it's chilling. Who's playing this game, really? Who's in charge? I'm outright opposed to war, and have been for a long time, but a lot of people aren't. I think they have a romantic notion that war is about brave soldiers fighting each other to defend the people. But it's not. It never has been really, it's always been about the powerful competing with each other, using soldiers as their pawns. But now it's not even about the soldiers dying, mainly - it's just ordinary people. Civilians, kids.

Thursday, 13 August 2015

Project report update - discussion of theory

Classified as: theory, project update, reflective journal

The project report will include a largely descriptive component, which covers:
  • what the research involved, 
  • the development of the ISEPICH framework, 
  • what participants are doing to promote health, equity and environmental sustainability, 
  • what helps or challenges them in this work.
There will also be a more analytical component, which covers:
  • who said what, were there differences  between participants, why?
  • what are the underlying assumptions and ideas they are drawing on?
  • how does this relate to the context in which they are working and speaking?
  • what are the significant implications from this research so far?
It's not possible to make a hard distinction between description and analysis. For example, there are over 100,000 words in transcripts of interviews and group discussions, so just to make sense of that I have to summarise and select, which always involves analysis: what's relevant to the research questions, what are the key themes, and so on. However I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between mainly descriptive, where I am trying to portray what participants were doing and what they said, and mainly analytical, in which I look at differences and context and assumptions, and use theory to explore these.

Therefore at this point I want to be a bit more specific about the theory and methodology I am drawing on in this analysis.

Action research assumes that we all (once we get beyond very early life, anyway) have theories: ideas about the way the world works and why people do what they do. In an action research project such as this one, however, theories aren't necessarily fully articulated at the beginning. We develop a plan or idea for what we want to do, like the ISEPICH framework in the beginning of this project. The ISEPICH framework did draw on ideas and theories, both from the expert speakers at the first forum and from participants' own experience. The emphasis was not on using experts' theories to tell us what to do, but rather on using those theories, in conjunction with our own ideas and experience, to plan what we should do.

That is to say, theory in action research is grounded: it is not universal theory but rather particular theory about what will happen or should be done in a particular time and place.

Both the expert speakers at the first forum were health promotion experts, so the main theoretical approach they were drawing on was health promotion, as well as drawing on other theories and evidence about equity and climate change.  In devising the original project, I and the other people most involved were also drawing on integrated health promotion theory, particularly as expressed in the Department of Health Integrated Health Promotion Kit, and the Ottawa Charter. This is not to say, though, that all the participants in the project were drawing on the same theory. Most, I believe, shared a common ground of ideas about community development and social inclusion, but within that consensus, there may still have been some significant differences, particularly for the community members in ISEPICH.

The second stage of the research, talking with people in the three PCPs about what they had done and what helped or challenged them in this work, explored the 'action' of action research: this is the stage where theory is tested in practice. The theory that is being tested here is, at one level, the theory documented in the ISEPICH framework. However, the second stage of the research also involved people from other PCPs who hadn't been involved in developing the ISEPICH framework and were working with their own ideas and theories. The key common ground is the theory of integrated health promotion, as above. Beyond that, SGGPCP also have developed their own theory in Climate Change Adaptation: A Framework for Local Action. This was developed before this research project began and was clearly a very influential source for this research. Although it is expressed as being about adaptation, in fact it also addresses mitigation and provides a framework for health promotion drawing on the Ottawa Charter.

Part of the analysis therefore will be looking at those theories and how the findings of the research relate to them. When it comes to looking at context and assumptions, however, I will also draw on broader theories, which participants may or may not share or agree with. Specifically these are:
  • theories of culture and practice, particularly those that attempt to explain how people operate in 'everyday', taken-for-granted contexts
  • critical theory, particularly about the way that capitalist and neo-liberal societies work (these theories were alluded to, directly or indirectly, by participants at certain times)
  • feminist theory, particularly in regard to the tension between between hierarchical, competitive approaches and cooperative, egalitarian approaches, which I believe is a key underlying tension relevant to this research project.
I am currently working on a discussion of these fields of theory as they relate to the research project, and if I have time I will also try to summarise some of that here, before circulating the project report to participants.

I am also presenting on the research at the Population Health Congress in Hobart in September. The two presentations are a 15 minute presentation on 'Health promotion, equity, environmental sustainability and politics in Victoria, Australia'; and a poster presentation 'Ecofeminist theory can help us to counter the marginal political position of health promotion'. Both are on Tuesday 8th September.


Tuesday, 12 May 2015

Useful articles on co-benefits of addressing climate change, obesity and other public health issues

Classified as: very useful research

If you haven't already seen it, the following article is very relevant for those working in health promotion and is of general interest. As far as I know it's not available publicly,  but if you have access to a library you should be able to order a copy. I've included the abstract below.



Melanie Lowe ‘Obesity and climate change mitigation in Australia: overview and analysis of policies with co-benefits’ , Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health [Aust N Z J Public Health], ISSN: 1753-6405, 2014 Feb; Vol. 38 (1), pp. 19-24; Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell; PMID: 24494940

Abstract

Objective: To provide an overview of the shared structural causes of obesity and climate  change, and analyse policies that could be implemented in Australia to both equitably reduce obesity rates and contribute to mitigating climate change. 


Methods: Informed by the political economy of health theoretical framework, a review was conducted of the literature on the shared causes of, and solutions to, obesity and climate change. Policies with potential co-benefits for climate change and obesity were then analysed based upon their feasibility and capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and equitably  reduce obesity rates in Australia.


Results: Policies with potential co-benefits fit within three broad categories: those to replace  car use with low-emissions, active modes of transport; those to improve diets and reduce  emissions from the food system; and macro-level economic policies to reduce the over-consumption of food and fossil fuel energy.


Conclusion: Given the complex causes of both problems, it is argued that a full spectrum of complementary strategies across different sectors should be utilised.


Implications: Such an approach would have significant public health, social and environmental benefits.


Key words: obesity, climate change, political economy of health, policy analysis, co-benefits

People working in PCP health promotion are likely to be aware of this I should think. I had seen it myself before, but came across it again recently and thought how practically useful it is, for example for those who are funded to work on obesity related projects but would also like to have an environmental focus in their work. 

If you have been able to make use of this evidence in your work, I'd be really interested to hear about it. You can respond in the comments below or by contacting me direct on my email (see side panel).

Here's another relevant article, from Canada. I'll probably come across more as I work through the review I'm doing, so it may be worth checking back if you are interested in this topic.



Cheng JJ  & Berry P ‘Health co-benefits and risks of public health adaptation strategies to climate change: a review of current literature’  International Journal Of Public Health [Int J Public Health] 2013 Apr; Vol. 58 (2), pp. 305-11.



Abstract:

Objectives: Many public health adaptation strategies have been identified in response to climate change. This report reviews current literature on health co-benefits and risks of these strategies to gain a better understanding of how they may affect health.

Methods: A literature review was conducted electronically using English language literature from January 2000 to March 2012. Of 812 articles identified, 22 peer-reviewed articles that directly addressed health co-benefits or risks of adaptation were included in the review.
Results: The co-benefits and risks identified in the literature most commonly relate to improvements in health associated with adaptation actions that affect social capital and urban design. Health co-benefits of improvements in social capital have positive influences on mental health, independently of other determinants. Risks included reinforcing existing misconceptions regarding health. Health co-benefits of urban design strategies included reduced obesity, cardiovascular disease and improved mental health through increased physical activity, cooling spaces (e.g., shaded areas), and social connectivity. Risks included pollen allergies with increased urban green space, and adverse health effects from heat events through the use of air conditioning.
Conclusions: Due to the current limited understanding of the full impacts of the wide range of existing climate change adaptation strategies, further research should focus on both unintended positive and negative consequences of public health adaptation.
  
A more policy-related discussion with a focus on non-communicable disease. There is a useful grid of expected co-benefits in the article:


Friel S, Bowen K, Campbell-Lendrum D, Frumkin H, McMichael AJ and  Rasanathan K ‘Climate change, noncommunicable diseases, and development: the relationships and common policy opportunities’ Annual Review Of Public Health [Annu Rev Public Health] 2011; Vol. 32, pp. 133-47


Abstract:

The rapid growth in noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including injury and poor mental health, in low- and middle-income countries and the widening social gradients in NCDs within most countries worldwide pose major challenges to health and social systems and to development more generally. As Earth's surface temperature rises, a consequence of human-induced climate change, incidences of severe heat waves, droughts, storms, and floods will increase and become more severe. These changes will bring heightened risks to human survival and will likely exacerbate the incidence of some NCDs, including cardiovascular disease, some cancers, respiratory health, mental disorders, injuries, and malnutrition. These two great and urgent contemporary human challenges-to improve global health, especially the control of NCDs, and to protect people from the effects of climate change-would benefit from alignment of their policy agendas, offering synergistic opportunities to improve population and planetary health. Well-designed climate change policy can reduce the incidence of major NCDs in local populations.