Healing Global Warming


I’m Gina Vild. I’m the chief communications officer for Harvard
Medical School. So I want to wish you a happy new year and
welcome to the first [email protected] of 2019. So to all of you who are here, and we know
we have a great many people watching us through the livestream from around the world, we welcome
you as well. If you have a topic you would like to hear
us present for a [email protected], please let me know. If you have any ideas for science, research,
or health topics, we’d love to hear from you because we think this is a really wonderful
and engaging way for our community to hear about the work of our faculty. Today we’ll hear about an issue that’s on
our minds and in the news, climate change, and what we can do about it both as individuals
and as institutions. First, I’d like to invite you to mark your
calendar. On February 28, we’ll have a [email protected] on a
new look at life through imaging, and on March 12, why sleep matters. We ran a sleep [email protected] maybe around seven
years ago. And we filled the auditorium. So if you’re going to attend that, I suggest
you arrive early. It’s a really fascinating topic. After today’s presentation I encourage you
to ask questions. Our speaker will take questions. If you’re watching through the livestream,
we invite you to post your question in the YouTube and Facebook comments section. It was just last week that the New England
Journal of Medicine published an alarming study on climate change. It was reported that the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change concluded that we need to cut global greenhouse gas emissions
in half by 2030 and entirely by 2040 to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. The article stated as physicians we have a
special responsibility to safeguard health and alleviate suffering. Working rapidly to curtail greenhouse gas
emissions is now essential to our healing mission. Tackling this challenge may feel overwhelming,
but physicians are well-placed and we believe morally bound to take a lead role in confronting
climate change with the urgency that we know it demands. This publication echoed a December commentary
in The Boston Globe authored by Harvard Medical School Dean George Daley and HMS faculty members
Ashish Jha and Aaron Bernstein. Did any of you who are here see that or read
that commentary? It was excellent. In that commentary, they wrote, “our hospitals
and institutes have been taking substantial measures to prepare for climate change, building
more resilient buildings, making evacuation and critical service contingency plans, and
stockpiling essential supplies, to name just a few. But we know that these measures can never
fully safeguard our operations and patients from the full effects of climate change.” They announced in this commentary that the
Harvard Medical School affiliated hospitals are united in their commitment to decarbonize,
and for this we applaud them. Today’s speaker was one of the authors and
will certainly talk more about this with you in a minute. I’m thrilled to introduce Dr. Aaron Bernstein
who’s become a leading voice on the issue of climate change and global warming. In addition to serving as an assistant professor
of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and as a hospitalist at the division of general
pediatrics at Boston Children’s Hospital, Dr. Bernstein is co-director of the Center
for Climate Health and Global Environment at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health,
and assistant faculty director for the Climate and Health Initiative at the Harvard Global
Health Institute. He’s also an avid bicyclist, I’ve learned. And he personally contributes to cutting emissions
by biking to work here in Boston year round. So please welcome Dr. Bernstein. [APPLAUSE] Thanks. Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to be here with you. And my goal by the end of the next half hour
or so is to not only convince you if you need convincing, which many of you may not, that
climate change is a matter of great importance to everyone who practices medicine United
States, but perhaps more importantly that the things that we are doing and will continue
to do to address the root causes of climate change put us in a position to tackle some
of the most difficult health challenges we face today. The health burdens that all of the faculty
at all of our hospitals and clinics are dealing with every day, the major burdens of disease
in the United States and indeed around the world, are directly related to climate change
in ways that I don’t think we’ve talked enough about. So that’s the goal. And I do want you to think about questions
you have because there will be time at the end. And to do those two things, I want to go through
the commitment that we’ve embarked upon here at the medical school and around the Harvard
teaching hospitals. I want to make clear why climate change is
such an important issue for health and then of course give some examples speaking to the
Longwood Medical Area in particular of how decarbonization really matters to our ability
to do our jobs as clinicians. So this is the commitment. I’m not going to read the whole thing. And as Gina alluded to, the primary reason
that this commitment was made was not for decarbonization itself, although it is about
decarbonization. It’s not even about the fact that climate
change is widely considered the biggest health threat facing us today, although it certainly
is. It’s about the responsibility as health care
providers to do this for the sake of the people we seek to heal and also to protect our ability
to do our jobs. In short, this commitment is about our role
in addressing the greatest health threat of our time, doing our part, and to improve the
health of the populations we serve. That’s what this is about, folks. It’s not about polar bears, or melting glaciers,
or people far away who in fact may be more vulnerable to climate change than we are. It is about all those things, but it’s really
about us right here and right now. Let me give you some examples– many of you
will be familiar with these– to make these points clear. The Camp Fire, which was the most lethal fire
in California’s history, was last November. It burned down about 15,000 buildings, responsible
for 86 deaths, thousands of people were forced to move. It also, for the record, made inoperable the
hospital that served this community. And we know from both observed trends in our
climate but projections into the future that climate change is driving temperatures higher. This is data from decades back showing how
the temperature distribution in the northern hemisphere is continuing to grow warmer. And the key point for health care providers
here is that we’re seeing events in the extreme heat distribution that are unprecedented. You don’t have to be a scientist to know this. You can go outside in any summer in any city
in the northern hemisphere and experience temperatures that are unprecedented on a more
frequent basis. High temperatures and heat are noxious to
lots of different people– people with chronic diseases of pretty much any flavor, be it
diabetes, cancer, lung diseases, heart diseases, you name it. But of course, in places like California,
heat is a major risk for fire. So for anyone who is in the Bay Area or knows
people in the Bay Area of California during this time period, this is what San Francisco
looks like on an average day. This is what it looked like during the Camp
Fire. And this is what the smoke looked like. There are actually fires both in northern
California and southern California, but you can see the smoke is extensive here across
the Pacific and well into the Bay Area. The air quality in San Francisco during this
event was as bad as any other city in the world, save one. This kind of air pollution, folks, particulate
air pollution, is deadly. On any given day, in any given city, the amount
of particular air pollution that is in the air will determine the number of excess deaths. Those can be from heart attacks, strokes,
and other things, but this kind of air pollution makes kids with asthma be unable to breathe,
makes people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have difficulty breathing, contributes
to people who have diabetes having more problems controlling their blood pressure. It is now thought to contribute to the risks
for brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Particulate matter air pollution is a major
risk globally responsible for millions of deaths every year. It is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. In the United States, we are fortunate that
the Clean Air Act has substantially improved this problem. But around the world it remains an enormous
cause of disease. And in the United States, with wildfires,
as you can see, the air pollution in US cities can be drastically affected. And make no mistake, the air pollution that’s
caused by these fires does not stay put. These fires came all– their smoke came all
the way to Massachusetts as was demonstrated by NASA in this image that was obtained looking
at the smoke distribution from these fires that traversed the entire continent and reached
Massachusetts. It turns out that there are forest fires that
occur in the boreal forest of Canada that also more regularly affect air quality in
Boston. So you may think that climate events that
happen in other parts of the world are bad for people in other parts of world. And that is absolutely true. But make no mistake that when extreme whether,
be it heat or flood or other things we know are associated climate change happen, people
show up in our hospitals in Boston all the time. David Eisenman, who’s the director of the
UCLA Center for Public Health and Disasters, talked about the consequences of a fire in
this case on people’s ability to secure the health care that they need. And he said, “being cut off from your medicines,
being cut off from your medical care, being cut off from your social supports, the added
stress of having lost things and living in an evacuation center and having to relocate–
studies clearly show that there are additional hospitalizations that occur” and deaths in
the months afterward. So we need to think broadly about the consequences
of climate change. We tend to think very clearly or at least
more clearly about immediate risks in terms of if there’s a fire or a flood. But we need to understand that in the aftermath
of those things, access to care in terms of a clinic that is shut down, in terms of getting
your prescriptions in the United States, thinking about insurance issues and across-state issues. People who are forced to move against their
will, be it internally displaced within a country or across borders, are some of the
most vulnerable people on the planet. I’m going to give you one more exhibit to
illustrate the consequences of climate change both to people’s health and to the ability
of doctors and nurses and pharmacists, social workers, and everyone who works in hospitals
and clinics to do their jobs, which is Hurricane Maria. So Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto
Rico last year. It was a Category 4 storm, 155 mile an hour
winds. So for those outside today in Boston, our
gusts, which are pretty substantial, are about 30 miles an hour. So these gusts are five times stronger than
the strongest winds we’re seeing today in Boston, sustained. There was up to 20 inches of rain dropped
over two days. That was actually relatively small compared
to the 60 inches of rain that Harvey dropped in the same year on Houston. Can you imagine 60 inches of rain falling
from a single storm? That’s what Harvey did to Houston. Hurricanes, of course, are direct and imminent
threats to the health of people wherever they occur. And climate change is making hurricanes do
a lot of things. It’s making them stronger. It’s making them last longer. It’s making them intensify faster which is
perhaps one of the most concerning things because, of course, in terms of preventing
harm, the best thing we can do is to help people understand there’s a risk. But storms are intensifying faster, meaning
they’re going from lower category storms to higher category storms in shorter amounts
of time. So there’s less time to prepare. And importantly, they’re slowing down by about
10% in the last five or six decades. And the climate models tell us that that’s
likely to occur. That’s why Harvey had such heavy rainfall
is that it stood still. The storms are moving more slowly, and that
allows them– instead of dispersing rainfall over a larger area, they’d drop it all in
one place. So we see this trend towards more intense
storms, et cetera, and that has serious concerns for people’s welfare. I’m going to focus on the effects of Maria
on Puerto Rico. Of course, it caused havoc in many places. Many of you are well familiar with the toll
that this storm exacted on Puerto Rico. About 80,000 people had no electricity before
the storm because of the prior Hurricane Irma that struck Puerto Rico. By the time Maria was done, pretty much no
one had electricity on the island. Before the storm, 70% of people on the island
were thought to have drinking water that was not at the clean drinking water standard for
the United States. After the storm, there were outbreaks of infectious
diseases, potentially leptospirosis and others, which are commonplace after these storms as
water systems are overwhelmed. These points emphasize one of the key messages
on climate and health, which is that people who are already vulnerable in the health status
are more vulnerable to the health effects of climate change. So we need to be thinking absolutely about
those who have health status that puts them at risk in general as people who are particularly
at risk, be it from heat or flood or other events. So one of the things that was striking, I
think, to many people in a place like Puerto Rico, a part of the United States, was the
duration of time it took them to recover. And they are still recovering. Power was not restored for months, for instance. Many people lacked running water. Even as late as last fall, about 20% of the
people on the island had electricity. 30% still lacked running water. Estimates are– and as you know, there was
some controversy around this. But probably around 3,000 people died directly
because of this storm. You also may know that Puerto Rico is a major
center for pharmaceutical manufacturer to the United States, both for animals and for
people. There are about 49 pharma plants making over
100 drugs, particularly rheumatologic drugs, HIV meds, cancer drugs on the island, and
70 plants making over 1,000 different medical devices. I want to focus on one plant though which
is in the state of– I’m not a great Spanish speaker, so some of you are so you’ll have
to forgive me here– Jayuya. And that is where the Baxter plant that made
a large share of the so-called small volume IV bags that are used around the United States
were manufactured. That plant was knocked out of commission by
the storm. And it led to a national shortage of IV fluids
which was absolutely felt right here in Longwood. So there is not a hospital that I’m aware
of in Boston that did not have to protect its supplies of IV fluids and small volume
IV fluid bags because of the shortage that was created by this storm. So again, an event that happens far away from
where its impacts are is becoming a norm with climate change. And we need to be mindful that, particularly
with medical supply chains, that often they are highly localized. And if there is a disruption, it can put at
risk, for example, the basics of medical therapy which in this case is IV fluids. The situation became so concerning that this
publication by docs in from the ED at Brigham started instructing– was intended to instruct
American physicians how to deliver oral rehydration therapy to patients who were dehydrated the
same way you’d do in a developing country. That’s where we were as of last year. And this publication as you will see was from
April. The storm was six months prior. So this is six months after the storm hit
that we were at a point where, in this article, they were listing the triage protocol as to
whether patients at the Brigham would be getting IV fluids or oral rehydration therapy. So again, climate change is very much about
our ability to do our job. And these two events provide some examples,
and I can give you many more, about how climate change poses direct risk to health care delivery
and health care quality. One of the ways that we have just begun to
understand that climate change is relevant to health care delivery and health care quality
is the migration of people. So this is a map of where people left Puerto
Rico to arrive at. There were some 50,000 people who moved to
Florida alone. About 400,000 left between October and February. But they didn’t just go to Florida. They went all over the United States, including
many thousands to Massachusetts and Hampden, Massachusetts, in particular. So what does this mean to the health care
system? Well, it means thousands of new patients entering
a system that may have that number in existence. So Massachusetts schools enrolled about 2,000
Puerto Rican children after the storm. So I can tell you that the clinics that I’m
familiar with are barely trying to keep up with the volume we have right now. Throwing 2,000 additional children into those
clinics is a major strain upon access. And oh by the way, some of these folks might
have not good health status. They may have insurance issues. They may not have access to pharmacies, et
cetera, et cetera. So these patients may not be the ones that
are necessarily most straightforward to bring into a clinic. This is a phenomena we are seeing more and
more as extreme weather events are triggered around the world, be it in Syria– so some
of you may know that the Syrian Civil War was sparked by a 900-year drought which tipped
the balance towards civil war. And now we have millions of people internally
displaced in Syria and going around Europe and the world. And many of those people desperately need
medical care. And that’s also true– we talk a lot about
the southern border of the United States and the migrants coming across our border from
the south. There’s many reasons for them to migrate,
including violence and political instability, but there’s also been unprecedented climate
events that is a part of that equation. Those people migrating, coming to our southern
border, as we’ve read about in the news, need medical care often. Are we preparing for these people to receive
the health care they need when they arrive in our clinics? And they don’t necessarily have to be in the
places you might think, as this illustrates. The people who are migrating from Central
America may seek care on the border states, but they might also land in Massachusetts. So enough with the doom and gloom. I think you’ve gotten the point that this
is a big deal for health. It’s a big deal for their ability to take
care of people when they are sick. But now I want to shift our focus to what
we need to do about it and why it is absolutely critical that we understand that the actions
we take to combat climate change benefit the health of people in ways that will get at
some of the biggest health threats we face today. I was honored and I’m proud of the work that
we did for Harvard University in establishing the Harvard climate commitment for the university
last year. Harvard has committed as a university to become
fossil fuel free in 2050. Now we have to be very clear about this lingo. That means no fossil fuels. We have a goal of neutral by 2026, meaning
we can use offsets, meaning yes we might burn some fossil fuel over here, but we’re offsetting
that with renewables elsewhere. But fossil fuel free by 2050 is an ambitious
goal. And a major reason why we pushed for fossil
fuel free was specifically because we knew that by burning less fossil fuels in our communities,
we would improve the health of the people living in the communities we operate in. So let’s talk about what that could mean for
Longwood. So this is the Longwood Medical Area as viewed
from Google Earth. We’re sitting over here. Boston Children’s is over here. Does anyone know what this is? The plant, yeah, that’s the MATEP plant. So the MATEP plant is a gas-fired power plant
that is supplying the electricity to turn the lights on this auditorium and keep the
heat on. It provides heating, cooling, it provides
hot water, it provides chilled water, and it provides electricity. And it has been recognized as one of the most
efficient power plants around, even for a gas plant. It’s also quite reliable in the sense that
if the rest of the grid of Boston goes down, it can still operate. So here we have a plant that by any historical
standard would be looked at as a prize because of its reliability and because of its efficiency. And yet it’s supplying all of the electrons,
most of the electrons if not all of the electrons, that go into all of the hospitals and Harvard
Medical School. At the same time as you heard from the introduction
and from the university’s commitment even at that good point, it is not going to get
us to a fossil fuel free future. So today I ask us all to put on our thinking
caps because we have to envision a future without gas-fired energy in the Longwood Medical
Area. If we look back at 2050, when the world could
be warmed by an amount that could potentially put substantial amounts of Boston under water,
which is what’s at stake here, folks, we’ll have to ask ourselves today were are we thinking
about the reality that we were essentially dependent upon a gas-fired power plant, and
what plans did we make to change the future that we can grasp before us? So that is a bold ask. It is not easy. These issues are notoriously difficult to
figure out. And yet the science couldn’t be clearer that
this is what we need to do for the issue of climate change and our responsibility on climate
change but also for the issue of air quality. Another major win for health in the Longwood
Medical Area is transportation. So burning fossil fuels produces air pollution
in a community that is highly vulnerable, right? So we’ve got hospitals here with the sickest
people in Massachusetts. Often people come from around the world to
our hospitals. People in hospitals are in hospitals because
they are not well, and we’re putting out pollutants that we know are harmful to health. We have a growing traffic rate. The state data suggests that traffic in the
last decade in Longwood Medical Area may be 10% or more greater. We are building new buildings. Many of the hospitals are building new clinical
buildings. We are expecting more people to be coming
into Longwood. And we need a plan to deal with transportation. And there are people have been working on
this for years. It is not an easy thing to fix. And yet we absolutely must do it. We have to do it because sitting in cars is
bad for health. We know that protracted periods of sitting
in cars is bad for health. We know that traffic jams delay ambulances,
and delayed ambulances means worse outcomes for people with coronary events and strokes. We know that people idling in cars produces
more air pollution, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So we need to figure this out. This is another charge, another immense ask. But yet it is clear this is what we need to
do. To be clear about the role of cars in local
air pollution and its effects on health, I’m going to refer to a study that was done in
Oakland last year. Cars were mounted on the streets of Oakland
and drove around several times to collect block by block data on air pollution. Most of the air quality data you will see–
in fact, pretty much all the air quality data you will see– is based upon monitors that
are placed high in buildings. There’s one on the Countway, for instance. But they’re sparsely distributed across the
surface of the earth. And they are used to sort of figure out what
the air pollution is at a regional level or smaller. But this is block by block. And what I want to point out to you is that
there is a big difference in Oakland whether you live next to the Nimitz Freeway or you
live in one of these neighborhoods west of the Nimitz or for that matter along other
major roadways. Your exposure to air pollution is substantial. And in this study, they were able to pair
these air pollutant measures with health records from Kaiser to understand what people’s risk
of having a heart attack and stroke were based upon their exposure to these very localized
air pollutants. And they found, particularly for people over
65, substantial effects for exposure to the air pollution on risks of having a cardiovascular
event. And so we know that even though we get these
general air quality measures, the variability on a block by block basis can be substantial. So again, just because we know the air quality
in Boston is OK, it does not mean that in the Longwood Medical Area– we have very intense
traffic, we have an increased rate of diesel combustion, both because the power plant occasionally
has to burn diesel fuel and because there are a lot of ambulances and trucks that burn
diesel fuel– that our local air pollution may, in fact, be greater. So we need to really think about the air pollution
risks to our patients, in particular, as we think about transportation plans. And just to give you a sense, I just– Google
collects this data, but this is the traffic pattern on an app. You could pick any Monday pretty much of the
year and for that matter it doesn’t change much. But at 5 o’clock, you can pretty much guarantee
that there are people going to be idling most of Longwood Avenue and most of the blocks
that directly surround all the hospital buildings where people are being cared from. And the biggest determinant of indoor air
pollution is outdoor air pollution. So how do we deal with this? Well, here’s one idea. Over a century ago in Boston, it was a part
of good urban design to put large green spaces in places, not because of air pollution per
se but because people thought people liked that kind of thing. So we have the Commonwealth Avenue promenade
which is an amazing amenity that people love to use. It goes into the gardens. It allows people to walk places, so people
can actually walk from point A to point B and feel safe. Turns out trees do a couple of things that
are really good for problems associated with climate change. They substantially reduce air pollutants. They serve as buffers. So we could in the Longwood Medical Area commit
ourselves to having 100% green roofs as one potential intervention. That would potentially reduce some of the
air pollution circulating in the community. They also do perhaps an even more important
thing which is they reduce the urban heat island. So this is a map of temperatures on the surface
of Boston from a July day a couple of years ago. And this box is roughly the Longwood Medical
Area. And the difference in the temperature here–
on the blue it’s 64 degrees and on the red it’s 140 degrees, right? These are enormous temperature disparities
based upon the surface of the earth and what is covering it– is it covered with black
pavement or is it covered with green trees? And that heat exposure can be the difference
between someone having an asthma flare or not, or someone potentially having a heart
attack or not, or a diabetic having out of control blood sugar or not. So the more we can figure out ways to reduce
the urban heat island effect, the more we can reduce warming. And by the way, the warming that has occurred
in most cities in the world over the last several decades is far greater from the built
environment, meaning the black services and the buildings, than it is from climate change. So if we reverse that, we will have substantially
reduced the warming that’s going on in cities. We’ll at the same time potentially provide
people with ways to access places– be it on bike or on foot– that are healthier for
people right now. As many of you know, in Longwood, we recently
had bike lanes put on Longwood Avenue. I bike everyday, as you heard, to and from
Longwood. I still don’t like biking on Longwood Avenue. It is immensely crowded, as we all know. And there’s just tremendous competition for
space. There are surprising greening projects going
on not far from here. This is Fenway Gardens on Fenway Park. If the Red Sox can figure out how to do it
in their expensive real estate, I’m guessing we can figure out how to do it too. The solutions here, folks, are manyfold more. So we talked about transportation. We talked about energy. We can talk about food. All of these things– and this is the key
message– have direct benefit to the health of people where they live right now. And yes, they also reduce our carbon footprints. But the bottom line is that we have a responsibility
to act on this issue which comes from our missions. So if you look at the missions of the institutions
that signed this commitment, it becomes immediately clear that is a part of every single one of
our missions. We, in fact, have a responsibility to act,
which is where the motivation for this came from. And I’m not going to read through all of the
organizations’ missions. You can do this as well. But I don’t think it’s so much of a reach
from where we stand today to continue to find ways to come together and act in ways that
will provide for a healthier, more just, and sustainable future for all. With that, I will finish. And I will gladly take questions. [APPLAUSE] Thank you. Right. So this question is from YouTube. The question is, has global warming progressed
beyond the point where it can be fully corrected? So the answer to that is no, but I don’t know
that we’re looking for fully corrected. The issue before us is really one of how much
benefit we will gain versus how much damage we will get. And as in health in general, prevention uniformly
gets us much more value than treatment after the fact. And what’s even more so with climate change
is that these actions that I’m talking about are things– for instance, with greening–
where there are multiple dividends to cities that engage in them. So the thing I think it’s important to bear
in mind as we think about how bad is this is not how bad is this going to get, it is
how can we focus on the benefits that we can attain given various options on the table
about what to do about it, right? The question about how much warming is too
much is a bit of an arbitrary discussion. If you ask people who have been through some
of these horrific storms or wildfires, they’re probably going to tell you we’ve got a bit
too much warming already. But the point we need to focus on as we try
to tackle this is to think clearly about the health gains that we might get in tandem with
the carbon benefit that’s out there. Hi. My name is James Healey. I’m a researcher over in the DFCI. So in the introduction, we heard about The
New England Medical Journal’s reference for the UN report saying how we need to basically
be carbon neutral as a world by 2040. And then I noticed in the Harvard University
plan, we spoke about 2050 as being completely carbon neutral not even using offsets. So I was wondering if there’s flexibility
within the Harvard 2050 plan as we should be a world leader. We’re world leading institute. I think we should set the example for that. Right. So to be clear– thank you, James, for that
question. To be clear, we’re carbon neutral in 2026. Sorry, I meant carbon zero. Right. So that is effectively carbon zero. So the idea is in 2026, even though there
will still be emissions, they will be offset by other reductions. So the issue with the timing of 2040 versus
2050– 2040 frame was the earliest possible point at which the IPCC suggested that we
might cross a 2-degree guardrail, which again is somewhat arbitrary. It’s what nations came together and said,
if we’re going to act, we’re going to act to try and keep us within 2 degrees of warming. So that’s when it came. But the middle of the road projection is not
2040. That’s the earliest plausible end point. But yes, the ability of this university–
so in context, being fossil fuel free by 2050 is more ambitious than pretty much anybody
out there including– a lot of cities have got pledged to go to carbon zero but not necessarily
fossil fuel free. That’s a big difference. And it is it is very ambitious for us to be
on this path. And it was a major, I think, statement that
President Faust not only endorsed this but really encouraged it as a path forward. So I’m confident that we’re taking, as a university,
a pretty bold step towards doing what we need to do. Steve Marks, Chan School. Thank you very much. And of course, we do all rejoice in the boldness
of the commitment. I wonder if you could reflect for a minute
on whether or not that boldness of the commitment can extend to the movement to divest in carbon
fuel, fossil fuel investments of the Harvard endowment. Yeah. There’s been a movement there as you know. And I can see the two things as parallel. We need to act on the basis of our understanding
of the scope of the challenge. One way of doing it is what you’ve described. Another way that others have proposed is for
the university itself to influence the availability of resources for the carbon– contribute to
the process of eliminating fossil fuels. Yeah. So the question– thank you for it– is about,
can the momentum that is building around decarbonization move into this issue of divestment? So I just want to make sure everyone in the
room is familiar with the context in which we’re dealing, which is that there are many
universities around the country, probably around the world but certainly around the
country, and institutions, foundations, that have pledged to divest their investments from
fossil fuel holdings with the idea that it is a moral stance as well as potentially a
good financial decision to do so in the same way that people divested from apartheid, in
the same way the School of Public Health will not take money from tobacco firms– that there
are moral thresholds that we will draw lines around. On the divestment issue, the university stance,
under President Faust, was to not divest. And that stance was taken for a number of
reasons. Rather than go into them, you’re– they’re
quite public, and the debate roars on. And there have been calls upon the medical
school to divest and individual schools within the university. It is not a secret that I signed the divestment
pledge. And I did so in the belief that, in several–
and so I don’t speak for the university or the medical school– but that to the issue
of leadership and to the issue of our moral groundings, I see it as a very difficult stance
to continue to invest in fuels that we know are causing the demise of civilization. Others would disagree with that and suggest
that we are duplicitous in such a stance because we are, in fact, using those fossil fuels
to keep society going and, in fact, there are so many people in the world who have zero
energy right now, and to suggest that they shouldn’t have access to it by getting off
of fossil fuels is sort of hypocritical at best. And there are many other arguments in this
fray. I think there’s also a quite practical challenge,
although it has been overcome, which is if you’re going to divest from fossil fuels,
what exactly do you divest from, because of course most companies out there do not just
do fossil fuels. They do other things. And some of them do things that we really
kind of like. Do you divest from companies like NG, which
is running our MATEP plant but also has huge numbers of renewable energy projects. And what’s the right threshold to do that? There are very difficult questions when it
comes to divestment. At the same time, there are universities like
Stanford University which have divested. And they’ve said they’re going to divest from
companies that are engaged in coal production. So this is a debate that has to happen. I think to ignore the moral context of this
and the symbolism of such an action is not intelligent. And I think the debate is going to live on. I’ve put my foot down in the debate. I have colleagues who have put down on the
other side of the fence. And I always think back to the question–
and this is one of the things– I am often asked as a pediatrician why I’m interested
in climate change. And there are really two reasons. One is if a pediatrician’s job is to keep
kids healthy, I don’t see how I can not be dealing with climate change, as I hope is
clear. But the other is as pediatrician [INAUDIBLE],
I think about my own kids. And when I am much older, when they’re grown
up, and they ask me– because climate change is real, and it’s happening, and it’s going
to happen– what did you do, and why did you do it, I feel like I’m going to be accountable
to them. And I think having thought about it, to be
accountable to them and responsible would be to say at some point there is a moral transgression
in investing our money into companies, particularly coal at this point, where we know quite clearly
that it’s not only damaging to the climate but it’s damaging to health directly, and
that there are clear alternatives that are both financially reasonable and more secure. But again, this debate is alive and well. Just one over here. Yeah. I just wondered what your view was on the
role of nuclear power plants in combating climate change and the role of that energy
source. And your name, please? Matt [INAUDIBLE]. I’m a researcher at [INAUDIBLE]. Thank you. So the question about nuclear power plants–
so I guess what I would say about nuclear power plants is if only we could. So for those of you who are not familiar with
nuclear energy in terms of the climate context, nuclear energy is a quite promising idea because
it doesn’t require a lot of carbon dioxide emissions or, for that matter, put out air
pollutants like fossil fuels. And it generates immense amounts of electricity. The challenge is that the United States we
have a fairly old fleet of nuclear power plants that are enormously expensive to run. Many of them have been getting shut down because
they can’t make a profit. And building new ones is difficult the United
States in particular. China is building some nuclear plants. The holy grail of nuclear are nuclear power
plants that don’t yet exist, meaning what are called salt reactors, molten salt reactors. These reactors are both safer, produce less
fissile material as byproducts– you can reuse materials more often. But the problem is we don’t have them, and
we need solutions now. So in principle, yes. In reality, I don’t know what to do with it
because building more of the current generation nuclear plants is limited by expense in the
United States. And the newer plants are just not there. They’re not being used. So you know, at some point down the road,
my sincere hope is that we will have advanced generation nuclear. Heck, we might even have nuclear fusion which
would be instead of splitting atoms, putting them together. These are all things out there. And we definitely, in my view, need to be
investing in these newer generation nuclear technologies because they would be fantastic. But the reality is, as you heard, it’s now
2019 and we need to decarbonize by 2040 or 2050. That’s the reality we face. Here’s a question. How can we as health care providers advocate
for the environment and support policy to avert climate change in Washington? There are several ways. It’s a little bit frustrating to answer this
question in Massachusetts. I’m hoping this question may come from elsewhere. But the reality is we need to hold our elected
officials accountable– that an elected official in the federal government in the United States
today would maintain a position that climate change is not caused by human activities is
unconscionable. That they would not be held accountable to
this, to their constituents, is the responsibility of the constituents which include doctors
and nurses and allied health professionals. And I think one of the roles that clinicians
have in this domain is to make clear what is at stake for our ability to do our jobs. If a disaster strikes in your community, what
do you expect will happen? Do you expect people to be able to care for
you? Do you expect the power to be on? Do you expect medicines to be available? And if so, you better start doing something
about climate change because as we wrote in the op ed in the globe, we can build stronger
buildings and we can put boats in our lobbies, which we do. We can provide buffers to the threats that
face us. But the truth is that unmitigated climate
change is not viable for health care, let alone the rest of civilization. So as health care providers, we need to educate
our communities and our policymakers and be engaged with activism around the issue of
where our elected officials stand on these issues. Because without a cohesive federal policy,
it becomes much harder to do what we need to do. With the notable exception that the states
have largely taken the mantle from the federal government at this point to move this issue
forward, not all the states but many of the states. So I think that’s the key role for providers
here. Yeah. So I have lots of questions but I’ll limit
it to just two for time– at opposite ends of the spectrum. One, is it possible to get the city of Boston
to have buildings painted white and paint the streets white instead of black? I mean if it’s such an obvious change due
to what the color of the surface is, that seems like a relatively easy thing to address. And secondly, there are global climate changes
that are going on that are huge, and I’ll just mention one– the increasing thaw and
release of methane from Siberia and the Arctic which to my mind are receiving almost no publicity
in the national news media, certainly not in relation to the importance of these events
and effects. To what extent are people who would get more
attention from the national press or politicians, such as deans of the various schools at Harvard
as opposed to me trying to contact them– to what extent are people like that advocating
for more coverage of this? Because it’s huge and people don’t even know
it’s happening, and that’s just one example. Thank you. Yeah. So the issue of white roofs– I see no reason
that we shouldn’t have a building code in Boston that would have something around the
thermal components of a roof. Given the heat island effect in Boston– now
Boston has a pretty good tree canopy compared to most cities already, which is great. But unsurprisingly, the communities with the
biggest heat island effect are the poorest and with the worse health status in Boston
already. So painting roofs white is not quite as good
as putting green roofs on, but it is way easier and a lot cheaper. So why wouldn’t we have a building code that
required people to have white roofs if their roofs were tar black? I don’t know the answer to that. The issue of– I’m sorry. Streets– Streets– I mean I can’t imagine the street
would remain white. That’s me. I think roofs are probably easier. But sure. I mean I think it would probably be more effective
to do the roofs. I also think Boston’s done a pretty good job
of dealing with street trees in particular, which provide shade. So if you’re shading the street, the surface
of it is probably less important. It’s the roofs that I think really get us. [INAUDIBLE]. Yes. Yeah, you can also use roads now as solar
panels, which is emerging technology, which is interesting particularly in cities. To the point about people’s awareness to these
massive changes in emissions, in the case of methane coming out of ice sheets, I do
think they’re important to know about. At the same time I think they speak to a bigger
issue we face in communicating this issue, which is we’ve been playing the game of–
having followed the IPCC report since the ’90s and even before that, we’ve been playing
the game of look at the science, understand the science, here’s what’s at stake for the
climate. We need to do a much better job of playing
the game of, here’s the science, here’s what’s at stake for you and your health right now. And so as difficult as some of the news around
ocean acidification or methane releases or these other global things are, I actually
think they missed the motivational go buttons of most people. If you look at the politics of climate change
in United States, the reality is that for the folks who don’t see climate change as
relevant, they just don’t understand why it matters. And telling them methane is going to atmosphere
I think is probably not going to get to them as much as if you stop burning diesel fuel
in your community, your kid’s asthma is going to get better, or you might not develop Alzheimer’s,
or your pregnancy outcomes– you had a preterm baby, it could be because you may have been
exposed to high amounts of air pollution, et cetera, et cetera. I think we need to be much more compelling
about the human dimension and particularly around the benefits because people are much
more inclined to jump at something that looks good. Paint them a view– can you all imagine a
future in which Longwood Medical Area had no gas or other fossil fuel burning cars or,
in fact, that the radius of blocks around the medical school and the hospitals had no
vehicles except ambulances and public transit? Can you envision that? Can you envision a Longwood Medical Area that’s
powered 100% by renewable sources? People are much more inclined to think about
that than they are about things that are very hard to look at. And trust me, I– people joke with me about
which is harder to look at, the sick baby you just looked at at Children’s or the climate
science. And in some ways, I feel a little bit better
about the baby because at least it’s very clear to me– I have a very clear vision about
how I need to get from A to B. That’s what we need to do with Longwood. We need to figure out that vision– what are
the steps we need to take– because it’s a long way from here to there, and it seems
overwhelming, so we need to start breaking it down more. Here’s a question from Facebook. Is there a correlation between climate change
and malignant tumor incidence for children in particular? So the main connections between climate and
cancers occur from the air pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels. So it is very well established that air pollution,
particularly particulate matter air pollution that comes from burning coal, other fossil
fuels, comes from burning wood for that matter in those forests fires, is causative of lung
cancer. That is probably the strongest link. Are there other perhaps less clear ones? Potentially, but that is the strongest link. And by the way, in terms of the benefits we
get, colon cancer is a major problem in the United States– colon cancer risk has huge
dietary components as well as hereditary components, but we know that eating processed red meat
in particular is associated with higher rates of colon cancer. So if we eat less red meat and processed meat
and convert that to nuts, legumes, and vegetables, we will have less colon cancer. We will have less carbon footprints. We’ll also have a lesser water footprint,
et cetera, et cetera. So there is a connection there as well. There are lots of health connections besides
cancer, particularly obesity and kids, that I think about. And to whomever wrote this on Facebook, I
encourage you to think broadly about the consequences for climate health particularly for kids. Thanks, Dr. Bernstein. My name is [INAUDIBLE]. I’m a second year medical student here at
HMS. And first of all, I think the statement that
you made about being a pediatrician and not being able to carry out your mission without
being involved on this issue is really poignant and something that I’ve heard from several
of my fellow medical students. My question was, what’s one action item that
we as trainees, health professionals, researchers can take back to our institutions to help
them achieve these ambitious goals, especially in light of the fact that we still have a
fossil fuel plant in the short term that we’re dependent on? Yeah. That’s a great question. Thank you, [INAUDIBLE]. So there are any number of things. One thing to bear in mind as we think about
this together is that the folks who are making this medical school and the hospitals run
are some of the most dedicated, hardworking, committed people I’ve ever worked with who
absolutely get the nature of this problem. They also often feel stuck because they’re
often under-resourced, overworked, and don’t really have an option– like with MATEP, it
is not entirely clear how to get there, and [INAUDIBLE]. So I think part of it is saying, how can we
move the dialogue– what can students do to help move a dialogue forward to affect the
change that we all agree needs to happen? I’m not sure what form that takes. There are probably more simpler asks around
what would it look like in our curriculum. I’m working with an HMS student now who’s
talking to the leads of all the courses and talking to some of your classmates about what
should be in our curriculum around climate. And this is happening at medical schools around
the country, at Icahn, at Emory, and elsewhere. George Mason is doing it. So I think that’s a key component. It turns out– and forgive me for the faculty
who are here and watching this– but most students in medical school knew a heck of
a lot more about climate change than their teachers because most teachers are of an age
that climate change was not really in the curriculum of their undergraduate careers. But now it is. And so we have to recognize that there’s a
generational gap here, that students may in fact be better informed about the science
of climate change and its consequences than the people who are teaching them. And so there needs to be a dialogue here. And I always welcome that because I routinely
learn new things from students in the classes I teach. So I’d say those are the two things, which
is students can help identify where they think the action needs to happen, and then to recognize
that there needs to be a constructive dialogue about it with the understanding that the constraints
on these systems are real, which makes getting out of them not so easy. Hi. Nate Raines. I’m a nephrologist over at BI. Thank you for the excellent talk. I was wondering if you could comment a little
bit on the role of carbon capture and other technologies like that, whether we feel like
it’s distracting from their preventative measures that we need to be taking, and what your thoughts
are. So the idea of carbon capture is a part of
this idea of how you deal with the reality that we’re reliant– something like 70% or
80% of the energy in the United States comes from fossil fuels right now. So getting off of all that is a tall order. And so one of the thoughts is, well, maybe
we could keep burning it and capture the carbon dioxide and bury it underground, be it on
land or under the oceans or elsewhere. And so in principle, this has great potential
in that there’s been a lot of interest in it in terms of how one could equip a gas-fired
plant or a coal plant to bury it. Right now we have prototypes, and we don’t
really have a lot of great examples of scalability, although I think they’re coming. And that brings to the point that you raised
which is if we really go for this, if we really suggests that carbon capture is our sort of
salvation here, which is to say we can still burn fossil– we can have our cake and eat
it too, are we in fact chasing a false idol because maybe carbon capture isn’t as great
a solution as we think? Because of course we haven’t really tried
it before. So in my mind it is very– and I think being
a clinician here is actually very helpful. If you’re faced with two therapeutic options
for a patient and your choices are a set of solutions or a set of therapies that you have
a fairly good familiarity with and you sort of know what you’re getting into and another
solution which is relatively untested and can help part of a problem, you would probably
choose the bird in the hand you know rather than go for this thing which could work but
even if it does work, it actually may not fix the problem. That’s very much the way I look at this. So it’s always important to look at any situation
where you’re trying to deal with energy production, which is usually where carbon capture comes
in, it’s the production of electricity. How can we figure out a solution that involves
wind, water, and solar, potentially other sources, before we start thinking about carbon
capture? I mean right now, one of the major limiting
things with carbon capture, it’s just too expensive. No one would do it just on a cost prohibitive
basis. And you all should know that new electricity
generation in the United States, wind and solar are as cheap or cheaper than fossil
fuel energy which is kind of extraordinary. So the United States– a very hard argument
to drive that we should be doing carbon capture when you could potentially do wind and solar. Now there’s a lot of difference between building
a solar farm or wind farm and having the transmission to get it to where it needs to go. Very different equation in a place like India,
China, and so forth. But at a sort of bird’s eye view, the question
is we have renewables, we know they work, we know they’re cost competitive. We know what we’re getting into more or less. And they don’t produce a lot of carbon after
they’re put into use. On the other hand, we have carbon capture
which is expensive, not very well deployed, not entirely clear how long it will last for
because of course you put something underground, it should stay there and it hopefully will
stay there, but it’s also possible it might come back up, et cetera, et cetera. We’re out of time. Thank you. [APPLAUSE]

Comments 15

  • πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸŒˆπŸ˜ŽπŸ€“πŸŒˆ

  • I find this a strange title: "Healing" a concept?

  • Please allow me to present my model towards fuel and food security for the next 1000 years:
    My solution

    https://www.bioenergyaustralia.org.au/join-us/tanks-alternate-energy-technology/

    I am committee member of Liquid BioFuel of BioEnergy Australia

    https://www.bioenergyaustralia.org.au/our-work/liquid-biofuels-committee/

  • R u still cintinuing with ur lies? This is a joke…Haarp, Chemtrails, the CIA & MIC hav everything to do with climate change & environmental destruction!

  • pleaseπŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ˜­πŸ€’πŸ˜’πŸ˜₯

  • please stop global warming

  • It is very pathetic that such a great premier university like Harvard does not even mention "Artificial Intelligence" even once
    in the whole deliberation. It looks as though this distinguished institution is now becoming kind of laidback institution!

    What is the take away from this talk? Any action plan?

    What are the audience supposed to do when they get home? Recycle? Use less electricity?

    Use less water? Plant some trees? Will any of these reverse global warming?

    How is the world supposed to stop burning fossil now?

    These are the kind of tough questions that the world wants to know and look up to the premier universities like Harvard.

    Sadly, Harvard don't know what we are up against and don't know how to resolve it.

    Even in Healthcare sector, when the future is so uncertain, Harvard is talking about today's problems.

    Everyone knows that. What Harvard is supposed to deliver is, what are the future eventualities and how to be prepared for it now.

    Where is Artificial Intelligence or IoT or Big data fits into any of its medical solutions?

    I think Harvard need to bring in some future thinkers and latest tech guys and

    discuss how to face such future eventualities. That would help the world.

    My blogs are at:

    https://www.quora.com/profile/Ravi-Amblee/answers

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ravi.amblee

  • What a preposterous title… The sun drives our climate, what do you propose we do about that? See; Freeman Dyson, Tim Ball, Judith Curry or William Happer for proper information on the topic. Buying into the notion of substantial warming is a world wide mental health issue, stop feeding the hysteria.

  • This is a serious problem people stop war stop being lazy and throw the garbage in the damn trash can stop releasing gas into the earth this is our fault we started this we have to stop this animals can’t do it only we can so let’s work together! SAVE OUR PLANET

  • Its too late, we have fucked up the planet, Its too late to fix it, get ready to burn people, stop having kids unless you want them to have a tortured life.Just look around at how we live.Humans are the weeds of the planet, we are the only species that does not fit in to the order of maintaining a sustainable environment. If you cant just look around and see we have completely fucked up the planet and are ramping up non stop to catastrophically compound the rapid destruction of the environment you are just not connected to nature. ITS TOO FUCKING LATE !!!!!!! TIME TO BURN M-THER F-CKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

  • Global warming is a natural process and humans we should not consider it our fault. There is no way to stop itt Technology and Artificial Intelligence is our last chance

  • Decarbonize.? CO2 is an essential part of life – most plant life would not exist but for CO2.
    If our CO2 levels dropped below 250 ppm ; most of the World would starve because the rate of plant growth is dependent upon high CO2 levels to mature in time, (higher the better).

    CO2 is NOT a direct threat – we know that the Navy has Submariners that perform well with CO2 levels 20 times higher than in atmosphere. So, in no way is CO2 a risk under 1000 ppm.

    If these people did some CO2 research , they would find that this Gas is too fractional against the limited range of IR response in forcing heat ; CO2 is NOT the causation.

    I find it most disturbing that those in a Medical School , could be so naive & gullible,,, there
    are many factors driving Climate Change ; this is one we can do little about, except adapt.!

  • Relax Frosty the snowman already melted but came back to life. Global warming climate change is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. If we read our Bibles we find in Genesis 8:22 while earth remains seedtime and harvest and cold and heat and summer and winter and day and night shall not cease. I don't care how many scientists or how much they press the issue I believe the WORD OF GOD. The UN knows that this issue could be used to take away all your God given rights. They also know the fabricated lie could help usher in a one world government or nwo. If you're so worried about global warming why aren't you worried about spending eternity in hell. It's really gonna be hot there. On this issue I support D J Trump.πŸ‘ΉπŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯

  • THE REAL TREATMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ARE IMPOSIBLE TO CURE BECAUSE THE AGAINTS TO CURE ARE POWERFUL LIKE THE GOVERMENT THE MINING OIL AND METAL INDUSTRY ALL BUISNESSMAN PLANET WILL PARALYZED IF USING AND INSTANT TREATMENT BUT MANY SOLUTION TO CURE NOT AFFECTED THE ECONOMY, BUT THE STRANGE ARE WHY THE REAL TRETMENT CANNOT ACCEPT OF ALL GOVERMENT ? FOR WHAT IS THE REASON ? THE TREATMENT CAN HELP TO GROW THE ECONOMICS AND CAN HELP TO SAVE THE PLANET AND HUMAN RACE,,,,,,,,,, HERE IS THE TRUE SOLUTION,,,, OIL,,,METAL,, AND TREES AND PLANTS,,,, OIL THIS ARE NEEDS TO REDUCE OF USING BECAUSE THIS FUEL ARE USE FOR TO BURN THE SOIL FOR CREATING A LAVA AND FOR MORE ACTIVE THE VULCANO,, LAVA ARE NEEDS OF THE PLANET FOR BURNING THE BLACK HOLE INSIDE THE PLANET FOR REMOVING OF SKIN OF THIS TO CREATE A GRAVITY TO MAKE STRONG THE PLANET AND FULLY GRAVITY TO CONTROL THE FORCE OF GRAVITY OF SUN BECAUSE IF THE GRAVITY OR MAGNET ARE STARTING TO LOST PLANET WILL BE MOVING CLOSE TO THE SUN AND THE EFFECT ARE WHAT WILL HAPPEN NOW THE KILLER DISASTER,,, MANY ARE SUBTITUTE FOR WASTING AND USING OF OIL LIKE THE HYDROGEN GENERATOR OR ELECTRICITY USING FOR CAR AND OTHER VEHICLES,, BUT CANNOT ACCEPT THIS OF THE GOVERMENT BECAUSE THE BUISNESS WILL SLOW,,, REMOVING OR MINING OF OIL ARE BAD BECAUSE THE FUEL OF THE PLANET WILL LOST,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, METAL,,, METAL AND OIL AND OTHER MINERAL ARE CAME FROM THE MOISTURE OF THE TREEES METAL CARBON AND OTHER MINERAL ARE NEEDS OF THE PLANET FOR MAKE IT HOT THE LAVA FOR MUCH EASY TO REMOVE THE SKIN OF BLACK HOLE FOR CREATING A GRAVITY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,TREE PLANTING, TREE PLANTING IS GOOD BECAUSE ALL MINERAL AND FUEL ARE ALL CAME FROM THE TREES,, THE ELEMENT ONLY NO NEEDS OF TREES ARE THE HYDROGEN BECAUSE HYDROGENT ARE CAME FROM THE FRICTION BETWEEN DUST AND BLACK HOLE INSIDE THE PLANET,,,, BUT INSTEAD OF TREE PLANTING MANY FOREST NOW ARE BURNING AND THAT BURNING OF THE FOREST ARE NOT ACCIDENT THERE IS AN ARSONIST OF THAT BURNING OF FOREST,, BECAUSE BEFORE MANY HUMAN MADE OF ALIEN OR THE ALIEN ARE IGNORANT ABOUT THE PLANET AND DONT KNOW HOW TO DESTROY THE PLANET OR MUCH EASY TO KILL ,,,NOW AFTER MY ANNOUNCING FOR MANY YEARS THAT THE TREES ARE THE SUPPLY OF FUEL OF THE PLANET NOW STARTING TO DESTROY ALL,,,, THE FOSSIL FUEL OR CARBON DIOXIDE OR PLASTIC ARE NO ANY CONNECTION FOR INCREASING THE HEAT OF THE PLANET INSTEAD THE CARBON DIOXIDE CAN HELP TO CREATE A GRAVITY AND PLASTIC CAN HELP TO INCREASE THE VOLUME OF FUEL, MANY ARE NOT ACCEPTED FOR THE TRUE SOLUTION BECAUSE MOST OF THE LEADER OF THE PLANET ARE MADE OF SNAKE ALIEN OR SATAN WANTS TO DESTROY THE HUMAN RACE

  • THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE TO THE HEATH OF HUMAN ARE MANY,,,LIKE A CANCER BECAUSE THE LARGE AMOUNT OF GRAVITY RELEASING IN BLACK HOLE IF THIS ARE ENTERED TO THE BODY OF LIFE ARE CANCER THIS GRAVITY CAN DESTROY THE DNA OF LIFE CAUSES OF CANCER ALSO TUMOR BECAUSE GENE ARE SUFFERED OF MANY MISTAKE WHY WORK OF THE GENE TO THE BODY HAVE A MISTAKE, EXORCISM AND DEEPRESION, SUICIDE ARE ALSO CAUSES OF LARGE AMOUNT OF GRAVITY RELEASING FROM THE LAND,, ALSO PSYCHO BECAUSE THE DIODE OF THE BRAIN ARE BROKEN IF THE LARGE AMOUNT OF GRAVITY ARE ENTER TO THE BODY, ALSO CAUSES OF WAR BECAUSE GRAVITY ARE THE CAUSES WHY LIFE ARE AGGRESSIVE, DISASTER,LIKE TYPHOON ,TORNADO,FLOOD,TSUNAMI,DEATH OF FISH AND ANIMAL, LAND SLIDE,SINK HOLE ALL THAT ARE MADE OF RELEASING OF LARGE AMOUNT OF GRAVITY CAME FROM THE BLACK HOLE INSIDE THE PLANET,,,,, CLIMATE CHANGE OF HUMAN SOLUTION ARE FAKE AND TOO FAR FROM THE TRUE SOLUTION,,, THE BAD FOR THIS HEAT OF THE PLANET IF THE WATER IN THE OCEAN ARE STARTING TO REDUCE AND IF ALL WATER ARE DRY,, PLANET WILL BE BURN LIKE IN THE TIME OF DINOSAUR

Leave a Reply

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