Prix Galien UK Forum
Program

Climate change is disrupting the contours of human health in ways that are only now being assessed and quantified. The markers of mortality and morbidity are legion, from heat-related illnesses that contribute to edema and cardiovascular failure; respiratory ailments like asthma and allergies from airborne pollutants; fatalities, injuries, mental illness and habitat loss from severe weather events; changes in vector ecology that spread malaria, dengue fever and  a host of other pathogens while enhancing prospects for zoonotic disease transmission; water quality impacts, led by cholera; and increased malnutrition induced by climate pressures on the natural environment, farming and the food supply.

In May, the World Health Assembly (WHO) reiterated its position on climate change as humanity’s single biggest health threat, forecasting 250,000 additional deaths per year worldwide between 2030 and 2050.  The WHO estimates that direct damages to health system infrastructure from extreme weather events alone will total $4bn annually by 2030, a trend destinated to waylay the organization’s plans to introduce a basic global platform of universal health coverage, including access to affordable essential medicines for all, the same year. 

Vulnerable populations like the poor, children and the elderly will be disproportionately affected. Beyond the documented income losses, climate change undermines many of the basic social determinants of health, such as equality and access to care as well as the local community support structures that act as a hedge against economic displacement and mass migration.

Pressure is mounting on business and the private-sector to do more to address climate change.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has resolved that, to avert a truly catastrophic trajectory to unsustainable weather patterns, action must be taken now to limit carbon emissions and prevent further rises in global temperature by no more than 1.5 C by 2050. Accomplishing this goal depends heavily on the private-sector to help finance a global “green transition” tied to major new investments in renewable, zero-carbon energy technologies that don’t rely on fossil fuels. The IPCC now estimates $2.4 trillion a year in combined global and country financing/investment commitments will be needed well into the next decade to jump start the transition.   

There is also an expectation that at least a part of this investment be earmarked for countries of the global south, with the preferred vehicle being public-private partnerships involving key multilateral lenders like the World Bank. The idea is to leverage such partnering as a way to “de-risk” the exposure for companies investing in geographies where business confidence is low.

The health impacts of climate change pose particular challenges for the pharma and biotech sector.    The extensive global supply chains that big pharma companies rely on in the manufacture and distribution of medicines have led to scrutiny by climate change advocates, who are demanding a higher level of “resource stewardship” from management. There is also pressure on the shareholder front to ramp up environmental disclosures and compliance under voluntary company ESG commitments.

More important, government regulators like the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the European Commission are moving forward with plans for even more transparency on industry actions to address climate change.  The SEC rule mandates public companies to report annually on carbon emissions levels, exposure to risks from global warming and the status of strategies to address it.  The EU rule is more prescriptive and calls for evidence on how the company business model and commercial strategies are compatible with the climate reduction provisions of the 2015 Paris Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, including impacts on atmospheric pollution; water and marine resources; and land-based biodiversity and ecosystems – at every step of the company value chain.   

Overall, climate change makes for more uncertainty for big pharma in operating an essential complex business with numerous customer touchpoints, at scale and across diverse geographies. Extreme weather conditions alone promise supply bottlenecks and product shortages from the loss of manufacturing capacity around temperature-sensitive products with limited shelf life. Long term, the industry will have to confront external demands for changes in its R&D portfolio, in some cases for conditions accentuated by climate change that carry a lower profitability ratio than other disease areas.  Finally, coping with these climate-related risks will require significant new investments in due diligence and hazard avoidance capabilities, extending deep into the third-party supply and support networks where compliance has always been hard to establish. 

Topics for Discussion:

• Current state of academic and institutional research on the relationships between climate change and human health – what does the evidence show? Real world implications for health status, public health provision and disease spread if countries fail to meet UN Paris Convention commitments to limit growth in fossil fuel emissions by 2050.
• Scientific researchers have found a way for plant seeds to effectively fertilize themselves, a discovery with the potential to reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based fertilizers in agriculture. Are there similar impactful innovations underway to address the harmful effects of climate change on disease and other key public health parameters?
• In the US, just under 10% of our national carbon footprint can be attributed to business practices of the health care industry. Is the industry moving at an appropriate pace to lower its carbon profile?  What additional actions can the pharmaceutical and biotech sector take to address the challenge? Do the standardized company reporting guidelines that allow the public to assess and compare progress on climate change act as an incentive or as a burden, in terms of doing more?  
• Is the international negotiating framework now in place for addressing climate change sufficiently enabled to tackle the public health aspects of the threat? Are government negotiators sufficiently aware of the private-sector’s commitment and contributions to meeting climate-related targets?
• Africa is a relatively poor continent which contributes marginally to global warming but whose livelihoods are disproportionally damaged by its effects.  What can the region’s experience tell us about what works and what doesn’t in addressing what is now an existential global challenge?  Is progress simply an issue of extracting more concessional aid through a revamp of the current international financing system?  What can we learn from local approaches built around community awareness and empowerment?  Can the continent achieve a better balance between exploiting abundant extractive industry resources and transitioning to greener, renewable technologies?