The swine flu scare has entered global consciousness in no time at all after (on 28th April 2009) some 150 people had been suspected to have died from it. Twenty of whom only, were confirmed to definitely have died from it. Immediately governments are announcing health warnings and allocate resources for vacccines. Thousands of citizens jump on the internet to check out swine flu symptoms.

By contrast, climate change, a demonstrated global problem with severe consequences over decades at least, is still struggling to raise such levels of awareness. Its reality is still disputed by some. Measures to contain its cause, high levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, are kept to a minimum to ‘save economies.’

Awareness raising

Perhaps we can draw some public awareness raising lessons from this incongruent situation. Whereas it is probably too long a bow to draw in suggesting a connection between swine flu and climate change , this kind of pandemic threat follows a pattern we might actually see in a climate change-asssociated event of this nature.

The World Health Organization states there is already much evidence of associations between climatic conditions and infectious diseases. And, from a multitude of causes, some infectious diseases are on the rise now. For infectious diseases such as Dengue fever, malaria, cryptosporidium, and salmonella climate-change-related rises in incidence are projected.

Linking swine flu and climate change

The same conditions that risk a pandemic of swine flu, play a role in climate change-caused infectious disease. Crowded populations, huge numbers of air travelers, world trade in potentially infected goods, etc.

So, “what lessons”, you ask. Swine flu in humans is a virus that jumped the species barrier. It means that therefore there is little immunity to the virus in humans. But how it jumped the barrier bears relationship to the kind of thinking causing global warming. For one, it’s about faith in technology and the quick fix.

Medical/technical developments in organ transplantation have meant the use of immuno-suppressant drugs for transplantees for their lifetime. This means, in turn, a greater risk of virus-hopping between species as the human immune system is ‘down’ permanently.

Further, more widely-spread lowered human immune responses come from the hitherto indiscriminate use of antibiotics. Not only in humans, but in producing meat too.

Technological responses to ill-health have been spectacular, for relatively few people, while putting many at risk. By contrast educative, preventive measures in healthy living, alleviation of poverty, and preserving or building clean water sources are far more sustainable strategies for vast numbers of people. But of course, the pharmacological industry would miss out… hhmmmm…

Global warming can be pinned down too in materialistic over-faith in technology and disconnection from natural processes. Haven’t we sought to exploit the Earth, razed forests and polluted oceans, often merely for financial profits? Even now, we think technology in managing climate change, rather than changing behaviors and ways of thinking.

The main lesson appears to be, have faith in the power of natural processes, interfere with them as little as possible and build inherent capacity for resilient good health. Be that of your body or the Earth. We are closely connected after all.