Nieman: Deep divisions over climate change leads to losing sight of impact on children

When I am exposed to our complex and ever-increasing cultural changes as a pediatrician, I am frequently reminded of the times in the 1990s when I was privileged to be a Dale Carnegie Instructor. We always remembered the wise words uttered by Mr. Carnegie: “We should disagree without being disagreeable.”?

Climate change, and specifically how it may impact our children, triggers all kinds of facts (the brain at work) but, sometimes sadly, also many emotions (the heart at work)?

A recent example of the opposite of what Carnegie said took place in the U.S. A weatherman, working as a TV anchor, mentioned climate change on the air. Consequently, he received threats of violence and lost his privacy when angry people discovered where he lived. They were planning to harm this journalist; he quit his job.

Of all the major pediatric organizations globally, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) probably has one of the best reputations; they are trustworthy; diversity is encouraged (looking at problems from more than one angle); position papers are never published without being reviewed and discussed in a sophisticated, peer-reviewed format.

With that as background, I was intrigued to see where the AAP stands regarding children and climate change. The AAP sees it as a major threat to families globally. In a position paper authored by the AAP’s Council on Environmental Health, we learn that the frequency of reported natural disasters has increased over the past 40 years. Three times as many extreme weather events occurred between 2000 and 2009 as occurred between 1980 and 1989. The scale of natural disasters has also increased.

The impact of climate change in the position paper is laid out in three areas: primary, secondary and tertiary.

Primary impact involves more infectious diseases. For example, the incidence of Lyme disease has expanded north in North America. The burden of diarrheal illnesses has increased in Asia and the sub-Sahara. Climate change and extreme weather disasters have led to separation from caregivers; more PTSD and adjustment disorders have been documented. When a child loses a home or a school or familiar environment, there are a variety of mental health consequences.?

Secondary effects of climate change include a change in pollen counts and a longer allergy season. The increased frequency and duration of wildfire smoke impacts children with respiratory problems/asthma to a greater degree. Infectious disease experts are reporting an increase in certain fungal infections such as coccidioidomycosis; amoebic meningoencephalitis is also diagnosed with an increased frequency. The AAP calls for further investigations into climate change and a shift in infectious diseases and admits that it is a complex topic with many confounding contributions of economic development, land use, changing ecosystems, deforestation, international travel and commerce.

The position paper mentions concerns about future food availability and cost, particularly in vulnerable regions where undernutrition is already a major threat. The decreased protein, iron and zinc content of certain major crops have been demonstrated for plants grown under increased carbon dioxide conditions.

Tertiary effects of climate change on children according to the AAP include depletion of basic resources, population displacement and an increased risk of conflict.

On the Academy’s website,?www.healthychildren.org, one can access a useful resource on how to talk with children about climate change

Since the topic evokes strong emotions in an already deeply divided culture, where compromise seems to be seen as weak, and where one side dominating another seems to be justified, I am concerned that just like COVID-19, we may lose sight of the long-term impact on children’s mental health while engaging in well-meaning risk reductions.?

It will be very difficult to find the sweet spot, the middle way, the ideal balance between creating fear, discouragement, depression and a loss of hope on the one side and ignoring real changes (facts) on the other side.

All politicians have their own agendas and reasons to justify their passion — or dispassion. I encourage parents to start their research, not in media, or via political parties, but rather scientific resources — especially ones with a solid history and reputation. One such resource can be found at https://climatekids.nasa.gov/

When it comes to teaching children between the ages of one and five about their relationship with nature, it may be a great idea to start with simple and specific activities: walks in nature, gardening, and reading books such as Richard Louv’s book Last Child in the Woods; saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.

I would also encourage parents to be aware of what schools teach on this topic. There is extremism on both sides and a balanced, logical approach, free from subjective political agendas, seems to be the best option at this time. Currently, the balance between fear and complacency appears elusive.

?Dr. Nieman has practised pediatrics since 1987. He has authored two books and a third book, Sustained, will be out this fall. See www.drnieman.com