Frank Davis has some superb articles pointing out similarities between the
He's not the only one to link the two. An article in doctor's journal the Lancet (you remember doctors, they're the ones who used to fix you when you are ill but now preach politics and righteous prohibition instead) has come to the same conclusion.
Climate change can be compared to passive smoking because those who generate the damage are not the same people as those who suffer (in the case of tobacco) or the same country (in the case of climate change)
Additionally, they have thus far both failed to throw up a single verifiable casualty, but are useful tools in attracting research grants ... for articles in the Lancet by doctors dabbling in politics, for example.
There are many similarities between tobacco use and climate change. In addition to causing huge damage to population health, both cause substantial adverse social, economic, equity, and gender effects. Both have long lead times between cause and effect, and both require long-term policies and monitoring systems.
Obviously that will be expensive, but hey, we've got degrees and everything. You can trust us to spend it wisely.
The number of countries implementing the policies effectively is far too low.
It's true because we said it. We're doctors, doncha know.
Negative effects are increasing over time and will have greatest effects in low-income countries and poor populations.
Won't somebody think of Africa//the poor/the chiiildren. Sod it, let's do the lot. Won't somebody think of the poor African chiiildren?
Both issues are influenced by strong vested interests; moreover, delaying tactics and the use of “junk science” by opponents of change have impeded effective policies.
People keep pointing out where we are lying. Please ignore them, they aren't qualified to talk about the subject as it's not their area of expertise ... oh, hold on.
There are important lessons from tobacco control for climate policy. The existing research base calls for urgent, comprehensive, and sustained action.
Urgent, comprehensive, and sustained. Our mortgages and car HP agreements don't pay themselves, you know.
Political will and strong leadership are required for both areas: implementing effective tobacco control policies has taken decades and is far from complete. Additional funding to support action in low-income countries is in the interest of all.
While we're grateful for the cash you bung our way, we could do with more. How much? Well, how much have you got?
The main lesson from tobacco for the Copenhagen conference is that delay in agreeing on international policy and poor implementation will cost countless lives. We must act now in the interests of future generations.
Pay us, or everyone dies. Horribly. And did we mention ... pay us?
In other news, still no cure for cancer.
