This is likely to cause controversy, but I am going to draw a line in the sand. We have a number of massive Global Health challenges to address as a society, but to me, there are none more pressing, threatening or crucial to act upon than Climate Change and Non-Communicable Disease (NCDs).
The BIG Two.
At face value, one could be forgiven for seeing these two defining global health challenges as unrelated. Forgiven for thinking of them as separate problems with distinct causes for which we need two groups charged with the implementation of unique solutions.

But take a closer look, and you will realise a few things. These are two massive challenges largely resulting from, and solved by, the same determinants. Also, that the immediate and long-term benefits of addressing one are enormous, dwarfed only by the benefits and co-benefits of addressing both together.
The global health community has a lot to do in the coming decades, with increasingly less. Limited fiscal, human and natural resources available – compounded by austerity and economic conservatism during what could be a lengthy or permanent downturn in government budgets and overseas aid. As a collective, we must look more to opportunities for common progress and gains, and less to siloed initiatives as we have seen in the past few decades. We must seek out social investments which will maximise the benefits returned. One way of doing so, is to look for measures which will solve multiple problems, or address problems which are caused by the same determinants.
We must acknowledge that slicing major challenges into verticalised problems diminishes or precludes opportunities for common progress.
You see, NCDs and Climate Change do in fact share the same causes and largely require the same solutions. Carbon-intensive and labour-conserving lifestyles; highly-processed food requiring large energy inputs; larger portions of meat and higher calorie diets; increasing air pollution… Yet we separate their responses and those commanded with their mitigation. Health is dependent on a healthy environment, both urban and natural.
The GOOD News.
What’s exciting though, is that given their shared causes and mitigation strategies, by addressing one we will also be addressing the other. By tackling climate change, in addition to bringing the health benefits associated with this alone, we could also bring co-benefits of a reduced burden of chronic disease. By investing in ways to make healthier, less-processed food more affordable we reduce the carbon-intensiveness of our diets but are also likely to see a reduction in diet-related diabetes and heart disease. Providing safe public environments conducive to biking or active living will not only reduce carbon emissions and environmental pollutants, but may also reduce community rates of asthma, lung disease and even cancers.
This idea, or the inter-linked nature of Climate Change and NCDs is not new. But it continues to largely fly under the community radar. A greater awareness could lead to further discussion, engagement, collaborative mitigation and collective action.
–
![]()
This article was simul-blogged at The Conversation.
Dr Alessandro Demaio is a medical doctor, originally from Melbourne, Australia, with a Masters in Public Health. In 2010, Sandro began a PhD in Global Health with the University of Copenhagen, focusing on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). His primary research project is based in Mongolia. As a Director for NCD Action, in 2013 Alessandro will be a fellow at the Copenhagen School of Global Health and Harvard Medical School.
The Climate Change and Obesity? by Translational Global Health, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.






Thank you Dr. Alessandro for your acknowledgment…
Being from India and working in Health Promotion in a urban capital city I can see the transition in the lifestyle of people…
But after reading your views i can see the quest for quality of life in Australia…
I am just wondering how difficult it is to control and prevent the changes in peoples lifestyle and environment all at the same time…
Its like stopping / controlling / regulating the process of Developing to Developed…
As a global health specialist can you throw some light on this…
Regards
Dhiraj Kaveri
Health Promoter
A very nice article showing briefly how our lifestyle are ruining our planet and also our health. There is indeed a strong relationship between staying healthy and having less carbon footprint.
An afterthought.
Is it not an effect of globalisation and urbanization.
Thanks Dhiraj Kaveri,
Your insights are absolutely correct. Urbanisation and globalisation are both driving forces behind climate change and NCDs. The world is more urban than not, for the first time in history, and how we handle this is of extreme social, economic, environmental and health importance.
https://theconversation.edu.au/rethinking-how-we-live-to-stop-the-chronic-diseases-epidemic-9983
“By investing in ways to make healthier, less-processed food more affordable we reduce the carbon-intensiveness of our diets but are also likely to see a reduction in diet-related diabetes and heart disease.” Are you talking about a whole food, plant-based diet? I only became cognizant recently about the connection in this Age of the Anthropocene between our individual diet choices (even if we can’t choose), the typical Western diet and our impact on the planet and so hope these issues surface above the radar (in the radar?) sooner rather than later.
Hi Alessandro – I enjoyed reading this article and agree with a number of your points. I wonder if you think ‘nudging’ and voluntary commitments from business can be enough to tackle these problems (cf. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/06/nudge-government). I personally think that properly dealing with either problem would require governments to put much more stringent regulations on industries that are contributing. Solely emphasising behavioural and lifestyle changes, as they always seem keen to do seems unlikely to tackle the issues at source and shifts all of the blame onto individuals, reinforcing the ‘moral crisis’ concept Jacqueline mentioned.
One aspect that I think is particularly interesting with regards to how we tackle these two (inter-related) problems is a political one: both the fossil fuel and the food industry are extremely powerful and politically influential, and both currently make a significant amount from their contributions to these two problems so will lobby extremely vocally and with great determination against anything that could harm their short term profits – even though we would all benefit from a healthier, more sustainable world in the longer term.
Unfortunately, as I’m sure you’re aware, public health advocacy is quite poorly funded in much of the world, there is relatively little public engagement in either issue and a lack of transparency around political lobbying and donations from business, so I think it’s going to be a very difficult task to have a big enough effect in the face of such big corporate interests.
Sorry this is a bit negative! If we could manage to create environments conducive to health and sustainable living around the world of course that’d be incredible, but I also think there are some very wealthy and powerful groups who are strongly opposed to that happening and I don’t think that’s said perhaps as much as it could/should be. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts anyway!
Well put, Jacquelyn
There are some good ideas here, but the post oversimplifies what I think is a much more complex problem. Additionally, it comes pretty close to fat-phobia. I’ve even seen articles blaming climate change ON obese people, for consuming more calories (unlike, you know, runners or body builders). The article you link says the WHO defines NCD’s as cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes. Your headline, on the other hand, misleadingly labels the culprit as obesity. The two are not synonymous. Obesity is a complex disease that is a byproduct of a lot of factors, only two of which are diet and activity (increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors, like BPA, for example). Meanwhile, poverty plays a complex role, and there is lots of evidence that poor people may have a much lower carbon footprint than the wealthy or middle class who may have access to better food options.
I AM okay with you saying that health problems directly linked to poor food and a lack of walkability — and NCD’s– can be helped by some of the same strategies as those we’ll use to target climate change. However, again, the story is much more complex than you portray, especially when it comes to calorie efficiency and food production and transport. Just be careful not to veer into labeling obesity as a moral crisis, please.
Thanks for your reply Jacquelyn. You make some very good points and I would clarify two in particular.
Firstly, this is indeed a simplification of the issue as it aims to simply introduce and spark a thought in readers’ minds.
I would also fully support the notion that labeling obesity as a moral crisis is not only unethical and unfair, but also likely to yield little in terms of solutions or progress. Please read this, an earlier article where I make my thoughts clear: https://theconversation.edu.au/rethinking-how-we-live-to-stop-the-chronic-diseases-epidemic-9983