Claim: Fossil fuel is the enemy of children’s health: A scientist reviews the evidence

Frederica Perera makes the case that she is the dumbest “scientist” on Earth.

The media release is below.

###

Fossil fuel is the enemy of children’s health: A scientist reviews the evidence
Children are vulnerable to toxic air pollution and the stressors of climate change

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY’S MAILMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Writing in a commentary in Environmental Health Perspectives, Frederica Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH), identifies fossil fuel combustion and associated air pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2) as the root cause of much of the ill health of children today. Because of their inherent biological vulnerability, children now bear a disproportionate burden of disease from both pollution and climate change.

“The single most important action we can take for our children and their future is to cure our addition to fossil fuel,” said Perera, a professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School.

The commentary summarizes robust scientific evidence by CCCEH and others, concluding that by sharply reducing dependence on fossil fuels, children’s health would benefit, and the billions of dollars spent to remediate health problems could be saved. All children would benefit, and especially poor children, who are most affected by toxics and stressors due to air pollution and climate change.

Among the conclusions: by reducing air pollution we will see fewer babies born at low birth weight, and fewer children suffering from asthma and neurodevelopmental problems such as lower IQ and ADHD. Lowered emissions of CO2 and mitigation of climate change will reduce the number of children dying as a result of floods and drought, and fewer children will suffer from heat stress, malnutrition, infectious disease, respiratory illness, and mental illness from displacement, social, and political instability.

Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a “moral imperative,” according to Perera. “We can advocate and we can act. We can cite the scientific and economic evidence and advocate for harmonized and holistic environmental and climate policies at the community, state and global health–policies that place the wellbeing of children at their center. In our individual lives, we can reduce our carbon footprints by avoiding burning in the home, by buying locally grown foods, driving energy-efficient vehicles and using public transportation where possible. And through our consumer power we can help shape markets toward green products produced sustainably.”

###

14 thoughts on “Claim: Fossil fuel is the enemy of children’s health: A scientist reviews the evidence”

  1. So what evidence? What fuel source powers industry in a complete on-demand time-frame?In the middle of a multi-day string of 90+ degree days, when the public is directed to remain indoors, which requires everyone with air conditioning to keep it on 24/7, a photo-cell is useless and there is no guarantee that there will be a constant breeze that could blow continuously for the next 4 or 5 days. Sorry, renewables will never be able to meet that kind of demand. NEVER!

  2. Has anyone asked her to explain HOW MANY dinosaurs it took to create the Saturnian moon Titan? You know, due to lakes and rivers of hydrocarbons?

  3. So clearly babies in the developing world fare much better than those in developed nations.

  4. Or babies in the early part of the last millenium lived longer or survived better than they do now. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  5. Or babies that were born in the early part of the last millenium survived better and longer than today. Stupid!

  6. Another ‘scientist’ from the same mold that gave us Mary Baker Eddy and “Christian Science”.

  7. “In our individual lives, we can reduce our carbon footprints by avoiding burning in the home, by buying locally grown foods, driving energy-efficient vehicles and using public transportation where possible. And through our consumer power we can help shape markets toward green products produced sustainably.”

    Everything was made up so the above statement could be the proud conclusion. Not to mention that over half of those ideas are non-sequiturs. More evidence that this is religious-based thinking not science or logic.

  8. Good grief – and to think this specious rhetoric is from a ‘professor’ – a departmental director no less.
    Ponderous Columbia, ponderous

    btw – where are the citations for all these grandiose statments

  9. “…buying locally grown foods…” is a mantra the global warming crowd loves to use.

    If they got a law passed ordering that all of New York City was required to survive on locally grown foods, the population would be reduced by 99% within a few months due to starvation. And most of the 1% would survive by breaking the law and having food shipped into liberals’ penthouses and to “essential” government officials.

  10. Humm… so shall we revert to horse and carriage? what sort of pollution do horses make? Ammonia, oh and C02! that terrible scourge green plants breathe.
    Guys, this is all a scam to push their depopulation agenda. They, of course, the proponents, are not part of this equation. Only the teeming masses- not them.

  11. MZZZ Freddie is taking the I am that stupid pill on a daily basis. Just another uneducated progressive liberal lemming that sadly is spewing her lies to our youth.

  12. “Dr. Perera is internationally recognized for pioneering the field of molecular epidemiology, ”

    Epidemology is not a science. It is a new part of medicine.

    Epidemiologists claim they can use statistics to make scientific discoveries

    The main discovery of Epidemeology is that smoking directly causes a least one kind of cancer. This is currently unproven due to the weird way cancer is believed to work. I am not aware of any actual scientific discoveries made via Epidemeology.

  13. Epidemiology arose out of public health, when cholera was transmitted from a public water pump in London in the mid 19th Century (Broad Street 1854). Epidemiology has since become utterly perverted and politicised by the government policy makers, who fund these risk mongers to provide their supporting data for their ‘we know what’s best’ policies. They’re tiresome, meddlesome kollectiv sycophants sucking on the teat of the public purse, largely for their own good but chiefly for the sustenance and raison d’etre of the UN WHO et al. and their 2030 allegedly ‘sustainable’ goals, which are anything but, being administrative totalitarianism at its worst.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.