Search

Summary: The dedication of the international anaesthetic community to reducing the environmental impact of healthcare is important and to be celebrated. When this is underpinned by robust science, it has the potential to make a real difference. However, volatile anaesthetic agents have been widely promoted in the medical literature as damaging to the climate, leading to a drive to remove them from clinical practice. This is based on notional 'CO2‐equivalent' values created using the simple emission metric known as the global warming potential. Here, we assert that when proper consideration is given to the science of climate change, volatile anaesthetic gas emissions cannot be simply equated to real carbon dioxide emissions, and that their climate impact is vanishingly small. This paper gives anaesthetists a framework to make informed choices founded on climate science and calls for attention to be refocused on the urgent need to reduce the real carbon dioxide emissions associated with healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports the pros and cons of co-management (i.e. concerted actions towards climate change and air quality management) through local sustainability initiatives using three case studies, each encompassing the planning and management issues at local government levels. Case study I is policy-based and reports the outcome of a consultation exercise while case studies II and III have greater scientific bearing. These case studies pave the way for development of a more integrated Climate Change Strategy Action Plan at local scales, specifically regarding policies on emissions sources from transportation and decentralised energy. They highlight the merits and the trade-offs of implementing local scale co-management practices, using a more integrated planning framework than what is currently under offer. We recognise that delivery of such ambitious, cross-cutting agenda may be impeded, primarily owing to limited expertise in assessing the synergies and the expected outcomes from cross-fertility between these two arenas. This calls for a step-change through more cohesive, cross-disciplinary policy frameworks, going beyond the local administrative spheres to maximise the co-management potentials while mitigating the wider environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]