DEA Scientific Committee Prof Stephen Boyden AM Prof Peter Doherty AC Prof Dave Griggs Prof Michael Kidd AM Prof David de Kretser AC Prof Stephen Leeder AO Prof Ian Lowe AO Prof Robyn McDermott Prof Lidia Morawska Prof Peter Newman AO Prof Emeritus Sir Gustav Nossal AC Prof Hugh Possingham Prof Lawrie Powell AC Prof Fiona Stanley AC Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM Dr Norman Swan Submission to Embracing the climate challenge: Tasmania’s draft climate change action plan 2016-2021
Transcript
DEA Scientific Committee Prof Stephen Boyden AM Prof Peter Doherty AC
Prof Dave Griggs Prof Michael Kidd AM Prof David de Kretser AC
Prof Stephen Leeder AO Prof Ian Lowe AO Prof Robyn McDermott
Prof Lidia Morawska Prof Peter Newman AO Prof Emeritus Sir Gustav Nossal AC
Prof Hugh Possingham Prof Lawrie Powell AC Prof Fiona Stanley AC
Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM Dr Norman Swan
Submission to
Embracing the climat
e
challenge: Tasmania’s
draft climate change
action plan
2016-2021 March 2016
[2]
Doctors for the Environment Australia
Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) is a voluntary organisation of medical doctors in all states and territories. We work to
address the diseases – local, national and global – caused by damage to the earth’s environment. For example, the burning of fossil fuels for
energy and transportation has been linked to much cardiovascular and respiratory illness in Australia as well as being responsible for
significant greenhouse gas emissions.
The World Health Organization estimates that one quarter of global disease and one third of that in children is due to modifiable
environmental factors. If humanity is to make progress in solving the major issues of our time, all sections of the community will need to
contribute.
The medical profession has a proud record of service to the
community. This record not only includes personal clinical care, but also involvement in global issues that threaten the future of humanity.
We aim to use our scientific and medical skills to inform governments and industry, the public and our colleagues, in the endeavour to
highlight the medical importance of our natural environment. To our patients we try to provide a role model in the care of the environment
for this is part of a preventative health ethos.
DEA has a scientific advisory committee to guide DEA’s activities and advocacy, and includes prominent Australian scientists and physicians
including Sir Gustav Nossal AC, Dr Fiona Stanley AC, Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM, Prof Peter Doherty AC and Prof Stephen Leeder AO.
DEA’s Tasmanian committee, which has prepared this submission is currently chaired by Dr Rohan Church.
For further information about DEA and its committees, see
DEA has long been concerned about the grave impacts on human health that will be brought about by climate change if inadequate
mitigation and adaptation measures are taken. The health community widely accepts that climate change is the greatest threat to human
health of the 21st century1. Climate change affects health in many ways: directly through extreme events such as heatwaves, floods,
bushfires, and indirectly via worsening air quality, changes in patterns of infectious diseases, threats to food and water supplies and effects
on mental health.
A recent issue of the international medical journal, The Lancet, provided an excellent review of the interaction between climate change
and health2. This report is essential reading for all who wish to
understand the delicate balance that currently exists between humans and our planet, as well as appreciate the vast opportunities that are
available if we and our leaders could make the brave decisions that need to be made to ensure global warming is mitigated.
The graphic below is taken from the Lancet Commission report and
shows the interaction between the ecosystem changes brought about through climate change, and the human health effects that may occur.
As in many situations, it is the vulnerable - the aged, our children and
marginalised communities who are already struggling - who will suffer the most.
In particular, Tasmania and Australia more broadly, is already
experiencing the human health impacts of longer, hotter and more frequent heatwaves3, with recent heatwaves around Australia
[4]
producing increased hospital admissions and deaths, and putting extra strain on healthcare and emergency services4,5. Recent years have
also seen increasingly frequent and severe bushfires in Tasmania. Bushfires pose numerous risks to health including direct injuries, burns
and deaths from the fires themselves, as well as through cardiorespiratory effects of smoke on people living hundreds or even
thousands of kilometres away.
Although climate change represents a dire threat to human health in
Australia and around the world, the way that we deal with this threat also represents a significant opportunity to improve health both locally
and globally6. There are many strategies that could be taken by the Tasmanian government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whilst
also leading to reduced health costs, reduced waste management costs and increased social capital.
DEA welcomes the opportunity to comment on Tasmania’s Draft
Climate Change Action Plan 2016-20217, and looks forward to working with the Tasmanian Climate Change Office to further plan and
potentially assist in the delivery of Tasmania’s climate strategy for the coming five years. In this submission, DEA looks to comment
specifically on areas in which co-benefits for health may be achieved alongside action on climate change as well as more broadly on
strategies to improve Tasmania’s overall climate impact.
Responses to questions asked by Embracing the Climate Challenge:
1. What practical actions should we prioritise over the next five years in our response to the issue of climate change?
Recognising the potential of climate change to severely and
irreversibly affect human health across the planet, DEA urges the Tasmanian Government to prioritise practical actions that will
efficiently bring about reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In Tasmania, key actions include a permanent shift away from any fossil
fuel sources of energy generation towards renewable sources, a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels for transport and infrastructure
and an immediate cessation of felling of old growth and other high carbon value forest assets. Furthermore, DEA recommends prioritising
practical actions that are likely to have health, social or economic co-
benefits for Tasmanians.
[5]
Energy As discussed in Embracing the Climate Challenge, Tasmania
contributes to Australia’s overall renewable energy supply. However, DEA notes that Tasmania continues to import electricity from Victoria -
including from coal-fired power stations known to emit high levels of carbon and other air pollutants. Increased investment and expansion
of genuine renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar power, will allow Tasmania to eliminate this reliance on Victorian coal power
and eventually displace fossil fuel power sources on the Australian mainland.
The current electricity crisis in Tasmania - which has resulted from
severe drought and the failure of the Basslink cable - has highlighted that there is a need to further invest in renewable energy sources. In
particular, whilst there have been several proposals for new wind
farms in the state, progress on delivering these has been slow and at times hindered by a lack of state and federal government support. For
example, progress on a proposal for a new wind farm at Granville Harbor was delayed due to the federal Coalition government’s
wavering on the Renewable Energy Target (RET); whilst the wind farm at King Island may have succeeded with better support from state and
local government.
Whilst there is undoubtedly a need for an urgent interim measure to manage Tasmania’s energy needs, it is alarming that this need is to be
met with diesel generators. Diesel emissions are not only a significant source of greenhouse gases, but are associated with contributions to
air pollution of high levels of particulate matter, heavy metals and other toxins; and are classified as carcinogenic to humans8.
In 2014, the state government reduced the home solar photovoltaic feed-in tariff for both existing and new solar photovoltaic systems. This
resulted in a rapid reduction in the contributions of the solar industry to Tasmania’s economy, and a large reduction in the rate of
installation of this renewable energy source. A reinstatement of a feed-in tariff will again provide incentive for investment in solar power in
Tasmania, and is likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through lessened dependence on domestic and imported fossil fuel generated
electricity, as well as improve Tasmania’s energy security and provide a boost to Tasmania’s economy.
DEA is alarmed that the Embracing the Climate Challenge document
has proposed “advancing the case for biomass” as a strategy for climate change action. DEA has concerns about the appropriateness of
inclusion of wood residues as a renewable energy source under the
revised RET, and notes that the Embracing the Climate Challenge report provides no detail on purported emissions savings from a
Tasmanian biomass industry. Aside from direct carbon emissions, the
[6]
burning of wood residues for energy is likely to contribute to particulate matter emissions and regional air pollution. Furthermore,
DEA is concerned that the diversion of forest residues for biomass may lead to increased levels of deforestation and degradation of Tasmania’s
native forests.
Forest practices and land use
Forests draw down carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas, and then release oxygen back into the atmosphere. Trees and
other vegetation store the carbon from carbon dioxide in their branches, leaves and root systems, hence forests are referred to as
‘carbon sinks’. Much of Tasmania’s forests, including areas still slated for felling, are of high carbon density. Logging of carbon dense native
forest reduces the ability of a forest to store carbon, whilst younger or
recovering forests, or indeed monoculture plantation forest, store less carbon than untouched native forest9.
Whilst Embracing the Climate Challenge reports reductions in
greenhouse emissions from the forestry sector, DEA notes that Forestry Tasmania (FT) continues to log high conservation value
forests, old growth forests and forests with high biodiversity values such as the Lapoinya coupe in north-west Tasmania. That Forestry
Tasmania failed in its bid to gain Forest Stewardship Council certification, suggests that there are further carbon savings to be
made.
DEA is further concerned about the greenhouse gas emissions caused by Forestry Tasmania’s practice of burning clear felled coupes as so-
called “regeneration burns”. FT’s three-year harvest plan, released in
2015; outlined an intention to clear, fell and burn around 14,000 hectares of Tasmania’s forest - with each hectare burned responsible
for the release of 700 tonnes of carbon dioxide10. These slated “regeneration burns” would themselves account for over 3 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide release.
Improving waste management and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Tasmania’s health sector DEA members have long noted the high levels of waste generated by
health services, and have assisted public and private health facilities in various states of Australia to reduce waste generation and greenhouse
gas emissions, whilst also making financial savings on waste management costs.
[7]
In 2015, DEA’s Tasmanian Committee submitted a report to the Tasmanian Health Minister entitled Tasmania’s Hospitals: Reducing the
Footprint. This document summarised actions taken by health services in other states of Australia as well as within the United Kingdom’s
National Health Service (NHS), which itself has already achieved a 12% fall in carbon emissions between 1990 and 2012, and has a goal
of 34% reductions by 202011. Our report also documented the environmental and cost savings that had been achieved at pilot
projects within small sections of Tasmania’s public hospital system.
So far, these projects have been driven by small groups of interested
staff members keen to see improvements in waste management in clinical areas of our hospitals. However, the successes achieved so far
suggest that there is far greater potential for improved environmental outcomes and cost savings within the Tasmanian Health Service. DEA
contends that such measures should be further investigated and rolled out across the Tasmanian Health Service, and that such work would be
best achieved through the creation of a state-wide Sustainable Development Unit - mirroring that which has been set up within the
NHS in the UK.
Tasmania’s Hospitals: Reducing the Footprint is included as an appendix to this submission.
Healthy and sustainable transport Tasmania continues to have some of the worst health statistics in the
country, including low levels of physical activity, high rates of obesity and other lifestyle-related diseases such as diabetes and heart
disease12,13. Increasing the uptake of healthy and sustainable options
for commuting - such as the use of bicycles, walking or utilising public transport - would allow Tasmania to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and make important gains in health outcomes and costs. Furthermore, encouraging people to reduce their dependence on cars for transport
will lead to reductions in road congestion, which is already becoming a significant problem in Hobart - where cycling infrastructure remains
inadequate.
There are already several proposals for extended bicycle infrastructure in Tasmania, including within metropolitan areas, as well as routes
along the East and North-West coasts. In addition to the climate and health benefits of increasing the number of bicycle commuters and
recreational riders, such infrastructure may also lead to economic benefits from increased attraction for tourists.
DEA recommends further investment in cycling and other healthy transport infrastructure. Around the world, many jurisdictions,
including European cities such as Copenhagen and Dublin, as well as
[8]
Australian states including New South Wales and Queensland, have set targets for reducing car usage and increasing the number of
commuting journeys completed by bicycle. The Tasmanian government should seek to invest further in cycle infrastructure, and encourage the
addition of bike lanes to key arterial routes, as well as the provision of supportive infrastructure such as bicycle parking as well as locker and
shower facilities at major work sites, such as hospitals and government departments.
2. What targets, both legislated and policy driven, should Tasmania adopt in pursuing our greenhouse gas abatement effort?
To avoid widespread, severe and irreversible impacts associated with
the present trajectory of 4°C of global warming, urgent action must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Global climate change
negotiations in Paris last December offered a crucial opportunity for all levels of government to make strong contributions to protect our
children and our future from the ill effects of a warmer planet. DEA contends that unless aggressive climate mitigation policies are
enacted, our state risks contributing further to the negation of all the health gains made in the last century, and creating an environment
that will not support our children and grandchildren into the next century. As such, we argue for short, medium and long term
greenhouse gas emission abatement.
DEA welcomes the progress Tasmania has already made with significant achievements in greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and
our status as a very low emitter of greenhouse gas emissions per
capita. However, given the scale of the climate challenge, we recommend that Tasmania moves as quickly as possible to becoming a
carbon positive jurisdiction, whereby our ability to offset emissions from elsewhere outstrips the emissions generated in this state. This
could be achieved by further changes to forestry management practices including afforestation of suitable land and an increase in
Tasmania’s capacity to generate renewable energy, including a target of generating greater than 100% of Tasmania’s energy from renewable
sources only, all year round.
Whilst these targets may seem ambitious, the benefits to Tasmania of setting such goals goes beyond just the future benefits of reduced
global warming. Aggressive action on climate change will also foster the establishment of Tasmania as a leader in the global climate
challenge, and as an example setter for other states of Australia, many
of which have been very slow to understand and act on the threats of climate change.
[9]
Given the co-benefits of many climate mitigation activities, DEA recommends establishing specific mitigation targets at departmental
and societal levels. For example, as previously discussed, the Tasmanian Health Service should model the example set by the UK’s
National Health Service (NHS) in assessing carbon pollution and waste production, and enacting strategies to reduce these. As well as
creating a “Sustainable Development Unit” for the Tasmanian Health Service, based on actions taken in the NHS, setting a target of a
reduction in emissions of 34% from a 1990 baseline by 2020 would be
a realistic and achievable goal14.
Setting targets to reduce car usage and increase the choice of healthy and sustainable commuting options would also allow a reduction in
greenhouse gas and other air pollution, as well as improvements in Tasmania’s health statistics and associated costs.
Another lifestyle-related measure by which greenhouse gas emissions
could be reduced alongside co-benefits to the health of Tasmanians is through implementation of dietary guidelines. Recent data has shown
that if the population of the UK adhered to the WHO dietary guidelines - with reduced animal product consumption and increased vegetable
consumption - would result a 17% reduction in carbon emissions and an increased life expectancy of about 8 months, mostly through
reduced coronary artery disease15.
3. How can our natural advantages best be used to maximise Tasmania’s contribution in the effort to
combat climate change?
This report has already discussed the roles of energy generation and forest management practices in maximising Tasmania’s contribution to
combating climate change. However, it is worth making special mention of potentially deleterious policies and developments which
have in recent years been suggested for Tasmania.
It was alarming that in 2013, there was a proposal to develop a new coal mine at Langloh, near Hamilton in southern Tasmania. Thankfully,
it seems that as yet this proposal has not come to fruition. However, DEA remains concerned about the possibility of such new fossil-fuel
based projects in Tasmania and the associated carbon pollution as well as negative health effects that this would have on the Tasmanian
community. In addition, these types of developments would also tarnish Tasmania’s reputation and “natural advantages” as a clean,
sustainable and future-focused state.
Each phase of the life cycle of mined coal produces pollutants that
negatively affect human health16, and has an associated economic cost
[10]
that would be borne by those external to the proposal. If these costs were to be paid by the consumers of electricity generated by coal
combustion, it is estimated that these health externalities would cause the price of such electricity to rise more than three-fold17. Due to both
the climate and local health impacts, DEA is vehemently opposed to the opening of new coal mines in Tasmania.
DEA has also been involved in the issue of proposals to explore and
mine for unconventional gas in Tasmania, and welcomes the
Tasmanian government’s five-year moratorium on any such developments. In addition to the negative health and social effects of
unconventional gas exploration and mining on local communities, DEA contends that unconventional gas does not represent a genuine
alternative to fossil fuels currently used for energy production. In particular, the amount of fugitive emissions - those emissions which
are not captured for use - associated with the extraction and transport of this gas seriously mitigates, if not entirely negates, any proposed
greenhouse benefits of utilising unconventional gas sources18. DEA recommends the indefinite extension of a moratorium on
unconventional gas developments in Tasmania.
4. What amendments or enhancements would you propose to the Climate Change (State Action) Act 2008 to ensure that Tasmania is responding effectively to the issue of climate change?
The Climate Change (State Action) Act 2008 set what was at the time,
an excellent and ambitious target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Tasmania. That this has been achieved is commendable,
but as we have seen, there is great need to continue to use legislative framework to improve environmental and health outcomes for
Tasmania and our planet more broadly. Strengthening this legislation will further demonstrate Tasmania’s leadership in this important policy
area, and provide no excuses for other Australian jurisdictions to not take meaningful legislative action on climate change.
As discussed in Embracing the Climate Challenge, much of Tasmania’s
emissions reductions have come about from the forestry sector after a
change to reporting requirements under the Kyoto Protocol, whilst emissions savings in other sectors have been much more modest. As
well as this showing the shortcomings of the current legislation, this also demonstrates the opportunities to modernise and reduce carbon
pollution that all sectors are yet to make the most of.
DEA recommends that Tasmanian climate legislation by strengthened by the development of sector-specific targets for emissions reductions,
[11]
as well as department-specific emissions reductions to allow government services to take part in climate change action.
Sector specific legislated targets should go beyond greenhouse gas
emissions alone, and should also take into account other related metrics such as renewable energy generation and contributions to air
pollution. DEA contends that the achievement of 100% renewable energy generation is an important and achievable target for Tasmania
and Australia more broadly, and such a target should be legislated in
Tasmania. Setting this target in legislation should lead to subsequent policies and investments which will benefit the Tasmanian economy, as
well as reduce health effects of air pollution to Tasmanians brought about by fossil fuel combustion.
As with DEA’s suggestion of the establishment of a “Sustainable
Development Unit” within the Tasmanian Health Service, similar such units should be created within other government departments to
implement waste-reduction, emissions-reduction and cost savings measures. Such a whole-of-government approach will also have flow
on climate and health benefits by increasing the awareness and motivation of staff to take action on climate change in their own lives.
As recent Tasmanian summers and global weather patterns have
demonstrated, climate change is already causing severe environmental
and health impacts. As such, DEA also recommends that the Act be amended to include short- and medium-term targets, both for
emissions mitigation and related targets. To achieve the safest climate outcomes, these targets should ensure that the bulk of mitigation
activities are undertaken as soon as possible, and that longer term targets look to shape Tasmania as a permanently carbon-positive
state. Regular reviews of progress every 3 years must be built into the Act.
[12]
Appendix
Tasmania’s Hospitals:
Reducing the Footprint
Opportunities to improve the environmental
and financial sustainability of Tasmanian
Health Organisation clinical sites
Report prepared by the Tasmanian Committee
of Doctors for the Environment Australia
2015
[13]
Doctors for the Environment Australia
Doctors for the Environment Australia is a voluntary organisation of medical
doctors in all states and territories. We work to address the diseases – local,
national and global – caused by damage to the earth’s environment. For example,
the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transportation has been linked to much
cardiovascular and respiratory illness in Australia as well as being responsible for
significant greenhouse gas emissions.
The World Health Organisation estimates that one quarter of global disease and
one third of that in children is due to modifiable environmental factors. If humanity
is to make progress in solving the major issues of our time, all sections of the
community will need to contribute.
The medical profession has a proud record of service to the community. This
record not only includes personal clinical care, but also involvement in global
issues that threaten the future of humanity. We aim to use our scientific and
medical skills to inform governments and industry, the public and our colleagues,
in the endeavour to highlight the medical importance of our natural environment.
To our patients we try to provide a role model in the care of the environment for
this is part of a preventative health ethos.
DEA has a scientific advisory committee to guide DEA’s activities and advocacy,
and includes prominent Australian scientists and physicians including Sir Gustav
Nossal AC, Dr Fiona Stanley AC, Rosemary Stanton OAM, Prof Peter Doherty AC
and Prof Stephen Leeder.
DEA’s Tasmanian committee is currently chaired by Dr Rohan Church
For further information about DEA and its committees, see www.dea.org.au
Despite climate and environmental change being an enormous threat to human
health, few health professionals appreciate the scale of waste produced, water and
energy used, and greenhouse gas emissions that health services contribute to
global pollution.
The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) produces approximately 3% of the
country’s total carbon footprint1, whilst in Australia, Victoria’s public hospital sector
consumes 60% of the total energy used by all government departments in the
state2, and produces the waste equivalent of 200 000 households3. Interestingly,
the procurement and management of goods and services accounts for 60% of the
NHS’ total carbon emissions, greater than the 22% from powering buildings or the
18% from staff and patient travel4.
Waste management also carries significant costs for hospitals, with poor
segregation of waste by hospital staff leading to unnecessarily large volumes of
clinical waste which is many times more expensive to dispose of and ends up as
landfill in Tasmania. By contrast, appropriate segregation of waste for recycling is
far cheaper and also leads to a reduced volume of waste sent to landfill and
significant carbon emissions reductions5.
Across Australia, 98% of households actively participate in recycling appropriate
waste6. However, whilst some hospitals have limited facilities to recycle in non-
clinical areas, very few have recycling programs that actively target clinical areas.
A number of studies have found that approximately 60% of waste from clinical
areas of hospitals is potentially recyclable with minimal cross-contamination of
infectious and general waste7,8.
1 McMichael AFJ, Woodruffe RE, Hales S. Climate change and human health: present and
future risks. Lancet 2006; 367: 859-869 2 Ratcliff A, Burns A, Gwinnutt CL. The contribution of medical nitrous oxide to the
greenhouse effect. Health Trends 1991: 23:119-120 3 McGain F. Sustainable hospitals: An Australian perspective. Perspectives in Public
Health 2010; 130: 19-20 4 Victorian Department of Human Services. Hospital Energy Reduction Opportunities
Study. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Human Services, 2004. 5 Lee BK, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R. Analyses of the recycling potential of medical
plastic wastes. Waste Management 2002; 22: 461-470 6 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Waste Generation and Disposal, Year Book Australia
2010 7 McGain F. Hendel S. Story D. An audit of recyclable waste from anaesthetic practice.
ANaesthesia and Intensive Care 2009; 37(5):8320-823 8 Hutchins DCJ, White S. Coming round to recycling. British Medical Journal 2009;
338:b609
[15]
Given the settings these data have been generated from, it is likely that
Tasmania’s health services have a similar environmental footprint. Whilst some
hospital departments have attempted to introduce better quality recycling and
waste management strategies, efforts have so far been piecemeal and lacking
adequate administrative backing to further be further developed. There are
already health services elsewhere in Australia where environmental sustainability
is being built in to hospital ethos’, resulting in both environmental, social and cost
benefits for local health services.
At a time of restructure of health services, the Tasmanian Health Organisation has
an enormous opportunity to improve its environmental and financial sustainability
by introducing better procurement and waste management strategies, recycling
facilities and energy efficiency measures.
In this document, Tasmanian members of Doctors for the Environment Australia
have compiled data and anecdotes from health services in Tasmania and abroad,
making the case for investment in a Sustainable Development Unit for the
Tasmanian Health Organisation and in targeted actions in hospital departments
across the state.
[16]
Waste disposal costs in Tasmania
Management of hospital wastes in Tasmania is a significant financial burden for
our health services. The North West Regional Hospital alone spends
approximately $70,000 per year on medical waste disposal. In 2013, the costs of
waste removal from the North West Regional Hospital were9:
For each 240L load managed in current waste streams:
- Medical waste $48.50
- General waste $4.32
With the introduction of waste segregation and recycling bins:
- Cardboard $2.58
- Soft plastics $1.55
- Comingled recycling $6.50
9 Hotel Services Department, Tasmanian Health Organisation-North West (2014): Waste
audit
[17]
Evidence from elsewhere
As discussed above, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) has
lead the field in data collection, target setting and achievement with regards to
improving environmental footprints, including a 12% fall in carbon emissions
between 1990 and 2012, with a goal of 34% reductions by 202010.
The NHS has managed to oversee improvements to environmental and financial
sustainability through the establishment of its Sustainable Development Unit
(SDU). The SDU was established in 2008 and is funded through the NHS England
and Public Health England to support these organisations to become more
environmentally and socially sustainable.
By working at a hospital and departmental level, the SDU has been highly
successful at implementing actions that reduce waste, cost and pollution at the
source. Some examples of the SDU’s successes that might be readily replicable in
Tasmania are discussed below.
Energy Efficiency
The Barts Health NHS Trust, which manages some 1200 inpatient beds,
implemented a program of staff behaviour change, encouraging switching off
unused lights and equipment when not in use and closing doors where it was safe
to do so. This program reported savings of 800 tonnes of CO2 and £105,000 per
year from these measures, as well as 1 in 4 patients reporting less disturbed sleep;
with measures paying for themselves in less than 12 months11.
Waste management and segregation
Management of hospital wastes is a major cost for hospitals and also can lead to
significant environmental impacts - in Tasmania, any waste that ends up in clinical
waste bins must be managed in special landfill sites, whilst many recyclable
products (which can sometimes be removed for very little or no cost) end up in
general or even clinical waste bins.
The Queen Victoria NHS Foundation Trust Hospital manages some 130 beds and
is well known for its plastic and reconstructive surgeries units. This hospital
implemented a program of bin placement and education for staff resulting in
savings of 40 tonnes of CO2 and £30,000 per year12.
10
NHS (2014) NHS, Public Health and Social Care : Carbon Footprint 2012 11
Barts and The London NHS Trust (2013), Case Study: Improving Patient Experience and
Energy Efficiency. www.sduhealth.org.uk. Accessed 22/2/15 12
NHS Sustainable Development Unit (2013), Case Study: Waste. www.sduhealth.org.uk. Accessed 22/2/15
