Arunima Malik1, Manfred Lenzen1, Scott McAlister2, Forbes McGain3. 1. Integrated Sustainability Analysis, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Ecoquantum Life Cycle Assessment, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Western Health, Footscray, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: forbes.mcgain@wh.org.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carbon footprints stemming from health care have been found to be variable, from 3% of the total national CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions in England to 10% of the national CO2e emissions in the USA. We aimed to measure the carbon footprint of Australia's health-care system. METHODS: We did an observational economic input-output lifecycle assessment of Australia's health-care system. All expenditure data were obtained from the 15 sectors of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for the financial year 2014-15. The Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) data were used to obtain CO2e emissions per AUS$ spent on health care. FINDINGS: In 2014-15 Australia spent $161·6 billion on health care that led to CO2e emissions of about 35 772 (68% CI 25 398-46 146) kilotonnes. Australia's total CO2e emissions in 2014-15 were 494 930 kilotonnes, thus health care represented 35 772 (7%) of 494 930 kilotonnes total CO2e emissions in Australia. The five most important sectors within health care in decreasing order of total CO2e emissions were: public hospitals (12 295 [34%] of 35 772 kilotonnes CO2e), private hospitals (3635 kilotonnes [10%]), other medications (3347 kilotonnes [9%]), benefit-paid drugs (3257 kilotonnes [9%]), and capital expenditure for buildings (2776 kilotonnes [8%]). INTERPRETATION: The carbon footprint attributed to health care was 7% of Australia's total; with hospitals and pharmaceuticals the major contributors. We quantified Australian carbon footprint attributed to health care and identified health-care sectors that could be ameliorated. Our results suggest the need for carbon-efficient procedures, including greater public health measures, to lower the impact of health-care services on the environment. FUNDING: None.
BACKGROUND:Carbon footprints stemming from health care have been found to be variable, from 3% of the total national CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions in England to 10% of the national CO2e emissions in the USA. We aimed to measure the carbon footprint of Australia's health-care system. METHODS: We did an observational economic input-output lifecycle assessment of Australia's health-care system. All expenditure data were obtained from the 15 sectors of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for the financial year 2014-15. The Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) data were used to obtain CO2e emissions per AUS$ spent on health care. FINDINGS: In 2014-15 Australia spent $161·6 billion on health care that led to CO2e emissions of about 35 772 (68% CI 25 398-46 146) kilotonnes. Australia's total CO2e emissions in 2014-15 were 494 930 kilotonnes, thus health care represented 35 772 (7%) of 494 930 kilotonnes total CO2e emissions in Australia. The five most important sectors within health care in decreasing order of total CO2e emissions were: public hospitals (12 295 [34%] of 35 772 kilotonnes CO2e), private hospitals (3635 kilotonnes [10%]), other medications (3347 kilotonnes [9%]), benefit-paid drugs (3257 kilotonnes [9%]), and capital expenditure for buildings (2776 kilotonnes [8%]). INTERPRETATION: The carbon footprint attributed to health care was 7% of Australia's total; with hospitals and pharmaceuticals the major contributors. We quantified Australian carbon footprint attributed to health care and identified health-care sectors that could be ameliorated. Our results suggest the need for carbon-efficient procedures, including greater public health measures, to lower the impact of health-care services on the environment. FUNDING: None.
Authors: Hena Goel; Thomas Alan Wemyss; Tanya Harris; Ingeborg Steinbach; Rachel Stancliffe; Andrew Cassels-Brown; Peter Benjamin Michael Thomas; Cassandra L Thiel Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2021-05-20
Authors: Jonathan Drew; Sean D Christie; Peter Tyedmers; Jenna Smith-Forrester; Daniel Rainham Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 9.031