More

Chemical Exposure Boosted By Climate Change: U.N. Report

Chemicals Climate Change

JOHN HEILPRIN   02/21/11 11:27 AM ET   AP

GENEVA — Climate change is a major obstacle to a 2004 global treaty aimed at cutting exposure to 21 highly dangerous chemicals, says a new U.N.-commissioned report.

The 66-page report – obtained by The Associated Press on Monday – says the risks of exposure could increase if more stockpiles and landfills leak due to flooding, or other extreme weather linked to rising temperatures. Chemicals stored in stockpiles or waste dumps to be incinerated or removed later could simply wash away, become more volatile, or escape in the warmer weather through gas emissions, it says.

"Significant climate-induced changes are foreseen in relation to future releases of persistent organic pollutants into the environment ... subsequently leading to higher health risks both for human populations and the environment," says Donald Cooper, the Geneva-based U.N. treaty's executive secretary, in the preface.

The report was being discussed Monday at a U.N. environment meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, and is due to be released later on the treaty's website.

The treaty, known as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs, is intended to protect the environment and people's health from what it calls very dangerous chemicals that accumulate in the environment, travel long distances by air and water, and work their way through the food chain.

These chemicals pose a known risk to humans and the environment because they persist in people's bodies – damaging reproductive health, leading to mental health problems, or causing cancer or impede growth.

Initially the treaty focussed on 12 chemicals known as the "dirty dozen," such as the widely banned pesticides DDT and chlordane. The use of DDT in sprays to kill malaria-spreading mosquitoes has been allowed under exception in the treaty, but the U.N. says there are good alternatives to combat malaria and hopes to phase out DDT completely by the early 2020s.

In 2009, nine more substances were added, including PFOS, worth billions of dollars in a wide range of uses from making semiconductor chips to fighting fires, and lindane, an insecticide used to combat head lice.

The report says climate warming could result in greater use of some of the pesticides, such as DDT which is produced and used widely for malaria control. Other concerns are that more chemicals will be emitted into the air, the report says, because the vapor pressure increases exponentially with temperature, and added heat will make them more volatile.

The treaty's ultimate aim is to phase the chemicals out. Participating countries have one year to say whether they will ban or restrict the chemicals, or whether they will need more time or an exemption. Countries that have ratified the treaty also enact national legislation to enforce the bans and restrictions it imposes.

There are 172 parties to the treaty, that include China and India and most of Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. But a few that have signed on – most notably Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Russia, Saudia Arabia and the United States – have yet to ratify it.

Momentum for the treaty built after scientists grew alarmed at finding high concentrations of the chemicals in the fatty tissues and blood of Inuit Indians in Canada, even though they were thousands of miles away from the production or use of any of the chemicals.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

GENEVA — Climate change is a major obstacle to a 2004 global treaty aimed at cutting exposure to 21 highly dangerous chemicals, says a new U.N.-commissioned report. The 66-page report – o...
GENEVA — Climate change is a major obstacle to a 2004 global treaty aimed at cutting exposure to 21 highly dangerous chemicals, says a new U.N.-commissioned report. The 66-page report – o...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
snoskier
Life's short - love generously
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
snoskier
Life's short - love generously
02:25 AM on 02/22/2011
Test message:
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:12 PM on 02/23/2011
Did it work?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
snoskier
Life's short - love generously
01:48 AM on 02/25/2011
Nope, neither one did!!
11:39 PM on 02/21/2011
Keep trying ... maybe if you can find a link between "climate change" and al qaeda, or erectile disfunction ...
09:06 PM on 02/21/2011
If you put your lips around the tail pipe of your car while its running,it could kill you,you might not die right away,it might possibly take awhile,maybe some time in the future.Are you foolish enough to try it?Why would you even chance it ?DDT on your lettuce or that other crap in your water or your girlfriends lip stick.Is common sense truly dead?
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:14 PM on 02/23/2011
No of course common sense is not deadly.

But it's not really very common, either.
08:43 PM on 02/21/2011
and if earth heats up it will melt the moon since its made of cheese
07:36 PM on 02/21/2011
Again, second paragraph, the dreaded could.

I love the new science and it's technical jargon. "Could, might, possibly, maybe sometime in the near or very far future..."

I just wish someone would explain all these intellectual terms.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anti politricks
better to light 1 candle than curse darkness
12:11 PM on 02/22/2011
well a few decades ago they said "global warming could possibly cause the artic ice to melt maybe something in the near future, say by 2050".
well in intellectual, current day terms, we have gotten to this "2050 predicted level" and we're only in 2011.
so when they say could, might, possibly....think of it as saying : this is going to happen, very soon, and very badly, but to avoid panic, we use this jargon.
12:10 AM on 02/24/2011
Sorry, A few years ago the prediction was 2013. They just keep moving the goalposts every time it looks like they're gonna miss.
06:26 PM on 02/21/2011
Can you say

GOP = Corporate agenda?
06:36 PM on 02/21/2011
The United Nations is a corporation.
07:34 PM on 02/21/2011
Junksciencecutecritt...

Let me rephrase... GOP = Destructive Corporations

United Nations doesn't pollute the air, fill our oceans with oil, give our children cancer

with their pesticides, use " made in china " products throughout their stores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Indigo River
05:00 PM on 02/21/2011
"We say we love flowers, yet we pluck them. We say we love trees, yet we cut them down. And people still wonder why some are afraid when told they are loved." ~Author Unknown
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
04:44 PM on 02/21/2011
We are shocked--shocked!--to find that the US has failed to ratify an international environmental treaty. Has this ever happened before?

Here is the list of signers along with the ratification status of each:

http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Observe the tiny number of countries with just a blank space where the ratification status should be. Our fellow non-ratifiers are typified by Haiti, Zimbabwe, Montenegro, Sudan, and Malta, with just a couple of larger nations thrown in.

What ever happened to American leadership?
05:38 PM on 02/21/2011
Republicans filibustered it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodgzK
05:43 PM on 02/21/2011
Whats happened to American leadership is that the Republican Party, with the interests of their oil, gas and coal mega-business donors in mind, and with the assistance of a largely inattentive main stream media have managed to convince a good many uneducated and intellectually uninquisitive Americans that a purely scientific issue is really a political one. This isn't likely to change as long as our elections can be bought by big-money interests.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Klarsonent
Semi-retired landlady, small business entrepreneur
10:07 PM on 02/21/2011
You are soooo right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alton Duderstadt II
10:35 PM on 02/21/2011
Totally agreed. Why can't we simply make taking any type of donations from corporate illegal...oops...forgot about that little Supreme Court decision last year...corporations ARE PEOPLE TOO!