Yesterday the Guardian ran an article with yet another alarming headline: “Declare climate crisis a global public health emergency, experts tell WHO”. Read the article, and you learn that these aren’t any old experts – they’re independent experts, in the form of the Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health. That sounds impressive, and perhaps it is – but, independent? Of what, or of whom?

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary offers up a few alternative meanings of “independent”, none of which seem to fit the bill so far as this organisation is concerned:

Free from outside control; not subject to another’s authority; not supported by public funds.

Not dependending on another for livelihood or subsistence; capable of acting or thinking for oneself.

Not connected with another; separate.

I suppose I can’t blame the Guardian (well, not too much) since it is following the inaccurate language used by the World Health Organisation, which even hosts a webpage for the Commission. Despite being the organisation which set it up, it claims the Commission is independent:

The Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health is an independent advisory group convened by WHO/Europe to raise the political profile, awareness and support for stronger action to address the health impacts of climate change.

In other words, it was convened by another body for a specific purpose (to scaremonger about the effects of climate change on health), yet apparently it’s independent.

So far so bad. But then we look at its terms of reference. I won’t quote it all, because it’s too long, but suffice it to say that it appeared from the outset that its findings would be a foregone conclusion:

The main outcome of the Commission’s work is expected to be a resolute and urgent Call to action on the climate crisis to protect and improve health including both the “what and how” to political decisionmakers, health authorities, cities, communities and the public.

Not only was the Commission expected to generate a pre-determined outcome, but its terms of reference also include (stated as a given) the controversial claim that there is a “climate crisis”, even though this is a phrase invented by Guardian journalists and which you won’t find in any of the IPCC’s reports.

Well then, what of the Commission’s membership? They can be found here. I cast no doubt on their sincerity, integrity, and fervent belief in their work for the Commission, but independent?

Its Chair is Katrín Jakobsdóttir, former Prime Minister of Iceland, and also Chairman of the Left-Green Movement from 2013 to 2024. Its Chief Scientific Officer is Sir Andrew Haines, Professor of Environmental Change and Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. His short biography is as follows:

Sir Andrew Haines’ work has focused on environmental influences on health, including the health impacts of climate change and the health co-benefits of climate action. He is co-Chair of the Lancet Pathfinder Commission and broader Wellcome Trust-funded Pathfinder Initiative. He has chaired and been a member of many international committees, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the second, third and fifth assessment exercises. Haines was Director of LSHTM from 2001 to 2010 and until recently co-director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Health at LSHTM. He was awarded the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement in 2022.

Commissioners include Majlinda Bregu (personal milestones include “the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans”); Professor Hans Bruyninckx (“experience in areas including environmental politics, climate change and sustainable development. He was head of the European Environment Agency from 2013 to 2023. He has taught on global environmental politics and global environmental governance in relation to the European Union (EU), publishing extensively on EU environmental policies and its role as an actor in global environmental governance.”); Sandrine Dixson-Declève (Honorary President and Global Ambassador for the Club of Rome, Executive Chair of the global initiative Earth4All, co-Chair and co-Founder of the System Transformation Hub; She is a Climate Governance Commissioner and “an expert in complex systems analysis; international and European climate; energy; sustainable development; social and environmental tipping points; and sustainable finance policy development and implementation.”); Dr Omnia El Omrani (“a medical doctor and policy fellow with eight years of experience in developing strategies at the intersection of climate change, human health and intergenerational equity to unlock systematic change for the health and prosperity of communities globally. She was the First Youth Envoy for the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs and for the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) President. El Omrani was also the Health Envoy for COP28 where she was instrumental in permanently institutionalizing the youth role in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and supported showcasing youth-led efforts on climate and health.”).

I could go on, but you get the picture. I am sure the members of the Commission are all upstanding characters demonstrating honesty, integrity and sincerity. But there is a theme. It seems highly unlikely that any of them are going to rock the boat, since they all appear to believe the boat is travelling in the correct direction. Where is the person who is going to challenge the narrative? Where is the….independence?

Well, perhaps there isn’t an issue with funding? The Commission seems to be rather coy about its sources of funding – or, to be charitable, perhaps I’m not very good at searching these things out on the internet. In any event, I’m afraid I gave up and took the easy way out – I asked AI.

It told me that the Commission has various Institutional Partner Organizations, including The European Commission (EU), which serves as the primary institutional partner through joint financing instruments such as the EU Global Health Resilience Initiative and the Team Europe funding packages. Also, the European Environment Agency (EEA) (collaborates on data sharing and monitoring via the European Climate and Health Observatory). The there’s EuroHealthNet (a leading European partnership of public health bodies that supports the dissemination and hosting of PECCH’s evidence-gathering hearings). And of course the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), which provides chief scientific advisory support and academic research infrastructure.

As for funding, it provided me with a list of “Philanthropic Foundations & Climate Hubs”. It told me that because PECCH is a WHO-convened body, private funding flows through major climate-health philanthropic networks that are actively co-funding WHO Europe’s green-health initiatives. These include the Wellcome Trust (one of the world’s largest funder of health research, specifically prioritizing the health effects of climate change); Bloomberg Philanthropies (a core contributor to international urban climate resilience and public health funding networks); European Climate Foundation (specifically backs European environmental groups and sustainable health policies); Open Society Foundations: Provides targeted regional funding in Europe for human rights, health equity, and climate justice; and Fondazione Cariplo (a major regional European foundation that supports local public health and environmental initiatives). 

I will leave you, dear reader, to contemplate where all that leaves the claims of independence.

The Report of the Commission can be accessed here. It commences with the same belief that the Commission is independent:

We, the Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health are an independent advisory body convened by Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, the WHO Regional Director for Europe, to raise the political profile, strengthen support and mobilize key actors for decisive, evidence-informed action on the health impacts of climate change.

The Report is a useful summary, should one be needed, of the usual talking points. It worries about deaths from extreme heat in summer, without mentioning the far greater number of deaths from extreme cold in winter. It talks about climate-related threats to food production, without mentioning that humanity has never before grown so much food on the planet. It doesn’t note that deaths from climate-related disasters have declined by 99% in the last century. It gets excited about the possible over-turning of AMOC. It doesn’t reference any evidence that undermines the narrative. Probably it heard no such evidence. I don’t imagine it looked for it. Job done. But….independent?