Health Care over Climate change ...

In an recent article Mr.Anil Bhattarai argued " The World Bank’s mission is currently in Kathmandu as a part of the process of finalising a grant and loan for Pilot Project on Climate Resilience (PPCR). As it stands, US $60 million of the total of US $110 million proposed is supposed to be given as a loan, the rest as a grant. The putative aim of the project is to increase the resilience of Nepalis in the face of vulnerabilities arising out of changing climates. The impacts of changing climates might be too complex to understand for ordinary Nepali citizens, but most of them have done virtually nothing to cause this. To be more precise, most of us—both living at present and long dead—did not spew the colossal amount of carbon and other heat-trapping gasses into the earth that led to global warming. This makes it highly unethical to receive a loan for dealing with the impacts of climate change we had very little role in creating in the first place." (Source: kathmandu post)

My thought:

Nepal should care less about vulnerabilities arising out of changing climates and more about other challenges like health ?? If Nepal is planning to borrow money from the multilateral agencies the fund should go towards improving health sector of the country............

WHY ?

1. "In 2008, the Copenhagen Consensus Center asked a group of the world’s top economists to identify the “investments” that could best help the planet. The experts – including five Nobel Laureates – compared ways to spend $75 billion on more than 30 interventions aimed at reducing malnutrition, broadening educational opportunity, slowing global warming, cutting air pollution, preventing conflict, fighting disease, improving access to water and sanitation, lowering trade and immigration barriers, thwarting terrorism, and promoting gender equality. Guided by their consideration of each option’s costs and benefits, and setting aside matters like media attention, the experts identified the best investments – those for which relatively tiny amounts of money could generate significant returns in terms of health, prosperity, and community advantages. These included increased immunization coverage, initiatives to reduce school dropout rates, community-based nutrition promotion, and micronutrient supplementation.By putting all benefits to individuals, communities, and countries in monetary terms. Expert researchers for the Copenhagen Consensus found that carbon offsets are a relatively ineffective way of reining in global warming and reducing its effects – $10 would avoid about $3 of damage from climate change. By contrast, $10 spent on Vitamin A supplements would achieve more than $170 of benefits in health and long-term prosperity.One lesson we can draw is that while global warming may exacerbate problems like malnutrition, communities bolstered by adequate nutrition will generally be less vulnerable to climate-based threats. Overall, we can typically best help through direct interventions, including micronutrient supplements, fortification, biofortification, and nutritional promotion." (Source:Project Syndicate )
2. Nepal health care workforce is inadequate with only 2.1 physicians, 2.2 nurses, 2.4 midwives, and 0.1 pharmacists per 10,000 population and these providers are skewed toward urban areas.
3. The proportion of the government budget allocated to Non Noncommunicable disease (NCD)-related activities for FY2009–10 is negligible, at 0.73 percent. Taxation of tobacco and alcohol products constitutes the main funding source for NCD activities. NCD spending is mainly on tobacco control, nutrition, and cancer programs (Source:World Bank)