CDC cancels upcoming climate conference, won't say why

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have canceled a Feb. 2017 conference on climate change and health, but officials are not publicly saying why.

David Goldman/AP/File
A sign marks the entrance to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has canceled a conference on climate change that was scheduled to be held next month in Atlanta, Ga.

The government's top public health agency gave no official reason for the cancellation, but some involved with the conference have suggested that the cancellation may be an attempt to avoid political friction with President Trump's new administration. While there is a consensus among most scientists that humans have a leading role in climate change, Mr. Trump has called the phenomenon a hoax on more than one occasion.

The CDC has received political flak before for its positions on various issues. But fear of reprisal or even losing funding for taking a strong opposing stance against the new administration may have been a factor in the conferences' cancellation, says Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. Dr. Benjamin told the Associated Press that there had been no request or order from the Trump administration to stop the conference, but that members of the CDC had expressed worries to him about the country's new leadership.

"They had no idea or not whether the new administration would be supportive," said Benjamin, whose group was set to co-sponsor the conference.

"They decided the better part of valor was to stop and regroup," he added.

The Climate and Health Summit had been scheduled for Feb. 14-16. The event would have supported discussion on the effects of climate change on human health, including heat-related illnesses and the spread of disease-carrying tropical insects.

"In the long run, climate change is affecting the health of Americans," Kristie Ebi, a professor of global health at the University of Washington in Seattle who had been asked to speak at the conference, told the AP. "At some point, I hope they will go forward with the conference."

CDC spokeswoman Bernadette Burden told CNN that the organization was "exploring options" for rescheduling the meeting. The event was supposed to kick off a year of similar climate and health-related conferences, but political opposition from the Trump administration might cause other organizations to question the wisdom of taking a strong position on the human cause of climate change.

"I'm very much concerned about the precedent and very concerned about how [the Trump administration will] handle climate change going forward," Benjamin told CNN. "The truth of the matter is we can pretend like climate change is not here, but ... it's a big issue. So we can put a name to it and try to fix it, or we can not put a name to it, but we're going to have to fix it anyway." 

Predicting the new administration's official stance on the issue could also prove difficult. Scott Pruitt, Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has expressed doubts about the human cause of climate change in the past, but backed away from those statements during his confirmation hearing. Trump himself has expressed multiple opinions on the subject, keeping government agencies like the CDC guessing. But some experts like Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, say that these organizations should stand against climate change denial, no matter the political cost.

"Politics is politics, but protecting the health of our citizens is one of our government's most important obligations to us," Dr. Maibach, another intended speaker for the CDC conference, told the Washington Post. "Climate change is bad for America, and bad for the world, in so many ways. One of these ways is that it is harming our health, already, and is likely to get much worse over the next few decades unless we take action."

This report includes material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.