FSI’s researchers assess health and medicine through the lenses of economics, nutrition and politics. They’re studying and influencing public health policies of local and national governments and the roles that corporations and nongovernmental organizations play in providing health care around the world. Scholars look at how governance affects citizens’ health, how children’s health care access affects the aging process and how to improve children’s health in Guatemala and rural China. They want to know what it will take for people to cook more safely and breathe more easily in developing countries.
FSI professors investigate how lifestyles affect health. What good does gardening do for older Americans? What are the benefits of eating organic food or growing genetically modified rice in China? They study cost-effectiveness by examining programs like those aimed at preventing the spread of tuberculosis in Russian prisons. Policies that impact obesity and undernutrition are examined; as are the public health implications of limiting salt in processed foods and the role of smoking among men who work in Chinese factories. FSI health research looks at sweeping domestic policies like the Affordable Care Act and the role of foreign aid in affecting the price of HIV drugs in Africa.
Linkages between climate and mental health are often theorized, but remain poorly quantified. In particular, it is unknown whether the rate of suicide, a leading cause of death globally, is systematically affected by climatic conditions. Using comprehensive data from multiple decades for both the United States and Mexico, we find that suicide rates rise 0.7% in US counties and 2.1% in Mexican municipalities for a 1 °C increase in monthly average temperature. This effect is similar in hotter versus cooler regions and has not diminished over time, indicating limited historical adaptation. Analysis of depressive language in > 600 million social media updates further suggests that mental well-being deteriorates during warmer periods. We project that unmitigated climate change (RCP8.5) could result in a combined 9–40 thousand additional suicides (95% confidence interval) across the United States and Mexico by 2050, representing a change in suicide rates comparable to the estimated impact of economic recessions, suicide prevention programs or gun restriction laws.
Stanford scientists found that the global economy is likely to benefit from ambitious global warming limits agreed to in the United Nations Paris Agreement.
Failing to meet climate mitigation goals laid out in the U.N. Paris Agreement could cost the global economy tens of trillions of dollars over the next century, according to new Stanford research. The study, published in Nature, is one of the first to quantify the economic benefits of limiting global warming to levels set in the accord.
The agreement commits 195 countries to the goal of holding this century’s average temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above levels in the pre-industrial era. It also includes an aspirational goal of pursuing an even more stringent target of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. To date, the economic benefits of achieving these temperature targets have not been well understood.
“Over the past century we have already experienced a 1-degree increase in global temperature, so achieving the ambitious targets laid out in the Paris Agreement will not be easy or cheap. We need a clear understanding of how much economic benefit we’re going to get from meeting these different targets,” said Marshall Burke, assistant professor of Earth system science in the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciencesand lead author of the study.
To develop this understanding, a team of Stanford researchers studied how economic performance over the past half-century correlated with changes in temperature around the world. Then, using climate model projections of how temperatures could change in the future, they calculated how overall economic output is likely to change as temperatures warm to different levels.
The researchers found a large majority of countries – containing close to 90 percent of the world’s population – benefit economically from limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees. This includes the United States, China and Japan – the three largest economies in the world. It is also true in some of the world’s poorest regions, where even small reductions in future warming generate a notable increase in per capita gross domestic product.
“The countries likely to benefit the most are already relatively hot today,” said Burke. “The historical record tells us that additional warming will be very harmful to these countries’ economies, and so even small reductions in future warming could have large benefits for most countries.”
The projected costs from higher temperatures come from factors such as increases in spending to deal with extreme events, lower agricultural productivity and worse health, the scientists said.
Previous research has shown that the actual climate commitments each country has made as part of the Paris Agreement add up to close to 3 degrees of global warming, instead of the 1.5–2 degrees warming goals.
Given this discrepancy, the researchers also calculated the economic consequences of countries meeting their individual Paris commitments, but failing to meet the overall global warming goals of 1.5–2 degrees. They found that failing to achieve the 1.5–2 degrees goals is likely to substantially reduce global economic growth.
Percentage gain in GDP per capita in 2100 from achieving 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming instead of 2 degrees.
Percentage gain in GDP per capita in 2100 from achieving 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming instead of 2 degrees. (Image credit: Marshall Burke)
“It is clear from our analysis that achieving the more ambitious Paris goals is highly likely to benefit most countries – and the global economy overall – by avoiding more severe economic damages,” said Noah Diffenbaugh, professor of Earth system science and paper co-author.
The authors note the study may underestimate the total costs of higher levels of global warming. That’s especially true if catastrophic changes such as rapid melting of the ice on Greenland or Antarctica come to pass, or if extreme weather events such as heatwaves and floods intensify well beyond the range seen in historical observations. A recent studyby Diffenbaugh and his colleagues showed that even with reduced levels of global warming, unprecedented extreme events are likely to become more prevalent.
The new research helps shed light on the overall economic value of the Paris Agreement, as well as on the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the accord because of concerns that it is too costly to the U.S. economy. The researchers calculated that the overall global benefits of keeping future temperature increases to 1.5 degrees are likely in the tens of trillions of dollars, with substantial likely benefits in the U.S. as well. They note that these benefits are more than 30 times greater than the most recent estimates of what it will cost to achieve the more ambitious 1.5 degrees goal.
“For most countries in the world, including the U.S., we find strong evidence that the benefits of achieving the ambitious Paris targets are likely to vastly outweigh the costs,” said Burke.
Burke is also a fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment, the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environmentand the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Diffenbaugh is also the Kara J Foundation Professor, the Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and an affiliate of the Precourt Institute for Energy. Additional co-authors include W. Matt Davis, a former researcher at the Center on Food Security and the Environment. The research was supported by the Erol Foundation.
Media Contacts
Marshall Burke, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences: mburke@stanford.edu, (650) 721-2203 Noah Diffenbaugh, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences: diffenbaugh@stanford.edu, (650) 223-9425 Michelle Horton, Center on Food Security and the Environment: mjhorton@stanford.edu, (650) 498-4129
Stanford welcomes Cousin, a global hunger expert, to the Center on Food Security and the Environment.
The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University is pleased to announce that former U.S. Ambassador and World Food Programme (WFP) Director Ertharin Cousin will serve as this year’s Frank E. and Arthur W. Payne Distinguished Lecturer and Visiting Fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE).
Cousin brings over 25 years of experience addressing hunger and food security strategies on both a national and international scale. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, she focused on advocating for longer-term solutions to food insecurity and hunger, and at WFP she addressed the challenges of food insecurity in conflict situations.
“Dr. Cousin’s outstanding leadership at the WFP and extensive experience in public service exemplifies the attributes we seek for Payne Lecturers,” says FSI Director Michael McFaul. The Payne Distinguished Lectureship is awarded to scholars with international reputations as leaders, with an emphasis on visionary thinking, practical problem solving, and the capacity to clearly articulate an important perspective on the global political and social situation. Past Payne Lecturers include Bill Gates, Nobel Laureate Mohamed El Baradei, UNAIDS Executive Director Peter Piot, and novelist Ian McEwan.
As a visiting fellow with FSE, Cousin will be working to further her research focus on global food security and humanitarian efforts. In November 2015, FSE welcomed Cousin as the featured speaker in their Food and Nutrition Symposium series, where she presented her paper “Achieving food security and nutrition for the furthest behind in an era of conflict and climate change.” FSE Director, Roz Naylor, sees Cousin’s appointment as a pivotal opportunity for FSE and FSI to advance a global agenda on food security and human rights. “Ertharin Cousin is one of the most inspirational leaders we could ever hope to attract to Stanford as a year-long visitor,” Naylor says.
“This is a truly humbling, yet exciting prospect,” says Cousin. “This position provides an opportunity for scholarly work and dialogue with distinguished academics across Stanford's schools and policy institutes. I also look forward to the opportunity to convene thought leaders from a broad variety of backgrounds, who can help us explore some of the intractable issues plaguing humanitarian and development practitioners today.”
Following the completion of her term with the WFP, Cousin accepted an appointment as a Distinguished Fellow with The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which conducts research on food and agriculture, global cities, economics, energy, immigration, security, public opinion, and water. Cousin hopes her appointments can provide a unique collaborative opportunity to expand her work on food security and nutrition issues.
“In my career I have never before been given the opportunity of pursuing intellectual inspiration. Just thinking about the ‘what’s possible’ gives me genuine pleasure,” Cousin said.
About FSE
The Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE) is a research center at Stanford University, jointly funded by the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
Using agricultural and economic characteristics in African nations as test cases, new research by David Lobell and Marshall Burke demonstrates the use of satellite data to address the long-standing problem of accurate data collection in developing countries. An often cited challenge in achieving development goals aimed at poverty and hunger reduction is the lack of reliable on-the-ground data. Limited or insuffiient data makes it difficult to establish baseline conditions and to assess effectiveness of various aid programs. In the past, researchers and policymakers had to rely on ground surveys, which are expensive, time-consuming, and rarely conducted. This has led to large data gaps in mapping sustainable development goal progress, such as in agricultural and poverty statistics.
Women empowerment (WE) is increasingly viewed as an important strategy to reduce maternal and child undernutrition,1–3 which continues to be a major health burden in low- and middle-income countries causing 3.5 million preventable maternal and child deaths, 35% of the disease burden in children younger than 5 years, and 11% of total global disability-adjusted life years.4,5Global data show that one of the worst affected regions is sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where about 20% of children are malnourished.6,7 Benin is no exception, as the prevalence of stunting, wasting, and underweight was 37%, 5%, and 17%, respectively, among children aged 6 to 59 months in the 2006 Benin Demographic and Health Survey (DHS),8 while 9% of women had chronic energy deficiency in the 2012 DHS.9 Greater rates were observed in rural areas where stunting was found in 40% of children, underweight in 19%, and wasting in 5%, while 10% of women had chronic energy deficiency.8,9 Additionally, Beninese women and children have a limited dietary diversity score (DDS), with diets predominately composed of starchy staples with little or no animal products and few fresh fruits and vegetables.10,11 Government, United Nation agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in Benin recognize that the state of maternal and child undernutrition requires multiple types of interventions.12
However, women’s low empowerment status in Benin can hinder the improvement in women’s and children’s undernutrition. Indeed, although females accounted for 47% of the economically active population in 2014,13 social and civil legislation is strongly influenced by tradition and customs, as women continue to be required to seek their husband’s authorization in certain areas such as family planning or health services.14 Rural women provided labor to the families’ commercial plots, were responsible for household food production and processing, and also had to work in the cooperative structures set up by the state in addition to their household tasks.14 In a more recent study of productivity differences by gender in central Benin, researchers noted that female rice farmers are particularly discriminated against with regard to access to land and equipment, resulting in significant negative impacts on their productivity and income.15 As in other areas of West Africa, women also have the responsibility of caring for children and preparing food for the household,16 but they may be vulnerable to food insecurity owing to unequal intrahousehold food distribution and their willingness to forego meals in favor of children during times of scarcity.17 Finally, no study to date has examined links between women’s empowerment and nutrition in Benin.
In addition, the evidence backing the effect of women’s empowerment on maternal and child undernutrition is inconsistent.18 Using the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), Malapit et al19 reported positive and significant association between women’s group (WG) membership, control over income, overall empowerment, and women’s health (as measured by body mass index [BMI] and DDS) in Nepal. However, in Ghana, women’s aggregate empowerment and participation in credit decisions were positively correlated with women’s DDS, but not BMI.20 Mixed findings were also observed between women’s empowerment and child anthropometry. Moestue et al21 found a positive association between maternal involvement in social groups and length-for-age z score of 1-year-old children, but De Silva and Harpham22showed a negative association in 6- to 18-month-old children. Shroff et al23 found positive association between decision-making and child weight-for-age z score (WAZ), but Begum and Sen’s24 analysis of Bangladesh DHS data did not reveal any significant associations. Therefore, information about which domains of WE are associated with nutritional status is limited,20 and this lack of knowledge constrains the set of policy options that can be used to empower women and improve nutrition.
In addition to a limited set of studies in SSA, examinations of the effects of WE on nutrition outcomes are constrained due to interstudy differences in population characteristics, settings, or methods/conceptualizations of WE.25–27 For example, despite recognition of the complex, multidimensional, and culturally defined nature and influence of empowerment on nutrition,20,26,28,29 only a few studies considered the multidimensional structure of empowerment domains in Africa or examined the varied relationships between each measure of WE and maternal and child nutrition status.30,31 Furthermore, in 2012, the International Food Policy Research Institute developed WEAI constructed from 5 prespecified domains of empowerment,32which may not be equally relevant in all areas. In contrast, in 2015, the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), but the specific indicators for the SDG empowerment targets are largely equality metrics.33 To address the need for multidimensional and contextual examinations of WE and its influence on maternal and child health outcomes, we draw from the concepts put forward in the WEAI and the SDGs but took an approach more along the lines of the World Bank which gathers indicators, both equity and empowerment related, that can be used in contextually appropriate ways.34 The aims of this study were therefore to first explore the structure and domains of WE in Kalalé district of northern Benin and then to examine the effects of these constructs on nutritional status of women and their children in the region.
The ongoing decline in under-5 mortality ranks among the most significant public and population health successes of the past 30 years. Deaths of children under the age of 5 years have fallen from nearly 13 million per year in 1990 to less than 6 million per year in 2015, even as the world's under-5 population grew by nearly 100 million children. However, the amount of variability underlying this broad global progress is substantial. On a regional level, east Asia and the Pacific have surpassed the Millennium Development Goal target of a two-thirds reduction in under-5 mortality rate between 1990 and 2015, whereas sub-Saharan Africa has had only a 24% decline over the same period. Large differences in progress are also evident within sub-Saharan Africa, where mortality rates have declined by more than 70% from 1990 to 2015 in some countries and increased in others; in 2015, the mortality rate in some countries was more than three times that in others.
What explains this remarkable variation in progress against under-5 mortality? Answering this question requires understanding of where the main sources of variation in mortality lie. One view that is implicit in the way that mortality rates are tracked and targeted is that national policies and conditions drive first-order changes in under-5 mortality. This country-level focus is justified by research that emphasises the role of institutional factors in explaining variation in mortality—factors such as universal health coverage, women's education, and the effectiveness of national health systems. It is argued that these factors, which vary measurably at the country level, fundamentally shape the ability of individuals and communities to affect more proximate causes of child death such as malaria and diarrhoeal disease.
An alternate view has focused on exploring the importance of subnational variation in the distribution of disease. In the USA, studies on the geographical distribution of health care and mortality have been influential for targeting of resources and policy design. Similar studies in developing regions have shown the substantial variability in the distribution and changes of important health outcomes such HIV, malaria, and schistosomiasis—information that can then be used to improve the targeting of interventions. Nevertheless, the relative contribution of within-country and between-country differences in explaining under-5 mortality remains unknown. Improved understanding of the relative contribution of national and sub-national factors could provide insight into the drivers of mortality levels and declines in mortality, as well as improve the targeting of interventions to the areas where they are most needed.
This Global Food Security Strategy presents an integrated whole-of-government strategy and agency-specific implementation plans as required by the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (GFSA).
"Right now, the world is closer than ever before to ending global hunger, undernutrition, and extreme poverty, but significant challenges and opportunities remain, including urbanization, gender inequality, instability and conflict, the effects of a changing climate, and environmental degradation. Despite our collective progress in global food security and nutrition over recent years, a projected 702 million people still live in extreme poverty, nearly 800 million people around the world are chronically undernourished, and 159 million children under five are stunted. Food security is not just an economic and humanitarian issue; it is also a matter of security, as growing concentrations of poverty and hunger leave countries and communities vulnerable to increased instability, conflict, and violence." From the USAID Oct. 3 release.
You can read more and download the pdf of the Global Food Security Strategy at the USAID website.
Sam Heft-Neal is a research fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment and in the Department of Earth System Science. Sam is working with Marshall Burke to identify the impacts of extreme climate events on food availability and childhood nutrition in Africa. Specifically, they are examining the impacts of climate induced food shocks on child health measures including child mortality rates. Sam’s previous work examined the non-linear relationship between agricultural productivity and the environment and its effects on human health and the economy. Sam holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Berkeley and a B.A. in Statistics and Economics from the same institution.
Percentage gain in GDP per capita in 2100 from achieving 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming instead of 2 degrees.
