Climate Change: The Next Global Health Emergency?

“Never let a serious crisis to go to waste” is nugget of political wisdom that has
been oft quoted in recent years. Based on a remark by Rahm Emanuel during the
2008 Global Financial Crisis, it could be heard on the lips of commentators who,
alarmed by the severity of COVID-19 lockdowns, quarantine camps, border
closures, and vaccine mandates, interpreted such government ‘health’ measures as
opportunistic power grabs.
While fears of the coronavirus and the draconian policies which attended it have
largely vanished, concerns remain that international bodies are still exploiting
COVID to accrue power to themselves.
One such body is the World Health Organization (WHO) which, in addition to
negotiating a new multilateral treaty on pandemic preparedness and response, is
contemplating over three hundred amendments to the International Health
Regulations (IHR). These legally-binding regulations stipulate the rights and
obligations of countries when dealing with largescale outbreaks of disease.
While some of the amendments appear to be legitimate attempts to keep up with
technological developments and to improve the transparency and cooperation of
member states, many of the proposals are a cause for alarm. For example, Article
3.1 proposes that the IHR no longer be implemented “with full respect for the
dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons,” but instead be “based
on the principles of equity [and] inclusivity.”
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY UNDERMINED
The use of terminology associated with cultural Marxism is not out of place given
the collectivist urge evident within some of the proposed amendments. For
example, one amendment would give the WHO power to decide which countries
and ‘vulnerable groups’ should receive ‘health products’ and in what quantities
(see Art 13A.3). Moreover, these materials – “diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines,
personal and protective equipment” and the like – would be redistributed
regardless of whom they belonged to: Article 13A.4 requires that member states
“ensure the manufacturers within their territory supply the requested quantity of
health products to WHO or other [countries] as directed by WHO … to ensure
effective implementation of the allocation plan.” In theory, then, the WHO could
order that Australian-made medical supplies be shipped to the African continent
(or some other such place) and the government would be legally bound to comply.
ADDITIONAL PRE- AND POST-PANDEMIC POWERS
Also noteworthy is that such requisitioning could take place before a “public health
emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) is even declared. This is because
another proposed amendment would allow the WHO to issue its
‘recommendations’ (read: obligations) not only during a health emergency, but
before and after it as well (see Art 15.1).
In a similar vein, another amendment would give the Director-General of the WHO
powers to declare potential as well as actual PHEICs. Quite foreseeably, the
declaration of a potential PHEIC could be used to justify the imposition of strict
countermeasures on populations even in the absence of a disease. Nevermind that
such declarations would be based on early warning criteria and risk assessments
that, like the Imperial College of London’s COVID predictions, might be grossly
overblown.
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT BODIES
And since compliance with WHO directives is hard to police from Geneva,
changes to Article 4.1 would overcome this difficulty by mandating the creation of
WHO enforcement agencies within member states. For example, each country
would be required to designate or establish an entity capable of implementing the
IHR, with governments encouraged to enact or adapt legislation to give these
authorities teeth. Moreover, countries would be urged to consolidate “the central
role of national health authorities” in managing crises such as the COVID
pandemic. This, even though the narrow focus of ‘Chief Health Officers’ and the
like during COVID meant that other important concerns – be they economic,
educational, or spiritual – were cast aside.
SURVEILLANCE AND CENSORSHIP
Freedom of movement would also be threatened should certain amendments pass.
For example, a “universal credential verification system” would be developed, as
well as systems to facilitate “the global digital exchange of [personal] health
information” between countries, and between countries and the WHO (see Art 2.d).
This “health information” would include one’s travel itinerary and record of
compliance with “prevention measures” such as contact tracing (see Art. 18.2).
Freedom of speech will also be put at risk. Article 44.1.h states that the WHO shall
collaborate with governments to “[counter] the dissemination of false and
unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic
measures and activities in the media, social networks” et cetera. This means that
the WHO, which receives over 80% of its funding from private donors, would get
to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable speech in 194 member states.
CLIMATE CHANGE: A HEALTH CRISIS?
A broadening of language is also to be noted among the amendments – quite
possibly because the drafters would like to increase their scope for action. Article
1, with additions bolded and deletions struck through, reads:
The purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, prepare,
control and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases
[…] in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk all risks
with a potential to impact public health […]

Why would the straightforward phrase “public health risk” be replaced with “all risks
with a potential to impact public health”? Could it be that the WHO wants to include
within its purview issues which have hitherto never been associated with public
health? Such a notion receives support from the WHO’s Director-General, Tedros
Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who stated in his recent video-message to the COP28 climate
conference:
Our food systems are harming the health of people and planet. Food systems
contribute to over 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, and account for almost one third
of the global burden of disease. Transforming food systems is therefore essential, by
shifting towards healthier, diversified and more plant- based diets. If food systems
delivered healthy diets for all, we could save eight million lives per year. WHO is
committed to supporting countries to develop and implement policies to improve diets
and fight climate change.

So, the agricultural sector is apparently killing both the planet and its inhabitants.
Humanity must therefore shun meat and embrace plant-based (and organically
grown) diets. One wonders whether, if people don’t show enough enthusiasm for
the change, the ‘climate crisis’ might become the next PHEIC?
CONCLUSION
Drs Silvia Behrendt and Amrei Müller have warned that, should the propose
amendments pass, they will entrench into international health law “the securitised
approaches to managing infectious disease outbreaks embodied in the so-called
Global Health Security (GHS) doctrine that has dominated the WHO-led global
response to Covid-19” and will turn the WHO into “a global health emergency
legislator” with considerable “health emergency and bio-surveillance powers.”
While taking such risks would be bad enough, the prospect of giving the WHO the
ability to manage the global food supply for the sake of the climate (a risk “with a
potential to impact public health”) could amount to a catastrophic mistake.
The amendments to the IHR, together with the pandemic treaty, will be voted on at
the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024. If passed, they will come into force on 1
June 2025. Australians must act quickly and in numbers if they are to avoid
becoming subject to unelected bureaucrats who want to control their access to
medicine and food.