American researchers have estimated that the US health care sector is responsible for "nearly a tenth" of the nation's carbon emissions. This is almost triple the amount emitted by aviation and around four times that emitted by the IT industry, suggesting that green groups should shift the focus of their advocacy. "The health …
"As Chung hints, any move to make the health sector act as responsibly as airlines or IT would probably render it unsupportably pricey"
The report doesn't say this, in fact it suggests that the US medical industry has a comparitivly low carbon intesity (hell, they're not smelting aluminium). I'm sure hospitals could be a bit more energy efficient but why should that cost money in the long run? If airlines could get anywhere near the CO2/ $ ratio of medicine they'd be laughing!
Just more of that LP spin!
Ok, can we have more pointless carbon-production "segmentation" please?
Next: evaluation of methane emissions by old ladies with dachshunds.
burning body parts?
what it is that is causing the carbon emissions from the healthcare sector though?
why are we always left with more questions after reading a register article anyway? a little bit more effort than a copy and paste anbd maybe a bit of journalistic research would make the world of difference.
What %age of folk use healthcare and what %age use aviation
Please Reg, stick to IT, on other topics you tend to look a little silly
why is beef never mentioned in articles like this one?
Um, that's it really, where's the beef?
Reminds me of a previous article
published on El Reg regarding some "research" showing the evil public buildings in the UK pumping out more carbon than poor, brow-beaten industry. The author of the article in question goes on to explain why such comparisons are fairly disingenuous.
written by, er... Lewis Page.
A better measure would be efficient use of energy which, according to this article basing emissions against GDP, would put the Health sector (in the US, where the figures come from) to be more efficient users of energy than the "comparatively insignificant emitters" that the evil green lobby bully boys are picking on.
Lewis, putting aside for a minute all the straw man arguments your recent articles have included on debates nobody is actually having, why are you taking such a different position on this research compared to the very similar article you wrote less that three months ago?
Hermes Conran & bexley
Ever seen how much power an MRI chugs?
Seems quite good
16% of GDP and 11% of carbon emissions? Someone must be making the averages up somewhere.
Although I would say that as I am a doctor am rarely airbourne.
(I used to have a coat like that)
yada yada yada
IT and Airline solution
IT and Airlines just need to charge a lot more for their services and then all their carbon emissions will be ok!
American health care wastes big and charges us for their privilege.
And this is a zine that likes data?
"The US healthcare system accounts for fully 16 per cent of GDP; the somewhat more efficient - in terms of results for money - British NHS still costs a crippling £100bn+ annually."
I'm glad to see that these figures are so easily comparable.
*ignores comments about US healthcare being the most expensive in the world; UK hospitals being either "legacy" building, or new ones knocked off on the cheap, etc..."
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft