Ian Hamilton1, Harry Kennard2, Alice McGushin3, Lena Höglund-Isaksson4, Gregor Kiesewetter4, Melissa Lott5, James Milner6, Pallav Purohit4, Peter Rafaj4, Rohit Sharma7, Marco Springmann8, James Woodcock7, Nick Watts3. 1. UCL Energy Institute, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: i.hamilton@ucl.ac.uk. 2. UCL Energy Institute, University College London, London, UK. 3. Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK. 4. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Programme, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. 5. Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 6. Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 7. Centre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 8. Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: nationally determined contributions (NDCs) serve to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement of staying "well below 2°C", which could also yield substantial health co-benefits in the process. However, existing NDC commitments are inadequate to achieve this goal. Placing health as a key focus of the NDCs could present an opportunity to increase ambition and realise health co-benefits. We modelled scenarios to analyse the health co-benefits of NDCs for the year 2040 for nine representative countries (ie, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, South Africa, the UK, and the USA) that were selected for their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and their global or regional influence. METHODS: Modelling the energy, food and agriculture, and transport sectors, and mortality related to risk factors of air pollution, diet, and physical activity, we analysed the health co-benefits of existing NDCs and related policies (ie, the current pathways scenario) for 2040 in nine countries around the world. We compared these health co-benefits with two alternative scenarios, one consistent with the goal of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (ie, the sustainable pathways scenario), and one in line with the sustainable pathways scenario, but also placing health as a central focus of the policies (ie, the health in all climate policies scenario). FINDINGS: Compared with the current pathways scenario, the sustainable pathways scenario resulted in an annual reduction of 1·18 million air pollution-related deaths, 5·86 million diet-related deaths, and 1·15 million deaths due to physical inactivity, across the nine countries, by 2040. Adopting the more ambitious health in all climate policies scenario would result in a further reduction of 462 000 annual deaths attributable to air pollution, 572 000 annual deaths attributable to diet, and 943 000 annual deaths attributable to physical inactivity. These benefits were attributable to the mitigation of direct greenhouse gas emissions and the commensurate actions that reduce exposure to harmful pollutants, as well as improved diets and safe physical activity. INTERPRETATION: A greater consideration of health in the NDCs and climate change mitigation policies has the potential to yield considerable health benefits as well as achieve the "well below 2°C" commitment across a range of regional and economic contexts. FUNDING: This work was in part funded through an unrestricted grant from the Wellcome Trust (award number 209734/Z/17/Z) and supported by an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant (grant number EP/R035288/1).
BACKGROUND: nationally determined contributions (NDCs) serve to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement of staying "well below 2°C", which could also yield substantial health co-benefits in the process. However, existing NDC commitments are inadequate to achieve this goal. Placing health as a key focus of the NDCs could present an opportunity to increase ambition and realise health co-benefits. We modelled scenarios to analyse the health co-benefits of NDCs for the year 2040 for nine representative countries (ie, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, South Africa, the UK, and the USA) that were selected for their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and their global or regional influence. METHODS: Modelling the energy, food and agriculture, and transport sectors, and mortality related to risk factors of air pollution, diet, and physical activity, we analysed the health co-benefits of existing NDCs and related policies (ie, the current pathways scenario) for 2040 in nine countries around the world. We compared these health co-benefits with two alternative scenarios, one consistent with the goal of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (ie, the sustainable pathways scenario), and one in line with the sustainable pathways scenario, but also placing health as a central focus of the policies (ie, the health in all climate policies scenario). FINDINGS: Compared with the current pathways scenario, the sustainable pathways scenario resulted in an annual reduction of 1·18 million air pollution-related deaths, 5·86 million diet-related deaths, and 1·15 million deaths due to physical inactivity, across the nine countries, by 2040. Adopting the more ambitious health in all climate policies scenario would result in a further reduction of 462 000 annual deaths attributable to air pollution, 572 000 annual deaths attributable to diet, and 943 000 annual deaths attributable to physical inactivity. These benefits were attributable to the mitigation of direct greenhouse gas emissions and the commensurate actions that reduce exposure to harmful pollutants, as well as improved diets and safe physical activity. INTERPRETATION: A greater consideration of health in the NDCs and climate change mitigation policies has the potential to yield considerable health benefits as well as achieve the "well below 2°C" commitment across a range of regional and economic contexts. FUNDING: This work was in part funded through an unrestricted grant from the Wellcome Trust (award number 209734/Z/17/Z) and supported by an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant (grant number EP/R035288/1).
Authors: Sharon Friel; Alan D Dangour; Tara Garnett; Karen Lock; Zaid Chalabi; Ian Roberts; Ainslie Butler; Colin D Butler; Jeff Waage; Anthony J McMichael; Andy Haines Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-12-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anil Markandya; Ben G Armstrong; Simon Hales; Aline Chiabai; Patrick Criqui; Silvana Mima; Cathryn Tonne; Paul Wilkinson Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-12-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul Wilkinson; Kirk R Smith; Michael Davies; Heather Adair; Ben G Armstrong; Mark Barrett; Nigel Bruce; Andy Haines; Ian Hamilton; Tadj Oreszczyn; Ian Ridley; Cathryn Tonne; Zaid Chalabi Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nick Watts; W Neil Adger; Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson; Yuqi Bai; Peter Byass; Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum; Tim Colbourn; Peter Cox; Michael Davies; Michael Depledge; Anneliese Depoux; Paula Dominguez-Salas; Paul Drummond; Paul Ekins; Antoine Flahault; Delia Grace; Hilary Graham; Andy Haines; Ian Hamilton; Anne Johnson; Ilan Kelman; Sari Kovats; Lu Liang; Melissa Lott; Robert Lowe; Yong Luo; Georgina Mace; Mark Maslin; Karyn Morrissey; Kris Murray; Tara Neville; Maria Nilsson; Tadj Oreszczyn; Christine Parthemore; David Pencheon; Elizabeth Robinson; Stefanie Schütte; Joy Shumake-Guillemot; Paolo Vineis; Paul Wilkinson; Nicola Wheeler; Bing Xu; Jun Yang; Yongyuan Yin; Chaoqing Yu; Peng Gong; Hugh Montgomery; Anthony Costello Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marko Tainio; Audrey J de Nazelle; Thomas Götschi; Sonja Kahlmeier; David Rojas-Rueda; Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen; Thiago Hérick de Sá; Paul Kelly; James Woodcock Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Marco Springmann; Keith Wiebe; Daniel Mason-D'Croz; Timothy B Sulser; Mike Rayner; Peter Scarborough Journal: Lancet Planet Health Date: 2018-10
Authors: James Woodcock; Ali Abbas; Alvaro Ullrich; Marko Tainio; Robin Lovelace; Thiago H Sá; Kate Westgate; Anna Goodman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Kirk R Smith; Michael Jerrett; H Ross Anderson; Richard T Burnett; Vicki Stone; Richard Derwent; Richard W Atkinson; Aaron Cohen; Seth B Shonkoff; Daniel Krewski; C Arden Pope; Michael J Thun; George Thurston Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Johannes Birtel; Heinrich Heimann; Hans Hoerauf; Horst Helbig; Christian Schulz; Frank G Holz; Gerd Geerling Journal: Ophthalmologie Date: 2022-04-22
Authors: Esther M F van Sluijs; Ulf Ekelund; Inacio Crochemore-Silva; Regina Guthold; Amy Ha; David Lubans; Adewale L Oyeyemi; Ding Ding; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pierre Barban; Audrey De Nazelle; Stéphane Chatelin; Philippe Quirion; Kévin Jean Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Robin Fears; Khairul Annuar B Abdullah; Claudia Canales-Holzeis; Deoraj Caussy; Andy Haines; Sherilee L Harper; Jeremy N McNeil; Johanna Mogwitz; Volker Ter Meulen Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 11.069