Published 8th November 2022

By Jennifer Boyd, Research Assistant, Systems Science in Public Health Programme at MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit

With COP27 commencing this week, once again world leaders will meet to make decisions on how to best address the rapidly progressing climate crisis. This is a great opportunity for leaders to consider how both climate mitigation and adaptation actions impact on health. More specifically, how these actions could affect the health of different groups of individuals.

Adaptation and mitigation action have enormous potential to protect the citizens of the world from the effects of our changing climate. In the UK alone, numerous climate mitigation policies and more than 300 adaptations had been implemented by 2019. Things like the introduction of green spaces in urban areas, constructing coastal flood defenses, investing in wind and solar renewable energies, putting in place appropriate planning to adapt to rising temperatures, implementing infrastructure in cities to facilitate the use of bikes and walking for travel, and electrifying our trains and railways are just a few examples. All of these actions undoubtedly have impacts on our health and wellbeing, either directly (from giving us opportunities to exercise and to be physically active), or indirectly (from providing more jobs in industries tasked with building and developing the technologies we now require).

But these actions are good for our health, right?

There has been a huge focus on the positive impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation action on health, often referred to as health co-benefits. Making it easier for people to cycle or walk, cutting out meat consumption by encouraging more healthy and sustainable diets, and reducing the amount of air pollution people are exposed to are all things that improve people’s health. However, less attention has been given to any potential negative or unintended consequences of climate mitigation and adaptation actions on health. Even less attention has been paid to how these actions may impact the health of different groups of people, something that shouldn’t be ignored. Even more so when we are aware that inequalities in health persist between the rich and the poor, different ethnic groups, and by sex and age.

So, what might we need to worry about?

A recent paper that investigated the social impact of climate change mitigation policies touched on the association between mitigation policies and health inequality. The authors of the paper highlighted that policies which reduced energy consumption, increased renewable energy, and developed and preserved carbon sinks all had the potential to reduce inequalities in health. But this all depended on how the policy was implemented. If implemented without considering the impacts on health inequality, the policy would unsurprisingly worsen health inequalities between groups. To give an example, if programmes to improve energy efficiency in homes target fuel-poor and low-income households, such a policy would reduce health inequalities. When these types of individuals aren’t targeted, only those with the resources to pay for the installation of a smart meter or new insulation reap the health benefits.

There are several other mitigation and adaptation actions which undoubtedly impact health inequalities. One example is the facilitation of active travel by pedestrianising city centres and introducing cycle lanes. There’s no doubt this improves health, particularly for those who own bicycles, have the time to travel by cycling or walking, and above all are physically able to engage in active travel. However, this action may have unintended consequences. Removing parking in city centres could make it more difficult for those with disabilities or the elderly to access amenities, which could worsen their health - especially if it makes it more difficult to go see their GP or drop into a pharmacy.

What needs to be considered when planning action?

It’s clear, there are two key things we need to keep in mind when planning climate mitigation and adaptation action to avoid worsening health inequalities. How we implement policies (preferably with inequalities in mind) (1), and how the actions may impact on different socioeconomic, sex, disability, age and ethnic groups (2). Taking forward these two key considerations could make all the difference. This would allow us to identify how to implement mitigation and adaptation actions which do not increase health inequalities, or better still reduce them while simultaneously tackling the ongoing climate crisis.

First published: 8 November 2022

<< 2022