The Political Economy of Health Co-Benefits: Embedding Health in the Climate Change Agenda

Abstract

A complex, whole-of-economy issue such as climate change demands an interdisciplinary, multi-sectoral response. However, evidence suggests that human health has remained elusive in its influence on the development of ambitious climate change mitigation policies for many national governments, despite a recognition that the combustion of fossil fuels results in pervasive short- and long-term health consequences. We use insights from literature on the political economy of health and climate change, the science–policy interface and power in policy-making, to identify additional barriers to the meaningful incorporation of health co-benefits into climate change mitigation policy development. Specifically, we identify four key interrelated areas where barriers may exist in relation to health co-benefits: discourse, efficiency, vested interests and structural challenges. With these insights in mind, we argue that the current politico-economic paradigm in which climate change is situated and the processes used to develop climate change mitigation policies do not adequately support accounting for health co-benefits. We present approaches for enhancing the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies to ensure that health is embedded in the broader climate change agenda.

Institutional Engagement Practices as Barriers to Public Health Capacity in Climate Change Policy Discourse: Lessons from the Canadian Province of Ontario

“…The study results correspond with studies conducted in Canada and other developed countries which have revealed a silo approach to climate change governance and the isolation of public health from such structures as well as the lower prioritization of public health needs, and prominence of horizontal collaboration [ 26 , 27 , 123 ]. Other studies have also identified the influence of discourses and prominence of politics and vested interests on public health’s capacity [ 30 , 93 , 124 ]. Studies on stakeholder impacts have also linked stakeholder engagement to better evidence-informed policies, effective decision-making, successful uptake and acceptance of interventions, and better communication [ 36 , 58 , 60 , 125 ].…”

“…Yet, while governments engage in many climate change policy activities at various levels, these efforts are rarely coordinated with public health or embedded with public health needs [ 26 , 27 ]. Evidence also suggests that public health inclusion, framing, and engagement in the climate change discourse remains a challenge, accompanied by distinct context-specific barriers [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ].…”

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

“…The application of inadequate, outdated or geographically differing concepts, methods, approaches or paradigms (Andersen, 2017;Balbus et al, 2014;Workman et al, 2018), as well as lack of knowledge, quantification and monetization (Creutzig & He, 2009;Mendez, 2015;Rashidi et al, 2017;Rennkamp & Boulle, 2018;Ščasný et al, 2015) are also referred to as reasons for non-uptake of co-benefits in policy.…”

Aligning Ocean Plastic Pollution and Human Health a Co-benefits Approach

“…As such, the environmental literature is increasingly considering the impact of environmental issues on human health as a means to (i) provide scientific evidence that environment and health should be considered jointly and (ii) increase recognition for environment in the wider policy agenda. This is particularly true for climate change where the focus on the health impacts of climate change has arguably helped embed the climate change agenda in the wider public health research (Costello et al, 2009;Workman et al, 2018). For example, comprising a multidisciplinary consortium of researchers the Lancet Commission on Climate Change and Health (Watts et al, 2015) aims to provide specific recommendations to government to enhance climate action, and monitor, assess and report on progress of health in the climate change agenda (Workman et al, 2018).…”

“…This is particularly true for climate change where the focus on the health impacts of climate change has arguably helped embed the climate change agenda in the wider public health research (Costello et al, 2009;Workman et al, 2018). For example, comprising a multidisciplinary consortium of researchers the Lancet Commission on Climate Change and Health (Watts et al, 2015) aims to provide specific recommendations to government to enhance climate action, and monitor, assess and report on progress of health in the climate change agenda (Workman et al, 2018). From a co-benefit perspective, framing or at least aligning environmental policy with public health have been used in China as a means to reduce emissions [Holdaway, 2013;Green and Stern, 2107], while in the USA, health co-benefits are publicly communicated as a key selling point in the climate change debate in an attempt to pursue climate action despite the politically toxic nature of the climate change debate (Jacob, 2016).…”