Key findings

Key findings suggest that the consideration of human health-related evidence and arguments facilitated the introduction of comparatively ambitious mitigation policies in the US. This was achieved by regulating greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants through an integrated approach, which enabled the Obama administration to highlight both the short-term and long-term health benefits mitigation efforts afford.

The policy-making process

Analysis of policy documents identified that the US government considers and analyses the anticipated economic effects of proposed standards and policies. This process involves an estimation of the economic and human benefits that result from mitigation measures. Quantitative and qualitative considerations of economic and human-based cost-benefits analysis resulted in a prioritisation of health benefits, with economic and environmental reasons taking a back seat.

The role of health in climate change mitigation policy

The consideration of health in the development of US climate change mitigation policies was integral under the Obama administration’s leadership (2009 – 2016). The US established carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel-powered plants, introduced to reduce carbon emissions by 32% by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. The regulation prioritised health because “the effects on human wellbeing form the basis of the rationale behind the plan”.

Stakeholders, including state and local governments, auto manufacturers, environmental organizations, and consumer groups, provided feedback to the policy-making process, with the US government prioritizing collaboration. A broad range of contributions from stakeholders resulted in the accommodation of affected industries and states.

Enablers and barriers to the consideration of health in mitigation policy

Various factors enabled the consideration of health in the development of US mitigation policies. Firstly, the clear recognition of the health impacts of climate change and health benefits that result from mitigation resulted in explicit messaging around the rationale for climate action. Secondly, collaborative work and communications with stakeholders facilitated the development of mitigation policies. Factors that impeded the consideration of health in the mitigation policy development process include political and industry opposition, which were predominantly pursued through executive and existing statutory authorities as no substantive climate legislation has passed through the US Congress since 2011.

Discussion

The report highlights the importance of political will in the pursuit of ambitious climate action, especially given today’s partisan positions on climate change. The introduction of the US’s increasingly ambitious mitigation policies in the face of strong political and industry opposition was achieved through the Obama-era administration’s integrated approach to regulating greenhouse gases and air pollutants. This resulted in an introduction of comparatively ambitious mitigation policies, presenting the US’s economy and citizens with benefits and opportunities as opposed to costs and burdens.

Recommendations

The report’s findings recommend that the US considers and analyses the human benefits and impacts of its proposed climate standards and policies. Policymakers should engage in transparent communications with stakeholders and the public to strengthen collaborative work. Additionally, policymakers should focus on the socioeconomic implications of implementing mitigation policies. Finally, prioritising human health’s consideration in the development of national climate change policies can facilitate the introduction of more ambitious mitigation policies.