Climate change and health: three grand challenges.

Climate change may be the greatest health threat of the twenty-first century, impacting lives both directly and indirectly, through undermining the environmental and social determinants of health. Rapid action to decarbonize economies and build resilience is justified on health, human rights, environmental and economic grounds. While the necessary health response is wide ranging, it can largely be encapsulated within three grand challenges: (i) promote actions that both reduce carbon emissions and improve health; (ii) build better, more climate-resilient and low-carbon health systems; and (iii) implement public health measures to protect from the range of climate risks to health. The health community can make a unique and powerful contribution, applying its trusted voice to climate leadership and advocacy, providing evidence for action, taking responsibility for climate resilience and decarbonization of healthcare systems, and guiding other sectors whose actions impact substantially on health, carbon emissions and climate resilience.

Mental health and the global climate crisis.

AIMS: Not only is nature essential for human existence, but many of its functions and contributions are irreplaceable. Studying the impact of these changes on individuals and communities, researchers and public health officials have largely focused on physical health. Our aim is to better understand how climate change also exacerbates many social and environmental risk factors for mental health and psychosocial problems, and can lead to emotional distress, the development of new mental health conditions and a worsening situation for people already living with these conditions. METHODS: We considered all possible direct and indirect pathways by which climate change can affect mental health. We built a framework which includes climate change-related hazards, climate change-related global environmental threats, social and environmental exposure pathways, and vulnerability factors and inequalities to derive possible mental health and psychosocial outcomes. RESULTS: We identified five approaches to address the mental health and psychosocial impacts of climate change which we suggest should be implemented with urgency: (1) integrate climate change considerations into policies and programmes for mental health, to better prepare for and respond to the climate crisis; (2) integrate mental health and psychosocial support within policies and programmes dealing with climate change and health; (3) build upon global commitments including the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction; (4) implement multisectoral and community-based approaches to reduce vulnerabilities and address the mental health and psychosocial impacts of climate change; and (5) address the large gaps that exist in funding both for mental health and for responding to the health impacts of climate change. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing evidence of the various mechanisms by which climate change is affecting mental health. Given the human impacts of climate change, mental health and psychosocial well-being need to be one of the main focuses of climate action. Therefore, countries need to dramatically accelerate their responses to climate change, including efforts to address its impacts on mental health and psychosocial well-being.

Infrastructure alone cannot ensure resilience to weather events in drinking water supplies.

Climate resilient water supplies are those that provide access to drinking water that is sustained through seasons and through extreme events, and where good water quality is also sustained. While surface and groundwater quality are widely understood to vary with rainfall, there is a gap in the evidence on the impact of weather and extremes in rainfall and temperature on drinking water quality, and the role of changes in water system management. A three-country (Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania) observational field study tracked 2353 households clustered around 685 water sources across seven different geographies over 14 months. Water quality (E. coli) data was modelled using GEE to account for clustering effects and repeated measures at households. All types of infrastructure were vulnerable to changes in weather, with differences varying between geographies; protected boreholes provided the greatest protection at the point of collection (PoC). Water quality at the point of use (PoU) was vulnerable to changes in weather, through changes in PoC water quality as well as changes in management behaviours, such as safe storage, treatment and cleaning. This is the first study to demonstrate the impact of rainfall and temperature extremes on water quality at the PoC, and the role that weather has on PoU water quality via management behaviours. Climate resilience for water supplies needs to consider the infrastructure as well as the management decisions that are taking place at a community and household level.

The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises.

TRANSLATIONS: For the Chinese, French, German, and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Towards Climate Resilient and Environmentally Sustainable Health Care Facilities.

The aim of building climate resilient and environmentally sustainable health care facilities is: (a) to enhance their capacity to protect and improve the health of their target communities in an unstable and changing climate; and (b) to empower them to optimize the use of resources and minimize the release of pollutants and waste into the environment. Such health care facilities contribute to high quality of care and accessibility of services and, by helping reduce facility costs, also ensure better affordability. They are an important component of universal health coverage. Action is needed in at least four areas which are fundamental requirements for providing safe and quality care: having adequate numbers of skilled human resources, with decent working conditions, empowered and informed to respond to these environmental challenges; sustainable and safe management of water, sanitation and health care waste; sustainable energy services; and appropriate infrastructure and technologies, including all the operations that allow for the efficient functioning of a health care facility. Importantly, this work contributes to promoting actions to ensure that health care facilities are constantly and increasingly strengthened and continue to be efficient and responsive to improve health and contribute to reducing inequities and vulnerability within their local settings. To this end, we propose a framework to respond to these challenges.

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.