biden climate change

Flipping the climate debate from costs to benefits: Susan Anenberg

Focusing on the benefits—as opposed to costs—can change the way people view climate change mitigation and serve to motivate action.

The world's governments are gathering in Glasgow to work towards an international climate change agreement. The last 30 years since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change launched has seen a lot of ups and downs.


The U.S. has been a mercurial partner. National governments have argued over costs, responsibility, equity, and accountability. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that what the world decides to do on climate change has major implications for the health of people around the world.

Public health professionals, clinicians, and even prestigious medical journals have taken unprecedented action to raise awareness about the link between good health and a stable climate. The Lancet Countdown report highlighted that in a more unstable future of accelerating temperature rise, hospitals and emergency departments will likely see more patients affected by extreme heat, extreme weather events, infectious diseases, food insecurity and undernutrition. My own research has shown that climate change can worsen respiratory and cardiovascular health outcomes from wildfire smoke, wind-blown dust, and longer pollen seasons.

These climate-sensitive health effects are not some distant problem happening to someone else at some point far in the future. They affect our communities now.

By burning less fossil fuel, we can avoid these negative consequences, while also making our communities healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable. But advancing ambitious climate policy has been slow going. One reason is the perceived cost-benefit imbalance when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases.

On one hand, the costs of changing our system to burn less fossil fuels are considerable and immediate. On the other hand, the benefits of keeping global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, the agreed upon target for avoiding dangerous health consequences, are long-term and diffuse, playing out over decades and centuries. The climate effects are also global, with less tangible and observable effects locally. When faced with local and immediate mitigation costs and a mountain of local and immediate public needs, governmental action to reduce global, long-term climate change is a challenging prospect.

Focus on the benefit of climate change action

And yet, the societal improvements from burning less fossil fuel are not just limited to stopping climate change. By transitioning to more sustainable and healthful transportation, energy, agriculture, and industrial systems, we also benefit from clearer air, cleaner water, expanded natural environments for both recreation and ecosystem protection, increased physical activity, reduced congestion and noise, cost savings, green jobs, and a range of health improvements.

These additional benefits often outweigh the cost of action, making many carbon reducing initiatives free from a societal perspective. They also occur locally and relatively immediately where emissions are reduced. Focusing on the benefits—as opposed to costs—can change the way people view climate change mitigation and serve to motivate action.

I'm encouraged that governments are increasingly embracing this more holistic view of the societal benefits of greenhouse gas reductions. As of October 2021, 14 countries are expected to include short-lived climate pollutants, air pollutants that harm both health and the climate, in their Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement.

A number of cities, from Buenos Aires to Addis Ababa, have also begun to assess the air quality and health benefits of their Climate Action Plans.

Health consequences overlooked 

This year's meeting of climate negotiators will also ramp up this much needed focus on the climate-health connection. The World Health Organization is hosting a day-long conference on the topic. A Health Pavilion will feature a rich line-up of health-focused events. I'll be speaking at a side event on Arctic climate change about the need to shift away from fossil fuels.

Despite this progress, the environmental and health consequences of reducing fossil fuel burning are still often overlooked in decisions on whether and how to reduce greenhouse gases. Less than 20% of countries have assessed the health benefits of national climate mitigation policies, and even fewer have done so as part of their Paris Agreement commitments. In part due to continued subsidies for oil and gas production, our governments currently plan to produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels as would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C. Omitting these social, environmental, and health benefits frames fossil fuel-reducing actions as prohibitively costly and challenging to implement. In reality the societal benefits typically outweigh the costs and would be appealing to decision-makers as well as the general public alike.

As our governments meet in Glasgow to decide our fates, they should bear in mind that when it comes to climate policy, what is good for the global population in the future is also good for communities here and now.

These free, local, immediate, and persuasive benefits of burning less fossil fuel have the power to flip the climate action debate from costs to benefits and motivate the health-protective action we need.

Susan Anenberg, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Director of the Climate and Health Institute at the George Washington University.

Her views do not necessarily represent those of Environmental Health News, The Daily Climate, or publisher Environmental Health Sciences.

Banner photo: Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, US President Joe Biden and Camillla, Duchess of Cornwall, talk at a COP26 reception at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery. (Credit: COP26/flickr)

Stencil of an electric vehicle on a brick pavement.

EU shifts course on climate policy as deregulation accelerates

The European Union has begun scaling back major environmental protections under the Green Deal, sparking concern among campaigners who say the bloc is rapidly losing its climate leadership.

Ajit Niranjan reports for The Guardian.

Keep reading...Show less
Car tailpipe up close.

Republicans push to eliminate fines for carmakers that violate fuel economy rules

Senate Republicans are backing a proposal that would strip penalties from federal fuel economy standards, a move critics say could drive up gasoline use and tailpipe pollution.

Brad Plumer and Jack Ewing report for The New York Times.

Keep reading...Show less
View of the U.S. capitol building
Credit: Jacqui/Pixabay

Proposed tax rules risk choking U.S. clean energy projects over China supply links

A budget bill moving through Congress could block most U.S. clean energy projects from receiving tax credits if any part of their supply chain includes ties to China.

Dan Gearino reports for Inside Climate News.

Keep reading...Show less
Weight scales on an image of a smokestack.

EPA faces class action lawsuit over canceled environmental justice grants

A coalition of nonprofits, tribes, and local governments is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after it abruptly canceled $3 billion in environmental justice grants awarded under the Biden administration.

Tracy J. Wholf reports for CBS News.

Keep reading...Show less
Flooded river with bare trees in distance against a cloudy sky.

Vermont defends landmark climate law as Trump administration and oil industry sue

Vermont is preparing for a drawn-out legal fight after President Trump’s Justice Department joined fossil fuel interests in suing to block the state’s new Climate Superfund law, which seeks to make oil companies pay for decades of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nina Sablan reports for Inside Climate News.

Keep reading...Show less
Graphic image of two human heads facing away from one another.

New AI tool raises concerns over industry's ability to sow doubt on pollution research

A chemical-industry-backed researcher is using artificial intelligence to question links between pollution and health risks, prompting concern among scientists about bias and regulatory delay.

Dharna Noor reports for The Guardian.

Keep reading...Show less
a car that is sitting upside down on top of a pile of debris after a tornado.

FEMA delays and funding cuts leave state emergency programs in limbo

State and local emergency management agencies are facing growing uncertainty as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delays major grant programs and President Trump signals plans to dismantle the agency.

Jennifer Berry Hawes reports for ProPublica.

Keep reading...Show less
From our Newsroom
Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”

Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro speaks with the state flag and American flag behind him.

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations

silhouette of people holding hands by a lake at sunset

An open letter from EPA staff to the American public

“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”

wildfire retardants being sprayed by plane

New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants

“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.

Stay informed: sign up for The Daily Climate newsletter
Top news on climate impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered to your inbox week days.