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)

a row of flags in front of a building.
Credit: Mmoka/Unsplash

World climate talks resume without U.S. as global negotiators assess new path forward

The United States skipped a major round of United Nations climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany this week, leaving other nations and U.S. civil society groups to navigate the talks without the world's largest fossil fuel producer at the table.

Bob Berwyn reports for Inside Climate News.

Keep reading...Show less
Smoke billows from an industrial chimney at sunset near several homes.

Judge rules EPA overstepped in cutting pollution grants

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from canceling $600 million in environmental justice grants aimed at helping underserved communities reduce pollution.

Rachel Frazin reports forThe Hill.

In short:

  • The grants stem from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which set aside $3 billion for environmental justice programs.
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden had planned to distribute the $600 million through regional groups, which would fund local efforts, before the Trump EPA terminated the grants earlier this year.
  • Judge Adam Abelson ruled the EPA's cancellation exceeded its authority “precisely because they are ‘environmental justice’ programs."

Key quote:
The move included a “lack of any reasoned decision-making, or reasoned explanation.”

— Judge Adam Abelson, U.S. District Court

Why this matters:
Underserved communities often face the greatest environmental health risks and climate impacts. These grants were designed to help local groups respond to long-standing environmental harms and health risks, and canceling them would have cut off vital support just as cleanup efforts were beginning to gain traction. The Trump administration has also attempted to cancel a similar $20 billion program that would fund climate-friendly projects.

coffee mug near open folder with tax withholding paper.

Senate Republicans move to cut clean energy tax credits despite bipartisan benefits

Congressional Republicans are advancing a tax plan that would slash incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles, drawing criticism from advocates and some GOP members whose districts benefit from green investments.

Alexa St. John reports for The Associated Press.

Keep reading...Show less
A stream running through green forested hills.

Brazil moves to auction vast oil blocks despite climate and Indigenous concerns

Brazil is set to auction off oil and gas exploration rights in a massive offshore and Amazon region sale, prompting backlash from Indigenous groups and environmental advocates just months before it hosts the Cop30 climate summit.

Constance Malleret reports for The Guardian.

Keep reading...Show less
An image showing a downpour with a caution sign.

New research links stalled jet stream to rising summer weather extremes

The number of extreme summer weather events driven by trapped atmospheric waves has tripled since 1950 due to climate change, new research shows.

Seth Borenstein reports for The Associated Press.

Keep reading...Show less
Farm machinery helping harvest turnips.

How agribusiness lobbying boosts corporate control over food and climate policy

Industrial agriculture companies spent hundreds of millions lobbying Congress ahead of the stalled farm bill debate, further distancing everyday Americans from decisions shaping the nation’s food systems and climate future.

Brian Calvert reports for Civil Eats.

Keep reading...Show less
Steel mill under a cloudy sky.
Credit: Michi/Pixabay

Steelmaker retreats from clean energy plans as hydrogen costs and politics shift

Cleveland-Cliffs is scaling back plans to build the nation's first green steel plant in Ohio, pivoting away from hydrogen and back to fossil fuels as federal incentives face repeal and political winds change in Washington.

Alexander C. Kaufman reports for Canary Media.

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.