Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers

Andy Haines; Anthony J. McMichael; Kirk R. Smith; Ian Roberts; James Woodcock; Anil Markandya; Ben G. Armstrong; Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum; Alan D. Dangour; Michael Davies; Nigel Bruce; Cathryn Tonne; Mark Barrett; Paul Wilkinson

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1

Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers

Andy Haines, Anthony J. McMichael, Kirk R. Smith, Ian Roberts, James Woodcock, Anil Markandya, Ben G. Armstrong, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Alan D. Dangour, Michael Davies, Nigel Bruce, Cathryn Tonne, Mark Barrett, Paul Wilkinson

Department of Economics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

454 Citations (SciVal)

Abstract

This Series has examined the health implications of policies aimed at tackling climate change. Assessments of mitigation strategies in four domains-household energy, transport, food and agriculture, and electricity generation-suggest an important message: that actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions often, although not always, entail net benefits for health. In some cases, the potential benefits seem to be substantial. This evidence provides an additional and immediate rationale for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions beyond that of climate change mitigation alone. Climate change is an increasing and evolving threat to the health of populations worldwide. At the same time, major public health burdens remain in many regions. Climate change therefore adds further urgency to the task of addressing international health priorities, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibility of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	2104-2114
Number of pages	11
Journal	The Lancet
Volume	374
Issue number	9707
Early online date	26 Nov 2009
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1
Publication status	Published - 19 Dec 2009

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The project that led to this Series was funded by the Wellcome Trust (coordinating funder); Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research; the Royal College of Physicians; the Academy of Medical Sciences; the Economic and Social Research Council; the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and WHO. The Royal College of Physicians was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer. The funders had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the study. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding bodies or the US Health Effects Institute or its sponsors.

Copyright:
Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Funding

The project that led to this Series was funded by the Wellcome Trust (coordinating funder); Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research; the Royal College of Physicians; the Academy of Medical Sciences; the Economic and Social Research Council; the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and WHO. The Royal College of Physicians was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer. The funders had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the study. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding bodies or the US Health Effects Institute or its sponsors.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Medicine

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1

Cite this

Haines, A., McMichael, A. J., Smith, K. R., Roberts, I., Woodcock, J., Markandya, A., Armstrong, B. G., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Dangour, A. D., Davies, M., Bruce, N., Tonne, C., Barrett, M., & Wilkinson, P. (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers. The Lancet, 374(9707), 2104-2114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1

Haines, A, McMichael, AJ, Smith, KR, Roberts, I, Woodcock, J, Markandya, A, Armstrong, BG, Campbell-Lendrum, D, Dangour, AD, Davies, M, Bruce, N, Tonne, C, Barrett, M & Wilkinson, P 2009, 'Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers', The Lancet, vol. 374, no. 9707, pp. 2104-2114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1

@article{3e084bb4dbc741428c1a5b7bf0247a16,

title = "Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers",

abstract = "This Series has examined the health implications of policies aimed at tackling climate change. Assessments of mitigation strategies in four domains-household energy, transport, food and agriculture, and electricity generation-suggest an important message: that actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions often, although not always, entail net benefits for health. In some cases, the potential benefits seem to be substantial. This evidence provides an additional and immediate rationale for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions beyond that of climate change mitigation alone. Climate change is an increasing and evolving threat to the health of populations worldwide. At the same time, major public health burdens remain in many regions. Climate change therefore adds further urgency to the task of addressing international health priorities, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibility of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.",

author = "Andy Haines and McMichael, {Anthony J.} and Smith, {Kirk R.} and Ian Roberts and James Woodcock and Anil Markandya and Armstrong, {Ben G.} and Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Dangour, {Alan D.} and Michael Davies and Nigel Bruce and Cathryn Tonne and Mark Barrett and Paul Wilkinson",

note = "Funding Information: The project that led to this Series was funded by the Wellcome Trust (coordinating funder); Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research; the Royal College of Physicians; the Academy of Medical Sciences; the Economic and Social Research Council; the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and WHO. The Royal College of Physicians was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer. The funders had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the study. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding bodies or the US Health Effects Institute or its sponsors. Copyright: Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "2009",

month = dec,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1",

language = "English",

volume = "374",

pages = "2104--2114",

journal = "The Lancet",

issn = "0140-6736",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

number = "9707",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions

T2 - overview and implications for policy makers

AU - Haines, Andy

AU - McMichael, Anthony J.

AU - Smith, Kirk R.

AU - Roberts, Ian

AU - Woodcock, James

AU - Markandya, Anil

AU - Armstrong, Ben G.

AU - Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid

AU - Dangour, Alan D.

AU - Davies, Michael

AU - Bruce, Nigel

AU - Tonne, Cathryn

AU - Barrett, Mark

AU - Wilkinson, Paul

N1 - Funding Information: The project that led to this Series was funded by the Wellcome Trust (coordinating funder); Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research; the Royal College of Physicians; the Academy of Medical Sciences; the Economic and Social Research Council; the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and WHO. The Royal College of Physicians was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer. The funders had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the study. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding bodies or the US Health Effects Institute or its sponsors. Copyright: Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2009/12/19

Y1 - 2009/12/19

N2 - This Series has examined the health implications of policies aimed at tackling climate change. Assessments of mitigation strategies in four domains-household energy, transport, food and agriculture, and electricity generation-suggest an important message: that actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions often, although not always, entail net benefits for health. In some cases, the potential benefits seem to be substantial. This evidence provides an additional and immediate rationale for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions beyond that of climate change mitigation alone. Climate change is an increasing and evolving threat to the health of populations worldwide. At the same time, major public health burdens remain in many regions. Climate change therefore adds further urgency to the task of addressing international health priorities, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibility of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.

AB - This Series has examined the health implications of policies aimed at tackling climate change. Assessments of mitigation strategies in four domains-household energy, transport, food and agriculture, and electricity generation-suggest an important message: that actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions often, although not always, entail net benefits for health. In some cases, the potential benefits seem to be substantial. This evidence provides an additional and immediate rationale for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions beyond that of climate change mitigation alone. Climate change is an increasing and evolving threat to the health of populations worldwide. At the same time, major public health burdens remain in many regions. Climate change therefore adds further urgency to the task of addressing international health priorities, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibility of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=72049108387&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1

M3 - Review article

C2 - 19942281

AN - SCOPUS:72049108387

SN - 0140-6736

VL - 374

SP - 2104

EP - 2114

JO - The Lancet

JF - The Lancet

IS - 9707

ER -

Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this