Climate change, health, and the US election
BMJ 2024; 387 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2183 (Published 10 October 2024) Cite this as: BMJ 2024;387:q2183
- John Kotcher, director of research1,
- Jeni Miller, executive director2,
- Matto Mildenberger, associate professor of political science3,
- Edward Maibach, director1
- 1Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
- 2Global Climate and Health Alliance, Berkeley, CA, USA
- 3University of California Santa Barbara, California, USA
- Correspondence to: J Kotcher jkotcher{at}gmu.edu
On 5 November US voters will head to the polls and make decisions that have far reaching consequences for climate change and health, at home and abroad. Climate change is a public health emergency1 that will disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.2 More than 200 medical journals have declared that it is the greatest threat to global health and requires an emergency response.3 The two major political parties in the US offer vastly different visions of how they would approach the problem. This comes at a time when the health risks of climate change and the health benefits of climate solutions are becoming increasingly clear.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is at the forefront of action to tackle climate change. Initiatives to achieve this would also improve a wide range of health outcomes. For example, decarbonising power generation by eliminating the use of fossil fuels and accelerating the transition to clean energy improves air and water quality, saves lives, and leads to lower rates of cardiovascular, respiratory, and other diseases.245 Transportation and urban planning policies that promote electric vehicles, public transport, and safe walking and cycling provide numerous benefits in the form of better air quality and increased physical activity.6
As one of the largest global contributors to greenhouse gases, the US has significant influence in international discussions about climate action. Negotiations between the US and China (another major emitter of greenhouse gases7) in 2014 were pivotal in building momentum for the Paris Agreement, the first global initiative to pursue ambitious climate goals.8 Conversely, the US withdrawal from this accord in 2017 stalled progress.9 When the US re-committed to the agreement in 2021, its credibility had been weakened, and other nations began to introduce loopholes in their commitments.10 Nearly a decade after the Paris Agreement was signed, national commitments on greenhouse gas emissions have failed to put the world on track to limit warming to 1.5-2°C.11
Contrasting approaches
The official Republican Party platform does not even mention climate change. Instead it signals an intention to increase the burning of fossil fuels, reduce regulations that limit emissions of harmful pollutants, and roll back climate policies established by the Biden administration.12 Furthermore, the Project 2025 report—written by former Trump administration officials and published by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation—offers a far more detailed, albeit unofficial window onto how Republican leadership would dismantle efforts to protect climate and health.13 Much of the report’s blueprint focuses on gutting or eliminating executive level programmes designed to promote clean energy or reduce heat trapping emissions and other harmful pollutants, as well as cutting other investments that would help make the US and other countries safer from and more resilient to the effects of climate change.
In contrast, the Democratic Party platform includes several actions to reduce climate pollution and improve health through substantial investments in clean power, tax incentives for electric vehicles and lower home energy use, and increased funding for public transportation and sustainable agriculture.14 Furthermore, improvements in air quality resulting from two pieces of legislation brought in by the Biden administration—the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—are predicted to save $20bn-$49bn (£15bn-£37bn) through reduced mortality]by 2030,1516 along with decreases in non-fatal illnesses, including 85 900 fewer asthma attacks, 3700 fewer heart attacks, 1700 fewer hospital admissions, and 350 700 fewer lost workdays.16
However, the Democrats also plan to increase oil and gas development in the US, which is already the world’s largest producer.1718 This is despite the International Energy Agency’s findings that no new fossil fuel projects can be developed if global warming is to be limited to 1.5°C.19 For the US to meet its global responsibilities and reclaim its status as a climate leader, this must change.
The Democratic plan also misses an important communication opportunity. Growing research suggests that discussing the health relevance of climate change can reduce political polarisation around the issue.2021 Indeed, surveys suggest that taking an affirmative stance on climate action can help candidates win votes: 62% of US registered voters say they prefer a candidate who supports climate action, including 90% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 27% of Republicans.22 Moreover, the plan treats climate change and health as separate policy domains, overlooking a connection that could foster more significant climate action.
The US—and the world—needs strong leadership to avert the worst effects of climate change and make our communities safer, healthier, and more secure. For the Republican Party that begins first and foremost with recognising the serious threat posed by climate change in its party platform and setting out policy plans to address it. The Democratic Party has taken great strides to address climate change but could vastly strengthen the benefits and effectiveness of its efforts by better integrating health into its approach.
Footnotes
Competing interests: The BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The authors declare no other interests. Further details of The BMJ policy on financial interests are here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.