Executive summary
Human health depends on planetary health, including a stable climate, and the necessary actions to stabilize our climate can have profound human health benefits. In recognition of the health harms of climate change and the health benefits of climate solutions, policy stakeholders are increasingly contemplating whether climate and health policy should be better integrated — and if so, how. This report synthesizes insights on these questions across six geographies, including Brazil, the Caribbean, Germany, Kenya, the U.K., and the U.S.
From January to July 2024, the research teams in each of these locations conducted between 21 to 65 in-depth interviews with stakeholders in their country or region working on national climate policy, health policy, the climate-health intersection, or related topics such as emergency response. In total, 225 interviews were conducted across the six locations. Participants included legislative staff, civil servants, think tank policy researchers, academic experts, industry consultants, and advocates (individuals and civil society organizations seeking to advance climate and health policy action). The research questions and design were collaboratively developed by the research teams, with additional insights from research participants and members of the Global Climate and Health Alliance.
Current status of climate and health policy
Participants generally reported that climate and health policy are not well integrated, although policy integration in Germany, Kenya, and the U.K. may be slightly more advanced than in Brazil, the Caribbean, and the U.S. Many participants said that climate and health are siloed in different parts of government, including legislative bodies, and felt that health perspectives are not adequately considered in climate policymaking. Even where climate and health policy are somewhat integrated, participants observed a lack of implementation and only superficial or implicit consideration. However, participants in all regions said that climate and health policy are trending towards greater integration. Signs of progress include climate-health integration in some (though not all) national policies, especially those related to air pollution and extreme weather; emerging collaborations through interagency/interministerial working groups; and an increase in relevant research evidence. Participants said these changes are driven by factors such as increased experience with climate disasters, supportive government leadership, and persistent advocacy.
Ideals for climate and health policy
Nearly all participants believed that climate and health policy should be better integrated. They argued that integrating climate and health policy would maximize potential co-benefits, avoid inadvertent duplication of work, avoid conflicting priorities, and boost support for climate policy. They also noted that certain challenges, such as infectious disease, could only be adequately addressed by considering climate in conjunction with health. Other policy areas in which participants from at least three different regions thought climate and health policy should be better integrated include agriculture, nutrition, and food security; climate adaptation and resilience; emergency preparedness and disaster response; housing and urban development; lowering emissions in healthcare; socio-economic justice; transportation; primary healthcare; water governance; and air pollution.
In terms of specific goals at the climate-health intersection, participants from several regions called for policies to provide funding for initiatives, pursue equity and justice for vulnerable populations, institute national indicators and/or targets, develop a national legal framework and/or strategy, increase the use of health and environmental impact assessments, and allocate incentives for climate- and health-protecting activities. Participants hoped that, overall, policymakers could align their decisions with systems approaches — such as ones that acknowledge the socio-economic determinants of human health and the interdependence of humans and animals — and place a stronger focus on harm prevention.
Barriers to advancing and integrating climate and health policy
Many participants commented on resource shortages, primarily lack of funding, accessible data, and skilled personnel. They attributed these scarcities to factors such as competing priorities, a lack of long-term planning, and silos between climate and health professional communities (both within and outside government). Other common barriers related to government structures include fragmentation of climate-health initiatives due to disconnected institutions, the disruptive effects of changes of administration, and bureaucracy and inefficiency in general. Participants also mentioned barriers related to policymaking, including low uptake of scientific evidence, slow pace of policymaking, lack of incentives for long-term planning, poor policy implementation, and the pervasive influence of fossil fuel interests. More broadly, they commented on adverse cultural factors, such as low public awareness of the health harms of climate change, low public support for climate-health policy, undervaluing of harm prevention, political polarization, and climate disinformation and denial. Furthermore, some participants explained that the complexity of climate and health challenges itself constituted a barrier to policymaking.
Opportunities to advance and integrate climate and health policy
Participants observed that elections, national and international policy deliberations, and the recent establishment of new government institutions such as Germany’s new public health agency could all present windows of opportunity for climate-health policymaking (though some participants commented that elections could result in unfavorable changes of administration). They also noted several favorable conditions, including growing international momentum for climate-health policy, rising public awareness of the health impacts of climate change, rising public support for climate and health solutions, increasing affordability of renewable energy, and a wealth of co-benefits that can be achieved (such as healthcare cost savings). They highlighted the growing availability of certain material resources, such as funding sources and technological advancements, as well as informational and conceptual resources such as data, model policies, and guiding frameworks. Additionally, participants singled out some actions as particularly feasible at the current moment, including incorporating a climate focus into national health policies and vice versa; introducing a joint climate-health focus into policy in areas such as agriculture, housing, and transportation; implementing existing policies; and enhancing education and outreach.
Strategies to advance and integrate climate and health policy
Participants recommended a broad range of strategies for integrating and advancing climate and health policy. Some of these strategies involved modifications to government structures, such as better coordinating climate-health policies and programs; improving collaboration across climate, health, and related government institutions; streamlining governance across sub-national, national, and international levels; and mainstreaming climate and health programs in existing institutions. They also shared recommendations for policymaking practices — most commonly, adopting a “climate in all policies” and “health in all policies” approach, increasing the use of scientific evidence, adapting and scaling up model policies, using participatory approaches like citizens’ councils and assemblies, including health experts in climate policymaking, and limiting the influence of vested interests. They cautioned against creating policies without measurable targets and enforcement mechanisms.
With respect to research and data use, participants recommended improving data accessibility, optimally leveraging existing data sources, taking an interdisciplinary approach, and prioritizing policy-relevant research such as the quantification of health harms and the evaluation of existing initiatives. On the other hand, some participants felt that more research is in fact not necessary because there is already enough evidence to act upon.
Participants’ recommendations for advocacy include expanding advocacy networks, mobilizing citizens, pressuring policymakers, cultivating climate and health champions, and remaining persistent despite obstacles. In terms of communication, their most prominent recommendations include enhancing dialogue between climate and health experts, framing climate change as a health issue, conveying health impacts in quantitative terms, connecting climate and health to extreme weather and other emergencies, discussing the economic costs of inaction and the economic benefits of action, using trusted messengers such as health professionals, tailoring communication to target audiences, using a positive frame, and highlighting win-wins. Participants from several countries emphasized the strategic value of educating government officials, health professionals, and climate professionals about climate-health intersections, as well as enhancing their technical skills. Finally, participants suggested increasing collaboration within and across sectors, including not just government but also industries, NGOs, and advocates.
Potential implications
Presidents, Prime Ministers, and their staff could play a leading role in modifying governmental structures to better support progress on climate and health policy. Participants proposed increasing collaboration across different parts of government, for instance through working groups, and noted that these collaborations should be coordinated through a central office. Political leaders could consider establishing such a central coordinating body, perhaps within an existing agency, ministry, or department. They could also consider developing national frameworks to aid in centralized coordination, such as legal and research frameworks. As a complementary strategy, political leaders could establish climate and health programs within each part of government. Educating civil servants across sectors about climate and health could help maintain policy momentum amid political administration changes. Political leaders could also help to further a climate-health agenda through national and international deliberations, such as the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties (UNFCCC COP), which may provide useful model policies and programs that could be adapted. Finally, candidates for political offices — incumbents and challengers — may be interested in the reported rise of public support for climate-health solutions, which could prove to be a valuable part of their platforms.
Members of Congress, Parliament, and other national legislative bodies could all play important roles in modifying government structures to better support progress on climate and health policy. According to many participants, conditions are becoming more favorable for climate-health legislation due to mounting public support and international momentum (though after the completion of the interviews, leadership has changed to less favorable administrations in the U.S. government and elsewhere). Additionally, some participants felt that integrating health into climate policy could boost support for climate policy. Participants believed that climate and health policy should be integrated in many domains, including not just agriculture, healthcare emissions reductions, and housing and urban development, but also transportation, sanitation, water governance, emergency preparedness, and other focal areas. Commonly mentioned policy goals that legislators could pursue include acquiring funding for climate-health initiatives, increasing health and environmental impact assessments, and enhancing equity and justice.
Civil servants could help advance and integrate national climate and health policies and programs by pursuing interagency/interministerial collaborations and by mainstreaming climate and health as a priority within their own institution. Participants pointed out that interagency/interministerial collaboration is necessary to ensure that climate-health initiatives in different parts of government are pursuing complementary, not redundant or conflicting goals. Educating civil servants about the topic should be beneficial — an effort that may be most effective if championed by civil servants themselves. Another idea is for government institutions to issue climate-health policy statements, which could simultaneously inform the public and solidify civil servants’ perception that climate and health is a priority for their institution. Participants also stressed the need to implement existing policies and make the most of available funding.
Health professionals and health organizations could play a more substantial role in climate policymaking and help inject stronger health considerations into climate policy. Participants encouraged health professionals to build relationships with climate professionals and claim a place in climate policymaking spaces. Health professionals are also highly trusted and impactful advocates for climate action, with both the public and policymakers. Recommended strategies for communicating about the health impacts of climate change include discussing them in quantitative terms, connecting them to related emergencies such as extreme weather and pandemics, and mentioning specific, local, tangible, and near-term health impacts. However, health professionals are often confronted with many other priorities and inadequate funding, so their capacity for engaging in climate and health policy work may be limited.
Climate professionals and climate organizations could deepen their understanding of the health dimensions of climate change, increase their engagement in health policy, and build relationships with health stakeholders. Framing climate change in terms of health could boost support for climate solutions; focusing on the climate-health intersection could maximize the health benefits of climate solutions; and coordinating with health stakeholders could help avoid duplicating each other’s initiatives. Climate stakeholders would benefit from inviting health professionals into climate spaces and enabling them to contribute in substantive ways.
Members of the research community can help provide evidence to inform climate and health policymaking. In addition to conducting new research, it is important to ensure that climate and health stakeholders are aware of, and can access, evidence relevant to their needs. Researchers can endeavor to build relationships with policymakers and other stakeholders, and further develop their communication skills to help promote awareness and application of existing evidence. Many participants pointed out the need to better quantify the health and health-economic harms of climate change, and the health and health-economic benefits of specific policy options. It is also important to ensure that policymakers and other stakeholders can access and understand existing data sources.
Citation
Ettinger, J., Fine, J., Gepp, S. Gordon-Strachan, G., Howarth, C., Mulwa, R., Prabhakaran, P., Rayner, T., Saraiva, A., van de Pas, R., Baltruks, D., Ghosh, S., Graham, J., Greaves, N., Jharia, I., Kigundu, K., Maharaj, S., McFarlane, S., Mirow, J., Murphy, M., Musembi, E., Nyukuri, E., Raju, B. J., Sievert, G., Smith, E., Vianna, D., Voss, M., Zimermann, P., Miller, J., Mildenberger, M., Leiserowitz, A., Kotcher, J., & Maibach, E. (2025). Advancing and integrating climate and health policies: Insights from six geographies. George Mason University. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZQ4XU
Funding Sources
We thank Wellcome Trust for funding this research.