Background: Automobile exhaust contains precursors to ozone and fine particulate matter (PM ≤ 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter; PM2.5), posing health risks. Dependency on car commuting also reduces physical fitness opportunities.Objective: In this study we sought to quantify benefits from reducing automobile usage for short urban and suburban trips.Methods: We simulated census-tract level changes in hourly pollutant concentrations from the elimination of automobile round trips ≤ 8 km in 11 metropolitan areas in the upper midwestern United States using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. Next, we estimated annual changes in health outcomes and monetary costs expected from pollution changes using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Benefits Mapping Analysis Program (BenMAP). In addition, we used the World Health Organization Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) to calculate benefits of increased physical activity if 50% of short trips were made by bicycle.Results: We estimate that, by eliminating these short automobile trips, annual average urban PM2.5 would decline by 0.1 µg/m3 and that summer ozone (O3) would increase slightly in cities but decline regionally, resulting in net health bene-fits of $4.94 billion/year [95% confidence interval (CI): $0.2 billion, $13.5 billion), with 25% of PM2.5 and most O3 bene-fits to populations outside metropolitan areas. Across the study region of approximately 31.3 million people and 37,000 total square miles, mortality would decline by approximately 1,295 deaths/year (95% CI: 912, 1,636) because of improved air quality and increased exercise. Making 50% of short trips by bicycle would yield savings of approximately $3.8 billion/year from avoided mortality and reduced health care costs (95% CI: $2.7 billion, $5.0 billion]. We estimate that the combined benefits of improved air quality and physical fitness would exceed $8 billion/year.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that significant health and economic benefits are possible if bicycling replaces short car trips. Less dependence on automobiles in urban areas would also improve health in downwind rural settings.

Background: Significant mitigation efforts beyond the Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs) coming out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are required to avoid warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Health co-benefits represent selected near term, positive consequences of climate policies that can offset mitigation costs in the short term before the beneficial impacts of those policies on the magnitude of climate change are evident. The diversity of approaches to modeling mitigation options and their health effects inhibits meta-analyses and syntheses of results useful in policy-making. Methods/Design: We evaluated the range of methods and choices in modeling health co-benefits of climate mitigation to identify opportunities for increased consistency and collaboration that could better inform policy-making. We reviewed studies quantifying the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation related to air quality, transportation, and diet published since the 2009 Lancet Commission ‘Managing the health effects of climate change’ through January 2017. We documented approaches, methods, scenarios, health-related exposures, and health outcomes. Results/Synthesis: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Air quality, transportation, and diet scenarios ranged from specific policy proposals to hypothetical scenarios, and from global recommendations to stakeholder-informed local guidance. Geographic and temporal scope as well as validity of scenarios determined policy relevance. More recent studies tended to use more sophisticated methods to address complexity in the relevant policy system. Discussion: Most studies indicated significant, nearer term, local ancillary health benefits providing impetus for policy uptake and net cost savings. However, studies were more suited to describing the interaction of climate policy and health and the magnitude of potential outcomes than to providing specific accurate estimates of health co-benefits. Modeling the health co-benefits of climate policy provides policy-relevant information when the scenarios are reasonable, relevant, and thorough, and the model adequately addresses complexity. Greater consistency in selected modeling choices across the health co-benefits of climate mitigation research would facilitate evaluation of mitigation options particularly as they apply to the NDCs and promote policy uptake.

Background: The accelerating accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere is changing global environmental conditions in unprecedented and potentially irreversible ways. Climate change poses a host of challenges to the health of populations through complex direct and indirect mechanisms. The direct effects include an increased frequency of heat waves, rising sea levels that threaten low-lying communities, anticipated extremes in the global hydrologic cycle (droughts, floods, and intense storms), and adverse effects on agricultural production and fisheries due to environmental stressors and changes in land use. Indirectly, climate change is anticipated to threaten health by worsening urban air pollution and increasing rates of infectious (particularly waterborne and vector-borne) disease transmission. Objective: To provide a state-of-the-science review on the health consequences of a changing climate. Findings: Environmental public health researchers have concluded that, on balance, adverse health outcomes will dominate under these changed climatic conditions. The number of pathways through which climate change can affect the health of populations makes this environmental health threat one of the largest and most formidable of the new century. Geographic location plays an influential role the potential for adverse health effects caused by climate change, and certain regions and populations are more vulnerable than others to expected health effects. Two kinds of strategies are available for responding to climate change: mitigation policies (which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation measures (relating to preparedness for anticipated impacts). Conclusions: To better understand and address the complex nature of health risks posed by climate change, interdisciplinary collaboration is critical. Efforts to move beyond our current reliance on fossil fuels to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources may offer some of the greatest health opportunities in more than a century and cobenefits beyond the health sector. Because the nations least responsible for climate change are most vulnerable to its effects, the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not merely technical, but also moral.

Greenhouse gases from human activities are causing climate change, creating risks for people around the globe. Behaviors involving transportation, diet, energy use, and purchasing drive greenhouse gas emissions, but are also related to health and well-being, providing opportunity for co-benefits. Replacing shorter automobile trips with walking or cycling, or eating plants rather than animals, for example, may increase personal health, while also reducing environmental impact. Mindfulness-based practices have been shown to enhance a variety of health outcomes, but have not been adapted towards environmental purposes. We designed the Mindful Climate Action (MCA) curriculum to help people improve their health while simultaneously lowering their carbon footprints. Combining mindfulness-based practices with the Stages of Change theory, the MCA program aims to: (1) improve personal health and well-being; (2) decrease energy use; (3) reduce automobile use; (4) increase active transport; (5) shift diet towards plant-based foods; and (6) reduce unnecessary purchasing. Mindfulness practices will foster attentional awareness, openness, and response flexibility, supporting positive behavior change. We plan to test MCA in a randomized controlled trial, with rigorous assessment of targeted outcomes. Our long-term goal is to refine and adapt the MCA program to a variety of audiences, in order to enhance public health and environmental sustainability.