Integration of Multiple Climate Change Mitigation Actions and Health Co-Benefits: A Framework Using the Global Calculator

Our simulations suggest that-after accounting for demographic change-transition from fossil fuels to renewables and changes in agriculture, forestry, land use, and food production are key sectors for climate change mitigation. The role of interventions in other sectors, like carbon capture and storage (CCS) or nuclear power, is more modest. Our work also identifies mitigation actions that are likely to have large health co-benefits, including shifts to renewable energy and changes in land use as well as dietary and travel behaviors. In conclusion, some of the sectors/interventions which have been at the center of policy debate (e.g., CCS or nuclear power) are likely to be far less important than changes in areas such as dietary habits or forestry practices by 2050. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14906.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp14906
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Health Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.89

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Integration of Multiple Climate Change Mitigation Actions and Health Co-Benefits: A Framework Using the Global Calculator

Cathryn C. Tonne, Lorenzo Mangone, Rossella Alfano, Kristine Belesova et al.
6 citations
Environmental Health Perspectives
Climate Change and Health Impacts
1.89
article

Integration of Multiple Climate Change Mitigation Actions and Health Co-Benefits: A Framework Using the Global Calculator

Cathryn C. Tonne, Lorenzo Mangone, Rossella Alfano, Kristine Belesova, Alexandre Strapasson, Christopher Millett, Neil Jennings, Onesmus N. Mwabonje, Paolo Vineis, Jeremy Woods
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Our simulations suggest that-after accounting for demographic change-transition from fossil fuels to renewables and changes in agriculture, forestry, land use, and food production are key sectors for climate change mitigation. The role of interventions in other sectors, like carbon capture and storage (CCS) or nuclear power, is more modest. Our work also identifies mitigation actions that are likely to have large health co-benefits, including shifts to renewable energy and changes in land use as well as dietary and travel behaviors. In conclusion, some of the sectors/interventions which have been at the center of policy debate (e.g., CCS or nuclear power) are likely to be far less important than changes in areas such as dietary habits or forestry practices by 2050. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14906.

Environmental Health PerspectivesVol. 132(12)
Universidade de Brasília (BR), Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES), Imperial Valley College (US), Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ES), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT), Hasselt University (BE)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Imperial College London, European Commission, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme, Medical Research Council
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Climate Change and Health Impacts
1.89
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.