A Lancet Planetary Health Review, co-authored by Professor Paul Behrens from our Future of Food programme, finds that widely used climate policy models overlook major impacts on people’s lives. The result is that prevention can be undervalued.
Are we counting people as well as carbon? A new Review in The Lancet Planetary Health, co-authored by Professor Paul Behrens of the Oxford Martin School’s Future of Food programme, maps how climate change affects human wellbeing and compares this evidence with what is represented in policy relevant climate and economy models. The gap is clear.
The authors report that many climate impacts on wellbeing are documented in the literature but appear only partially, or not at all, in the models that inform policy. Three areas stand out.
- Mental health. Hot nights and extreme events are linked to distress, poor sleep and increased demand for health services. In some settings there is evidence of higher risks of self harm. These effects are seldom captured in policy modelling.
- Labour productivity and occupational safety. Heat reduces output and raises accident risk in heat exposed jobs such as construction, logistics, kitchens and care. Only a handful of models include these pathways.
- Conflict and instability. Climate stress can raise risks of violence and displacement. Despite an emerging evidence base, these social stability impacts are largely absent from the tools used to guide decisions.
Why does this matter? Policymakers and institutions use models to weigh costs and benefits. If mental health pressures, lost work time and stability risks are left out, measures that protect people and services now can appear less cost effective than they really are. Including these impacts strengthens the case for practical actions such as cooler and better ventilated buildings, shaded streets and public spaces, heat safe work practices and clean air measures that deliver near term health gains alongside emissions cuts.
The Review sets out a broad wellbeing framework covering health, material living standards such as food, water and hygiene, work and leisure, education, safety and freedoms, social relations and culture, subjective wellbeing, environment and inequality. It assesses prominent environment, society and economy models against this evidence and calls for greater transparency about what is in scope and what is missing. The authors note that several impact areas are ready to be incorporated where evidence already exists, while other areas will require further quantification.
The question for decision makers is straightforward. If we put people’s health, safety and livelihoods into the calculator, which policies move to the front of the queue?