A triple dividend
The World Health Organization said on Wednesday that six proven climate and health measures could prevent nearly 1.6 million deaths a year and avoid 16.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The report was released a week before the COP31 climate summit opens in Antalya, Turkey.
The measures include heat-health warning systems, climate-resilient drinking water and sanitation, better hand hygiene, cleaner household cooking energy and more efficient pricing of fossil fuels.
The agency estimated the package could generate up to $5.4 trillion a year in fiscal benefits, plus nearly $4 trillion from avoided disasters, illness and health costs. It described the result as a triple dividend of healthier people, lower emissions and stronger economies.
Money well spent
For five of the measures, every dollar invested is estimated to return about $24.80 in benefits, with larger returns expected in low- and middle-income countries. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the climate crisis is a health crisis, and that much of the harm can be prevented with tools that already exist.
Heat is the clearest example. Warning systems that reach hospitals, schools and outdoor workers let cities open cooling centres and shift work hours before a dangerous spell arrives. Clean cooking stoves cut household air pollution, which remains a leading cause of respiratory illness in poor countries, and hand hygiene limits the spread of infections during floods and displacement.
Caveats and the COP31 test
The agency acknowledged that its projections rest on ambitious assumptions and that data gaps and uncertainty remain. The figures describe potential, not a forecast of what governments will do.
The report is part of a push to put health at the centre of the climate talks. Countries are due to discuss adaptation finance and the effects of extreme heat, and WHO wants health ministries at the table alongside environment ministries.
Whether the measures are funded is a political question. The agency's argument is that the spending pays for itself many times over, and that the countries with the least capacity to adapt stand to gain the most.