The health community must build on commitments from COP28 to deliver healthy outcomes for all.

Continued engagement by the health community is needed to ensure climate action is commensurate with the scale of the threat, argue these author

Accountability for carbon emissions and health equity.

A new database of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can improve the accountability of climate change mitigation actions, while promoting human health and equity, supporting a just transition to a net zero emission future and reducing the risks of climate change. Climate TRACE uses data from 300 satellites and more than 11,100 air-, land- and sea-based sensors, together with other commercial and public sources to map sources of greenhouse gas emissions

Bridging the evidence gap to achieve a healthy, net zero future.

The urgent challenge of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest presents an opportunity to drive transformative changes in all sectors of society. Well designed actions to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could bring major benefits for health, by both reducing the health risks of climate change and delivering multiple benefits to human health and development (co-benefits). Modelling studies estimate that many millions of premature deaths could be prevented and GHG emissions greatly reduced by phasing out fossil fuels, thereby reducing air pollution, and by encouraging active travel, increasing use of public transport, and shifting to sustainable and healthy diets. Further benefits could accrue from efficient, well ventilated housing and from efforts to develop net zero health-care systems. There is also great potential to achieve health and climate benefits from nature-based solutions, including green space in cities, reforestation, and reduced deforestation and agroforestry. However, these potential benefits will only be realised by addressing key barriers and challenges

Search strategy for "Quantifying the effectiveness and health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions across sectors: a protocol for an umbrella review"

The search strategy was constructed for an umbrella review of systematic reviews, synthesising modelled and empirical evidence on such actions on climate change mitigation and health across all sectors and disciplines. The umbrella review is undertaken as a part of the Pathfinder Initiative (https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/centres-projects-groups/pathfinder-initiative

Sea Level Rise and City-Level Climate Action.

BACKGROUND: Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Rising sea levels are one particularly concerning manifestation of this and many of the world’s largest cities are vulnerable to sea level rise (SLR). Thus, urban climate adaptation and mitigation policies are increasingly important to protect population health. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether being at risk of SLR was associated with city-level climate action. It also aimed to assess the wider drivers of climate action in cities, in order to guide ongoing efforts to motivate climate action, assess public health preparedness and identify research gaps. METHODS: This is an ecological cross-sectional study using secondary data from CDP, the Urban Climate Change Research Network (UCCRN), World Bank, United Nations Cities and EM-DAT (Emergency Events Database). The study population consisted of 517 cities who participated in CDP’s 2019 Cities Survey. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to assess the relationship between risk of SLR and city-level climate action, and secondly, to assess the wider determinants of city-level climate action. RESULTS: There was evidence of crude associations between risk of SLR and three outcome variables representing city-level climate action. However, after adjusting for confounding variables, these crude associations disappeared. World region, national income status and urban population were shown to be stronger predictors of city-level climate action. CONCLUSION: It is concerning for population health that there is no association demonstrated between risk of SLR and climate action. This could indicate a lack of awareness of the risks posed by SLR within urban governance. To fulfil their health protection responsibilities, it is essential that public health professionals take a leading role in advocating for climate action

Population declines among Canadian vertebrates: But data of different quality show diverging trends

We produced a biodiversity indicator, the Canadian Species Index (CSI), by gathering abundance data for Canadian vertebrate populations and adapting the Living Planet Index methodology. The final indicator incorporates over 3000 abundance time series and contains data for more than 50% of Canadian native vertebrate species. Species abundance declined by an average 10% between 1970 and 2014, with trends varying across taxonomic groups. To facilitate the interpretation of the indicator and contribute to the transparency of the reporting process, here we present a discussion of the indicator’s coverage, data quality and data gaps. Using data collected for other purposes means the dataset inherits the biases in biodiversity monitoring. We therefore assessed taxonomic and geographic coverage of the data underlying the indicator to highlight which areas and groups are under-represented. Birds are comprehensively monitored across Canada and are considered good indicators of the state of the environment. Other taxonomic groups are less well monitored, and the data available for these groups often consist of shorter and less full time series, representing smaller segments of the national population. A disaggregation based on data quality appears to show that trends based on species with lower quality data are more negative than for species with higher quality data. We discuss possible sources of the difference, including the relationship between taxon and data quality. Additional data collection on species contributing to the lower-quality subsets is needed to confirm negative trends

A systematic review protocol for identifying the effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation interventions for health care systems in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Climate change is predicted to be our century's most significant health threat. In 2021, 46 countries committed to environmentally sustainable low carbon health care systems. Of those, 34 were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).  Currently, health systems are responsible for 4.4% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with health systems in high-income countries (HICs) contributing the largest proportion to the sector's GHG emissions. However, future increases are predicted in LMICs in the absence of robust GHG mitigation. This systematic review aims to identify evidence-based GHG mitigation interventions to guide the transformation of health care systems towards net zero, specifically in LMICs. Additionally, potential synergies between interventions that aid adaption to climate change and mitigate GHG emissions will be investigated. Methods: This protocol will follow the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist of recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol'. A comprehensive search will be conducted on electronic databases identified as relevant. Search terms were identified to capture all relevant peer-reviewed, primary research published between 1990 and 2022. The risk of bias will be assessed, and the quality of evidence graded. The eventual narrative synthesis will feed into a theory of change framework on GHG mitigation of health care systems in LMICs. Discussion: This systematic review will synthesise the existing evidence around GHG mitigation interventions across all scopes of emissions, including scope 1 (health care operations), scope 2 (energy), and scope 3 (supply chains). It can be used to inform recommendations on how health care systems in LMICs can reduce emissions while prioritising which actions to take to gain the most significant reductions in GHG emissions, considering ease of implementation, scope and cost. Finally, this can catalyse further research in this area which is urgently needed.</ns4:p

A protocol for analysing the effects on health and greenhouse gas emissions of implemented climate change mitigation actions

Background: It is crucial to understand the benefits to human health from decarbonisation to galvanise action among decision makers. Most of our existing evidence comes from modelling studies and little is known about the extent to which the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions are realised upon implementation. We aim to analyse evidence from mitigation actions that have been implemented across a range of sectors and scales, to identify those that can improve and sustain health, while accelerating progress towards a zero-carbon economy. Objectives: To understand the implementation process of actions and the role of key actors; explain the contextual elements influencing these actions; summarise what effects, both positive and negative, planned and unplanned they may have on emissions of greenhouse gases and health; and to summarise environmental, social, or economic co-benefits. Data: We will review evidence collected through partnership with existing data holders and an open call for evidence. We will also conduct a hand search of reference lists from systematic reviews and websites of organisations relevant to climate change mitigation. Screening: Screening will be done by two reviewers according to a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis: We will identify gaps where implementation or evaluation of implementation of mitigation actions is lacking. We will synthesise the findings to describe how actions were implemented and how they achieved results in different contexts, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to their design, implementation, and uptake. We will also synthesise their effect on health outcomes and other co-benefits. Quantitative synthesis will depend on the heterogeneity of outcomes and metrics. Conclusions: Findings will be used to identify lessons that can be learned from successful and unsuccessful mitigation actions, to make inferences on replicability, scalability, and transferability and will contribute to the development of frameworks that can be used by policy makers.</ns3:p

Carbon pricing, health co-benefits and trade-offs: protocol for a systematic framework synthesis

Carbon pricing is considered an important instrument in the fight against climate change (World Bank, 2022). In particular, many experts and stakeholders have called for the implementation of carbon pricing as a part of ambitious climate policy agendas (Hepburn et al., 2020). This requires consideration of the interactions of carbon pricing with other policies, as well as of the societal outcomes of carbon pricing. In particular, carbon pricing has been found to have potentially large health impacts, leading to important co-benefits as well as potentially some trade-offs (Parry et al., 2014), (Hasegawa et al., 2018). Information on health impacts of carbon pricing, their distribution and how they are affected by policy design is necessary in order to progress towards more socially sustainable and politically feasible policy design. Recent reviews have focussed on various aspects of carbon pricing design and outcomes, synthesizing evidence on its effectiveness, equity impacts or societal perception (Boyce, 2018), (Green, 2021), (Maestre-Andrés et al., 2019). Others have reviewed the evidence on health co-benefits of mitigation, but do not analyse specific policies or issues of policy design Gao et al.(2018). This review will narratively synthesize the evidence on the health impacts of carbon pricing between 2010 and 2021 and identify gaps in the literature. We will use a framework synthesis approach to analyse different categories of policy-relevant information in contexts where carbon pricing is implemented as part of wider, coordinated policy agendas or complex policy mixes. This includes for example impacts on health inequalities and how health co-benefits are affected by issues of policy design and policy interactions.</ns4:p