About a decade ago, a group of climate scientists described. Called the (SSPs), these scenarios suggest how socioeconomic development could evolve in worlds with differing challenges to climate adaptation and mitigation.��

One SSP, “Sustainability,” envisions a collective shift toward green energy, reducing economic inequities and investments in research and development. Another, “Regional Rivalry,” paints a picture of a world riven by nationalism and fighting over resources. In that future, high levels of conflict stifle economic development. Rich countries see slower population growth, while birth rates increase in poorer nations.��

Scientists and policymakers use SSPs to project how today’s choices affect tomorrow’s world. But for complex subjects like public health, these intentionally simple scenarios don’t capture every complexity. Under the SSP “Fossil-Fueled Development,” for example, the world doubles down on fossil fuels, spurring rapid economic growth. That growth, according to the scenario, would spur investments in education and health. But at the same time, increased emissions would degrade the environment, exacerbating health risks.

That description leaves many public health questions unanswered: Would hospital systems be better prepared to handle the increased volume? Could more frequent heat waves lead people to spend more time inside, amplifying mental health burdens?��

Last year, a group of 63 experts in climate change and health met in Vienna to extend the SSPs to better reflect the dynamic nature of public health over the course of the century. Their expanded narratives, published , provide comprehensive visions of possible population health and health system development and explore how communities might better prepare for shifting future health risks.

, a UW doctoral student in environmental and occupational health sciences, attended the workshop and is lead author of the accompanying paper. UW News sat down with Green to talk about where previous climate scenarios fell short, the conference’s work and how we can better prepare to keep each other safe in an uncertain future.��

What are the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, and how do we use them?��

Carole Green: Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are a narrative framework that can be used in conjunction with pathways of greenhouse gas emissions to project future climate impacts to 2100. The SSPs are basically descriptions of the societal choices that affect the magnitude and pattern of interventions to protect human health and well-being.

The SSPs are essentially five possible alternatives for our future world. These pathways have been expanded to incorporate a wide range of issues of relevance for public health, and have been downscaled to describe what the future might look like in different countries and regions.

SSPs are featured in global processes like United Nations, where negotiators come from around the world to debate and agree on approaches to build resilience and sustainability to climate changes. The models help us understand how those choices interact and what the effects might be.��

We also use the SSPs in health research to understand the possible magnitude and geographic pattern of health impacts from climate change over the course of this century. Many projects at UW use future warming levels to analyze things like future wildfire impacts on Washington residents (research done by ����’s Climate Impacts Group).��

What do the SSPs leave out?��

CG: SSPs assume that humans will make socioeconomic changes in the future. The changes described in the pathways originally quantified GDP and population changes. Our work adds complexity, specifically to understand how the future of public health could evolve under these five pathways.

A lot of people are interested in heat waves, for example. Climate modeling alone can capture the planet’s warming, but doesn’t consider issues like how access to hospitals and healthcare could change by 2100. Current heat wave modeling looks at the climate interactions that shape health impacts but don’t explore how concurrent changes in society could interact with climate change to impact people’s well-being.��

Once you added complexity into the SSPs, what changed in your understanding of possible futures? Did you learn anything new or surprising?

CG: We learned that the drivers of health impacts are complex, and many are neither entirely good nor bad. Prioritizing sustainability, mitigation and adaptation will not necessarily lead to the best world for each future health outcome, but it definitely affects the future of health and well-being. Health futures we face globally are not predetermined. Different pathways could lead to vastly different health outcomes, with governance, health-system capacity, resources, equity, and cross-sectoral factors such as water and energy playing critical roles.

For example, under one of the scenarios, people don’t prioritize reducing greenhouse emissions, focusing instead on adapting to the changing climate. Strong investment in technology leads to quite a lot of wealth, which can benefit some health outcomes. But it’s not ideal, because people would also have to spend more time indoors because of the growing heat burden and would have to reduce connection to the outdoors and nature. You really don’t want to live in that scenario.

It’s very much a mix, which is challenging.��

Now that we have these fleshed-out scenarios, what does that allow us to do?��

CG: It allows us to have a more complex understanding of future health risks from climate change. Now we can add a layer of understanding and think about more variables than just warming levels and population numbers. It’s made of a lot of complexities that affect health, and those have their own effects.

In future climate scenarios, what does access to healthcare look like? What is the extent of food insecurity? How are we making sure people have access to clean air and water? When we have some understanding of those interactions, then it can motivate decision-makers to develop appropriate policies.��

What comes next?��

CG: We will apply these narratives to six different countries where there has been limited research using the SSPs. We’re working in Brazil, Senegal, South Africa, India, Vietnam and the Solomon Islands. We’ve started identifying key leads across these countries, where there is quite an appetite for this research. All countries are required to develop national health adaptation plans and to conduct vulnerability and adaptation assessments. They are also interested in modeling future health risks. We want to explore the extent to which the SSP narratives apply in their country’s context. Do they fit? How would they look different? There’s a lot of interest in building on local knowledge and bringing local experts together to talk about possible futures.��

We’re also quantifying specific disease burdens, universal healthcare access, water and sanitation infrastructure and digital health. Some quantifications will look at pairing SSPs with certain warming levels to project impacts.��

Last question: This group — including dozens of the world’s leading experts on climate and health — chose you to write the paper. How did that happen?��

CG: I am definitely not the leading expert in that room, so it was very much an honor to work on this and lead the writing. A lot of it comes from my advisor, , who is very supportive of me and my work. That’s been really meaningful. She encouraged me to take this on.

I often tell people that my job is to listen to experts and write down what they say. It was very meaningful to get to make those connections.��

For more information or to reach the researchers, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu. Other UW authors include , professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, of global health, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine; and , research associate professor of urban design and planning.

Source

Last month, a group of 175 researchers, including eight from the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý, co-authored published in Earth’s Future and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper provides a roadmap for future climate assessments in the U.S. by synthesizing the science and identifying research priorities based on existing gaps. “U.S. Climate Collection: Informing Assessment of Risks and Solutions” is the first article to appear in a launched by the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Many of the scientists who co-authored this commentary were invited to contribute to the sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA), slated for early 2028, but were then dismissed in April 2025 after the Trump Administration for the assessment. The fifth NCA was published in 2023.��

The federal government is legally required to produce a National Climate Assessment chronicling climate change every four years per the . These assessments track new and evolving risks related to climate change, as well as options for mitigation and adaptation. The national scope is key to ensuring that funding and policies represent a broad range of experiences and concerns. 

“International assessments are valuable, but they are not always tailored to the specific regions and issues that are important in the United States. National assessments fill that gap,” said , Washington state climatologist and a research scientist in the UW Climate Impacts Group.

The special collection is not intended to replace the NCA but rather compile research for other scientists, policymakers and members of the public to aid in decision making. The commentary kicks off the collection by identifying where research has advanced, and how risks have changed, in the years since the last assessment. 

“Our understanding of climate change and its impacts continues to evolve,” said , professor of global health, of environmental and occupational health sciences, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine. “Conducting regular climate assessments allows us to systematically evaluate that new evidence, incorporate it into our understanding of current circumstances, present it to stakeholders, and apply it to near-term decisions in our respective sectors.” 

UW News asked each of the UW contributors to elaborate on their role in authoring the commentary and how it connects to their research.

, research scientist, UW Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies: “I’m an oceanographer with intimate experience in federal research funding mechanisms and with a broad familiarity with ocean warming and CO2 uptake with associated acidification and feedback on marine ecosystems and fisheries. Initially I was appointed to coordinate among federal agencies, academics and policymakers, but that changed dramatically when the Trump administration eliminated NCA6. In the scramble I became more of an author, and an editor of the Ocean section. 

“Some of my research at the UW involves ocean model development in collaboration with NOAA. It was a natural fit to contribute to the discussions on ‘Simulations of ocean conditions’ and on ‘Innovations in ocean observation and data science.’”

, professor of urban and environmental planning “I led the urban team and the section on urban regions. Urban regions are central to climate assessments. They concentrate populations and human activities, contribute substantially to climate change, and shape how impacts propagate across neighborhoods, metropolitan systems, national supply chains, and global markets. They are also critical places to examine where mitigation and adaptation reinforce one another, where they create trade-offs, and how benefits, costs, and risks are distributed across communities. 

“Our section argues that future assessments must represent cities as complex dynamic systems. We call for comparative, long-term evaluation of urban mitigation and adaptation strategies. For nature-based solutions, that means testing performance under future climate conditions and assessing multiple functions, life-cycle costs, social and ecological outcomes, and trade-offs rather than simply measuring short-term, project-level benefits.”

Mauger: “I contributed to the Northwest section of the paper, based on my expertise in regional climate impacts and adaptation science, specifically around water and flooding. Our synthesis reflects many of the emerging issues I see in my work helping communities, tribes, agencies and others to understand and prepare for the effects of climate change. For example, we highlight new research on the effectiveness of resilience actions — as more communities take action on climate, I am seeing a greater need for research of this kind.”

, principal scientist, UW Climate Impacts Group: “I also contributed to the Northwest section of the paper. My work at UW aims to provide the science, tools and guidance needed by governments and communities as they respond to climate impacts and prepare for those to come. Most of this work is focused on the Northwest, with a heavy emphasis on ecosystems and natural resources. The Northwest section of the paper highlights many of the climate risks and adaptation advances and challenges my partners on the ground face every day.”

Hess: “The takeaways from the health section, which I helped draft, are that we need more information on health impacts from extreme weather and compound events, as well as information on the costs of these impacts. We also need more strategies for advancing adaptation in public health and health care systems; we need health care interventions to protect patients at particular risk; we need more information on nature-based solutions; and we need more information to help convey the health benefits of a clean energy transition. 

“The recommendations related to interventions and adaptation in the health sector are particularly relevant to my work at the UW, which is focused on climate change health impacts and opportunities for increasing resilience of the public health and health care systems. I research these issues and also provide leadership related to sustainability and climate resilience for UW Medicine.”

, professor of global health and of environmental and occupational health sciences: “I was an author on the Air Quality chapter that focused on how climate change could alter exposures to poor quality, from pollen to wildfire smoke to indoor and outdoor air quality. One of my areas of research at UW is quantifying the extent to which reducing greenhouse gas emissions could reduce morbidity and mortality from outdoor air pollution. The evidence is robust that the economic value of the health benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be of the same order of magnitude — if not larger — than the costs of reducing emissions. In other words, reducing greenhouse gas emissions would benefit Americans by decreasing hospitalizations and deaths.”

Other UW co-authors include , research scientist of environmental and forest sciences and Deputy Director of the Western Fire and Forest Resilience Collaborative and , affiliate professor of environmental and forest sciences. 

For more information, contact Alberti at malberti@uw.edu.

Source

UPDATE (Aug. 2, 2024): A previous version of this story misstated Paul Kinahan’s name.

Fifteen faculty members at the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý have been elected to the Washington State Academy of Sciences. They are among 36 scientists and educators from across the state . Selection recognizes the new members’ “outstanding record of scientific and technical achievement, and their willingness to work on behalf of the academy to bring the best available science to bear on issues within the state of Washington.”

Twelve UW faculty members were selected by current WSAS members. They are:

• , associate professor of epidemiology, of health systems and population health, and of child, family and population health nursing, who “possesses the rare combination of scientific rigor and courageous commitment to local community health. Identifying original ways to examine questions, and seeking out appropriate scientific methods to study those questions, allow her to translate research to collaborative community interventions with a direct impact on the health of communities.”
• , the Shauna C. Larson endowed chair in learning sciences, for “his work in the cultural basis of scientific research and learning, bringing rigor and light to multiculturalism in science and STEM education through STEM Teaching Tools and other programs.”
• , professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, “for her sustained commitment to community-engaged, science-driven practice and policy change related to the prevention of suicide and the promotion of mental health, with a focus on providing effective, sustainable and culturally appropriate care to people with serious mental illness.”
• , the David and Nancy Auth endowed professor in bioengineering, who has “charted new paths for 30-plus years. Her quest to deeply understand protein folding/unfolding and the link to amyloid diseases has propelled her to pioneer unique computational and experimental methods leading to the discovery and characterization of a new protein structure linked to toxicity early in amyloidogenesis.”
• , professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, of global health, and of emergency medicine, who is “a global and national leader at the intersection of climate change and health whose work has advanced our understanding of climate change health effects and has informed the design of preparedness and disaster response planning in Washington state, nationally and globally.”
• , professor of bioengineering and of radiology, who is “recognized for his contributions to the science and engineering of medical imaging systems and for leadership in national programs and professional and scientific societies advancing the capabilities of medical imaging.”
• , the Donald W. and Ruth Mary Close professor of electrical and computer engineering and faculty member in the UW Clean Energy Institute, who is “recognized for his distinguished research contributions to the design and operation of economical, reliable and environmentally sustainable power systems, and the development of influential educational materials used to train the next generation of power engineers.”
• , senior vice president and director of the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, the Joel D. Meyers endowed chair of clinical research and of vaccine and infectious disease at Fred Hutch, and UW professor of medicine, who is “is recognized for her seminal contributions to developing validated laboratory methods for interrogating cellular and humoral immune responses to HIV, TB and COVID-19 vaccines, which has led to the analysis of more than 100 vaccine and monoclonal antibody trials for nearly three decades, including evidence of T-cell immune responses as a correlate of vaccine protection.”
• , professor of political science and the Walker family professor for the arts and sciences, who is a specialist “in environmental politics, international political economy, and the politics of nonprofit organizations. He is widely recognized as a leader in the field of environmental politics, best known for his path-breaking research on the role firms and nongovernmental organizations can play in promoting more stringent regulatory standards.”
• , the Ballmer endowed dean of social work, for investigations of “how inequality, in its many forms, affects health, illness and quality of life. He has developed unique conceptual frameworks to investigate how race, ethnicity and immigration are associated with health and social outcomes.”
• , professor of chemistry, who is elected “for distinguished scientific and community contributions to advancing the field of electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy, which have transformed how researchers worldwide analyze data.”
• , professor of bioengineering and of ophthalmology, whose “pioneering work in biomedical optics, including the invention of optical microangiography and development of novel imaging technologies, has transformed clinical practice, significantly improving patient outcomes. Through his numerous publications, patents and clinical translations, his research has helped shape the field of biomedical optics.”

Three new UW members of the academy were selected by virtue of their previous election to one of the National Academies. They are:

• , professor of atmospheric and climate science, who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences “for contributions to research and expertise in atmospheric radiation and cloud processes, remote sensing, cloud/aerosol/radiation/climate interactions, stratospheric circulation and stratosphere-troposphere exchanges and coupling, and climate change.”
• , the Bartley Dobb professor for the study and prevention of violence in the Department of Epidemiology and a UW professor of pediatrics, who had been elected to the National Academy of Medicine “for being a national public health leader whose innovative and multidisciplinary research to integrate data across the health care system and criminal legal system has deepened our understanding of the risk and consequences of firearm-related harm and informed policies and programs to reduce its burden, especially among underserved communities and populations.”
• , division chief of general pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital and a UW professor of pediatrics, who had been elected to the National Academy of Medicine “for her leadership in advancing child health equity through scholarship in community-partnered design of innovative care models in pediatric primary care. Her work has transformed our understanding of how to deliver child preventive health care during the critical early childhood period to achieve equitable health outcomes and reduce disparities.”

In addition, Dr. , president and director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and of the Cancer Consortium — a partnership between the UW, Seattle Children’s Hospital and Fred Hutch — was elected to the academy for being “part of a research effort that found mutations in the cell-surface protein epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which plays an important role in helping lung cancer cells survive. Today, drugs that target EGFR can dramatically change outcomes for lung cancer patients by slowing the progression of the cancer.”

the Boeing-Egtvedt endowed professor and chair in aeronautics and astronautics, will join the board effective Sept. 30. Morgansen was elected to WSAS in 2021 “for significant advances in nonlinear methods for integrated sensing and control in engineered, bioinspired and biological flight systems,” and “for leadership in cross-disciplinary aerospace workforce development.” She is currently director of the Washington NASA Space Grant Consortium, co-director of the UW Space Policy and Research Center and chair of the AIAA Aerospace Department Chairs Association. She is also a member of the WSAS education committee.

“I am excited to serve on the WSAS board and work with WSAS members to leverage and grow WSAS’s impact by identifying new opportunities for WSAS to collaborate and partner with the state in addressing the state’s needs,” said Morgansen.

The new members to the Washington State Academy of Sciences will be formally inducted in September.

Source

Three current UW scientists were among the authors of the assessment, which summarizes climate change that has already occurred, and that is projected in coming decades. This fifth edition includes two new chapters, on economics and on social systems and justice.

, a professor of global health and of environmental and occupational health sciences, was an author on the chapter on . Ebi also co-authored the human health chapter of the fourth assessment, released in 2019, and was a contributing author to the same chapter in

“It is indisputable that climate change is harming human health and well-being, from exposure to extreme weather and climate events, changes in the geographic range and seasonality of infectious diseases, alterations in air quality, reductions in food- and water-security, and impacts on mental wellness,” Ebi said. “Historically marginalized and under-resourced communities face greater harms and exacerbations of health inequities. Future health risks could be reduced, but not eliminated, by strengthening health systems, implementing effective adaptation measures, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.”

Dr. , a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, of global health and of emergency medicine, was an author on the chapter. Hess was previously a lead author of the human health chapter in the third assessment.

“We have ample evidence that climate change is worsening air pollution — in part due to increasing wildfire smoke and pollen levels — and there are clear and worsening impacts on human health,” Hess said. “These impacts are felt most acutely in low-income communities and communities of color. But we also know that smart policies and coordinated action can simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and improve health for all, particularly the most impacted.”

, a research scientist at the Climate Impacts Group, was a co-author of the . She also contributed to a cross-cutting section , a new feature that centralizes critical information on key trends.

“The Fifth National Climate Assessment includes more information on response actions and emphasizes action at the state and local levels,” Raymond said. Since 2018, Raymond said, adaptation plans and actions at the city and state level have increased by about a third across the U.S.

Raymond also highlighted the increased focus on engagement in the assessment process, and special steps that have been taken to increase the accessibility of the assessment to wider audiences.

“The process included more opportunities for public engagement, and the fifth assessment includes some great new communication features — Spanish translation, a six-episode podcast series, 92 art pieces featured throughout the assessment and forthcoming regional webinars and workshops,” Raymond said.

also co-authored the Northwest chapter while she was affiliated with the UW Climate Impacts Group. Asinas is now at the Urban Ocean Project in Brooklyn, New York.

��

For more information, contact Ebi at krisebi@uw.edu, Hess at jjhess@uw.edu and Raymond at clrfire@uw.edu.

Source

Two years after that event — the deadliest weather-related disaster in state history — a collaborative effort led by two ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý teams, the Climate Impacts Group and the Center for Health and the Global Environment, or CHanGE, has drawn up recommendations for how people and groups across the state could prevent future heat-related illness and save lives.

“There’s a lot we can do, right now, to save lives in Washington,” said , interim director of the UW Climate Impacts Group. “This report is a call to action — it outlines the things that we know work. Extreme heat is a complicated governance challenge that requires coordination across levels of government, including many state agencies without a health mandate, and across the private and public sectors.”

“The report highlights the wealth of knowledge we already have about effective strategies,” said Dr. Jeremy Hess, director of CHanGE, who treated patients during the June 2021 event and helped develop a related risk-mapping tool. “We need to commit additional resources and build on early investments to protect the most vulnerable.”

The , led by the UW Climate Impacts Group and released June 20 in English and Spanish, points to solutions. There is no single fix, it argues — the best approach is a broad mix of strategies that address both short-term emergency response and long-term risk reduction. The report builds on a recent co-authored by Vogel that compared Washington’s heat dome experience against other regions that typically deal with heat. It found that many of the most common strategies, such as cooling centers, don’t work on their own. Some people might not recognize their risk, and others might lack transportation to cooling centers. Laws to protect outdoor workers, such as those recently passed in Washington, don’t work without enforcement.

The new report suggests a more comprehensive statewide strategy that could reduce illness and death during future heat events. Some of these general suggestions include:

• Providing air conditioners to low-income households, protecting tenants’ rights to install air conditioning window units, and revising building codes to require cooling in new construction
• Establishing volunteer networks to check on older or ill neighbors, those who live alone, and other high-risk residents
• Providing transportation to cooling centers
• Developing a portfolio of strategies, because redundancy is crucial
• Increasing enforcement of laws protecting outdoor workers, especially in the earliest and most dangerous days of extreme heat
• Locating toilets and shade structures close to outdoor workers, to encourage breaks
• In urban areas, increasing green roofs, tree cover and structures that provide shade

A full list of strategies is available in the , which was prepared with partners including Gonzaga University in Spokane, the Office of the Washington State Climatologist, the Washington State Department of Health and UW EarthLab.

CHanGE led development of a related, more specific heat and health tool that can help focus the report’s recommendations by tailoring them to a community’s specific risks. The (CHaRT) is interactive, which allows local decision-makers to better understand how climate, environmental, social and economic factors contribute to heat risk in their communities. Users can view the short- and long-term risk of dangerously high heat in their community and explore the various demographic, socioeconomic, geographic and medical factors that contribute to that risk.

The tool also provides guidance on how to account for a community’s specific needs, both in the short and long term. This information includes summaries of each intervention’s effectiveness, as well as expected costs and implementation timelines.

A community with many young children, for example, might consider opening splash parks and sending extra lifeguards to popular swimming spots when temperatures rise. Meanwhile, an urban community with little shade may opt to plant more trees with an eye toward long-term heat mitigation. Splash pads can be implemented quickly and have a local impact, while increasing tree canopy will take decades and can affect entire neighborhoods.

“There are two timeframes we’re trying to support action on,” said Hess, who is a professor of emergency medicine, of environmental and occupational health sciences and of global health at the UW’s School of Public Health. “One is a pretty short time frame, where you get a heat warning, it’s going to be hot seven to 10 days from now. What can you and your agencies do to prepare to support the community? How do you support the parts of the community that are most at risk?

“Then there’s the longer-term, multi-year time frame. That’s a completely different set of challenges. This tool allows for that planning on multiple time scales.”

For more information, contact Hess at jjhess@uw.edu and Vogel at jmvogel@uw.edu.

Source

Two ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý experts in climate change and health are lead authors of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The new report titled , published Monday morning, details in over three thousand pages a “dire warning” about the consequences of inaction on reducing the emissions that are causing our planet to warm and on implementing interventions to prepare for and effectively manage the dangerous impacts of climate change already occurring.

“This report is a dire warning about the consequences of inaction,” said Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC, in a . “It shows that climate change is a grave and mounting threat to our wellbeing and a healthy planet. Our actions today will shape how people adapt and nature responds to increasing climate risks.”

����’s , professor of global health and environmental and occupational health sciences in the School of Public Health, and Dr. , professor of emergency medicine at UW School of Medicine and of environmental and occupational health sciences and of global health in the School of Public Health, are lead authors on . Ebi is also a contributing author on the IPCC’s .

Below, the UW professors discuss these threats and the critical necessity of addressing them.

Professor Ebi’s comments:

People are suffering and dying right now from climate change, with the risks projected to increase without urgent and immediate investments in health systems to protect and promote population health. The people and nature we care about in our lives are being affected, with more severe impacts occurring sooner than projected just a few years ago.

The magnitude and pattern of future climate change impacts will depend on choices made in other sectors, such as urbanization plans, efforts to manage growing wildfire risks, and modifications to water systems to account for changing rainfall patterns, and on significant and urgent investments in our health systems.

There’s a long list of effective adaption options that can increase the resilience of our health systems and our health care infrastructure, as well as strengthen the capacity of communities to be better prepared to manage changing weather patterns. The major constraint for health is the insignificant investment in this area; catch-up investments are needed that at least keep pace with climate change.

Nearly all mitigation options have benefits for health. Benefits for our health arise from reducing exposure to harmful air pollutants from emissions from point sources like coal-fired power plants, reducing transportation that relies on internal combustion engines and increasing walking and biking, and changing dietary patterns to eat healthier diets.

The economic value of avoided hospitalizations and avoided premature deaths is of the same order of magnitude if not larger than the cost of implementing these mitigation policies. These policies will benefit the health of our families, friends and colleagues, with lower healthcare costs.

We can’t stop the next heat wave, but people don’t need to die. Not facing up to the risks just puts us in a much worse situation.

The future is in our hands. We may not be able to prevent flooding events or heat waves, but we can be prepared. The choices we make going forward will determine all of our futures.

Dr. Hess’ comments:

The chapter on health, well-being and the changing structure of communities is unprecedented in the breadth and depth of its assessment. And its findings are clear: Climate change is already posing significant and widespread burdens on health, through warming temperatures, extreme heat events, changing precipitation patterns and relative humidity, more frequent and severe storms, and wildfires.

More than half of the disease burden in the world is climate sensitive, and a wide range of diseases, from vector-borne and zoonotic infections, water- and food-borne diseases, injuries and a host of chronic noncommunicable diseases, are all affected.

The report highlights the clear risks to mental health, as well.

Estimates of future risks to health depend heavily on future greenhouse gas emissions, trends in socioeconomic development, rates of population increase, and patterns of aging and urbanization. Under high emissions scenarios, risks associated with heat, undernutrition, diarrheal diseases, and select vector-borne diseases will increase.

The report clearly highlights an overarching need for coordinated climate change adaptation across all sectors, including health, with emphasis on addressing social inequities and other underlying factors that drive vulnerability to climate change impacts.

In the health sector, this means investing in the climate resilience of health systems, increasing universal access to basic health care, developing heat action plans and other early warning systems, supporting efforts to reduce heat risk on the population level, enhancing surveillance for climate-sensitive conditions, controlling disease vectors and developing vaccines for vector-borne diseases, and reducing emissions from health care delivery.

Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions yield substantial health dividends that, in most cases, pay for the mitigation efforts themselves.

#

Ebi is the founding director and Hess is the director of the ����’s . Contributing UW authors for Chapter 7 of the IPCC report are , associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, and , assistant teaching professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, in the UW School of Public Health. Also,��, associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences in the UW School of Public Health, was a contributing author to of the full report.

Source

About twice each decade, the United Nations’ , or IPCC, looks at what is known about the science of climate change, the extent to which human activities are changing the Earth’s climate, and what risks these changes pose to human and natural systems. Organized into three working groups, each assessment is a years-long international effort that lays out the current understanding, projections for change over this century and options to manage the challenges ahead.

The most recent IPCC report, released in 2013, included from several ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý faculty members. Several UW faculty members also contributed to the fourth IPCC report, which in 2007 shared the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now four members of the UW community will be among the sixth assessment’s and review editors, announced in April by the Geneva-based organization. The document is expected to be completed in three years, and a synthesized version will be available in early 2022.

, assistant professor of Oceanography and of Atmospheric Sciences, is a lead author for Working Group 1, which assesses the physical science basis for a changing climate. He will work on the chapter for “Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity.”

, a scientist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and an affiliate faculty member in Oceanography, is also a review editor for Working Group 1, contributing to the chapter focused on carbon and other biogeochemical cycles.

, a professor of Global Health and of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, is a review editor for Working Group II, which focuses on climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Ebi will review the chapter on the “point of departure and key concepts” for the impacts of climate change.

Dr. , an associate professor of Emergency Medicine, of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences and of Global Health, is a lead author in that same working group. He will be a lead author for chapter 7, looking at “health, wellbeing and the changing structure of communities.”

More than 720 experts from 90 countries were selected as either coordinating lead authors, lead authors or review editors. They were chosen from 2,858 experts representing 105 countries.

“The Sixth Assessment Report will update our knowledge on climate change, its impacts and risks, and possible response options,” IPCC chair Hoesung Lee said in a . “These author teams, drawn from the hundreds of excellent nominations the IPCC was fortunate to receive, provide us with the necessary expertise across a range of disciplines to conduct the assessment.”

###

Source