Health Care and Climate Justice: Assessing the Alignment of U.S. Health Care Policies with ICJ’s Recent Advisory Opinion

ICJ Climate Ruling: A landmark Moment in Climate Accountability

By DAVID INTROCASO

In late July the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its long-awaited adn highly-anticipated climate advisory opinion. The ICJ ruling represents an historic moment in climate accountability.

“Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change”

In a rare unanimous decision, the ICJ opinion concluded that “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is in part a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights including the right too life and the right to health. Consequently, the ICJ ruled states – including their private actors – are obligated to ensure the climate is protected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and can be held legally culpable by other harmed or unharmed states, groups and individuals for failing to protect the climate.

The 140-page opinion is the result of a 2023 UN resolution that requested the ICJ produce an advisory opinion answering two questions: what are states’ obligations under international law to ensure protecting the climate; and, what are the legal consequences for causing significant climate harm? In a failed attempt the US State Department opposed the resolution arguing the ICJ can only consider applicable climate treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and to the exclusion of other rules of international law.

In sum, the ICJ found states have substantive, urgent and enforceable obligations under UN climate treaties – and international laws – to prevent significant harm to the environment from GHG emissions that includes those resulting from fossil fuel use. The court broadly defined fossil fuel use as the adoption of laws,regulatory policies and programs that promote fossil fuel production and consumption via leases,licenses and subsidies.

States must act using “all means at their disposal” that includes adopting appropriate legal and regulatory measures, acquiring and analyzing scientific and technological data and risk and impact assessments, meeting a duty of cessation; and, acting in good faith that includes a duty to cooperate and collaborate internationally. The ruling also allows for legal action to protect future generations. The court rejected the argument attributing harm on a case-by-case basis is unachievable stating it is “scientifically possible” to determine each state’s current and historical emissions. Without naming the US, the ICJ affirmed states not party to UN treaties must still meet their equivalent responsibilities under international law. (Columbia’s Sabin Center Climate Change Law Blog has examined at length the ICJ opinion.)

US Healthcare’s Contribution to Anthropogenic Warming

Because the ICJ recognizes an inherent link between anthropogenic warming and human rights, the opinion implies the right to health cannot be secured without addressing US healthcare’s own climate obligations. Meeting these pose a significant challenge for the industry for several reasons.

US healthcare significantly contributes to anthropogenic warming. Per Northeastern Professor Matthew Eckelman, the industry accounts for over 9% of total US emissions, or 25% of global health care emissions. If US healthcare were a country,it would rank as the 13th largest emitter.

To what extent do current U.S. public health funding allocations prioritize climate resilience measures in vulnerable communities, as recommended by teh ICJ’s advisory opinion?

The ICJ’s landmark Advisory Opinion & Health Impacts

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s recent advisory opinion on climate change and human rights marks a pivotal moment. It unequivocally links nations’ obligations to protect human rights with their responsibility to prevent climate change. Critically, the opinion highlights the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable populations – a core tenet of climate justice. This directly translates to health inequities, exacerbating existing disparities and creating new ones. The ICJ’s stance necessitates a re-evaluation of how healthcare systems, particularly in high-emitting nations like the United States, address the health consequences of a warming planet. This article examines the alignment – or lack thereof – between current U.S. healthcare policies and the ICJ’s advisory opinion,focusing on environmental health,public health preparedness,and health equity.

U.S. Healthcare’s Current Climate Footprint: A Significant Contributor

The U.S.healthcare system is a substantial contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Estimates suggest it accounts for approximately 8.5% of the nation’s total emissions. This stems from several sources:

* Energy Consumption: Hospitals and healthcare facilities are energy-intensive, relying heavily on fossil fuels for electricity, heating, and cooling.

* Supply Chain: The production and transportation of medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and equipment generate significant emissions.

* Waste Management: Medical waste, including plastics and pharmaceuticals, contributes to landfill emissions and environmental pollution.

* Transportation: Patient and staff commutes, and also the transport of supplies, add to the carbon footprint.

This inherent environmental impact creates a paradox: a system designed to protect health is simultaneously harming the planet and, consequently, public health. addressing this requires a shift towards sustainable healthcare practices and a reduction in the sector’s overall carbon footprint.

Analyzing Alignment: Key policy areas & gaps

Several key areas of U.S. healthcare policy are relevant to the ICJ’s advisory opinion. Here’s an assessment of their alignment:

1.Public Health Funding & Climate Resilience

* Alignment: The CDC’s Climate & Health Program demonstrates some alignment, focusing on building resilience to climate-sensitive health threats like extreme heat, vector-borne diseases, and air pollution. Increased funding for climate adaptation in public health infrastructure is a positive step.

* Gaps: Funding remains insufficient to address the scale of the challenge. A more proactive approach is needed, focusing on preventing climate-related health impacts rather than solely responding to them. There’s a lack of dedicated funding streams specifically for climate-informed public health interventions at the state and local levels.

2. Health Equity & Vulnerable Populations

* Alignment: The Biden-Harris Administration’s emphasis on health equity aligns with the ICJ’s focus on disproportionate impacts. Initiatives aimed at addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) – factors like housing, food security, and transportation – are crucial.

* Gaps: Current policies often fail to adequately address the intersection of climate change and existing health inequities.For example, communities of color and low-income populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and lack access to quality healthcare. Environmental justice considerations need to be more explicitly integrated into healthcare policy.

3. Healthcare Infrastructure & Sustainability

* Alignment: The Inflation Reduction Act includes provisions for energy efficiency upgrades in healthcare facilities, offering financial incentives for adopting sustainable practices.

* Gaps: These incentives are frequently enough insufficient to drive widespread adoption of green technologies. A complete national strategy is needed to decarbonize the healthcare sector,including investments in renewable energy,waste reduction,and sustainable supply chains. Green hospital initiatives need to be scaled up nationally.

4.Medical Education & Workforce Training

* Alignment: A growing number of medical schools are incorporating climate change and environmental health into their curricula.

* Gaps: This integration remains inconsistent. Healthcare professionals need comprehensive training on the health impacts of climate change, climate-sensitive diseases, and strategies for promoting sustainable healthcare practices. There’s a need for interdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare providers, public health officials, and environmental scientists.

The Role of Health Professionals: Advocacy & Action

Healthcare professionals have a critical role to play in advancing climate justice. this includes:

* Advocacy: Lobbying for policies that address climate change and promote health equity.

* Clinical Practice: Educating patients about the health risks of climate change and promoting preventative measures.

* Institutional Change: Implementing sustainable practices within healthcare facilities.

* Research: Conducting research on the health impacts of climate change and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions.

Organizations like the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health are actively mobilizing healthcare professionals to advocate for climate action. Climate-conscious healthcare is no longer a niche concept; it’s a professional imperative.

Case Study: Hurricane Maria & Puerto Rico’s Health Crisis

The devastation caused by Hurricane Maria