By: Jennifer Wang, Coal, Health, and Climate Campaign Coordinator

Health was in the air during the flurry of activity surrounding the UN Climate Summit in New York in late September. Seeping into the heady throngs at the People’s Climate March, booming across a thematic discussion at the United Nations General Assembly, and billowing out of speeches and discussions at side events in Midtown, the connections between climate change and human health were resoundingly clear.

The bad news is getting worse: Released on the eve of the UN Summit, a new study from JAMA highlighted evidence from the past 20 years that climate change is associated with a wide range of adverse health outcomes, from heat stress to respiratory disorders to infectious diseases to depression. The urgency is palpable in a Lancet commentary published just days prior, asserting that when it comes to the health risks of climate change, the world must “act now or pay later”, and that the health burden of climate change falls mainly on those living in poverty. The moral compulsion to act was mirrored in comments by U.S. EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, just prior to the Summit: “The vulnerable are getting hit the hardest, and those of us with the wherewithal must stand up and speak for them.”

Meanwhile, solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are readily available, and nearly all have ancillary “co-benefits” to health: better diets, more active lifestyles, healthier air, greater food security, less stress, and improvements in health disparities. Beyond health co-benefits, climate solutions hold promise for technological innovation, job creation, resource conservation, and more. Finally, there is increasing evidence for a purely economic argument, likely to be the most potent fuel when it comes to political activation.

An illustrative example is literally in the air. Seven million premature deaths per year – with the vast majority in low- and middle-income countries – result from exposure to air pollution, according to the WHO. Many of these deaths are a by-product of myopic energy policies that favor fossil fuels.  A new report overseen by the world’s leading economists stresses that the costs associated with air pollution impacts likely exceed those of switching to lower-carbon energy sources, and that sound economic policy should include the costs of health damages when comparing energy options.

In light of the dollar signs and the moral imperative, are government leaders truly prepared to take meaningful action to curtail air pollution and other health threats instigated or exacerbated by a carbon-intensive economy? While there was no clear answer to be found in New York, there were signs that the winds are shifting. An analysis of “Who Promised What” at the UN Climate Summit signaled that climate is on the global agenda, with both developed and developing nations making non-trivial financial commitments to mitigation and adaptation.

As plumes of optimism rise from the demonstrations, talks, and meetings in New York, will they be picked up by the wind and magnified in the form of an ambitious climate treaty at the COP21 in Paris next December, or will they merely dissipate as hot air? Time will tell. And time is of the essence.