Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33581069›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Planetary health2021

The public health implications of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study.

Ian Hamilton, Harry Kennard, Alice McGushin, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Gregor Kiesewetter, Melissa Lott, James Milner, Pallav Purohit, Peter Rafaj, Rohit Sharma and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Planetary health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Exploring nudging strategies for plant-based dietary choices in hospital patients: a quasi-experimental study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Health benefits of decarbonization and clean air policies in Beijing and China.Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site] · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Ian HamiltonUCL Energy Institute, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: i.hamilton@ucl.ac.uk.
Harry KennardUCL Energy Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Alice McGushinInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lena Höglund-IsakssonAir Quality and Greenhouse Gases Programme, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Gregor KiesewetterAir Quality and Greenhouse Gases Programme, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Melissa LottCenter on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
James MilnerCentre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Pallav PurohitAir Quality and Greenhouse Gases Programme, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Peter RafajAir Quality and Greenhouse Gases Programme, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Rohit SharmaCentre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marco SpringmannOxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
James WoodcockCentre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nick WattsInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205212/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 209387/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust 209734/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundnationally determined contributions (NDCs) serve to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement of staying "well below 2°C", which could also yield substantial health co-benefits in the process. However, existing NDC commitments are inadequate to achieve this goal. Placing health as a key focus of the NDCs could present an opportunity to increase ambition and realise health co-benefits. We modelled scenarios to analyse the health co-benefits of NDCs for the year 2040 for nine representative countries (ie, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, South Africa, the UK, and the USA) that were selected for their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and their global or regional influence.

methodsModelling the energy, food and agriculture, and transport sectors, and mortality related to risk factors of air pollution, diet, and physical activity, we analysed the health co-benefits of existing NDCs and related policies (ie, the current pathways scenario) for 2040 in nine countries around the world. We compared these health co-benefits with two alternative scenarios, one consistent with the goal of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (ie, the sustainable pathways scenario), and one in line with the sustainable pathways scenario, but also placing health as a central focus of the policies (ie, the health in all climate policies scenario).

findingsCompared with the current pathways scenario, the sustainable pathways scenario resulted in an annual reduction of 1·18 million air pollution-related deaths, 5·86 million diet-related deaths, and 1·15 million deaths due to physical inactivity, across the nine countries, by 2040. Adopting the more ambitious health in all climate policies scenario would result in a further reduction of 462 000 annual deaths attributable to air pollution, 572 000 annual deaths attributable to diet, and 943 000 annual deaths attributable to physical inactivity. These benefits were attributable to the mitigation of direct greenhouse gas emissions and the commensurate actions that reduce exposure to harmful pollutants, as well as improved diets and safe physical activity.

interpretationA greater consideration of health in the NDCs and climate change mitigation policies has the potential to yield considerable health benefits as well as achieve the "well below 2°C" commitment across a range of regional and economic contexts.

fundingThis work was in part funded through an unrestricted grant from the Wellcome Trust (award number 209734/Z/17/Z) and supported by an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant (grant number EP/R035288/1).

Indexed as

Climate ChangeModels, TheoreticalPublic HealthAir PollutantsAir PollutionDietEnvironmental PolicyGreenhouse GasesHumansInternational CooperationSustainable DevelopmentTransportationAir PollutantsGreenhouse Gases

Identifiers

PMID33581069
PMCPMC7887663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.