Clean Energy Transition’s Missing Measure: Human Health

The global transition away from fossil fuels could deliver far more than climate benefits, according to a new correspondence in The Lancet. The authors argue that health must become a central measure of success in energy policy, rather than an indirect consequence discussed after decisions have already been made. Their message comes after the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, held earlier this year in Santa Marta, Colombia, where representatives from 57 countries met to discuss how to achieve a just, orderly, and equitable shift toward cleaner energy. Although the conference’s final report calls for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, the correspondence warns that it does not fully capture the scale of the health and economic gains that could result.

The letter was led by Robbie Parks, PhD, assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, together with researchers working across sustainability, climate action, public health, communications, and environmental science. They describe the energy transition as a “quintuple win”: healthier populations, stronger energy security, cleaner environments, more resilient and affordable health systems, and more effective climate mitigation. The authors’ argument is that these outcomes are not separate advantages competing for attention. They are interconnected effects of reducing dependence on coal, oil, and gas, whose extraction, processing, transportation, and combustion influence air quality, climate stability, infrastructure reliability, and the cost of maintaining healthy communities.

The most immediate health pathway involves air pollution. Burning fossil fuels releases fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ozone-forming chemicals, and other pollutants that can penetrate deep into the respiratory system or enter the bloodstream. These exposures are associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, stroke, lung cancer, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and premature death. Fossil fuel operations can also expose communities to pollutants before fuel is burned, including emissions from drilling, mining, refining, storage, and transport. A transition toward renewable electricity, energy efficiency, electrified transport, and cleaner industrial processes would reduce many of these exposure pathways. The health benefits would be especially important in neighborhoods located near power plants, refineries, highways, ports, mines, and other infrastructure that has historically placed pollution burdens on lower-income communities and marginalized populations.

The authors emphasize that the health case extends beyond pollution control. Climate change itself is a major health hazard, increasing the frequency and intensity of heat exposure, wildfire smoke, floods, droughts, food insecurity, infectious disease risks, and disruptions to medical care. Fossil fuel combustion is the primary driver of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while methane and other greenhouse gases released throughout the energy system contribute additional warming. By reducing these emissions, the transition can help limit the environmental conditions that strain human physiology and public health systems. Heat, for example, raises the risk of dehydration, kidney injury, cardiovascular stress, and heat stroke, while extreme weather can interrupt the operation of hospitals, damage water systems, and displace entire communities.

A faster shift to clean energy could also improve energy security, according to the correspondence. Fossil fuel supply chains are vulnerable to price shocks, geopolitical conflict, production interruptions, and infrastructure failures. In contrast, renewable energy systems can draw on locally available resources such as sunlight, wind, and flowing water, although they require careful planning, storage, transmission upgrades, and material supply chains. Distributed systems, including rooftop solar, community microgrids, and battery storage, may help critical facilities maintain electricity during emergencies. For hospitals and clinics, reliable power is essential for refrigeration, oxygen delivery, ventilation, digital records, diagnostic equipment, surgery, and the operation of intensive-care units. The authors therefore frame energy policy as a form of health-system preparedness, not merely as an environmental or economic decision.

The economic implications are equally important. Preventing illness can reduce medical spending, lost productivity, disability, and the financial pressure placed on households that must pay for treatment or care for sick family members. Cleaner air can lower demand for emergency services and reduce the number of chronic disease complications requiring long-term management. Climate mitigation can also prevent some of the escalating costs associated with disaster response, infrastructure repair, occupational heat exposure, crop losses, and climate-related migration. The authors argue that these returns should be systematically measured and included in transition planning. If policymakers evaluate clean-energy investments only through energy prices or carbon emissions, they may overlook a large portion of their real value to society.

To bring those benefits into policy, the researchers propose that national leaders convene broad dialogues examining both the harms caused by fossil fuels and the advantages of phasing them out. Such discussions would need to include health professionals, affected communities, workers, energy experts, economists, industry representatives, and policymakers. The objective would be to design transition strategies that improve health while protecting livelihoods and preventing new inequities. A just transition cannot rely on a single national average, the authors note in effect, because the costs and benefits of energy decisions are distributed unevenly. Workers and regions dependent on fossil fuel industries may need retraining, income support, economic diversification, and long-term investment, while communities exposed to pollution should have a meaningful role in deciding how remediation and redevelopment proceed.

The correspondence also calls for greater resources for the health community. Researchers and public-health agencies need the capacity to identify avoidable illness, estimate the health gains associated with cleaner energy, and calculate the economic value of those gains. This work can involve exposure assessment, atmospheric modeling, epidemiology, health-impact assessment, economic analysis, and community-based research. Technical tools such as integrated energy and health models can compare alternative policy pathways by linking emissions to pollutant concentrations, population exposure, disease outcomes, healthcare costs, and productivity. The authors argue that these analyses should be conducted at the local as well as national level, because health effects depend on factors including age, occupation, housing quality, access to care, baseline disease, and proximity to pollution sources.

Finally, the researchers say the health sector must rapidly build the skills and structures needed to translate evidence into policy and public communication. Health professionals are increasingly confronting misinformation, public-relations campaigns, and lobbying efforts funded by industries with a financial interest in delaying fossil fuel phase-out. The authors contend that scientific evidence alone may not be enough if it is not communicated in ways that connect with people’s daily experiences. Messages about asthma attacks, unsafe heat, contaminated air, interrupted electricity, rising medical costs, and the security of local water and food systems can make the consequences of energy policy more tangible. “We must make the case—to the public and policymakers at all levels—that phase-out prevents illness, saves lives, and helps stabilize the supply chains, electricity grids, water supplies, health-care infrastructure, and health workforce on which functioning health systems depend,” the authors write. They argue that placing health at the center of the transition could transform fossil fuel phase-out from a narrow climate objective into a shared project focused on survival, resilience, and public wellbeing.

News Publication Date: 19-Aug-2026

Web References: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(26)01538-2/fulltext; https://transitionawayconference.com/report

References: The Lancet. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01538-2