Climate change is bad for health. What can be done?

By Claudia von Hammerstein and Pradeep Kakkattil

Almost a decade ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) called climate change “the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.” And in 2017, then WHO director-general Margaret Chan argued that the world needs “to act decisively to change this trajectory.”  

That hasn’t happened (see chart). This lapse is likely to affect poorer countries and vulnerable individuals most of all: they are more exposed to climate hazards such as extreme heat and natural disasters, while at the same time facing more demands on resources, both at the individual and societal level. These can include factors such as age, disability, or lower income that can make it more difficult to evacuate or find shelter. And this is not just a matter for the distant future: heat-related mortality for people over 65 rose 85 percent from 2000-21. 

Innovation and adaptation will be critical to addressing these challenges. Different countries will of course take different approaches, depending on their unique problems, resources, and capabilities. That said, the McKinsey Health Institute working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) , Health Innovation Exchange - HIEx , and FIOCRUZ - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz , has identified a number of high-potential areas that are relevant globally and that are of particular relevance to lower- and middle-income countries. 

For a start, preparation is always a good idea—and almost always a cost-effective one. With extreme weather events occurring more often, investing in early warning and response systems is likely to be a no-regrets move. This is beginning to happen, particularly in regard to infectious diseases. Satellites are providing ever more detailed real-time flood monitoring and forecasting.  

But there are gaps, particularly in poor and middle-income countries, in the analysis and deployment of solutions that link climate, health, and social data to decisions on the ground. In 2021, WHO estimated that only a third of 95 surveyed countries have climate-informed early warning systems for heat-related illness; even fewer monitored injury and mortality from extreme climate events (30 percent).  

As artificial intelligence (AI) develops, getting and using this information will become cheaper and faster; there will also be ways to use it creatively. For example, it may be possible to link weather data to hospital admittance records to better understand heat impacts. One interesting initiative to keep an eye comes from the Malaysia-based Mobiva Citizen Ecosystem. Not only is Mobiva crowd-sourcing the mapping of hazards, it is also using AI to predict emergencies and develop responses tailored to the local needs and resources.  

With such information as a foundation, it is possible to make sound decisions on what products and technologies to invest in to reduce the health effects of climate change. One priority is to develop ways to address diseases, such as malaria and dengue, that will be exacerbated by higher temperatures. A recent study found that almost 60 percent of infectious diseases are likely to get worse due to climate hazards. It is also critical to deliver treatment more effectively. Nigeria, for example, had to destroy a million COVID-19 vaccine doses when the vaccines degraded from a lack of cold storage. Ideally, newer developing medicines would not require such capabilities. A third area to consider is innovation that addresses heat-related conditions. Possible treatments include wearable heat-stroke-detection devices or passive cooling wearables that reduce the risk of heat stroke and act as a stop-gap when air conditioning is limited or unavailable. These adaptation measures do not solve the larger problem of climate change, but they can save individual lives.  

Climate-resilient medicine is going to be essential to meet the world’s changing needs; comparatively little research or investment is directed at it, however. Moreover, innovation is more likely to occur when it is encouraged, or at least not discouraged. Speeding up and reducing the costs of clinical trials would help.  

Countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change would do well to integrate such considerations throughout the health ecosystem, from initial product design to the delivery of services to families and individuals, as well as to how they build new infrastructure. Examples include encouraging the use of heat-resistant building materials and designing climate resilient transport routes. It is less expensive in the long term to build with climate in mind than have to retro-fit after the fact.  

--- 

Many lower- and middle-income countries sit in areas with increasing climate-related health problems stemming from rising temperatures, flooding, and other geographic-centered issues—and have fewer resources to deal with them. Because their health care systems are not as entrenched, however, they may also need greater room to maneuver.  

Even so, we acknowledge that little of this will be easy. It requires thinking hard, and differently, about how things are done. And it will require both human and financial resources. We estimate financing climate health adaptation could add at least $26 billion more a year, and maybe twice that, in related spending.  

Neither, however, is it impossible. Those sums add only marginally to global spending on health of almost $10 trillion—and the goal of health systems is to preserve and protect human well-being. Climate has to be part of that equation. The highest priority is simply to begin. 

Claudia von Hammerstein is a partner in the McKinsey & Company’s Jakarta office and co-leader for Sustainability in the McKinsey Health Institute. Pradeep Kakkattil is the CEO of Health Innovation Exchange (HIEx).