The "endangerment finding," as we enviros call it, was required by the Supreme Court during Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark victory that rejected the Bush EPA's laundry list of reasons not to address global warming pollution under the federal Clean Air Act.

Since that victory in April of 2007, we have been waiting for the EPA to "determine" what scientists have known for years: that global warming pollution is a danger to America's health and well-being.

This EPA finding, coupled with the American Clean Energy and Security Act moving out of Chairman Henry Waxman's committee by Memorial Day, offers us a glimpse at the finish line.

While the determination does not establish national emission standards for the main culprits of carbon pollution, the EPA will begin developing these standards while it finalizes the "endangerment" determination.

See our overview of the case for more about the twists and turns on the road to this determination.

Yesterday, a quiet public hearing on a hot August day in Washington D.C. drew a surprisingly large crowd. The official reason for the hearing, conducted by the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), was to take comment on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for revised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. A lawsuit forced NHTSA to draft an EIS that assessed global climate change impacts – including health – from improved fuel economy in the U.S. car and light truck fleet.

The 400-page document is technical, turgid, incomplete and misleading, and asserts that it is not possible to distinguish between the future health and climate impacts of a 41 mpg fuel economy versus the present 25 mpg. Needless to say, EDF does not agree with that conclusion or the methods used to come to it, but the comments at the hearing were far broader than just the EIS. Most striking was the lineup of citizens who called on NHTSA to take definitive action on climate change to help protect their future.

After a representative of the auto manufacturers told NHTSA that it didn't really have to do an EIS, a third-generation automobile dealer from Maine spoke of the unmet consumer demand for high mileage cars, and the failure of U.S. auto manufacturers to perceive, predict and meet that demand – a strong counter to the official industry representative.

Next, a series of twenty-somethings – some in suits, some in shorts – proceeded to the podium. They each told a personal story that illustrated their concerns about climate change, and hopes for their future. One speaker recalled having "the little engine that could" read to her at bedtime, and exhorted NHTSA to strengthen the standards with the same kind of attitude.

The passion of the speakers, and their stories of having to choose between gas and food, made for a powerful, personal appeal for NHTSA to revise the EIS and the standards. Perhaps the strongest authority came from Rabbi Fred Dobb, who quoted Deuteronomy 30:19 to provide a moral context for NHTSA's decision: "I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life – if you and your offspring would live."

Dr. James Keck, a preventive medicine resident from Johns Hopkins doing a rotation here at EDF, delivered a statement on behalf of EDF. He pointed out that NHTSA failed to assess the impacts of CAFE standards in the proper context. Though required to consider the "cumulative impacts" of policy decisions, NHTSA did not consider how U.S. CAFE standards contribute to the global fight against dangerous climate change. (See this previous post to compare of fuel efficiency standards in other countries.)

So on this 90+ degree day in August, one can only hope that NHTSA staff truly feel the heat and will strengthen the CAFE standards to the more stringent level they should have been in the first place.

Despite EPA's refusal to formally acknowledge the danger of greenhouse gases in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), two recently released EPA reports detail the health dangers of greenhouse gases.

The first, a support document for the ANPR [PDF], summarizes the extensive body of science showing that global warming pollution presents a serious threat to human health and the environment. The document is labeled "draft" and stamped "do not circulate or cite", but is listed on the EPA Web site as one of the supporting documents for the released ANPR. From the Executive Summary:

Without increased investments in countermeasures, hot temperatures and extreme weather are likely to cause increased adverse health impacts from heat-related mortality, pollution, storm-related fatalities and injuries, and infectious diseases.

and

Declining air quality in cities is a virtual certainty due to warmer and fewer cold days and nights and/or warmer/more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.

This study provides overwhelming support for an eventual endangerment finding during the next administration (see this Washington Post article for more on the current administration's decision not to act).

Then just last week, EPA released another comprehensive report, titled Analyses and Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems. Commissioned by EPA, the authors come from universities, government, and environmental groups throughout the country. I was a contributor to chapter 2 – Human Health.

The report summarizes the scientific literature of the past five years, and concludes that climate change will place an additional stress on our already stretched public health system. We have the resources to protect the health of our citizens; the question is whether we will spend those resources effectively and in time.

EDF's recent report on public health preparedness (released in partnership with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and George Mason University) provides a snapshot of local health departments' level of awareness of climate change. It, too, underlines the importance of starting now to make improvements.

Today is World Asthma Day. Since car exhaust can lead to asthma as well as global warming, we thought it would be a good day to highlight the importance of not idling your car or truck engine.

What makes idling especially bad for health is that drivers tend to idle in gathering places – by sidewalks, schools, playgrounds, homes, and offices. Breathing in pollution close to the source is more dangerous than farther away.

Take a look at the evidence.

Tailpipe Exhaust May Cause Asthma

Tailpipe exhaust from both gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles contains the pollutants that produce ozone when combined with sunlight and heat. Ozone occurs mostly during the summer months. A warming planet means more hot days, and thus more ozone.

Breathing in ozone irritates and inflames your lungs, and repeated exposure can reduce lung function. There's a lot of evidence that ozone makes asthma worse. But the Children's Health Study in California found evidence that ozone causes asthma. The study also found that children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing smog.

On top of that, diesel exhaust contains particulate matter (soot). This has long been known to cause a variety of health problems, including aggravated asthma (see CARB report on health effects [PDF]). But as with ozone, there is evidence that diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma, and not just worsen it.

California kids aren't the only ones to suffer from tailpipe-induced asthma. A 2005 NYU Medical Center study showed that asthma symptoms among children in the South Bronx doubled on high traffic days.

Conversely, reducing ozone can improve asthma rates. During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the city closed downtown to private cars for 17 days. During this time, daily peak ozone levels dropped more than a quarter and hospitalizations for asthma fell by almost one-fifth.

Fight Global Warming, Save Money

There's no reason to idle your vehicle engine. As I explained my previous post:

• Today's engines don't need a warm-up period.
• If you're stopped for more than 10 seconds, it uses more gasoline to idle than to restart.

Many cities, including New York, have laws against idling, but they're rarely enforced. We need better enforcement, but we can make a difference with our own actions and behavior.

So in honor of World Asthma Day, switch off that idling engine. You'll curb global warming pollution, save money on gasoline, and help everyone to breathe better.

Environmental Defense Fund released a new report [PDF] today on the U.S. public health system's state of preparedness for global climate change. It's based on a survey of local health department directors from across the country. I was one of the survey interviewers.

Is our nation ready to address the public health challenges of a warming planet? Our survey found there's much work still to be done.

Climate change already contributes to disease and premature deaths worldwide, as populations experience greater health risks from more frequent and intense heat waves, extreme weather events, reduced air quality and infectious disease. The new EDF report, written in collaboration with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and George Mason University, evaluates our public health infrastructure based on a survey of 133 local health departments in 39 states.

Public Health Officials Are Concerned

The survey, conducted over the course of two months, included health officials in all parts of the country – from Utah, Kentucky and Florida, to Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maine.

In each interview I asked public health directors about their perception of climate-related health risks, and the status and adequacy of their departments' programs in response to these dangers. Directors also described their current or planned activities to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the additional resources they would need to more effectively deal with climate change as a public health issue.

I learned that there is widespread concern about climate change and the public health challenges it presents. This was true from small, rural counties to large, urban centers, and the suburbs in between.

Most of the directors were both personally and professionally interested in the issue, and believed climate change had already taken place in their jurisdiction. Even more believed they would see the local climate change over the next 20 years. I was struck to learn that a large majority thought their area would experience one or more serious public health problems as a result of climate change.

Lack of Funding for Long-Range Planning

Tellingly, most of the directors I interviewed saw the public health effects of climate change as an important priority for their department, but relatively few identified it as a top priority. Many admitted they lacked the resources and expertise to fully respond to the challenge. One director said:

We have limited staff and budget, so time is spent on routine issues. We don't have the ability to focus on long-range planning.

Another – one of many – echoed this response:

It would be a priority, but I don't have the funding for it.

Though we're not where we need to be, hearing this made me feel optimistic. Public health directors recognize the challenge ahead and are eager to find solutions.

Where We Go From Here

Our survey shows that local health directors across the U.S. are looking to state and national leadership for guidance and support. Improving public health's capacity to respond to climate change impacts will require closing a gap in resources and funding, but there are many opportunities to reduce health risks through smart policies that serve both climate and health goals.

For a detailed set of recommendations on how the U.S. can prepare for these health impacts, and to learn more about the survey, check out the full report [PDF].

Last week was National Public Health Week, with a focus on how climate change harms health. The week's activities flowed from the public health community into the Congress.

In the House, Center for Disease Control's Howard Frumkin detailed the dangers to human health posed by climate change. In the Senate, Senator Kennedy's Health, Education, Labor and Pension (H.E.L.P.) committee also held hearings on climate change and health.

I was invited to give testimony before the H.E.L.P committee about the gaps in public health preparedness for climate change, based on a survey and upcoming report I wrote on the topic. Here are some of the highlights. My full testimony [PDF] is posted on our Web site.

Chairman Kennedy opened the hearing by saying, "Climate change will have a direct impact on health, and it's time to pay attention to this problem." He noted two important roles for public health:

1. Promoting healthy behaviors related to climate change, and
2. Identifying health threats and opportunities from policy measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or improve community resiliency.

My testimony described a survey conducted by Environmental Defense Fund in collaboration with the National Association of City and County Health Officials and George Mason University. The survey asked local health department directors about their preparedness for climate change. Most were aware of the threats posed by climate change and believed that their jurisdictions would face serious health problems in the next 20 years as a result. But most also noted it was not a top priority for their departments, and they lacked the resources and expertise to develop planning tools for climate change impacts. Our report, based on this survey, will be released in just a couple of weeks.

I also emphasized that health threats like increased ozone from warmer temperatures can focus greenhouse gas reduction efforts on sources that also emit ozone precursors, like automobiles, trucks and power plants. Keep an eye on this space for a second upcoming report analyzing the ancillary health benefits of greenhouse gas reduction strategies.

At a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Howard Frumkin, a senior official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said there was strong scientific evidence of major health problems due to climate change in the next few decades, including:

• Heat waves that put children and the elderly at risk
• Danger of droughts and floods from extreme weather
• Increased food-borne and water-borne infectious diseases
• Worsened air pollution due to higher temperatures
• Migration into new areas of vector-borne diseases like malaria

At least he got to say it. Last October, CDC testimony on the health risks from global warming was censored by the White House.

Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif), who chaired the hearing, said she suspected that "a layer of screening" continues to limit what CDC officials are allowed to say.

While insisting that CDC had no position on EPA's pending regulatory decisions, Frumpkin said, "…there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas … and there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health in many ways."

Happily, actions that promote a healthy environment also tend to promote personal health. Using muscle power for transportation by walking and biking gives you the best kind of exercise, and also reduces your carbon footprint. Drinking tap water rather than bottled gives you clean water at one-thousandth the price.

You can use the money you save by avoiding bottled water to make better food choices – in particular, organic produce and dairy from grassfed animals. It also helps both you and the environment to avoid processed foods and foods with heavy packaging.

For more ideas, check out our article Tips for a Healthy, Low-Carbon Life, part of our coverage of National Public Health Week and the impact of climate change on our nation's health.

Global warming can endanger your health in many different ways. The more intense storms it brings not only cause direct loss of life, but also illness and death from contaminated food and water. Heat waves can cause lethal heat strokes, and also ozone smog that triggers breathing problems.

For more on where the dangers lie and what you can do to protect yourself, check out our article on Health Dangers from a Warming Planet, part of our coverage of National Public Health Week and the impact of climate change on our nation's health.

Today is the start of National Public Health Week, and this year's focus is the impact of climate change on our nation's health. The health risks from global warming are not distributed evenly, and some people are in more danger than others. Take a look at our article Health and Global Warming: Are You at Risk? Some of the risk factors may surprise you.