Kerry-Boxer Bill Addresses Impacts of Climate Change on Mental and Behavioral Health

You’ve heard the hullaballoo about recent legislative steps toward a carbon market. To which John Kerry responded last week, of his new climate bill, with a defensive: "I don't know what 'cap and trade' means. I don't think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill" (E&E Daily, Sept. 25).


Lo and behold, the bill in question – Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), introduced in Senate this week by Kerry and Barbara Boxer – does in fact look far beyond cap and trade. Issues covered in the 821 page document include: nuclear worker training; federal procurement of water-efficient products; green jobs and worker transition; climate change adaptation programs for Great Lakes States; and flood control.

To highlight just one section of the bill that will likely be overshadowed by the cap and trade debate on the road to COP15: tucked away somewhere around page 290 of CEJAPA is an interesting 13 page section on public health policy and climate change. As this particular section of CEJAPA reads now in its first incarnation, it calls upon the Secretary of Health and Human Services to lay the foundation for a national strategic action plan for health issues that will arise or worsen as the climate continues to change. You know the drill – tropical diseases spreading as temperatures rise, water borne diseases flourishing with increased flooding, respiratory illness taking hold in polluted cities, sanitation issues being compounded by water shortage, and so on and so forth.

The bill also calls upon the Secretary to establish a permanent advisory board comprised of between 10 and 20 climate change, human services, and public health experts. Half of the advisory board members will be recommended by the president of the National Academy of Sciences. Together, they would address the following climate change related health issues:

1. Water, food, and vector borne infectious diseases

2. Pulmonary effects, including responses to aeroallergens

3. Cardiovascular effects, including impacts of temperature extremes

4. Air pollution health effects, including heightened sensitivity to air pollution

5. Hazardous algal blooms

6. Mental and behavioral health impacts of climate change

7. The health of refugees, displaced persons, and vulnerable communities

8. The implications for communities vulnerable to health effects of climate change, as well as strategies for responding to climate change within these communities

9. Local and community-based health interventions for climate related health impacts.

Of these, “mental and behavioral health impacts of climate change,” seems closest to the cutting edge of the climate change and public health field. It’s an issue the CDC follows, but mainly in the context of mental health disorders resulting from catastrophic weather events like floods and Tsunamis, which uproot families and leave “environmental refugees” in their wake.

CEJAPA hearings should be under way before mid-October, according to the bill’s authors. It’ll be interesting to see if their vision for this “mental and behavioral health impacts” component of climate change adaptation extends beyond extreme weather events. Ideally, their vision would also account for subtler environment-related mental health issues – the effects of sound and light pollution on psychological health, links between lead poisoning and ADHD, even psychologist Richard Louv’s “nature deficit disorder.” Fingers crossed.

Ideology drives us apart. Neuroscience can bring us back together.

A guide to making difficult conversations possible—and peaceful—in an increasingly polarized nation.

Sponsored
  • How can we reach out to people on the other side of the divide? Get to know the other person as a human being before you get to know them as a set of tribal political beliefs, says Sarah Ruger. Don't launch straight into the difficult topics—connect on a more basic level first.
  • To bond, use icebreakers backed by neuroscience and psychology: Share a meal, watch some comedy, see awe-inspiring art, go on a tough hike together—sharing tribulation helps break down some of the mental barriers we have between us. Then, get down to talking, putting your humanity before your ideology.
  • The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

Why a federal judge ordered White House to restore Jim Acosta's press badge

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration likely violated the reporter's Fifth Amendment rights when it stripped his press credentials earlier this month.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 16: CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta (R) returns to the White House with CNN Washington bureau chief Sam Feist after Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly ordered the White House to reinstate his press pass November 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. CNN has filed a lawsuit against the White House after Acosta's press pass was revoked after a dispute involving a news conference last week. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Acosta will be allowed to return to the White House on Friday.
  • The judge described the ruling as narrow, and didn't rule one way or the other on violations of the First Amendment.
  • The case is still open, and the administration may choose to appeal the ruling.
Keep reading Show less