(UK) We Need Health Warning Labels On Points Of Sale Of Fossil Fuels

BMJ‎ (British Medical Journal) - Mike Gill | Kristie L. Ebi | Kirk R. Smith | Lorraine Whitmarsh | Andy Haines

Mike Gill and colleagues explain how the implementation of fossil fuel labelling could have a significant impact on the awareness of climate change. This article is part of The BMJ’s Health in the Anthropocene collection.

Photo credit: “The Swedish Association of Green Motorists / Martin Prieto Beaulieu”

Authors Mike Gill, former Regional Director of Public Health, South East England. Kristie L. Ebi, Professor of Global Health, Center for Health and the Global Environment, University of Washington, USA. Kirk R. Smith, Professor of Global Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA; Director, Collaborative Clean Air Policy Centre, India. Lorraine Whitmarsh, Professor of Environmental Psychology, Centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, UK. Andy Haines, Professor of Environmental Change and Public Health, Centre for Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK

The use of fossil fuels should be rapidly reduced to keep the global mean temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels—a core goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Emphasising the risks to health of fossil fuel use, now and in the future, could motivate action.

We propose a low cost, scalable intervention to facilitate change in individuals’ and society’s views and behaviour: warning labels at points of purchase of fossil energy or services dependent on large amounts of fossil fuel, for example at petrol stations, on energy bills, and on airline tickets. They should state clearly that continuing to burn fossil fuels worsens the climate emergency, with major projected health impacts increasing over time.

Since 1969, increasing numbers of countries have required cigarette packets to carry health warnings.118 countries now require cigarette packets to include graphic pictures alongside stark health warnings. These warnings can change attitudes and behaviour, providing a critical contribution to effective tobacco control policy.

Smoking is no longer viewed as a normal lifestyle choice, but as an addiction which harms the individual and those around them through exposure to second-hand smoke. Fossil fuel use also harms others through ambient air pollution that accounts for about 3.5 million premature deaths per year, as well as through climate change, which increasingly threatens the health of current and future generations.

In many countries, fossil fuel use is already the subject of government intervention, through fuel and carbon taxes, vehicle emissions standards, and other legislation, but these are insufficient to prevent dangerous climate change and do not reflect the full economic costs of burning fossil fuels.

Even if the nationally determined contributions for greenhouse gas emission reductions in the Paris Agreement are implemented, the global mean temperature increase is likely to exceed 3°C by the end of the century. For this reason there is growing acceptance that the world faces a climate emergency demanding urgent action at scale.

Nevertheless, vested interests continue to create doubt about the robustness of climate science, a cause of the inadequate scale and perceived urgency of investments in renewables.

Other barriers to shifting consumer behaviours towards zero-carbon options include low awareness, habit, perceived cost, inconvenience, and “psychological distance”—the perception that the issue affects other people, places, or times, or is uncertain.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels worsens the climate  emergency, with major projected health impacts increasing over time. Photo: Matt Rourke / AP

Warning labels connect the abstract threat of the climate emergency with the use of fossil fuels in the here and now, drawing attention to the true cost of fossil fuels (the externalities), pictorially or quantitatively. They sensitise people to the consequences of their actions, representing nudges, designed to encourage users to choose alternatives to fossil fuels, thus increasing demand for zero-carbon renewable energy.

Implementing warnings will face challenges. For example, in North Vancouver, Canada, pictorial designs denoting biodiversity loss were ‘co-opted’ by the Canadian fuel industry and incorporated into a national ‘Smart fuelling’ initiative, with any threats to health omitted. In Sweden, eco-labels will be mandatory from this May. The labels will show ‘climate impact’, the raw materials used for the fuel, and their origin.

They are part of a package to reduce fossil fuel use, including tax on new high emission cars and subsidy for low emission ones, but without direct reference to health. In contrast, Cambridge, Massachusetts voted in January to make information about the environmental and human health impact of fossil fuel use mandatory on all self-service fuel pumps. This explicit reference to health is likely to increase the labels’ effectiveness, because messages about the climate emergency framed around health tend to be more persuasive than environmentally framed messages.

Links

• Zero Hour: There’s No Stopping Climate Change, But How Bad It Gets Is Still Up To Us
• (US) Climate Change Lawsuits Ask Whether Fossil Fuel Companies Are Responsible
• The New Science Fossil Fuel Companies Fear
• Editorial: Surviving Climate Change Means An End To Burning Fossil Fuels. Prepare Yourself For Sacrifices
• Australia Is Third Largest Exporter Of Fossil Fuels Behind Russia And Saudi Arabia
• How The World’s Dirtiest Industries Have Learned To Pollute Our Politics
• Australia On Track To Become One Of The World’s Major Climate Polluters
• Renewable Energy Could Save $160 Trillion In Climate Change Costs by 2050
• The Carbon Brief Profile: Australia