Sabrina McCormick and Samuel J. Simmens are with the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Robert Glicksman and LeRoy Paddock are with George Washington University Law School. Daniel Kim is with the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University. Brittany Whited is with the US Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.
Am J Public Health. 2018 Apr;108(S2):S104-S108. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304206.
To examine how the courts, which play a critical role in shaping public policy, consider public health in climate change and coal-fired power plant lawsuits.
We coded US local, state, and federal court decisions relating to climate change and coal-fired power plants from 1990 to 2016 (n = 873) and qualitatively investigated 139 cases in which litigants raised issues concerning the health impacts of climate change. We also conducted 78 interviews with key litigants, advocates, industry representatives, advising scientists, and legal experts.
Health has been a critical consideration in key climate lawsuits, but in a minority of cases. Litigants have presented health arguments most frequently and effectively in terms of airborne exposures. Health impacts have typically been used to gain standing and argue that the evidence for government actions is insufficient.
The courts represent a pivotal branch of government in shaping climate policy. Increasing inclusion of health concerns in emergent areas of litigation could help drive more effective climate policymaking.
研究法院在气候变化和燃煤电厂诉讼中如何考虑公共卫生问题，因为法院在制定公共政策方面发挥着关键作用。
我们对 1990 年至 2016 年美国地方、州和联邦法院与气候变化和燃煤电厂有关的判决进行了编码（n=873），并对 139 起诉讼案件进行了定性研究，这些案件中的诉讼当事人提出了与气候变化对健康影响有关的问题。我们还对主要诉讼当事人、倡导者、行业代表、顾问科学家和法律专家进行了 78 次访谈。
健康一直是关键气候诉讼中的一个重要考虑因素，但在少数案件中。诉讼当事人最频繁地以空气传播暴露的方式提出健康论据，而且这些论据通常最有效。健康影响通常被用来获得诉讼资格，并认为政府采取行动的证据不足。
法院是制定气候政策的关键政府部门之一。在新出现的诉讼领域越来越多地纳入健康问题，可能有助于推动更有效的气候决策制定。
