Discussion of Policy Statements on Climate Change and Public Health

This article discusses the policy statements of Public Health Association of Australia, World Health Organization, and Australian Greens on climate change and public health. It compares their strategies, principles, and ideologies and summarizes their aims and likely outcomes in managing population health.

POLICY STATEMENTS 1
DISCUSSION OF POLICY STATEMENTS
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Title
Date

POLICY STATEMENTS 2
Introduction
The world is orderly and guided by rules and policies put in place by leadership
institutions. One such institution that legislates policies to guide and direct people is the Public
Health Association of Australia (PHAA) which aims at improving the health of the Australian
population, based on equity principles, prevention, and social determinants. The PHAA has some
policy statements that guide its roles and functions of various subgroups it represents. One such
policy is the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) Safe Climate Policy. This policy
advocate for a safe environment, sustainable society, environmentally friendly human activities
and even factors related to global warming. Climate change is considered to be among the most
significant challenge of this century (Cianfrani et al., 2018, pp.103-113). If keenness is not
observed in this matter, we are likely to experience a catastrophe in the environment for the
future generations.
Discussion of Policy Statements
On a lighter note, the world has realized this matter of urgency and is striving to do
something about it. The United Nation (UN) came up with a particular branch United
Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to deal with this climate menace. The World Health
Organization (WHO) also is committedly acting to support the UNFCCC to deal with climate
issues. The WHO has set up an exclusive ‘Health Policy and Climate Change’ to ensure that
climate and international health are keenly taken care off.
Additionally, the Australian Greens, formed in 1992 is among the first ever green party
formed in the world. With its unique policy, it focuses on not environmentalism and ecological
sustainability amidst a push for social equality. This party has had a major impact on the

POLICY STATEMENTS 3
development and sustainability of the environment especially in Australia (Kousser, and Tranter,
2018, pp.100-109). It has thus pushed the community to demonstrate unconditional love for the
environment and be more willing to take good care of it. This party has set up pioneer standards
for the world to emulate.
The difference in Strategies, Principles, and Ideologies
Despite the three policies having similar ambitions, they have different strategies of
executing their ambitions; First, Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) Safe Climate
Policy focuses on strengthening carbon pricing mechanism, fossil fuel, clean energy, renewable
energy and taking measures to reduce carbon emissions while protecting the forest reserves. On
the other hand, the World Health Organization Health Policy and Climate Change emphasize its
strategies on advocating and raising awareness, enhancing scientific evidence and also strengthen
health system as well as the partnership. Contrary to the two, the Australian Green policy has its
strategies focusing on the importation of animals in Australian zoos for proper habitation,
renewable energy, infrastructure development, taxation, bioethics, immigration and foreign
policy (Ens et al., 2016).
The three policies also have different principles that govern them. First, Public Health
Association of Australia (PHAA) Safe Climate Policy emphasizes on the laws that ensure; safe
environment and climate, mitigation, adaptation as well as reduction of pollution. Contrary, the
World Health Organization Health Policy has principles focused on the commitment to climate
change policies all over the world to improve the general health of the world population. On the
other hand, principles of the Australian Green Party are more of using politics to promote the
lifestyle of people, animals, and the environment. They emphasize policies and mitigation to help

POLICY STATEMENTS 4
deal with the greenhouse effect and improve the world go green using proper methods (Blank,
Burau, and Kuhlmann, 2017)
Ideologies of the three policies also differ to some degree. First, the doctrine that
primarily affected the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) Safe Climate Policy is the
Health Promotion ideology. It focuses on the promotion of good health, and a safe climate would
be a tool for the development of good health. On the other hand, the World Health Organization
has also been primarily affected by the ideology of global health. Finally, the Australian Green
Party policy has been widely influenced by the political ideology that emphasizes using law
enforcement tool and agencies to litigate laws for a better environment. It also focuses on leaders
who support environmental conservation in their agendas and manifestos. (Baum, and Friel,
2017)
Summary of the Aims
Despite all these three policies having different ideologies and strategies they, they all
aim at the development of the environment and climate. The Public Health Association of
Australia (PHAA) points at the promotion of health by improvement of the environment. The
WHO, on the other hand, aims at universal health by enacting policies to enhance climatic and
environmental improvement. The Australian Green Party also uses the political platform to make
the environment conducive for habitation by both animals and also plant while improving the
climatic conditions.
Likely Outcomes in Managing Population Health
If all the measures put in place by all these policies are correctly adhered to, we expect an
improvement in the health, environmental, and climatic conditions of the world. (Ghai, and

POLICY STATEMENTS 5
Vivian, 2015.) The environment will be more inclusive to care for all living things. People’s
health will improve, and as a result, the mortality rate will be boosted. (Goudie, 2018)
Environmental dangers will be reduced to a vast degree, as killer diseases brought about by poor
climatic conditions will be slashed by a wide margin. Food security will be boosted, as the
environment can provide more for all the living things (Meyfroidt, 2017). However, if we do not
adhere to the recommendations of this policies, more lives will be lost due to hunger and
diseases.
Conclusion
In my opinion, I believe among the three policies; I would advocate for The World
Health Organization policy to have a stronger hand in improving the public health outcomes.
Using various platforms of international organs like The United Nations, its policies can reach to
a broader population. Furthermore, it has more resources to reach out to people and cover its
projects all over the world. However, it would be wise if it would copy from other policies and
improve the way it delivers its service to the world’s population.

POLICY STATEMENTS 6
Bibliography
Baum, F. and Friel, S., 2017. ". Politics, policies, and processes: a multidisciplinary and multi-
methods research programme on policies on the social determinants of health inequity in
Australia. BMJ open." BMJ open (2017): 7(12),p.e017772.
Blank, R., Burau, V. and Kuhlmann, E., 2017. Comparative health policy. Macmillan
International Higher Education.
Cianfrani, C., Broennimann, O., Loy, A. and Guisan, A., 2018. More than range exposure:
Global otter vulnerability to climate change. Biological Conservation, 221, pp.103-113.
Ens, E., Scott, M.L., Rangers, Y.M., Moritz, C. and Pirzl, R., 2016. Putting indigenous
conservation policy into practice delivers biodiversity and cultural benefits. Biodiversity and
conservation, 25(14), pp.2889-2906.
Ghai, D. and Vivian, J.M., 2015. Grassroots environmental action: people's participation in
sustainable development. Routledge.
Goudie, A.S., 2018. Human impact on the natural environment. John Wiley & Sons.
Kousser, T. and Tranter, B., 2018. The influence of political leaders on climate change
attitudes. Global Environmental Change, 50, pp.100-109.
Meyfroidt, P., 2017. Trade-offs between environment and livelihoods: Bridging the global land
use and food security discussions. Global food security.

POLICY STATEMENTS 7