The key to winning the climate debate isn’t economics: it’s health

theguardian.com:

Arnold Schwarzenegger has the answer to tackling the climate emergency. Don’t hype the economic damage, he says, just say we need to “terminate pollution”.

It may seem odd to pick the former bodybuilder and actor turned Republican politician as someone with the answer to the most important issue of the 21st century. But Schwarzenegger’s focus on pollution as California’s governor, and that of his successor, the Democrat Jerry Brown, means that since 2008, by wide agreement, the Golden State has enjoyed the longest economic expansion in its history, while also cutting emissions.

The contrast with other parts of the world – including much of the US, where climate change is discussed in the gloomiest terms, and usually as a massive cost to businesses and households – is stark.

When it comes to debating climate change, the key argument is not “the economy, stupid”, or the decline in biodiversity. The answer is to focus on pollution and its impact on everyone’s health.

To illustrate the point, Ipsos Mori found in a poll of public attitudes, timed to coincide with Earth Day last Friday, that concerns about climate change were beaten into eighth place by “not having enough money”, fears of terrorism and the threat of crime. Top of the list, in a poll covering 31 countries and 23,577 adults aged 16 to 74, was the subject “your health and your family’s health”. This suggests that if climate action can be linked to wellbeing, the campaign to reduce emissions is on to a winner.

That’s not to say that economics cannot play a role in convincing households that the way we make and sell goods and services needs to change. One important reform would be to the way the state and economists report on the “success” of economic policies, and