Public Health Policy Analysis - Essay Example

Important elements of the amendment May 13, California Assembly Bill 21 seeks to control global warming in order to improve quality of health, besides achieving economic and environmental effects. Its health objective is significant because health consequences of global warming such as infectious and respiratory diseases. Residents of California, the state legislature, California State Air Resources Board, government agencies, and special interest groups are stakeholders to the bill that a majority supports. The bill may lead to loss of jobs in some sectors besides undermining and shifting focus from national government’s initiatives for controlling global warming. California should seek corporation from the national government and other counties in developing laws on global warming, consider possible unemployment due to the law, and incorporate health professionals in refining the bill. Important elements of the amendment Introduction The legislature, as an arm of the government, makes laws that govern a jurisdiction and that may be specific to a sector, such as the health sector, or may affect multiple sectors. An understanding of contents, possible intended and unintended effects, stakeholders, and divergent views over a proposed law is important to life of a bill or a law. Below is a discussion of California Assembly Bill 21, based on these aspects. Overview of the health problem The bill associates global warming with public health concerns. It recognizes direct effects of global warming such as poor quality of air, reduced quality, and quantity of supplied water, and rise in sea level and these have caused health problems such as infectious and respiratory diseases. Consequences of global warming, such as damaged marine system and threat to biodiversity, also contribute to incidence of infectious and respiratory infections (California AB. 21, 2014). About 881500 children and more than two million adults in California suffers from asthma per year and ragweed that affects 9 counties and high smog levels that affect 31 counties are factors. Ninety percent of the state’s population also lives under polluted air. Air pollution due to wildfires, a factor to the respiratory condition, is also significant and is expected to rise by more than 50 percent. Incidences of Dengue Fever (35 between the year 1995 and the year 2005), West Nile virus (2982 cases between the years 1999 and 2010), and Lyme disease (2370 cases between the years 1990 and 2008) have been reported in the state. There is high risk of water shortage in 83 percent of California and dry condition has increased chances of wildfire. High sea level that have led to sewer overflow, affecting three communities and leading to declared disaster in the state six times is another factor to the health concerns. High temperatures, due to global warming are also a threat to health. The bill promises to address these global warming concerns and is therefore likely to affect the entire population of the state because global warming is a global problem and therefore affects the entire state, at least in the long run. This is because of wide spread of direct effects of global warming that the bill seeks to reduce. Ninety percent of the population that may include people from the counties that ragweed and smog affects, people in areas that suffer water shortage, people in areas that are prone to floods, and people in areas that are prone to high temperatures and wildfires are the immediate beneficiaries (Natural Resources and Defense Council, N.d.). Severity of the health problem Literature shows consistency in significance global warming and its associated climate change on health outcomes. A study on the heat wave that occurred in California in the year 2006 shows significance of the climate change on human health. Emergency visits in the state increased by 16166 while hospitalization cases increased by 1182, incidences that could be attributed to the climate change. All age groups were susceptible to the health effects but children and the elderly were at greater risk. The health complications were however neither communicable nor respiratory (Knowlton, et al., 2009). Carnes, Staats, & Wilcox (2014) confirm significance of climate change on human health and note that children and old people are more vulnerable. Poor air and water quality as well as high temperatures are identified effects of climate change that influence quality of health. These factors, according to Franchini & Mannucci (2015) cause diseases such as cholera, typhus, and West Nile virus infection, pneumonia, and bronchitis. Health officers previously reported significance of climate change on human health and need to empower care personnel to deal with possible effects. Reported public health initiatives to address personnel preparedness at the time identified significance of health effects of climate change (Bedsworth, 2009). Research therefore identifies significance of climate change as a threat to quality of life through diversified classes of infections, including communicable diseases and respiratory problems, and the need for preparedness in order to manage health problems should they occur. Different health complications are associated with climate change, which is a consequence of global warming, and this means that without preparedness and response to outbreak of the infections, mortality rate is likely to increase due to the climate changes. Vulnerability of most sections of California identifies significance of the threat of climate change and while preparedness is a management strategy, the legislation is likely to prevent occurrence of the threats, especially if it succeeds in its intended leadership role of influencing other states and other countries into controlling global warming. Overview of the bill and stakeholders The bill recognizes significance of threat of global warming to public health as well as to the economy and the environment. Effects of global warming, according to the bill, are poor quality of air and water, high sea level, threat to biodiversity, threat to the natural environment, and infectious and respiratory diseases. The bill, in amending Section 38501 of the Health and Safety Code provides that the State Air Resources Board would coordinate and consult with private and public stakeholders in ensuring that levels of greenhouse gas emissions reduce to recommendations. The board would also ensure, through collaboration, establishment of measures for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from different utilities. In addition, the governor would establish a Climate Action Team that would coordinate climate policy in the state. In amending section 38561 of the Health and Safety Code, the bill provides that the state board would collaborate with state agencies to develop and approve a plan for technological and economical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The board would propose measures for reducing emission and alternative measures, and evaluate cost and benefits of recommended actions. Considerations would be given to individual sources of greenhouse gas, and open forums shall ensure incorporation of opinions from interested parties (California AB. 21, 2014). The bill will therefore reduce level of greenhouse gas emission, and help control global warming and its health effects. Residents of California are the first group of stakeholders as the bill seeks to improve their health. If the intended leadership role succeeds then the stake will extend people outside the state. The state legislature, as the law making body is another stakeholder as it exercises it constitutional mandate of law making. The State Air Resources Board, whose mandate is to ensure reduction of greenhouse gas, together with “the environmental justice community, industry sectors, business groups, academic institutions, environmental organizations,” state agencies whose jurisdictions involve emission of greenhouse gas, among others are other stakeholders to the bill (California AB. 21, 2014, p. 98, 99). Entities that were brought on board during committee debates on the bill, appendix 2, identify other stakeholders that include the following institutions and their members or interest groups (The Legislative Counsel State of California, 2015) Promises/ expected outcomes No information exists on debate over the bill but assembly records identify support from assembly members. The Assembly Committee on Appropriation voted to support, unanimously, the bill and provisions of the bill could have informed this. All seven members of the committee that voted supported the bill. The State Assembly Committee on natural resources also identifies support from different entities that represent stakeholder interests. The following entities expressed their support for the bill. Agricultural Council of California California Asia pacific Chamber of Commerce California Business Properties Association California Business Roundtable Californis Chamber of Commerce California Manufacturers & Technology Association California Retailers Association California Trucking Association Industrial Environmental Association National Federation of Independent Business (The Legislative Counsel State of California, 2015) The promoters’ belief can be inferred from the content of the bill that identifies possible reduction of burden of health from effects of global warming. Reduced incidence of such infections as communicable and respiratory infections, among other diseases, and economic benefits of efficient energy generation are some of the possible objectives that the promoters believe the bill will accomplish. Promoters’ expected specific health outcomes are not documented but they can also be inferred from content of the bill to include reduced incidence of infectious and respiratory infections. These further means controlled mortality rates because of eliminated or reduced risk of extreme weather conditions (The Legislative Counsel State of California, 2015; California AB. 21, 2014). Problems The bill has received unanimous support among assembly committee members but reservations exist among some stakeholders. Even though most interest groups have supported the bill, California State Association of Electrical Workers and California State Pipe Traders Council have opposed the bill. Information on rationale for the opposition is not available but can be inferred from the groups’ interests that could be in conflict with the bill’s provisions. A direct conflict of interest between objectives of the two groups and objectives of the bill could explain this. Measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, however, could threaten jobs of members of the groups and their position against the bill aims at preventing measures that can threaten some jobs. Electricity providers are one of the affected groups as the bill seeks to control electricity production by limiting their level of greenhouse emission. This is likely to reduce production and labor capacity of electricity producers in the state of influence change into technological application that would render workers jobless. The California State Pipe Trades Council could also be protecting job security of its members because of possible changes in industrial applications that could render the members’ trade redundant. The groups have however been passive in their opposition, only expressing their position during the committee hearing. This is because no report of their opposition has been reported. Such passivity also suggests the group’s knowledge of potential benefits of the bill that limits their advocacy for support against the bill (The Legislative Counsel State of California, 2015). Unintended consequences The main objective of the bill is to reduce level of greenhouse gas emission in California and to influence this in other parts of the world. This promises consequences such as reduced vulnerability to communicable and respiratory diseases, together with economic benefits such as increased efficiencies in fuel and electricity generation and utility. There are however unintended consequences of the bill that should be considered before it is passed into law. Goulder, Jacobsen, & Benthem (2009) note that some state initiatives, especially those that correspond with national initiatives, are too expensive for states, are not effective, and reduces effectiveness of efforts by the national government. This suggests that the bill may induce economic burden on the state government through formulation and implementation of recommendations for reduced emissions. The economic burden may be more significant if the intended objectives are not achieved, especially because greenhouse gas emission is a global problem and state initiatives may not yield benefits, even at state level, if other regions do not implement similar policies. Recommendations may also lead to changes in industries’ production capacities or applied technologies. This may lead to increased unemployment rates and more problems that are social, including inability to afford healthcare services. The federal government, which is in a better place to enforce measures for greenhouse gas limit, is also likely to shift its focus to other issues and therefore undermine national and global efforts towards reduced levels of greenhouse emissions and global warming. This means sustained Recommendations The bill is significant to public health, the economy, and the environment, and it has gained support that promises its success. Its unintended consequences, however, identify need for further considerations in order to achieve intended objectives of reduced global warming. It is therefore recommended that the state attracts and influence support of the nation and global leaders on the need for devolved regulations on greenhouse gas emission. Success in collaboration will help in realization of the regulations because of the global effects. The state should also consider possible effects of the bill on employees and address possible threats to job securities by providing alternative employment opportunities for individuals who may lose their job upon implementation of the bill’s objectives. The bill and its stages also identify limited input from the health sector, though public health is one of its greatest objectives. Expansion of the bill’s provisions to strengthen disaster response and management is also recommended because even if global initiatives were implemented for controlling global warming, threats of adverse weather conditions may still exist for a period. References Assembly Bill 2014, California AB. 21. (2014) Bedsworth, L. (2009). Preparing for climate change: A perspective from local public health officers in California. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(4), 617-623. Carnes, B., Staats, D., & Wilcox, B. (2014). Impact of climate change on elder health. The Journal of Gerontology 69(9), 1087-1091. Franchini, M. & Mannucci, P. (2015). Impact on human health of climate changes. European Journal of Internal Medicine 26(1), 1-5. Goulder, L., Jacobsen, L., & Benthem, A. (2009). Unintended consequences from nested State & Federal regulations: The case of the Pavley Greenhouse-Gas-per-Mile limits. University of California San Diego. Retrieved from: http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~m3jacobs/Unintended_Consequences.pdf Knowlton, K., et al. (2009). The 2006 California heat wave: Impacts on hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(1), 61-67. Natural Resources and Defense Council. (N.d.). Climate change health threats in California. Natural Resources and Defense Council. Retrieved from: http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/ca.asp. The Legislative Counsel State of California. (2015). Bill documents: Documents associated with AB 21 in the section. The Legislative Counsel State of California. Retrieved from: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_21&sess=1516. Appendixes Appendix 1: Support for the bill at the Assembly Committee on Appropriation ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Natural Resources |Vote:|7 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 2: Registered opinion at Assembly Committee on Natural Resources Support Opposition Agricultural Council of California California Asia pacific Chamber of Commerce California Business Properties Association California Business Roundtable Californis Chamber of Commerce California Manufacturers & Technology Association California Retailers Association California Trucking Association Industrial Environmental Association National Federation of Independent Business California State Association of Electrical Workers California State Pipe Traders Council Read More