Climate change and public health a comparative analysis of mitigation policies and State legal responsibility

Abstract

Introduction: By analyzing the relationship between the environment and health in light of the Federal Constitution, it is possible to identify the impacts of climate change on morbidity and mortality. It is necessary to highlight the need for effective intersectoral public policies, especially in tropical countries such as Brazil, as well as to assess the legal liability of the State for omission in the face of the climate crisis. To this end, Australia was adopted as a comparative parameter due to its climatic and federal similarities. Methods: This is a qualitative study based on a literature review and documentary analysis of normative, institutional, and judicial sources. Data from Brazil and Australia were used, selected for their climatic and federal commonalities. The comparative analysis aimed to evaluate the integration between health and climate policies. Source triangulation enabled a multidimensional approach to state action.
Results: The comparative analysis revealed shared challenges between Brazil and Australia in integrating health and climate policies, such as intersectoral coordination and territorial heterogeneity. Australia demonstrated structural progress, with specific funding and integrated national strategies. Brazil faces resource limitations and low environmental surveillance coverage. The Australian experience shows greater resilience to extreme events. Discussion: The study highlights the strict liability of the Brazilian State for omissions regarding environmental and health damage, based on constitutional duties and consolidated case law. State inaction in the face of climate change constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, especially when public policy coordination and execution fail. Judicial oversight, particularly through structural litigation, has proven to be a relevant instrument. A proactive state response is advocated, one that is evidence-based and promotes intersectoral integration. Conclusion: The comparison between Brazil and Australia reveals that Brazil lacks integrated and effective climate and health policies, jeopardizing public health protection. The Brazilian State may be held legally accountable for omission or institutional inefficiency. Structured planning, continuous funding, and coordinated governance are required. The judiciary, in a responsive manner, must ensure the effectiveness of fundamental rights in the context of the climate crisis.