On 11 June 2025, the Pan-European Commission on Climate and Health (PECCH) opened in Reykjavík, Iceland, in what was billed as a major step forward in tackling the health impacts of climate change. Despite its importance and potential impact on future health policy, the event was largely ignored by the mainstream media. The event, which was attended by prominent figures such as former Icelandic Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir and science adviser Sir Andrew Haines, has raised concerns that the alleged “fight against climate change and health” could be used as a pretext for widespread population control.
The agenda behind the pretext?
The PECCH aims to address the health impacts of climate change and promote policy action at European level. The commission is tasked with developing empirically sound recommendations to combat climate change while promoting public health. However, on closer inspection, the question arises whether this “health-oriented” agenda may in fact be a cover for global population control.
Given that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the WHO’s largest financial backers, is closely associated with this commission, it becomes clear that this agenda could also serve the interests of large global corporations and political figures who already have far-reaching influence on international politics. This Gates Foundation funding has repeatedly raised concerns about the WHO’s ability to shape its own agenda, or whether it serves as a vehicle for advancing the interests of a few ultra-wealthy individuals and multinational corporations.
Climate and health policy as a monitoring tool
It is no secret that the WHO and similar institutions are increasingly promoting digital health data and tracking technologies to increase the efficiency of health systems. But, in conjunction with climate policy, this increased digitalization and population tracking could also be used as a means of behavioral control. The adoption of “green” technologies that address both climate protection and health could potentially create a system of health and behavioral control that significantly limits people’s personal freedom.
The climate-health nexus is increasingly seen as instrumental in advancing an ideological agenda that includes social governance constraints in addition to environmental and health measures. Critics fear that such measures could lead to greater surveillance of the population, for example through technologies that track people to encourage “climate-friendly behavior” – with potential consequences for personal autonomy and freedom.
The role of the WHO and the lack of public debate
Another critical aspect is the lack of a comprehensive public debate on PECCH. While the WHO and other major organizations are promoting these initiatives with significant political and financial commitment, a broad public debate on the long-term impact of the proposed measures is being avoided. No relevant media outlets have given significant coverage to the event and its potential consequences. This media censorship or ignorance may indicate that the global agenda is being implemented largely unhindered by a few influential actors, without the wider public having the opportunity to express their views.
The real benefits of climate policy
Climate change and its impact on health are undoubtedly a significant challenge, but the question arises as to whether current measures really serve the needs of the population or are they instead being used to advance economic interests and political goals. The link between climate protection, health and social control could dangerously lead to a direction that leaves citizens with less and less control over their lives. Greater surveillance and restrictions on freedom of action could be justified under the pretext of climate protection – similar to what is already happening in other policy areas.
Summary: A dangerous step towards control?
A pan-European Commission on Climate and Health could be a decisive step in global climate policy, but there are serious concerns that these efforts will not only combat climate change but also be used as a tool to control the population. The combination of health data and climate policy carries the potential for a surveillance society, where individual freedoms are sacrificed in the name of a global “green” system. It is therefore important that such initiatives are implemented transparently and under democratic control to prevent abuse of power.
The global community must remain vigilant and ensure that climate policy is not misused as a pretext for imposing controls and monitoring. This is the only way to ensure that sustainable and equitable solutions to climate change and health challenges are found that truly meet the needs of the world’s population.
