Physician advocacy for climate change mitigation is justified by seven criteria including physicians’ efficacy, expertise, public trust, and proximity.

Climate change mitigation reforms of government policy, medical curricula, and health professions organizations should be the focus of physician advocacy.

Caring for severe burn injuries in low- and middle-income countries requires making decisions about resource allocation given particular contextual factors.

The adverse health effects of climate change should be the focus of physician advocacy efforts and of conversations between physicians and their patients.

Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.

Public health and climate stabilization historically have competed for public funds, but investment in either good has the potential to advance both goods.

Public health surveillance for infectious disease provides a model for a mandatory reporting policy for human trafficking, which poses risks for survivors.

Those in prison are less healthy than the general population, are far more likely to have engaged in high-risk behaviors that can result in organ damage, disease and disability, and age more rapidly than nonincarcerated individuals do.

When a patient challenges the use of a reusable, stainless steel speculum rather than a plastic, throw-away one, the physician should educate her on the safety and environmental benefits of reusable medical devices.

Moral distress arises not only from organizational constraints on moral action but also from the environmental impacts of health care and climate change.