Saving lives and money
"Our
work provides a sense of the scale of the air quality health benefits that
could accompany deep decarbonization of the U.S. energy system," said Nick
Mailloux, lead author of the study and a graduate student at the Center for
Sustainability and the Global Environment in University of Wisconsin–Madison’s
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.
"Shifting
to clean energy sources," Mailloux said, "can provide enormous
benefit for public health in the near term while mitigating climate change in
the longer term."
Published
Monday in the journal GeoHealth,
the analysis by Mailloux and fellow UW-Madison researchers focuses on emissions
of fine particulate matter, referred to as PM2.5, and of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the electric power, transportation, building,
and industrial sectors.
Those
sectors account for 90% of U.S. CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
the paper notes. The bulk of the emissions from the sectors comes from fossil
fuel use, though the study points to "a substantial portion" of
particulate pollution stemming from wood and bark burning and "a small
portion" resulting from non-combustion sources.
"Many of the same activities and processes that emit planet-warming GHGs also release health-harming air pollutant emissions; the current air quality-related health burden associated with fossil fuels is substantial," the analysis states.
The
study also notes that "the current pace of decarbonization in the U.S. is
still incompatible with a world in which global warming is limited to 1.5°C or
2°C above pre-industrial levels," and that "deep and rapid cuts in
GHG emissions are needed in all energy-related sectors—including electric
power, transportation, buildings, and industry—if states and the country as a
whole are to achieve reductions consistent with avoiding the worst impacts of
climate change."
The
researchers measured the potential benefits of the removal of the air
pollution, ranging from all-cause mortality to non-fatal heart attacks and
respiratory-related hospital admissions, using the Environmental Protection
Agency's CO-Benefits Risk Assessment tool.
They
also looked at the impacts of both U.S.-wide and regional action on the
reductions; they found that nationwide actions delivered the biggest benefits,
though "all regions can prevent hundreds or thousands of deaths by
eliminating energy-related emissions sources within the region, which shows the
local benefits of local action to mitigate air quality issues."
According
to the analysis, the pollution reductions would save 53,200 premature deaths
and provide $608 billion in annual benefits. The avoided deaths account for 98%
of the monetary benefits. But apart from avoidance of human lives lost, the
particulate matter reductions offer further benefits including up to 25,600
avoided non-fatal heart attacks, as well as preventing 5,000 asthma-related
emergency room visits and avoiding 3.68 million days of work lost.
The
findings, the authors conclude, "offer a clear rationale for mitigating
climate change on public health grounds, showing that the sooner the U.S. acts
to reduce emissions, the more preventable death and disease from energy-related
air pollution can be avoided."
Senior
author Jonathan Patz, a UW–Madison professor in the Nelson Institute and
Department of Population Health Sciences, framed the study as particularly
"timely" in light of the latest assessment of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, which showed humanity "firmly on track
toward an unlivable world."
"My
hope," said Patz, "is that our research findings might spur
decision-makers grappling with the necessary move away from fossil fuels, to
shift their thinking from burdens to benefits."