This week, a new study in Nature Climate Change finds that by eliminating dangerous particulates and gases, policies that focus on vehicle and power plant emissions could "have near-term health benefits that translate into billions of dollars. Far more money, it appears, than the costs of implementing lower emissions." Evidently, as Nick Stockton writes in his article below, although there are many sources of emissions, the authors of the study focused only on the transportation and energy sources, and honed even further in on particulates and gases — sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, black carbon, etc. These pollutants, unlike carbon which has time-delayed effects on global warming, have immediate effects on human and environmental health. The study concludes that the absence of this pollution would have tremendous health benefits. 29,000 kids each year wouldn’t have to go to the emergency room for their asthma attacks, for example. Translating this (and other health benefits mentioned by the study) into dollars would save the U.S. economy around $250 billion a year. That's no small change. Join other health professionals as we advocate for climate solutions.
By Nick Stockton I Feb 23, 2016
Climate change is about money. The expenses associated with adapting to, saving people from, and mitigating the effects of climate change drove much of the discussion during last year’s big Paris negotiations. And those costs are arguably at the root of climate denial — or at least provide excuse enough for many to throw their hands up at the problem.
Those expenses aren’t the whole picture, however. More and more economic research is suggesting that reducing emissions could actually save society money — partly in terms of public health. See, whether carbon dioxide is farted from a tailpipe or coughed through a smokestack, it’s always part of a cloud of other gases and particulates. Nasty stuff, linked to conditions like asthma, lung damage, and heart attacks. (Not that CO2 is harmless either—side effects may include famine and the spread of tropical diseases. But that’s all way down the road.) A new study published Monday in Nature Climate Change finds that, by removing harmful particulates and gases, strict vehicle and power plant emissions policies could have near-term health benefits that translate into billions of dollars. Far more money, it appears, than the costs of implementing lower emissions.
The study has its roots in a 2014 agreement between the U.S. and China. Both countries agreed limit their emissions to prevent the world’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees C. For the U.S., that translates to lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. “I looked at the scenarios that would put us on that path, and it’s a really dramatic transformation of the energy and transportation sectors,” says Drew Shindall, climate scientist at Duke University, and co-author of the paper. Way more dramatic than anything currently on the books, even. Take for instance the contested Clean Power Plan, which only accounts for about half the emissions cuts necessary to meet the 26 to 28 percent reduction goal.
Stay connected and get updates from Climate for Health.Subscribe