A new study has raised the disturbing question of whether we are substantially under-estiminating the annual death toll from air pollution, which currently stands at around 3.4 million a year. The reason is the failure to measure the lethality of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), emitted during fossil fuel burning.
The fact that we underestimate the deaths seems clear. Current estimates focus on deaths linked to fine particles, less than 2.5mm in diameter (PM2.5) have been estimated.
I have discussed before how people still do not associate air pollution with real numbers of fatalities. When we debate pollution controls, we measure concrete numbers of jobs and taxes but rarely put a figure on the resulting deaths associated with rising pollution. Indeed, those numbers are rising. The 3.4 million deaths found by the Global Burden of Disease study from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle was an increase from 3 million in 1990. That is just from outdoor pollution. When you add indoor pollution, the number rises to seven million a year according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
In Europe alone, some 500,000 people die prematurely as a result of air pollution every year without even considering N02. It seems to me that, whatever we decided about the acceptable levels of pollution, we should be unified in our demand for more accurate and holistic figures of the estimated cost in health and fatalities. There are real health impacts associated with air pollution that are left as mere generalities in our public debate. The lack of solid figures makes the cost-benefit arguments rather artificial and superficial. It also suggests that, putting aside the need to address global warming, pollution abatement has direct, measurable and immediate benefits for the population at large.
Source: Guardian
Haz,
Your comments are incredibly naive. America is far from being the cleanest place on earth and our industries are far from being responsible corporate citizens.
Good corporate citizenship requires a policy of being a good neighbor. We expect local property owners to maintain their properties in good condition, because blight affects our property values negatively. Same holds true for industrial producers, whose production methods create byproducts harmful to society. Yet far too often, we’re seeing large conglomerates and multinationals dumping toxic pollutants into our water and air – pollutants that they should be rightfully containing as a cost of doing business. If I own a restaurant, waste hauling is one of my business expenses; I simply can’t toss food wastes out into the alley to rot.
Burning coal releases not only releases NO2 into the atmosphere, but sulfur and mercury, among other things. Sulfur causes acid rain, which damages food crops; mercury lands in our lakes and streams, where it makes it way into the food chain. Just because this domestic pollution isn’t as bad as China’s is no reason not demand tighter regulation. We know these pollutants are causing health problems, including premature deaths, we’ve known they cause health problems before these studies, and they will continue to cause health problems until we free ourselves from the shackles that this free-market insanity actually imposes on us.
Government is simply hundreds of millions of little guys, consumers, parents, and children, demanding that multinational corporations produce their products responsibly.
Karen,
Using the tax code to promote consumer behavior is a perfectly legitimate method of promoting the general welfare of the nation, particularly in the case of solar panels. If solar panel use continues to rise, we can reduce the amount of coal needed to supply our energy, which in turn will reduce the amount of NO2, mercury, lead and other heavy metals released into the atmosphere, which is a good thing. Not only would that promote greater health for members of society, it mitigates the effects of acid rain. Acid rain causes damages to food crops and increases costs to consumers.
These subsidies, as you call them, are actually tax breaks, something you should be in favor of, given the hysteria with which you regard taxes. Taxes are necessary for any functioning society, and the wealthy who put their money into offshore tax havens are treasonous.
I am skeptical. Reports like this are usually followed by only one response: “The government is our only salvation!” It’s the usual nonsense.
Is global death due to air pollution even a real thing? The answer defies use of any scientific method, because it is not possible to create an extra-global control group against which the theory can be tested.
Common sense probably tells us that some places on the globe are bad for health and longevity – think of the photos of the thick air pollution in much of urban China – and that other places on the globe are still pretty doggone good. A blanket statement won’t work.
Should China and India and much of Africa take measures to improve air quality? Sure. Makes sense. But should the US, the cleanest place on the globe cripple it’s industries in the name of eliminating the last iota or air pollution? Probably not. Raise the standards in other countries to our current standard, then let’s look at the globe one more time and see if there’s a need to elevate every country’s standards equally.
My human pal has a boat with solar panels. The boat also has LED lights and other gadgets which work off of DC not AC. So much of the juice used on the boat is generated by the solar system. Back in a prior life in 1914 my family had an electric car. The car industry quit making those and relied on gasoline and diesel ever since. I wonder why? Could it be that the Koch Brothers snort coke and burn another variety in their factories?
Aridog
Please fix everything before you leave us or leave us some plans please 😉
I will never be fond of grand new schemes that rely on government subsidy or cheap labor from Asia. Impress me with ideas that can be accomplished without tax money or foreign captive cheap labor. I can be persuaded by enterprise. Where is it?
BTW, I have some experience with hydro-power and interfacing it with a corporate/public grid, with no resistance…in fact it has been a plus for the grid for years…e.g., the power generated by the hydro-power exceeds the cost of electricity from the grid..e.g., the grid wins. Those who claim the electric power generation outfits resist alternative cross feed of power need to post some scientific links, not political. It may be so in some places, but not in my experience. Call me biased. I’m used to it. 🙂
Next, on just whose land do we expect to spread acres & acres of solar panels or gi-mongus windmills? Is eminent domain part of that equation? If so, that is just more subsidy.
When briefly in the private sector, as a CFO, I resented the competition that didn’t “hire” anyone, but alleged they were “contractors” and charged much less than we did, when we paid within $1.50 to $2.00 of the Automotive UAW wage scale plus benefits like 70% of health insurance costs, vacations, sick days, holidays, and sundry taxes the competition evaded. Worse was the fact that some major union organized manufacturing forms hired those outfits. What was “good” for them wasn’t good for their suppliers. I consider this subsidy crap with “clean energy” to be worse than that experience. YMMV… 🙁
happypappies,
The saying goes:
Leave the cole in the hole an the oil in the soil…
Max-1
Did you read my link? The Government is the one on the side of Climate Change Max-1. Acid Rain and O3 is much worse than 02 and can come from N02. Do you not realize how much – but you go on and watch National Geographic because it’s popular now 😉 The MSM is great!
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/educ/acidrain.aspx
happypappies,
Climate Mission Impossible: Scientists Say Fossil Fuels Must Go Untapped
New study says vast amounts of coal, oil, and gas must be left untouched to limit global warming.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2015/01/150107-fossil-fuel-unburnable-2-degree-climate-target-study/
nettles
If it’s not the government’s role to regulate industrial polluters, then who should?
= = =
The free market silly…look how wonderful that market is in China?
But they said pollution was life…
Paul
Read the post carefully and do a little reading on Denmark. My point in a nutshell, perhaps why you missed it, is that the industry is happening but not in the US. Or, perhaps to address your sense of national pride, why the f*ck are they making a success of something Americans should be making a success of. I could get more to the point but that’s it for me today.
Karen
Enlighten yourself and read some history. During the advent of the automobile there was every crazy idea that someone thought would work. Wood fueled steam engines rolled along with half a cord of wood on a deck that held a steam engine. Don’t see them anymore. You remind me of someone who would be astute enough to recognize that a wood fueled steam driven car won’t work but miss the point that the idea was only a part of the exuberance of the moment.
What’s missing among you naysayers is that there is a possibility here. The initial stages need to be navigated not steered away from. Solar power works when done right and supported. Wind power works when done right and supported. If alternative energy sources replaces twenty to thirty percent of present fossil fuel energy, the world would be a better place. I’m sure you can understand this.
issac – Denmark has a centralized government. We do not. Get a grip.
Karen, I had a conversation w/ a beekeeper @ breakfast last January. We were both headed to California. He was from South Dakota but when you’re a beekeeper you travel a lot. He said the crop that needs bees more than any other are almonds. He makes most of his money from almond growers in California. He is affiliated w/ Sue Bee Honey. They get all the honey his bees produce.
And that is another reason why I enjoy organic gardening. 🙂 Well, that and all the happy ladybugs and bees.
Karen S
I am with the Climate people here but not the C02 people. They don’t talk about acid rain anymore but you better say worried about your honeybees
Acid Rain is from Fertilizer. It is not Co2. Co2 is not the prime problem of pollution and never has been. It is failed Algore science.
The largest source is agriculture (73 percent), and the majority of agricultural emissions result from nitrogen fertilization of agricultural soils .
A little more cut and paste.
4. Nitrous Oxide Emissions
4.1 Total emissions
U.S. nitrous oxide emissions in 2009 were 4 MMTCO2e (1.7 percent) below their 2008 total (Table 22). Sources of U.S. nitrous oxide emissions include agriculture, energy use, industrial processes, and waste management (Figure 22). The largest source is agriculture (73 percent), and the majority of agricultural emissions result from nitrogen fertilization of agricultural soils (87 percent of the agriculture total) and management of animal waste (13 percent). U.S. nitrous oxide emissions rose from 1990 to 1994, fell from 1994 to 2002, and returned to an upward trajectory from 2003 to 2007, largely as a result of increased use of synthetic fertilizers. Fertilizers are the primary contributor of emissions from nitrogen fertilization of soils, which grew by more than 30 percent from 2005 to 2008.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html
Once again, this is actually something I know about. 😉
Government funded science is totally credible, all evidence to the contrary.
Source: Guardian. Everything you need to know about this story.
Unless you wish to disregard all the years of prior lies, data fiddling, and science denying and believe that NOW they’re telling the truth. It must be so.
Isaac:
You are well aware of the problems with Scottish wind energy, because I have posted them before. And you have ignored them before, and keep reposting what you know has issues.
You know, for instance, that Scotland’s wind farms were paid 93 million pounds to stand idle. And I suppose you oppose the use of sonar that damages marine mammal populations? Support protecting endangered species and preserving wildlife habitat? And yet you would put a wind farm offshore, knowing it chops the air, destroys bird populations, and disrupts marine life? Onshore it’s disruptive to wildlife.
I am quite disappointed in wind energy, as it stands today. IF they upgraded the design to avoid that horrible turbulent chopping, and made them safe for birds, it would be a huge improvement. I would love to support wind energy, since there are so many areas where that could be a source of energy production. But I’m not going to ignore serious problems because I care about the environment, or think it’s a neat idea. I want it fixed.
We have a lot of commercial wind farms in CA, and there are several houses in my neighborhood with private wind generators. I’ve been near both commercial and residential wind generators, and they’re awful when you’re close by.
Karen
Most of what you say is pertinent and accurate. The Koch brothers are a flag of sorts for the status quo. The status quo lobbies and manipulates government to block and impede alternative energy on a national scale in the US. This is graphically apparent in the US and is due to the oligarchical style of government and the affordability of oil and gas. In the European countries that have been successful in transferring substantial percentages of their energy production to wind and solar, oil and gas costs are three to four times as much. When a human’s back is against the wall, history illustrates that it is capable of much. In the US the back is nowhere near the wall.
The grids and energy producers are private yet they have monopolies. There are paradigms for assisting energy companies to integrate solar and wind. There are many square miles of warehouse roofs that can be covered in solar panels thus reducing demand at peak times and not needing any special grid work. The possibilities are endless. One of the only logistics companies, ‘Prologis’, survived the recession nicely because they could better compete with other warehouse industry rivals by offering reduced rents because they provided most of their own electricity through solar, as well as other ecological cost saving devices. Here we have alternative energy beating out conventional energy.
However the American back is not against the wall. Perhaps that is what it will take, 6$ a gallon gas will encourage hybrid and electric vehicle technology. $2 a gallon gas will not. In Denmark, the country that exports 40% of the world’s heavy wind turbines at $5mil a pop, gas is $7+ a gal and the government helped the industry get started. Now the industry employs hundreds of thousands world wide with the highest paying technical and engineering jobs in Denmark. Now if you happen to observe a wind turbine while you are driving you might see the brand name Vestas. Vestas is also building facilities to teach Americans how to service their turbines. The big question for Americans is, “If we are so sh*t hot, then why aren’t we building facilities for Americans to service American made wind turbines at $5mil a pop. Why are we settling for the scraps that fall from the table? They are being made and sold and they work.
It doesn’t matter how you cut it, from which perspective you observe, the US is missing the boat regarding the alternative energy revolution. Imagine if the tech revolution had taken the same route. We would be much more the 3rd world country than we are today, much further down the bench.
issac – Denmark is smaller than most of the states in the United States. Where the heck to they drive? At $7 a gallon for gas you could not afford to eat unless you were making $75k / yr. And who would want to take a trip up PCH?