Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts

Friday, May 12, 2023

Air pollution and health impacts of oil & gas production in the United States

Abstract
Oil and gas production is one of the largest emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and a significant contributor of air pollution emissions. While research on methane emissions from oil and gas production has grown rapidly, there is comparatively limited information on the distribution of impacts of this sector on air quality and associated health impacts. Understanding the contribution of air quality and health impacts of oil and gas can be useful for designing mitigation strategies. Here we assess air quality and human health impacts associated with ozone, fine particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide from the oil and gas sector in the US in 2016, and compare this impact with that of the associated methane emissions. We find that air pollution in 2016 from the oil and gas sector in the US resulted in 410 000 asthma exacerbations, 2200 new cases of childhood asthma and 7500 excess deaths, with $77 billion in total health impacts. NO2 was the highest contributor to health impacts (37%) followed by ozone (35%), and then PM2.5 (28%). When monetized, these air quality health impacts of oil and gas production exceeded estimated climate impact costs from methane leakage by a factor of 3. These impacts add to the total life cycle impacts of oil and gas, and represent potential additional health benefits of strategies that reduce consumption of oil and gas. Policies to reduce oil and gas production emissions will lead to additional and significant health benefits from co-pollutant reductions that are not currently quantified or monetized. 
by Jonathan J Buonocore5,1, Srinivas Reka2, Dongmei Yang2, Charles Chang2, Ananya Roy3, Tammy Thompson3, David Lyon3, Renee McVay3, Drew Michanowicz4 and Saravanan Arunachalam2
1 Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America jjbuono@bu.edu
2 Institute for the Environment, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
3 Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC, United States of America
4 Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy, Oakland, CA, United States of America
Environmental Research: Health https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/2752-5309 via IPO Science https://iopscience.iop.org/
Volume 1, Number 2; Published 8 May 2023 

Thursday, May 11, 2023

Health, air pollution, and location choice

Abstract:
This paper provides evidence that air-pollution-related health conditions change how households evaluate clean air and, as a result, incentivize them to relocate to locations with better air quality. The evidence implies that naive estimations of the adverse effect of air pollution on health are biased, as people sort on air quality differently depending on their health. [The author employs] a spatial-equilibrium model in which households choose a county to live in based on county-level characteristics including air pollution. Using National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data, [the author creates] a panel tracking respondents’ respiratory health shocks and county-level location for over three decades. The estimates from a multinomial mixed logit model support the hypothesis that households move to cleaner-air locations after an adult is diagnosed with asthma. [Siyu Pan finds] that households react more strongly to an asthma diagnosis for an adult than to a child’s diagnosis. The estimated median increase in marginal willingness to pay for a one-unit reduction in Air Quality Index after a diagnosis of adult-onset asthma is $157–$830 (in constant 1982–84 dollars).
Air Quality by County

by Siyu Pan, Department of Economics, Georgia State University, 55 Park Place, Atlanta, GA 30302, United States of America and The W. A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona University, 
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-environmental-economics-and-management via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 119; May, 2023; 102794, Available online 22 February 2023

Sunday, December 6, 2020

The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises

Executive summary
...
The 2020 report presents 43 indicators across five sections: climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerabilities; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. This report represents the findings and consensus of the 35 leading academic institutions and UN agencies that make up The Lancet Countdown, and draws on the expertise of climate scientists, geographers, engineers, experts in energy, food, and transport, economists, social, and political scientists, data scientists, public health professionals, and doctors.
...
5 years ago, countries committed to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” as part of the landmark Paris Agreement. 5 years on, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise steadily, with no convincing or sustained abatement, resulting in a rise in the global average temperature of 1·2°C. Indeed, the five hottest years on record have occurred since 2015.

The changing climate has already produced considerable shifts in the underlying social and environmental determinants of health at the global level. Indicators in all domains of section 1 (climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerabilities) are worsening. Concerning, and often accelerating, trends were seen for each of the human symptoms of climate change monitored, with the 2020 indicators presenting the most worrying outlook reported since The Lancet Countdown was first established.

These effects are often unequal, disproportionately impacting populations who have contributed the least to the problem. This fact reveals a deeper question of justice, whereby climate change interacts with existing social and economic inequalities and exacerbates longstanding trends within and between countries. An examination of the causes of climate change revealed similar issues, and many carbon-intensive practices and policies lead to poor air quality, poor food quality, and poor housing quality, which disproportionately harm the health of disadvantaged populations.

Vulnerable populations were exposed to an additional 475 million heatwave events globally in 2019, which was, in turn, reflected in excess morbidity and mortality (indicator 1.1.2). During the past 20 years, there has been a 53·7% increase in heat-related mortality in people older than 65 years, reaching a total of 296 000 deaths in 2018 (indicator 1.1.3). The high cost in terms of human lives and suffering is associated with effects on economic output, with 302 billion h of potential labour capacity lost in 2019 (indicator 1.1.4). India and Indonesia were among the worst affected countries, seeing losses of potential labour capacity equivalent to 4–6% of their annual gross domestic product (indicator 4.1.3). In Europe in 2018, the monetised cost of heat-related mortality was equivalent to 1·2% of regional gross national income, or the average income of 11 million European citizens (indicator 4.1.2).

Turning to extremes of weather, advancements in climate science allow for greater accuracy and certainty in attribution; studies from 2015 to 2020 have shown the fingerprints of climate change in 76 floods, droughts, storms, and temperature anomalies (indicator 1.2.3). Furthermore, there was an increase in the number of days people were exposed to a very high or extremely high risk of wildfire between 2001–04 and 2016–19 in 114 countries (indicator 1.2.1). Correspondingly, 67% of global cities surveyed expected climate change to seriously compromise their public health assets and infrastructure (indicator 2.1.3).

The changing climate has downstream effects, impacting broader environmental systems, which in turn harm human health. Global food security is threatened by rising temperatures and increases in the frequency of extreme events; global yield potential for major crops declined by 1·8–5·6% between 1981 and 2019 (indicator 1.4.1). The climate suitability for infectious disease transmission has been growing rapidly since the 1950s, with a 15·0% increase for dengue caused by Aedes albopictus in 2018, and regional increases for malaria and Vibrio bacteria (indicator 1.3.1). Projecting forward, based on current populations, between 145 million people and 565 million people face potential inundation from rising sea levels (indicator 1.5).

Despite these clear and escalating signs, the global response to climate change has been muted and national efforts continue to fall short of the commitments made in the Paris Agreement. The carbon intensity of the global energy system has remained almost flat for 30 years, with global coal use increasing by 74% during this time (indicators 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). The reduction in global coal use that had been observed since 2013 has now reversed for the past 2 consecutive years: coal use rose by 1·7% from 2016 to 2018. The health burden is substantial—more than 1 million deaths occur every year as a result of air pollution from coal-fired power, and some 390 000 of these deaths were a result of particulate pollution in 2018 (indicator 3.3). The response in the food and agricultural sector has been similarly concerning. Emissions from livestock grew by 16% from 2000 to 2017, with 93% of emissions coming from ruminant animals (indicator 3.5.1). Likewise, increasingly unhealthy diets are becoming more common worldwide, with excess red meat consumption contributing to some 990 000 deaths in 2017 (indicator 3.5.2). 5 years on from when countries reached an agreement in Paris, a concerning number of indicators are showing an early, but sustained, reversal of previously positive trends identified in past reports (indicators 1.3.2, 3.1.2, and 4.2.3).

Despite little economy-wide improvement, relative gains have been made in several key sectors: from 2010 to 2017, the average annual growth rate in renewable energy capacity was 21%, and low-carbon electricity was responsible for 28% of capacity in China in 2017 (indicator 3.1.3). However, the indicators presented in the 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown suggest that some of the most considerable progress was seen in the growing momentum of the health profession's engagement with climate change globally. Doctors, nurses, and the broader profession have a central role in health system adaptation and mitigation, in understanding and maximising the health benefits of any intervention, and in communicating the need for an accelerated response.
...
Individual health professionals and their associations are also responding well, with health institutions committing to divest more than $42 billion worth of assets from fossil fuels (indicator 4.2.4)....

It is clear that human and environmental systems are inextricably linked, and that any response to climate change must harness, rather than damage, these connections.10 Indeed, a response commensurate to the size of the challenge, which prioritises strengthening health-care systems, invests in local communities, and ensures clean air, safe drinking water, and nourishing food, will provide the foundations for future generations to not only survive, but to thrive.11 Evidence suggests that being more ambitious than current climate policies by limiting warming to 1·5°C by 2100 would generate a net global benefit of US$264–610 trillion.12 The economic case of expanding ambition is further strengthened when the benefits of a healthier workforce and reduced health-care costs are considered.

Thursday, November 12, 2020

Lead in Drinking Water and Birth Outcomes: A Tale of Two Water Treatment Plants

Abstract
The recent drinking water crisis in Newark, New Jersey's largest city, has renewed concerns about the lead-in-water crisis becoming a persistent and widespread problem owing to the nation's aging infrastructure. We exploit a unique natural experiment in Newark, which exogenously exposed some women in the city to higher levels of lead in tap water but not others, to identify a causal effect of prenatal lead exposure on fetal health. Using birth data that contain information on mothers' exact residential addresses, we find robust and consistent evidence that prenatal exposure to lead significantly raises the probability of low birth weight or preterm births by approximately 1.4 to 1.9 percentage points (14-22 percent), and the adverse effects are largely concentrated among mothers of lower socioeconomic status. Our findings have important policy implications in light of the long-term impact of compromised health at birth and the substantial number of lead water pipes that remain in use as part of our aging infrastructure.
...
With infant health being an important predictor of later-life outcomes, these estimates are critical towards evaluating the cost-benefit calculus of infrastructure investments, including replacing all of the nation’s lead service lines, an initiative supported by the EPA as well as many states and communities at a potential cost of between $29 to $47 billion (EPA, 2019)... The EPA (2019) noted 6.1–10 million lead service lines (LSL) nationally, with an average estimated replacement cost of $4,700 per LSL
In March 2019, Newark commenced a program to remove and replace all of the city’s lead service lines in the water system at no cost to the homeowner, at a projected public cost of $90–$180 million. With the lifetime societal economic burden of a preterm birth estimated to be approximately $66,331 2018 dollars. The Institute of Medicine (2007) estimated the societal burden of a preterm birth to be $51,589 in 2005 dollars. The societal cost of the lead crisis in Newark could amount to $1.99–$2.65 million per year, just from an estimated increase of 30 to 40 preterm births linked to the heightened lead exposure each year. [30 (or 40) preterm births×66,331 per preterm births = $1.99 million (or $2.65 million)],

Assuming a discount rate for public policy of 2 percent based on the social rate of time preference (Council of Economic Advisers, 2017), societal cost savings from averting this adverse fetal health could be between $100 and $133 million, significantly offsetting the cost of public infrastructure investment. [There is ... debate as to the appropriate discount rate to apply for public policy (see for instance, Council of Economic Advisers,2017; Li and Pizer, 2018) depending on the social rate of time preference or the social opportunity cost of capital, and the length of the time horizon under consideration. The U.S. federal guidance requires agencies to use both a 3% and a 7% real discount rate in regulatory cost-benefit analyses. Under this guidance, the societal cost savings of averting the adverse fetal health would be between $66.3 million and $88.3 million (social discount rate of 0.03) and between $28.4 million and $37.9 million (social discount rate of 0.07). Clearly, the cost implications are sensitive to the discount rate employed. With long-term real interest rates decreasing substantially over the past decade, a recent issue brief by the Council of Economic Advisers (2017) recommends lowering the estimate of the social discount rate in applications to public policy cost-benefit calculus.
...
by Dhaval M. Dave & Muzhe Yang
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) www.NBER.org
Working Paper 27996; October 2020



Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Quantifying the Human Health Benefits of Using Satellite Information to Detect Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms and Manage Recreational Advisories in U.S. Lakes

Abstract
Significant recent advances in satellite remote sensing allow environmental managers to detect and monitor cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (cyanoHAB), and these capabilities are being used more frequently in water quality management. A quantitative estimate of the socioeconomic benefits generated from these new capabilities, known as an impact assessment, was missing from the growing literature on cyanoHABs and remote sensing. In this paper, we present an impact assessment framework to characterize the socioeconomic benefits of satellite remote sensing for detecting cyanoHABs and managing recreational advisories at freshwater lakes. We then apply this framework to estimate the socioeconomic benefits of satellite data that were used to manage a 2017 cyanoHAB event in Utah Lake. CyanoHAB events on Utah Lake can pose health risks to people who interact with the blooms through recreation. We find that the availability of satellite data yielded socioeconomic benefits by improving human health outcomes valued at approximately $370,000, though a sensitivity analysis reveals that this central estimate can vary significantly ($55,000–$1,057,000 in benefits) as a result of different assumptions regarding the time delay in posting a recreational advisory, the number of people exposed to the cyanoHAB, the number of people who experience gastrointestinal symptoms, and the cost per case of illness.

by Signe Stroming  Molly Robertson  Bethany Mabee  Yusuke Kuwayama  Blake Schaeffer
Volume 4, Issue 9; September 2020; First published: 18 June 2020 

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out

Abstract:
Many countries have phased out nuclear electricity production in response to concerns about nuclear waste and the risk of nuclear accidents. This paper examines the impact of the shutdown of roughly half of the nuclear production capacity in Germany after the Fukushima accident in 2011. We use hourly data on power plant operations and a novel machine learning framework to estimate how plants would have operated differently if the phase-out had not occurred. We find that the lost nuclear electricity production due to the phase-out was replaced primarily by coal-fired production and net electricity imports. The social cost of this shift from nuclear to coal is approximately 12 billion dollars per year. Over 70% of this cost comes from the increased mortality risk associated with exposure to the local air pollution emitted when burning fossil fuels. Even the largest estimates of the reduction in the costs associated with nuclear accident risk and waste disposal due to the phase-out are far smaller than 12 billion dollars.

by Stephen Jarvis, Olivier Deschenes and Akshaya Jha
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) www.NBER.org
NBER Working Paper No. 26598; Issued in December 2019

Friday, August 18, 2017

The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States | Nature Energy

Abstract:
Wind and solar energy reduce combustion-based electricity generation and provide air-quality and greenhouse gas emission benefits. These benefits vary dramatically by region and over time. From 2007 to 2015, solar and wind power deployment increased rapidly while regulatory changes and fossil fuel price changes led to steep cuts in overall power-sector emissions. Here we evaluate how wind and solar climate and air-quality benefits evolved during this time period. We find cumulative wind and solar air-quality benefits of 2015 US$29.7–112.8 billion mostly from 3,000 to 12,700 avoided premature mortalities, and cumulative climate benefits of 2015 US$5.3–106.8 billion. The ranges span results across a suite of air-quality and health impact models and social cost of carbon estimates. We find that binding cap-and-trade pollutant markets may reduce these cumulative benefits by up to 16%. In 2015, based on central estimates, combined marginal benefits equal 7.3 ¢ kWh−1 (wind) and 4.0 ¢ kWh−1 (solar).

A free version of the paper dated January 2017 is currently available at https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/health_and_environmental_benefits_wind_solar_2007-2015_jan2017.pdf
by Dev Millstein, Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger & Galen Barbose
Nature Energy https://www.nature.com
Nature Energy 6, Article number: 17134 (2017); Published online: 14 August 2017

Saturday, August 5, 2017

The Price of Climate Deregulation: Adding Up the Costs and Benefits of Federal Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards

Federal climate regulations are currently under attack, in part due to the perception that these regulations will impose excessive costs on regulated industries and society as a whole. But according to federal projections, the benefits of these regulations would significantly outweigh the costs. In a new paper, we added up the projected economic impacts of major federal rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and found that the net benefits could reach nearly $300 billion per year by 2030. The rules will also generate a variety of non-monetized benefits, such as improved public health outcomes and the creation of jobs, as well as climate mitigation benefits that will extend well beyond 2030.

Jessica Wentz and Nadra Rahman analyzed the projected economic impacts of major regulations aimed at controlling carbon dioxide and methane: U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the Bureau of Land Management’s Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, EPA’s 2016 New Source Performance Standards for the oil and gas sector, and EPA’s emissions standards for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.

Rahman and Wentz primarily aggregated EPA and Interior’s own cost-benefit projections of the Obama-era regulations. They also compared the values to separate cost-benefit analyses developed by independent researchers, a number of whom challenged the agencies’ analyses of the regulations, alternately stating that EPA and BLM had overestimated benefits or underestimated costs.
The $370 billion in gross benefits includes the positive impacts of reducing 980 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030, along with the health benefits of also reducing other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides.

These benefits would be four times greater than the projected $84 billion in total costs of implementing major regulations crafted under the Obama administration, said researchers in a paper published on the center’s website yesterday.

On a year-to-year basis, the economic benefits can either significantly exceed, or at the very least match, the cost of implementation. Some of the highest potential benefits come from implementing the Clean Power Plan and from standards for medium- to heavy-duty vehicles. The total does not include other benefits like job creation and long-term climate change mitigation benefits.

Clean Power Plan
Based on EPA’s estimates, the net economic benefits of the rule could be around $7 billion in 2020, and then rise to $46 billion in 2030.  These figures included: compliance costs, an estimated reduction of 74 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2020 and a reduction of 375 million metric tons in 2030. The dollar values also counted health benefits resulting from the reduction of other pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The economic benefits don’t include other potential positives of the rule like avoided premature deaths, lower exposure to hazardous air pollutants and impacts on ecosystems.

The researchers note that the economic benefits are calculated using a social cost of carbon, a complex metric that puts a dollar value on the emission of 1 ton of carbon. The value takes into account how rising global temperatures will affect the planet and society. In the president’s “energy independence” executive order, Trump signaled that the administration would seek to alter this method of calculating the costs of climate change, though agencies could use a related metric that would only take into account domestic impacts of climate change.

Motor Vehicle Emissions
Light-duty vehicles: The fuel efficiency improvements alone for light-duty vehicles are enough to offset the costs of implementing rules on emissions from these vehicles, according to the EPA figures the researchers cited. The net economic benefits of fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 to 2016 are expected to be $34.7 billion in 2020 and $100.4 billion in 2030. Meanwhile, standards for model years 2017 through 2025 could lead to net benefits of $168 billion in 2020 and $81.4 billion in 2030. Medium and heavy-duty vehicles: According to EPA data, phase one of emissions standards for these vehicles, for model years 2014 to 2018, could lead to net benefits of $10 billion in 2020 and $27.3 billion in 2030. Phase two, for model years 2019 to 2028, could have net benefits of $31.5 billion in 2020 and $74.4 billion in 2030.

New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas Sector
As with the Clean Power Plan, EPA used the social cost of carbon metric to calculate the net monetary benefits of controlling methane, volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants emitted from new and modified sources. The net benefits of the rule could be $37 million by 2020 and go up to $180 million in 2025. These numbers consider compliance costs and methane emissions reductions of 300,000 short tons in 2020 and 510,000 short tons in 2025. Not all benefits were included. EPA did not put a dollar value on the health benefits of potential reductions in ozone, which is formed from volatile organic compounds. Estimates also did not include potential natural gas savings from captured methane.
...

By Nadra Rahman and Jessica Wentz
August 3rd, 2017       

Saturday, July 1, 2017

San Francisco International Airport uses insights from Autocase to convert "Triple Bottom Line" from Aspiration to Reality on $2.4B Renovation

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is undergoing a $2.4 billion renovation of Terminal 1 in order to add capacity at one of the busiest U.S. airports and one of the fastest growing in the world. The designs for that renovation are being informed by Autocase®, a brand new software tool that automates "Triple Bottom Line Cost Benefit Analysis (TBL- CBA)" for buildings and sites.

"We have set ambitious goals to excel in passenger experience and health and to meet California's net zero energy requirements," said San Francisco International Airport's Chief Development Officer, Geoff Neumayr. "To do so, we needed to simulate and compare the impacts of possible investments in different building elements, from green roofs to dynamic window glazing to motorized windows to geothermal heat pumps. But I wanted to see those impacts in dollars and cents, and to feel assured we knew how they would affect our 53 million annual passengers and 30,000 employees."
So SFO required that their Design-Build teams, some of the best in the world like Austin Webcor Joint Venture + HKS/WB/ED2/KYA, evaluate each design element through a "comprehensive business case analysis" inclusive of "costs and benefits for all three bottom lines – financial, social, and environmental." "To begin with, together with the Autocase team, we assessed 6 possible design features for Boarding Area B," said Raphael Sperry of Arup, one of the key consultants on the project. "The green roof had a particularly compelling Triple Bottom Line Cost Benefit Analysis (TBL- CBA) - of $5 million over a 50-year timespan, supporting its inclusion in the project. In contrast, the ROI for the ground source heat pump was negative financially (TBL-CBA of -$5.23 million), and the analysis showed that level of investment was not outweighed by its environmental and social benefits. While ground source is an attractive technology, it's not appropriate for every project, and this allowed us to put our resources where they will have a bigger overall impact."

Green Roof
Electrochromic 
Glazing
Motorized
Window
Shades
Interior
Landscaping
Radiant
Heating &
Cooling
Ground Source
Heat Pump
Lifecycle Financial NPV
-$1.05
-$3.29
-$7.59
-$8.48
-$2.84
-$5.82
Social & Environmental NPV
$6.34
$6.26
$6.26
$11.39
$0.44
$0.59
Triple Bottom Line NPV
$5.29
$2.97
-$1.34
$2.91
-$2.41
-$5.23
All figures in millions of US$
Press Release dated June 19, 2017