Burning fossil fuels releases significant quantities of carbon dioxide, aggravating climate change. Although it gets less attention these days, combustion also emits volumes of pollutants, which can cause a variety of illnesses. The most extensive consequences across the U.S. are noted below.
— Mark Fischetti
| U.S. Health Burden Caused by Particulate Pollution from Fossil-Fueled Power Plants | |
|---|---|
| Illness | Mean Number of Cases |
| Asthma (hospital admissions) | 3,020 |
| Pneumonia (hospital admissions) | 4,040 |
| Asthma (emergency room visits) | 7,160 |
| Cardiovascular ills (hospital admissions) | 9,720 |
| Chronic bronchitis | 18,600 |
| Premature deaths | 30,100 |
| Acute bronchitis | 59,000 |
| Asthma attacks | 603,000 |
| Lower respiratory ills | 630,000 |
| Upper respiratory ills | 679,000 |
| Lost workdays | 5.13 million |
| Minor restricted-activity days | 26.3 million |
» Read more about ‘The Human Cost of Energy’ in the September 2011 issue of Scientific American.
Source: “The Health Costs of Inaction with Respect to Air Pollution,” by Pascale Scapecchi, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Environmental Working Papers, No. 2.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentIt's a small percentage of combustion that becomes the particulates that contribute to many of the above problems, but those very small percentages certainly have a pronounced effect. Diseases such as asthma should be incredibly uncommon, yet are disturbingly commonplace these days. Of course, combustion waste isn't the only contributor; second-hand smoke, volatile chemicals, etc, all contribute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWest Virginia is #1 in all those ailments because we are the #1 fossil fuel burner and we are not going to let any of that "clean energy" stuff come into our state. We are proud of our dirty #1 reputation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, no one can say dirty energy is cheap in light of these numbers. Stricter pollution controls and a price tag on carbon emissions are the most practical way to even begin to balance out these externalities. That way, the Market can make more efficient decisions instead of being thrown out of whack by these indirect subsidies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault, I can say that dirty energy is way cheap in light of these figures; you don't seem to be aware of your surroundings. I urge you to look at the whole picture:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would happily stipulate to the statistics in the article if they would also print an article delineating the myriad ways in which lives are improved, indeed saved, through the use of fossil fuels.
What, for instance, are the economic and medical benefits derived from the use fossil fuels? Well, there is the high percentage of life saving medicines derived from the chemical compounds found in fossil fuels. That fact alone overshadows by far the number of deaths and illnesses attributed to the evil Texas "T".
But wait! There's more! The internal combustion engine, which is derided so often here and elswhere, is directly responsible for life saving rides to the hospital that must number twenty five to fifty times the number of "illnesses" per year listed above.
Then there is the hospital, which simply would not exist in it's present form without fossil fuels; there are no materials in a modern hospital, for instance, which aren't in some way tied to fossil fuels; from the plastics which are made directly from the chemicals found in oil, to every single product that had to be shipped there by some means of transportation, to the building materials themselves, which wouldn't exist without fossil fuels.
Sorry, I'll put up with my asthma as long as I can get my daughter and her ruptured appendix to surgery in a timely manner. Or would you suggest she use eco-friendly mass-transit?
The greatest lie the left ever told is that Humans are destroying the earth with fossil fuels. In fact, the exact opposite is true. We owe our robust health in this country largely as a result, directly or indirectly, to the use of fossil fuels.
We will undoubtably move eventually to some other form of energy some day soon and I look forward to that day. But this pathetic, myopic, one-sided article is hardly the persuasive argument you seem to think it is.
But keep trying; Your love for all things left is pretty endearing.
Yeah ! Oil and gas are the backbone of the chemical industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why do you insist on burning it to produce the most degraded form of energy (heat) when there are alternatives .
You're confusing energy source with energy services. Now that we are able to generate power cleanly, we should not let these costs to society that fossil fuel usage imposes to be socalized anymore. Letting dirty energy get a free ride on their externalities retards clean energy deployment and makes the market operate less efficiently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You're confusing energy source with energy services. Now that we are able to generate power cleanly, we should not let these costs to society that fossil fuel usage imposes to be socalized anymore".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not confusing anything. I merely understand that the two cannot be summarily separated in the way you suggest. Fossil fuels benefit our lives in SO MANY ways that most people, leftist environmentalists in particular, take it all for granted.
So, Okay, I'll bite; What then, is your clean energy source that can supplant gas and diesel and coal as the pre-eminent fuel for powering our national fleet? What is the fuel of YOUR choice for our shipping? Where is the cheap source of power to heat and cool our homes and businesses; ALL of our homes and businesses?
When can we expect the complete revamping of our national infrastructure so that we can carry on with business as usual? And please, as an aside, don't try to say that the evil, greedy Republicans are what's standing between you and this utopia! I'm frankly sick to death of that tiny minded, one dimensional assessment of our political process.
These are not rhetorical questions, even though they are probably unanswerable by you. Unanswerable in any meaningful way that is. Because unless you possess some special knowledge of which I am unaware, I'm guessing all you have to offer are the usual suspects; solar, wind power, electric vehicles, biofuels, and fuel cell technologies.
I'm sorry, but if each and every one the above were to be subsidized at 100% and put into practice, all of them COMBINED would not begin to meet the smallest fraction of total energy demands for decades to come. And this is to say nothing about building the kinds of support and infrastructure necessary to replace fossil fuels.
The collective left (I do know how to turn a phrase, don't I?) Bleats and yammers about "dirty oil" and "evil, greedy rich people" like so many two year olds, pounding on their high chairs in their full diapers: "Oil BAD! Don't want oil! me want happy green alternative! Me want NOW"!
Sorry to have to tell you this, but none of the nanny states on the planet, including, sadly, our own, can accomodate you right now. Why don't you all lie down with your blankies an go night night for while?
You make some good points timbo (although it might behove you to be a little less derisory). But we cannot ignore these deaths which are a real cost to the use of fossil fuels that are not "accounted" for when comparing costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere ARE alternatives to fossil fuels, albeit superficially more expensive, that can at least reduce the amount of coal and fuel we burn.
And, of course, there is the real answer to our climate change and fossile fuel woes if only we would examine the data rationally - and that is Nuclear.
Unfortunately the word "fukushima" shuts down all rational debate about nuclear as being part of the way forward
I agree with you about nuclear It is overwhelmingly cleaner and safer than coal for instance. But it seems that the Luddites have the louder voices for the time being.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy main point being is that there is nothing that replaces fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Nor do I care whether we exploit these technologies to the best of our ability, but it will still be nibbling around the edges of this historically beneficial symbiosis.
As to AGCC, We still have about thirty to fifty years before anyone will know to a certainty whether the models are right or whether it's natural variability. By that time vast new disruptive technologies will have arrived to make the argument mute, in my not so very humble opinion.
And thanks but no thanks on your cordial invitation to be less derisory (great word!) As a christian and a conservative, I have been slandered and derided and labeled enough here. I give every bit as good as I get and more; and I don't believe in the "measured response".
I'll be quick:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Include externalities like these health costs into the price of fossil fuels somehow. Tight pollution standards and a price on carbon between $20 - 40 per ton would be a good start. This would raise the energy costs for the median household by between $70 - $170 PER YEAR. Not a bad deal to begin cleaning up the air, right?
2. Remove subsidies to dirty energy incumbent industries. The $4B per year Domestic MANUFACTURING tax credit the Oil Industry takes advantage of is the most egregious, but there are plenty of others. FYI, the Republicans bellyache about the Deficit and complain that renewable energy gets subsidies, but then they block its repeal. This is just a handout to the most profitable industry on Earth, so they don't need any bought-and-paid-for handouts anymore.
3. Refund 80% of the Carbon Tax revenue to every valid Social Security # and use the remaining 20% to fund energy efficiency and clean energy research / deployment.
4. Slowly ratchet up the price on carbon a few percent every year or more based on emissions levels to keep the world from backsliding.
5. Lead the world in clean energy / efficiency again, exporting the clean infrastructure the world craves while putting people to work building it here too. Watch the money pile up.
6. Build up electric car charging infrastructure and steadily improve EV / plug-in hybrid cost and range. The Nissan Leaf already gets 100 miles and costs $32K before the tax credit and battery improvements are so numerous that it's hard to keep track of them. Increase the tax credit to $10K and make it a point-of-sale rebate.
7. Build high-speed rail connecting major corridors like DC - Boston, Minneapolis - NYC, San Diego - San Fran. Do the same for freight lines to get most of the big rigs off the highways (they cause 95% of road surface deterioration, so this could SAVE lots of money).
8. Develop biofuels to run air transportation, marine shipping and the rest of the long-haul transport that can't be electrified.
9. Stop subsidizing sprawl by changing the mortgage interest deduction and planning laws that spread cities out needlessly. Encourage high-density zoning so people have the freedom to live without a car if they want (I'm one of them and there are millions like me).
10. Watch with delight as the wackos in the Middle East go bankrupt and have to hit each other with sticks on camelback again.
I'd say "nice try", but it was actually very weak. In addition to being extremely condescending, it displays a full spectrum of freshman level debate errors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.) First word, first sentence... BURNING.
2.) You say you will (paraphrasing) "accept facts in evidence", as long as the author provides an in-depth essay extolling the benefits of "using" oil. You might as well state: "I will accept your assertion claiming the low probability of our Sun going super-nova within the next 24 hours, on the condition you provide a 10,000 word essay proving the Moon isn't made of cheese." The author makes no claim the USE of oil isn't beneficial. In fact, the thesis of the article rests on the foundation of the universally accepted and widely employed benefits - without accurate consideration for the costs of one form of use, combustion.
3.) False choice argument. If we chose to reduce reliance on burning fossil fuels for transportation, we must give up the production of medications and medical devices made possible by fossil hydrocarbons??
Hardly... In fact: The need to preserve fossil hydrocarbons for production of critical life saving medical products is one of the strongest arguments for reduced consumption through combustion in transportation.
4.) False choice #2(?): Part a.) Emergency vehicles must burn hydrocarbons, therefore the large health impacts of current rates of combustion are (seemingly) not worthy of consideration? Part b.) The effects must not be considered, lest you be a pawn of pure political propaganda?
5.) "OUR" -- "Robust Health"?? Have you looked outside your window lately? Unless you are the CEO of Exxon/ Conoco/Halliburton/ ... et al, a family member, or a top-tier member of the For-Profit health-care industry ...{our NON-Universal system currently consumes nearly 20% of our GDP -- twice the planet average -- equating to $1,500 BILLION excess per year - when compared to other advanced systems which provide UNIVERSAL coverage, and much MORE care per capita ...}, then "Robust Health" is hyperbolic propaganda.
Your debate certainly assumes the reader has minimal critical thinking skills. Given the audience, this isn't effective.
With due respect timbo you are totally off the mark with respect to AGCC. We know now we are the cause - the evidence for that is overwhelming. There is uncertainty only about how far/how fast the warming will be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you cannot see that then you are denial of the evidence which somewhat kills your credibility on this topic. I suggest you look at the skepticalscience.com website to learn more.
There is no denying that fossil fuel use has brought us many benefits - but there are also costs of which this article highlights but some - and until now we have ignored them. There will be an accounting for these costs whether we will it or not.
We cannot afford to wait 50 years. By then the damage will be undoable and it is wishful thinking, not evidence based logic, to assume that technology will provide a magic bullet solution. There are alternatives available now that we can start to implement. They don't provide 100% of the answer yet but we need to be doing what is achievable - and a first step is putting a price on CO2 emissions that reflects its true cost.
That is a true "suer pays" market pricinple and will also send the right price signal for us to start the move towards better alternatives.
I'd say "nice try", but it was actually very weak. In addition to being extremely condescending, it displays a full spectrum of freshman level debate errors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.) First word, first sentence... BURNING.
2.) You say you will (paraphrasing) "accept facts in evidence", as long as the author provides an in-depth essay extolling the benefits of "using" oil. You might as well state: "I will accept your assertion claiming the low probability of our Sun going super-nova within the next 24 hours, on the condition you provide a 10,000 word essay proving the Moon isn't made of cheese." The author makes no claim the USE of oil isn't beneficial. In fact, the thesis of the article rests on the foundation of the universally accepted and widely employed benefits - without accurate consideration for the costs of one form of use, combustion.
3.) False choice argument. If we chose to reduce reliance on burning fossil fuels for transportation, we must give up the production of medications and medical devices made possible by fossil hydrocarbons??
Hardly... In fact: The need to preserve fossil hydrocarbons for production of critical life saving medical products is one of the strongest arguments for reduced consumption through combustion in transportation.
4.) False choice #2(?): Part a.) Emergency vehicles must burn hydrocarbons, therefore the large health impacts of current rates of combustion are (seemingly) not worthy of consideration? Part b.) The effects must not be considered, lest you be a pawn of pure political propaganda?
5.) "OUR" -- "Robust Health"?? Have you looked outside your window lately? Unless you are the CEO of Exxon/ Conoco/Halliburton/ ... et al, a family member, or a top-tier member of the For-Profit health-care industry ...{our NON-Universal system currently consumes nearly 20% of our GDP -- twice the planet average -- equating to $1,500 BILLION excess per year - when compared to other advanced systems which provide UNIVERSAL coverage, and much MORE care per capita ...}, then "Robust Health" is hyperbolic propaganda.
Your debate certainly assumes the reader has minimal critical thinking skills. Given the audience, this isn't effective.
I'd say "nice try", but it was actually very weak. In addition to being extremely condescending, it displays a full spectrum of freshman level debate errors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1.) First word, first sentence... BURNING.
2.) You say you will (paraphrasing) "accept facts in evidence", as long as the author provides an in-depth essay extolling the benefits of "using" oil. You might as well state: "I will accept your assertion claiming the low probability of our Sun going super-nova within the next 24 hours, on the condition you provide a 10,000 word essay proving the Moon isn't made of cheese." The author makes no claim the USE of oil isn't beneficial. In fact, the thesis of the article rests on the foundation of the universally accepted and widely employed benefits - without accurate consideration for the costs of one form of use, combustion.
3.) False choice argument. If we chose to reduce reliance on burning fossil fuels for transportation, we must give up the production of medications and medical devices made possible by fossil hydrocarbons??
Hardly... In fact: The need to preserve fossil hydrocarbons for production of critical life saving medical products is one of the strongest arguments for reduced consumption through combustion in transportation.
4.) False choice #2(?): Part a.) Emergency vehicles must burn hydrocarbons, therefore the large health impacts of current rates of combustion are (seemingly) not worthy of consideration? Part b.) The effects must not be considered, lest you be a pawn of pure political propaganda?
5.) "OUR" -- "Robust Health"?? Have you looked outside your window lately? Unless you are the CEO of Exxon/ Conoco/Halliburton/ ... et al, a family member, or a top-tier member of the For-Profit health-care industry ...{our NON-Universal system currently consumes nearly 20% of our GDP -- twice the planet average -- equating to $1,500 BILLION excess per year - when compared to other advanced systems which provide UNIVERSAL coverage, and much MORE care per capita ...}, then "Robust Health" is hyperbolic propaganda.
Your debate certainly assumes the reader has minimal critical thinking skills. Given the audience, this isn't effective.
Sorry for the repeated post. The site was not properly posting and refreshing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll be quicker:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHigh speed rail, for even the densest population areas, is ridiculously expensive and even at full capacity will take LESS than five percent of the cars off the road.
For half the money you could duplicate the freeway you already have and thereby get more people to their destinations faster with fewer fatalities, if that's what you really care about.
This is exactly the kind of utopian, "popular science" Socialist planning that appeals to the left, because it "sounds" good, or "feels" good or both, but isn't rooted in reality.
Unfortunately, it would require crippling subsidies. It would take three to five time as long to build, and it would serve just a tiny fraction of the taxpayers who pay for it.
I'm sorry, but you just made the least populist suggestion I've heard fom a Socialist in a while; Spend the most amount of money to serve the least number of people. Building roads accomplishes exactly the opposite.
Even if you could demonstrate those numbers regarding illness and mortality, etc. were accurate, you would have to compare them to something; I compare them to 300,000,000 people who lead happy, healthy, propsperous lives due to fossile fuels.
An excellent dissection!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease tell me why Europe can accomplish High-speed rail and we can't? It's that kind of defeatist attitude, the idea that America can't solve big problems anymore that has gotten us into so many problems over the last 30 years. People of your philosophical persuasion go on and on about the creative spirit and energy of the USA, but as soon as we want to do something that actually helps people, you guys become the biggest bunch of crybabies ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuess what, road construction NEVER pays for itself because the federal highway fund has to borrow from the general fund every year due to the absurdly low gasoline taxes in this country. As it stands currently, people who don't use a car like me are SUBSIDIZING people who do use a car, people like you I'm guessing, because my income taxes supplement infrastructure that I don't use. Now is that fair? How about we AT LEAST increase fuel taxes to fully cover the highway fund to eliminate those darn subsidies you always complain about?