Study: Proposed Carbon Cuts Could Save 3,000+ Lives Per Year

Reductions in national carbon emissions could prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths per year by cleaning up the air across the nation, finds a new study published yesterday in Nature Climate Change.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Reductions in national carbon emissions could prevent more than 3,000 premature deaths per year by cleaning up the air across the nation, finds a new study published yesterday in Nature Climate Change.

Furthermore, according to Driscoll and his fellow researchers, the largest potential health benefits would occur in states in the Ohio River Valley, which currently have some of the highest air pollution levels from coal-fired power plants in the nation.

These health benefits would be the indirect result of moving away from coal-fired power plants for power generation. Coal plants not only produce carbon dioxide (CO2), but also air pollutants including PM and precursors to tropospheric (ground-level) ozone. Both PM and ozone have been linked with many health problems included asthma and lung disease. Each year, an estimated 800,000 early deaths occur around the globe as the result of these two combustion-related air pollutants.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For this study, including only the emissions produced at power plants (this is not a life-cycle analysis nor does it include other portions of the energy system), these Syracuse and Harvard researchers observed only co-benefits with regards to premature deaths. That is, reducing CO2 emissions indirectly resulted in decreased early mortality across the board. Furthermore, of the scenarios presented, it appears that the one most closely resembling the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan (as proposed last June) has the largest co-benefit, saving just over 3,500 lives per year.

To explore the full study, visit this link.

Photo Credit: Photo of the General James M. Gavin plant on the Ohio River by Analogue Kid and used via Creative Commons.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe