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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe