Cutting air pollution from fossil fuels would save 50,000 lives a year, study says.
News Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2022/05/16/climate-change-air-pollution-saved-lives/
GeoHealth Article: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GH000603
At the height of the Industrial Revolution came an explosion of technology and industry with a spike in pollution that has only increased since. While one of the world’s largest energy sources, fossil fuel combustion is also a major contributor to harmful pollution as it is a significant source of particulate matter (PM) and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). I reviewed the Washington Post article “Cutting air pollution from fossil fuels would save 50,000 lives a year, study says.” The article is based upon a study published in GeoHealth “Nationwide and Regional PM2.5-Related Air Quality Health Benefits from the Removal of Energy-Related Emissions in the United States” which dives into the health and monetary benefits of switching to clean energy based upon various scientific models and studies. Fossil fuels are defined as any class of biologically originating carbonaceous materials from the Earth’s crust that can be used as an energy source with natural gas, coal, and oil as some of the most widely used forms of fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels have a long history of raising biological and ecological concern in PM, SO2, and NOx emissions upon combustion. Health issues in individuals have all been linked to fossil fuels combustion processes. The study explores the impact of PM emissions and GHG impacts on human health in addition to the region-wide and country-wide benefits of implementing clean energy in place of fossil fuels.
The Washington Post article by Steven Mufson provides a good overview of the study published in GeoHealth in providing that a switch from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources may provide a large reduction in pollution-related deaths as well as a reduction in monetary expenditures related to pollution complications. The post does a good job of highlighting the common pollutants expulsed during fossil fuel combustion as well as the main modeling analysis utilized by the scientific article known as CO-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) that was utilized in order to describe the benefits seen in various regions of the country regarding the elimination of PM. Furthermore, the post by Mufson provided a plethora of quotes from the scientific authors of the GeoHealth article thus greatly supporting the claims presented in the article. Unfortunately, the Washington Post article falls short in its explanation of the health benefits of switching to clean energy as well as explaining any efforts towards the reduction of fossil fuel usage and further work that may be done to reduce emissions. For example, the GeoHealth article highlights various ecologically beneficial legislation that has already been put into place such as that of the Paris Agreement or how in 2021 Massachusetts became the first state to pass legislation aimed at reaching net-zero GHG emissions statewide.
The research article published in GeoHealth provides greater detail into the implications of switching to clean energy regarding public health and the monetary benefits across the six main different energy-related sectors. While their main method of analysis and modeling was utilizing COBRA, the article goes into detail comparing their numbers with various other estimates from other modeling systems and studies alike in order to validate the effectiveness of the transition to clean energy. Furthermore, the article provides detailed background regarding current clean energy transitions such as that of the usage of wind and solar energy and their seen benefits. Additionally, the article provides detailed background calculations of the benefit of a combined switch away from fossil fuels as well as the isolated regional benefits to a switch to clean energy. The article provides a quantitative breakdown as to the effectiveness of switching to clean energy such as prevention of non-fatal heart attacks and asthma-related emergency room visits.
The most evident issue provided in both the scientific article and that posted by the Washington Post is that of the monetary and physiological benefit of switching from fossil fuels to clean energy. Both regional and country-wide reduction in emissions by switching to clean energy are evident in reducing health risks such as respiratory-related conditions as well as the country-wide monetary benefit in reducing healthcare costs and problems with loss of work. While the Washington Post article did not present any factually inaccurate information, it did gloss over the health-related concerns as well as a specific breakdown into the monetary benefits that were presented in the scientific article. Another shortcoming of the Washington Post article is the neglect of any disparities evident in the amount of pollution exposure dependent upon socio-economic status as mentioned in the scientific article. Additionally, the Washington Post did very little to establish work that has been done or is ongoing to prevent fossil fuel emissions as well as what should be done going forward as presented in the GeoHealth article.
Overall, I would rate the Washington Post article as a 6.5/10 largely due to the lack of information provided by the article. The article did a great job at establishing trust in its claims through the use of the various interviews with the authors of the scientific paper as well as experts outside of the paper’s authors. However, the post falls flat by not providing more detail regarding the specific health benefits, past attempts at improving emission, current legislation, or any future possibilities in which clean energy may be able to take effect. While news articles are meant to shorten, condense, and simplify some scientific findings, I believe that the author lost much of the impact the article could have by leaving out these various specific details. Additionally, the sense of action the article provided without mentioning how the individual may act leads to the reader being dissatisfied. As global emissions continue to increase, the negative physiological, economic, and ecological impact that fossil fuel combustion will have on the world will increase.
I've noticed that many of our critiques about these articles are about the lack of directive action. Thank you for pointing out that these news articles are meant to simplify the publications they are based on, but if the publication doesn't mention mitigation or elimination strategies, is it the journalist's job to put that in?
ReplyDeleteHey Bryson, you make a really great point. I don't necessarily think it is the journalist's job to explain in depth a strategy for mitigation; however, I do think that the journalist should provide some additional information rather than restating the scientific article. If there is a spot that is lacking, I believe it is the journalist's responsibility to bridge that gap to provide the readers a better understanding of the science being presented as well as what the future for the science holds.
DeleteThanks for sharing this article! It definitely has an eye-catching title. I wonder how did they estimate the PM 2.5 concentration in the model, especially the PM2.5 from the combustion of fossil fuel? There are several air monitoring stations across the US (ASCENT atmospheric science and chemistry measurements network) to provide PM2.5 concentrations that can be helpful for improve the model accuracy. It seems like the post did not provide many solid evidence or connection by reducing fossil fuel to health outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the original Washington Post article did not provide a lot of information regarding health outcomes due to fossil fuel combustion reduction. In terms of the PM2.5 model, it seems as though the authors compiled various previously performed studies by different groups in order to develop a regional average for the country although the exact method in which they compiled the initial parameters for the COBRA analysis is not provided.
DeleteThe impact of energy-related PM2.5 emissions on public health is alarming. This study highlights how transitioning to clean energy can prevent thousands of deaths annually. We must push for policies that prioritize air quality improvements for a healthier future. Even the transition into clean energy is challenging. For example, EV's are considered as a better alternative to the current vehicles. But the important point is that the increase in EV's usage will increase the pollution caused by the production for the increased energy production. In order to fully transition into the clean energy, still the technology required is not developed.
ReplyDeleteI agree Kiruthieek. I think that is why it is so important that as scientists we try to explore different areas of science that may lead us to cleaner energy altogether. We have the opportunity to discover technology that could help preserve the environment and the wellbeing of the population. I do not think there will be a one-size fits-all type of answer; however, I absolutely think that clean energy, its impact, and its implementation needs to be studied more.
DeleteIt almost seems like the journalist wasn't confident in going into the details on this research and is intentionally nebulous about the "benefits" which are clearly mentioned in the journal. This is frustrating to see because while the citations in the Washington Post article appeal to credibility, the paper itself lacks assertion and description in allowing the reader to make many meaningful conclusions. I did like how the article mentioned a shared conclusion that even local efforts can show quick improvement and the benefits are shared locally.
ReplyDeleteJonathan, I completely agree with you. It seems as though the Washington Post author tried to provide a solid scientific background in the posts claims by the support of the various interviews provided in the article; however, the lack of true detail and direction really reduces the posts impact. I do like that they highlighted that even small-scale change will lead to an overall improvement as well.
DeleteI appreciate the focus on the health and economic impacts of fossil fuel emissions, as well as the critique of how the Washington Post article simplifies certain aspects. However, I wonder if the article could have provided a specific example of how other modeling systems compare to COBRA to further validate the scientific study’s findings. Do you think including such a comparison would have strengthened the argument or would that make it more complicated?
ReplyDeleteI do think that maybe the Washington Post article could have provided more information regarding COBRA rather than just listing it as the primary modeling system used by the scientific article. Additionally, I think that if a comparison to other modeling systems was included it may help to validate the data gathered by the scientific article. While other systems may seem complicated, it is important to try to simplify the systems operations in order for the general public to be more informed.
DeleteThis article is interesting and well-suited for a scientific setting. However, Steven Mufson could have enhanced it by providing the public with more foundational information about particulate matter. Another concern is the model used to estimate PM2.5, which Dr. Lei had questioned. Great post, Seth!
ReplyDelete