Coal Shutdowns Save 26.6K Lives in U.S.
The plummeting demand for coal-fired power has led to the shutdown of hundreds of plants and saved an estimated 26,610 lives, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Sustainability, as Yale Environment 360 reported.
Not only has the move towards other sources of power saved lives, but it has also led to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide. It has also reduced air pollution and ozone level and helped increase crop yields and neighboring farms, the study found, according to Yale Environment 360.
The researchers from the University of California San Diego looked at the period between 2005 and 2016 when 334 coal plants were taken offline as a cheap wellspring of natural gas flooded the market. In the same time period, 612 gas-fired plants came online, as The Guardian reported. The researchers found that the wave of shutdowns removed a toxic brew of pollutants from the air, which reduced deaths from associated health problems like heart disease and respiratory illness.
"When you turn coal units off you see deaths go down. It's something we can see in a tangible way," said Jennifer Burney, a University of California San Diego academic who authored the study, as The Guardian reported. "There is a cost to coal beyond the economics. We have to think carefully about where plants are sited, as well as how to reduce their pollutants."
In addition to saving almost 27,000 lives, the researchers calculated that more than 300 million tons of carbon dioxide was not emitted into the atmosphere. Furthermore, irritants like nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, which are known to affect the respiratory tract, dropped by 60 and 80 percent respectively, as The Guardian reported.
The researchers tallied the affect on nearby farms and found that the shutdown of coal-fired plants coupled with cleaner emissions technology saved 570 million bushels of corn, soybeans and wheat over the study period, as Yale Environment 360 reported. The study also looked at the impact of coal-fired stations still running between 2005 and 2016. They estimated that the remaining coal plants caused 329,417 deaths and the loss of 10.2 billion bushels of staple crops, according to Yale Environment 360.
The downward trend for coal has continued since the study period ended. The Atlantic reported on a new study from the Rhodium Group that found that America's coal consumption plunged in 2019, reaching its lowest level since 1975, as electrical utilities switched to natural gas and renewables. That study echoed the findings of the University of California San Diego researchers, noting that over the past decade and a half, coal's collapse has saved tens of thousands of lives and cut national greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 10 percent.
Despite the evidence, the Trump administration has sought to rollback regulations and prop up the coal industry.
"Particulate pollution from coal still kills thousands of Americans yearly and hundreds of thousands of people worldwide," said Rob Jackson, a climate and environment expert at Stanford University who wasn't involved in the study, to The Guardian. "Rolling back emissions standards won't just harm the climate, it will kill people, especially poorer people more likely to live near coal-fired power plants."
"Clearly the policies of the current EPA leadership, to turn back the clock and support the coal industry, have broad ranging negative impacts on public health and our environment," said Thomas Burke, a former Environmental Protection Agency official responsible for clean air, to the to The Guardian.
He added that Burney's study "provides a new lens for viewing the broad impacts of coal on our health, agriculture and climate."
- Acting EPA Head Wheeler Downplays Climate Crisis at ... ›
- 'It's About Economics': Two Coal Plants to Close Despite Trump's ... ›
- Thom Yorke of Radiohead Releases Song With Greenpeace to Help ... ›
- Patti Smith, Thom Yorke, Flea and More Featured on Just Released ... ›
- Musicians and Activists Unite at 'Pathway to Paris' - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A national park in Thailand has come up with an innovative way to make sure guests clean up their own trash: mail it back to them.
- Supermarkets in Thailand and Vietnam Swap Plastic Packaging for ... ›
- Malaysia Sends Plastic Waste Back to 13 Wealthy Countries, Says It ... ›
- Thailand Begins the New Year With Plastic Bag Ban - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Worsens Thailand's Plastic Waste Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Marium, Thailand's Beloved Baby Dugong, Is the Latest Victim of ... ›
By Ilana Cohen
Four years ago, Jacob Abel cast his first presidential vote for Donald Trump. As a young conservative from Concord, North Carolina, the choice felt natural.
But this November, he plans to cast a "protest vote" for a write-in candidate or abstain from casting a ballot for president. A determining factor in his 180-degree turn? Climate change.
Fractures Among Young Climate Conservatives<p>While young conservatives have united around the urgency of climate change, they remain divided over how to bring their concerns to the ballot box. Some embrace right-wing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-attacks-republican-convention/2020/08/24/434e5b46-e66d-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html" target="_blank">attacks</a> painting Biden as a "tool of the left" and find his climate agenda "radical." Others can't find a way to justify voting for Trump, even if it means breaking with their party.</p><p>Patrick Mann from Orange County, California, voted for Trump in 2016. But today, he's leading Aggies for Joe at Texas A&M University and is co-founder of Texas Students for Biden. </p><p>Mann grew up watching wildfires ravage his home state, nearly forcing his family to evacuate in 2017. The GOP is failing to "meet the moment" for climate action, Mann said. He's hoping Biden will deliver on a promise to "<a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2020/01/06/joe-biden-democrat-president-iowa-caucus-restore-soul-our-nation/2806422001/" target="_blank">restore the soul of our nation</a>." </p><p>Taylor Walker from Pensacola, Florida, is also determined to make her voice heard on climate, including by casting her first-ever vote for president—but not for Biden.</p>
A False Equivalency<p>Young climate conservatives may fear climate denial and delayed climate action, but more than that, they fear the growing political momentum around the Green New Deal, the massive spending it entails and <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/" target="_blank">Biden's citing of it</a> as a "crucial framing for meeting the climate challenges we face."</p><p>Many don't want to split with their party to support a Democrat whose <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/03/757220130/joe-biden-on-bipartisanship-gun-control-and-regrets-over-inaction-after-a-traged" target="_blank">allegedly bipartisan intentions</a> they doubt. If stymieing what they consider a radical green agenda means re-electing a climate change denying president, so be it. </p><p>"I'm scared of climate change, but I'm also scared of the Green New Deal and what it means for America," said Ben Mutolo, a republicEN spokesperson and junior at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. </p><p>Mutolo felt encouraged by former Ohio Governor John Kasich's <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/08/17/kasich-speech-to-democratic-convention-follows-years-of-building-conservative-credentials/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">appearance</a> at the Democratic National Convention, but he still struggles to see himself voting for Biden. Though the candidate paints himself as a <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-12/harris-biden-different-generation-similar-political-instinct" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">centrist,</a> Mutolo believes he's "cozying up to the ultra-progressive left." </p><p>Mutolo, who wants to see market-based climate solutions like a carbon tax, feels torn between a candidate whose climate plan relies on taking an "<a href="https://joebiden.com/environmental-justice-plan/#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">All-of-Government approach</a>," and one with no efforts to reign in global warming at all. <span></span></p><p>Leiserowitz said he appreciated how a conservative might feel Biden's climate plan "doesn't jive with their limited government, free-market approach."</p><p>But he sees a strong distinction between voting for a presidential candidate with a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/biden-climate-plan.html" target="_blank">$2 trillion climate plan</a> that includes large renewable energy investments, which have <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-april-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan support</a>, and a candidate trying "to take the country in the opposite direction, towards more fossil fuels."</p>
- 7 Republicans Joined Senate Democrats in Vote to Fight Climate ... ›
- Climate Change Acknowledged by Increasing Number of ... ›
The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Monday that 64 high-income nations have joined an effort to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine fairly, prioritizing the most vulnerable citizens, as Science reported. The program is called the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or Covax, and it is a joint effort led by the WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
- Trump Denies CDC Director's 2021 Timeline for Coronavirus Vaccine ›
- CDC Tells States to Prepare for a Vaccine Before November Election ›
- Fauci Warns Pre-Pandemic Normalcy Not Likely Until Late 2021 ... ›
By Gloria Oladipo
In the face of dangerous heat waves this summer, Americans have taken shelter in air conditioned cooling centers. Normally, that would be a wise choice, but during a pandemic, indoor shelters present new risks. The same air conditioning systems that keep us cool recirculate air around us, potentially spreading the coronavirus.