Cutting greenhouse pollutants could directly save millions of lives worldwide

Nov 25, 2009

Tackling climate change by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions will have major direct health benefits in addition to reducing the risk of climate change, especially in low-income countries, according to a series of six papers appearing today (Wed., Nov. 25) in the British journal The Lancet.

Two University of California, Berkeley, authors of the papers - Kirk R. Smith, professor of global environmental health, and Michael Jerrett, associate professor of environmental health sciences - will discuss the results today at a press conference in Washington, D.C.

The press conference also will include Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Policy, and Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Toxicology Program. United Kingdom coauthors will be patched in via satellite from London, where they also will be holding a press conference.

The studies, three of them coauthored by Smith and one coauthored by Jerrett, use case studies to demonstrate the co-benefits of tackling climate change in four sectors: , household energy use, transportation, and food and agriculture.

"Policymakers need to know that if they exert their efforts in certain directions, they can obtain important public health benefits as well as climate benefits," said Smith, who was the principal investigator in the United States for the overall research effort. "Climate change threatens us all, but its impact will likely be greatest on the poorest communities in every country. Thus, it has been called the most regressive tax in human history. Carefully choosing how we reduce will have the added benefit of reducing global health inequities."

Each study in the series examines the health implications in both high- and low-income countries of actions designed to reduce the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. Climate change due to emission of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel energy sources causes air pollution by increasing ground-level ozone and concentrations of fine particulate matter.

The studies were commissioned by the NIEHS, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in part to help inform discussions next month at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen. The NIEHS is one of the key sponsors of the international event.

"These papers demonstrate there are clear and substantive improvements for health if we choose the right mitigation strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said Birnbaum. "We now have real life examples of how we can save the environment, reduce air pollution and decrease related health effects; it's really a win-win situation for everyone."

A case study led by Smith on the health and climate benefits from a potential 150-million-stove program in India from 2010-2020 gives the largest co-benefit of any examined in the six papers. Smith has shown that providing low-emission stove technologies in poor countries that currently rely on solid fuel household stoves to cook and heat their homes is a very cost-effective climate change linkage. The 10-year program could prevent 2 million premature deaths in India, he said, in addition to reducing greenhouse pollution by hundreds of millions of tons.

The paper coauthored by Jerrett contains analysis of 18 years of data on the long-term health effects of black carbon - the first study of its kind ever conducted. The study followed 352,000 people in 66 U.S. cities and was conducted by a team of U.S. and Canadian researchers led by Jerrett and Smith. Black carbon is a short-lived greenhouse pollutant which, along with ozone, is responsible for a significant proportion of global warming. Unlike CO2, these short-lived greenhouse pollutants exert significant direct impacts on health. Also, because they are short-lived, emission controls are almost immediately reflected in changes in warming.

"Combustion-related air pollution is estimated to be responsible for nearly 2.5 million premature deaths annually around the world and also for a significant portion of greenhouse warming," said Smith. "These studies provide the kind of concrete information needed to choose actions that efficiently reduce this health burden as well as reduce the threat of climate change"

In a statement issued today to the media, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius thanked the international research team for bringing the world's attention to the co-benefits of tackling climate change.

"Although much of the climate change discussion to date has focused on the environmental impacts, we are learning more about how climate change is likely going to affect the health of millions of people," she said. "Climate change is not a problem that one country or one organization can solve on its own. It's a problem that affects us all."

Funding for The Lancet Health and Climate Change series was provided by the NIEHS and U.K. partners including The Academy of Medical Sciences, U.K. Department of Health, Economic and Social Research Council, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, National Institute for Health Research, Royal College of Physicians, and Wellcome Trust. The air pollution study also had funding from the Effects Institute, California Air Resources Board and Clean Air Task Force.

Source: University of California - Berkeley

Explore further: EPA staff says agency needs to be tough on smog

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health

Apr 17, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

EPA releases report on climate change and health

Jul 17, 2008

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released a report that discusses the potential impacts of climate change on human health, human welfare, and communities in the U.S. The report, entitled "Analyses of the Effects ...

Warming world in range of dangerous consequences

Sep 17, 2008

The earth will warm about 2.4° C (4.3° F) above pre-industrial levels even under extremely conservative greenhouse-gas emission scenarios and under the assumption that efforts to clean up particulate pollution ...

Doctors must step up to the challenge of climate change

Jun 27, 2008

Doctors must lead by example on climate change, according to experts in this week's BMJ. Health professionals were powerful catalysts in changing society's view of smoking from a normal lifestyle choice to that of a harm ...

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

Aug 29, 2014

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

Aug 29, 2014

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2009
Garbage in, Garbage out. Everyone who researches now knows that AGW is a scam that the corrupt media ABC, NBC, CNN, will not report on.

http://blogs.tele...warming/

http://www.washin...cooling/

and has been discussed on Physorg forums

http://www.physor...129.html

Cutting greenhouse pollution is a lie as CO2 is not pollution. What Berkeley wants to do is reduce the use of fuel. Reducing the use of fuel WILL kill millions, and keep millions of people in horrendous living conditions.

dmcl
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2009
Re "everyone who researches....", an ignorant statement like that does not increase its credibility through repetition and loud assertion
freethinking
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2009
Anyone who does environmental research who is credible should know now about Climategate. If they believe in AGW they should be demanding an investigation to verify or disprove Climategate as Climategate has discredited their research pure and simple.

AGW now stands as discredited as flatearthers.
GrayMouser
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2009
"Could"? This is spread throughout the article. It's a weasel word.
omatumr
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2009
A press conference for politicians and scientists.

What a sad, sad state of affairs for science!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

RAL
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2009
Reading this article reminds me of listening to a sales pitch by a used car salesman. Which is basically what it is -- another paper timed to try to drive the gullible to action at Copenhagen.

What a coincidence! Buy into our AGW scam and not only do you save the world from warming, uh, climate change, but millions of additional lives just happen to be saved and all the little girls get a free pony. Now if that's not worth crippling the world economy for... Sign here, and we can throw in some carbon credits...
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2009
greenhouse pollutants

Explain to me how green house gases, which literally make life on earth possible and have no negative health effect in ambient air, can EVER be called a pollutant.

Rediculous, flat-out lieing. AGW's death throes are not pretty.

People NEED to speak out to their law makers, as they and the media will otherwise just march on with this farce.
marjon
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2009
Ending the ban on DDT would save millions of lives.
Ending tyrannical governments that starve their people or stifle their liberty and prosperity cold save million of lives.

The point is the authors don't really care about lives as much as AGW.