Some economic gains we will see from adoption of EVs and clean energy:<p>1. Real estate prices in high traffic metros like Los Angeles and Houston will increase further because the return to clear skies from smoggy days and fresh air will be a bonus.<p>2. People will suddenly start living much longer lives with more quality years at the tail end "for some strange reason."<p>3. Cancer rates will stabilize "for some strange reason."
Not just fossil fuels are problematic. An article in The Guardian last month [1] with the headline and sub-heading, <i>Wood burning at home now biggest cause of UK particle pollution - Fires used by just 8% of population but cause triple the particle pollution of traffic, data shows</i> is an eye-openeer.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/16/home-wood-burning-biggest-cause-particle-pollution-fires" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/16/home-woo...</a>
I rarely see any talk about moving from long haul trucks to freight trains. The latter burn far less fuel, and steel wheels don't create synthetic rubber dust.
What is with this confidence interval? I’m wondering what kind of uncertainty would result in an interval where potentially 10s of millions of lives are saved by burning fossil fuels.<p>“ We estimate a global total of 10.2 (95% CI: −47.1 to 17.0) million premature deaths annually attributable to the fossil-fuel component of PM2.5.”
I don't understand how air pollution isn't the absolute number 1 issue for the Chinese government, and I'm not just saying that rhetorically. Maybe the CCP is a corrupt authoritarian kleptocracy, but the elites have to breathe the same air as everyone else, right?
> Pollution from fossil fuel combustion deadlier than previously thought<p>But... Remember that the lifestyle improvements from fossil fuels greatly extend life. We (currently) need fossil fuels for our food and medicine supply. Just think of how many people would die if there were no fossil fuel ambulances or electricity to run hospitals.<p>That, IMO, is the real reason why we're in the climate change mess. The lifestyle that fossil fuels enables is irresistible and too lucrative to accelerate the change to clean energy.
I always had this in mind when i lived in London. In my experience i found the combination of vehicle exhaust pollution and pollen unbearable. Somehow the vehicle exhaust particles combine with the pollen and exacerbated my pollen allergies. I had zero allergies growing up and developed a very bad pollen allergy in south west London, then i moved to rural Dorset and i don’t have any allergies any more. Still get tons of pollen (i.e rural Dorset) but less pollution. I wonder if anyone has analysed the combination of vehicle exhaust pollution plus pollen?
Here's the paper
<a href="http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/2021/vohra_2021_ff_mortality.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/2021/vohra_2021_ff...</a><p>This has models layered on models layered on meta-analyses of transfer functions and there appears to be no validation at all. I wonder if this is anything beyond hypothesis grade work.
Our grandchildren will look at old films of people blithely walking around next to internal combustion vehicles and laugh in mild horror, much as we look back on images of parents puffing away on cigarettes next to a child.
Since I wasn't able to read the study in question: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00139...</a><p>I wonder how much of this pollution has already been addressed by the EPA in the USA. Which types of combustion are the worst/lowest hanging fruit? How bad is it, really?<p>Public dollars pay for research that gets locked behind a paywall. 8(<p>[Edit] Also, what about particulates caused by tires and brake pads, etc.?<p>And can we finally get the lead out of AvGas?
I already thought so when they killed led fuel back in the days.<p>People are always hating how electric cars aren't more environment friendly, but outsourcing "the bad parts" from our cities is actually a win.
This is bullshit. Open fires and burning wood is extra deadly.<p>"Three Billion People Cook Over Open Fires"<p>Everyone can't be dying from air pollution.<p>Step One is get people burning wood to fossil fuels. It's a no brainer.<p>Or just reduce PM2.5 fairly. Help the worst effected then move up.<p>In the ultra rich countries like the 1% who are mostly HN yes, fossil fuels near people are possibly the next step, but also dust and pollen and wood fires. Whatever is PM2.5