Climate Change as Human Health Issue

Overlooked in the local press was a late September study from the University of North Carolina that correlated reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with decreases in worldwide air pollution deaths. "It's pretty striking that you can make an argument purely on health grounds to control climate change," one author told the British Guardian newspaper.

According to the study, an aggressive plan to cut GHGs, which relies on cutting back on fossil fuels would result in 300,000-700,000 premature deaths a year avoided in 2030, 800,000 to 1.8 million avoided in 2050, and 1.4 million to 3 million avoided in 2100.

A key finding was that the value of the health benefits delivered by cutting a ton of CO2 emissions was $50-$380, greater than the projected cost of cutting carbon in the next few decades. The benefits do not accrue from reductions in CO2 per se but because of associated pollutants released from burning fossil fuels.

It is possible to reduce pollutants in fossil fuel emissions more cheaply without switching to low carbon sources of power – for example with scrubbers on coal plants that remove NOx and SOx; or by cars switching from diesel to petrol – but the authors say it is striking that the value of health benefits outweigh the costs of cutting carbon.

That is, you could cut the most harmful emissions without also cutting GHGs, but the costs of the benefits to cutting everything still outweigh the health costs incurred by letting the status quo remain, so why not also get a less hostile climate in the bargain?