Cutting greenhouse pollutants can save 2.5 million lives/year

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
When I read this article, I remembered the stink raised last week when the mammogram study group recommended the routine use of mammograms be reduced. The outrage at the prospect that that a handful of additional breast-cancer deaths might occur if the study recommendations were accepted seemed to be saying that no price is to high to save a life.

Well, here is a change that would save 2.5 MILLION lives a year. Somehow - because this is related to the reduction of greenhouse gases - I have a feeling that those same principled defenders of more mammograms are going to find an excuse to ignore this study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125081622.htm

Cutting Greenhouse Pollutants Could Directly Save Millions of Lives Worldwide

ScienceDaily (Nov. 26, 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 on, Nov. 25 in the British journal The Lancet.

The studies, three of them coauthored by Kirk R. Smith, professor of global environmental health and one coauthored by Michael Jerrett, associate professor of environmental health sciences, both at University of California, Berkeley, use case studies to demonstrate the co-benefits of tackling climate change in four sectors: electricity generation, 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 greenhouse gas emissions 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."

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 Health Effects Institute, California Air Resources Board and Clean Air Task Force.
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
There's a point at which things start to become an unhealthy obsession. Something to think about.
 

brblx

Diamond Member
Mar 23, 2009
5,499
2
0
There's a point at which things start to become an unhealthy obsession. Something to think about.

do you tell patroner, pjab, and whatever other clone accounts that guy might have the same thing?

personally, i find it much less annoying for someone to keep harping on fact as opposed to fiction.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
do you tell patroner, pjab, and whatever other clone accounts that guy might have the same thing?

personally, i find it much less annoying for someone to keep harping on fact as opposed to fiction.
Very appropriate choice of words.
 
Last edited:

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
When I read this article, I remembered the stink raised last week when the mammogram study group recommended the routine use of mammograms be reduced. The outrage at the prospect that that a handful of additional breast-cancer deaths might occur if the study recommendations were accepted seemed to be saying that no price is to high to save a life.

Well, here is a change that would save 2.5 MILLION lives a year. Somehow - because this is related to the reduction of greenhouse gases - I have a feeling that those same principled defenders of more mammograms are going to find an excuse to ignore this study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125081622.htm

Well, if you want to support your position by using emotion, then I would suggest that your position would be better served if the status quo allows for these 2 1/2 million to die, because their carbon footprint, over the course of their lives, and the lives of all of their desendents will contribute way more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than clean stove technology will reduce, theoretically producing the opposite effect of saving lives.



Next...
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Well, if you want to support your position by using emotion, then I would suggest that your position would be better served if the status quo allows for these 2 1/2 million to die, because their carbon footprint, over the course of their lives, and the lives of all of their desendents will contribute way more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than clean stove technology will reduce, theoretically producing the opposite effect of saving lives.



Next...

This isn't emotion. It's anticipating an argument.

By your argument, we should do away with mammograms altogether (and pretty much all life-saving technologies), since any woman (person) whose life is saved will place a burden on society.

Somehow, I doubt you'd actually make that argument with respect to mammograms. But the fact you do with respect to greenhouse emissions is rather telling.

Your lack of principles is showing.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
I actually agree with ozone. We need like 5 billion people to die to fix this shit. Nobody wants to talk about population control but believe me they will be talking about it in 200 years.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
There's a point at which things start to become an unhealthy obsession. Something to think about.

To accurately reflect the ACTUAL weight of evidence in the ACC "debate," I'd need to create at least 10 threads in support of ACC for every climate-denial thread. Yet I'd guess that if you counted the number of ATPN threads supporting and denying ACC, you'd find MORE climate-denial threads than ACC-support threads. That's ENORMOUS bias.

You climate-deniers don't want to see the actual weight of evidence. You want to selectively find the small percentage studies that support your true-believer positions.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
This isn't emotion. It's anticipating an argument.

By your argument, we should do away with mammograms altogether (and pretty much all life-saving technologies), since any woman (person) whose life is saved will place a burden on society.

Somehow, I doubt you'd actually make that argument with respect to mammograms. But the fact you do with respect to greenhouse emissions is rather telling.

Your lack of principles is showing.

Why do you have to be such a bitch? The only thing that I did was show you that your logic was flawed
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
To accurately reflect the ACTUAL weight of evidence in the ACC "debate," I'd need to create at least 10 threads in support of ACC for every climate-denial thread. Yet I'd guess that if you counted the number of ATPN threads supporting and denying ACC, you'd find MORE climate-denial threads than ACC-support threads. That's ENORMOUS bias.

You climate-deniers don't want to see the actual weight of evidence. You want to selectively find the small percentage studies that support your true-believer positions.

Whatever became of the giant hole in the Ozone layer?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Breathing poison is not at all to do with Greenhouse effects it is to do with breathing poison. I used to look up North and wonder how the LA people can exist. It is like smoking a ton of cigarettes a day.
We have before us an opportunity to create a massive new industry. Eventually, and for what ever reason this new industry is going to emerge in the world market. We can lead, follow or get out of the way. I say lead... Not because of the opinion that global warming is coming or what ever is.. but that folks BELIEVE it to be so and others believe that smog and what not is not healthy so change is afoot... Grasp it...
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
lol, do some of you realize that because of your partisanship you are basically saying "fuck those poor bastards, let em die" when, at least at face value, the article sounds pretty darn common sense. Whats a few million lives when you have the chance to try and be right!!
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
To accurately reflect the ACTUAL weight of evidence in the ACC "debate," I'd need to create at least 10 threads in support of ACC for every climate-denial thread. Yet I'd guess that if you counted the number of ATPN threads supporting and denying ACC, you'd find MORE climate-denial threads than ACC-support threads. That's ENORMOUS bias.

You climate-deniers don't want to see the actual weight of evidence. You want to selectively find the small percentage studies that support your true-believer positions.

Every watt of electricity you consume probably kills 1 person. Stop living.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
To accurately reflect the ACTUAL weight of evidence in the ACC "debate," I'd need to create at least 10 threads in support of ACC for every climate-denial thread. Yet I'd guess that if you counted the number of ATPN threads supporting and denying ACC, you'd find MORE climate-denial threads than ACC-support threads. That's ENORMOUS bias.

You climate-deniers don't want to see the actual weight of evidence. You want to selectively find the small percentage studies that support your true-believer positions.

To be fair, you climate-supporters don't seem to really want to talk/debate about how to actually acomplish your supposed goals. Probably 80% of the supporters I speak to are perfectly content giving our money to giant brokers and foreign countries as a "solution".

The irony of the situation is there are currently very doable things that both sides can agree upon if you sell it right. What rightie/republican/conservative doesn't want to stop giving money to the M.E.? Most republicans I know are huge on national security, whats more of a threat to our national security than the nations life blood being controlled and supplied by people that hate us? Who doesn't want more jobs?

There is a ton of common ground here and common that can be used to get a large portion of what yall want right now. Both sides are so caught up in this partisan bullshit that neither side ends up getting nothing or watered down bullshit (like health care). Of course I still have an issue with just about any new spending but our politicians are dead set on spending what we don't have so can't we at least come together and try to actually benefit people other than the chosen elites with our borrowed money this time (again, the irony is amazing) while achieving the desired results?