The climate and tax bill, due to pass Friday afternoon, has big benefits you might not have thought of. It will go a long way toward improving the health of the United States as a whole.
The package, which, if signed by President Biden, will be America’s first major climate law, is an important step in the fight against global warming. But even if all countries take swift and decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will take some time for global temperatures to stabilize.
On the other hand, the public health gains from this measure should be much more immediate. Today we will discuss various benefits and their importance.
Decrease in premature death
Burning fossil fuels releases dangerous air pollutants such as particulate matter known as PM 2.5. PM 2.5 can penetrate deep into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream.
Named because each particle is less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, this microscopic pollution has been shown to exacerbate asthma and other lung diseases and increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. It is also associated with developmental disabilities in children.
Fossil fuel pollution also includes other nasties such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. All very unhealthy.
The climate and tax package is designed to bring about a sharp decline in these pollutants by helping the United States clean up its energy grid faster.
Analysts haven’t had much time to assess exactly how the new law will affect health, but the research we have shows significant improvements.
By 2030, new legislation will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by up to 82% from 2021 levels, according to an analysis led by John Larsen, a partner at consulting firm Rhodium Group, to name just one example. America’s air was already cleaner, which is a huge improvement over the current trajectory.Without new measures, sulfur dioxide was projected to drop by up to 63%.
of Another analysis published last weekthe study group Energy Innovations, says that shutting down US coal-fired power plants and reducing methane emissions will start yielding public health benefits as early as next year, with an eventual maximum of 2030. We estimated that 3,900 deaths could be avoided.
Broadly speaking, experts say, the law will prevent heart attacks, reduce emergency room visits for people suffering from respiratory problems, and reduce hospitalizations for people with cardiovascular disease.
Improving equality
The benefits of this law could be particularly felt by communities of color, who often live near large sources of pollution such as busy roads, industrial sites, and power plants. As my colleagues Hiroko Tabuchi and Nadja Popovich wrote last year, black Americans are exposed to higher concentrations of PM 2.5 from all sources.
These communities sometimes fall through the cracks in the US air quality monitoring network. These systems are one of the best in the world, but more detailed data could make a big difference, says Christa, who heads the air quality program at the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. Hasenkopf said.
She explained to me that the city may have multiple air quality monitors scattered around that report average levels of pollution that are not harmful, but the system has identified several blocks with very high levels. You may miss it.
Climate and tax laws $281 million for state agencies to improve air quality monitoring, and other means to promote environmental justice. We invest billions in community-driven projects, zero-emission buses, and programs to improve air quality in schools in low-income communities, just to name a few.
a Report by REPEAT project The law allocates at least $60 billion to projects that help protect communities plagued by environmental problems, according to a Princeton University study.
The potential health impacts of these provisions have not yet been modeled by researchers, said Robbie Orvis, senior director of Energy Innovation. In particular, he said it depends on how the state spends the money.
“There is certainly uncertainty about where the money will flow and which communities will benefit,” he said. The work of estimating the effect of the law is “not finished yet.”
Building global momentum
Raising America’s ambition to tackle global warming could also help boost renewable energy investment momentum in other countries, Hasenkopf said. This would be a huge step forward in dealing with air pollution on a global scale.
“Outdoor air pollution, especially PM 2.5 pollution, shortens the average human life expectancy on the planet by more than road accidents, HIV-AIDS, malaria and war combined,” she said.
a Recent research in The Lancet estimates that more than 6.5 million people worldwide die each year from air pollution, largely due to fossil fuel emissions. And more than 90% of his pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.
In India, air pollution is estimated to shorten people’s lives by an average of 5 years. Americans have an average loss of about two months.
But air pollution is invisible, making it difficult to tackle, Hasenkopf said.according to Recent ratings she helped coordinateonly 0.1% of annual grants by charities focus on air quality.
“It’s a huge burden on our public health globally,” she said. “But it’s really flying under the radar. Neglect.”
Related: How clean is the air you breathe compared to other major cities in the world? You can find out here.
Important news from The Times
Green Mission, Dirty Partner: The United Nations Sustainable Development Agency is working with energy companies to keep oil flowing, including to the Amazon.
Before You Go: Oil Money to Fund Climate Protests
The heirs to two American oil assets are backing groups trying to sabotage fossil fuel projects. The organization’s protesters were chained to a bank, rushed to the Grand Prix racetrack and chained to the goalposts as tens of thousands of British football fans heckled. why? One donor said he was worried about the possible extinction of humanity. Another called it a “moral imperative.”
Fix: Due to an editorial error, Tuesday’s newsletter incorrectly listed the year Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan for the presidential election: 1980, not 1979.
thank you for reading. I will be back on Tuesday.
Claire O’Neill and Douglas Alteen contributed to Climate Forward.
Please contact us at climateforward@nytimes.com. We read all messages and reply to many!