Play
00:00 / 00:00
In this undate image a child is helped with an
asthma inhaler. A report released on May 3, 2005 to mark World Asthma
Day claims that one person dies from asthma every hour in Western
Europe.
(Getty)
-
The Battle Over Carbon
In this series, The Takeaway examines President Obama's proposed carbon pollution regulation with policy experts, and looks ahead to further climate change legislation.
More
Politicians often find it difficult to justify climate change
legislation. The consequences of climate change take place
incrementally, over decades. Unlike a natural disaster, climate change
presents no immediate damage that requires lawmakers to respond
urgently.
President Obama tried to find a way to bring the issue home last Saturday, in his weekly radio broadcast. He spoke to the nation from Children's Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where he was "visiting with some kids who are being treated here all the time for asthma and other breathing problems."
"Often these illnesses are aggravated by air pollution—pollution from the same sources that release carbon and contribute to climate change," he said.
Unlike climate change, air pollution seems to have specific and pressing consequences, particularly for public health.
Dr. George Thurston, professor of Population Health and Environmental Medicine at the New York University Medical Center, has long tried to convince politicians to relate air pollution and public health to climate change. One of his recent studies found that on days with high levels of air pollution, hospital admissions for respiratory issues rose by approximately 20 percent.
Dr. Thurston hopes that the Obama Administration's approach to cutting carbon emissions will also lead to better public health outcomes. According to the EPA, he has reason to be hopeful: the agency estimates that the proposal "will lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, including avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children."
"There's definitely a link between controlling carbon pollutants—CO2 and carbon—and the other pollutants that travel along with them," says Dr. Thurston. "Especially power plants, they're putting out a lot of particulate matter, and they also result in ozone air pollution and other pollutants that have adverse effects of their own."
The Clean Air Act, which was written back in the 1970s, did not address the multi-pollutant nature of pollution sources, says Dr. Thurston, which is why each pollution source is regulated individually here in the U.S. But it may not be that way forever.
"The EPA has been trying in recent years to integrate a more multi-pollutant approach to implementation, even though the regulations are pollutant by pollutant," he says. "People who are opposed to cleaning the air will emphasize the cost, but thing you really have to remember is that the costs are already there because air pollution is causing people to go to the hospital, see their doctor, develop diseases like asthma and cancer. The costs are already visited on the public. What we're talking about here is moving costs from the public to the polluters."
Dr. Thurston says that shifting the cost burden to polluters will allow consumers to make better decisions about their energy choices. When it comes to President Obama's new approach, Dr. Thurston is hopeful.
"It's the first time that I've heard anybody in a leadership position focus on the health benefits of climate change," he says. "But when you talk about cleaning up pollution, I think it's important to emphasize the fact that the people who do the climate mitigation are going to get the health benefits—they're immediate and near the sources. Countries should move forward with legislation in order to gain the benefits for themselves."
Dr. Thurston adds that studies show that countries that do the most clean up also reap the most health benefits. He says if mitigation efforts are pursued, by 2030, a half million deaths can be avoided per year, and by 2050, 1.3 million deaths could be avoided per year worldwide.
President Obama tried to find a way to bring the issue home last Saturday, in his weekly radio broadcast. He spoke to the nation from Children's Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where he was "visiting with some kids who are being treated here all the time for asthma and other breathing problems."
"Often these illnesses are aggravated by air pollution—pollution from the same sources that release carbon and contribute to climate change," he said.
Unlike climate change, air pollution seems to have specific and pressing consequences, particularly for public health.
Dr. George Thurston, professor of Population Health and Environmental Medicine at the New York University Medical Center, has long tried to convince politicians to relate air pollution and public health to climate change. One of his recent studies found that on days with high levels of air pollution, hospital admissions for respiratory issues rose by approximately 20 percent.
Dr. Thurston hopes that the Obama Administration's approach to cutting carbon emissions will also lead to better public health outcomes. According to the EPA, he has reason to be hopeful: the agency estimates that the proposal "will lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, including avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children."
"There's definitely a link between controlling carbon pollutants—CO2 and carbon—and the other pollutants that travel along with them," says Dr. Thurston. "Especially power plants, they're putting out a lot of particulate matter, and they also result in ozone air pollution and other pollutants that have adverse effects of their own."
The Clean Air Act, which was written back in the 1970s, did not address the multi-pollutant nature of pollution sources, says Dr. Thurston, which is why each pollution source is regulated individually here in the U.S. But it may not be that way forever.
"The EPA has been trying in recent years to integrate a more multi-pollutant approach to implementation, even though the regulations are pollutant by pollutant," he says. "People who are opposed to cleaning the air will emphasize the cost, but thing you really have to remember is that the costs are already there because air pollution is causing people to go to the hospital, see their doctor, develop diseases like asthma and cancer. The costs are already visited on the public. What we're talking about here is moving costs from the public to the polluters."
Dr. Thurston says that shifting the cost burden to polluters will allow consumers to make better decisions about their energy choices. When it comes to President Obama's new approach, Dr. Thurston is hopeful.
"It's the first time that I've heard anybody in a leadership position focus on the health benefits of climate change," he says. "But when you talk about cleaning up pollution, I think it's important to emphasize the fact that the people who do the climate mitigation are going to get the health benefits—they're immediate and near the sources. Countries should move forward with legislation in order to gain the benefits for themselves."
Dr. Thurston adds that studies show that countries that do the most clean up also reap the most health benefits. He says if mitigation efforts are pursued, by 2030, a half million deaths can be avoided per year, and by 2050, 1.3 million deaths could be avoided per year worldwide.
Guests:
George ThurstonProduced by:
Jillian WeinbergerEditors:
T.J. RaphaelRelated
- Leave a comment
-
RSS Feed for Comments
