Call & Times

The staggering economic costs of air pollution

- By CHELSEA HARVEY

Air pollution caused by energy production in the U.S. caused at least $131 billion in damages in the year 2011 alone, a new analysis concludes — but while the number sounds grim, it's also a sign of improvemen­t. In 2002, the damages totaled as high as $175 billion, and the decline in the past decade highlights the success of more stringent emissions regulation­s on the energy sector while also pointing out the need to continue cracking down.

"The bulk of the cost of emissions is the result of health impacts — so morbidity and particular­ly mortality," said the paper's lead author, Paulina Jaramillo, an assistant professor of engineerin­g and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Using models, researcher­s can place a monetary value on the health effects caused by air pollution and come up with a "social cost" of the offending emissions — in other words, the monetary damages associated with emitting an additional ton (or other unit) of a given type of pollutant. This social cost can then be used to calculate the total monetary damages produced by a certain amount of emissions in a given time period.

The new analysis, just published in the journal Energy Policy, did just that. Using an upto-date model and a set of data acquired from the Environmen­tal Protection Agency on emissions from the energy sector, the researcher­s set about estimating the monetary damages caused by air pollution from energy production between 2002 and 2011.

"This paper is another one in a long progressio­n, dating back at least 40 years or so, of papers that have tried to quantify the human health damage associated with earth pollution," said Jason Hill, associate professor of bioproduct­s and biosystems engineerin­g at the University of Minnesota, who was not involved with the new paper.

Among the most recent of these was a paper put out by the National Academy of Sciences in 2010, which also investigat­ed the costs of air pollution produced by energy extraction and use. That study used similar methods and the same model — but after the paper was published, some updates were made to the model that made Jaramillo question whether the changes might affect the estimation­s. So she and Nicholas Muller, an associate professor of economics at Middlebury College, teamed up to conduct their own investigat­ion.

The two researcher­s focused on four key sectors involved in energy production: electric power generation, oil and gas extraction, coal mining and the activities of oil refineries. Within those sectors, the five types of emissions they singled out were sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, volatile organic compounds and fine particulat­e matter. The EPA updates its data every three years, so the researcher­s zoomed in on the years 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2011, and they represente­d their results in 2000 dollars — that is, the value of the U.S. dollar in the year 2000.

First and foremost, using their updated model the researcher­s found that the damages associated with these emissions were far higher than what had previously been estimated by the National Academy of Sciences paper. "That's kind of the bad news," Jaramillo said.

But, she added, there was an overall decreasing trend in the social cost of these emissions between 2002 and 2011, with total annual monetary damages across all sectors falling to $131 billion from $175 billion. This suggests that policy changes in the past decade, including stricter controls on the emission of air pollutants, have proven effective.

As Jaramillo pointed out, "It's not like we've started using or producing less energy." Rather, there's been a decrease in the pollution associated with energy production.

While the study doesn't delve into the exact causes behind these shifts, the authors have some theories. They point to the EPA's developmen­t of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and later its replacemen­t, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The anticipati­on of these rules, despite the fact that CAIR was never fully implemente­d, led many facilities to begin writing mitigation policies and installing abatement devices.

"These sorts of retrospect­ive looks are showing that some interventi­ons really are having their intended effect," Hill said.

Certain economic shifts may have also briefly had an effect. The authors suggest that the Great Recession in 2008 caused demand for energy fuels to dip for a few years. And the expansion of renewable energy during the past decade likely also played an important role, Jaramillo added.

There were a few other clear trends in the study to pay attention to. Out of the four sectors included in this study, power generation accounted for the vast majority of all the damages caused. And regardless of sector, sulfur dioxide was the most damaging of all the emissions. Those observatio­ns suggest that future regulation­s should focus on these areas to have the highest impact on air pollution.

 ?? James Woodcock/The Washington Post ?? This Nov. 18, 2008 file photo shows the coal-fired power plant in Colstrip in southeaste­rn Montana. Possible pathways are starting to emerge on how to reach the carbon-cutting goals set for Montana by 2030. The state faces the nation’s most stringent cuts under President Barack Obama’s climate change plan to reduce emissions nationwide 32 percent.
James Woodcock/The Washington Post This Nov. 18, 2008 file photo shows the coal-fired power plant in Colstrip in southeaste­rn Montana. Possible pathways are starting to emerge on how to reach the carbon-cutting goals set for Montana by 2030. The state faces the nation’s most stringent cuts under President Barack Obama’s climate change plan to reduce emissions nationwide 32 percent.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States