Air pollution from electricity generation emissions in 2014 led to about 16,000 premature deaths in the continental US, according to new research.

In many states, the majority of the health impacts came from emissions originating in other states. The team also found that exposures were higher for black and white non-Latino Americans than for other groups, and that this disparity held even after accounting for differences in income.

The researchers estimate that 91% of premature deaths were the result of emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Generating electricity from fossil fuels releases fine particulate matter into the air. In general, fine particulate matter can lead to heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, and other diseases, and is responsible for more than 100,000 deaths each year in the United States.

“Our data show that even if states take measures to change their own electricity production methods, what happens across state lines could dramatically affect their population,” says senior author Julian Marshall, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington.

The team first examined how emissions from electricity generation plants could move across the continental US.

“We looked at emissions from different types of power plants—including coal, natural gas, diesel, and oil power plants—and modeled how the pollutants would travel based on things like wind patterns or rain. We also consider how emissions can react in the atmosphere to form fine particle air pollution,” says lead author Maninder Thind, a civil and environmental engineering doctoral student.

“That gave us a map of pollution concentrations across the country. Then we overlaid that map with data from the census to get an estimate of where people live and how this pollution results in health impacts.”

Then, using mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the team estimated premature deaths due to electricity generation emissions. In 2014, there were about 16,000 premature deaths. The researchers estimate that 91% of premature deaths were the result of emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The number of deaths in each state varied, with Pennsylvania having the highest number—about 2,000—and Montana and Idaho having the lowest number, with fewer than 10 deaths each.

Emissions from electricity generation don’t stop at state lines—many states “imported” or “exported” pollution. In 36 states, more than half of premature deaths were the result of emissions from other states.

Overall, the team found that emissions affected black Americans the most, leading to about seven premature deaths per 100,000 people in that group. White non-Latino Americans were the second most affected group with about six premature deaths per 100,000 people. Other groups averaged about four premature deaths per 100,000 people.

“A lot of people may expect that the disparity we see for race or ethnicity comes from an underlying difference in income. But that’s not what we see,” says coauthor Christopher Tessum, a research scientist in the civil and environmental engineering department. “We find that differences by race or ethnicity tend to be larger than differences by income group.”

While the researchers found that overall, lower-income households experienced more exposure to emissions, the disparities they saw between race groups still held when they accounted for income.

The amount of power plant pollution that people breathe can vary by where they live. Societal trends may influence these disparities. For example, where people live often reflects segregation or other conditions from decades earlier.

These trends don’t always hold when looking at individual areas. For example, exposures for Native Americans are lower than other groups overall, but in Kansas and Oklahoma, this group is the most exposed. The state with the largest disparities by race is Kentucky, where black people are the most exposed.

“We’ve seen in our previous research that our society is more segregated by race than by income, and now it’s showing up again with air pollution from electricity generation emissions,” Marshall says. “These results can help local, state, or national governments make more informed decisions that will improve everyone’s air quality and quality of life.”

The research appears in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Inês Azevedo, a professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University, is also a coauthor of the paper. The researchers developed this publication as part of the Center for Air, Climate, and Energy Solutions, which received support from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

This research has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Agency. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

Source: University of Washington

Related

What’s the most polluted city? It’s impossible to really know

White people create more air pollution, but breathe in less

Why winter air in the Eastern U.S. is still so dirty

Black and Hispanic Americans are exposed to higher amounts of air pollution that non-Hispanic white Americans generate, according to new research.

Poor air quality is the largest environmental health risk in the United States. Fine particulate matter pollution is responsible for more than 100,000 deaths each year from heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, and other diseases.

But not everyone is equally exposed to poor air quality—nor are all people equally responsible for generating it.

The new finding, which quantifies for the first time the racial gap between who generates air pollution and who breathes it, appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Similar to previous studies, we show that racial-ethnic minorities are exposed to more pollution on average than non-Hispanic whites,” says first author Christopher Tessum, a research scientist in the University of Washington’s civil and environmental engineering department and a recent University of Minnesota graduate.

On average, non-Hispanic white Americans spend more money on pollution-intensive goods and services, which means they generate more pollution than other groups

“What is new is that we find that those differences do not occur because minorities on average cause more pollution than whites—in fact, the opposite is true.”

The team compared what people spend their money on—like buying groceries or gas or getting clothes dry-cleaned—to the pollution these activities generate. Then the researchers overlaid these results on a map of where people live to see if there was the difference between the pollution that specific racial-ethnic groups generate and what they experience.

“Someone had to make the pen you bought at the store,” says coauthor Julian Marshall, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. “We wanted to look at where the pollution associated with making that pen is located. Is it close to where people live? And who lives there?”

The team found that on average, non-Hispanic white Americans spend more money on pollution-intensive goods and services, which means they generate more pollution than other groups. But white Americans also experience a “pollution advantage” in that they face exposure to approximately 17 percent less pollution than they generate.

On average, black Americans experience about 56 percent more pollution than they generate. For Hispanics, it is slightly higher: 63 percent.

At the same time, black and Hispanic populations bear a “pollution burden.” On average, black Americans experience about 56 percent more pollution than they generate. For Hispanics, it is slightly higher: 63 percent.

Longstanding societal trends, such as income inequality, may influence these disparities. Also, racial patterns in where people live often reflect segregation or other conditions from decades earlier. Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to live in locations with higher concentrations of pollution compared to white Americans, which means they have increased average daily exposure to it.

In general, the US has made strides to reduce air pollution across the country: Average exposure to particulate pollution declined approximately 50 percent between 2003 and 2015. But pollution inequity remained high over that same period.

“Our work is at the intersection of many important and timely topics such as race, inequality, affluence, environmental justice, and environmental regulation,” says corresponding author Jason Hill, an associate professor of bioproducts and biosystems engineering at the University of Minnesota.

The team hopes this pollution-inequity metric can provide a simple and intuitive way for policymakers and the public to see the disparity between the pollution that population groups generate and their pollution exposure.

“The approach we establish in this study could be extended to other pollutants, locations, and groupings of people,” Marshall says. “When it comes to determining who causes air pollution—and who breathes that pollution—this research is just the beginning.”

Additional coauthors are from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of New Mexico, Carnegie Mellon University, Lumina Decision Systems, the University of Washington, and the University of Minnesota.

The US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Energy, the US Department of Agriculture, and the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment funded the study.

Source: University of Washington

Related

Tiny particles in air pollution may damage fetal hearts

How air pollution exposure may lead to autism

Severe air pollution cuts productivity at work