US Air Pollution Deaths Nearly Halved Between 1990 and 2010 (eurekalert.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from EurekAlert: Air pollution in the U.S. has decreased since about 1990, and a new study conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill now shows that this air quality improvement has brought substantial public health benefits. The study, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that deaths related to air pollution were nearly halved between 1990 and 2010. The team's analyses showed that deaths related to air pollution exposure in the U.S. decreased by about 47 percent, dropping from about 135,000 deaths in 1990 to 71,000 in 2010.

These improvements in air quality and public health in the U.S. coincided with increased federal air quality regulations, and have taken place despite increases in population, energy and electricity use, and vehicle miles traveled between 1990 and 2010. [...] Still, despite clear improvements, air pollution remains an important public health issue in the U.S. The estimated 71,000 deaths in 2010 translates to 1 of every 35 deaths in the U.S. -- that's as many deaths as we see from all traffic accidents and all gun shootings combined.

Comments

The Coal Age

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid, we had a coal fire, and you'd shovel coal onto it hourly to keep the house warm. It was a PITA to light in the morning. When you went out, and came back to the house, the house was cold. You'd try to revive the embers and the house would take an hour or two to warm up.

Diesel trains had already replaced coal fired steam engines. There were still some coal fired power stations, and quite a few blackened buildings/lungs around those.

That was the age of coal. Long gone.

You can see Murray *Energy* trying to revive it with PAC bribes and revolving door EPA officials and marketing MEMES, but even old man Murray calls his company Murray *Energy* and not Murray *Coal*. Even his own company name shows, he's ashamed of coal.

Trump can pretend coal is "clean coal", but there's no way he'd let a coal fire power plant near his hotels or golf courses.

Solar jobs 260k, coal 77k

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar long surpassed coal for jobs. By 2017 its more than 3 times the number of jobs:
http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/

I wonder how much old man Murray made dollar for dollar for all the investment he made in getting Trump elected. He did a real dodgy deal, Trump announced a rescue plan for coal, on the back of it Murray swapped debts for equity. Then Trump's plan disappears with the equity holders screwed for the money:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-04/murray-energy-swaps-debt-on-heels-of-trump-plan-to-boost-coal

"U.S. Energy Department makes plans to exercise emergency authority to force grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear power plants."

Ha ha, as if you can force grid operators to subsidize coal. Of course it was fake, enough to let Murray cash out a little, but at 78 he doesn't have long to spend it.

Re:Why one or the other?

[lazarus]

And swapping gas for electric vehicles reduces both NOx and CO2 pollution at the same time, as long as the car is recharged with solar or renewables, and not a coal fired power station.

I did the math on this some time ago and can't put my finger on the sources this instant, but it turns out that (because of the economies of scale) an electric car using electricity produced by a coal power generating station emits less CO2 than an equivalent-sized gasoline vehicle. Obviously, power generation with renewables is clearly better for the environment, but electric vehicles are better for the environment no matter what source the power generation comes from.