My new post: the latest research on air pollution is jaw-dropping. Scientists now believe its effects on health & mortality are roughly *double* previous estimates. If that’s true, air-quality benefits alone will easily pay for the clean-energy transition. vox.com/energy-and-env…
Just want to add a quick note to today's piece 👆before moving on. We get tangled up in energy discussions about LCOE & lifecycle costs & the cost of intermittency & etc. But this air-quality research casts a light on the simple fact ...
... that virtually ANY substitution away from fossil fuel combustion is "worth it" when total social costs/benefits are taken into account. Air pollution is so insidious that the market "cost" of FF could be practically $0 & they *still* wouldn't pencil out.
So remember, when discussing the costs of clean-energy transition, it's never about whether it's worth it, all things considered. It absolutely, unequivocally, indisputably is. The discussions are, in reality, always about WHO pays the costs & reaps the benefits.
Fossil fuels concentrate wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. And they concentrate the costs in the most vulnerable communities. Energy fights are not about "nature" or even climate really. They're about income inequality & racism, just like ...
... all the other issues progressives care about.
Getting off of fossil fuels is racial justice, generational justice, & economic justice. It's a fight against concentrated wealth on behalf of ordinary citizens. Saving the polar bears is just gravy.
Getting off of fossil fuels is racial justice, generational justice, & economic justice. It's a fight against concentrated wealth on behalf of ordinary citizens. Saving the polar bears is just gravy.
Worth adding to this thread: a recent @Greenpeace report found that air pollution takes 4.5 million lives & shaves $2.9 trillion from GDP every year, globally speaking. In the US, it's 230,000 lives & $600 billion in GDP. A holocaust in plain sight. greenpeace.org/usa/research/t…
