Call 413.540.1234 to
schedule an appointment
CONCERN/EAP: 413.534.2625
Billing questions? Call: 413.540.1212
CRISIS: 413.733.6661

Health Policy & Advocacy
Resources
Basic InformationMore InformationLatest News
Unused Meds? Saturday Is National Drug Take Back DayA Doctor's Age May Matter With Emergency SurgeryPatients Prefer Doctors Who Engage in Face-to-Face VisitsU.S. Better Able to Tackle Health Emergencies: ReportFirst Opioid Lawsuit Targeting Pharmacy Benefit ManagersMost Doctors' Offices Don't Offer Flexibility for UninsuredSafety Info for Opioids Found LackingNonoptimized Drug Therapy Costs More Than $500 Billion AnnuallyFDA Cracks Down on Caffeine-Loaded SupplementsCigarette Tax Hike Could Ease Poverty for Millions Worldwide: StudyCDC: Aggressive Action Needed to Contain Antibiotic ResistanceCould Medical Pot Help Curb the Opioid Abuse Crisis?Medical E-Records Not Without Risks: StudyHealth Groups Sue FDA to Speed Review of E-CigarettesEHR Usability Contributes to Possible Patient Harm EventsAHA: Solving the Dilemma of Not Enough HeartsUnchecked Air Pollution a Death Sentence for Millions: StudyPersonal Health Info Found in Recycling at Five HospitalsTask Force Issues Stronger Skin Cancer Prevention GuidelinesFDA Considers Lowering Nicotine Levels in CigarettesDoctors Facing Challenge to Help Needy While Protecting PracticesPharmacists Encouraged to Learn More About Herbal SupplementsBan Menthols to Help Some Smokers QuitStem Cell Clinics Pitch Pricey, Bogus 'Cures' for Knee PainMany Americans Think Docs Order Too Many Tests, MedsIs Herbal Drug Kratom a Health Friend or Foe?Early Studies Often Show Exaggerated Treatment EffectStrong Tobacco Laws May Weed Out Vapers, TooUnderstanding Rx Nonadherence Can Improve AdherenceBystander Use of Defib Device Doubles Chances of Surviving Cardiac ArrestNew Research Debunks Two Medical Marijuana MythsTake Early Clinical Trials With a Grain of SaltCould Hackers Target Heart Devices?Protecting Your Electronic Health RecordsAfter Another Shooting Tragedy, 'Stop the Bleed' Kits Urged for SchoolsPatients Want Physicians to Have Greater ConnectivityYour Tax Dollars Fund Research on Hundreds of New MedsFour Best Practices Outlined to Prevent Health Care CyberattacksMany Patients Know Too Little About Their MRI, CT Scans: StudyUnsafe Water Found in Faucets Across the U.S.Health Tip: Prevent Exposure to LeadHealth Tip: Online Pharmacies You Should AvoidDon't Count on an American to Do CPRPoll: Personal Beliefs Shouldn't Allow Doctors to Refuse to TreatFDA Says U.S. Will Now Produce Critical MRI ComponentPicking a New Primary Care DoctorUber, Lyft Rides May Not Help Boost Doc Visits for Poorer Patients2018 Immunization Schedule Issued for U.S. ChildrenA Hidden Source of 'Superbugs' in Hospitals?2018 Immunization Schedule Issued for U.S. Adults
Questions and AnswersLinksBook Reviews
Related Topics

Unchecked Air Pollution a Death Sentence for Millions: Study

HealthDay News
by -- Robert Preidt
Updated: Mar 23rd 2018

new article illustration

FRIDAY, March 23, 2018 (HealthDay News) -- Quicker action to cut fossil fuel emissions and slow climate change could prevent as many as 153 million premature deaths worldwide this century, new research contends.

That's how many lives could be saved in 154 of the world's largest cities through immediate action to reduce emissions and limit the global temperature increase to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, instead of delaying the largest reductions, as some countries propose, the researchers said.

Taking action sooner rather than later would reduce premature death on all continents, with the biggest impact in Africa and Asia, computer simulations show, according to the researchers.

The new study shows the high cost to human life if nations take the lowest-cost approach to reducing emissions, according to study author Drew Shindell.

Shindell is a professor of earth sciences at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, in Durham, N.C.

In the lowest-cost approach, fossil fuel emissions would stay higher in the short-term in the hope they could be offset by future reductions.

"The lowest-cost approach only looks at how much it will cost to transform the energy sector. It ignores the human cost of more than 150 million lost lives, or the fact that slashing emissions in the near term will reduce long-term climate risk and avoid the need to rely on future carbon dioxide removal," Shindell said in a university news release.

"That's a very risky strategy, like buying something on credit and assuming you'll someday have a big enough income to pay it all back," he said.

Scientists have lots of historical data on air pollution and can project with "relatively high certainty" how many people would die in a given city under each scenario, Shindell said.

Los Angeles and New York are among six cities that could avoid as many as 320,000 premature deaths if international governments reduce carbon and other emissions now, he said.

"Hopefully, this information will help policymakers and the public grasp the benefits of accelerating carbon reductions in the near term, in a way that really hits home," Shindell said.

The report was published in the March 19 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change. Funding for the study came from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

More information

NASA has more on climate change.