
How much does air pollution cost the U.S.? - hhs
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-much-does-air-pollution-cost-us#gs.8d3bpb
======
d_burfoot
I don't know why Tesla and other electric car manufacturers don't yell and
shout more about how much better electric cars are for human health in cities.
The climate change argument for EVs is kind of weak, since you still have to
produce the electricity. But it's much better for lung health to produce the
electricity in a far-off place and then transport it via the power grid to the
EVs in a city, than to have the vehicle itself burn the gasoline and emit the
exhaust right out on the streets where people are walking around.

~~~
wffurr
Because Teslas emit a ton of PM 2.5. They're heavy compared to ICE cars, and
thus wear out brakes, tires, etc. faster.

"PM2.5 emissions were only 1-3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. ...
Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5
emissions from traffic. ... Future policy should consequently focus on setting
standards for non-exhaust emissions and encouraging weight reduction of all
vehicles to significantly reduce PM emissions from traffic."

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-
exhau...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-
exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles)

~~~
gwbas1c
Brakes last much longer on electric cars due to regenerative braking.

~~~
rconti
Yeah, I wish we could read the full article. It might just be that brake pad
material is a miniscule fraction of PM2.5 compared to tires, so the regen
doesn't much matter. Or maybe they're just doing math to write the article,
rather than experimenting, and assuming that there's no regen on an EV?

~~~
polyomino
[https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/...](https://sci-
hub.tw/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-
exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles)

~~~
rconti
Thanks. Only had time to really briefly skim it.

A bit all over the place. For one, they linked it directly with weight. But
then they mentioned regen and decided to model it at 0 brake wear on EVs. Then
they talked about EVs being made of lightweight materials such as aluminum,
and the difference would be even larger if they WEREN'T. (what?)

It also models particular resuspension in the air as a function of vehicle
weight, arguing that heavier vehicles are typically less aerodynamic -- which
is probably not the case with EVs.

Anyway, interesting.

------
avocado4
Tangentially, here's a neat WHO's map of global air pollution I find useful
when traveling abroad:
[http://maps.who.int/airpollution/](http://maps.who.int/airpollution/)

~~~
sxates
Fascinating! Surprised that almost the whole of Africa is red on here - what's
the source of pollution in these areas? Lots of "burning stuff" for cooking
and heat?

~~~
kiliantics
Having just spent some time in East Africa, I can say the air on any road was
barely breathable. Many vehicles were very visibly spewing massive clouds of
black smoke. I would not be surprised if this was largely due to lack of
regulation/enforcement for vehicle emissions.

~~~
ido
When visiting India ~15 years ago, even mid-sized (for India, so ~1m people)
cities were so polluted that the air was yellow. This was despite the fact
that far fewer Indians own a car per capita than in the west- but the car they
did own (and/or fuel they used) were horribly polluting.

------
Mathnerd314
"A sizable portion of GED in all 3 IAMs could not be attributed to any
economic unit either because they could not be clearly mapped to a specific
sector or because they were biogenic or caused by wildlife and therefore not
associated with any kind of economic activity. Overall, we were able to
attribute around 60% of total GED to industrial sectors for the years 2008,
2011, and 2014."

These seem like other numbers based on extrapolation, in that the sector
comparisons and time comparisons are probably accurate on a relative basis,
but saying that air pollution is 5% of GDP is most likely off by a large
factor; it could be 2% or 10%.

------
primroot
But does it cost the rich more than it costs the poor? Larry Summers once had
an infamous opinion about this.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo)
I am sharing it not defending it.

------
zaroth
I do wonder about these extrapolations of cost. Air pollution costs about a
trillion. By the way, driving injuries and deaths accounting for future lost
wages and pain & suffering also costs the US nearly a trillion.

How many other big categories have trillion dollar externalities? It’s only a
$20 trillion economy - can the list be longer than 20 things?

And when we say something costs a $1 trillion in externalities annually, that
should literally mean money that can be picked back up into the economy if you
can clean it up. Mostly, to put it bluntly, because less people are having
their lives cut short.

I find thinking about the scale of the damages and really trying to appreciate
it is what creates the moral imperative to act. My personal belief is that
technology is always the way forward. E.g. That by 2050 we could reduce the
driving externality by 90% through automation. That we will eliminate coal for
renewables.

I have less of a feel for what the technological path forward is for non-
utility & transport air pollution - for some reason it’s a lot harder to grasp
the damage being done. It’s certainly less visceral.

The drop is SO2 from utilities (coal) is particularly impressive. But a 20%
overall drop in just a few years is kind of stunning - it works out to savings
of $1.6 trillion per decade. That’s $1.6 trillion in economic damage from air
pollution which will not be occurring due to progress in cleaning up our
environment.

Sometimes it’s very important to step back and remind ourselves how much
progress really is being made.

------
spodek
Can you put a price on 350 million people giving up? . . . on a culture of
complacency, resignation, lethargy, compliance?

One of the biggest effects I see is the cultural shift to accept living in a
polluted world. People resign to accept it even though they can make a
difference, and I don't just mean through individual change.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Is that even remotely true? Where is your evidence for that? Are you just
cherry picking anecdata?

I've seen thousands marching for climate change recently, I've seen numerous
local/state governments in the USA fighting hard, not to mention numerous
friends who have adopted low-carbon behaviors specifically due to climate
change. There is far from loss of hope here, there is a lot of emotion: anger,
shame, incredulity, depression, but there's a lot of motivation and optimism
too.

~~~
ptah
a lot of people march, but how many of are willing to fundamentally change
their lifestyles

