Tune in to the Techonomy Climate livestream March 28th, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM PST. Explore the full agenda and speakers.  

Register for Techonomy Climate 2023 – VIRTUAL

This complimentary registration includes virtual access to all programing. We will send you a link prior to the event where you can watch the livestream. All sessions will be recorded and we will share videos after the event.

At the end of December 2022, when Americans were getting ready to spend hours indoors with family and friends — often in their kitchens, preparing holiday meals on the stovetop — a new study reignited a decades-old debate. The peer-reviewed research by the environmental think tank RMI (formerly Rocky Mountain Institute), the University of Sydney, and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine estimated that “nearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States can be linked to having a gas stove in the home.”

The backlash was swift and fierce. The American Gas Association (AGA) trade group called the findings “not substantiated by sound science,” and added that “any discussion” of a possible connection between asthma and the use of gas for cooking was “reckless.”

But this latest attempt to shut down discussion of the health impact of stoves is nothing new. It has been building for several years alongside revelations that AGA has used paid influencer campaigns to defend gas stoves and waged state-by-state, city-by-city lobbying offensives against initiatives to replace gas furnaces, water heaters, and stoves with electric-powered devices aimed at reducing pollution linked to climate change.

It’s less widely known that the gas industry has long sponsored its own research into the problem of indoor air pollution from gas stoves. Now, newly discovered documents reveal that the American Gas Association was studying the health and indoor pollution risks from gas stoves as far back as the early 1970s — that they knew much more, at a far earlier date, than has been previously documented.

More than 50 years ago, in 1972, AGA authored a draft report highlighting indoor air pollution concerns similar to those being raised by health experts and regulators today. In particular, this draft report examined what to do about problems related to the emission of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides (collectively referred to as NOx) from domestic gas appliances. This draft, recently discovered in the U.S. National Archives, would eventually become an official report published by the National Industrial Pollution Control Council (NIPCC), a long-forgotten government advisory council composed of the nation’s most powerful industrialists.

However, an entire section detailing those concerns, entitled “Indoor Air Quality Control,” vanished from the final report. With it went all the important evidence that the gas industry was not only conducting research into what the NIPCC called the “NOx problem” but also that it was actively testing technological solutions “for the purposes of limiting the levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides in household air.”

Instead, the final report argued gas’s sole drawback was its limited availability, “not its environmental impact.” It also lobbied for a massive expansion of U.S. domestic gas reserves and the rapid rollout of gas-based infrastructure, under the banner of replacing coal with gas to stem air pollution. As such, the report was part of a self-declared campaign by the gas and utilities industries to undermine King Coal’s grip on residential power, heating, and cooking and replace it with so-called “clean” gas-fired electricity plants. Accurately highlighting coal’s polluting nature, the published report glossed over gas’s own pollution problems, which were an area of emerging research at the time.

Gas stoves emit an array of air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide), carbon monoxide, and particulate matter when in use. New research shows that they also leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and benzene, a known human carcinogen, even when turned off. In terms of health impacts, multiple studies have associated nitrogen dioxide (NO2) exposure from gas stoves with heightened and more frequent respiratory problems and cardiovascular issues as well as an increased risk of childhood asthma.

Prior to the 1970s, research on laboratory animals had already linked NO2 exposure with greater susceptibility to respiratory infection, while high exposures had been found to cause pulmonary edema and death. In 1970, a study by the government’s National Air Pollution Control Administration found that increases in respiratory illnesses in Tennessee schoolchildren could be attributed to higher than normal outdoor NO2 exposure. Concerned over the implications of the study, the gas industry began its own research into indoor air pollution, specifically “to examine the gas range in more detail.”

When contacted for comment, the American Gas Association did not dispute the gas industry’s history and motivations of studying the indoor air pollution potential of gas appliances in the early 1970s. In a statement to DeSmog, AGA CEO Karen Harbert said, “AGA supported a 1982 review of the available research that found no causative link between gas stoves and asthma, a conclusion shared by regulatory agencies.”

Harbert reiterated earlier AGA statements questioning the conclusions of recent studies related to the health impacts of gas stoves.

Gas Companies Go to Washington

On January 6, 1972, a copy of the American Gas Association’s draft report, provisionally titled “Energy and the Environment: A Crisis. Natural Gas: A Solution,” was submitted to a federal official for initial review at the request of the NIPCC.

Established by President Richard Nixon through an April 1970 Executive Order, the NIPCC was an external advisory council which reported to the President and the White House Council on Environmental Quality via the Secretary of Commerce. It was composed of 200 of the nation’s top-tier business executives under the guise of assisting the government’s new anti-pollution efforts.

In practice, however, it provided the country’s biggest polluters with a privileged channel of access and influence over government policy as well as a valuable launchpad for public relations campaigns. Industry cooperation with government in areas of research and policy-making was common in the decades prior to the 1970s, but the NIPCC represented a new pinnacle in corporate-government collaboration. Public interest campaigner Ralph Nader called the NIPCC “a Who’s Who of American polluters.”

The NIPCC included an eight-member Utilities Sub-Council that counted the CEOs and presidents of major gas and electric companies among its ranks. Two years before AGA prepared its draft report, records show that these industry leaders had gathered at a Sub-Council meeting to discuss how to manage air pollution concerns. Minutes from the September 28, 1970 meeting, found in the National Archives, reveal that they agreed that “the need for industry to show what they are doing about pollution is pressing. It was suggested that the gas industry take a look at the NOx problem.”

And, according to AGA’s 1972 draft report, this is precisely what the gas industry did. “Of continuing interest to gas industry research has been the need to control the indoor environment in both industry and the home,” states the draft. “In recognition of this need to develop techniques for the maintenance of pollution-free indoor environment for the individual, projects are now underway to conceive, design, construct, and evaluate prototype devices to be used in conjunction with conventional residential heating and cooling systems for the purposes of limiting the levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides in household air.” (emphasis added)

This draft wasn’t sent unsolicited; led by their chairman, President of Pacific Gas & Electric, Shermer Sibley, the top-ranking business leaders of the NIPCC Utilities Sub-Council requested that AGA produce a paper describing the gas industry’s environmental position in preparation for an NIPCC report. The draft was an early version of what would eventually become an official report of the NIPCC’s Utilities Sub-Council, published in August 1972 and titled “The Natural Gas Industry and The Environment.”

While the final published version retained the draft’s general portrayal of gas as the “cleanest burning of fuels” and rallied around massive expansion of the gas industry, the section devoted to “Indoor Air Quality Control”was removed by the NIPCC’s Utilities Sub-Council.

Test Homes and Technofixes

The AGA draft also reveals that in the years prior to 1972, the gas industry had been using “test homes” to conduct research into indoor air pollution levels:“Environmental control data collected in the last few years at test homes in Canton, Ohio are being used to define relationships between outdoor and indoor pollution levels.”

Specially constructed research houses would be used routinely by the industry in the 1980s. By 1984, AGA had opened at least one “Gas Appliance Research and Demonstration House” and by 1989 the industry-sponsored Gas Research Institute (GRI) was operating both a “Conventional Research House” in Chicago, Illinois, and a “Contemporary Research House” in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

However, it’s unclear whether the early Ohio “test homes” referenced in 1972 were real homes occupied by real people or had been specially constructed by the industry for the purpose of carrying out research. Also unknown are full details of what was being measured in these homes — what data did the industry collect? And what were the industry’s findings on the relationships between outdoor and indoor pollution levels?

“We are unaware of any AGA historical records regarding testing or test homes in Canton, Ohio in 1972,” AGA’s Harbert told DeSmog.

Although the 1972 AGA draft report provides a tantalizing glimpse into what the industry might have known about the dangers of air pollution caused by gas stoves, these are among the many questions that remain unanswered.

Nevertheless, what is clear from the 1972 AGA draft and two other newly-discovered documents — an AGA paper and a GRI document both from 1981 — is that the industry was actively studying ways to address “the NOx problem” in the early 1970s.

These documents also indicate that the industry was particularly interested in two possible solutions to the indoor air pollution caused by gas: venting systems and range-tops that were designed to emit fewer nitrogen oxides.

Part of AGA’s attempt to boost opportunities for residential gas markets, the draft report details the perceived pollution benefits of using gas to power every aspect of American homes. Nevertheless, it simultaneously acknowledges that the industry would need to undergo significant changes in “gas distribution, utilization, and venting systems” to fit with the better insulated (and therefore draft-free) modern housing of the 1970s that allowed pollutants to build up inside the home.

The theoretical solution to this, according to the draft, was properly designed and operated exhaust systems that could prevent harmful levels of nitrogen oxides and other indoor air pollutants and keep gas-powered appliances “within pollution limits.”

These pollution limits, however, would have been based on outdoor limits. Although the EPA is authorized to regulate outdoor levels of NO2 under the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, regulation stops at the doorway. To date, no indoor regulation of NO2 exists. And due to inadequate or non-existent ventilation, indoor NO2 is often higher than the EPA’s guidelines for outdoor air pollution.

While the gas industry’s draft report devotes a full page to the issues of indoor air control, none of the references to nitrogen oxides, the industry’s test homes, indoor pollution levels, or venting systems were included in the final NIPCC report — the version circulated to government officials and available to the public.

And yet, venting, which has the capability to significantly reduce NO2 levels if adequately installed and properly used, was not a new concept. A 1978 EPA analysis of indoor air pollution states that vented gas ovens and stoves had been produced in the United States as early as the 1930s. According to the EPA, standards set up by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and AGA had required manufacturers to make vented stoves available if they were so requested by customers. The EPA authors, who identified gas cooking appliances as “major contributors” to indoor air pollutants, reported that this standard was dropped around 1950 due to “economics and consumer demand.”

“Proper ventilation is a common recommendation by health agencies, expert studies, and manufacturers of cooking appliances,” said AGA’s Harbert.

Venting systems weren’t the only technofix the industry had in mind. Recent coverage by NPR has revealed that by 1984 the gas industry had developed a cleaner and more efficient infrared gas burner emitting 40 percent less NO2— which it never manufactured for sale. But the 1981 GRI document shows that in fact AGA had begun working on emissions-reducing range designs significantly earlier. It states that a 1975 American Gas Association Laboratories paper — which is not currently available for review — updated AGA laboratory work on emission measurements from natural gas–fired appliances and discussed “a prototype range top that reduces NOx emissions.”

Selling Gas to the Public

The gas and utilities industries were eager to present gas as a less-polluting option than other power sources. A 1972 AGA ad announced, “More natural gas can give us a cleaner world.” “Pollution authorities agree that gas burns cleaner,” AGA declared in the ad, “with no sulfur and virtually no emissions.” It did not, however, mention gas’s own pollution problems.

Neither did another AGA advertisement from 1972, which showed a group of toddlers playing happily alongside the caption: “Gas. Clean energy for today and tomorrow.” One of the toddlers stands taller than the rest beneath AGA’s assurance that gas is “Good for growing things” and its advice that householders should contact their “heating contractor” or “local gas company.”

In keeping with AGA’s framing of gas as “clean energy,” both the AGA draft and the NIPCC final report contain a carefully selected statement from the first EPA head, William Ruckelshaus, in which he described the various environmental problems associated with different energy sources: “Nuclear reactors give off radiation, coal produces sulfur dioxide … and natural gas is in short supply.”

While both the draft and the final report feature this statement from the EPA head as proof of gas’s supposedly clean-burning credentials, the draft version — but not the final report — also acknowledges the statement’s usefulness as a selling point for the fuel: “Such a statement characterizes the major limitation of natural gas as a fuel in combating pollution as one of supply and not in terms of any adverse environmental impact.”

Approved by the Utilities Sub-Council, the NIPCC published its report, newly-titled “The Natural Gas Industry and The Environment,” as a glossy brochure, complete with a quote from President Nixon on the inside cover along with a signed letter from the NIPCC’s chairman to the Secretary of Commerce. Following publication, the report would have been presented to the Secretary of Commerce who was required by Executive Order to send it to the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Executive Office of the President. At the NIPCC’s discretion it would also have been sent to “others as appropriate” at “federal, state and local agencies.” In February of 1972, a month after AGA submitted its draft, the head of the CEQ, Russell Train, assured the NIPCC that its reports were “read at every level.” Like all NIPCC reports it was also available, via the Government Publishing Office, to business leaders, the press, and the general public.

This high-level pomp and ceremony gave an official veneer to what was essentially an industry-sanctioned PR opportunity — which concerned some in government. In Senate Hearings on Advisory Committees in June of 1971, Sen. Lee Metcalf (D-MT) challenged the NIPCC’s Executive Secretary, Water Hamilton — a Commerce Department official — over the fact that such NIPCC reports appeared to be official government documents. “How is an ordinary citizen to know,” asked Metcalf, that it is “not a document of the Department of Commerce?”

When Hamilton pointed to a disclaimer printed on the first page of all NIPCC reports, Metcalf remained unconvinced, describing it as “the most flagrant example of a disclaimer by small print that I have ever run into.”

Yet even the most sharp-eyed reader of “The Natural Gas Industry and The Environment” would have failed to find any information on indoor air quality within its pages.

However, while the industry executives on the Sub-Council may have removed all references to gas’s “NOx problem” from their final report, the problem wouldn’t stay hidden forever. That same year an EPA study, testing indoor nitrogen dioxide emissions from gas stoves, identified concentrations that were twenty times higher than the outdoor limit. And, the following year, in January 1973, EPA scientists published the first study linking respiratory illness to nitrogen dioxide exposure from the use of gas stoves in homes.

Over the coming decades, mounting evidence would continue to link nitrogen dioxide emissions from gas stoves with higher incidences of respiratory illness and cardiovascular problems. Denying this association, the gas industry would fight back — just as it is doing today.

Climate change is altering our bodies and changing our lives every day. But as with all public health crises, the health impacts of climate change are not evenly felt. Those who already suffer the brunt of systemic inequalities are also those who face the most severe consequences of climate change.

One of the most serious effects on our health is the sharp uptick in droughts and drought conditions worldwide. Access to drinking water is only the tip of the iceberg regarding the health risks associated with shortages. Increasingly severe and prolonged drought periods impact sanitation, nutrition, and air quality. They can also lead to more disease. West Nile Virus, carried by mosquitoes breeding in stagnant water, is the leading mosquito-borne disease in the continental United States. Also, drought conditions can increase dangerous fungi in soils that cause “Valley Fever.” This dangerous fungal disease is a growing problem in Arizona and California.

Like dry conditions, wet conditions such as flooding, hurricanes, and cyclones that impact sewage systems and water sources can intensify the risk for diseases such as norovirus, hepatitis, malaria, and dengue. In the book Changing Planet, Changing Health: How the Climate Crisis Threatens Our Health and What We Can Do About It, Paul Epstein and Dan Ferber explain that the strong winds from hurricanes, cyclones, and other extreme storms can carry infectious agents over thousands of miles, introducing pathogens to regions ill-equipped to handle them. For example, in 2022, flooding from Hurricane Ian led to an influx of deadly bacterial infections from Vibrio vulnificus, or the “flesh-eating” bacteria, with over 65 cases and 11 deaths reported in Florida.

Research from the Fourth National Climate Assessment indicates that climate change and warming temperatures contribute to increased levels of particulate matter and ozone—elements of harmful air pollution such as smog. These amplified levels of particulate matter and ozone contribute to a wave of new and uncertain health outcomes related to increased morbidity and mortality. In particular, wildfire smoke—capable of traveling thousands of miles and yet another consequence of worsening droughts—and other pollutants can penetrate deep into our respiratory and circulation systems, triggering problems related to inflammation such as asthma, depleted immunity, respiratory conditions, diabetes, and hypertension.

The effects of air pollution are not limited to the here and now, putting the health of future generations at risk. In a recent study conducted by the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom and Hasselt University in Belgium, researchers found that “unborn babies have air pollution particles in their developing lungs and other vital organs as early as the first trimester.” What’s more, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that the healthcare costs related to air pollution will rise from $21 billion in 2015 to over $175 billion by 2060.

Though the various health risks associated with climate change are scary and overwhelming, those with adequate healthcare and resources can combat them successfully. Vulnerable populations and those who lack financial resources are not so lucky. Marginalized groups and communities, such as people of color and those in low-income zip codes, face inflated risks due to systemic inequalities such as racism and discrimination.

Dr. Robbie M. Parks, Ph.D., a professor at Columbia University, explains that “It’s not just about exposure. It’s also about your preparedness and resilience. The United States is a microcosm for the world. The story is how unequal the health detriments of climate change are for vulnerable populations—in terms of increased exposure and how these communities lack the resources to recover from and combat environmental insults.”

According to a 2021 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, minorities are the most likely to live in areas that suffer the brunt of climate change—areas with the highest projected escalation of climate-related morbidity and mortality. The EPA found that due to pernicious historical policies such as redlining, Black individuals are over 41 percent more likely to live in areas with the highest projected increases in premature death due to extreme heat and poor air quality.

Likewise, Hispanic individuals are 21 percent more likely to live in the hottest parts of cities, and yet a third of Hispanic households lack access to air conditioning, leaving them susceptible to extreme heat exposure and its health-related impacts. As Hispanics and Latinos make up almost half of all agricultural workers and a third of construction workers in the United States, a 2016 report by the National Resources Defense Council found that “U.S. Latinos are about three times more likely to die on the job from heat-related causes than non-Hispanic whites.”

An often-overlooked minority group that faces some of the most profound health risks from climate change are Asian and Pacific Islanders. In a 2020 study, researchers found that most major EPA violations in the Pacific Islands are associated with pollution from U.S. Military Sites. In Guam, the Anderson Air Force Base—a site placed on the National Priority List in 1992 due to hazardous substances—sits in an aquifer that provides drinking water to over 70 percent of the island’s residents. According to census bureau data, almost a quarter of Guam residents live below the poverty line. They have no say in their generational exposure to fuel compounds, lead, and heavy metals, and they also lack the resources needed to protect themselves from harmful pollutants.

Beyond ethnic and racial minorities, all low-income communities are more likely to have their health be disproportionately affected by climate change. “This kind of inequality is a moral, ethical component of climate change that is easy to understand but is often overlooked,” says Dr. Parks. A 2017 report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that people with low socioeconomic status are more likely to be exposed to environmental hazards and have a limited capacity to prepare themselves for extreme climate events. Similarly, the Shriver Center on Poverty Law found in 2020 that 70 percent of the United States’ most hazardous waste sites are located within one mile of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-assisted housing facilities.

The ironic crux of the climate crisis’s disproportionate and damaging health impacts on vulnerable populations is that those who suffer the most contribute to climate change the least. In 2021, researchers found that “people in the global top 1 percent of income cause twice as much consumption-based CO2 emissions as those in the bottom 50.”

Those with access to financial resources and the capacity to create systemic change must not take that responsibility lightly. “It’s a classic balance between individual and collective action,” comments Dr. Parks. “High net individuals have one of the greatest capacities to decrease their carbon footprints.”

As custodians of wealth, our small, individual decisions to protect our environment, such as impact investing, choosing to fly commercially, or driving an electric car, carry far more weight than we know. To protect our health and to effect positive, systemic change for the populations who need it the most, we must take action to ensure the health of our planet.

> For more climate conversations, join us on March 28th in Mountain View, CA for Techonomy Climate.

To avoid a climate catastrophe, we must invest an estimated $6 trillion annually into climate by 2030. Climate finance takes on many shapes – venture capital towards innovation, project finance and debt for building clean infrastructure, government aid and grants for adapting to new climate realities. Sophie Purdom, Co-Founder of Climate Tech VC, joined us to discuss her new climate fund and share data-driven perspectives on the new climate economy and how to make the most of this pivotal moment.

> For more climate content, check out our Techonomy Climate 2023 conference.

Food nourishes us, sustains us, and in many cases, supplies our livelihoods. Food is life. But the way we grow, raise, catch, process and distribute food – our food systems – is under increasing threat from climate change. And for those in the most vulnerable parts of the world, this is a threat to their very survival. How can this community ensure we are using energy to focus on the most sustainable agricultural solutions? How can farmers and ranchers contribute to climate solutions, and thrive at the same time? How can we ensure precious resources are being used in the most efficient ways?  What does an inclusive, solutions-oriented community look like, and how can we bring the most critical voices to the table?

> Interested in more climate tech content? Join us for Techonomy Climate on March 28th, 2023 in Mountain View, CA. 

Sustainable cement, next generation plastics, alternative protein sources, textiles made from manufactured spider silk, mushroom leather – these are just a fraction of the promise of biotechnology. The bioeconomy has created new opportunities to support a more sustainable future and address the existential threats posed by climate change. Mary Maxon is Executive Director of BioFutures at Schmidt Futures and an expert in this new era of science. Maxon joined us to discuss what it will take to maximize the benefits of the bioeconomy, which has the potential to revitalize U.S. manufacturing, create more resilient supply chains and new jobs, address economic inequity, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

> Interested in more climate tech content? Join us for Techonomy Climate on March 28th, 2023 in Mountain View, CA. 

The massive influx of investments and interest in climate technology presents unique opportunities, but not all solutions are viable or reliable. Rapid change at scale is imperative and the transition must be approached thoughtfully, backed by scientific evidence. Clea Kolster, PhD is a Partner and the Head of Science at Lowercarbon Capital and leads the firm’s technical research, development, diligence, and scientific strategy efforts. In this roundtable conversation, she joined Techonomy in this virtual roundtable to discuss how to solve the climate emergency through innovation in technology, business models, and policy.

> Interested in more climate tech content? Join us for Techonomy Climate on March 28th, 2023 in Mountain View, CA. 

Many will recognize Dr. Larry Brilliant as CNN’s resident COVID expert, but the epidemiologist is most famous for leading the World Health Organization team that eradicated smallpox. He’s also stewarded the philanthropic efforts of both Google and Salesforce and has been a mentor to many tech leaders, including Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. But before all that, Brilliant lived in an ashram in India for many years, studying under guru Neem Karoli Baba (also the spiritual teacher of Ram Das), who drove him to pursue a career in public health. 

Brilliant sat down with Techonomy founder David Kirkpatrick at the Techonomy 2022 retreat in Sonoma, CA, to discuss his journey into public health and the connection between global warming and global health. This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. The full interview can be viewed here.

David Kirkpatrick: You had this period when you were a devoted follower of a very inspiring guru. And he inspired you then to go into public health. Tell us about that.

Dr. Larry Brilliant: Here’s the kind of inspiration he used: I would sit there, and I would meditate and he would throw apples at my testicles and say, “you should get out of the ashram.” He had really good aim. My guru, Neem Karoli Baba, told me I should go to the World Health Organization office in New Delhi and get a job helping eradicate smallpox because this was God’s gift to humanity. So, I went to WHO, which took about 17 hours on a train and a bus, and of course, they kicked me out because I was wearing this white dress, had hair down to the middle of my back, and had a big beard. 

I went back up, and I saw my guru, and he asked, “Did you get your job?” And I said, “No.” He said, “Go back.” I took the 17-hour journey back and, of course, they kicked me out again. Rinse and repeat about 12 times, but I got smart. I trimmed the beard, I lost the dress, and I put on a suit and tie. 

One time I walked into the WHO office, there was this tall American. And he said, “Are you American? Who are you?” I said, “I’m a doctor.” He said, “Okay, why are you here?” I told him that my guru, who lives in the Himalayas, told me that I was supposed to come work for WHO and help eradicate smallpox. “Well,” he said, “I’m the head of the global smallpox eradication program, and we don’t have a smallpox eradication program in India. But since we’re here, maybe I could interview you.” He eventually did hire me, and I became the head of the program. It took ten years to eradicate smallpox. 

And you did more or less eradicate smallpox.

With 150,000 of the most wonderful, courageous people in the world. It’s the only disease that’s ever been eradicated. 

You have done enormous research and communication around the pandemic. What’s the connection between global health and global warming, particularly concerning pandemics?

The primary connection is that the antecedent causes of climate change and global warming are many of the exact antecedent causes of pandemics. As the Earth gets warmer, animals from the south migrate to the north. Over a billion more people are at risk of malaria right now because the Anopheles mosquito can now breed at higher altitudes and greater latitudes. Animals meeting other animals carrying the same viruses leads to variants. We’re having a tremendous amount of spillover because the forests and rainforests are being clear-cut. 

I was the science advisor on the film Contagion. We tried to make a movie that would be a fictional representation of what we thought would happen. We didn’t expect to get it so close. But the whole premise was a bat with a virus enters the human environment, which is what happened with COVID—and with SARS, and probably with MERS and Ebola. 

Fossil fuels create greenhouse gases, leading to global warming. And with that, you wind up changing the way water works, the way salt works, and the entire ecosystem of the planet. The same things that cause climate change cause spillover, where animals and humans live in each other’s territory. Spillover is occurring now at five times the rate that it did 50 years ago. Every year one, two, or three new novel diseases that have never been seen in human beings are spilling over from animals, and we’re exposed to them. 

All of these factors are hitting simultaneously, leading to animals and humans sharing the same habitat. That’s why we’ve gotten a cacophony of these viruses over the last ten years, like SARS, MERS, Ebola, West Nile disease, Lyme disease, and COVID. 

There are a lot of other linkages to climate change. Global warming increases famine, drought, and floods and winds up putting more salt in the Earth. One of the biggest things we see in global health is that as water levels rise, they bring salt and we lose agricultural land. That means that climate change can lead to famine.

The primary culprit is modernity. The most invasive species in the world is us humans. We’re the ones that are putting the world at such ecological risk. And with it, we will find challenges to our food, challenges to our water, challenges to agriculture, and challenges to pandemics as well. 

You also are very worried about COVID variants right now. Could you tell us why?

Right now, we’re in a funny stage with the COVID pandemic. Three years ago, I wrote an article in Foreign Affairs called “The Forever Virus.” And people got mad at me because we were all done with the pandemic and wanted to move on. I hope that’s true. We may be there. Right now, there are four coronaviruses that preceded this one that retired into the retirement home of coronaviruses, which means they became colds. That’s right, half of the colds you get are Coronaviruses, which are related to SARS-CoV-2. This virus may be going through that process now. And I pray to God that it is. 

But we’ve also got five terrible new sub-variants. Each one is more infectious than the other. All of them are mysterious in terms of how many diseases they’ll cause. And right now, we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with new vaccines that are more effective in stopping you from getting it, but great effectiveness and preventing you from dying. But we’re fighting the battle of the last variant. So, I am still determining where it’s going to go.

The theme of our conference is innovation must save the world. Do you think innovation is going to help us save the world?

A lot of innovations are pretty terrible. Nuclear weapons are an innovation that hasn’t really worked out. But I hope innovation is going to make a big difference. In the fight against COVID, for example, DARPA worked on mRNA technology for years, and as a result, we had it ready to convert into vaccines. That quickly saved millions and millions of lives. 

But the innovation we need is a total change in human consciousness about compassion, altruism, and stopping to think of others as others. When I think of innovation, I think of the infrastructure of how we allocate resources and the decisions we make. To have innovations that are going to have enduring value, we have to help bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, and do equitable redistribution of the resources that we need to make the world a better place. We’ve got to focus on vision and values. 

…

> For more of our climate content, please join us for the upcoming Techonomy Climate event in Mountain View, CA on March 28, 2023. 

Fossil fuel combustion produces greenhouse gases that heat the planet, but it also emits air pollutants that harm human health. Fine particulate matter and ozone, for example, have been linked to fatal lung and heart issues. And a recent study published in GeoHealth adds to the growing body of research that shows that when countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the associated improvements in air quality could save countless lives.

Researchers used computer simulations to quantify the deaths associated with power plant emissions globally. Then, they modeled how those numbers might change if G20 countries, which include the world’s biggest economies, kept on pace to reach their net zero emissions goals.

The team concluded that particulate matter and ozone caused more than 2.2 million premature deaths each year in G20 countries. Reducing emissions in these countries from power plants alone could reduce that death toll by nearly 300,000 lives by 2040.

Air Pollution Across Borders

The G20 represents 19 of the world’s most economically developed countries and the European Union. This collective accounts for more than 90% of the world’s gross domestic product, more than 60% of the world’s population, and 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.

In an effort to fight climate change, many of these countries set goals to minimize their carbon footprint by reducing fossil fuel combustion. Because fossil fuel combustion produces pollutant emissions that increase concentrations of ozone and fine particulate matter, the clean energy transition could yield public health benefits, too.

To quantify how air pollution from these countries affects public health, the researchers performed computer simulations using meteorological data from the NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office.

The researchers found that China, India, and the United States, which have high emissions and large population sizes, experience the greatest number of deaths among G20 countries. Still, air pollution knows no national borders, and emissions from one nation affected nearby nations, too.

“People can be exposed to air pollution in countries where the pollution didn’t originate due to their geographic location and the prevailing wind patterns,” said Omar Nawaz, an air quality scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder and lead author of the study. “For example, we found that South Korea and Japan were more impacted by emissions from China than they were by domestic pollution sources.”

The team then modeled how many lives could be saved if power plants in G20 countries, which are one of the largest emission sources for air pollution, achieved their net zero goal by their target dates.

They found that by 2040, even before any of these nations reach their net zero goal, reducing emissions from power plants alone would save approximately 300,000 lives each year.

This estimate does not account for sources of emissions other than power plants, and according to the researchers, the health benefits would continue to grow if nations stayed on pace with their goals after 2040 (see Table 1).

Because air pollution crosses political borders, nations need to cooperate to realize these life-saving effects.

“For example, if Canada worked towards reaching their net zero emissions goal, the main country reaping those benefits would be the United States because of its proximity to Canada and larger population size,” Nawaz said. Meanwhile, emission reductions in the United States would also yield public health benefits for Canada.

Using the approach outlined in this study, Nawaz said that scientists could assess how reducing emissions in other sectors such as agriculture could also reduce pollution’s death toll. Applying it broadly could reveal the full life-saving potential of climate change mitigation. (GeoHealth, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GH000713, 2023)