Fossil Fuel Burning Poses Threat To Health of 1.6 Billion People, Data Shows (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0179520976
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/24/1956244/fossil-fuel-burning-poses-threat-to-health-of-16-billion-people-data-shows
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/24/fossil-fuel-burning-threat-health-16bn-people-data-shows
> Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from fossil fuel burning, does not directly damage health, but leads to global heating. However, coal and oil burning for power generation, and the burning of fossil fuels in industrial facilities, pollute the air with particulate matter called PM2.5, which has serious health impacts when breathed in.
>
> A new interactive map from Climate Trace, a coalition of academics and analysts that tracks pollution and greenhouse gases, shows that PM2.5 and other toxins are being poured into the air near the homes of about 1.6 billion people. Of these, about 900 million are in the path of "super-emitting" industrial facilities -- including power plants, refineries, ports and mines -- that deliver outsize doses of toxic air.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/24/fossil-fuel-burning-threat-health-16bn-people-data-shows
Yeah but oil execs need more subsidies (Score:2)
To buy bigger yachts, so they can avoid the shore during the wildfires. Once you're dead you won't miss those tax dollars anyway!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a way to eliminate fossil fuels. One simple way is to re-define what the economy is, to re-define GDP. We don't have to live in a hyper energy economy, spending 2-5 hours a day in a car, it is our choice. Walking to work, walking to the supermarket, and walking home is not a bad lifestyle. I live it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Walking to work, walking to the supermarket, and walking home is not a bad lifestyle. I live it.
You know what grocery store is sort-of within walking distance of where I live? Walmart.
You know what jobs are sort-of within walking distance of where I live? Fast food joints, and also, obviously, Walmart again.
So no, that doesn't work for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that it takes a re-thinking of the values that our society holds dear. I just got back from the store. While I was walking I was wondering why people would want to sit for 2 to 4 hours in a car a day? One random thought I had is that people inherently want power, and driving a car makes them feel powerful. Many turn into "internet trolls" too, because they are anons, they honk their horns, and yell profanities at strangers. It seems like everything is a choice. We could choose to plan
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute bad faith, nobody expects them to just go away but you change their incentives and they will either adapt or wither away, we all love capitalism around here right? Adapt or die like anything else, regulations are part of business.
Just keep expanding the nonfossil options, continue supporting battery and EVs, the tech marches forward. Nobody is taking your meat away. Id say that what would happen is meat goes up in price since the cost of it's pollution gets factored in but he'll, look at the cost
So what's new? (Score:3)
What's the actual "news" here? We've known this for years. Common knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
> What's the actual "news" here? We've known this for years. Common knowledge.
Yep, the link between air pollution and health has been known for a while. However, with the current US administration, accepting obvious scientific truths is no longer a given.
Maybe the more surprising related recent news story is that [1]wildfires [slashdot.org] are expected to become the most costly climate-related health hazard.
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/24/1956244/most
Re: (Score:1)
> What's the actual "news" here? We've known this for years. Common knowledge.
Well, it's certainly news in contrast to Trump's rambling speech yesterday in front of the UN General Assembly.
And water is wet (Score:3)
> coal and oil burning for power generation
It's been known for quite some time that scrubbing coal and oil (specifically bunker oil) combustion products of particulates isn't economically viable. That's why we switched to natural gas in many cases. Much less stuff to scrub.
Save the crude oil for lighter fractions of lubricating and fuel products, fertilizer, drugs and other petrochemical products.
But it does damage health... (Score:2)
Umm, carbon dioxide does in fact damage health directly. No, it's not doing anything to us right now outdoors, but indoor levels of CO2, especially with large numbers of people in a poorly ventilated area are substantially higher than outdoor levels. A higher baseline outdoor CO2 makes those indoor levels rise even higher. [1]Health effects begin at around 1000 ppm, which we regularly hit already indoors, and which we could hit outdoors in urban areas by the end of the century. [nature.com] It begins with reduced higher-le
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1
Re: (Score:1)
That and eliminating meat consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
> That and eliminating meat consumption.
I'll meet you halfway on this - I'm gonna drive my EV to the store to get some meat.
Re: (Score:1)
And more nuclear power as well!