According to MIT's new study, ten states in the Midwest and the Great Lakes region could receive $ 4.7 billion in health benefits by 2030 if they meet current health standards. renewable energy. This equates to a 34% return on the $ 3.5 billion associated with the construction of this infrastructure from renewable energy sources such as wind farms or solar farms.
"This study shows that renewable energy is only paid for health benefits," said Emil Dimanchev, senior author and principal investigator at MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, to The Verge.
There is no lack of studies on the potential costs of climate change to secure coastal land that is vulnerable to reconstruction after more frequent and intense storms. And then there are health risks ranging from embarrassing allergy seasons to an increase in heat-related illnesses and deaths. This study, published in Environmental Research Letters on August 12, examined the health benefits and financial incentives associated with countries that use more renewable energy.
Why are there such big profits? In addition to limiting greenhouse gases that warm the planet and move away from the dirtiest sources of energy, it also affects air quality. The health benefits quantified by scientists result from limiting exposure to fine plant particles. And there is ample evidence of how particles or soot can affect the health of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. One of the reasons scientists focused their study on Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware is due to the fact that air quality in the region tends to be worse, which is in stronger dependence on coal. In 2016, 42% of Rust Belt's energy was coal, compared to 30% in the US as a whole. And it was the Trump Administration's desire to revive the troubled industry.
However, as these countries switch to more renewable energy, air quality will improve. As pollution decreases, lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes need to be the same for those living there. Researchers could also reduce medical bills and lost wages related to these health effects, which would translate into an estimated US $ 4.7 billion benefit in 2030 if current standards were adopted. This is referred to by medical researchers as contributing to the fight against climate change.
To reach that $ 4.7 billion mark, researchers focused on the current standards of the renewable energy portfolio, which require utilities to generate a percentage of their electricity from sources. renewable. The average target for these states is now 13%. If states in that region increased the combined use of renewable energy to 19.5%, health care would be $ 13.5 billion in 2030 compared to $ 5.8 billion. Doubling the use of renewable energy to about 26% of the total energy mix would translate into health benefits of $ 20 billion compared to $ 9 billion in implementation costs. The team used a framework combining economic models and air pollution models to arrive at their conclusions.
The research team predicted even greater health benefits for states setting carbon prices, a market-driven climate strategy that would limit the number of companies the industry can offer. Allow them to trade emission allowances. , The caveat is that the price of carbon is politically more volatile compared to the standards of the renewable energy portfolio. California is proud of the cap-and-trade system, which policymakers have used as a role model elsewhere. However, some critics have found that it could focus on emissions in low-income areas and in color communities closer to the polluters. They buy the most emission credits. By comparison, standards for renewable energy portfolios are already widely used in 29 states, the District of Columbia, the European Union, China, and India.
THE STATES LEAD THE STREET
The MIT team strategically focused on local action that can be taken when Trump renounces federal action on air quality and climate change. The government is facing a massive lawsuit by 22 states and seven local governments against the affordable clean energy law, which would weaken emissions standards for coal-fired power plants. "The states are currently leaders," said Dimanchev. "Here, climate policy and renewable energy policy are largely implemented."
But there are still state fights, especially in the Rust Belt. Dimanchev presented his research findings to the Ohio Senate in June and considered whether he should reverse the standards of his renewable energy portfolio to subsidize nuclear and coal. The complete abolition of the standards would result in an average of 50 premature deaths per year from 2030 onwards. The governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, finally signed a bill that did not break the norms, but clearly rejected them. "The negative effects on health will be significant and not far removed from the numbers we estimate to be complete," said Dimanchev.
