Air pollution killed about seven million people in 2012, making it the world's single biggest environmental health risk, the World Health Organisation (WHO) says.
The toll, a doubling of previous estimates, means one in eight of all global deaths in 2012 were linked to polluted air.
This means air pollution has overtaken poor diet, high blood pressure and tobacco smoke as the leading cause of preventable death worldwide.
Indoor pollution is mostly caused by cooking over coal, wood and biomass stoves.
The WHO estimates that around 2.9 billion people worldwide live in homes using wood, coal or dung as their primary cooking fuel.
Flavia Bustreo, a WHO family health expert, said women and children - especially those living in poor countries - often bear the brunt of the risks from indoor pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cooking stoves.
Outdoors, air is mainly polluted by transport, power generation, industrial and agricultural emissions and residential heating and cooking.
Research suggests outdoor air pollution exposure levels have risen significantly in some parts of the world, particularly in countries with large populations going through rapid industrialization, such as China and India.
The WHO's cancer research agency IARC published a report last year warning that the air we breathe is laced with cancer-causing substances and should be officially classified as carcinogenic to humans.
Dear Friend Larry: Air is to be breathed, not seen.
Great article. Thanks.
Peace, Abundant Blessings, Clean Air, Pure Water andUncontaminated Soil.
Enoch.
Larry,
Excellent article. Most people think that bad air has only to do with AGW. I have been banging the drum that bad air is just bad for us. In a recent study of why woman who have never smoked have suddenly had a jump in lung cancer, bad air was one of the reasons cited and in over all rates among men and woman, long term exposure to pollutants
Maybe ... but I don't think that would apply to air pollution .
BF is almost right... the gov is number 4.
That article is about CO2 . That's not pollution ... not the kind that kills .
I realize that living in China has taken some years off my life, as compared to living in Canada. Although where I am is not as bad as Beijing, once in a while it gets a little thick. So many people in China walk around wearing masks with a false sense of security. If only they knew their masks are useless.
Not directly it doesn't kill, but in large enough concentration, it sets off a series of phenomena that will kill.
By definition, anything that is present in what is ordinarily disproportionate amounts and/or is present where its presence is actually or potentially harmful is a pollutant.
The so-called "greenhouse effect," a phenomenon attributed to a great extent to atmospheric CO2, is a process by which heat from the earth's surface is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated in all directions. The re-radiation going back towards the earth's surface and lower atmosphere, causes the average surface temperature to rise above what it would otherwise be.
Here's an example of how CO2 can cause death of oxygen-breathing organisms that is not connected to "warming".
A pond or lake that freezes over in winter for an extended period, and, which becomes covered by snow, also for an extended period .
Two situations deplete the oxygen level of the pond water --
the lack of air/wind on the pond's liquid surface dissolving atmospheric oxygenand,
because of the snow-covered ice, a lack of sunlight preventing the pond flora from photosynthesis which produces oxygen
Plants photosynthesize in the presence of sunlight and CO2 but in the absence of sunlight, they don't take the CO2 out of the water and thus, don't produce their "waste product" -- OXYGEN.
Fish, amphibians and other animals in such a pond that require dissolved oxygen DIE as a result of suffocation -- their waste product, CO2 the perpetrator. There is even a term for this situation, it's called "WINTER KILL."
Whether it's an aquatic or marine or terrestrial animal, if it breathes oxygen, it exhales CO2 -- ecologically speaking, between the plants that use the CO2 and the animals that need the oxygen, it's called "SYMBIOSIS/MUTUALISM".
In layman's terms, IF WE SERIOUSLY FUCK WITH THAT BALANCE, WE CAN MAKE THE EARTH UNINHABITABLE TO LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.
The Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil and other such profiteers have been lying about the effects of fossil fuel via bullshit propaganda campaigns funded from their deep pockets.
If those scientists who claim Global Climate change is real are wrong, IT WON'T BE NEARLY AS BIG A DEAL AS if they are correct.
I have taken the time to explain myself succinctly herein. I do hope those who disagree will at least give the courtesy of an equally succinct rebuttal.
Even oxygen becomes poisonous below 120 feet for people who dive our oceans hence the need to develop mixed gas diving apparatus. The pollution of our air is so much more than just CO2 and they all need to be addressed. We can't just keep stumbling through life thinking we have no affect on our atmosphere.
Wow ... the usual BS leftist talking points . You are simply off topic . Hypothesizing about some unproven unmodeled future changes has nothing to do with the topic : dirty air killing people NOW .
I was merely identifying the wielders of the weapons.
Anything and everything and anyone involved compromising the planet is on-topic in this discussion.
Including the deniers.
Anything and everything and anyone involved compromising the planet is on-topic in this discussion.
Absolutely correct AMac.
Nah . You are shrieking leftist talking points . There are no weapons except CO and soot and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen .
Which the perpetrators I identified not only enable to be placed in the atmosphere, but subsidize the campaigns to lie about what they enable and the effects.
A Mac from ,
Irrelevant . Unless you can offer a realistic alternative to fossil fuels they will continue to be used . Vilifying big oil is really stupid ! Robert explained it quite clearly above . In order to remove the in-home toxins used in 3rd world cooking it requires fossil fuels .
Four day work week - 4/10 hour days theoretically 20% +/- reduction in motor vehicle fuel consumption.
Staggered work starting times in major cities so that hundreds of thousands if not millions of cars don't sit in gridlock burning gasoline while idling
As of a designated starting date, say January 1, 2016, on a state-
by-state basis, lists of drivers and their motor vehicles should be
compiled on the basis of vehicle fuel efficiency; Registered
vehicle owners would be listed with their vehicles and tax credits
would be issued based on a sliding scale, upon verification, i.e.
NO VEHICLE and/or PUBLIC TRANSIT USER TAX PAYER "JOE SMITH" =
LARGEST TAX CREDIT
25-35MILES/GALLON Vehicle Owner = NEXT BIGGEST and so on.
HUMMER, etc. OWNERS BY CHOICE get NO tax credits and pay a per/
gallon premium at the pump -- the wealthy are not hurt by gasoline
prices and they also enjoy the Bush Tax cuts! Insult to injury to
America's working poor and middle class!
Pass legislation that takes a portion of oil company profits on
each gallon of gasoline and use it to subsidize the tax credits.
Monitor closely that the oil companies/speculators do not manipulate
prices to recoup the tax.
I know it's not a perfect plan, but it's a start with rhyme and
reason. It would help Americans who need it now and, it would send a
message to "Organized Wealth" which is the ugly marriage-of-
convenience of money, government and the willingly-pandered-to
special interests that sell their souls at the expense of the rest of
us thus forestalling things like reduced oil dependency.
Further - if automobile manufacturers can produce one or two vehicle
models that get thirty-five or forty miles per gallon, they can
produce others. Therefore...
Legislate higher efficiency standards, give auto manufacturers tax
credits based on a formula incorporating vehicle miles per gallon
rating and the number manufactured in a designated time period.
Businesses in urban areas should consider staggering start times to
mitigate traffic congestion and wasted gasoline.
Traffic tickets issued for speeding should include an additional
penalty as fuel is consumed more quickly at higher speeds.
As long as we're dependent on fossil fuels, let's reduce consumption while working on alternatives.
So, Petey, what's your plan?
Your ideas [some of them might work ] seem to all involve forms of conservation . I am def in favor of that type of strategy . But all of what you propose is aimed at the US , right ?
The issue of the 3rd world usage is where the sticking point is . Such countries need to expand their fossil fuel usage if they want to free households from indoor pollution and its destructive effects .
I have ideas about how the US should proceed . But the 3rd world presents an entirely different set of problems .
I cannot disagree. But that's no reason why we shouldn't mitigate what we can. Possibly some threat of U.S. boycotts and/or trade incentives (that do not kill American jobs) might incentivize those countries to make some changes.
Perhaps you are too focused on "motivating" instead of innovating . As things stand China is researching the use of thorium nuclear reactors . They would be clean and not usable for nuclear weapons production . Also they would be much safer than current nukes . Why is China doing this research instead of the US ? We waste our R&D on dispersed power sources such as solar which is not worthwhile .
Well, let's see, Mike.
Further,
Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
PHILADELPHIA , December 20, 2013
And
Got more; just ask.
Some people still smoke cigarettes; gotta' admire their commitment.
As for tax structures ever notice that the people who live in the biggest houses pay higher property taxes?
'Course they get it all back because of the loopholes written into the income tax codes on their behalf by the lobbyists who own the legislators.
Damned pesky local taxing entities and those f'n real estate assessments.
No, actually you're saying that's my rationale.
However, some 200,000 VETERANS are among the homeless and I would advocate giving them more than just tax credits -- that instead of giving tax exemptions to corporations making record profits.
Good night for now; be happy to speak more reason to you tomorrow.