 |
| Dense smog in Milan. The heavily polluted northern Italian city and the surrounding region have been hard hit by the coronavirus outbreak. Photograph: Flavio Lo Scalzo/Reuters |
There are three new reports linking air pollution with higher death rates from the coronavirus.
The first, from Climate News Network:
In research which could, if confirmed by further studies, have fundamental implications not only for health but also for the climate crisis, scientists at the University of Cambridge say they have found an association between living in parts of England with high levels of air pollution and Covid-19 severity.
Because of the urgent need to share information relating to the pandemic, the researchers say, they have decided to publish their report on medRxiv, the preprint server for health sciences, even though it has not yet been peer-reviewed. However, they say, this preliminary data is supported by that from other countries.
The initial symptoms of Covid-19 include fever, but do not always include breathing difficulties. But, the researchers point out, some patients do go on to develop very serious respiratory problems. Although most experience only mild illness, around a quarter of patients admitted to hospital need intensive care treatment because of viral pneumonia with respiratory complications.
Research suggests that this probably stems from an overactive immune response, they say − but it is not clear why some patients are at greater risk of severe disease.
Previous studies have suggested that people over the age of 60 or with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cancer, are at highest risk of severe disease or death.
Long-term exposure to air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and ground-level ozone from car exhaust fumes or burning fossil fuels is a known risk factor for these health conditions.
Such pollutants can also cause a persistent inflammatory response and increase the risk of infection by viruses that target the respiratory tract.
[Read more here]
The other two are from The Guardian.
High levels of air pollution may be “one of the most important contributors” to deaths from Covid-19, according to research.
The analysis shows that of the coronavirus deaths across 66 administrative regions in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, 78% of them occurred in just five regions, and these were the most polluted.
The research examined levels of nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant produced mostly by diesel vehicles, and weather conditions that can prevent dirty air from dispersing away from a city. Many studies have linked NO2 exposure to health damage, and particularly lung disease, which could make people more likely to die if they contract Covid-19.
“The results indicate that long-term exposure to this pollutant may be one of the most important contributors to fatality caused by the Covid-19 virus in these regions and maybe across the whole world,” said Yaron Ogen, at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg in Germany, who conducted the research. “Poisoning our environment means poisoning our own body, and when it experiences chronic respiratory stress its ability to defend itself from infections is limited.”
[Read more here]
And, coronavirus detected on particles of air pollution.
Coronavirus has been detected on particles of air pollution by scientists investigating whether this could enable it to be carried over longer distances and increase the number of people infected.
The work is preliminary and it is not yet known if the virus remains viable on pollution particles and in sufficient quantity to cause disease.
The Italian scientists used standard techniques to collect outdoor air pollution samples at one urban and one industrial site in Bergamo province and identified a gene highly specific to Covid-19 in multiple samples. The detection was confirmed by blind testing at an independent laboratory.
Previous studies have shown that air pollution particles do harbour microbes and that pollution is likely to have carried the viruses causing bird flu, measles and foot-and-mouth disease over considerable distances.
The potential role of air pollution particles is linked to the broader question of how the coronavirus is transmitted. Large virus-laden droplets from infected people’s coughs and sneezes fall to the ground within a metre or two. But much smaller droplets, less than 5 microns in diameter, can remain in the air for minutes to hours and travel further.
[Read more here]
What can we do about air pollution? It's easy to think we have to wait for batteries to fall in cost so that we can use them to "firm" electricity generation and facilitate the switch to EVs. Actually, batteries are falling in cost very fast. Yet it is possible to cut emissions from electricity generation by 80%, even without using batteries, though batteries help, by providing overcapacity in renewables in a continent-wide grid with backup from gas-fired peaker plants. I discuss this fully here. Renewables are much cheaper than coal, so we'd actually save money. Plus, if we banned all cars without an electric motor, even if they are not full EVs, but hybrids (HEVs) or plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), we could cut emissions from transport by 50% to 80%. And with steel, we can also reduce emissions by using green hydrogen or green methane instead of coking coal.
If we wanted to, we could cut the worst air pollution (from petrol/diesel engines) by 25% over the next five years, and 50% over the next 10, just by banning the sale of new cars without electric engines. Car prices would rise by only $1500-$2000. The average car lasts 10 years, but the switch could be accelerated by a "cash for clunkers" program. Plug in hybrids (PHEVs) cost around $5000 more than petrol cars, but they cut emissions and pollution by 80%. A tax incentive of $2000 per car will make HEVs as cheap as petrol cars, and PHEVs only $3000 more expensive. Since petrol consumption will be much reduced, these higher costs will be offset by reduced fuel charges. Actually, we can cut emissions by even more, because in 10 years' time, batteries will cost 10% of what they do now, and PHEVs and full EVs will be concomitantly cheaper.
The question is, do we really want to cut air pollution? Or are we going to go on listening to the urgent entreaties of legacy car makers who have dragged their feet in this transition? Are we going to force a shift in electricity generation away from coal, or are we going to continue to phiff and phaff? Are we going to introduce a carbon tax to encourage iron and steel and cement producers to reduce emissions?
It's up to us. There are no technological and only small cost impediments to us doing these things. Only politics and corruption stop us.
No comments:
Post a Comment