Institute Of Human Development: Fill & Download for Free

There are two sides to this key question that make it vital in the debate about human caused global warming. There is a huge difference between the problem of smog (pollution} in advanced countries versus the problem of household air pollution in developing countries.First in the cities of advanced countries like Los Angeles and Paris the pollution is smog and annoying, but it has nothing I repeat nothing to do with carbon dioxide as CO2 is invisible, non polluting minute gas that makes all life possible through photosynthesis. We breathe out CO2 constantly to survive at 35,000 ppm. This gas is 100 % beneficial and has no proven climate effect.This is basic science not in dispute.Therefore reducing our so called carbon footprint of CO2 does not effect pollution in big cities directly.What does ending fossil fuel energy affect?The answer is that there is a horrible negative effect on the hope of > 2 billion living in the dark without grid electricity who die at the rate of 4 million annually from HOUSE HOLD AIR POLLUTION.Outdoor cooking causing household air pollution it is by far the greatest environmental problem facing the world today with at least 4 million fatalities annually.The greatest harm from the lack of cleaner air is for those living off the grid who cook outdoors and die early because of household air pollution. Extensive research shows their lives are horribly damaged by the smoke and pollution.HOW MANY LIVE OFF GRID AND COOK OUTDOORS? The research says > 2 billion.WHAT IS THE IMPACT? The research says at least 4 million die annually.WHY IS THIS A CLIMATE ISSUE? Because without advancing coal and fossil fuels the grid will not expand to these people because wind and solar alone lack the capacity without massive storage technology that is not available.WHAT CAN WE DO? Stop demonizing cheap accessible energy from coal and other fossil fuels on the false premise that with the net zero carbon targets from the Paris Accord global warming will end.REFERENCESWhat is the most harmful environmental issue that has been much ignored chasing the fable of run away global warming?HOUSEHOLD AIR POLLUTIONCookstove Smoke is “Largest Environmental Threat,” Global Health Study FindsPosted by Marianne Lavelle of The Daily Climate on December 13, 2012 (3)http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/13/cookstove-smoke-is- largest-environmental-threat-global-health-study-finds/A woman bends over an improved cookstove in Cameroon. Photo courtesy of Trees for the Future/Flickr.In a finding that confirms the devastating health impact of energy poverty, the landmark Global Burden of Disease study published today tallied 3.5 million annual deaths from respiratory illness due to burning of wood, brush, dung, and other biomass for fuel.The Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) is the most comprehensive worldwide observational epidemiological study to date. It describes mortality and morbidity from major diseases, injuries and risk factors to health at global, national and regional levels. Examining trends from 1990 to the present and making comparisons across populations enables understanding of the changing health challenges facing people across the world in the 21st century.]Cooking on traditional cookstoves is a far greater risk factor than poor water and sanitation, lead or radon pollution, or smog (ozone) and outdoor soot, according to the study in today’s Lancet, the largest ever systematic effort to describe the global distribution and causes of mortality. The data indicate that respiratory illness from breathing the emissions from inefficient cookstoves causes more than double the annual deaths attributed either to malaria (1.2 million) or to HIV/AIDS (1.5 million).Seven research institutions from around the world, including Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the University of Tokyo, and the World Health Organization (WHO), collaborated on the study, which was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Related: “How Healthy is the World?”) The research was much expanded in scope from the 1990 Global Burden of Disease study funded by the World Bank.The new study, if compared to the figures from 20 years ago, marks a decline in global deaths due to cookstove pollution (which stood at 4.6 million in the 1990 study.) But it is roughly double the 2 million annual figure that WHO has been attributing to deaths due to indoor smoke from solid fuels.“These results provide further momentum to our mission to ensure that cooking doesn’t kill,” said Radha Muthiah, executive director of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a public-private partnership that has been working to deploy cleaner, safer cookstoves.Added Kirk R. Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-author of The Lancet article, “One of the most alarming findings is that smoke from cooking fires was found to be the largest environmental threat to health in the world today.”The most harmful environmental impact killing at least 4 million annually is often ignored and is relevant to future tragedy of advancing and following the unfounded theory of climate change. The alarmism carbon reduction targets implemented by the Paris Accord aimed at ending the use of cheap coal and other effective fossil fuels for electricity if followed will cause horrendous health harm to the underdeveloped living in the dark in Africa, India and Asia and more.COOKING OUTDOORS WITH HIGHLY POLLUTING SOLID FUELSHousehold air pollution and healthHousehold air pollution and health8 May 2018العربيةKey - Around 3 billion people cook using polluting open fires or simple stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.·Each year, close to 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to household air pollution from inefficient cooking practices using polluting stoves paired with solid fuels and kerosene.·Household air pollution causes noncommunicable diseases including stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer.·Close to half of deaths due to pneumonia among children under 5 years of age are caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.Indoor air pollution and household energy: the forgotten 3 billionAround 3 billion people still cook using solid fuels (such as wood, crop wastes, charcoal, coal and dung) and kerosene in open fires and inefficient stoves. Most of these people are poor, and live in low- and middle-income countries.These cooking practices are inefficient, and use fuels and technologies that produce high levels of household air pollution with a range of health-damaging pollutants, including small soot particles that penetrate deep into the lungs. In poorly ventilated dwellings, indoor smoke can be 100 times higher than acceptable levels for fine particles. Exposure is particularly high among women and young children, who spend the most time near the domestic hearth.Impacts on health3.8 million people a year die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution caused by the inefficient use of solid fuels and kerosene for cooking. Among these 3.8 million deaths:·27% are due to pneumonia·18% from stroke·27% from ischaemic heart disease·20% from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)·8% from lung cancer.PneumoniaExposure to household air pollution almost doubles the risk for childhood pneumonia and is responsible for 45% of all pneumonia deaths in children less than 5 years old. Household air pollution is also risk for acute lower respiratory infections (pneumonia) in adults, and contributes to 28% of all adult deaths to pneumonia.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseOne in four or 25% of deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults in low- and middle-income countries are due to exposure to household air pollution. Women exposed to high levels of indoor smoke are more than twice as likely to suffer from COPD than women who use cleaner fuels and technologies. Among men (who already have a heightened risk of COPD due to their higher rates of smoking), exposure to household air pollution nearly doubles that risk.Stroke12% of all deaths due to stroke can be attributed to the daily exposure to household air pollution arising from cooking with solid fuels and kerosene.Ischaemic heart diseaseApproximately 11% of all deaths due to ischaemic heart disease, accounting for over a million premature deaths annually, can be attributed to exposure to household air pollution.Lung cancerApproximately 17% of lung cancer deaths in adults are attributable to exposure to carcinogens from household air pollution caused by cooking with kerosene or solid fuels like wood, charcoal or coal. The risk for women is higher, due to their role in food preparation.Other health impacts and risksMore generally, small particulate matter and other pollutants in indoor smoke inflame the airways and lungs, impairing immune response and reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.There is also evidence of links between household air pollution and low birth weight, tuberculosis, cataract, nasopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers.Mortality from ischaemic heart disease and stroke are also affected by risk factors such as high blood pressure, unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity and smoking. Some other risks for childhood pneumonia include suboptimal breastfeeding, underweight and second-hand smoke. For lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, active smoking and second-hand tobacco smoke are also main risk factors.Impacts on health equity, development and climate changeWithout a substantial policy change, the total number of people lacking access to clean fuels and technologies will remain largely unchanged by 2030 (International Energy Agency, 2017 (1)) and therefore hinder the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.·Fuel gathering increases the risk of musculoskeletal damage, consumes considerable time for women and children, limits other productive activities (such as income generation) and takes children away from school. In less secure environments, women and children are at risk of injury and violence during fuel gathering.·Black carbon (sooty particles) and methane emitted by inefficient stove combustion are powerful climate change pollutants.·Many of the fuels and technologies used by households for cooking, heating and lighting present safety risks. The ingestion of kerosene is the leading cause of childhood poisonings, and a large fraction of the severe burns and injuries occurring in low- and middle-income countries are linked to household energy use for cooking, heating and/or lighting.·The lack of access to electricity for 1 billion people (many of whom then use kerosene lamps for lighting) exposes households to very high levels of fine particulate matter. The use of polluting lighting fuels introduces other health risks, such as burns, injuries, poisonings, and constrains other opportunities for health and development, like studying or engaging in small crafts and trades, which require adequate lighting.WHO responseWHO provides technical support to countries in their own evaluations and scale-up of health-promoting household fuels and technologies. WHO is building capacity at the country and regional level to address household air pollution through direct consultations and workshops on household energy and health. This is further complemented by the ongoing development of the Clean Household Energy Solutions Toolkit (CHEST) to support the implementation of WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality: household fuel combustion. CHEST is a suite of tools and information resources that help countries identify stakeholders working on household energy and/or public health to design, implement and monitor policies addressing household energy.Guidelines for indoor air quality: household fuel combustionTo ensure healthy air in and around the home, WHO’s Guidelines for indoor air quality: household fuel combustion provide health-based recommendations on the types of fuels and technologies to protect health as well as strategies for the effective dissemination and adoption of such home energy technologies. These build upon existing WHO outdoor air quality guidelines and WHO guidance on levels of specific indoor pollutants.Household energy databaseThe WHO Household energy database is used to monitor global progress in the transition to cleaner fuels and stove combinations in households. It also supports assessments of disease burden from the household air pollution generated from the use of polluting fuel and technologies. Currently the database includes housing data from more than 1100 surveys, representing 157 countries. It has been expanded to include information on household fuels and technologies used for heating and lighting.As the custodial agency for Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 3.9.1 (mortality rate from the joint effects of household and ambient air pollution) and 7.1.2 (population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies), WHO uses the Household energy database to derive estimates for tracking progress towards achieving universal clean energy access and related health impacts.Research and programme evaluationWHO is working with countries, researchers and other partners to harmonize methods of evaluation across settings so that health impacts are assessed consistently and rigorously and incorporate economic assessment of health benefits.Leadership and advocacy in the health, energy and climate communityHealth sectorIn May 2015, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on air pollution and health, calling for the integration of health concerns into national, regional and local air pollution-related policies. The following year, the World Health Assembly adopted a “Roadmap for Enhanced Action,” calling for increased cross-sector cooperation to address the health risks of air pollution.Building on this mandate, WHO is working to integrate guidance and resources for supporting clean household energy into global health initiatives and decision-support tools, such as the Global Action Plan for Pneumonia and Diarrheal Disease (GAPPD), or Global Strategy for Women and Children’s Health, as well as into other aspects of WHO's own health policy guidance. WHO emphasizes the compelling health arguments for cleaner household energy in a range of global forums addressing maternal and child health issues related to pneumonia as well as forums concerned with noncommunicable diseases. This advocacy can help increase awareness of the importance of providing and scaling up of cleaner household energy as a core preventive public health measure.Health and climate changeWHO is a partner of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC). As a member of the CCAC’s health task force, WHO is providing technical support for harnessing health benefits from actions to reduce short-lived climate pollutants, and working to scale up health sector engagement to address such pollutants and improve air quality.Health, energy and sustainable developmentReductions in air pollution-related disease burden (both for household and outdoor) will be used to monitor the progress towards attaining the Sustainable Development Goal on Health (SDG 3).Ensuring universal access to clean fuel and technologies is a target of the Sustainable Development Goal on energy (SDG 7). Achieving this goal could prevent millions of deaths and improve the health and well-being of the billions of people relying on polluting technologies and fuels for cooking, heating and lighting.To better assess the health risks of household energy use, as well as differentiated gender impacts from household energy practices, WHO is leading an effort with countries and surveying agencies (e.g. USAID’s DHS, UNICEF’s MICS, World Bank’s LSMS) to enhance, harmonize and pilot questions for national censuses and surveys. The effort will ensure that surveys better capture information on all the fuels and technologies used in the home for cooking, heating and lighting, as well as other impacts like time lost to fuel collection disaggregated by sex.WHO also supports international initiatives to improve air pollution and related health impacts such as the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and the Climate Clean Air Coalition.(1) WEO-2017 Special Report: Energy Access Outlook, International Energy Agency, 2017 (WEO-2017 Special Report: Energy Access Outlook)Household air pollution and healthCHEAP PLENTIFUL COAL FOR NEW GRID ELECTRICITY IS THE ONLY REALISTIC RESPONSE TO THIS DEADLY ENVIRONMENTAL TRAGEDY.What follows is a summary of the key WHO sponsored research into household air pollution.Millions Dead: How Do We Know and What Does It Mean? Methods Used in the Comparative Risk Assessment of Household Air Pollution·Annual Review of Public Health· Volume 35, 2014· Smith, pp 185-206DOWNLOAD PDF FIGURESMillions Dead: How Do We Know and What Does It Mean? Methods Used in the Comparative Risk Assessment of Household Air PollutionAnnual Review of Public HealthVol. 35:185-206 (Volume publication date March 2014)Millions Dead: How Do We Know and What Does It Mean? Methods Used in the Comparative Risk Assessment of Household Air PollutionSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-7360; email: [email protected], [email protected] Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, United Kingdom; email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Sri Ramachandra University (SRU), Chennai 600116, India; email: [email protected] Pulmonary Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143; email: [email protected] Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3050; email: [email protected] Division of Epidemiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York10461; email: [email protected] Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, Washington, DC 20006; email: [email protected] Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Munich 81377, Germany; email: [email protected] Alerts*Smith and Bruce contributed equally as joint first authors. †Doug Barnes (retired); Michael N. Bates (University of California, Berkeley); Xaioli Duan (CRAEAS, Beijing); Santu Ghosh, Thangavel Guruswamy, Sankar Sambandam (Sri Ramachandra University, Chennai); Vinod Mishra (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York); Qing Lan (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda); Amir Sapkota (University of Maryland, College Park); Kurt Straif (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon); Anna Zimmermann (University of California, Berkeley); Sophie Bonjour (World Health Organization, Geneva); Michael Brauer (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Aaron Cohen (The Health Effects Institute, Boston); and Majid Ezzati (Imperial College London).SectionsAbstractIn the Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA) done as part of the Global Burden of Disease project (GBD-2010), the global and regional burdens of household air pollution (HAP) due to the use of solid cookfuels, were estimated along with 60+ other risk factors. This article describes how the HAP CRA was framed; how global HAP exposures were modeled; how diseases were judged to have sufficient evidence for inclusion; and how meta-analyses and exposure-response modeling were done to estimate relative risks. We explore relationships with the other air pollution risk factors: ambient air pollution, smoking, and secondhand smoke. We conclude with sensitivity analyses to illustrate some of the major uncertainties and recommendations for future work. We estimate that in 2010 HAP was responsible for 3.9 million premature deaths and ∼4.8% of lost healthy life years (DALYs), ranking it highest among environmental risk factors examined and one of the major risk factors of any type globally….CONCLUSIONSThe sensitivity analysis in Figure 6 implies that, at least for the purposes of the CRA, the results are not highly sensitive to the still-large uncertainties in PM exposure in solid cookfuel households across the world.13 We are not implying, however, that more exposure assessment is not needed. Indeed, additional assessment is critical to pinning down the IERs more accurately, particularly for the disease end points (IHD and stroke) for which there is little direct HAP information to date. It may imply, however, that more attention needs to be paid to developing monitors and protocols to pin down exposures at the lower end, i.e., <100 μg/m 3, as interventions are introduced to bring households into that range.Because CRAs depend on PAF calculations, the burden of disease from the CRAs is dependent on background health conditions. The CRA-2010 relies on the national GBD-2010 results for this purpose, but HAP is not a universal risk in any country, being confined nearly entirely to lower-income populations and, to a lesser extent, rural areas. The levels of the major diseases associated with HAP in such populations generally differ from the national averages. ALRI and COPD, for example, are likely to be higher, whereas lung cancer, IHD, and stroke may not be. This variance is complicated by smoking patterns, which also are not uniform across countries by HAP status but greatly affect the background rates of the same diseases. Future elaborations of the CRA for individual countries may wish to differentiate background disease patterns according to rural versus urban or by income quintile to better reflect these differences.There is a natural urge to forget that the CRAs, at best, estimate “attributable” impacts and apply them directly to estimate what might be achieved by interventions today, i.e., “avoidable” impacts. The CRA estimates how much less ill-health there would have been in 2010 if no one had used poorly combusted solid fuels for cooking in the past, and the analysis intrinsically incorporates all past history of population distribution, health conditions, trends in fuel use, etc. Of more relevance to policy, of course, is how much impact could be avoided if changes were made now because there is no option to change the past. To answer this avoidable impact question, however, requires estimates of future changes in population, health, and solid fuel use that would occur without intervention and then compare to what would happen with it. This is a related but even more difficult exercise than a CRA.14In addition, the CRAs assume more or less stable conditions; e.g., the COPD attributable burden today is the result of exposures to HAP over long periods in which HAP levels did not change precipitously. Interventions, however, are, by definition, changes that perturb a system that will then not reach equilibrium among the different factors for some years. An intervention will not actually result in a change in COPD rates for some years, for example, because there is already a future committed COPD burden due to past exposures. ALRI in infants, in contrast, can be expected to change fairly quickly after intervention. The result is that the benefits of intervention will be spread out over time; reductions in chronic diseases with long lag times will take much longer to accrue than will reductions in more acute conditions.Perhaps the most striking aspect of the HAP CRA, as derived from the IERs shared with the AAP CRA, is the highly nonlinear character of the exposure-response at levels of PM 2.5 below ∼100 μg/m 3 annual mean. These exposure-response relationships derive from modeling across orders of magnitude of mean exposures with disparate temporal patterns using epidemiologic evidence from quite disparate populations. Although currently sufficiently compelling to be used in the CRAs, they need to be confirmed with more direct evidence in HAP settings for the major outcomes. The implications are clear, however: Interventions to reduce HAP exposures must lower exposures substantially in order to produce large health benefits. Such reductions will be difficult to achieve with current technologies using solid fuels, although there is much ongoing effort to do better. Beyond being more expensive, introduction of gaseous fuels and electricity also sometimes does not immediately achieve reductions as large as might be expected because households do not shift completely away from solid fuels immediately. Thus much remains to be learned about how to achieve these reductions, but avoiding millions of premature deaths annually in the world's most vulnerable populations provides a compelling a reason to do so.Millions Dead: How Do We Know and What Does It Mean? Methods Used in the Comparative Risk Assessment of Household Air PollutionCLIMATE OVERCONFIDENCE WORSENS THE PLIGHT OF IMPOVERISHED MILLIONS LIVING WITHOUT ELECTRICITY AND SPURS IMMORAL GOVERNMENT SPENDINGTHE SOCIAL INJUSTICE OF ENERGY POVERTYEnergy Poverty is devastatingEnergy poverty is devastating for more than 2 billion impoverished peoples living without electricity for light and heat. Cooking happens the way it has for centuries before – over smoky indoor fires that do no favors for lungs or life expectancies. I witnessed the tragedy first hand working in the China countryside in the winter where peasants are forced to live with their animals in a vain attempt to keep warm. Their weathered faces from the harsh life in the dark without heat is very sad.Once upon a time, social justice was synonymous with equal access to modern amenities — electric lighting so poor children could read at night, refrigerators so milk could be kept on hand, and washing machines to save the hands and backs of women. Malthus was rightly denounced by generations of socialists as a cruel aristocrat who cloaked his elitism in pseudo-science, and claimed that Nature couldn't possibly feed any more hungry months.Now, at the very moment modern energy arrives for global poor — something a prior generation of socialists would have celebrated and, indeed, demanded — today's leading left-wing leaders advocate a return to energy penury. The loudest advocates of cheap energy for the poor are on the libertarian Right, while The Nation dresses up neo-Malthusianism as revolutionary socialism.Left-wing politics was once about destabilizing power relations between the West and the Rest. Now, under the sign of climate justice, it's about sustaining them.Left-wing politicians like Al Gore, Obama and Naomi Klein crusading against cheap coal and efficient fossil fuels represents the greatest progressive reversal in history.http://***http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/its-not-about-the-climate*** (http://***http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/its-not-about-the-climate***)This is immoral.WHY THIS TERRIBLE DEADLY PROBLEM MATTERSHere is the way I see it :On the one hand -There are lots of science papers and evidence that cast doubt on the claim that minute amounts of CO2 plant food are so harmful that all fossil fuel energy must end. The UN IPCC working group for example said they could not detect a human force in global warming without much more research - ignored. Obviously the science is not settled and no one has observed invisible and minute amounts of CO2 controlling the climate.On the other hand the evidence of harm from so many people living off grid and cooking with solid fuels is evident including in the cemeteries as the research counts 4 million lost lives annually.Should deny more than 2 billion the advantages of coal and other cheap fossil fuel energy sources because we THINK they may be making a cooling earth become too hot 100 years from now?NO THE INTENT OF THE PARIS ACCORD TO END FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY FOR ALL IS INDEED A MORAL ISSUE.