Full citation and abstract? "Health Damages from Air Pollution in China." Global Environmental Change 22.(2012) (2011): 55-66. Online This article discusses air pollution-related health impacts on Chinese economy by using an expanded version of the Emission Prediction and Policy Analysis model. The authors believe that marginal welfare impact to the Chinese economy of ozone and pm (particulate-matter) concentrations have increased greatly. Also, welfare losses from air pollution has decreased because the growth of economy outruns the damages of air pollution. In addition, the authors provide data illustrating that particulate matter (PM) led to GDP loss.
Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project. Kira Matus: Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science; possible useful publications: Barriers to the Implementation of Green Chemistry in the United States; Green chemistry and green engineering in China: Drivers, policies and barriers to innovation; Key Consideration to Meet Increasing Demand of Green Process in China. Kyung-Min Nam, John M Reilly, Sergey Paltsev: Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT; Useful publications: Synergy between Pollution and Carbon Emissions Control: Comparing China and the US (Nam, Reilly) Noelle E Selin: Engineering Systems Division and Department of Earth, MIT; Useful publication: U.S. Air Quality and Health Benefits from Avoided Climate Change under Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Lok N Lamsal: Department of Physics and Atmospheric science, Dalhousie University; Useful publication: Satellite-based estimates of ambient air pollution and global variations in childhood asthma prevalence
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report? Main findings:
Air pollution has produced substantial socio-economic costs in China. Air pollution health cost is measured in terms of consumption loss. According to their simulation, the authors have estimated that for three decades from 1975 to 2005, air pollution in China reduced annual consumption levels between 7% and 23%.. The authors also explain that the rise of consumption loss may be caused by rapid growth of urban population which have been affected by pm concentrations in large cities.
Chinese economy could be benefited by setting feasible air quality control targets. Implementing air quality control policies can increase consumption levels and welfare levels.
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
By providing relevant statistics: In order to illustrate the point that air pollution in China has created a substantial burden to its economy, the authors show the following data: The consumption loss in absolute terms continuously increased from US $16 billion in 1975 to US $69 billion in 2005 and the welfare loss increased from US$22 billion to US$112 billion from the same period. Also, the authors incorporate data visualization to help promote deeper understanding of statistics.
By making comparison: The authors compare the estimated costs of air pollution related to consumption loss and welfare loss by providing a timeline from 1975 to 2005. Readers can observe an increasing trend of consumption loss and welfare loss.
By using control experiments: The authors have set four scenarios to estimate costs of air pollution, respectively titled Historical, Green and Policy 1&2. These four scenarios have different ozone and pm levels. And results are examined crossly.
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
“Between 1975 and 2005, the calculation of China’s lost welfare grew from US$22 billion to US$112 billion annually. In relative terms, this represents a decline from 14% to 5% of the historical welfare levels during this period, for the same reasons outlined for the relative decline in consumption losses.
“In other words, this reference scenario simulates the reality where observed economic results are already distorted by air pollution effects.”
“We estimate that annual benefit from the air quality control targets described in Policy 1&2 would be US$12 billion to US$47 billion in terms of consumption increase, or 4% to 19% of the historical consumption levels for the period of 1975–2005.”
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
MIT Emission Prediction Policy Analysis(EPPA) Model: A multi-region, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model of world economy built on the Global Trade Analysis Project 5 dataset. The authors utilized this model to analyze data dated back to 1970. They also included the household healthcare production and leisure in the social accounting matrix. This model calculates the service, labor and leisure costs of all impact categories.
ER functions. This article also derives data by using exposure-response (ER) functions. ER functions quantify how many health-end outcomes or change in the death rate caused by a unit increase in a pollutant’s concentration level. This article used ER functions to calculate mortality rates in different age groups.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report? This article doesn’t explicitly discuss health disparity issues. However, it points out ozone is more concentrated in northern China, which could indicate that this area is more susceptible to the impact of air pollution.
Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.) Some articles have included this research. For instance, Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of US Adults (C. Arden Pope, III, Michael J. Thun, Mohan M. Namboodiri, Douglas W. Dockery, John S. Evans, Frank E. Speizer, and Clark W. Heath, Jr)
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced? According to the article’s bibliography, I think this article is produced based on the data it collected.
What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings?
I followed up on particulate matter discussed in this article. Pm10 and pm2.5 are common forms of particulate matter. Pm10 refers to particles with diameters that are less than or equal to 10 microns in size. Pm2.5 consists of particles with diameters that are less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size. Pm2.5 is more serious health concern than pm10 as smaller particles can travel more deeply to a human’s lung. Reference: "Particulate Matter." Spare the Air. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Web. <http://www.sparetheair.org/stay-informed/particulate-matter>.
Also I looked into why ozone can harm human health as I previously thought that ozone is actually good. Breathing ozone can trigger a series of health problems and ozone can make it more difficult to breathe deeply and vigorously. Children are more susceptible to ozone as their lungs are still developing so they are at greater risk of having asthma attack. Reference: "Ground Level Ozone Health Effect." EPA. Web. <http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/health.html>.
I was curious about how researchers conduct economic assessment of health damages so I searched online. It seems to me that they computed this figure considering loss of labor, capital and equilibrium economic effects overtime. But I couldn’t find details of these methods. Reference: Noelle E. Selin “Air Pollution and Health: Quantifying Damages in China and Beyond” Georgetown University April, 2012
"Health Damages from Air Pollution in China." Global Environmental Change 22.(2012) (2011): 55-66. Online
This article discusses air pollution-related health impacts on Chinese economy by using an expanded version of the Emission Prediction and Policy Analysis model. The authors believe that marginal welfare impact to the Chinese economy of ozone and pm (particulate-matter) concentrations have increased greatly. Also, welfare losses from air pollution has decreased because the growth of economy outruns the damages of air pollution. In addition, the authors provide data illustrating that particulate matter (PM) led to GDP loss.
Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project.
Kira Matus: Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science; possible useful publications: Barriers to the Implementation of Green Chemistry in the United States; Green chemistry and green engineering in China: Drivers, policies and barriers to innovation; Key Consideration to Meet Increasing Demand of Green Process in China.
Kyung-Min Nam, John M Reilly, Sergey Paltsev: Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT; Useful publications: Synergy between Pollution and Carbon Emissions Control: Comparing China and the US (Nam, Reilly)
Noelle E Selin: Engineering Systems Division and Department of Earth, MIT; Useful publication: U.S. Air Quality and Health Benefits from Avoided Climate Change under Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Lok N Lamsal: Department of Physics and Atmospheric science, Dalhousie University; Useful publication: Satellite-based estimates of ambient air pollution and global variations in childhood asthma prevalence
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
Main findings:
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
This article doesn’t explicitly discuss health disparity issues. However, it points out ozone is more concentrated in northern China, which could indicate that this area is more susceptible to the impact of air pollution.
Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.)
Some articles have included this research. For instance, Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of US Adults (C. Arden Pope, III, Michael J. Thun, Mohan M. Namboodiri, Douglas W. Dockery, John S. Evans, Frank E. Speizer, and Clark W. Heath, Jr)
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
According to the article’s bibliography, I think this article is produced based on the data it collected.