Even though fossil fuels are harmful to the environment and human health, global banks not only continue to finance the fossil fuel industry, but they are providing it with more money than in the past. In 2019, companies with fossil fuel extraction plans received 40% more financing compared to 2018 (Toussaint). These banks claim to support the Paris Climate Agreement, but their actions go against these beliefs (Toussaint). Although there is proof of such behavior thus far, it is important for banks to change their activities to protect the environment and human health.
There have been various incidents of accidents related to fossil fuel use, sometimes resulting in deaths. The Mine Safety and Health Administration reported 77 total deaths at underground coal mine sites in the United States between 2010 and 2013. Furthermore, offshore oil and gas drilling resulted in “4 fatalities, 1,436 injuries, and 60 oils spills of more than 50 barrels each” from 2008 to 2012 (Union of Concerned Scientists). In relation to natural gas pipeline transmission and distribution, the Union of Concerned Scientists stated that there were 5,065 significant safety incidents with 108 deaths and 531 injuries from 2008 to 2015. Clearly, the fossil fuel industry is taking a toll on human lives.
Fossil fuels impact health in the long-term in addition to the immediate accidents they cause. Coal is especially detrimental for miners, as its mining can lead to black lung disease, which was the cause of about 10,000 deaths in a span of 10 years from 1990 to 2000 (Union of Concerned Scientists). Even after mining, coal use has negative effects for the general public, as it has been linked to “lung, cardiovascular, and kidney diseases—such as diabetes and hypertension—and an elevated occurrence of low birth rate and preterm births” (Union of Concerned Scientists). A study from Harvard University found that the total life cycle and health costs due to coal was approximately $74.6 billion per year between 1997 and 2005 (Union of Concerned Scientists).
Researchers also found that hydraulic fracturing methods for oil and natural gas can cause cancer or other mutations, as well as “severely damage neurological, cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune systems” (Union of Concerned Scientists). In general, an estimated 12.6 million Americans are exposed every day to hazardous air pollution due to fossil fuel-related activities (Denchak). The toxic chemicals can lead to childhood leukemia, blood disorders, and other health issues (Denchak). With such effects that could be life-threatening, the continued use of fossil fuels is not beneficial to society.
Focusing more on air pollutants, the consumption of fossil fuels releases a huge amount of carbon dioxide and methane into the air, worsening global warming and the health effects associated with it. The World Bank reports that natural gas consumption singlehandedly generates about 400 millions tons of unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions (Union of Concerned Scientists). About 75% of carbon emissions are a result of the burning of fossil fuels in the United States, and there are several other pollutants other than carbon dioxide and methane that are emitted (Denchak).
Sulfur dioxide emissions contribute to acid rain, and “can exacerbate respiratory ailments, including asthma, nasal congestion, and pulmonary inflammation” (Union of Concerned Scientists). Coal-fired power plants alone produce two-thirds of sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States (Denchak). Nitrogen oxides, a result of fossil fuel combustion and fossil fuel-powered vehicles, contribute to acid rain, and can also burn lung tissue and increase chances of respiratory diseases, including asthma and bronchitis (Union of Concered Scientists).
Soot, which is a cause of bronchitis, asthma and increased likelihood of premature deaths, is also mostly generated from fossil fuels. As of 2010, the health cost due to soot was reported to be about $100 billion annually (Union of Concerned Scientists). Mercury emissions, “associated with neurological and neurobehavioral effects in infants,” are largely due to coal-fired power plants, which generate about 42% of the emissions in the United States (Union of Concerned Scientists; Denchak). The high percentage of air pollutants that are a byproduct of fossil fuels demonstrates how the reduction and elimination of their use will greatly benefit the environment and people’s health. There are many more environmental and health impacts than these, including water contamination, which harms entire ecosystems and humans.
Every step in the use of fossil fuels from extraction to transportation to waste all contribute to the deterioration of the environment, affecting people’s health. If banks truly support the Paris Climate Agreement like they claim, then they need to stop funneling money into the fossil fuel industry. Instead, they should invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. While fossil fuels have proven to generate a large amount of global warming emissions, non-fossil fuel energy sources have resulted in less than 1% of global warming emissions (Union of Concerned Scientists). Additionally, energy efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest current energy source that also provides over 2.2 million jobs in the United States, more than 10 times the amount of jobs from the fossil fuel industry (Denchak). Renewable energy sources are also expected to become cheaper than fossil fuels. Clearly, energy efficiency and renewable energy provide better energy sources for more than one reason.
As for consumers, they can make a difference by stopping their support for banks that are fueling the use of fossil fuels. To do so, people can turn towards community and local banks that do not encourage destructive environmental behavior, according to Lucie Pinson, executive director of Reclaim Finance (Toussaint). Some form of change needs to happen, and happen soon, in order to improve environmental and health conditions.
Sources:
Hi Prerna!
Your blog post was very impressive and focuses on one of the most problematic issues for our environment. Like you have proven in your post, fossil fuels are not only detrimental to our health and the health of animals but as well as entire ecosystems. Which is why it is vital to start thinking about a world without fossil fuels.
We are already turning towards a world that runs off of renewable energy which is fantastic. Renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, has actually become a bigger producer of electricity than coal in the United States. These renewable energies are gradually taking over as in 2017, for instance, sun and wind produced just 6 percent of the world’s electric supply, but they made up 45 percent of the growth in supply, and the cost of solar and wind power continue to fall by about 20 percent with each doubling of capacity. Even with pushbacks against renewables from the Trump administration and putting all their efforts into the coal industry, more coal-fired power plants have shut down during the first two years of Trump’s presidency than during President Obama’s entire first term. Consumption for coal in America has even dropped by 4% in 2018.
Oil is also predicted to halt as we change towards electric cars as our new norm. Electric cars are becoming affordable for more and more consumers, making these cars more in demand. In 2017 only three million out of a worldwide total of 800 million cars were electric. Though the supply was small, electric cars accounted for 22 percent of the growth in global car sales. The world’s leading car companies have even predicted that electric vehicles will account for all the growth in demand by the early 2020s.
I believe that our world will soon change in the way that we use fossil fuels. With the many advocates that are fighting to save our environment, with many more people becoming aware of how pressing the issues have become, our world will become green once again.
Source used:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/16/future-without-fossil-fuels
Hi Prerna,
I really enjoyed your article on fossil fuel emissions. Growing up my dad was very active in trying to do as much as he could as a consumer to reduce fossil fuel usage. He has owned electric cars for a while, we have solar panels on our house and me and my dad together have worked on many projects that involve helping reduce the amount of C02 and methane emissions. It is obvious that the burning is a major concern and, as you stated, is only getting worse as governments continue to fund money to private companies that have no regard for the impact that their burning of fossil fuel has on third-party factors. I actually have a personal story that provides a perfect example to compliment your article.
I grew up in Selkirk, NY which is right next to the town Ravena, NY. Everyone in the surrounding towns went to school in Ravena which had a campus that housed the middle school and high school in the same area. Right next to our campus less than a half mile across the street was one of the Largest “LaFarge” cement plants. LaFarge is a French industrial company that specializes with cement. From the windows of my classroom you could easily see the smoke stacks that would create large black clouds every day as the rooms would shake from time to time as they would set off charges in the quarry. In 2008, the Times Union reported that the Ravena Cement Plant “was the greatest source of mercury emissions in New York from 2004 to 2006.” It was also reported that the plant was emitting 400 pounds of mercury annually from2004 to 2006.
Luckily, in 2013 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. The Department of Justice and the state of New York, Lafarge North America decided to give $1.5 million in funding for projects to reduce air pollution in the community surrounding Ravena. In 2016, the old, 50-year-old, smokestacks were replaced with better German made cement kilns that were supposed to reduce the amount of mercury emissions by 66%.
Although there were attempts to help the environment in my case, in most places, nothing is done. It is also apparent that with increases in climate change threats, funding and political changes need to happen.
Sources: https://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/16878-1
http://www.epa.gov
https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-business/article/New-less-polluting-cement-plant-rises-in-Ravena-6673902.php