Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document outlines how transitioning away from fossil fuels reduces health costs via three primary channels: mitigating air and water pollution, reducing obesity through active transportation, and lowering climate change risks. It provides specific 2005 cost estimates for health damages from coal-fired plants ($62 billion), natural gas plants ($740 million), and vehicles ($56 billion). The text emphasizes that obesity currently represents a larger health cost burden in the United States than air quality impacts and suggests that energy policies should be evaluated based on total costs and benefits per unit of energy or distance.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Reducing fossil fuel use provides health benefits in three areas: decreasing obesity through community design that encourages walking and biking, reducing air and water pollution that affects respiratory, cardio-vascular, and neurological systems, and mitigating climate change risks such as heat stress and water-borne diseases.
  • A National Research Council study of 406 coal-fired power plants found that non-climate damages from air pollution totaled $62 billion per year in 2005, with 94 percent of those damages attributed to health impacts, including 49,000 deaths and 450,000 serious illnesses.
  • In 2005, health impacts from cars and trucks were estimated at $56 billion, with light-duty vehicles accounting for $36 billion and heavy-duty vehicles accounting for $20 billion.
  • In the United States, obesity now exceeds air quality impacts as a source of health costs and potential benefits from energy and climate policy; it is a risk factor for six of the ten leading causes of death, including heart disease, cancer, and stroke.
  • Comparing energy sources requires full life-cycle analysis; for instance, corn-based ethanol can have higher health costs than gasoline when accounting for diesel and fertilizer, whereas cellulosic ethanol health costs are nearly half those of gasoline.

Cite the original document

APA
Environmental and Energy Study Institute (2010). The Health Costs of Energy. https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/the-health-costs-of-energy
Chicago
Environmental and Energy Study Institute. The Health Costs of Energy. 2010. https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/the-health-costs-of-energy.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Environmental and Energy Study Institute |title=The Health Costs of Energy |date=24 May 2010 |url=https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/the-health-costs-of-energy |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{environmentalandenergystudyinstitute2010health, author = {{Environmental and Energy Study Institute}}, title = {{The Health Costs of Energy}}, institution = {Environmental and Energy Study Institute}, year = {2010}, month = may, url = {https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/the-health-costs-of-energy}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated