Human Health Impacts of Energy Transitions across the United States among Sociodemographic Subpopulations for the Year 2050

Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may provide health benefits through improved air quality, yet these benefits might not be equitably distributed. Understanding these cobenefits and who receives them can aid policymakers in prioritizing mitigation strategies. We investigated four future energy scenarios (port electrification, electric vehicles, natural gas, energy efficiency) and a business-as-usual scenario to determine how changes to ambient fine particle (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) levels impact health within the contiguous United States (U.S.) by region, race/ethnicity, urbanicity, and income. We also investigated how methodological assumptions affect findings. Our projections of avoided mortalities from energy transition policies range from 67,011 (95% CI: 45,692, 82,397) to 81,003 (55,286, 99,532) in 2050. The monetized health benefits from avoided mortalities and hospitalizations range from $785.8 billion to $949.9 billion/year. These benefits vary by region and subpopulation, with Black, suburban, and less wealthy Americans experiencing higher percent avoided mortality across scenarios. Results were sensitive to assumptions for future concentration-response functions relating pollution levels to health, baseline incidence rates, and population projections. Our findings indicate energy policies transitioning from fossil fuel production in the U.S. provide substantial health and economic benefits that vary across populations and help reduce environmental health inequities in exposure and associated morality.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2025-06-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c14326
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Energy and Environment Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.50

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Human Health Impacts of Energy Transitions across the United States among Sociodemographic Subpopulations for the Year 2050

Yimeng Song, Hayon Michelle Choi, Kenneth Gillingham, Benjamin F. Hobbs et al.
1 citations
Environmental Science & Technology
Energy and Environment Impacts
0.50
article

Human Health Impacts of Energy Transitions across the United States among Sociodemographic Subpopulations for the Year 2050

Yimeng Song, Hayon Michelle Choi, Kenneth Gillingham, Benjamin F. Hobbs, Rory Stewart, Daniel C. Esty, Honghyok Kim, Yang Zhang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may provide health benefits through improved air quality, yet these benefits might not be equitably distributed. Understanding these cobenefits and who receives them can aid policymakers in prioritizing mitigation strategies. We investigated four future energy scenarios (port electrification, electric vehicles, natural gas, energy efficiency) and a business-as-usual scenario to determine how changes to ambient fine particle (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) levels impact health within the contiguous United States (U.S.) by region, race/ethnicity, urbanicity, and income. We also investigated how methodological assumptions affect findings. Our projections of avoided mortalities from energy transition policies range from 67,011 (95% CI: 45,692, 82,397) to 81,003 (55,286, 99,532) in 2050. The monetized health benefits from avoided mortalities and hospitalizations range from $785.8 billion to $949.9 billion/year. These benefits vary by region and subpopulation, with Black, suburban, and less wealthy Americans experiencing higher percent avoided mortality across scenarios. Results were sensitive to assumptions for future concentration-response functions relating pollution levels to health, baseline incidence rates, and population projections. Our findings indicate energy policies transitioning from fossil fuel production in the U.S. provide substantial health and economic benefits that vary across populations and help reduce environmental health inequities in exposure and associated morality.

Environmental Science & TechnologyVol. 59(24)
Northeastern University (US), Harvard University (US), Johns Hopkins University (US), Chicago Department of Public Health (US), Harvard University Press (US), Yale University (US), University of Illinois Chicago (US), Universidad del Noreste (MX)
National Science Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Institute for Biospheric Studies, Yale University, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
Openalex Percentile: Top 39%
Energy and Environment Impacts
0.50
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.