China’s Coal Reliance Reduces Life Expectancy by 5.5 Years, Study Says

High levels of air pollution will cause 500 million people to lose an aggregate 2.5 billion years from their lives.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhoon/191845155/sizes/z/in/photolist-hXfT6-hXfJ9-hXggz-3wropY-8SpUKc-G5A63-QqxyJ-QqCdZ-Qqy37-4qY8ZF-8StEV9-4dhWYK-ahR2K-n137r-9YEKZo-9ShRKt-4KEnua-4KEnnZ-D752H-aLxbhr-8Jckew-4KEn1x-4KKk1m-4K9oGj-85LG5V-6L2azm-G5Aa3-8XTxfS-4RY6pJ-7keS9-aLxqcn-4RY7P7-7GX36-7vRhf1-7x4RGf-4UoAvZ-5NF32J-6tJBbp-6tNKms-8vfiRQ-4BCMPs-9CFssu-8nFfp4-8t42fX-4UozeD-5FWqC-7kEdPM-9MN8m6-egKUHE-4G6mzi-mhY82/">LHOON</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


This story first appeared on the Guardian website.

Air pollution causes people in northern China to live an average of five and a half years shorter than their southern counterparts, according to a study released on Monday that claims to show in unprecedented detail the link between air pollution and life expectancy.

High levels of air pollution in northern China—much of it caused by an overreliance on burning coal for heat—will cause 500 million people to lose an aggregate 2.5 billion years from their lives, the authors predict in the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The geographic disparity can be traced back to China’s Huai River policy, which, since it was implemented between 1950 and 1980, has granted free wintertime heating to people living north of the Huai River, a widely acknowledged dividing line between northern and southern China. Much of that heating comes from the combustion of coal, significantly impacting the region’s air quality.

“Using data covering an unusually long timespan—from 1981 through 2000—the researchers found that air pollution…was about 55% higher north of the river than south of it,” the MIT Energy Initiative said in a statement.

“Linking the Chinese pollution data to mortality statistics from 1991 to 2000, the researchers found a sharp difference in mortality rates on either side of the border formed by the Huai River. They also found the variation to be attributable to cardiorespiratory illness, and not to other causes of death.”

The researchers, based in Israel, Beijing, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gauged the region’s air quality according to the established metric of total suspended particulates (TSP), representing the concentration of certain airborne particles per cubic meter of air.

The study concluded that long-term exposure to air containing 100 micrograms of TSP per cubic meter “is associated with a reduction in life expectancy at birth of about 3.0 years.”

Air pollution has been the subject of widespread public outrage in China since January, when Beijing’s air quality index (AQI)—a similar metric to TSP—regularly exceeded 500, the scale’s maximum reading, for weeks on end. On January 12, Beijing’s AQI hit a record 755, 30 times higher than levels deemed safe by the World Health Organization.

Past studies have established a link between air pollution and reduced life expectancy. One recent large-scale study concluded that air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010.

Yet according to Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at MIT and one of the study’s authors, this study is the first to precisely quantify their relationship. “Demonstrating that people die a bit earlier [because of pollution] is interesting and helps establish that pollution is bad,” he said. “But the most important question, the next question that needed to be answered, is what’s the loss of life expectancy? How much should society be willing to pay to avoid high levels of pollution? This study was structured so we could answer that question.”

China’s central authorities are keenly aware that environmental degradation has become one of the country’s leading causes of social unrest. Last month, China’s cabinet revealed 10 new measures intended to combat air pollution, and state media reported that Chinese courts can now impose the death penalty on serious polluters.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate