The impact of polluted air on life expectancy

How long could you expect to live if you breathe clean air? If you are in northeastern China, it could take three years or more, according to the Air Quality Life Index of Quality (AQLI) launched last month in Beijing by the Energy Policy Institute of China. University of Chicago (EPIC).

Unlike the famous air quality index, which highlights the degree of air quality in a given area, the AQLI indicates the cost of breathing air polluted during the lifetime.

Look for a city on the AQLI map and see how long its inhabitants could expect to live if PM2.5 levels reached the target of 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air by the World Health Organization.

The website was developed to give the public and policy makers a more direct understanding of the importance of reducing air pollution.

Some academics, however, have argued that it would be inappropriate to base environmental policies too firmly on the link between PM2.5 and life expectancy. If policies do not take into account differences in wealth between regions and between urban and rural areas, the poorest populations risk losing even more longevity.

The actual cost of PM2.5

The AQLI is based on two research studies that showed that life expectancy decreased by 0.98 years for each increase of 10 micrograms PM2.5 per cubic meter.

The index reflects the importance of China's progress in reducing air pollution since 2013. The 12% drop in PM2.5 levels between 2013 and 2016 means that the Chinese can expect to live six months more on average. Michael Greenstone, director of the EPIC, describes this success as huge and unprecedented.

Statistics show that Tianjin, one of the three most polluted cities in China in 2013, recorded a 14% drop in PM2.5 by 2016. If this improvement continues, the life expectancy of the 13 million inhabitants of the city will increase by 1.2 years. Henan experienced even greater improvement over the same period, with a 20% drop in PM2.5 levels, equivalent to 1.3 years of extra life. The researchers found that if PM2.5 levels reached the goal of the World Health Organization, the average life expectancy would increase by 2.9 years.

"People always say that tackling air pollution is too costly and that decision-makers and the public want better evidence before making extra efforts. AQLI uses the most important measure – life expectancy – to show directly how important it is to combat air pollution, "said Greenstone.

Is a single index useful?

However, Jennifer Holdaway, co-director of the Forum on Health, Environment and Development (FORHEAD), said: "As an interdisciplinary researcher, I do not think AQLI offers a lot of novelty."

She said that seven years ago, before the government took aggressive action against air pollution, many documents were published demonstrating the link between air quality and air pollution. the health. At present, governments at all levels are devoting resources to environmental protection and almost everyone is aware of the dangers of PM2.5 for health. Therefore, the establishment of new shocking figures is of little use. What is needed in policy-making is how to maximize the benefits to health at the lowest social cost, which means better meeting the needs of vulnerable populations.

According to a FORHEAD team summary report, life expectancy in China is still closely correlated with wealth. In the richest cities such as Shanghai, Tianjin and Beijing, life expectancy is higher than in the United States or South Korea. At the same time, the poorest provinces, mainly in western China, have a life expectancy comparable to that of the nations of Southeast Asia.

China's richest regions have reached an income threshold where pollution control will likely have more public health benefits than additional income increases. But in China's poorest regions, economic growth is likely to bring the greatest health benefits.

Holdaway added that it is essential to ensure that spending on improving air quality in economically weaker regions does not detract from other beneficial factors for health, such as job stability or public investments in health care. If the protection of the environment competes with other public services for resources, money will have to be transferred between the regions to compensate for this loss.

China urgently needs to maintain rapid economic growth and improve health by controlling pollution.

In an interview with ChinaDialogueMichael Greenstone said there was no easy option in the end. Politics ultimately rests in the hands of the local government. "I strongly suggest a more open attitude, allowing local governments, who fully understand the situation, to experiment and find a better balance to the reality," he said.

Who pays for the blue sky?

Jiang Kejuan, researcher at the Energy Research Institute of the National Commission for Development and Reform, agrees with Jennifer Holdaway that special attention should be paid to justice in the fight against air pollution.

Since 2016, the north of China aims to clean the air by switching from domestic heating to coal to natural gas or electricity. Jiang's research has shown that good progress has been made, but in some cases, it will take time to absorb the high costs.

Holdaway said ChinaDialogue these energetic environmental policies are often at the expense of future opportunities for the poorest communities. For example, the most polluting industries in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region – steel mills and cement manufacturers – are also its main employers. Reducing production or closing factories means that many workers have to be fired. During the transition, new high-tech or service jobs may be created, but laid-off workers do not have the education or skills to take advantage of them.

"Historically, we have seen similar events in Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom, where they have deindustrialized, with growing inequality and job losses affecting entire families and future generations," he said. declared Holdaway.