这是电力!从环境公平的角度看我们能源的生命周期。

IF 3.3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Environmental Epidemiology Pub Date : 2023-04-03 eCollection Date: 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1097/EE9.0000000000000246
Mary D Willis, Lara J Cushing, Jonathan J Buonocore, Nicole C Deziel, Joan A Casey
{"title":"这是电力!从环境公平的角度看我们能源的生命周期。","authors":"Mary D Willis, Lara J Cushing, Jonathan J Buonocore, Nicole C Deziel, Joan A Casey","doi":"10.1097/EE9.0000000000000246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Energy policy decisions are driven primarily by economic and reliability considerations, with limited consideration given to public health, environmental justice, and climate change. Moreover, epidemiologic studies relevant for public policy typically focus on immediate public health implications of activities related to energy procurement and generation, considering less so health equity or the longer-term health consequences of climate change attributable to an energy source. A more integrated, collective consideration of these three domains can provide more robust guidance to policymakers, communities, and individuals. Here, we illustrate how these domains can be evaluated with respect to natural gas as an energy source. Our process began with a detailed overview of all relevant steps in the process of extracting, producing, and consuming natural gas. We synthesized existing epidemiologic and complementary evidence of how these processes impact public health, environmental justice, and climate change. We conclude that, in certain domains, natural gas looks beneficial (e.g., economically for some), but when considered more expansively, through the life cycle of natural gas and joint lenses of public health, environmental justice, and climate change, natural gas is rendered an undesirable energy source in the United States. A holistic climate health equity framework can inform how we value and deploy different energy sources in the service of public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":11713,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6c/35/ee9-7-e246.PMC10097546.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"It's electric! An environmental equity perspective on the lifecycle of our energy sources.\",\"authors\":\"Mary D Willis, Lara J Cushing, Jonathan J Buonocore, Nicole C Deziel, Joan A Casey\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EE9.0000000000000246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Energy policy decisions are driven primarily by economic and reliability considerations, with limited consideration given to public health, environmental justice, and climate change. Moreover, epidemiologic studies relevant for public policy typically focus on immediate public health implications of activities related to energy procurement and generation, considering less so health equity or the longer-term health consequences of climate change attributable to an energy source. A more integrated, collective consideration of these three domains can provide more robust guidance to policymakers, communities, and individuals. Here, we illustrate how these domains can be evaluated with respect to natural gas as an energy source. Our process began with a detailed overview of all relevant steps in the process of extracting, producing, and consuming natural gas. We synthesized existing epidemiologic and complementary evidence of how these processes impact public health, environmental justice, and climate change. We conclude that, in certain domains, natural gas looks beneficial (e.g., economically for some), but when considered more expansively, through the life cycle of natural gas and joint lenses of public health, environmental justice, and climate change, natural gas is rendered an undesirable energy source in the United States. A holistic climate health equity framework can inform how we value and deploy different energy sources in the service of public health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11713,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6c/35/ee9-7-e246.PMC10097546.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EE9.0000000000000246\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EE9.0000000000000246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

能源政策决策主要受经济和可靠性因素的驱动,对公共卫生、环境正义和气候变化的考虑有限。此外,与公共政策相关的流行病学研究通常侧重于与能源采购和发电相关的活动对公共健康的直接影响,而较少考虑健康公平或能源引起的气候变化对健康的长期影响。对这三个领域进行更综合、更全面的考虑,可以为政策制定者、社区和个人提供更有力的指导。在此,我们将说明如何对作为能源的天然气的这些领域进行评估。我们首先详细概述了天然气开采、生产和消费过程中的所有相关步骤。我们综合了现有的流行病学证据和关于这些过程如何影响公共健康、环境正义和气候变化的补充证据。我们的结论是,在某些领域,天然气看起来是有益的(例如,对某些人来说是经济上有益的),但如果从更广阔的角度,通过天然气的生命周期以及公共健康、环境正义和气候变化的共同视角来考虑,天然气在美国就变成了一种不受欢迎的能源。一个全面的气候健康公平框架可以为我们提供信息,说明我们如何重视和部署不同的能源,以服务于公众健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

It's electric! An environmental equity perspective on the lifecycle of our energy sources.

It's electric! An environmental equity perspective on the lifecycle of our energy sources.

It's electric! An environmental equity perspective on the lifecycle of our energy sources.

Energy policy decisions are driven primarily by economic and reliability considerations, with limited consideration given to public health, environmental justice, and climate change. Moreover, epidemiologic studies relevant for public policy typically focus on immediate public health implications of activities related to energy procurement and generation, considering less so health equity or the longer-term health consequences of climate change attributable to an energy source. A more integrated, collective consideration of these three domains can provide more robust guidance to policymakers, communities, and individuals. Here, we illustrate how these domains can be evaluated with respect to natural gas as an energy source. Our process began with a detailed overview of all relevant steps in the process of extracting, producing, and consuming natural gas. We synthesized existing epidemiologic and complementary evidence of how these processes impact public health, environmental justice, and climate change. We conclude that, in certain domains, natural gas looks beneficial (e.g., economically for some), but when considered more expansively, through the life cycle of natural gas and joint lenses of public health, environmental justice, and climate change, natural gas is rendered an undesirable energy source in the United States. A holistic climate health equity framework can inform how we value and deploy different energy sources in the service of public health.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Epidemiology
Environmental Epidemiology Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.80%
发文量
71
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信