The Full Transcript
Introduction
Daniel Raimi: Hello, and welcome to Resources Radio, a weekly podcast from Resources for the Future. I’m your host, Daniel Raimi. Today, we talk with Travis Roach, an associate professor of economics and director of the Central Policy Institute at the University of Central Oklahoma.
Along with coauthor Anne M. Burton, Travis recently published a working paper that quantifies how airborne particles increase fatal traffic accidents in the United States. This finding builds on a fast-growing stream of research that demonstrates how harmful fine particulates are both in the short-term and the long term for human health and decisionmaking. Travis will describe what his research finds, how it fits into this growing body of evidence, and what it all means for public policy, environmental justice, and more. Stay with us.
All right. Travis Roach from the University of Central Oklahoma, welcome to Resources Radio.
Travis Roach: Thanks for letting me be here.
Daniel Raimi: It’s our pleasure. I’m really excited to talk about this new working paper on a particular matter in traffic accidents.
But before we get into the substance, we always ask our guests how they got interested in working on environmental issues, either as a kid or later in life. What drew you into this line of work?
Travis Roach: It’s probably a lot of things. I should give credit to two fantastic public school teachers I had in high school, Penny Smeltzer and Bill Blaine, who taught me advanced placement statistics and economics. They’re truly master teachers. I didn’t know it at the time, but they really set up what would be just like a crucial foundation for the rest of my life.
Going on into college, I went up to University of North Texas, and I was going to be a music major there, but then I stayed in economics, partly because I had this great background. I was in my environmental economics class, and it was just so cool to go one week talking about preserving wildlife in Africa and saving elephants to then—this is in Denton, when the fracking ban started. Denton County or the city of Denton passed a ban on fracking, and after the fact, the state of Texas came in and said, “No, you can’t do that. We don’t want that form of limited government.”
Then, later on, I go on to graduate school at Texas Tech University, and I basically had front row seats to the wind boom. Every time I’d go visit family, I’d be able to see a new wind farm pop up on my way to or fro. It’s one of those cool little endogeneities where, Am I interested in energy and environmental issues because of what was around me? Or was I interested in it, because I would go on to be energy and environmental economist? It’s probably a little bit of both, but it’s been this lifetime of having this surrounding me and this cool policy space and interesting things happening.
Then, I move up to Oklahoma City, where I’m at University of Central Oklahoma, and it’s one of the capitals of the fracking boom. Energy has kind of been a part of my life ever since I went off to college.
Daniel Raimi: That’s really interesting. Where in Texas did you grow up?
Travis Roach: I grew up in Austin, Texas.
Daniel Raimi: Excellent. Great city, Austin, Texas, of course.
Travis Roach: Yeah.
Daniel Raimi: All right. Well, I’m sure we could talk about fracking and wind for the entire episode, but we’re going to talk about something else, which is your recent paper with Anne M. Burton. It’s a working paper. We’ll have a link to it in the show notes. The paper’s called “Negative Externalities of Temporary Reductions in Cognition: Evidence from Particulate Matter Pollution and Fatal Car Crashes.”
Let’s just start off by defining “fine particulate matter.” Most listeners probably know this, so we don’t have to spend too long on it, but we also call this PM2.5. Can you define PM2.5 and then help us or remind us what its main sources are?
Defining Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Travis Roach: Sure. PM2.5—particulate matter is measured in microns, and the 2.5 refers to the literal size of this itty-bitty little particle. One way to think about this is if you grabbed a strand of hair on your head, that probably has about five PM10s in there, so it’s 10 microns wide. Then, each one of those little 10 microns, we’re going to split up four times. A single human hair has, 20 or 30 PM2.5s within it. It’s an incredibly small particle.
The issue here is that it is a result of basic combustion processes. What’s on the top of my mind is the Smokehouse Creek Fire that’s happening in West Texas, but we’ve seen these wildfires happening up in the Northwest and these plumes of smoke that are going across the country. The West Texas fire right now … there were reports of Canadian folks seeing the smoke that was happening down there. It travels a very great distance. When we think of wildfires, that’s one of the main sources of PM2.5. But the more impactful ones—the ones that hit us on a day-to-day basis—come from coal plants, natural gas plants—basically any thermal unit—and then, of course, tailpipe emissions.
Daniel Raimi: Right. If I’m not mistaken, it’s mostly diesel, more than gasoline, that produces PM2.5. Is that right?
Travis Roach: Diesel has a higher concentration per cubic meter, but the way we measure this is in micrograms per cubic meter. Diesel is very dense.
Highlights from the Literature on PM2.5
Daniel Raimi: Let’s do a quick literature review. There have been a decent number of studies in the last few years that look at PM2.5 and try to estimate how it affects human health and also cognitive function. Can you give us some highlights in that literature?
Travis Roach: It does feel like a little bit of a gold rush of folks studying this topic, because it is just shown in so many different contexts and countries to be this really impactful and harmful source of pollution. Some of the very early work looked at animal studies and was looking at mammalian behavior and seeing that orangutans and rats (the traditional medical study participants, if you can call them that) were reacting differently when they were exposed to high pollution
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
SDGs Addressed:
- SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
- SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
- SDG 13: Climate Action
Specific Targets:
- SDG 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.
- SDG 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
- SDG 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
Indicators:
- Indicator for SDG 3.9: Number of deaths and illnesses attributed to air pollution.
- Indicator for SDG 11.6: Proportion of urban population living in slums or informal settlements.
- Indicator for SDG 13.2: Number of countries that have integrated climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
Analysis
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
Based on the article’s content, the specific targets that can be identified are:
– SDG 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.
– SDG 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
– SDG 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
Yes, there are indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets. The article mentions the following indicators:
– Indicator for SDG 3.9: Number of deaths and illnesses attributed to air pollution.
– Indicator for SDG 11.6: Proportion of urban population living in slums or informal settlements.
– Indicator for SDG 13.2: Number of countries that have integrated climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
These indicators can be used to measure progress towards reducing deaths and illnesses from air pollution, improving air quality in cities, and integrating climate change measures into national policies.
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being | SDG 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination. | Number of deaths and illnesses attributed to air pollution. |
| SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities | SDG 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. | Proportion of urban population living in slums or informal settlements. |
| SDG 13: Climate Action | SDG 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning. | Number of countries that have integrated climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning. |
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: resources.org
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
