es.euronews.com
Household Air Pollution Caused 3.1 Million Deaths in 2021
A new study published in The Lancet reveals that household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels caused 3.1 million deaths globally in 2021, disproportionately affecting low-income countries and children under 5, despite a decrease in global exposure rates.
- What are the immediate health impacts and death tolls resulting from household air pollution globally, and what specific populations are most affected?
- A new study reveals that household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels caused 3.1 million deaths globally in 2021, mostly in low-income countries. This pollution, containing fine particles that enter the bloodstream via the lungs, is linked to various health issues, including lung cancer, stroke, heart disease, and more. Over 500,000 of these deaths were children under 5.
- How has the global exposure to household air pollution changed between 1990 and 2021, and what factors explain the disparity between percentage reduction and absolute numbers?
- Despite a global decrease in exposure to household air pollution from 56.7% in 1990 to 33.8% in 2021, the actual number of exposed individuals only fell by 10%, reaching 2.67 billion in 2021. This is due to population growth, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where exposure remains high (78.8%).
- What long-term strategies are necessary to mitigate the effects of household air pollution, and what specific actions should researchers, policymakers, and the private sector undertake?
- The study highlights the urgent need to support low-resource communities in transitioning to cleaner energy sources. This requires research and development of new technologies, subsidies for clean energy appliances, emission restrictions, private sector investment incentives, and public awareness campaigns. The high pediatric mortality rate (11% of all under-5 deaths in 2021) underscores the severity of the problem.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the severity of the problem and the high death toll, which is valid given the statistics. However, the solutions presented are somewhat general, and the article could benefit from a more nuanced discussion of potential policy interventions and their feasibility in different contexts.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and factual. The use of phrases like "mortales y duraderos" (deadly and lasting) might be considered slightly emotive but remains within the bounds of appropriate reporting given the topic's gravity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the negative health consequences of household air pollution but omits discussion of potential economic factors contributing to the reliance on polluting fuels in low-income countries. It also doesn't mention the positive effects of any existing interventions or policies aimed at reducing this type of pollution. While acknowledging limitations of scope is important, a brief mention of these factors would provide a more balanced perspective.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a false dichotomy, but it could benefit from exploring the complexities of transitioning to cleaner energy sources, acknowledging potential challenges and trade-offs.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article directly addresses SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by highlighting the significant health consequences of household air pollution, including millions of deaths annually, particularly among children under five. The study emphasizes the link between this pollution and various health issues like lung cancer, strokes, heart disease, and respiratory infections. The negative impact is evident in the substantial number of deaths attributed to this pollution and the disproportionate effect on low-income countries.