ArticlePloS one2016
An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-Benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Pollution Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review.Global health research and policy · 2024Pooled it
- Current evidence of the economic value of One Health initiatives: A systematic literature review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Review
- Immune-mediated disease caused by climate change-associated environmental hazards: mitigation and adaptation.Frontiers in science · 2024Article
- Impact of Global Climate Change on Pulmonary Health: Susceptible and Vulnerable Populations.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023Review
- Environmental justice and power plant emissions in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states.PloS one · 2022Article
- How will air quality effects on human health, crops and ecosystems change in the future?Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020Review
- Health benefits and control costs of tightening particulate matter emissions standards for coal power plants - The case of Northeast Brazil.Environment international · 2019Article
- A global perspective on coal-fired power plants and burden of lung cancer.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Article
- Air-quality-related health impacts from climate change and from adaptation of cooling demand for buildings in the eastern United States: An interdisciplinary modeling study.PLoS medicine · 2018Article
- POLICY INSIGHTS FROM THE EMF 32 STUDY ON U.S. CARBON TAX SCENARIOS.Climate change economics · 2018Article
- Electric sector policy, technological change, and U.S. emissions reductions goals: Results from the EMF 32 model intercomparison project.Energy economics · 2018Article
- Correction: An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-Benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard.PloS oneArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants can have important "co-benefits" for public health by reducing emissions of air pollutants. Here, we examine the costs and health co-benefits, in monetary terms, for a policy that resembles the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan. We then examine the spatial distribution of the co-benefits and costs, and the implications of a range of cost assumptions in the implementation year of 2020. Nationwide, the total health co-benefits were $29 billion 2010 USD (95% CI: $2.3 to $68 billion), and net co-benefits under our central cost case were $12 billion (95% CI: -$15 billion to $51 billion). Net co-benefits for this case in the implementation year were positive in 10 of the 14 regions studied. The results for our central case suggest that all but one region should experience positive net benefits within 5 years after implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.