Attitudes toward fossil fuels are sharply and ideologically divided in the US. When asked in 2025 if we should prioritize developing renewable or fossil fuel 6 in 10 respondents favored renewables, but this is down from 8 in 10 in 2020 (according to Pew research). This decline is mostly driven by a flip in the attitude of Republicans, which went from 2/3 favoring renewables to 2/3 favoring fossil fuel.
Further, attitudes (including recent changes in attitudes) toward fossil fuels are largely driven by concerns (or lack thereof) over climate change. While concerns over climate warming are legitimate, and reason enough to justify a transition to low-carbon sources of energy, the issue overshadows another important aspect of extensive fossil fuel use – the health effects of the resultant air pollution.
Burning fossil fuels are associated with a number of pollutants that have negative health effects – including tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). The negative health effects of these substances is well documented and includes exacerbation of asthma and other forms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart disease, increased risk of some types of cancer, developmental and neurological disorders.
A recent study, in fact, found a correlation between prenatal exposure to air pollution and worse cognitive development in infants. A 2020 systematic review also found a growing body of evidence for multiple developmental disorders being associated with prenatal and infantile exposure to air pollution.
A 2025 study found that in the US there are 91,000 premature deaths annually due to the health effects of air pollution. In addition they found: “10,350 PM2.5-attributable preterm births, 216,000 incidences of NO2-attributable childhood-onset asthma, and 1610 lifetime cancers attributable to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).” According to the WHO, the number of premature deaths due to air pollution worldwide is 6.7 million per year.
We can also estimate the externalized health-related costs of burning fossil fuel. There are a number of ways to do this. Do we factor in the value of lives lost and lost productivity? Do we count the health effects of the resulting climate change, or only the direct results of pollution itself? We can also express this as total cost to society, the externalized health costs per kwH, or the cost per consumer. No matter how you slice it, the costs are high.
In a 2013 study, for example, the average US consumer paid $0.14-$0.35/kWh in increased health care costs for the electricity they consume due to the effects of pollution. The same study estimates that the total societal health-related costs of burning fossil fuel is $361.7-886.5 billion annually. This amounts to $2,500 per year in additional healthcare costs per family on average. A 2021 study found that if we include the effects of climate change on health, the total costs are over $800 billion and may exceed a trillion dollars per year. These numbers are slightly old and are likely worse today.
We have decades of data showing a consistent picture – air pollution from fossil fuel has a significant negative impact on health and a massive cost, to the individual and society.
It is also another way to reveal the absolute sham that is RFK’s so-called MAHA movement. RFK has softened his stance on climate change, was silent as the Trump administration rolled back environmental protections to limit mercury exposure, and has agreed with Trump to “keep his hands off oil and gas”. RFK Jr promised to make American healthy again, but he has mostly set about to destroy our vaccine infrastructure, which will definitely harm public health. His attempts to change the food pyramid and remove “toxins” from our foods is not evidence-based and likely will achieve nothing.
And, arguably, abandoning his alleged environmentalist roots and facilitating what the Trump administration is doing at the EPA, to expand fossil fuel use and slow down the transition to renewables, will have a negative effect on American health that will dwarf anything positive RFK might manage to do (if anything).
