I wanted to bring to wider attention an article from the journal Environmental Health Perspecties, published by the U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (h/t Treehugger). I find the article, Benefits of Reducing Exposure to Coal Burning Pollutants to Children’s Neurodevelopment in China by Perera et al. from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, compelling for two reasons. First, it provides an excellent example of how science can identify targets for environmental advocacy that will make for substantive change in our world. Second, while I am certainly no expert, I think their conclusions suggest a target for our energy and environmental concern that is often overlooked: technology transfer.

The article’s main conclusions are easily stated: A group of two-year olds who were conceived, born and grew up after the closure of a Chinese coal-fired power plant displayed dramatic improvements in neurobehavioral development compared to a previously studied group of 2-year olds who were conceived, born and grew up while the power plant was still in operation. What’s the bottom line? Reducing harmful emissions from coal-fired power plants will dramatically improve children’s health.

The authors used a quantitative marker of gestational exposure to power plant emissions by measuring “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon” (PAH)-DNA adducts in blood from the umbilical cord at birth, and preformance on a neurobehavioral instrument called the Gesell Development Schedule (GSD) at two years of age. The details are fascinating, at least to this toxicologist, but in the interests of brevity let it simply be said that after closure of the power plant the number of PAH-DNA adducts declined markedly and the preformance on the GSD improved. In more narrative terms, fewer children were assessed as clinically developmentally delayed after the power plant closed and measurements of PAH-DNA adducts decreased. One important note is that it isn’t necessarily the PAH-DNA adducts causing the observed developmental deficits. While PAHs may very well be contributing, they are developmental toxicants, the authors are using PAH-DNA adducts as markers of exposure to emissions during gestation.

According to the article, 70% of China’s power comes from coal. In terms of pollution, burning coal in the developing world is a much dirtier enterprise than burning coal in the developed world (putting greenhouse gas emissions aside for a moment and focusing on pollutants like PAHs and heavy metals). As the article states, the plant in question did not have “modern pollution reduction technology” installed. But the bottom line to my mind is that by advocating and supporting the transfer and deployment of clean energy technology, that we currently enjoy in the developed world, to the developing world we can drastically reduce the costs in human health that are exacted by burning fossil fuels. I’m extremely aware of my own ignorance regarding what policy or technology issues may stand in the way of such an idealistic notion, but I’d really love to find out more.

Any discussion of coal must also include the climate change connection, but that’s where I think technology transfer plays a vital role as well. With renewable energy, as well as with pollution control, technology development with a strong focus on technology transfer can ensure that renewable energy technologies are deployed in the developing world. That, I think, is our best hope for an effective solution to climate change, as well as ultimately the answer to how we can best protect children’s health while powering an increasingly elaborate society.