Overview: A global health risk from fossil fuel development
Around a quarter of the world’s population lives within three miles (5 kilometers) of operational fossil fuel projects. Groundbreaking research shows that by this margin, more than 2 billion people could be exposed to health hazards tied to extraction, processing, and combustion. The findings raise urgent questions about where and how energy is produced and who bears the costs in terms of health and air quality.
Why proximity matters
Fossil fuel activities release pollutants such as fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. These pollutants contribute to respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, and adverse birth outcomes. Communities nearby often face compounded risks from poor infrastructure, climate-related extremes, and limited access to healthcare. The new analysis highlights that distance to a plant or mine is a critical, measurable factor in exposure, on top of broader regional pollution trends.
Health implications for billions
Exposure to fossil fuel emissions has been linked to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart attacks, stroke, and low birthweight. Children, the elderly, and people with preexisting conditions are especially vulnerable. When billions of people live near facilities such as refineries, power plants, or coal and oil extraction sites, the cumulative impact includes higher health care costs, lost productivity, and greater strain on health systems—factors that disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries.
Environmental and ecological consequences
Beyond human health, proximity to fossil fuel projects threatens ecosystems, water resources, and biodiversity. Oil spills, leakage of contaminants, and thermal pollution from cooling processes can degrade rivers, wetlands, and coastal zones. Damaging these ecosystems also affects food security and livelihoods for communities that rely on fisheries, farming, or tourism—creating a broader cycle of health and economic risks.
Policy implications and actions
Experts argue that protecting public health requires a multipronged approach: strengthen air quality standards near fossil fuel sites, accelerate transitions to cleaner energy, and improve monitoring and reporting of emissions by operators. Zoning and community engagement can help ensure that health risk assessments are integrated into project planning. Financial mechanisms, such as health impact assessments and transparent disclosure of pollutants, enable communities to demand accountability. Equally important is addressing energy access in a way that prioritizes reliable, affordable, and lower-emission options for vulnerable populations.
What this means for the future of energy
The study adds to a growing call for a smarter, healthier energy transition. Rather than expanding risk through new or enlarged fossil fuel facilities, policymakers and industry leaders are urged to invest in energy efficiency, renewables, and grid modernization. By reducing dependence on high-pollution sites and improving regulatory oversight, nations can protect both people and ecosystems while pursuing sustainable growth. The health argument strengthens moral and economic incentives for a clear, accelerated shift toward cleaner energy sources.
Takeaway for communities and governments
For communities living near fossil fuel projects, the message is clear: advocacy and informed participation in planning processes can influence where and how energy is produced. For governments, the priority is to integrate health-protective measures into energy policy, ensure robust environmental monitoring, and support transitions that minimize exposure while maintaining energy security. The path forward lies in balancing immediate energy needs with long-term public health and planetary well-being.
