Air quality and mortality research cited in recent Cato analysis

When the national policy conversation turns to pollution and public health, Gies research is in the room.

A recent white paper from the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian think tank, cites research from Gies finance faculty Tatyana Deryugina and Julian Reif modeling the health consequences of air pollution. The report cites their recent paper on mortality risk and sulfur dioxide, using those estimates to explore how short-term exposure data can inform understanding of long-term impacts.

This research builds on earlier work by a Gies team, including finance faculty Nolan Miller and David Molitor, that estimated the mortality costs of air pollution in the U.S., using Medicare data and machine learning to analyze life-years lost and health spending impacts across the elderly population.

The Cato report highlighted Deryugina and Reif's estimate that a permanent 10% reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution could increase life expectancy by more than a year, a finding from modeling how even brief exposure changes can impact mortality rates. By using real-world environmental variation, like shifts in wind direction, the researchers were able to isolate the causal effects of pollutants on health outcomes, producing findings relevant to broader regulatory debates.

"I'm pleased to see this research get noticed,” said Deryugina. “What our estimates show is that work that ignores the long-term latent effects of air pollution could be significantly underestimating its harmful effects. I'm excited about the possibility of our framework being applied in other settings, allowing researchers to more reliably infer impacts that happen outside of the time they are able to study directly."

This research exemplifies the kind of applied scholarship supported by the Center for Business and Public Policy (CBPP) at Gies, which promotes rigorous analysis at the intersection of markets and public policy. CBPP-affiliated faculty such as Deryugina and Reif study how environmental shocks and health policy interventions shape economic well-being over time.

In referencing Deryugina and Reif's work, Cato puts Gies research into conversation with a wider and often contentious discussion about how to value environmental health interventions. The report contrasts their findings with other studies that rely on long-term observational data, arguing that the Gies researchers' approach may offer more precise estimates of risk.

Cato's reliance on these findings demonstrates the rigor and reach of Gies scholarship. These findings equip policymakers and the public with tools to better understand how pollution affects our lives. They also add to a growing body of Gies research on the economic and human toll of air pollution, from lost labor income and lowered life expectancy to the link between wildfire smoke and mental health outcomes.