Jonathan Buonocore
banner
jjbuonocore.bsky.social
Jonathan Buonocore
@jjbuonocore.bsky.social

Assistant Professor at Boston University School of Public Health. Climate, Energy, and Health. Born at 344 ppm CO2

Environmental science 51%
Geography 13%

With @anorisarma.bsky.social @patriciafabian.bsky.social @erincampbell234.bsky.social and a bunch of other lovely people who are not on here. Study supported by @bu-igs.bsky.social and @busph.bsky.social

Thread inspired by @mattmotta.bsky.social

This study highlights both a major environmental justice issue, and a major major gap in the research! This infrastructure could be a major driver of health impacts in these communities, a major driver of environmental justice issues, and yet another benefit of transitioning away from fossil fuels

But we do know that there are known hazards – carcinogenic compounds including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX) among many others have been found throughout the oil & gas supply chain, so communities all along the supply chain could be exposed.

What exactly are people exposed to? And what type of health impacts might these communities be experiencing? We don't know! There's very little research on health impacts around these types of infrastructure, so we don't know what people are exposed or what's going on there..

Second, there are also some populations that are very highly exposed, with 28.5 million people exposed to more than one element of infrastructure and 9.38 million people exposed to more than one type of fossil fuel energy infrastructure. These populations are exposed to a higher variety of hazards..

First, it's a major environmental justice issue! We found major disparities, with census blocks with high proportions of Black, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous American, or Asian populations more likely to have fossil fuel energy infrastructure located in it.

content.cld.iop.org

@marydwillis.bsky.social and I published a paper published today in Environmental Research Letters! iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1... We found that about 46.6 million people in the US, or about 14.1% of the US population, live within a mile of a piece of energy infrastructure. Why do we care? 🛟 |💡🔌
Radware Bot Manager Captcha
To ensure we keep this website safe, please can you confirm you are a human by ticking the box below.
iopscience.iop.org

and very poorly understood health impacts in those communities!!

Thanks for posting about our study though!

We're doing our best!!

It is almost like that!!
"Our results represent a substantial population in the U.S. that is potentially exposed to hazards that are not well-characterized, with unknown cumulative impacts, and which constitute a major environmental justice issue."

Wow, it's like ... racism ... but almost ... *systemic* ...
"Our results represent a substantial population in the U.S. that is potentially exposed to hazards that are not well-characterized, with unknown cumulative impacts, and which constitute a major environmental justice issue."

Wow, it's like ... racism ... but almost ... *systemic* ...
NEW STUDY: More than 14% of people in the contiguous United States reside within a mile of at least one piece of #FossilFuel infrastructure. Authors: @jjbuonocore.bsky.social & @marydwillis.bsky.social. @bostonu.bsky.social

Story: www.bu.edu/igs/2025/11/...
This new @amnesty.org study is damning.

A quarter of the world’s population lives within a 3 mile radius if a fossil fuel project. That’s 2b people.

We must end this era of greed and harm.

www.downtoearth.org.in/amp/story/cl...

Build wind farms for the asthma prevention!!

Our new paper! Building electrification can be good for health too – the more renewables on the grid, the better it is. 🛟 | #energysky

doi.org/10.1016/j.jo...

... with @joeallenjoe.bsky.social and other lovely people who aren't on here
Redirecting
doi.org

I don't think we should talk about climate change anymore, we should talk about kitchen-table issues. Like how climate change will destroy your kitchen table and everything else you have

With 1 of 5ish deaths worldwide due to air pollution, largely from fossil fuels, it seems like it'd benefit present day well-being of a few people if a wee bit of money was left in the "Energy Transition" bucket...

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Does this mean they're going to start building a new peaker plant next year?
Keep this in mind when people claim cars mean business — closing Central Madrid to cars over holidays resulted in a 9.5% boost in retail spending on its main shopping street: STUDY.

There was also a 71% drop in air pollution.

Via @carltonreid.com in @forbes.com. #citymakingmath #citiesforpeople
Closing Central Madrid To Cars Resulted In 9.5% Boost To Retail Spending, Finds Bank Analysis
City of Madrid significantly boosted the takings of its shops and restaurants last Christmas by banning cars from the CBD, finds an analysis by Spain's second largest bank.
www.forbes.com

Is the EIA US Energy Atlas no longer publicly available? www.eia.gov/maps/ #energysky

Here's something that's not talked about enough

The air pollution from burning fossil fuels kills an estimated 10 million people a year

1 in 6 deaths is caused by fossil fuels

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Climate science is facing significant opposition in the US. Today we are launching the collaborative Strengthening Trust in Climate Scientists Megastudy 📈 Find out more and join our efforts 👇🧵

That’s great!!

We also find major deficiencies in how the health impacts of this action are quantified, ranging from air quality to questions about electricity reliability. There is much more, but in the end, we conclude that the evidentiary basis for greenhouse gases is robust, and stronger than it was in 2009.

We also find increases in other health harms that did not get attention in the 2009 endangerment finding, including mental health harms, displacement, violence, harms to workers, and harms for those experiencing displacement...