Coal

Coal industry’s final insult to humanity: It’s killing our sperm

Published by

We know that coal fired power generation is damaging the climate, killing people through lung and respiratory disease, and that new coal plants are more expensive to build than wind or solar.

What other harm could the burning of fossil fuels possibly cause?

It turns out that it might be killing our sperm as well.

Current estimates suggest that the human health burden that comes from burning coal effectively adds another $13/MWh to its cost as an energy source.

But this dollar figure could be about to rise, after a new scientific found that coal power pollution is damaging the very seed of human existence: sperm quality.

The observational study, published this week in BMJ Journals, found that Taiwanese men exposed to higher levels of air pollution – much of it the type caused by coal and petrol engines – tended to have poorer quality sperm.

The researchers examined “the swimmers” of close to 6500 men who participated in a standard medical examination program between 2001 and 2014.

It then compared the results of their tests to the estimated levels of fine particulate matter around each man’s home.

The result observed “a robust association” between exposure to particulate matter and a decrease in the normal shape and size of sperm, but also higher concentrations of sperm.

The authors say that although they can’t prove cause and effect, and the effects are small, the study highlights an important public health challenge, with air pollution potentially becoming a risk factor of male reproductive health.

“Although the effect estimates are small and the significance might be negligible in a clinical setting, this is an important public health challenge,” the report says.

“Given the ubiquity of exposure to air pollution, a small effect size of PM2.5 on sperm normal morphology may result in a significant number of couples with infertility. We advocate global strategies on mitigation of air pollution to improve reproductive health.”

So, you can add that to the hidden cost of coal. A social cost of carbon pollution runs at around $40/tonne, and the direct impact on human health is put at $13/MWh. So let’s add damage to reproductive systems to the tab.

Sophie Vorrath

Sophie is editor of One Step Off The Grid and deputy editor of its sister site, Renew Economy. She is the co-host of the Solar Insiders Podcast. Sophie has been writing about clean energy for more than a decade.

Share
Published by

Recent Posts

New big battery joins approval queue amid rush to secure sites in popular New England REZ

Developer hopes to race through the federal and state planning processes with construction pegged to…

6 March 2025

Massive new Kimberley fracking industry could keep Woodside gas plant going until 2070

Federal Labor's light touch environmental review of a massive new fracking industry threatens one of…

6 March 2025

Network offshoot to roll out 1,000 kerbside EV chargers after regulatory switch, but not everyone is happy

Ausgrid-owned Plus Es will start rolling out its 1000 pole-mounted EV chargers next week after…

6 March 2025

Delta leans in to life after coal, names partner for Vales Point battery project

Delta hopes to make a final decision on whether to invest in a battery for…

6 March 2025

When the coal plant don’t work: Report counts 6,000 hours of outages at Eraring over 2024

New report underscores concerns that keeping ageing Eraring coal plant open could result in higher…

6 March 2025

Three big wind projects approved in NSW as Labor clears decks for poll

Plibersek approves three big wind projects in NSW, including the state's biggest, its most controversial,…

6 March 2025