featured_pubs.bib

@article{tessum2021pm2,
  title={PM2.5 polluters disproportionately and systemically affect people of color in the United States},
  author={Tessum, Christopher W and Paolella, David A and Chambliss, Sarah E and Apte, Joshua S and Hill, Jason D and Marshall, Julian D},
  journal={Science Advances},
  volume={7},
  number={18},
  pages={eabf4491},
  year={2021},
  publisher={American Association for the Advancement of Science},
  url={https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf4491}
}

@article{KelpNN2020,
  author  = {Kelp, Makoto M. and Jacob, Daniel J. and Kutz, J. Nathan and Marshall, Julian D. and Tessum, Christopher W.},
  title   = {Toward stable, general machine-learned models of the atmospheric chemical system},
  journal = {J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.},
  volume = {125},
  pages = {e2020JD032759},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032759}
}

@article{TessumEIO2019,
	author = {Tessum, Christopher W. and Apte, Joshua S. and Goodkind, Andrew L. and Muller, Nicholas Z. and Mullins, Kimberley A. and Paolella, David A. and Polasky, Stephen and Springer, Nathaniel P. and Thakrar, Sumil K. and Marshall, Julian D. and Hill, Jason D.},
	title = {Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure},
	elocation-id = {201818859},
	year = {2019},
	doi = {10.1073/pnas.1818859116},
	publisher = {National Academy of Sciences},
	abstract = {Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution exposure is the largest environmental health risk factor in the United States. Here, we link PM2.5 exposure to the human activities responsible for PM2.5 pollution. We use these results to explore “pollution inequity”: the difference between the environmental health damage caused by a racial–ethnic group and the damage that group experiences. We show that, in the United States, PM2.5 exposure is disproportionately caused by consumption of goods and services mainly by the non-Hispanic white majority, but disproportionately inhaled by black and Hispanic minorities. On average, non-Hispanic whites experience a “pollution advantage”: They experience ∼17% less air pollution exposure than is caused by their consumption. Blacks and Hispanics on average bear a “pollution burden” of 56% and 63% excess exposure, respectively, relative to the exposure caused by their consumption. The total disparity is caused as much by how much people consume as by how much pollution they breathe. Differences in the types of goods and services consumed by each group are less important. PM2.5 exposures declined ∼50% during 2002–2015 for all three racial–ethnic groups, but pollution inequity has remained high.},
	issn = {0027-8424},
	url = {https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/05/1818859116},
	eprint = {https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/03/05/1818859116.full.pdf},
	volume = {116},
  number = {13},
  pages = {6001--6006 (featured article)},
  journal = {Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.}
}

@article{Tessum2014a,
author = {Tessum, Christopher W. and Hill, Jason D. and Marshall, Julian D.},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1406853111},
file = {:home/chris/Documents/Mendeley Desktop/Tessum, Hill, Marshall/Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A/Tessum, Hill, Marshall - 2014 - Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United S.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.},
abstract = {Commonly considered strategies for reducing the environmental impact of light-duty transportation include using alternative fuels and improving vehicle fuel economy. We evaluate the air quality-related human health impacts of 10 such options, including the use of liquid biofuels, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines; the use of electricity from a range of conventional and renewable sources to power electric vehicles (EVs); and the use of hybrid EV technology. Our approach combines spatially, temporally, and chemically detailed life cycle emission inventories; comprehensive, fine-scale state-of-the-science chemical transport modeling; and exposure, concentration–response, and economic health impact modeling for ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline. Conversely, EVs powered by low-emitting electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more. Consideration of potential climate change impacts alongside the human health outcomes described here further reinforces the environmental preferability of EVs powered by low-emitting electricity relative to gasoline vehicles.},
number = {52},
pages = {18490--18495},
title = {{Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States}},
url = {http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/18490.abstract},
volume = {111},
year = {2014}
}