DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS ERRATA SHEET

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS ERRATA SHEET Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS ERRATA SHEET After completion of the RIA, EPA received revised production cost projections for the proposed rule IPM run, which reduced the projected cost of the proposed rule. This Errata presents these technical corrections. The first table presents the changes in the text and is followed by sets of tables each showing the current table and corrected table. Page numbers Current Value Corrected Value (Highlighted in yellow) ES-15 The estimated social costs to The estimated social costs to implement the proposal, as implement the proposal, as described in this document, described in this document, are approximately $21 are approximately $20 million in 2021 and $6 million in 2021 and $1 million in 2025 million in 2025 (2016$). (2016$). ES-16 The annual net benefits of the The annual net benefits of the proposal in 2021 (in 2016$) proposal in 2021 (in 2016$) are approximately -$21 are approximately -$20 million using a 3 percent million using a 3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate and a 7 percent real discount rate. The annual real discount rate. The annual net benefits of the proposal in net benefits of the proposal in 2025 are approximately $27 2025 are approximately $31 million using a 3 percent real million using a 3 percent real discount rate and discount rate and approximately -$0.9 million approximately $4 million using a 7 percent real using a 7 percent real discount rate. discount rate. ES-17 The present value The present value (PV) of the net benefits, in (PV) of the net benefits, in 2016$ and discounted to 2016$ and discounted to 2021, is -$68 million when 2021, is -$59 million when using a 7 percent using a 7 percent discount rate and $14 million discount rate and $23 million when using a 3 percent when using a 3 percent discount rate. The equivalent discount rate. The equivalent annualized annualized value (EAV), an estimate of value (EAV), an estimate of the annualized value of the the annualized value of the net benefits consistent with net benefits consistent with the present the present value, is -$17 million per year value, is -$14 million per year when using a 7 percent when using a 7 percent Page numbers Current Value Corrected Value (Highlighted in yellow) discount rate and $3 million discount rate and $5 million when using a when using a 3 percent discount rate. 3 percent discount rate. 7-2 As shown in As shown in Chapter 4, the estimated Chapter 4, the estimated annual compliance costs to annual compliance costs to implement the proposal, as implement the proposal, as described in this described in this document, are approximately document, are approximately $21 million in 2021 and $6 $20 million in 2021 and $1 million in 2025 (2016$). million in 2025 (2016$). 7-3 The annual net benefits of the The annual net benefits of the proposal in 2021 (in 2016$) proposal in 2021 (in 2016$) are approximately -$21 are approximately -$20 million using both a 3 percent million using both a 3 percent and 7 percent and 7 percent real discount rate for the real discount rate for the climate benefits. The annual climate benefits. The annual net benefits of the proposal in net benefits of the proposal in 2025 are 2025 are approximately $27 using a 3 approximately $31 using a 3 percent real discount rate and percent real discount rate and -$0.9 million using a 7 $4 million using a 7 percent percent real real discount rate. discount rate. 7-5 The present value The present value (PV) of the net benefits, in (PV) of the net benefits, in 2016$ and discounted to 2016$ and discounted to 2021, is -$68 million when 2021, is -$59 million when using a 7 percent using a 7 percent discount rate and $14 million discount rate and $23 million when using a 3 percent when using a 3 percent discount rate. The equivalent discount rate. The equivalent annualized annualized value (EAV), an estimate of value (EAV), an estimate of the annualized value of the the annualized value of the net benefits consistent with net benefits consistent with the present the present value, is -$17 million per year value, is -$14 million per year when using a 7 percent when using a 7 percent discount rate and $3 million discount rate and $5 million when using a when using a 3 percent discount rate. 3 percent discount rate. Location: Page ES-10 Current Table: Table ES-1. National Compliance Cost Estimates (millions of 2016$) for the Regulatory Control Alternatives More-Stringent Less-Stringent Proposal Alternative Alternative 2021-2025 (Annualized) 19.4 80.6 1.6 2021 (Annual) 20.9 37.2 3.8 2025 (Annual) 6.3 132.2 -12.0 The 2021-2025 (Annualized) row reflects total estimated annual compliance costs levelized over the period 2021 through 2025, discounted using a 4.25 real discount rate. The 2021 (Annual) and 2025 (Annual) rows reflect annual estimates in each of those years. Corrected Table (Corrections highlighted in yellow): Table ES-2. National Compliance Cost Estimates (millions of 2016$) for the Regulatory Control Alternatives More-Stringent Less-Stringent Proposal Alternative Alternative 2021-2025 (Annualized) 17.4 80.6 1.6 2021 (Annual) 20.5 37.2 3.8 2025 (Annual) 1.5 132.2 -12.0 The 2021-2025 (Annualized) row reflects total estimated annual compliance costs levelized over the period 2021 through 2025, discounted using a 4.25 real discount rate. The 2021 (Annual) and 2025 (Annual) rows reflect annual estimates in each of those years. Location: Page ES-16 Current Table: Table ES-7. Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposal and More and Less Stringent Alternatives for 2021 for the U.S. (millions of 2016$) Discount Rate Benefits Costs Net Benefits Proposal 3% 0.31 +B 21 -21 +B 7% 0.05 +B -21 +B More Stringent Alternative 3% 0.80 +B 37 -36 +B 7% 0.12 +B -37 +B Less Stringent Alternative 3% 0.17 +B 4 -4 +B 7% 0.03 +B -4 +B Corrected Table (Corrections highlighted in yellow): Table ES-7. Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposal and More and Less Stringent Alternatives for 2021 for the U.S. (millions of 2016$) Discount Rate Benefits Costs Net Benefits Proposal 3% 0.31 +B 20 -20 +B 7% 0.05 +B -20 +B More Stringent Alternative 3% 0.80 +B 37 -36 +B 7% 0.12 +B -37 +B Less Stringent Alternative 3% 0.17 +B 4 -4 +B 7% 0.03 +B -4 +B Location: Pages ES16-17 Current Table: Table ES-8. Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposal and More and Less Stringent Alternatives for 2025 for the U.S. (millions of 2016$) Discount Rate Benefits Costs Net Benefits Proposal 3% 33 +B 6 27 +B 7% 5.4 +B -0.9 +B More Stringent Alternative 3% 71.5 +B 132 -61 +B 7% 11.7 +B -120 +B Less Stringent Alternative 3% 25 +B -12 37 +B 7% 4.2 +B 16 +B Corrected Table (Corrections highlighted in yellow): Table ES-8. Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposal and More and Less Stringent Alternatives for 2025 for the U.S. (millions of 2016$) Discount Rate Benefits Costs Net Benefits Proposal 3% 33 +B 1 31 +B 7% 5.4 +B 4 +B More Stringent Alternative 3% 71.5 +B 132 -61 +B 7% 11.7 +B -120 +B Less Stringent Alternative 3% 25 +B -12 37 +B 7% 4.2 +B 16 +B Location: Page ES-18 Current Table: Table ES-9. Summary of Present Values and Equivalent Annualized Values for the 2021- 2025 Timeframe for Estimated Compliance Costs, Climate Benefits, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Rule (millions of 2016$, discounted to 2021) 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Present Value Benefitsc,d 101+β 15+β Climate Benefitsc 101 15 Compliance Costse 87 83 Net Benefits 14+β -68+ β Equivalent Annualized Value Benefits 22+b 4+b Climate Benefits 22 4 Compliance Costs 19 20 Net Benefits 3+b -17+b Corrected Table (Corrections highlighted in yellow): 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Present Value Benefitsc,d 101+β 15+β Climate Benefitsc 101 15 Compliance Costse 78 74 Net Benefits 23+β -59+ β Equivalent Annualized Value Benefits 22+b 4+b Climate Benefits 22 4 Compliance Costs 17 18 Net Benefits 5+b -14+b Location: Page 4-20 Current Table: Table 4-6. National Compliance Cost Estimates (millions of 2016$) for the Regulatory Control Alternatives Revised CSAPR Update More-Stringent Less-Stringent Proposal Alternative Alternative 2021-2025 (Annualized) 19.4 80.6 1.6 2021 (Annual) 20.9 37.2 3.8 2022 (Annual) 29.7 49.2 12.8 2023 (Annual) 27.8 47.3 12.8 2024 (Annual) 6.3 132.2 -12.0 2025 (Annual) 6.3 132.2 -12.0 Corrected Table (Corrections highlighted in yellow): Table 4-6. National Compliance Cost Estimates (millions of 2016$) for the Regulatory Control Alternatives Revised CSAPR Update More-Stringent Less-Stringent Proposal Alternative Alternative 2021-2025 (Annualized) 17.4 80.6 1.6 2021 (Annual) 20.5 37.2 3.8 2022 (Annual) 29.6 49.2 12.8 2023 (Annual) 27.7 47.3 12.8 2024 (Annual) 1.5 132.2 -12.0 2025 (Annual) 1.5 132.2 -12.0 Location: Page 7-3 Current Table: Table 7-1. Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposal and More and Less Stringent Alternatives for 2021 for the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015
    Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015 ‘Our daughter Helen is a statistic in these pages. Understanding why, has saved others.’ David White Ngā mate aituā o tātou Ka tangihia e tātou i tēnei wā Haere, haere, haere. The dead, the afflicted, both yours and ours We lament for them at this time Farewell, farewell, farewell. Citation: Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2017. Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015. Wellington: Family Violence Death Review Committee. Published in June 2017 by the Health Quality & Safety Commission, PO Box 25496, Wellington 6146, New Zealand ISBN 978-0-908345-60-1 (Print) ISBN 978-0-908345-61-8 (Online) This document is available on the Health Quality & Safety Commission’s website: www.hqsc.govt.nz For information on this report, please contact [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Family Violence Death Review Committee is grateful to: • the Mortality Review Committee Secretariat based at the Health Quality & Safety Commission, particularly: – Rachel Smith, Specialist, Family Violence Death Review Committee – Joanna Minster, Senior Policy Analyst, Family Violence Death Review Committee – Kiri Rikihana, Acting Group Manager Mortality Review Committee Secretariat and Kaiwhakahaere Te Whai Oranga – Nikolai Minko, Principal Data Scientist, Health Quality Evaluation • Pauline Gulliver, Research Fellow, School of Population Health, University of Auckland • Dr John Little, Consultant Psychiatrist, Capital & Coast District Health Board • the advisors to the Family Violence Death Review Committee. The Family Violence Death Review Committee also thanks the people who have reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this report. FAMILY VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEE FIFTH REPORT DATA: JANUARY 2009 TO DECEMBER 2015 1 FOREWORD The Health Quality & Safety Commission (the Commission) welcomes the Fifth Report Data: January 2009 to December 2015 from the Family Violence Death Review Committee (the Committee).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Health Biomed Central
    Environmental Health BioMed Central Review Open Access Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation Michelle L Bell*1, Devra L Davis2, Luis A Cifuentes3, Alan J Krupnick4, Richard D Morgenstern4 and George D Thurston5 Address: 1School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA, 2Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, CNPAV 435, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA, 3Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, P. Catholic University of Chile, Engineering School, Santiago, Chile, 4Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 20036, USA and 5School of Medicine, New York University, Tuxedo, NY 10987, USA Email: Michelle L Bell* - [email protected]; Devra L Davis - [email protected]; Luis A Cifuentes - [email protected]; Alan J Krupnick - [email protected]; Richard D Morgenstern - [email protected]; George D Thurston - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 31 July 2008 Received: 4 April 2008 Accepted: 31 July 2008 Environmental Health 2008, 7:41 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-41 This article is available from: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/41 © 2008 Bell et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies can provide ancillary benefits in terms of short-term improvements in air quality and associated health benefits. Several studies have analyzed the ancillary impacts of GHG policies for a variety of locations, pollutants, and policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Influence of Weather in 5 U.S. Cities During Wintertime High Mortality Days
    ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF WEATHER IN 5 U.S. CITIES DURING WINTERTIME HIGH MORTALITY DAYS A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Michael James Allen December, 2010 Thesis written by Michael James Allen B.S., California University of Pennsylvania, 2008 M.A., Kent State University, 2010 Approved by ______________________, Dr. Scott Sheridan, Advisor ______________________, Dr. Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Chair, Department of Geography ______________________, Dr. Timothy Moerland, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ vii LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Weather Mortality..................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Biological Causes................................................................................ 5 2.1.2 Socio-Economic, Demographic, and Behavioral Factors.................... 7 2.1.3 The Lag Effect and Mortality
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Fine-Scale Use and Movement Patterns of Diving Bird Species in Federal Waters of the Mid-Atlantic United States Using Satellite Telemetry
    OCS Study BOEM 2017-069 Determining Fine-scale Use and Movement Patterns of Diving Bird Species in Federal Waters of the Mid-Atlantic United States Using Satellite Telemetry US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2017-069 Determining Fine-scale Use and Movement Patterns of Diving Bird Species in Federal Waters of the Mid-Atlantic United States Using Satellite Telemetry Authors Caleb S. Spiegel, USFWS Division of Migratory Birds (Project Manager, Editor) Alicia M. Berlin, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Andrew T. Gilbert, Biodiversity Research Institute Carrie O. Gray, Biodiversity Research Institute William A. Montevecchi, Memorial University of Newfoundland Iain J. Stenhouse, Biodiversity Research Institute Scott L. Ford, Avian Specialty Veterinary Services Glenn H. Olsen, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Jonathan L. Fiely, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Lucas Savoy, Biodiversity Research Institute M. Wing Goodale, Biodiversity Research Institute Chantelle M. Burke, Memorial University of Newfoundland Prepared under BOEM Intra-agency Agreement #M12PG00005 by U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Birds 300 Westgate Center Dr. Hadley, MA 01035 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs 2017-069 DISCLAIMER This study was funded by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, through Intra-agency Agreement Number M12PG00005 with the US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds, Hadley, MA. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Overton Power District No. 5 Power Transmission Expansion Project Environmental Assessment
    DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2009-1020-EA Overton Power District No. 5 Power Transmission Expansion Project Environmental Assessment Clark County, Nevada March 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Las Vegas, NV 89130 Phone: 702-515-5000 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................... 8 1.3 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Plans or Other Environmental Analyses ............ 8 1.3.1 Conformance With Land Use Plan ........................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Local Land Use Plans ..................................................................................................... 8 1.3.3 Authorizing Actions ................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues ....................................................................... 8 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 10 2.1 Alternative I – No Action Alternative ............................................................................. 10 2.2 Alternative II – Proposed Action ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mortality in Norway and Sweden Before and After the Covid-19 Outbreak: A
    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708; this version posted November 13, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Mortality in Norway and Sweden before and after the Covid-19 outbreak: a cohort study Frederik E Juul, medical doctor1*; Henriette C Jodal, medical doctor1*; Ishita Barua, medical doctor1*; Erle Refsum, postdoctoral fellow1; Ørjan Olsvik, professor2; Lise M Helsingen, medical doctor1; Magnus Løberg, associate professor1; Michael Bretthauer, professor1#; Mette Kalager, professor1#; Louise Emilsson, associate professor1,3,4,5# *These authors have contributed equally #These authors have contributed equally 1Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 2Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway 3Department of General Practice, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 4Vårdcentralen Årjäng & Centre for Clinical Research, Värmland län, Sverige 5Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Corresponding author: Frederik E Juul, MD Clinical Effectiveness Research Group University of Oslo Box 1089 Blindern, 0317 Oslo E-mail: [email protected] PhoneNOTE: This: +47 preprint 975 reports 12 966 new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. 1 medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708; this version posted November 13, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • The True Effect of MLDA Reform: an Analysis of the Mortality Displacement in Youth Traffic Accidents Caused by the Drinking Age Reform of the 1980S
    The true effect of MLDA reform: An analysis of the mortality displacement in youth traffic accidents caused by the drinking age reform of the 1980s. By: Dan Dirscherl Abstract In this paper I will examine the effects on mortality due to motor vehicle accidents among those 18 to 24 years old caused by exposure to a Minimum Legal Drinking Age of less than 21. Previous research has established that an MLDA under 21 increases mortality among teens. However, there is a question whether the heightened mortality among teens represents mortality displaced from the early teens. If an MLDA of 21 delays entrance into drinking, mortality may simply be shifted from the teen years to the early 20s. In my analysis I use a fixed effect model to illustrate that between 1972 and 1994, exposure to a MLDA of 18 years led to an increase in mortality among teens but a 2.7% decrease in mortality amongst the those aged 18-24, a result suggesting significant mortality displacement. The results indicate that a lower MLDA reduces mortality among males but has no impact on female deaths. This evidence is consistent with the ‘experienced drinker hypothesis’. Page | 1 Introduction The Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) has long been a topic of heated debate. After the end of prohibition most states implemented a MLDA of 21; however 29 states lowered their MLDAs in the early 1970s. The effects on youth drinking and mortality caused by an MLDA of less than 21 have been widely studied. The two areas of focus surround increases in the amount of alcohol consumed by youths and the effects on youth mortality caused by a MLDA of less than 21.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Does When You Die Depend
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DOES WHEN YOU DIE DEPEND ON WHERE YOU LIVE? EVIDENCE FROM HURRICANE KATRINA Tatyana Deryugina David Molitor Working Paper 24822 http://www.nber.org/papers/w24822 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2018 We thank Amy Finkelstein, Don Fullerton, Matthew Notowidigdo, Julian Reif, Nicholas Sanders, and seminar participants at the AERE Summer Conference, Arizona State University, the Illinois pERE seminar, Indiana University, the London School of Economics, the NBER EEE Spring Meeting, the University of British Columbia, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the University of South Carolina, and the University of Virginia for helpful comments. Isabel Musse, Prakrati Thakur, Fan Wu, and Zhu Yang provided excellent research assistance. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award number R21AG050795. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2018 by Tatyana Deryugina and David Molitor. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Does When You Die Depend on Where You Live? Evidence from Hurricane Katrina Tatyana Deryugina and David Molitor NBER Working Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Adapting to Climate Change
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE: THE REMARKABLE DECLINE IN THE U.S. TEMPERATURE-MORTALITY RELATIONSHIP OVER THE 20TH CENTURY Alan Barreca Karen Clay Olivier Deschenes Michael Greenstone Joseph S. Shapiro Working Paper 18692 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18692 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 January 2013 Deschenes is the corresponding author and can be contacted at [email protected]. We thank Daron Acemoglu, Robin Burgess, our discussant Peter Nilsson, conference participants at the “Climate and the Economy” Conference and seminar participants at the UC Energy Institute for their comments. We thank Jonathan Petkun for outstanding research assistance. Barreca's research efforts were supported by RAND's Postdoctoral Training Program in the Study of Aging. Shapiro gratefully acknowledges support from an EPA STAR fellowship. At least one co-author has disclosed a financial relationship of potential relevance for this research. Further information is available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w18692.ack NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2013 by Alan Barreca, Karen Clay, Olivier Deschenes, Michael Greenstone, and Joseph S. Shapiro. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Adapting to Climate Change: The Remarkable Decline in the U.S. Temperature-Mortality Relationship over the 20th Century Alan Barreca, Karen Clay, Olivier Deschenes, Michael Greenstone, and Joseph S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Religion
    A Study on Religion Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives. While theology attempts to understand the nature of transcendent or supernatural forces (such as deities), religious studies tries to study religious behavior and belief from outside any particular religious viewpoint. Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion. Religious studies originated in the nineteenth century, when scholarly and historical analysis of the Bible had flourished, and Hindu and Buddhist texts were first being translated into European languages. Early influential scholars included Friedrich Max Müller, in England, and Cornelius P. Tiele, in the Netherlands. Today religious studies is practiced by scholars worldwide. In its early years, it was known as Comparative Religion or the Science of Religion and, in the USA, there are those who today also know the field as the History of religion (associated with methodological traditions traced to the University of Chicago in general, and in particular Mircea Eliade, from the late 1950s through to the late 1980s). The field is known as Religionswissenschaft in Germany and Sciences de la religion in the French-speaking world. The term "religion" originated from the Latin noun "religio", that was nominalized from one of three verbs: "relegere" (to turn to constantly/observe conscientiously); "religare" (to bind oneself [back]); and "reeligare" (to choose again).[1] Because of these three different meanings, an etymological analysis alone does not resolve the ambiguity of defining religion, since each verb points to a different understanding of what religion is.[2] During the Medieval Period, the term "religious" was used as a noun to describe someone who had joined a monastic order (a "religious").
    [Show full text]
  • Temporal Dynamics in Total Excess Mortality and COVID-19 Deaths In
    Michelozzi et al. BMC Public Health (2020) 20:1238 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09335-8 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Temporal dynamics in total excess mortality and COVID-19 deaths in Italian cities Paola Michelozzi1, Francesca de’Donato1, Matteo Scortichini1, Patrizio Pezzotti2, Massimo Stafoggia1, Manuela De Sario1* , Giuseppe Costa3, Fiammetta Noccioli1, Flavia Riccardo2, Antonino Bella2, Moreno Demaria3, Pasqualino Rossi4, Silvio Brusaferro2, Giovanni Rezza2 and Marina Davoli1 Abstract Background: Standardized mortality surveillance data, capable of detecting variations in total mortality at population level and not only among the infected, provide an unbiased insight into the impact of epidemics, like COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease). We analysed the temporal trend in total excess mortality and deaths among positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 by geographical area (north and centre-south), age and sex, taking into account the deficit in mortality in previous months. Methods: Data from the Italian rapid mortality surveillance system was used to quantify excess deaths during the epidemic, to estimate the mortality deficit during the previous months and to compare total excess mortality with deaths among positive cases of SARS-CoV-2. Data were stratified by geographical area (north vs centre and south), age and sex. Results: COVID-19 had a greater impact in northern Italian cities among subjects aged 75–84 and 85+ years. COVID-19 deaths accounted for half of total excess mortality in both areas, with differences by age: almost all excess deaths were from COVID-19 among adults, while among the elderly only one third of the excess was coded as COVID-19. When taking into account the mortality deficit in the pre-pandemic period, different trends were observed by area: all excess mortality during COVID-19 was explained by deficit mortality in the centre and south, while only a 16% overlap was estimated in northern cities, with quotas decreasing by age, from 67% in the 15–64 years old to 1% only among subjects 85+ years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Excess Mortality in the United States During the First Three Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic Cambridge.Org/Hyg
    Epidemiology and Infection Excess mortality in the United States during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic cambridge.org/hyg R. Rivera1 , J. E. Rosenbaum2 and W. Quispe1 1 2 Original Paper College of Business, University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY, Cite this article: Rivera R, Rosenbaum JE, USA Quispe W (2020). Excess mortality in the United States during the first three months of Abstract the COVID-19 pandemic. Epidemiology and Infection 148, e264, 1–9. https://doi.org/ Deaths are frequently under-estimated during emergencies, times when accurate mortality 10.1017/S0950268820002617 estimates are crucial for emergency response. This study estimates excess all-cause, pneumo- nia and influenza mortality during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using Received: 19 June 2020 the 11 September 2020 release of weekly mortality data from the United States (U.S.) Revised: 21 October 2020 Accepted: 27 October 2020 Mortality Surveillance System (MSS) from 27 September 2015 to 9 May 2020, using semipara- metric and conventional time-series models in 13 states with high reported COVID-19 deaths Key words: and apparently complete mortality data: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, COVID-19; epidemiology; excess deaths; Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and infectious disease; natural disasters Washington. We estimated greater excess mortality than official COVID-19 mortality in CI: confidence intervals; COVID-19: Coronavirus the U.S. (excess mortality 95% confidence interval (CI) 100 013–127 501 vs.
    [Show full text]