The coal industry can damage human health in myriad ways via dangerous working conditions and harmful pollution. But the income opportunities offered by the industry can also provide much-needed stability for certain communities, such as those in Appalachia’s coal country.

“Being employed is good for your health, but environmental pollution is bad for your health, and these two things are operating at the same time in some communities,” said Mary Willis, an epidemiologist at Boston University.

The industry, though, is changing. Total coal production in the United States peaked in 2008, and the number of miners has steadily dropped since then.

A new study coauthored by Willis and published in Rural Sociology delves into the effects of this decline on life expectancies across the United States and in Appalachia in particular. The results show that a disappearing coal mining industry has mixed effects on health, highlighting the importance of a “just transition”—a shift away from coal mining and toward clean energy that also prioritizes decent work opportunities for those left without a job.

“How do we balance these two conflicting priorities?” Willis said.

Delving into the Decline

Coal production and consumption are linked to many human health harms, including heart disease, asthma, lung cancer, mental illness, and more. But how those health impacts intersect with the broader economic effects of mining has not been well studied.

In the new study, the research team analyzed the effects of the declining industry through the lens of the social determinants of health, or how social structures influence health outcomes.

To study these effects, the team compared coal mining data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to life expectancy data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from 2012 to 2019. Life expectancy is a metric that can be responsive to subtle changes in the environment, Willis explained. For example, the decommissioning of a coal-fired power plant a few miles away from a community may not affect residents’ day-to-day life but probably affects the scale of life expectancy across the population.

In coal-producing counties across the United States, the average life expectancy was 1.6 years lower than that in non-coal-producing counties. But the declining coal industry had more nuanced impacts on health in Appalachian communities, the researchers found. As coal production fell and miner labor hours decreased, life expectancy increased. But as the number of jobs available decreased, life expectancy decreased, too.

The findings suggest that the employment and associated economic impacts of a waning coal industry harm health. Previous studies documented similar increases in mortality in other regions where the fossil fuel industry has declined. Such research has indicated that these increased mortality rates may be partially driven by “deaths of despair” from drug and alcohol use and suicide related to economic distress. The association of these factors with mortality rates in coal country, the authors suggest, may be an area for future study.

Understanding that coal mining is associated with some positive economic and health effects is “an important perspective for understanding the sector as a whole,” said Lucas Henneman, an environmental engineer at George Mason University who was not involved in the new study. “It’s a really interesting piece of work.”

“This is just a really complex story that hasn’t been told yet—putting health into the context of these just energy transitions,” Willis said.

The complex reality of the coal industry extends beyond Appalachia. Most of the pollution related to the coal industry consists of toxins released when coal is burned, meaning those who bear the brunt of coal’s health impacts may not be located where coal is mined, Henneman said.

In fact, a 2023 study by Henneman and others found that before 2009, a quarter of all air pollution–related deaths of people on Medicare were attributable to coal burning. From 2013 to 2020, that number dropped to 7%, alongside a drop in coal consumption. A complete picture of how the coal industry affects health should also consider how pollution travels beyond coal country—where it’s burned, how it’s transported in the air, and who ultimately breathes it in, he said.

A Just Transition

“The question is how to provide [jobs] in a way that provides the same level of stability, same kind of income benefits, and isn’t too much of a shock to [communities’] way of life or sense of identity.”

The economic activity of a mine, through direct employment as well as businesses reliant on the mine and miners, “chases away other opportunities,” making the mine the economic backbone of the area, said Jonathan Buonocore, an environmental health scientist at Boston University and a coauthor of the new study. The concept of a just transition aims to ensure that employment opportunities in the wake of the coal industry’s decline reach these communities.

“The question is how to provide [jobs] in a way that provides the same level of stability, same kind of income benefits, and isn’t too much of a shock to [communities’] way of life or sense of identity,” Buonocore said.

—Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Staff Writer

Citation: van Deelen, G. (2026), As the coal industry fades, life expectancies in coal country shift, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260134. Published on 30 April 2026.

Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news that impacts science and scientists today.

Sand is the most exploited solid natural resource on Earth. It has been integrated into how we build homes, roads, buildings, and bridges as well as how we protect coastal infrastructure from rising seas. Sand underpins nearly every aspect of modern infrastructure and economics, plays crucial roles in supporting ecosystem biodiversity, and literally shores up rivers and coasts.

A new report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that we are using 50 billion metric tons (50 trillion kilograms) of sand per year. As global development and industrialization expand, demand for sand in the building sector is expected to rise 45% by the year 2060, outpacing current efforts to sustainably harvest it. The report’s authors urge countries to establish sand as a strategic national asset and develop policies for sustainable extraction.

“Sand is sometimes referred as the unrecognized hero of development, but its essential role in sustaining the natural services on which we depend is even more overlooked,” Pascal Peduzzi, director of the UNEP Global Resource Information Database Geneva, said in a press release about the report. “Sand is our first line of defence against sea level rise, storm surges, and salination of coastal aquifers—all hazards exacerbated by climate change.”

Sand Wanted: Dead or Alive

Dead sand, or sand that has been extracted from its natural environment, is a key component in building materials like concrete and asphalt. Communities around the world use sand in water filtration systems, providing clean water for drinking and agricultural use. And although a transition to clean energy sources is necessary to curb the effects of climate change, many of those sources also depend on sand: solar panels require glass made from high-purity silica sand, and wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear power plants all require concrete.

Sand also plays a critical role in natural ecosystems. It is home to a wide array of critters from crabs, sharks, and turtles to microorganisms like bacteria and fungi. It supports the growth of corals, mangroves, and seagrasses that in turn support even more marine creatures. It is a key component of healthy soil and aids in surface drainage. It guides river evolution and acts as flood buffer and storm barrier. It also provides local economic benefits via tourism.

These are among the values of sand when it is left alone and unused, called “alive” sand. The UN report notes that these benefits are typically of greater value over time than if sand is dredged and used. But because these benefits are hard to see, they are often overlooked when nations calculate the value of their sand resources.

A Sustainable Sand Future

Despite sand’s importance whether dead or alive, the report notes that few countries have established sand as a strategic national asset or have developed strategies for sustainable extraction. At the current pace, humans are extracting sand from the natural environment at a faster pace than it is being replenished by geologic processes.

What’s more, the UNEP’s Marine Sand Watch tool shows that about half of sand dredging companies are operating within marine protected areas, accounting for about 15% of the volume of dredged sand. This practice, the report notes, is potentially trading in sand’s long-term benefits for short-term gains.

The UN report recommends a few actions to protect the long-term availability of sand as a natural resource, including:

• Recognizing sand as strategic national asset, establishing national inventories, and creating long-term regional planning groups that consider sand as an essential resource for resilience;
• Establishing circularity and recycling of building materials, especially in areas of conflict and natural disasters;
• Strengthening environmental protection practices, and codifying international frameworks to strengthen accountability along the supply chain, including increased transparency about extraction; and
• Integrating sand-related biodiversity and social risks into financial decisionmaking and governance.

“Over-reliance on short-term economic metrics risks obscuring, and further impacting, the geological and ecological processes that take centuries to form and may not be restored once critical thresholds are crossed,” the report states. “What is hardest to measure may be precisely what sustains both nature and human societies over the long term. The challenge ahead is not only to manage extraction, but to recognise and balance the full spectrum of sand’s values.”

—Kimberly M. S. Cartier (@astrokimcartier.bsky.social), Staff Writer

These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about science or scientists? Send us a tip at eos@agu.org.

Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.