Jim Morris is the Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief of Public Health Watch, a nonpartisan investigative news site focused on the prevention of illness, injury and premature death. Public Health Watch’s coverage of health inequities, environmental injustice and the impact of pollution on communities includes this in-depth look at toxic air pollution in Harris County, Texas. 

How did you first get interested in public health?

I got into journalism in 1978, and I became interested in the petrochemical industry while working in Galveston, Texas, near the chemical plants and refineries along the Houston Ship Channel. I spent nine years as an investigative projects reporter with the Houston Chronicle in the 1990s, and that’s where I really decided that this should be the focus of my career: toxic exposures in the workplace and communities. 

I felt like most journalists weren’t paying attention to these issues. When something blew up, of course, that was front-page news. But the rest of the time, workers were dying of cancer, community members were dying prematurely, kids had asthma, and nobody was paying attention. People would say, “That’s just the way it is.” I never thought that should be the way it is. Laws are supposed to protect workers and the public.

You launched Public Health Watch last summer, and your series on air pollution in Texas, and specifically this feature on the fight to hold polluters accountable in Harris County, tells a powerful story about the people exposed to the health harms of air pollution. What are you hoping to accomplish with this site?

There are other nonprofit news outlets that are great at what they do, but we want to go much deeper. We’re not going to run away from a 10,000-word story if we think that’s what it takes to get someone engaged in a topic. Especially for something like air pollution–we’re in a good position to connect the dots and go deeper. 

In the Harris County piece, we connected voter suppression with pollution control, when most wouldn’t necessarily make that connection. The ability to choose your local elected officials really can have an impact on things like environmental enforcement. It’s a cliché, but it’s about trying to go much deeper than the usual “this happened yesterday.”

We’re going to stay focused on this topic of Texas air pollution at least for the rest of this year. We have four to six substantial investigative pieces in the works. This doesn’t include shorter, newsier pieces.  

What role can investigative journalism play in bringing about change for communities most impacted by air pollution?

Well, with this story, we don’t know yet. But just looking at social media–the story was being shared and liked by people we had never heard of before. People from all over the world. It was pretty remarkable and indicated to us that we had struck a nerve or done something beyond the ordinary. And a Texas state representative from Houston said she was “deeply disturbed” by our findings and would propose legislation next year to crack down on polluters.

We’re not expecting miracles here. Rarely do you see immediate impact; I’ve done projects where I’ve found out years later that something I wrote led to a policy change. The more of these stories we do, however, the greater the chances of impact.

What gives you hope?

People like [Harris County Attorney] Christian Menefee and [Harris County Judge] Lina Hidalgo–young elected officials of color who genuinely care about the people in fenceline communities. They’re doing what they can to crack down on chronic air pollution. Those two are genuinely inspiring. If you get enough people like them holding local and, ultimately, state office, that’s when you’ll see real change.

Originally Appeared Here

This blog is co-authored by Taylor Bacon, Analyst, US Clean Air and Climate; Maria Harris, Senior Scientist; and Mindi DePaola, Program Manager, Office of the Chief Scientist.

A new EDF report finds that strengthening federal protections for fine particle air pollution (PM2.5) to 8 µg/m3 will have large health benefits and reduce air pollution-related health disparities in Black, Hispanic and low-income communities across the United States. That’s because these communities bear the brunt of harm from the nation’s most pervasive and deadly air pollutant.

The report comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under President Biden, is reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particle pollution (PM2.5). The agency is expected to propose a new standard this summer.

Wide disparities in exposure and health effects of air pollution

The analysis by Industrial Economics, Inc. finds that in 2015, PM2.5 resulted in 120,000 premature deaths and 75,000 respiratory emergency room visits. Children and older adults are particularly vulnerable.

Disparities in exposure and resulting health outcomes were substantial across the U.S.:

• Black, Asian and Hispanic Americans had greater likelihood (84%, 58%, and 113% higher, respectively) than others of living in neighborhoods where air pollution levels were above 10 µg/m3. 
• Black Americans over age 65 were three times more likely to die from exposure to particulate matter than others.
• People of color were six times more likely to visit the emergency room for air pollution-triggered childhood asthma than white people.

For decades, communities of color and low wealth have been targeted for environmental hazards that others did not want: power plants, landfills, shipping ports, freeways and factories. The resulting inequities in pollution exposure are further aggravated by longstanding discriminatory disinvestment, poor housing, limited health care, educational and economic opportunities perpetuating health disparities, intergenerational poverty and higher vulnerability to health impacts of air pollution.

The report shines a light on what communities exposed to particle pollution everyday already know: they’re surrounded by pollution sources that are harming their health and shortening lives. 

EPA can set protective standards which will provide health benefits and reduce disparities

In 2020, the Trump administration retained the existing standard for PM2.5 of 12 µg/m3, ignoring a large and growing body of scientific evidence indicating that this standard was not adequate to protect public health. Environmental and health groups petitioned EPA to reconsider this decision, and in the fall of 2021, EPA launched a review of the PM2.5 standards. As part of this review, EPA took stock of the new science since the last review and considered the policy implications of this new research. In their policy assessment, EPA found strong evidence that the current annual standard of 12 µg/m3 does not adequately protect human health and considered alternate standards between 8 and 11 ug/m3. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a panel of independent scientists convened to advise EPA, recommended a range of 8-10 µg/m3 for the annual standard.

EDF’s report builds on EPA’s analysis of racial and ethnic disparities in pollution exposure and health impacts under the current and alternative standards, and it supplements EPA’s policy assessment by addressing some of the suggestions made by CASAC for future reviews, including greater attention to risk disparities, expanding the geographic scope of the analysis and considering current PM2.5 levels in estimating the benefit of alternative standards.

The report supports both EPA’s and CASAC’s conclusions that the current standard is not adequate to protect health and finds significantly larger benefits of an 8 μg/m3 annual standard over 10 μg/m3. 

• Nationally, a standard of 8 µg/m3 would have 3.9 times greater health benefits than a standard of 10 µg/m3 (18,000 premature deaths and 12,000 respiratory emergency room visits avoided at 8 µg/m3 vs. 4,500 premature deaths and 3,100 respiratory emergency room visits avoided at 10 µg/m3).
• A standard of 8 µg/m3 would go further to reduce inequities in the health burden of air pollution than a standard of 10 µg/m3, particularly between Black and white populations. People experiencing poverty would see 30% higher benefits in terms of reduced mortality compared to higher income communities.

As seen in the figure above, even with strengthened standards, substantial disparities in the health impact of particulate pollution would persist. It is essential that EPA also takes complementary actions that directly tackle environmental injustice.

Fine scale data offers insights on disparities

In their policy analysis of alternative standards, EPA utilized regulatory monitor data and modeling at a scale of 12 km2 to determine exposures to air pollution and benefits of alternate standards in 47 major metropolitan areas. However, outside of cities, there are few regulatory monitors and limited modeling to provide air quality information.

To better understand current PM2.5 exposures and potential health benefits of a stronger pollution limit for every community, we utilized fine scale satellite, land use and emissions-based data that offer a clearer picture of air pollution. We found significant health impacts of PM2.5 not reflected in EPA’s analysis of 47 metro areas: PM2.5 causes an additional 83,000 premature deaths and 49,000 emergency room visits for respiratory diseases. Black people and people experiencing poverty bear a higher burden of air pollution health impacts with similar disparities in both urban and rural areas.

Fifty percent of the lives saved from a stronger standard of 8µg/m3 are outside of the areas evaluated by EPA. Critically, our report finds that communities outside of EPA’s analysis would see limited annual benefits of an alternative standard of 10 µg/m3–580 lives saved–but significant benefits of a standard of 8µg/m3–8700 lives saved.

The pollution data forming the basis of this analysis have been evaluated using monitoring data, and thus in areas where there is limited monitoring there is lower certainty in the levels estimated (like large areas outside of those evaluated by the EPA). This makes clear the implications of blind spots in air pollution monitoring. Our report indicates a substantial health burden of air pollution in these areas and large benefits from a strong standard of 8µg/m3. This can, however, only be validated and enforced by expansion of regulatory monitoring in these areas.

We have an opportunity to act now

EPA is expected to propose a new standard this summer and will take comments from the public at that time. It is imperative that the proposed standard reflects both EPA’s and the Biden administration’s commitment to environmental justice in that it adequately protects the people at greatest risk. This report shows that strengthening the National Annual Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM2.5 from 12µg/m3 to 8µg/m3 would go the furthest towards reducing this disproportionate burden of air pollution and is a critical immediate step. 

Originally Appeared Here

EDF’s new Air Tracker tool allows us to better understand how local air pollution behaves, illuminating the path it takes from a likely source area. Because this tool allows us to look backwards at where pollution likely originated, it shifts the focus, putting communities and people first. Developing it required a shift in thinking. 

Most atmospheric scientists focus on particle and air movement to help us predict what’s going to happen in the future. As a scientist working in air pollution, I wanted to use those same principles to look backwards so I could better understand how the emissions upwind of us mix and travel through the air, providing a better picture of what we’re breathing at any given time. This way, we don’t have to model every single source to know what’s important to who and when.

When I joined EDF in 2019, our scientists had already successfully shown how mobile air monitoring programs could highlight dramatic differences in pollution levels within individual city blocks. We wanted to go beyond showing the presence of pollution–and illustrate how it traveled to get there. 

 

EDF and academia joined forces to leverage cutting edge insights.

To do this, we enlisted the help of John C. Lin, an atmospheric scientist from the University of Utah who developed the STILT model (which has since been incorporated into NOAA’s HYSPLIT model). He and his team were already working with our partners at Google Earth Outreach on a source apportionment project. We also tapped Paul Dille (who pulled in Randy Sargent and Amy Gottsegen) from CREATE Lab at Carnegie Mellon University, whose Smell PGH application allows users to better understand the pollution landscape in Allegheny County, PA. EDF colleagues Alex Franco, Mindi DePaola and Grace Tee Lewis provided invaluable insight and help as well.

Air Tracker runs on  real-time, trusted, scientific models coupled with air pollution and weather data to help residents, scientists and cities learn more about the air they’re breathing. While Air Tracker is currently mapping fine particle pollution trajectories in Houston, Salt Lake City and Pittsburgh, we designed it to work with other primary pollutants anywhere in the world. 

Air Tracker allows users to trace the path of likely sources of air pollution in Houston, Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City.

Filling current air monitoring gaps

Despite advances in low-cost mobile and stationary monitoring networks, existing air pollution tracking is still lacking. Currently designed to provide us with a solid understanding of background air pollution, the federal and state government  system of monitors essentially smudges out the rough edges to create averages, which underemphasizes the very real, very harmful pollution burden many urban–often historically vulnerable–communities face. 

Air Tracker can help counter that averaging effect. It allows users to click anywhere within their city map to see the most likely source area of the air they’re breathing at any given time. 

Beyond the mapping application, it can improve air quality efforts in the following ways:

 

• Placement of new monitors and networks

For communities that have long suspected they’ve been subjected to dirty air, Air Tracker can help them show that their air is influenced by nearby facilities. This can help them place monitors in specific locations to show just how much pollution they face and when it’s at its worst. 

Cities wanting to get serious about air quality can also use the tool to design either stationary or mobile monitoring efforts. It can also help them answer questions about specific facilities that are known emitters, while spotting ones that may not have been on their radar.  

• Hold polluters accountable 

Even in cities like Houston–where a lack of zoning has allowed industry to flourish unchecked, putting homes, schools and entire communities in the path of harmful pollution–it can be hard to pinpoint which facilities are most likely responsible for localized emissions. The models behind AIr Tracker’s source area development use wind and weather data to illuminate which pollution sources are the most likely culprits, giving regulators a powerful enforcement tool.   

• Putting communities and people first

Because Air Tracker can look backwards at pollution’s path, we can start with communities and people first when seeking to map exposure and its impacts. This can help correct for the current distortion of our current air pollution monitoring system, which wrongly assumes all people are exposed equally.  

We know communities face an unequal burden from air pollution. Our hope is that Air Tracker will allow us to better capture and highlight those discrepancies so the people living there can get the relief they need and deserve. Read more about the methodology here.

 

Originally Appeared Here

Jennifer Hadayia is the Executive Director of Air Alliance Houston, a nonprofit advocacy organization working to reduce the public health impacts from air pollution and advance environmental justice. With nearly 25 years of public health experience, Jennifer leads AAH’s mission and strategies, which include equity-centered research, community-based education and collaborative advocacy.  

 

How did you first get interested in the public health impacts of air pollution?  

I have worked in public health for close to 25 years, and most of that time has been at state and local health departments where I oversaw prevention-focused programs on infectious diseases, chronic disease, and even maternal and child health. I spent a lot of time reading and researching and trying to understand how to help people prevent poor health outcomes.  

Even 25 years later, I still remember the day when my eyes were first opened. I was reading a report from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which explained that the number of heart attacks in a community could be predicted by the level of PM2.5 in the air. The impact of air quality on public health was mind-blowing! After years of trying to change individual behavior, it was clear that improving environmental conditions could have a far greater impact on people’s health at a population level.  

Tell us about Air Alliance Houston’s work. 

Air Alliance Houston was formed in the late 1980s as a merger between two groups of residents and parents concerned about smog. We’ve undergone some key evolutions and expansions in the last 30 years to embrace a population health perspective and a focus on environmental justice. Today our mission is to reduce the public health impact of air pollution through research, education, and advocacy.  

We run several campaigns on specific air pollution issues and solutions such as problematic air permits, transportation planning that de-prioritizes Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs), connecting air pollution to climate action and community-level air monitoring. But it’s our approach to the work that I think makes us unique: 

• We inform the narrative about public health and air pollution through an environmental justice lens by uplifting community voices and experiences through participatory research and planning.  
• We work to build community knowledge and power through the diffusion of accurate information about air pollution, its sources, and how environmental decisions are made in Texas. 
• We create pathways for impacted and overburdened residents to engage in environmental decision-making and become advocates for their health. 

Is there an upcoming project or initiative that Air Alliance Houston is working on that you’re especially excited about? 

Yes! We’re planning to unveil two new initiatives this year that build on our past advocacy successes, so we can scale our impact even further.  

The first is called AirMail, which is an enterprise mapping system that scrubs air permit applications to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for “bad actors” in Houston’s environmental justice neighborhoods. It then maps the facilities to a public web-based platform and notifies impacted residents via postcard. The map and the postcards explain the air quality impact of the permit (for example, a refinery expansion or a new residential concrete batch plant) and provide actions that residents can take, including connecting to our second new initiative, the Environmental Justice Leadership Lab (EJLL).  

The EJLL is a consolidation of the various training and technical assistance options we provide to community members, so they have the tools and knowledge that they need to speak out against a problematic permit or engage in other environmental decision-making.  

Both of these initiatives have been in the “proof-of-concept” phase, requiring extensive manual time and effort. With the automation of AirMail and the consolidation of our training and technical assistance resources under the EJLL-branded umbrella, we will be able to oppose even more polluters and to empower even more residents.  

Why is clean air important to you personally? 

I was born and raised in Houston. My father and grandfather were dock workers at the Port of Houston, surrounded every day by oil refineries, chemical facilities, tankers and trucks. Growing up, I remember that my father never left the house for work without two things: his cowboy boots and his asthma inhaler. He had debilitating asthma his entire life, and he died young, as did my grandfather, after many years of cancer and heart failure. I don’t think either of them or our family ever made the connection between where they worked and were exposed to poor air quality every day and their poor health and early death.  

Knowing what I do now about air quality and health, I have little doubt there was a connection. I’m deeply proud that I now have the opportunity to work to improve health conditions for Ship Channel families like my own, and to do so with the talented and dedicated staff of clean air advocates at AAH.  

Originally Appeared Here

Big Gaps in Air Monitoring 

Air quality in the U.S. has improved tremendously over the last 50 years thanks to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, but not all neighborhoods have benefited from these improvements. The law mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to determine which areas of the country meet the standards and which do not, setting the foundation for air quality management in the U.S. 

Air quality management agencies and EPA rely on data from regulatory monitoring networks that exist across the country. However, these monitoring networks are designed to give region-wide pollution averages, and monitors are often sparsely located. For the 25 largest U.S. urban areas with continuous regulatory monitoring, there are an average of only 2 to 5 monitors per million people. Some of these monitors are intentionally sited away from emissions sources to capture background pollution levels instead of honing in on problem areas. As a result, they fail to detect pollution hot spots.

This is exactly what happens in Houston, TX. High levels of harmful particulate matter (PM2.5) have gone undetected because Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has not adequately monitored pollution in areas near major emission sources. One such area is the Settegast neighborhood, northeast of downtown Houston, where community members have long voiced concern about air pollution from a nearby railyard, concrete batch plants and metal recyclers. In 2019, TCEQ recommended adding a PM2.5 continuous monitor to the Settegast neighborhood at a site on North Wayside Drive to “improve population exposure coverage,” which EPA approved in the same year. The monitor wasn’t deployed until May 2021. 

Risk of Nonattainment in Houston

Since the deployment, the new monitor has consistently shown some of the highest PM2.5 levels in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region. Already, the average PM2.5 concentration over the past 11 months exceeds the current annual NAAQS threshold of 12µg/m3, threatening to push the region into nonattainment status. (Table below shows mean concentration = 12.3µg/m3 from May 3, 2021 to March 10, 2022) 

Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations at Wayside, as of March 20, 2022. Source: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/24hr_annual.pl

The review process currently underway at EPA to reexamine the NAAQS for particulate matter is expected to result in stronger, more health-protective thresholds. This will make it more difficult for the HGB region to remain in attainment unless actions are taken now to reduce emissions. A nonattainment designation is costly for a region, both in terms of direct costs of pollution controls and the potential larger economic losses from lower business activities and lost investment opportunities. One analysis estimates that exposure to particle pollution in the nine-county metropolitan Houston area contributed to more than 5,000 premature deaths in 2015 and nearly $50 billion in economic damages.

It is expected that EPA will make the final ruling on PM NAAQS in Spring 2023, which will trigger a designation process for many areas of the country.

It behooves the region to come together to address this issue before a nonattainment designation is made. EDF and others are reaching out to TCEQ, HGAC, industry groups and community organizations to identify best-management practices that could be deployed to help reduce the elevated PM2.5 emissions.

In addition to the annual trend, the Wayside monitor also shows high short-term spikes in PM2.5 concentrations. So far in 2022, the four peak days of PM2.5 concentrations at this monitor are some of the highest in the HGB region, with peak 24-hour concentrations ranging from 22 to 27µg/m3. (See diagram below. Wayside measurements are shown in yellow dots.)

Four Highest 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations in 2022 as of March 20, 2022. Source: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/pm25_24hr_4highest.pl

Where Is Pollution Coming From?

The Wayside monitor sits ~700ft east of the Union Pacific railyard. Traditionally, railyards and the associated locomotives and drayage truck activity are a major source of particulate matter. Other emission sources adjacent to the site include a metal recycler, a concrete batch plant and several nearby truck yards. Flanked between the railyard and North Wayside Drive is a community that includes a large apartment village, a retirement home, a high school and churches. This railyard is also known to have used creosote to preserve wooden ties, which created an underground contaminated plume that has drifted beneath people’s homes.

EDF and partners are developing a tool that would allow us to investigate the sources of emissions that are measured by regulatory monitors like the one on Wayside. Early data shows high pollution readings that can be traced to multiple industrial locations in that area. Data also shows that on three of the four highest readings in 2022, the source area is to the west of the monitor around the UP railyard. 

What Should We Do?

At the request of EDF and community groups, TCEQ now plans to install a speciation monitor at Wayside to better evaluate the sources on an ongoing basis. While a more thorough analysis is needed to reach any conclusions about potential sources, there are near-term actions that can be taken to protect communities’ health and to prevent Houston from exceeding the NAAQS threshold. 

TCEQ should be requiring the railyard, local metal recycling and concrete plants to adopt best management practices. For instance, requiring anti-idling devices be installed on locomotives and upgrading to cleaner engines could significantly reduce emissions at the Union Pacific railyard. Increasing anti-idling enforcement on main truck routes and around truck-attracting facilities can also lower truck emissions in the near-term. TCEQ could also require industrial facilities such as metal recyclers to adopt best practices to minimize both primary and fugitive emissions, including adoption of abatement and control equipment. There is a need and opportunity for broad adoption of zero-emission equipment which is readily available and affordable, as costs have come down significantly in the last few years.  

EDF will continue to facilitate discussions among stakeholders on this issue and support efforts to minimize pollution and help position Houston to meet the current–and future–national air standard to protect people’s health.

 

Originally Appeared Here

After working with EDF and partners to map hyperlocal pollution in Oakland, CA using Google Street View vehicles, researchers Dr. Joshua Apte (University of California, Berkeley) and Dr. Sarah Chambliss (University of Texas at Austin) collected additional mobile data across the San Francisco Bay Area to expand understanding of street-level air quality and disparities in pollution exposure. Their new paper, “Local- and regional-scale racial and ethnic disparities in air pollution determined by long-term mobile monitoring” was published in September in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. It builds on previous work in Oakland published by Dr. Apte in 2017. I recently spoke with Dr. Chambliss about the latest findings.

What were the key findings of this new research?

Dr. Chambliss: In this study, we broadened the geographic scope of our mobile pollution measurements beyond Oakland to neighborhoods across the Bay Area. Throughout the other areas we drove across the SF Bay Area, we saw some of the same types of patterns that we originally described in the original Oakland study: steep increases in concentrations near major roads (especially for nitric oxide, or NO) and some additional localized peaks that could be attributable to other localized sources that we are still working to identify.

We also saw evidence that the types of sources contributing to local pollution differ among study areas: some areas have more prominent peaks for black carbon, others for NO. The mix of pollution is different in different areas around the Bay. We saw that some neighborhoods were much cleaner than others, and some neighborhoods had higher levels of some pollutants but were not higher for every pollutant. Because we had looked at so many different types of neighborhoods, we saw an opportunity to extend the Oakland analysis by also asking: Who lives in the neighborhoods that are more polluted, and how do pollution patterns compare to or interact with patterns of racial/ethnic segregation that persist in the Bay Area?

After connecting the street-level air pollution data with census data, we found that there were systematic differences in pollution exposure across racial/ethnic groups. Specifically, Black and Hispanic/Latino people had 10-30% higher average exposure to NO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ultrafine particles (UFP) than the population as a whole, while white non-Hispanic residents had 20-30% lower average exposure. The neighborhoods where we measured the cleanest air tended to have higher proportions of white residents, as well. In contrast, neighborhoods where more people of color lived tended to have higher concentrations not just near roadways but in areas of the neighborhood we would consider “background” locations: residential areas where we expect conditions to be cleaner.

Why do these disparities in air pollution exposure matter?

Dr. Chambliss: Air pollution can have major short-term and long-term health impacts. Studies have shown linkages among the group of pollutants we looked at–NO and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), black carbon, and ultrafine particles- with hospital visits, chronic lung and heart disease, with particular risks for the health of newborns and the elderly.

Because air pollution causes systemic inflammation, its impacts spread far beyond the lungs: there is evidence of air pollution affecting cognitive development and diabetes prevalence, for example. Those exposed to higher air pollution are at higher risk of a wide range of health problems. When disparities fall along lines of socioeconomic status or other social vulnerabilities, the health risks caused by air pollution can compound with issues like lower access to medical care or less capacity to handle the financial burden of health issues.

How did you collect such detailed street-level pollution data?

Dr. Chambliss: We had several partnerships that allowed us to achieve this level of coverage. A partnership with Google Earth Outreach allowed us to use Google Street View vehicles to drive “blackout” patterns, where we drove down every road in a study area each time we visited. We also partnered with Aclima, Inc., who installed laboratory-grade instrumentation in these cars and kept the equipment maintained and calibrated for near-daily driving.

We drove two of these “mobile laboratories” nearly every weekday over a 32-month period, visiting different neighborhoods each day and revisiting each neighborhood every 6 weeks or so to collect measurements representing different seasonal conditions.

What kind of policy implications do you see for this work?

Dr. Chambliss: That there are higher pollution levels in neighborhoods with more people of color isn’t a new finding in and of itself, but the level of spatial detail that we could bring to this analysis provided some additional insights. Often, within one neighborhood or several adjoining neighborhoods, there is a wide range in the outdoor pollution levels at different addresses. And these differences do not typically lie along racial/ethnic lines. It’s only when you zoom out to look at city-wide patterns of segregation that you see racial/ethnic disparity in exposures. This is strongly influenced by neighborhoods where the lowest levels of pollutants like NO2 and UFP are higher than even peak levels in cleaner neighborhoods.

This gives us an indication of how policies could be improved to geographically target pollution mitigations to better address disparity and promote environmental justice. Look specifically at communities where the baseline pollution levels are higher and where residents are predominantly people of color. This segregation is often connected with historically racist policies such as discriminatory lending policies or racial covenants built into housing deeds. While those policies may have ended, they leave a persistent legacy placing communities of people of color in areas with higher pollution and greater environmental health risks. To help reverse these patterns of environmental injustice, it’s critical to work to clean up the air pollution sources within those neighborhoods.

What does work like this mean for the future of hyperlocal air pollution monitoring?

Dr. Chambliss: An implication of how localized some pollutant peaks are – a phenomenon that mobile monitoring is particularly suited to measure – is that when you cut emissions from a particular source or type of source, you will see major benefits very close to that source but more moderate reductions everywhere else. If you want to evaluate the full benefits of such a policy, making measurements with fuller spatial coverage may show a magnitude of improvement that wouldn’t be reflected at a single fixed monitoring site. For example, anti-idling policies would help specifically at locations with a lot of truck activity, like ports or warehouses, but it may not be obvious from the outset where the most idling occurs. Mobile monitoring is a way to find those areas that really benefit.

Another thing this research shows is how important it is to spread out measurements over a broader geography as much as possible, given time and resource constraints. It would be great to do a similar study in another US city, because each one has a unique history of growth, industrialization and zoning, and segregation or discriminatory housing policies. It would also be interesting to look at cities outside of the US where urban development patterns, both demographic and land-use related, are much different.

What’s next for you in this field?

Dr. Chambliss: We are continuing to work with these mobile monitoring data to gather further insight into what features of the urban environment lead to pollution hot spots.

 

 

Originally Appeared Here

This blog was co-authored by Jeremy Proville, Director: Office of the Chief Economist, and Ananya Roy, Senior Health Scientist at EDF.

New analysis finds that prevalent methods of assessing impacts of air pollution underestimate pollution’s health impacts on people of color.

Everyone has the right to breathe clean air. Yet communities of color, falsely labeled as “hazardous” in the 1930s, experienced decades of depressed property values and higher siting of industrial facilities and highways, resulting in higher exposure to air pollution. Environmental racism like this causes unjust, unequal health harms.

Yet the issue of Environmental Justice and its impact on health extends beyond disparate exposure alone. Communities of color are exposed to higher levels of air pollution and are more vulnerable to that air pollution. Racist policies, institutional practices, and disenfranchisement have caused disinvestment in housing, transportation, economic opportunity, education, food, access to health care, and beyond in these communities. All of these overlapping inequities not only manifest in health disparities for these families, but also result in greater health impacts from pollution exposure. In fact, a recent study of 60 million Medicare beneficiaries found that older Black people are three times more likely to die from exposure to pollution than white people when exposed to the same levels of fine particle air pollution or soot.

The federal government usually assumes that air pollution exposes everyone to the same risk. Yet the risks are not the same. The disparate harm caused by pollution to Black and Hispanic communities cannot be ignored, and should be addressed directly in estimating the benefits and costs of pollution policies in order to ensure that everyone’s health and wellbeing is protected.

New research uncovers how pollution impacts have been underestimated

In a new journal article in Environmental Health Perspectives, EDF researchers and Carnegie Mellon University professor Nicholas Muller leverage this new understanding of racial/ethnic disparities in air pollution-caused mortality risks. The work seeks to understand the policy impacts of using race/ethnic-specific inputs rather than using data inputs that average the effects across all populations.

We find that using data inputs that average health response across race/ethnicity (effectively ignoring these real differences across groups) leads to:

• An underestimate of the overall mortality impacts of air pollution to all populations by 9%
• An undervaluation of the total costs of pollution across the country by $100 billion.

But this is even more damaging for Black families, as taking into account the larger impact of pollution on their health would increase their estimated pollution-caused burden by 150%.

This has real-world implications for cost-benefit analyses associated with air pollution improvement policies. For example, the Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS), a policy that helped reduce pollution from the electric sector, provided much larger benefits to Black people than previously understood: by not accounting for the fact that air pollution is more harmful to these communities, an assessment of the policy would underestimate MATS’ benefits to Black families by 60%.

Changing approaches at the federal level

In EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Reconsideration of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (PM NAAQS), the agency has used, for the first time, methods similar to our study to assess the distributional benefits of strengthening the standard.

The results indicate that, when considering both exposure and vulnerability differences across race/ethnicity, older Black people in 30 metropolitan areas bear 27% (13,600 premature deaths) of the mortality burden of PM2.5 at an annual PM2.5 standard of 12 µg/m3, despite making up only 13% of the total population. Strengthening the annual PM2.5 standard from 12 to 8 µg/m3 would result in 4,260 fewer air pollution-attributable premature deaths in Black communities (representing 31% of the total prevented PM2.5– mortality benefits).

Without this type of race/ethnicity-specific information on pollution vulnerability, the EPA would not have been able to accurately estimate the benefits to communities from lower pollution concentrations. This kind of assessment needs to become the rule rather than the exception.

Our data choices matter

Our findings have a very clear implication for policy: when thinking about air quality policy, government agencies should use the most up-to-date race/ethnicity-specific inputs to understand and reduce environmental injustices, especially in the context of estimating benefits and costs of policies. Being agnostic to existing differences in pollution impacts across race/ethnicity obscures the benefits we could achieve by improving our air quality – both for communities of color, but also for society as a whole.

Originally Appeared Here

Hyperlocal air monitoring is a powerful new tool for communities that want to take charge of their air and the health consequences of pollution. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made $20 million available for a new community air monitoring grant program, with no cost-sharing needed. EPA is encouraging community-based organizations to apply for the grants.

The impact of community-driven monitoring is impressive and growing. Interest in community monitoring is inspired, in part, by gaps in the current monitoring networks operated by federal and state governments:

• Pollution can be as much as eight times higher at one end of the block than the other. This variation has major health impacts: Oakland neighborhoods with higher percentages of residents of color experienced double the rate of childhood asthma from traffic-related air pollution (nitrogen dioxide) compared with predominantly white neighborhoods.
• Many of the monitors capture data only one out of every six days, and a recent study found that companies pollute more when the government isn’t watching.
• Satellite data shows that millions of people may be breathing air that doesn’t meet the legal minimum standard in the blind spots around federal regulatory monitors.

Hyperlocal air quality monitors can demonstrate how air quality levels can vary block by block.

Communities are applying local data to a variety of exciting uses. They are securing new regulatory monitors, achieving funding for pollution reductions, reducing truck traffic into waste transfer stations, challenging permits for warehouses, demanding more transparency for truck-attracting facilities, inspiring student engagement, educating residents about health impacts of air quality, and much more.

The funding

The EPA funds are intended “to support community and local efforts to monitor their own air quality and to promote air quality monitoring partnerships between communities and tribal, state, and local governments.” Grant sizes range from $25,000 to $500,000. Eligible entities are states (including the District of Columbia); local governments; U.S. territories and possessions; Indian tribes; public and private hospitals and laboratories; and other public or private nonprofit organizations. $2 million is set aside for tribal governments, and $2 million is set aside for eligible community-based organizations. Projects must be completed within three years.

Further details can be found here. The application deadline is March 25, 2022.

If you believe more funding can help you strengthen hyperlocal monitoring in your community, below are some resources that might help. This is not an exhaustive discussion of application requirements. Applicants should review the information package.

A few resources:

Here are some tips for completing the grant application.

Originally Appeared Here