Global Clean Air

New science to help policymakers address unequal impacts of air pollution

By Maria Harris / Published: November 13, 2023
NO2 pollution in the United States and the extent to which tools capture differences in exposure by marginalized groups

This graphic maps nitrogen dioxide pollution levels in the United States as quantified by satellite, monitor and model data sources (left) and shows how these datasets differ in estimating inequities in pollution exposure (right)

What’s new: EDF and partners have just published new research that explores how novel data sources, including satellites and computer models, can help improve our ability to map, identify, track and reduce disparities in air pollution exposure and health impacts.

What we know: Air pollution in the United States has declined dramatically over the last several decades, thanks to strong, protective clean air policies. And yet, unjust disparities in pollution exposure remain, with people of color in the United States burdened by higher levels of health-harming pollution than white people, regardless of income. One root cause of this pollution inequity is historic disinvestment in communities of color through racist policies like redlining, along with discriminatory siting of highways and polluting industrial facilities.

Levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a key health-harming pollutant emitted by trucks, cars and industrial facilities, can vary substantially at fine spatial scales – even from one end of a block to the other. For example, an EDF study in West Oakland, California found that NO2 levels could be up to four times higher in areas of the neighborhood close to truck traffic and other pollution sources.

Research and policy decision-making has historically relied on NO2 measurements from government regulatory monitors—complex and expensive stationary instruments that must meet rigorous standards. Data from these monitors helps the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identify areas where air pollution levels exceed Clean Air Act health standards and guides actions to reduce pollution. However, given how much NO2 concentrations can vary across small distances, it is unlikely we will ever deploy enough of these monitors to enable a full understanding of exposure disparities that exist between population groups.

What this research adds: New datasets, including satellite data, statistical models and photochemical models, can estimate NO2 at a relatively high spatial resolution and across the entire United States. Our new research compared estimates of NO2 levels and racial/ethnic exposure disparities using these novel data sources to estimates based on traditional data from the US EPA regulatory monitoring network.

The new NO2 data sources showed that Black, Hispanic, Asian and multiracial Americans experienced average NO2 levels that were 15-50% higher than those experienced by the US population in 2019. Meanwhile, the non-Hispanic white population experienced levels that were 5-15% lower. In contrast, data from the regulatory monitors indicated more moderate patterns of racial/ethnic disparities, suggesting that the regulatory network does not currently provide a full understanding of inequity in pollution exposure.

NO2
dataset*

How it can contribute to better policies and enforcement
Regulatory Monitors • Monitoring attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
• Ground-truthing satellite and model datasets
Satellites • Guiding placement of future regulatory monitors or measurement campaigns
• Identifying potential pollution
Photochemical and statistical models • Tracking and reporting trends over time in pollution disparities
• Estimating NO2-attributable disease burdens and associated disparities
• Quantifying source sector contributions to ambient NO2 (Photochemical models)

Moving forward: This research demonstrates that policymakers and regulators will need to incorporate new sources of data beyond the existing regulatory monitoring network to accurately understand which policies are or could be most effective in helping close the racial-ethnic gap in air pollution exposure.

The table above outlines how satellite and modeling data can complement existing sources. Satellite data can be leveraged to identify pollution hotspots currently not measured by regulatory monitors, which could guide placement of new government monitors and investigations of potential emissions sources. Air pollution models can enable tracking and reporting of pollution disparity trends over time   and make it easier to quantify health impacts.

Integrating these new data sources into regulatory decision-making would improve the coverage of the regulatory monitoring network, enable a more complete understanding of inequities in air pollution exposure and inform policies aimed at mitigating this environmental injustice.

Maria Harris in a Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. Learn more about her work here. 

*Table adapted from Table 1 in Kerr et al. 2023

Also posted in Academic, Environmental Justice, Homepage, Monitoring, Public Health/Environmental Official, Science, USA / Comments are closed

New EDF study shows unequal burden from truck-related pollution near warehouses

By Aileen Nowlan / Published: May 12, 2023

New research from EDF–Making the Invisible Visible: Shining a Light on Warehouse Truck Air Pollution—shows some 15 million people live within a half-mile of a warehouse in 10 states across the United States. The research demonstrates how the burden from truck-related air pollution exposure is not evenly distributed. In all of the states studied, warehouses and the trucks they attract are disproportionately located in Black, Latino, Asian or American Indian communities as well as areas of low wealth.

The boom in just-in-time delivery has resulted in a rise in warehouse-related truck traffic.

While warehouses and the trucks that deliver their goods became more common after the deregulation of the trucking industry, the explosion of just-in-time production and next-day delivery has brought more of these facilities much closer to people’s homes and in more communities than ever before. Understanding who is bearing the brunt of the health burdens associated with warehouse activity can help policymakers, businesses and communities implement smart, targeted policies to reduce emissions and protect health, keep kids in school and improve workforce productivity.

How we did it: Our teams identified warehouse location data and analyzed it through the lens of our Proximity Mapping framework that allowed us to learn demographic information about the people living near them.

Why it matters: More than 1 million children under 5 live within a half-mile of warehouses, making them  more vulnerable to adverse health impacts like asthma. Their families are more vulnerable to adverse birth outcomes, dementia, heart disease and stroke, , because of the pollution from the trucks that serve warehouses.

The good news: Low-cost solutions are available today to reduce the pollution burden on these communities. Increased air quality monitoring and zero-emissions goods transport are all tools we can tap into now to reduce harm from truck pollution.

Meanwhile companies are investing in zero-emission delivery vans, yard trucks and even long-haul vehicles. States can help advance this trend through policies such as the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which eases permitting requirements for charging infrastructure. The EPA’s recently proposed tailpipe regulations are designed to ensure that half of up to half of new urban delivery freight vehicles sold by 2032 will be zero-emitting. Indirect Source Review rules are a tool for state and local leaders to ensure warehouses don’t burden their neighbors.

But we can’t let up. Communities deserve to know what kinds of businesses are operating near their homes and schools, especially if they attract vehicles that are harmful to their health. We must demand greater transparency around warehouse locations and the extent of pollution generated at warehouses. Transparency around health costs and the cost of clean up is essential for fairness to those already impacted by warehouses, while alerting communities facing warehouse expansion to the threats posed by their new neighbors.

Also posted in Community Organizer, Concerned Citizen, Homepage, Public Health/Environmental Official / Comments are closed

EDF joins global organizations calling on UNFCCC to strengthen action on short-lived climate pollutants to achieve climate goals

By Sergio Sanchez / Published: November 4, 2022

This blog is co-authored by Sergio Sanchez, Global Clean Air Policy Director and Julia Gohlke, Lead Senior Scientist, Climate & Health 

Environmental Defense Fund supports the World Health Organization (WHO), The World Bank Group, the United Nations Environment Programme and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which have appealed to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Parties to expand the scope of pollutants under consideration and the methodology for Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) assessment, and to strengthen the focus on sector approaches to climate action.”   

WHO issued an October 31, 2022 policy brief about SLCPs (black carbon, methane,. tropospheric ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons), along with a group of other major international development organizations. The policy brief urges UNFCCC delegates gathering at COP 27 (November 6-18) to strengthen ambition, improve data reporting and encourage integrated health assessments of air pollution in each country’s nationally determined contribution (NDC). Furthermore, it calls for the full incorporation of SLCPs as an explicit agenda item under the UNFCCC.  

Credit: Climate & Clean Air Coalition

Fast action to reduce SLCPs will result in quick benefits for climate change and for human health. SLCPs have historically not been comprehensively included in country emissions inventories and NDC mitigation pledges. Some countries, such as Mexico, have included SLCPs in their NDC, pledging to reduce black carbon by 51% by 2030. Through recognition of the immediate health gains realized with SLCP reductions, climate action ambitions can be strengthened at COP27. 

Also posted in Climate, Health, Homepage, Partners, Public Health/Environmental Official, Science / Comments are closed

Historic investments in air quality monitoring can give communities a voice in clean air solutions

By Aileen Nowlan / Published: September 8, 2022

The United Nations General Assembly recently declared that access to clean air and a healthy environment is a universal human right, but far too many people live in communities overburdened by pollution. Together, new legislation and a historic investment in clean air present a tremendous opportunity to reduce pollution and improve public health in the U.S. And for the first time, communities have an opportunity to direct their tax dollars to local projects that can improve air quality. 

We have hotspots when it comes to air quality – and they matter  

Air pollution can vary across communities–even from block to block–and additional monitoring can shine a light on pollution hotspots. More data is needed to understand where air pollution comes from, who it’s impacting and who’s responsible for it.  

Exposure to air pollution is not equally experienced, and the health harms fall most heavily on Black and Latino communities. The discriminatory practice of redlining, for example, played a role in determining land use throughout cities. Neighborhoods falsely labeled “definitely declining” or “hazardous” in the 1930s then experienced decades of depressed property values, which allowed polluters to move in.  

Air pollution exposure leads to negative health impacts at every stage of life. New satellite analysis shows places where monitoring isn’t reflecting health burdens, and more data is urgently needed to better understand who is being impacted by air pollution.  

New legislation and investments in air quality 

The newly passed Inflation Reduction Act includes some powerful provisions that could deliver cleaner air to communities, as well as strengthen the impact of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.  

The Inflation Reduction Act includes an historic $296m investment in air monitoring including: 

  • $117.5m: grants for monitoring focused on community air toxics from industrial facilities beside fenceline communities
  • $50m: funds to expand multipollutant regulatory monitoring 
  • $3m: grants focused on air quality sensors in low-income and disadvantaged communities
  • $25m: flexible Clean Air Act grants
  • $50m: air pollution monitoring in schools
  • $18m: U.S. Environemental Protection Agency enforcement to crack down on polluters
  • $32.5m: Council on Environmental Quality data collection 

But that’s not all. For the first time, the federal government is welcoming air insights to influence how additional billions in funds are awarded. 

  • $6b in new funding where air monitoring is an eligible activity to ensure funds are prioritized to disadvantaged communities ($3b for Environmental Justice Block Grants and $3b for Neighborhood access and equity grants) 
  • $5.8b for advanced industrials, prioritized in a way that welcomes air and health insights: “projects which would provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people within the area in which the eligible facility is located” 
  • $15b for greenhouse gas reductions, where disadvantaged communities are to be prioritized, creating an opportunity to include health and equity impacts in the forthcoming prioritization
  • $5b for climate pollution reduction grants, where disadvantaged communities are to be prioritized, creating an opportunity to include health and equity impacts in the forthcoming prioritization 
  • $1.15b in additional funding for non-attainment areas ($400m for clean heavy-duty vehicles and $750m for ports) 

There were also three bills recently introduced that, if passed, would support communities and EPA to better understand the air we breathe: 

  • The “Technology Assessment for Air Quality Management Act,” introduced by Senator Markey and Representative McEachin, would require EPA to better enable the development and understanding of air pollution, health and equity insights at the community level.  
  • The “Environmental Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act of 2021,” introduced by Senator Markey and Representative Castor, would direct $100m a year to hyperlocal air quality monitoring. It would enable monitoring of criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutants and greenhouses gases at a neighborhood scale in order to identify persistent elevated levels of air pollutants in environmental justice communities.
  • The “Public Health Air Quality Act of 2022,” reintroduced by Representative Blunt Rochester and Senator Duckworth, would strengthen air quality monitoring in communities near industrial sources of pollution, require a rapid expansion of the NAAQS or national ambient air monitoring network and deploy at least 1,000 new air quality sensors in communities. 

Community-centered solutions 

There are billions of dollars available, and it’s critical that state and local leaders design good projects that provide communities with data to better understand what’s in their air and advocate for a healthier environment. Solutions to environmental problems must center the communities that are most gravely damaged by pollution. That means a multi-stakeholder, solutions-oriented public engagement process. 

This unprecedented investment in clean air can give communities a voice in their own local air quality solutions. 

Also posted in Community Organizer, Concerned Citizen, Environmental Justice, Health, Homepage, Monitoring, Science, USA / Comments are closed

Stronger national fine particle air pollution standards will provide significant health benefits and reduce disparities

By Ananya Roy / Published: June 22, 2022

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 3.5 times greater health benefits than a standard of 10 µg/m3 (16,000 premature deaths and 10,000 respiratory emergency room visits avoided at 8 µg/m3 vs. 4,600 premature deaths and 3,000 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.

Nearly 40 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/m3–420 lives saved–but significant benefits of a standard of 8µg/m3–5,800 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. 

Editor’s note: This blog was updated on March 23, 2023 to reflect findings from an updated version of the original analysis.

Also posted in Academic, Environmental Justice, Health, Public Health/Environmental Official, USA / Comments are closed

Catalogue of Indian Emission Inventory Reports (Jan 2022)

By Kevin Tuerff / Published: January 11, 2022

 

Indian Emission Inventory Report_DIGITAL FILE

(By PAARTHA BOSU, NEW DELHI, INDIA)  A detailed air emission inventory (EI) is a comprehensive list of pollutants within a pre-defined geographical area and is beneficial for developing clean air action plans. It can also test the effectiveness of pilot interventions towards air quality abatement. Emission inventories have been prepared for several Indian cities and states. However, several of these EI reports have not been given due attention. This report presents a database of all publicly available EI reports and several previously un-referred studies for India to help policymakers and scientists prepare reckoner of all the work done in the area.

EI studies have been tabulated as per the source contribution (total emissions, transport, residential, industrial, power plants, agriculture, waste and others) along with details such as geography, grid size, emission factors used, and type of data collected (primary surveys vs secondary literature). Each sector list also consists of the pollutants studied and highlights those reports that have closely followed the existing CPCB guidelines.

As per various operating sections of the Air Act 1981, air pollution monitoring, calculation of pollution load, preparation of emission inventory, preparation of action plan for air pollution control should be done as per the SOPs issued by CPCB from time to time. Therefore, emission inventory prepared by agencies and experts using other methodology may not be tenable per Air Act 1981. In its order for Critically Polluted Areas and Non-Attainment Cities, the National Green Tribunal mentioned that methodologies recommended by CPCB should be followed for such studies.

Robust EI reports form the mainstay of a city’s source apportionment and mitigation strategies. Therefore, scrutiny of the EI reports is required, especially now that all 132 non-attainment cities have been mandated to carry out source apportionment studies. Furthermore, periodically revised emission inventories could help check each sector’s efficacy of control actions. Finally, regional emission inventories now need to be prioritised as the airshed approach has gained prominence in air pollution management in India. About 200 EI reports have been collated and made available with hyperlinks for researchers and policymakers to use. They have also been sectorally classified for ease.

Key Findings

  1. An easy to use ready reckoner of air pollution emission inventory studies for India was created. These reports were catalogued as per sectors; Total emissions, Transport emissions, Industrial and Power Plant emissions, Residential emissions and Emissions from Agriculture, Waste and other miscellaneous sectors.
  2. It was found that only some of the studies followed the CPCB guidelines closely of using indigenous emission factors and primary data for creating emission inventories
  3. Geographically, most of the studies were concentrated in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, focusing on Delhi and the National Capital Region. Multiple emission inventories for the same city and region leads to uncertainties. Instead, a common framework for EI development should be followed. EIs should be periodically updated every few years to test the efficacy of interventions. For instance, in the transport sector, EI for the current year could help gain insights on the effects of introduction on BS VI mass emission standards on road transport emissions. In the residential sector, the introduction of LPG in rural households would have led to a reduction in emissions, and this should reflect in the latest EI report
  4. Emission factors will determine the accuracy of estimations. However, our Indian conditions are distinct from our western counterparts. Therefore, relying on the emission factors developed by USEPA might lead to inaccuracies. Thus, the transport sector emission factors developed by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) were used.
  5. Inventories need to be developed for toxics like VOCs and heavy metals like mercury. Doing so will enable the development of standards for these pollutants

Download the report

For further details on the report:

Parthaa Bosu (pbosu@edf.org)

Swagata Dey (sdey@edf.org)

Also posted in Academic, India, Science / Comments are closed

How the Build Back Better Act will help clear the air

By Aileen Nowlan / Published: November 3, 2021

With the Build Back Better Act, Congress has the opportunity to make an unprecedented investment in public health and the climate, particularly in the reduction of harmful air pollution, which disproportionately harms low-income residents and communities of color. 

While many cities across the country have experienced an overall improvement in air quality, residents in neighborhoods from West Oakland, California to the 5th Ward in Houston must still fight for cleaner air, as heavy truck traffic and industrial pollution continue to seriously impact their health. 

woman on ladder installing small air pollution monitor on telephone poll

Hyperlocal air quality monitors have demonstrated how air quality levels can vary street by street.

Air pollution is not evenly distributed across the places that people live, work, play and worship.  A critical step in better understanding and taking action to reduce these inequities in air pollution impacts is to fill in the many gaps in our national air quality monitoring network. 

Historic investments in air quality monitoring 

This bill would help eliminate air pollution blindspots by providing at least $170 million for direct air quality monitoring, a near doubling of federal investment in such monitoring, which has dropped by 20% in real terms over the past 16 years.

It also allocates $50 million to monitor and reduce air pollution in schools that serve students from low-income communities.

This funding has the opportunity to make a tremendous impact on the health and wellbeing of children, as 1 in 5 of all new childhood asthma cases in the United States are attributable to traffic related air pollution. Asthma is a leading cause of school absenteeism, accounting for about 14 million absences each school year, or one-third of all school days missed. 

Data-focused investing

The Build Back Better Act also recognizes that historically we have been investing in activities that cause or mitigate pollution with our eyes closed. The bill invites, and in some cases requires, insights about local pollution in order to apply for billions in grant funding available to mitigate pollution.  

Specifically, the bill provides $5 Billion in planning and implementation for pollution reduction, and requires applications to include ‘‘(A) the degree to which greenhouse gas air pollution is projected to be reduced [in] low-income and disadvantaged communities.” Communities would be required to demonstrate how they will verify that pollution is decreasing after receiving the grants. 

It also offers $4 Billion to mitigate or remediate the negative impacts of transportation, starting by monitoring or assessments of local and ambient air quality, transportation emissions, and hot spots of extreme heat or elevated air pollution.

These funds could be especially helpful in communities that bear the greatest cumulative burdens of pollution–those adjacent or downwind of major industries, plagued by heavy truck traffic and/or surrounded by highways–the consequence of systemic racism.  

To address this, the bill includes $3 Billion in Environmental And Climate Justice Block Grants, which could include monitoring and mitigation of air pollution, and facilitate engagement of disadvantaged communities in state and federal public processes.

Opportunities to harness new technology

This bill comes at a time when technology and analytics like satellites and low-cost air pollution monitors are making it simpler to track pollution and its impacts. These insights will be critical to the accountability required by the grants and can help transform our understanding of where air pollution comes from, what it does to local health, and who is responsible. 

With this historic funding, we can put the new, innovative methods to use at far greater scale, fueling a better understanding of how air pollution impacts health at the neighborhood level. With richer, more reliable data in hand, policymakers can focus mitigation efforts on areas with the highest burden and turn to solutions that have the potential for the greatest impact, especially for those who are most at risk.

Also posted in Health, Homepage, Monitoring / Comments are closed

Take Back Health In Your City: WHO’s Dr. Maria Neira’s argument for reducing emissions

By Sergio Sanchez / Published: October 25, 2021

When the World Health Organization (WHO) released its new Global Air Quality guidelines earlier this month for the first time since 2005, it cited an overwhelming body of evidence showing how air pollution severely impacts health at even lower concentrations than previously understood. And while concentrations still largely exceed levels published by the WHO in 2005 for several pollutants in many areas around the world, the organization has now set more aggressive targets along with a phased approach in the hopes it can encourage countries to redouble their efforts to abate air pollution for protecting public health.

The price of inaction is clear: The burden of disease from both ambient and household air pollution exposure continues to grow. Children’s health is largely impaired by reduced long growth and function, respiratory infections and aggravated asthma resulting from breathing poor air quality. In adults, major causes of premature death attributable to air pollution are heart disease and stroke, and there is emerging evidence of diabetes and neurodegenerative conditions, among other effects.  Every year, exposure to air pollution causes some 7 million premature deaths and results in the loss of millions more healthy years of life.

In a recent conversation, Dr. Maria Neira, the WHO’s Director of Public Health, Environment and Social Determinants, suggested that policymakers examine what they will gain from implementing stricter air quality standards, in addition to the consequences of inaction.

Dr. Maria Neira, World Health Organization

 

Health benefits of taking action

Dr. Neira argues that we should reframe our approach to focus on the multiple benefits of reducing pollution. “If the world stops burning fossil fuels, we will see an incredible benefit to public health,” Dr. Neira said. Not only could we prevent a significant percentage of chronic diseases, she says, “You could have more walking in the city. You could have more physical activity. You could take back your city.”

Dr. Neira, who wanted to be a physician since she was a child growing up in Spain, began her career as an endocrinologist, providing her a fist-hand look at the body’s feedback to endocrine disruptors like air pollution emissions. She later served as the medical director for Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) in refugee camps in El Salvador and Honduras. That experience prompted her to work in public health. “I couldn’t accept the fact that I was treating patients and then sending them back into conditions that were causing diseases,” she says. “I realized I could make a bigger impact if I worked on sanitation problems or children breathing poor air.”

Slowing climate change, benefitting public health

Now, charged with the leading of the WHO prevention arm, Dr. Neira examines the multitude of factors that can influence health, including diet and the environment.  She hopes that in addition to adopting stricter air quality standards, countries will begin to look more closely at the health benefits associated with combating climate change. She argues that the cost savings in health—from the reduction in chronic diseases to increased productivity—would outweigh the investments needed to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Showing that kind of positive outcome in a similar way that current models illustrate economic benefits, would be “the indicator we would dream about.”

While climate change and air pollution impact vulnerable populations more acutely, Dr. Neira notes that dirty air and its impacts are harmful across all sectors of society. “In Europe we have 400,000 deaths every year due to air pollution.” When you add the cost of related hospital visits and the loss of work days, the impacts represent an overall cost to society, she says. Cities known for higher levels of air pollution may even find themselves less attractive to businesses, if they cannot lure top talent to live with their families, she says, citing Shanghai as a prime example.

Following positive examples

cyclists travel in special traffic lane

Social distancing requirements for COVID-19 brought many cities like Bogota, Columbia to expand bicycling infrastructure.

Countries like Canada and those in Scandinavia are trending in the right direction because their clean air and climate policies, Dr. Neira says. She also noted that mayors with the political will to transform their cities with low emission, sustainable interventions are seeing positive results. Bogota, Colombia, and Bilbao, Spain, are examples of industrialized cities that are now becoming “a pleasure to see.” However, “national politicians need to go farther.”

Need for additional research

While the WHO cited a wealth of research in its decision to lower emissions standards, Dr. Neira says scientists still have plenty of areas for future study. “I think most of the research now needs to go to interventions,” she says. “And whether we can prove those interventions are impactful or not.” Measuring health gains from changing traffic patterns or agricultural practices could help determine which interventions countries adopt. Researchers should examine whether interventions are cost-effective, how soon their impacts can be measured and how beneficial they are to both the environment and human health. “We have to prioritize those that have the biggest public health impact in the shortest possible period of time,” she concluded.

 

Also posted in Climate, Health, Public Health/Environmental Official / Comments are closed

Discover what’s causing air pollution in London with this interactive map

By Elizabeth Fonseca / Published: September 7, 2021

Ever wonder where air pollution in your neighbourhood is coming from?

We’ve been working on a new Greater London map that displays detailed information on the sources of health-harming air pollution. Search for or click anywhere on the map to get a breakdown of pollution sources – for both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution – at that particular spot.

What does the map display?

The map uses data produced by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC) using the ADMS-Urban model as part of the Breathe London pilot project.

Based on modelled data for 2019, the map:

  • Displays an estimate of annual average NOx and PM5 pollution levels in London for major different sources of pollution.
  • Allows users to see a calculation of the pollution that people breathe, depending on where they are in the city and separated out by source category.
  • Provides distinct visual ‘layers’ for more than 20 individual sources (e.g., taxis, Transport for London buses, commercial gas), as well as grouped sources (e.g., all diesel vehicles).

The modelled data, which takes into account factors like wind and weather, is available on a 10 metre grid across London and provides the annual pollution concentrations experienced at 1m above ground level.

Which sources are included?

  1. Road transport: Cars, buses, lorries, etc. and particularly those that run on diesel fuel.
  2. Other transport: Other means of transportation that don’t involve the road, such as planes, trains and ships.
  3. Commercial and domestic fuel: Heating and powering of indoor spaces like our homes, offices and shops by combustion of fuels such as gas, oil and wood.
  4. Industrial and construction: Waste management activities like energy from waste plants and ‘Non-Road Mobile Machinery,’ i.e., construction sites and machines like diggers, excavators and diesel generators.
  5. Miscellaneous: Other smaller sources like sewage treatment and smaller household sources
  6. Background: Pollution produced outside of London that has been blown in by the wind.

Pollution health impacts

The map displays two pollutants: NOx and PM2.5. NOx are a sum of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which, along with PM2.5, are the main air pollutants of concern in London. They are harmful to human health and are associated with adverse health outcomes like asthma, strokes and cancer.

London also has emissions inventories for NOx and PM2.5, meaning there is a detailed list of all the activities contributing to these pollutants across the city. The model that is behind the dataset requires these emission inventories.

This is the first time that modelled pollution sources data has been displayed in this detail across Greater London on an interactive public map. With a better understanding of which activities are causing pollution and where, leaders and communities can develop targeted solutions that clean the air and protect people’s health.

Please see here for a recorded demo on how to use the map, explain how the data was calculated and answer your questions.

Also posted in London, UK / Comments are closed

How integrated transport solutions can maximize health and climate benefits

By Sergio Sanchez / Published: August 18, 2021

We are facing an epic twin challenge: climate change and the air pollution crisis.

One way we can confront this challenge is by approaching transport solutions with both a climate and clean air lens – simultaneously targeting multiple pollutants that warm the planet and harm our health.

Transport, health and climate

Transport is one of the main sources of air pollution around the world, with direct effects on mortality as well as on respiratory and cardiovascular disease. These effects disproportionately impact vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. For example, a recent health impact assessment by Environmental Defense Fund estimated more than 2,500 lives are lost and 5,200 children develop asthma every year in the San Francisco Bay Area due to exposure to traffic-related pollution.

Transport-related sources of air pollution that damage our health are also sources of climate pollution. The extraction, transport and refining of hydrocarbons and the burning of gasoline, diesel or any other fuel to power our vehicles emits a cocktail of substances that harm both people and environmental health, as well as a mixture of greenhouse gases that heat the Earth.

With overlapping sources of pollution, the transportation sector presents a huge opportunity to achieve both climate and air pollution goals simultaneously.

The dangers of looking at climate without a clean air lens

Often climate and air quality goals are treated separately within a city or region, creating an artificial division and disconnected solutions. A city might have a climate plan and a distinct air pollution plan, run by different teams, which can inadvertently lead to harmful health outcomes.

For example, in the 1990s and 2000s in the European Union, climate policy encouraged drivers to switch to diesel vehicles. That policy was focused on reducing carbon pollution – without accounting for the significant amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution that diesel engines put into the air. According to the American Lung Association, NO2 is associated with increased inflammation of the airways that can cause:

  • Worsened cough and wheezing;
  • Reduced lung function;
  • Increased asthma attacks; and
  • Greater likelihood of emergency department and hospital admissions.

The pro-diesel policy led to a huge uptick in diesel-fueled cars on European roads, kicking off a new wave of air pollution that cities across the continent are still grappling with today. In London, for example, our research revealed how diesel pollution remains a huge source of the city’s air pollution, with diesel cars serving as the largest single source contributor to nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution at London primary schools. NOx is a group of gases that includes NO2.

The benefits of an integrated approach

Fortunately, city leaders are beginning to address climate and air pollution goals simultaneously. For example, Medellin, Colombia launched an Integrated Air Quality Management Plan that addresses both climate pollutants and health-damaging air pollutants. The plan includes the implementation of a Low Emission Zone focused on reducing fine particulate matter pollution and the incorporation of 64 zero-emission buses to the city’s Bus Rapid Transit system.

Sustainable transport is not just about clean vehicles. The ‘Avoid-Shift-Improve framework’ from the SLOCAT Partnership is useful:

  • Avoid trips in motorized vehicles and diminish distances travelled by both passenger and goods, through policies such as home office and other travel demand management measures, transit-oriented development, and logistics optimization.
  • Shift travel to sustainable mobility modes, by prioritizing investments on walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure, complemented by promotion strategies to ensure their preference by passengers, as well as to prioritize the use of efficient freight alternatives such as railways.
  • Improve the environmental performance of transport modes through energy efficiency, and ultra-low and zero emission technology and fuel systems.

Integrated climate and clean air solutions means more livable cities where people can breathe clean air, safely walk and cycle and access better and affordable public transport. It means optimized freight logistics, options to reduce commuting whenever possible and technologies and measures to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions. Integrated solutions mean using less-polluting vehicles and creating connected cities in which people can enjoy family and friends, go to school, work and have fun – all within a short distance.

We can tackle our twin challenge of climate and air pollution, with transport playing a key role in reducing emissions, protecting people’s health and achieving multiple other benefits for our lives and the planet.

Also posted in Climate, Health, Homepage / Comments are closed