This article highlights a new study from MIT that appeared
in the journal Environmental Science and
Technology which looked at the public health impacts of combustion
emissions in the United Kingdom. They found that traffic pollution causes
nearly 5000 premature deaths every year in the UK and that air pollution in
general accounts for 19000 deaths a year. The article suggests that the best
solution is to improve public transportation and focus on getting
more cars off the road.
I found this article interesting especially because in
class we seemed to downplay the risk of highways for things like industrial
waste. As far as air pollution is concerned, the industry and power sector
actually turn out to be less deadly than vehicle emissions. In the class thus
far we have focused on many local cases where sources of pollution are clear
and concentrated in certain areas, like Hyde Park. This study widens the scope
of environmental injustice to wider than anything we’ve looked at in class. Actions
of the whole country are differentially affecting individuals of that country.
This makes it very difficult to organize support or raise awareness at a
grassroots level because the victims of this injustice are not centrally located
or really connected at all other than similar health issues. This problem is also
confounded by European weather patterns and pollution, making this an international
problem. Of the 19000 deaths estimated, 7000 are due to pollutants blown in
from Europe and 2000 European deaths are caused from UK pollution. Traffic
pollution from big cities, and even foreign countries, are differentially
affecting communities elsewhere and hurting individuals from throughout the
country.
In the larger picture, what are we entitled to as far as clean air? There is plenty of regulation in the U.S. with the Clean Air Act and other laws, but people have to drive, especially in cities. Is there a threshold for cleanliness of air that we are entitled to? The tradeoff between ease of transportation and public health seems to have yet been decided upon by society. Will government regulation eventually decide upon a number of deaths due to air pollution that is acceptable for the amount of traffic pollution we emit? It seems like tacitly this is what governments are doing already if they are not actively trying to reduce air pollution. By not demanding stricter regulation, our society is saying that deaths from traffic pollution are inevitable and can be tolerated for the ease of transportation. Perhaps if it was a more local problem, people would not tolerate this, but because of the large scale of the problem, we collectively don't see it as injustice. Can this be a case of environmental injustice even if we can’t easily identify the victims or define the affected areas? Do you consider air pollution an environmental injustice at all?
This type of study is important because it puts a real cost in the metric of human lives to the abstract environmental issue of traffic pollution. It shows that we don't need to create more efficient cars for some abstract environmental cause, it is for the betterment of our own human quality of life. Although it'd be nice if our culture would invest in reducing air pollution just for the sake of the environment, it is unlikely big change will happen until the problem is directly affecting and inconveniencing those who contribute to it.
In the larger picture, what are we entitled to as far as clean air? There is plenty of regulation in the U.S. with the Clean Air Act and other laws, but people have to drive, especially in cities. Is there a threshold for cleanliness of air that we are entitled to? The tradeoff between ease of transportation and public health seems to have yet been decided upon by society. Will government regulation eventually decide upon a number of deaths due to air pollution that is acceptable for the amount of traffic pollution we emit? It seems like tacitly this is what governments are doing already if they are not actively trying to reduce air pollution. By not demanding stricter regulation, our society is saying that deaths from traffic pollution are inevitable and can be tolerated for the ease of transportation. Perhaps if it was a more local problem, people would not tolerate this, but because of the large scale of the problem, we collectively don't see it as injustice. Can this be a case of environmental injustice even if we can’t easily identify the victims or define the affected areas? Do you consider air pollution an environmental injustice at all?
This type of study is important because it puts a real cost in the metric of human lives to the abstract environmental issue of traffic pollution. It shows that we don't need to create more efficient cars for some abstract environmental cause, it is for the betterment of our own human quality of life. Although it'd be nice if our culture would invest in reducing air pollution just for the sake of the environment, it is unlikely big change will happen until the problem is directly affecting and inconveniencing those who contribute to it.
Traffic pollution is a very interesting environmental issue because of the grand scope of the problem. Vulpes Vulpes' analysis was thorough and highlighted the challenges in regulating air quality since the sources of pollution aren't clear and actions against air pollution do not come from the local level. If more studies like this are passed that directly link air pollution with mortality then people will be more likely to reevaluate their position on the transportation debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree that big change will occur once the problem inconveniences those who contribute to air pollution i.e. the car companies and those who drive cars with high emission rates. There needs to be monetary incentives for consumers and corporations to buy and sell green cars. For years environmentalists have been promoting public transportation, but this trend has not caught on in the U.S. with as much vigor as in China and other European countries. Money will be the major driving force behind change.
I want to mention some architectural concepts relating to transportation because we talked about sustainable architecture, LEED certification, etc in class and in the blog. At Notre Dame, architects are taught about a 'model city' where all of the city's buildings are within a walking distance from each other. This reduces the need for transportation within the city itself. Thus, there may be alternative ways to reduce air pollution in addition to pushing for change within the car industry - we can develop our cities according to a more sustainable layout. (I welcome any additional input from actual architects or those who have ideas about unique ways to combat air pollution.)
We all have the right the breathe clean air. This is an environmental justice issue. I predict that less wealthy individuals are disproportionately affected by air pollution. For one, poor individuals don't have the option of relocating from large cities with heavy pollution to rural areas. Additionally, they would not have dispensable income to invest in electric cars which limits their ability to affect the car market and fight against air pollution at a personal level. Thus the less fortunate are powerless to stop air pollution. Since all the power relating to this issue is concentrated at in large corporations, this unequal distribution makes it nearly impossible to change the transportation industry since the corporations act to protect their interests. This may be a particularly good reason to push grass roots organization - to put power back in the hands of the locals.
There has been a lot of good discussion here, and I agree that this is one of the more complicated issues of environmental justice we’ve talked about. How do we convince people to stop picketing the big bad highways with its massive expulsion of globbery gray pollution and turn their signs to….the roads the drove on to get to their protest? It’s a tricky situation and seems to emulate a lot of what we talk about when looking at the tragedy of the commons. Our state taxes are supposed to provide important things like roads, so we all pay for these and therefore all should have “the right” to drive on these roads. But at the same time, we all acknowledge that right now we need to both a) get people off the road, and b) find alternatives to high-pollution cars. How do we accomplish our first goal when everyone sees it as their right to drive their car, expects “those crazy hippies” to be the ones to get off the highway, and sees the technologically savvy, energy efficient alternatives as something they’ll never be able to afford? This is an intensely tricky question, because we’re only able to point to “the nation” as having too much highway pollution. We cannot say that the I-84 is causing x-amount of deaths, just that roads in and near this city are emitting pollution at high enough levels to cause deaths to people.
ReplyDeleteHow do you convince people to connect on that personal level…to their roads. Especially in a city like South Bend and Mishawaka, there are no sidewalks, no bike lanes, and no real alternatives except the bus or your car, both of which expel pollutants. And no townie is running around exclaiming “save the roads!” In addition, are the toll roads helping? Drivers might see it as their right to drive high-polluting cars on a road they pay to drive on. They might see the company as having a responsibility to do something as a “Cleanup” project, since it’s technically “their road.” How do we counter that and tell people that it is everybody’s air, regardless of who drove on it?
I think that increasing—and incentivizing—people’s ability to find efficient alternatives to traveling in a car on a road would help, but can we do this with millions of US Citizens. And as far as new cities go—can we bring some of those ideas into the existing and growing metropolises of today? I know places like Washington, D.C. are getting there, but how many other cities will be able to do this? What changes to their existing infrastructure would be needed. I realize that I’ve give more questions than answers to everyone’s questions, but they’re important questions for forming specific answers, I feel.