The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
U.S. Air Pollution Is 'Completely Outrageous'
By Juanita Constible
How do you think the U.S. stacks up against other countries for protecting its citizens from the health threats of air pollution?
That's the question Christiana Figueres, one of the world's leading climate warriors, posed at last week's Global Climate and Health Forum, an official side event of the Global Climate Action Summit. The answer, said Ms. Figueres, is "completely outrageous."
The U.S. is one of the richest countries in the world, has the highest per capita spending on health care, and has an effective federal clean air law. But when it comes to avoiding sicknesses and deaths due to air pollution, we are ranked #23 in the world. In 2016, the American population lost 516 years of disease- and disability-free life per 100,000 people. That's more than double the rate found in top-ranked New Zealand, and only marginally better than countries like Honduras (#26) and Nicaragua (#28).
Air Pollution Is Dangerous
Most air pollution-related deaths and illnesses are caused by fine particle pollution, known more formally as "fine particulate matter" or PM2.5. Fine particles can lodge deep in the lungs and get into the bloodstream. This form of pollution has been linked to a wide array of health effects, including premature deaths, asthma attacks, heart attacks, lung cancer, preterm births, autism and dementia.
Global deaths from outdoor and indoor air pollutionWorld Health Organization
Here's the latest available information (2014) on the sources of fine particle pollution in the U.S.:
- About 77 percent is from power plants and other industrial processes;
- About 10 percent is from the transportation sector; and
- More than 16 percent is from wildfire smoke.
Thanks to federal and state pollution limits, levels of fine particles have declined across the U.S. since the 1990s, increasing life expectancy along the way. But that progress is in jeopardy thanks to the Trump administration's attack on our lungs.
In just the last six weeks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management have proposed to weaken or roll back three key public health safeguards directly limiting particle pollution: the Clean Power Plan, clean car rules, and methane standards for the oil and gas industry. These safeguards also indirectly cut particle pollution by fighting climate change—which is fueling larger wildfires and more unhealthy wildfire smoke.
Wildfires Are Getting Worse
As Michael St. John, Battalion Chief with the fire department in Mill Valley, California, put it at another Summit event:
"There's no doubt it's warmer and drier, and the fires are moving much more ferociously than in the past."
Wildfire smoke increased fine particle pollution in the U.S. Northwest from 1988 to 2016, even as levels of that pollution declined in the rest of the country. Last month, fires in the Northwest produced so much particle pollution that air quality in Seattle, Washington was regularly worse than Beijing's.
Future increases in area burned and number of wildfire days fueled by climate change are expected to likewise increase particle pollution in the West and the Southeast. And as concentrations of wildfire smoke increase, Americans will face more hospital admissions and premature deaths from respiratory ailments and other causes.
Trump and his allies in Congress aren't just advancing policies that will increase air pollution. They're also systematically increasing the kinds of income and health care disparities that amp up the already disproportionate threat of air pollution to lower-income people and some communities of color. The prevalence of asthma, for example, is 1.6 times higher among African-American children than in white children, and the rates of hospitalizations and death from asthma are three times higher.
Wanted: Climate Action
The administration's giveaways to big polluters and inaction on climate change directly contradicts commitments made by the businesses, health professionals, city and state leaders, philanthropies and others at the Global Climate Action Summit last week to reduce pollution and increase resilience to the present-day effects of climate change. Back at the Health Forum, former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos noted how odd it was that event organizers had to invite someone from a small country like his to give advice to the U.S. government. He also recognized that climate action can have some political costs, but said:
"A president, my goodness, cannot think about the next election. A president has to think about the next generation."
Want to remind Donald Trump that it's outrageous to roll back health and safety standards?
- Vehicles, Air Pollution, and Human Health | Union of Concerned ... ›
- Health Effects of Ozone and Particle Pollution | American Lung ... ›
- Air pollution may account for 1 in 7 new diabetes cases | Reuters ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Ketura Persellin
Global consumption of beef, lamb and goat is expected to rise by almost 90 percent between 2010 and 2050. But that doesn't mean you need to eat more meat. In fact, recent news from Washington gives you even less confidence in your meat: Pork inspections may be taken over by the industry itself, if a Trump administration proposal goes into effect, putting tests for deadly pathogens into the hands of line workers.
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
By Julia Conley
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.