The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
First-of-Its-Kind Study Finds Racial Gap Between Who Causes Air Pollution and Who Breathes It
Studies have long shown that minority communities in the U.S.are disproportionately exposed to harmful pollution. But a study published Monday reveals a new level of environmental injustice: they are also less likely to contribute to it.
The first-of-its-kind study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that black and Hispanic Americans breathe in large amounts of dangerous air pollution that is mainly caused by the actions of non-Hispanic whites.
"Even though minorities are contributing less to the overall problem of air pollution, they are affected by it more," study co-author and University of Minnesota engineering professor Jason Hill, who is white, told USA Today. "Is it fair (that) I create more pollution and somebody else is disproportionately affected by it?"
The study focused on the creation of and exposure to particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), a dangerous form of air pollution that kills more than 100,000 Americans each year from heart disease, lung cancer and other ailments. It found that white Americans have a "pollution advantage," that is, they are exposed to about 17 percent less air pollution than their consumption causes. Black and Hispanic Americans, on the other hand, have a "pollution burden." Black Americans are exposed to 56 percent more air pollution than their consumption generates, and Hispanic Americans are exposed to 63 percent more, a University of Minnesota press release republished by ScienceDaily explained.
To track which groups were responsible for and exposed to what pollution, the research team, which included scientists from the University of Minnesota and University of Washington, looked at a wide variety of data. This included, according to NPR:
2. Which racial groups lived near different pollution sources.
3. How many early deaths each year were caused by each polluter.
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing how much different groups spend in certain sectors of the economy like food, energy or entertainment.
5. Bureau of Economic Analysis data tracing items consumed back to their source, where the pollution was originally emitted.
The disparity between how much White Americans contributed to pollution vs. Black and Hispanic Americans didn't come down to particular consumption choices, study lead author and University of Washington postdoctoral researcher Christopher Tessum told NPR. Whites just spent more across the board.
The disparities are related to the country's ongoing struggle with racial inequality, the press release explained, which has led to a situation where White people are generally wealthier and minorities are more likely to live near polluted areas, sometimes because of the legacy of segregation.
"These findings confirm what most grassroots environmental justice leaders have known for decades, 'whites are dumping their pollution on poor people and people of color,'" Texas Southern University Public Affairs Prof. Robert Bullard, who was not involved with the study, told USA Today.
The researchers did find that PM2.5 exposure had decreased around 50 percent between 2003 and 2013, but that the inequality in exposure had remained constant, the press release said.
"What is especially surprising is just how large pollution inequity is and has been for well over a decade," Hill told USA Today.
The researchers hope that their formula can be applied to study other environmental justice issues.
"The approach we establish in this study could be extended to other pollutants, locations and groupings of people," study author and Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor at the University of Washington Julian Marshall said. "When it comes to determining who causes air pollution — and who breathes that pollution — this research is just the beginning."
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Global Banks, Led by JPMorgan Chase, Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
By Sharon Kelly
A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.