By: Mihir Vohra, Research Associate
Particulate matter (PM) is a form of air pollution composed of a mixture of dust, chemicals, and liquid droplets. PM is primarily released into the air by industrial facilities that perform mixing and combustion. When people inhale PM in the air, it gets into their lungs and bloodstream, worsening existing lung diseases and even causing lung disease, heart disease, and lung cancer. Very fine particulate matter less then 2.5 micrometers in diameter – called PM2.5 – is especially dangerous. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards has determined that the maximum safe concentration of PM2.5 in outdoor air to be 12 μg/m3, and while the national average measurement of PM2.5 is 8.4 μg/m3, there are some regions in the US where PM2.5 are above this standard. The EPA’s interactive air quality map that shows current PM pollution can be found here.
While our understanding of the COVID-19 virus is still limited, scientific research is already showing that exposure to PM2.5 increases the risk of death from COVID-19. A recent study from the Harvard School of Public Health determined that in the US there is a link between increased PM2.5 in the air and COVID-19 fatality. This link existed even when the researchers controlled for a host of other factors that influence COVID-19 death risk: an area’s population size and density, number of COVID-19 tests performed, number of hospital beds, smoking, body mass index, poverty, income, education, age, race, and weather. This means that the connection between PM2.5 and death from COVID-19 is likely to be real. More concerning than the fact that PM2.5 increases the risk of death from COVID-19 is that the magnitude of the increased risk is very high. The authors calculate that “an increase of only 1 μg/m3 in PM2.5 is associated with an 8% increase in the COVID-19 death rate”, ultimately concluding that “a small increase in long term PM2.5 exposure leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate.” Thus existing PM2.5 pollution, even at levels below national health standards, poses serious dangers to Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Research from outside the US seems to corroborate these findings. In Italy, COVID-19 infection and mortality peaked in the spring of 2020, with Northern Italy experiencing particularly high levels of mortality. A recent study discovered that the high level of air pollution in Northern Italy was a factor in causing the high level of mortality relative to the rest of the country. This demonstrates more generally that existing air pollution puts people at risk of death from COVID-19 all over the world.
In the US, COVID-19 fatality is particularly high for people of color. Black and Latinx people are twice as likely to die from COVID-19 as white people. Many factors contribute to this reality, including medical racism and inequities in access to healthcare. However, we should also consider that research shows that Black people disproportionately shoulder the burden of PM-emitting facilities. This means that existing inequities in the impact of pollution are being exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that fights to keep communities safe and healthy must include fights to end racial injustice.
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
By: Shaina Smith, Community Organizing Intern
Massive wildfires fuelled by climate change have damaged millions of acres across California, Oregon, and Washington over the past few weeks. Some parts of California have an AQI of over 700. Air Quality Index (AQI) measures air pollution on a scale of 0-500. Any level above 200 is “unhealthy” to “hazardous”.
As residents evacuate areas threatened by the fires, let’s consider those who stayed behind. You might be surprised to learn that California uses prison labor, disproportionately people of color, to battle their wildfires. In fact, incarcerated workers make up to 80% of California fire personnel, including juveniles. The state pays incarcerated workers only 1 dollar an hour (or less if they owe restitution) to fight wildfires.
With this perspective, prison doesn’t appear to be about justice or rehabilitation, instead about exploiting labor for profit. As exemplified by a question asked by a former corrections officer at one California inmate fire camp: “How do you justify releasing all these inmates in prime fire season?”
Historically, once released from prison, California abandons their former inmate firefighters, preventing them from being hired as professionals. However, now that covid shutdowns have left no other option, California has passed a bill making it easier for formerly incarcerated people to become firefighters.
Inmate firefighters work up to 48 hour shifts with 50 pound backpacks. The state does not provide goggles or respirators. It’s no wonder then that incarcerated workers are more than 4 times as likely to sustain an injury than a professional firefighter working on the same fire.
The smoke from these wildfires contains air pollution particles called PM 2.5. PM 2.5 exposure leads to worse coronavirus outcomes. These particles are so small that they enter the bloodstream through the lungs, and cannot be broken down by the immune system.
People residing in low income and minority communities are already disproportionately exposed to PM 2.5 from industry polluters, and are therefore more likely to have an underlying health condition. Underlying conditions exacerbate the dangerous health risks of smoke, specifically heart attacks.
Immediate symptoms of wildfire smoke exposure include shortness of breath, coughing, sore throat, and eye irritation. Years following wildfire smoke exposure, lung capacity among residents decreased.
Wildfire smoke is linked to an increased rate of emergency doctors visits for respiratory and cardiovascular issues such as heart attack or stroke– specifically for adults over 65. Black people who live in areas where the poverty rate is above 15% were particularly affected.
As this latest challenge demonstrates, climate change imposes the heaviest burdens on people of color. The evil of capitalism and racism in the United States is intrinsically linked even to crises in nature, such as wildfires and coronavirus.
Photo credit: Newsweek
Recently, I’ve been discussing presidential politics, as all of us have. Even if you try to avoid the conversations and the different opinions, they are everywhere on the news, in the paper, among your colleagues and friends. Such conversations are important, and often even helpful, to educate people on issues. Hands down educated voters are best.
Lately, I’ve really been listening to what is being said about various candidates. Listening to how the message, words are conveyed. Clearly, our country is more polarized than I’ve ever seen in my decades of voting. Unfortunately, most of these conversations have become rude, insulting, and/or dismissive. We are screaming at each other, criticizing or dismissing entire segments of society, and not hearing one another’s views.
I was in a meeting and someone said out loud, with no hesitation, that the Christian Coalition is a huge problem and working against us. A visibly angry young mother from Texas explained that she belonged to the Christian Coalition and doesn’t believe the Coalition supports poisoning school children with toxic chemicals. “People like you are the problem, not people like me.”
In another meeting, someone accused the workers of being the barrier to moving an issue forward, saying therefore, we needed to organize around the workers instead including them in our fight.
I’ve heard people use the words stupid, ignorant or other nasty descriptions of a candidate or a person who supports a different candidate. This is not limited to a single political party and it’s turning off people on all sides.
It’s time to stop the fever pitched screams and begin talking and listening to each other. When we listen and we share, it is amazing what can happen. Let me share a story.
CHEJ was invited to help an organization stop an incinerator in New York. The group we were working with expressed disappointment about how apathetic people in their community are. One member of the core leadership told me, “In this community people are self-focused, lazy and not too bright. I can not understand why they want to allow all this pollution.” I suggested that everyone may not care about health and inquired if she had asked people what they care about? She answered, “No, because this is the most important and frightening thing that’s happen now.”
Yikes, another scream, and narrow focus to the problems of winning real, deep seeded justice. What if you stopped yelling and trying to prove your point, and listened instead?
We were in a bar and I decided that instead of explaining the importance of listening and having a conversation to connect with people, I’d demonstrate the importance. I got up and moved to sit next to a worker who was having a beer. He was watching the football game on TV and when I caught his attention, I asked what he thought about the plan for the new incinerator.
He replied, “I don’t care.” Showing him the flyer the group published, I followed up with, “What about cancer and other diseases that this flyer says may increase because of pollution?”
“Lady I don’t care . . . I’m watching the game” he replied a bit annoyed.
Waiting for a commercial break, I ask, “What do you care about? What bothers you?” He thought for a moment and said, “potholes.” He explained, he’s an independent trucker and the potholes cause all sorts of damage to his truck which he must pay out-of-his own pocket to repair. Secondly, he added, that traffic signal from hell on the corner. “There is no left turn light and so it takes forever, sometimes two cycles, for me to turn that corner.”
When the next commercial came around I suggested that what he cares about and what the group cares about are the same – – disruption of a beautiful rural community. There will be over 200 trucks driving down that same road making more potholes and a longer line of vehicles that need to turn left at that corner. You may not care about the pollution but there will be plenty of other disruption to the community if this incinerator is built. He agreed and we had a much longer conversation about community power and corporate greed.
My message to the group, then and to us all now, is to stop screaming about how right you are and how wrong others are. Instead, try listening and maybe, just maybe, you’ll see that you aren’t that far apart, and together you can create a better tomorrow.
Categories
The Life of an Intern at CHEJ
By Sophie Weinberg, CHEJ Science Intern, Summer 2020.
This summer was unusual to say the least. Despite living through a pandemic, people around the world innovated their lives to create a new normal. One of these changes included working remotely. This posed a unique challenge to the entire workforce, but particularly to interns. This summer, interns were put into the difficult position of entering a new job while fully remote. Interns did not have the ability to get to know their employers as easily, so it was ultimately up to the organization to welcome interns. CHEJ excelled at this.
This summer, I worked as a science and technical intern at CHEJ. Despite the obvious disadvantages that COVID-19 posed, I felt very connected to both the organization and the work that I was doing. Due to the small staff size, I was able to get to know each staff member through multiple weekly meetings and various projects. We were not only expected to discuss our work, but also encouraged to catch up on a more personal level in order to foster a positive work environment. Instead of water cooler talk, we would Zoom as interns to get to know one another. More often than not, we all found similarities in our passions, goals, and personalities.
Beyond the work environment at CHEJ, my projects were all very meaningful. As a science intern I did not work directly with many communities, but I did have an opportunity to learn a lot about the issues impacting so many people across the US. I did not have expansive knowledge of environmental justice before joining this organization, but I have learned so much this summer and become very passionate about these issues. The work I did as an intern was applicable to helping communities fight environmental threats. Specifically, a large majority of my work was taking scientific concepts and converting them to a more understandable format for the use of community leaders. My supervisor always made sure to connect my work back to the relevant issues to make me aware of the impact of my internship. I completed this internship with a sense of appreciation for what I was able to contribute and what I learned.
Working for CHEJ this summer was an extremely valuable experience, and I would recommend it to other students who are looking for an internship in environmental justice. I was able to apply a large range of skills, and learned many more in the process.
By: Sharon Franklin
Children play near an oil refinery in Los Angeles, California. Photo Credit: Etienne Laurent / EPA
Dr. Jake M. Robinson PhD Researcher, Department of Landscape, University of Sheffiel, South Yorkshire, England recently published an article in The Conversation entitled “How Racism and Classism Affect Natural Ecosystems”.
In the article, Dr. Robinson cited a recent publication in Science Magazine by Christopher J. Schell of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, “The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Systemic Racism In Urban Environments” , which reports the conscious and unconscious systemic biases and stereotypes contribute to shaping institutional policies that drive and exacerbate racist and classist structures in urban systems (e.g., law enforcement, residential segregation, and gentrification).
Dr. Schell explained the urban ecosystems are made up of lots of complex interactions that is evident in many cities around the world, where environmental injustice has been dictated by structural racism such as racial segregation in US cities. He further states that urban social inequality stems from historical and contemporary power imbalances, producing effects that are often intersectional, involving race, economic class, gender, language, sexuality, nationality, ability, religion, and age. These types of social inequalities risk the cultivation of future stewards of our planet, or the next generation of biodiversity protectors. Dr. Schell concludes that because of these kinds of factors “The decisions we make now will dictate our environmental reality for centuries to come.” “Two timely examples include the Green New Deal proposal and Paris climate agreement.”
Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis published a paper late last year that found carcinogens present in the air of the St. Louis metropolitan area to be highly concentrated in Black and poor neighborhoods. They found that approximately 14% of the census tracks in the city had elevated cancer risk due to exposure to toxic chemicals in the air and that these air toxic hots spots were independently associated with neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and unemployment, and low levels of education. Census tracks with the highest levels of both racial isolation of Blacks and economic isolation of poverty were more likely to be located in air toxic hot spots than those with low combined racial and economic isolation.
This paper is important because the authors used an innovative geospatial approach developed by other researchers to identify spatial patterns of residential segregation in their study area. This approach captures the degree of segregation at the neighborhood level and identifies patterns of isolation of different metrics, which in this study was black isolation and poverty isolation. This approach differs from tradition methods that looked at the percentage of blacks or poverty in a neighborhood.
The authors used these two segregation measures – Black isolation and poverty isolation – to identify neighborhoods segregated by race and income in the St. Louis metropolitan area and evaluated the risks of exposure to carcinogens in the air in these areas. The cancer risk data came from the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment and the census track sociodemographic data came from the American Community Survey. All spatial analyses were conducted using Arc GIS software.
These researchers found that census track levels of poverty, undereducation and unemployment were associated with toxic hot spots, while factors such as per capita income and median household income were inversely associated with toxic hot spots. These findings support other studies that identified disparities in exposures to ambient air emissions of toxic chemicals and that raised questions about whether residential segregation leads to differential exposure to air pollutants.
While the authors discuss a number of possible pathways connecting segregation and health, the relationship between segregation and exposure to air toxics is unclear. They discuss various factors that result in segregation leading to the “cycle of segregation” that includes neighborhoods with low social capital, few community resources and low property values which tends to attract more low income and minority residents and exposures to unhealthy air toxics.
The authors concluded that this study provides strong evidence of the unequal distribution of carcinogenic air toxics in the St Louis metropolitan area and that residential segregation leads to differential exposure to chemicals in the air that cause cancer.
By Sophie Weinberg, Intern
Last week marked the 75th anniversary of the two bombings that changed the course of the world, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only did these two bombings obliterate the populations of two Japanese cities, but they also still impose lasting health effects on those residents.
Thousands of people died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the explosions. These immediate deaths were due to the explosion, the fires that followed, and radiation poisoning. Although many people did immediately die from exposure to radiation, there were many survivors of the explosions who faced the health consequences of radiation later in life. A major consequence of this radiation is the mutation and damage of genes, which therefore leads to cancer. For bomb survivors, the risk of cancer, specifically Leukemia, was shown to be 46%. This type of cancer typically appeared a couple years after the bombings. The United States government obviously understood the immediate civilian casualties that would occur from dropping the bombs but did not take into account the suffering and death that would continue decades later.
Similarly, the U.S. also failed to acknowledge the lasting health effects of other chemicals used during wartimes. Specifically, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is still poisoning people today. Both U.S. and Vietnamese military forces together used more than 20.2 million gallons of herbicides to destroy trees as a military tactic. These herbicides, and specifically Agent Orange, contain dioxins. Dioxins are a highly toxic group of chemicals that, among other health effects, can cause cancer. U.S. Veterans of Vietnam are still suffering from the effects of Agent Orange and are being compensated for their health issues. On the other hand, Vietnamese citizens who are battling similar consequences have not been awarded the same considerations.
Today, chemical companies in the U.S. are still disregarding human health in the manufacturing, use, and disposal of various chemicals. Many communities are suffering from health complications due to toxins in their air, water, and soil. In order to avoid the lasting health consequences of toxic chemicals, the government must do more to protect residents of these communities. Specifically, the government needs to provide more regulation on industries to avoid long-lasting health complications in sacrifice zones. In addition to this, the government should compensate communities that already have faced these adverse health effects, just as was done for Vietnam Veterans.
By Monica Lee, Communications & Development Intern
Children are oftentimes more vulnerable to the negative effects of environmental injustice. This is because their bodies have not been fully developed to face the harsh health impacts from their environment. Nonetheless, according to the National Vital Statistics Reports done by the CDC, in 2018, infants of a black mother were more than twice as likely to die compared to infants of a white, Asian, or Hispanic mother. This is an issue raised by inequality that has always been around, and yet does not receive enough attention.
There are many reasons that lead to this infant mortality gap based on race. For example, access to health care, access to adequate food, and other socioeconomic factors create differences in children’s health. Most importantly, however, the environment in which the child grows up in plays the greatest role in affecting the child’s health. Environmental injustice is the most significant factor that affects this infant mortality rate gap.
The major causes of infant mortality in the US include asthma, birth defects, neurodevelopmental disorders, and preterm birth. These illnesses are all effects of the surrounding environment, either directly affecting the child or indirectly through the mother.
Families with lower socioeconomic status tend to be disproportionately exposed to areas with more serious air pollution. Thus, children growing up in these communities have a higher chance of getting asthma. Specifically, even among adults, asthma rates are higher in blacks than in whites. This is a clear case of environmental injustice that leads to the infant mortality rate gap.
Besides asthma, the other causes of infant mortality can also be attributed to environmental injustice. Communities with higher exposures to toxic chemicals lead to more infant mortality deaths. Mothers exposed to toxic chemicals may face health effects, thereby causing birth defects leading to infant mortality. At the same time, infants directly exposed to these toxic chemicals face a greater consequence as their immune system have not been fully developed. Families with lower socioeconomic status tend to reside in these communities with higher exposures to toxic chemicals, thereby causing the infant mortality rate gap.
Many of the causes of infant mortality are created by the environment, and environmental injustice plays a huge role in affecting specific communities with lower socioeconomic status. Thus, there is a large racial gap of infant mortality rates as children’s health are more likely to be affected by the negative effects, such as air pollution and toxic chemicals. This issue requires more attention in order for the inequality to be eliminated completely. As a result of environmental injustice, many infant lives are lost without the chance to enjoy their full life.
By: Shaina Smith, Community Organizing Intern
The reality of environmental inequality is that industry polluters target low-wealth and minority communities disproportionately. A 2018 study found that Black and Latino people are typically exposed to 56% and 63% more air pollution than is caused by their consumption, but that white people are exposed to 17% less than they cause.
This exposure weakens the immune system over time, and people with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular diseases are more likely to have a severe case of coronavirus.
A recent Harvard study found that higher levels of pollution particles known as PM 2.5 are linked to higher coronavirus death rates. An increase of just one microgram per cubic meter results in a 10% increase in coronavirus cases, and 15% increases in death. A separate study of air quality found overlap between areas of high coronavirus mortality rate with high levels of air pollution. The EPA standard for PM 2.5 is 12 micrograms per cubic meter annual average, and the WHO standard is 10. However, some places in New York have annual PM levels above either standard, which may have contributed to the coronavirus hotspot earlier in the year.
A preliminary study in Italy detected Sars-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) on PM 10, which is the same thing as PM 2.5, but slightly larger. This means that air pollution is not only a direct pathway to transmission of coronavirus, but can even travel further in the air, increasing the risk for anyone living in areas of high contamination.
CDC data shows Black and Latino people are three times as likely to become infected with coronavirus than white people, and twice as likely to die.
These communities on the frontlines of pollution were already facing a health crisis, the coronavirus pandemic makes it more deadly.
To control a second wave the government needs to seriously consider the findings of these recent studies and impose harsher penalties and regulations on industrial polluters. In doing so this means taking on the root cause of why Black and Brown people suffer the most from this pandemic: systemic racism embedded in environmental, economic, and political aspects of life.
Photo by: Jason Wambsgans / Chicago Tribune/TNS via Getty Images
By Paolo Padova, Science Intern
Last week the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, released his climate and energy plan. Biden’s plan puts an emphasis on environmental justice and its intersection with racial inequality. The plan commits to creating a new Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to hold contaminating corporations accountable. Building on the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool, Biden will “create a data-driven Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool to identify communities threatened by the cumulative impacts of the multiple stresses of climate change, economic and racial inequality, and multi-source environmental pollution.” The plan includes several aggressive targets such as achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Biden also set a goal for disadvantaged communities to receive 40 percent of all clean energy and infrastructure benefits he was proposing.
The plan is clearly an attempt to appeal to younger and more progressive voters who have, thus far, been a challenge for Biden. Many progressives have been uneasy about a Biden presidency because of his refusal to adopt a range of progressive priorities such as medicare for all, defunding the police, and the legalization of marijuana. His record on issues like criminal justice has drawn significant criticism from the left. Some view a Biden presidency as “harm reduction” while others are even less optimistic. Nonetheless, the appeal seems to be working, at least with some. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, a prominent environmentalist called the plan “visionary.” In response to the plan Sunrise Movement executive director, Varshini Prakash said “It’s no secret that we’ve been critical of Vice President Biden’s plans and commitments in the past. Today, he’s responded to many of those criticisms.” This progressive shift in Biden’s environmental policy is a direct result of the progressive voters who have conditioned their vote on policy concessions from the former vice-president.
Biden’s plan also makes several references to Native American communities. Elizabeth Kronk Warner, the dean of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, said she was pleasantly surprised by Mr. Biden’s plan.
On the other hand, some have been critical of the fact that the plan does not include the use of a carbon tax, which many see as the most effective and socially equitable way to decrease carbon emissions. This may be a result of an effort to altogether avoid the word ‘tax’ out of fear of alienating moderate voters. Trump’s allies have been quick to attack the plan, depicting it as a threat to jobs in the energy sector and some have attempted to link the plan with the significantly more progressive Green New Deal. According to Trump, Biden’s “agenda is the most extreme platform of any major party nominee, by far, in American history.” While Biden’s plan is less progressive than the Green New Deal and Biden has not fully endorsed the Green New Deal, his plan does follow a similar strategy of emphasizing how aggressive climate action could create jobs. Specifically, the plan presents itself as a response to the economic crisis brought on by COVID-19. Biden foresees one million new jobs will be created making electric vehicles and charging stations and perhaps millions more union jobs could come from building greener infrastructure.
Photo Credit: Matt Slocum/AP