We get calls from community leaders seeking information that they think will convince their state or local officials to take action. I wish I had a dollar for every person that told me over the years that if they could just get the right information in the hands of the politicians or government officials that those decision makers would do the right thing. If only that were true.
As a scientist, I provide technical assistance to grassroots community groups. People send me testing data to review, whether it’s the chemicals found in their drinking water, the air behind their child’s school, or the soil in the park where their children play. They ask me to do this primarily because they want to know what the test results mean. But they also believe that information is where they will find answers to the many questions about the contamination in their community.
To be clear, science and information is important. People need to understand the facts, to know what they can about a situation, and to use information as the basis for their arguments or their demands. But equally important is understanding the limitations of the information and recognizing the fine line between facts and opinion. Science and information are critically important, but it is not enough to convince the decision makers to take action. It’s not the information by itself but rather what you do with it that matters.
Just gathering data and sharing information no matter how important or impactful will not likely change a bureaucrat’s or a politician’s mind. But if you use the information as part of a strategic plan, it can make all the difference in the world. If you use the information to educate your community and then go to the bureaucrats and politicians with a set of demands that meet the needs of your community, you have a much greater chance of success.
So, don’t get trapped into believing you can win over the bureaucrats or your politicians by just gathering information, or become frozen into inaction until you gather every little bit of information. Science and information alone will not solve your problems. What really matters is what you do with the information you have and how it fits strategically into your organizing plan. Don’t hesitate to reach out to CHEJ to further discuss this.
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
Categories
What’s Up with the Green New Deal?
By Maia Lehmann. The ever-tenacious Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her Green New Deal (GND) on February 7th amidst great anticipation. The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, sought to provide the United States with a comprehensive vision to combat climate change using a holistic approach. Excitement was widely felt by those who have been waiting decades to see public health, climate change, and environmental justice seriously addressed by federal legislation. But, what did Ocasio-Cortez’s plan actually lay out? And what’s happening to it now?
The goal of the Green New Deal (GND) was to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable power use by 2030. This objective was met by broad support from the American public, with 87.2% of citizens polled saying that they strongly agreed with the statement. Adapting the U.S. energy portfolio is an essential step, seeing as in 2017 petroleum, natural gas, and coal accounted for 77.6% of U.S. energy—a direct disconnect from what Americans say they want from their energy sector.
The 14-page GND begins with a preamble that describes the policy issues as seen by Ocasio-Cortez: one-part climate crisis, one-part economic crisis. The preamble is followed by five goals, 24 projects, and 15 requirements that intend to lay a framework for how to address these problems. Rather than laying out concrete steps however, the GND uses a broad brush to advocate for an energy efficient electrical grids, updating infrastructure, and overhauling the transportation sector. While critics say that it is ignoring the most integral questions, it is strategically opening a space for disagreement and discussion.
The GND faces plenty of hurdles, especially since it includes several social and economic oriented projects, such as, “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and disability leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” Whether you agree with these issues or not, including them could make the reality of passing the bill even more difficult than climate legislation is already. And the difficulty of climate legislation is highlighted by the co-sponsorship of Senator Markey, who was a leader on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in 2009. The 2009 bill had a much narrower focus but still failed to pass even when both houses of Congress and the presidency was held by Democrats. However, rather than letting that cast a shadow upon the GND, perhaps it speaks to the need for radical changes to the status quo. In fact, 69.8% of Americans polled supported the intertwined social and environmental goals. And due to the inseparable nature of these policy issues it may be advantageous to craft a vision of how they could be developed in tandem. If previous incremental policy efforts have failed, and the opinions of the public are not being reflected by our lawmakers, then it is time to embrace an innovative comprehensive approach.
On March 26th the Senate voted the resolution down in a vote of 57-0, with the majority of Democrats voting “present” in protest to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bringing the bill to the floor without hearings or debate. If anything, Senate Republican’s refusal to even discuss the most pressing issues of climate change demonstrate the necessity for dramatic policy change. The halt of the GND in the senate did not stall the zeal for the overall project of the GND. Representative Ocasio-Cortez is now refocusing her efforts by writing a series of small bills that will target both social and environmental issues in a more individualized method. The GND has successfully reinvigorated and rallied the efforts and public spirit for tackling the current climate crisis and provided a vision for what a sustainable and equitable America could look like. All of the Senate Democrats running for the presidency in 2020 have endorsed the GND, signaling that its vision will continue to permeate and inspire environmental legislation. This will not be the end of a green future that will support all of America.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/7/18211709/green-new-deal-resolution-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-markey
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/flaws-with-a-green-new-deal-part-2-of-2/
https://www.investopedia.com/the-green-new-deal-explained-4588463
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home
https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-poll-2019-2
https://www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal-support
By Sharon Franklin.
For nearly a decade, Michelle and Gary Erb lived on a rustic, 72-acre plot of land east of the Susquehanna River in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and then it became a construction site for a pipeline that can move 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas every day. The Erbs soon found out that Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company (Transco), a wholly owned subsidiary of the $8.6 billion energy-infrastructure titan Williams, demanded access to the their land to enable it to build the 200-mile Atlantic Sunrise pipeline that expands the nation’s largest natural-gas pipeline system to the Marcellus Shale. As reported by Nick Sibilla Senior Contributor Forbes Magazine https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/03/18/homeowners-take-fight-against-gas-pipeline-land-grab-to-u-s-supreme-court/#3e3e3a406fd5.
As with most eminent domain cases like the Erbs, Transco offered to pay for a six-acre easement. When they declined, Transco authorized eminent domain claim and forced the Erbs to hand over the property anyway. Now after having their land dug up, and more than a year and a half later, the Erbs still haven’t seen a dime for their land from Transco.
The Erbs say“The system as it stands right now is very unfair and very unethical; it is very un-American,” “Right now the gas line companies are just steamrolling over private landowners and taking whatever they want, whenever they want it and with no restrictions by the courts.” The Erbs have felt this judicial steamrolling up close and personal. Even though the The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because Transco “already had the substantive right to possession,” due to its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) certificate, which granted Transco preliminary injunction for immediate possession “merely hastened the enforcement of the substantive right—it did not create any new rights.” In other words, “the only question was ‘the timing of the possession.’”
The Erbs fought back with the assistance of the Institute for Justice, and countered in its cert petition, “An entitlement to possess land now is substantively different from an entitlement to possess land in the future.” In a standard eminent domain case, “the condemnor or Transco has the option to either purchase the property at the adjudicated price or move to dismiss the condemnation.” After all, Transco may decide to walk away from the property if they’re unwilling to pay the just compensation determined by the court, and the court’s injunction did actually alter the rights of the Erbs in a substantial way:
The Erbs and the Institute of Justice cited, that prior to the entry of the preliminary injunctions, petitioners had the right to exclude Transcontinental and its agents from their land. After the entry of the preliminary injunctions, the company had the right to exclude petitioners from the land. The right to exclude is, as [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][the Supreme Court] has held time and again, one of the most important substantive aspects of property ownership.”
Many Circuit Courts throughout the United states have conflicting ruling on this issue, and ultimately, only the Supreme Court can resolve this important question. Protecting private property rights shouldn’t be a pipe dream.
Gary Urb sums it up “Transco is taking advantage of a broken system with the lower courts rubber-stamping what the pipeline companies are doing. “Our fight is about more than just our property. It is a fight for everyone that can’t fight.”
[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
Categories
Urban Heat Island Effect
By: Lauren Maranto
Have you ever noticed that when you leave the city, the air feels more fresh and cool? It’s no surprise these days that the air is filled with pollution; We see cars and trucks everywhere, releasing greenhouse gasses and toxic fumes into the atmosphere, while fuel is burned in factories and residential areas. That being said, what many people don’t think of when they imagine air pollution is a phenomenon called the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Urban Heat Islands (UHI) are urban areas that have higher average temperatures than their surrounding rural areas due to the reduction of greenspaces and higher prevalence of impermeable and dark surfaces such as pavement. These dark spaces, along with heat absorbent building materials, absorb solar radiation and trap more heat surrounding the urban area, increasing the average temperature. Additionally, heat from industrial processes and human activities (driving a car, heating your home, etc.) is constantly released into the city, further contributing to UHI. Nighttime temperatures remain higher as the trapped heat is slowly released from buildings.
So, why does this matter? UHI not only creates an uncomfortable heat blanket over the city, it also contributes to air pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to human health issues and climate change. The high temperatures during the summer cause people to increase their air conditioning use, which burns more fuels and releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It also encourages more people to drive to work to avoid the heat, which increases emissions from cars. The best way to reduce UHI is by promoting green spaces in cities and decreasing our energy use. By decreasing the burning of fuels, we can simultaneously reduce the heat emitted in the process while also decreasing air pollution and the negative health and environmental implications that come along with it. By increasing green space, the plants will help regulate air temperatures while also cleaning up the air by absorbing CO2.
I don’t mean wearing more green clothing or drinking green beer, but rather thinking and acting greener than you have most every other day. It doesn’t need to be Earth Day to raise the important issues that are fundamentally about our own survival. There are things you can do every day including St. Patrick’s Day to protect public health and the environment. For example:
- You can ask your federal legislators, state elected representatives, your friends and neighbors to support the New Green Deal. Start a conversation about the pro’s and con’s of the legislation. Let’s get more of the conversation happening so we can find common ground.
- Spring is around the corner so maybe you can start some seedlings to plant, when the warmer temperatures arrive, in your garden.
- Go zero waste today and bring your own glass or cup to your local pub where you’ll purchase your green beer or beverage of choice.
- Take part in a local parade or other festivity and use the gathering to educate people about how important it is to take care of our planet, beginning in your own backyard.
- Share words of wisdom and motivation for this ‘Green Day.’ “Going back to a simpler life is not a step backward; and to do good, you actually have to do something,” said Yvon Chouinard (founder of Patagonia).
Here is a fun St. Patrick’s Day Trivia link see how you do so you’re ready on Sunday. (AARP)
As a proud Irish woman, I leave you with this Irish blessing.
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face and rain fall upon your fields.
And until we meet again.
May God hold you in the hollow of His Hands.
Maddelene Karlsson. As a Community Health student, I had the opportunity to go as an intern with Center for Health Environment and Justice to the EPA headquarters for a meeting regarding the Superfund program on March 5. This meeting, although very emotional, was also intellectually rewarding and confirming in many ways. It is one thing to read and learn about public health, community health and the topics under those umbrellas in class, but a whole other thing to see it and experience it in reality.
At the meeting, there were six EPA representatives all with different roles, CHEJ founder, staff and interns, community members and a few organizational environmental health advocacy individuals, each one with expertise on specific topics. The goal was to raise the concerns in the communities affected by superfund sites, general superfund issues and to put pressure on the EPA to act faster and more responsible. The community members shared their personal stories and experiences to give everyone an insight of what it is like to live near or on a superfund site, to see their own and their loved ones’ health spiraling downwards without the capacity to do anything about it. One community member expressed the she “doesn’t care about her own health concerns any longer, she’ll deal with it and all that matters is that her children and next generations at least get the chance to grow up healthy.” Another community member said that he “was the only one of his nine siblings still alive, and that after reaching the age of 60, which no one else of his entire family ever did, he is now worried about what health issues he might face” after growing up and living in a highly polluted town all his life. These stories were heartbreaking to me, and what might have been even more heartbreaking was the straight, expressionless faces of some of the EPA representatives. They were even caught off guard by another community member stating that no one of them would ever accept living in any of those conditions or be treated that way by top level leaders and officials, so why do they let other people go through that? Ironically, the EPA clearly states on their website that their core mission is the “protection of human health and the environment” and that they “are committed to providing clean air, water and land for all Americans.” To me it sounds like a mission that is too hard for them to live up to, or maybe it is only for a very few selected, as I observed faces expressed with frustration and distrust, and gloomy eyes filled with hopelessness.
In school, I have learned about the importance of the building blocks of public health for the establishment and management of healthy communities: assessment, policy development and assurance. It sounds like a pretty straight forward model, but in reality, it’s not. Especially when it comes to environmental health, it seems like it sometimes becomes a question of whether it is a human right or privilege to be part of healthy communities. Should it really be this way? In my opinion, no. I have come to the realization that we, the general population are sometimes naïve, we like to think that certain agencies and parts of the social system is there for us to keep us safe, represent us and to provide us with the tools needed for optimal health. Yesterday in that meeting, the EPA showed to me that this is not the way they work, and that the system is in fact very weak. The system is weak because it is full of loopholes and like serpents, they use these loopholes to bolt and dodge their responsibilities. Individuals at grassroots level on the other hand, have power. Lots of power. They are all one essential link each of an unbreakable chain, and what makes them stand out is their support and empowerment of one another and their commitment for battling the problems they face along the way together.
By: Maia Lemman
Starting as thunderstorms that travel west across Sub Saharan Africa, these weather systems grow in size and magnitude as they move across the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean. As the moisture evaporates it rises creating twisting air flows that develop into hurricanes. One such storm developed in the summer of 2017. Harvey was first labeled as a slow-moving tropical storm on August 17th as it made its way towards North America from the Gulf of Mexico. Two days later Harvey was downgraded, only to steadily regain strength until making landfall in Texas as a Category 4 hurricane on August 25th.
As Harvey approached, many Texas counties declared mandatory evacuations, while other towns sandbagged their houses in preparation for the influx of water. Hospitals set up diesel generators to keep them powered during the storm and extra staff members were brought in to manage the expected increase of individuals requiring medical attention. Despite these preparations people caught in the storm’s path were in severe danger. Texas was battered by a deluge of rain that dumped 27 trillion gallons of water in the span of 6 days. Catastrophic flooding, and wind speeds of 130 miles per hour destroyed homes, flooded roads, and claimed 88 lives. In total, NOAA estimates that Harvey incurred $125 billion in damages.
While the rescuers and city officials worked diligently to care for the citizens, chemical plants, oil refineries, and toxic waste sites had not sufficiently prepared for Harvey. Battered by the hurricane, numerous sites poured uncontrolled pollution into the air and water. Oil refineries with damaged equipment could no longer manage their emissions, flaring an estimated one million pounds of pollutants into the air.4 The level of toxic chemicals such as benzene and sulfur dioxide far exceeded the levels permitted by the EPA. When other toxic chemicals were taken into account, the Center for Biological Diversity estimates that close to 5 million pounds of chemical pollutants were poured into the environment. In Houston the level of volatile organic compounds was registered at 15,000 parts per billion. This is ten times higher than deemed safe by health officials.
The environmental damage was not limited to pollution from chemical plants and oil refineries. Texas is home to 53 superfund sites. These are sites which the federal government has deemed toxic and pays to cleanup. The EPA reported that 13 Superfund sites were flooded during Hurricane Harvey. To the dismay of those living near these sites, the EPA failed to assess the potential spread of the toxic pollutants from these sites in the days following the flooding.
The chemical plant that received the most attention was the Arkema plant in Crosby Texas. This chemical plant houses 19.5 tons of volatile chemicals that depend upon refrigeration to remain stable and prevent combustion. However, as Harvey knocked out electricity, and then Arkema’s backup generators, the plant lost power and burst into flames releasing a plume of toxic chemicals. While the EPA maintained the stance that there were no threats from the toxicity, local officials suggested a 1.5-mile evacuation radius around the plant. Two hundred people living within the radius to the plant were evacuated, and twenty-one individuals required medical attention.
In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, attention has been focused on the operations of these polluting industries. Dozens of civil suits were filed against Arkema, and additionally in August of 2018 the attorney general brought criminal charges against the chemical manufacturer and two of the leaders of Arkema.8 Besides the fight to determine who should be held responsible for these pollutants there has been a push to ensure that toxic industries take preventive measures against potential damage from future natural disasters. With hurricanes are occurring at larger magnitudes and battering the southeast U.S. where many of these polluting industries are located, it seems logical that they should develop comprehensive contingency plans, insure their machinery is operational and assess whether their site is within a flood plain. Furthermore, the EPA should be assisting in assessing damagers and enforcing emission controls after a storm. While people struggle to recover from the storm, they should not also be assaulted by plumes of toxic air pollution that will damage their health.
Last week the EPA announced its “Action Plan” for a group of chemicals referred to as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS chemicals. In its news release, the agency described this effort as “historic” and as the “most comprehensive cross-agency plan to address an emerging chemical of concern ever undertaken by EPA.” However, environmental advocates and people who live in communities contaminated by PFAS chemicals were not impressed by the agency’s plan. Group after group released news statements blasting the plan as inadequate and lacking action, lamenting the agency’s failure to create a standard to regulate PFAS chemicals in drinking water.
In response to questions from reporters, EPA expressed the need to set a standard that would be defensible in court and promised that the agency will develop a standard “according to where the science directs us.” While this might make a good sound bite, it falls far short of what environmental advocates and people who live in communities contaminated by PFAS chemicals had hoped for.
The National PFAS Contamination Coalition, a network of communities impacted by PFAS contamination described the agency’s plan as “woefully inadequate for those who have been suffering from exposure to contamination for decades” and that “it fails to prevent current and future exposure to PFAS in the environment.”
The EPA’s failure to set a health standard for PFAS chemicals is nothing new for the agency. They have not issued a new standard for drinking water in over 22 years since the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1996. Andrew Wheeler, Acting Administrator of EPA, described setting a standard for PFAS chemicals as “charting new territory” at the agency’s press conference. Really? Has it been so long that the agency no longer recalls what it needs to do to issue a new standard?
Not having a health standard is huge. Without a standard, there is no clear legal handle that the agency can use to force a polluter to clean up contaminated water to the standard or to require that a water company to provide water that does not have PFAS at the level of the standard. With only a health advisory, the agency has no standing to force a polluter to take the necessary steps to clean up contaminated water or require a water company to provide water that does not have PFAS at the level of the advisory. They can ask. They can recommend. But that cannot require. At least not legally.
More study and analysis as called for in the EPA “Action” plan, will not change this scenario. The agency needs to stop stalling, recall its roots and issue a health standard for PFAS chemicals. The communities that have been contaminated by PFAS chemicals and the American people deserve nothing less.
By: Daisy Clennon
PFAS is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. It is an umbrella term for manmade chemicals that have a carbon and fluorine atom backbone. PFAS encompasses PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) as well as hundreds of other compounds. PFAS are used in industrial processes and consumer products such as non-stick cookware, grease resistant paper, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, cleaning products, and more. PFAS frequently get into groundwater though industrial factories, military bases, and also because they are used in firefighting foams. PFAS contaminates soil and water and can contaminate food grown in contaminated circumstances.
PFAS take a very long time to break down, so they build up in organs and tissues. Scientists are still learning about the health risks from PFAS, but the chemicals have been linked to affecting growth, learning, and behavior of children, lowering a woman’s chance of pregnancy, interfering with the body’s natural hormones, increasing cholesterol, affecting the immune system, and increasing risk of cancer. Lab animals exposed to PFAS have shown problems with liver, thyroid, and pancreatic functions. PFAS has been widely used since the 1950s and has recently come to national attention through crises in Hoosick Falls, NY, Plainfield Township, MI, Parkersburg, W. VA, and Parchment, MI.
So far, PFAS have been found in dozens of states, including Vermont, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Colorado, New York, North Carolina, West Virginia, Washington, Kansas, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Alabama, Minnesota, California. Many impacted communities are near military bases, airports, and industrial sites, where PFAS are used. Most people in the United States have some level of PFAS in their body. A sample done by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the average blood levels of PFAS in Americans are as follows: PFOA is 2.1 parts per billion, the average level of PFOS is 6.3 parts per billion, and the average level of PFHxS is 1.3 parts per billion.
So what is being done in 2019 about this contaminant?
State level bills about PFAS are working their way through at least 13 states, including Michigan, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Connecticut. Many bills center around making sure PFAS can’t be used in firefighting foam or in food packaging. States are also struggling to set PFAS contaminant levels. A Michigan state bill would limit PFOA and PFOS to 5 parts per trillion, considerably lower than the EPA advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion. After a PFOA crisis in Bennington, Vermont state legislators set the limit to 20 parts per trillion for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA combined.
On the federal level, a bipartisan bill has been introduced that would add PFAS to the list of chemicals covered by CERCLA (Superfund) legislation. This would allow the EPA to work towards cleaning up PFAS sites. Furthermore, on January 23rd, Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania initiated a bipartisan task force with at least 18 other Congress members. The task force will hold informational events to educate other members of Congress about PFAS, craft legislation to address PFAS contamination, meet with committee chairs to ensure PFAS is addressed, and fight for funding through federal appropriations to clean up PFAS contamination.
The EPA has not yet released its decision on adding PFAS to Superfund legislation. Reports say they will not be regulating PFAS through the Safe Drinking Water Act. This has not been confirmed, but lawmakers have slammed the apparent decision. Michigan legislators have said that they will act if the EPA refuses to. Rep. Kildee said that “while the Trump administration has claimed it wants to address PFAS, they have been all talk and no action,” and the other leader of the bipartisan task force, Rep. Fitzpatrick, said “If the EPA refuses to do its job, Congress must intercede.”
You can track policy details for state PFAS legislation here, and keep up to date with PFAS news here.
You can also sign this petition, to tell Congress to enact a total ban on the production and use of PFAS by 2020. CHEJ is planning a training call/webinar with Nationwide PFAS Coalition that will provide a general overview of the PFAS situation nationally, and include a discussion of what groups are working on now at the state and federal level.
UPDATE: EPA released their action plan on Thursday, February 14th. The plan lists PFOA and PFOS as pollutants or contaminants under CERCLA (Superfund), but not as a hazardous substance. EPA has “initiated the regulatory development process to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances”, which would extend CERCLA order and cost recovery authorities.” It also states that EPA plans to take the “first step” to regulate PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act by the end of the year. It does not say when regulations will be put into place.
By: Jeremy Buchanan
Trees are one of the most important resources we have available to us. Traditionally, trees have been most valued by those living in rural communities where they are mainly used for building materials or for warmth during the winter. However, recent evidence suggests trees provide further benefits to the health of people living in urban areas. As tree cover loss accelerates within urban communities though, it’s important to understand how your health could be at risk.
A study from Urban Forestry & Urban Greening estimates that between 2009 and 2014, an average of 175,000 acres of tree cover in urban areas across the United States was destroyed per year. This equates to a 1% reduction, approximately 180 million individual trees, in the overall US urban tree cover with the largest losses recorded in Oklahoma, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Georgia. What does that mean for your health?
One of the most well-known facts about trees is that they produce oxygen by absorbing Carbon dioxide. A less-known fact is that trees also play a major role in reducing air pollution through this same process. Trees in urban areas play a crucial role in absorbing Ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM2.5), which are two of the most harmful air pollutants threatening human health. The World Health Organization links air pollution to a variety of health issues including reduced lung function, respiratory infections, heart disease, stroke, and various cancers.
Trees not only play a role in improving conditions for increased physical health, but also mental well-being. Recent studies have found that green spaces in urban environments allow people an escape and can play a large role in reducing stress and improving comfort levels. The benefits don’t stop there. Lastly, they also help to lower the average temperature in buildings and automobiles during those hot summer months reducing financial, physical, and mental stresses.
So, what is being done?
Globally, there are numerous projects being undertaken, both privately and through government funding, attempting to address the issue. In the United States, some cities are beginning to take notice and have implemented programs to increase the abundance of trees. The Nature Conservancy is currently partnered with local organizations on their “Plant A Billion Trees” campaign in Chicago, Boston, New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. Both Austin, Texas and King County, Washington have pilot programs in place that allow businesses and individuals to offset their carbon emissions by purchasing credits for tree planting.
Moving forward, as more programs are put into action, we hope to see increased health in urban populations and gain further insight into the health benefits we receive through re-introduction of trees into urban areas. In the meantime, get outside and take notice of the trees around your neighborhood. Are there any? If not, plant one.