News article:

‘Asthma alley’: why minorities bear burden of pollution inequity caused by white people

The Guardian

By Hazar Kilani

Kilani, H. (2019, April 4).  ‘Asthma alley’: why minorities bear burden of pollution inequity caused by white people. The Guardian. Retrived from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/04/new-york-south-bronx-minorities-pollution-inequity.

Additional source:

Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial–ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure

Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

By Christopher W. Tessum, Joshua S. Apte, Andrew L. Goodkind, Nicholas Z. Muller, Kimberley A. Mullins, David A. Paolella, Stephen Polasky, Nathaniel P. Springer, Sumil K. Thakrar, Julian D. Marshall, and Jason D. Hill

Tessum, C. W., Apte, J. S., Goodkind, A. L., Muller, N. Z., Mullins, K. A., Polella, D. A., et al. (2019) Inequity in comsumption of goods and services adds to racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (13) 6001-6006. doi:10.1073.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/13/6001

This article details the racial-ethnic disparities of environmental air pollution, especially in a minority district of New York City. Using quantitative and qualitative data, the article explains the cause and effect relationship between race, in consumption and exposure to air pollutants. It directly relates to class in it’s focus on environmental justice issues, pollution, emissions, and references to policy, governmental action, activism and general climate change.

Content:

• Mott Haven New York
• Called “Asthma Alley” because the air pollution is “some of the worst” in the US
• Near the Fresh Direct warehouse, causing traffic flow of diesel trucks
• Wall Street Journal’s printing press is nearby
• Near four highways
• Parcel depot is nearby, causing more diesel truck flow
• Near sewage plant
• Asthma hospitalizations are 5 times higher than national average
• Asthma rates are 21 times higher than other NYC neighborhoods
• Use Fresh Direct and WSJ at a lower rate than other New Yorkers
• 97% of Mott Haven is Hispanic or black
• “Pollution inequity”
• Cites a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, “Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure” (see citations)
  • This study shows that non-Hispanic whites in the US consume a disproportionate amount compared to people of color and this consumption causes pollution burdened by those who consume least.
  • Black Americans are exposed to 56% more pollution than caused by their consumption
  • Hispanics are exposed to 63% more pollution than caused by their consumption
  • Non-Hispanic whites inhale 17% less air pollution than they cause
  • “Pollution advantage”
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s impassioned Congressional speech on New Deal highlighted the nature of climate change’s connection to racial inequality
• Fresh Direct opened new facility in borough
  • Projected to create 1,000-plus jobs  
  • Environmental justice organization, South Bronx Unite, expressed concern for 1,000 trips Fresh Direct trucks would make
  • The trucks rarely deliver to Mott Haven
  • Fresh Direct declined commenting
• Guardian’s interviews of Brook Ave in Mott Haven included 25 people, 9 reported suffering from asthma and 13 reported knowing someone who did.
• Some people are angered by the pollution and industry
• Some people rely on it for work and see the benefits as equal to the detriments
• South Bronx Unite: “Why should any human ever be forced to make a choice between air and a low-wage job?”
  • “If it was white kids… they wouldn’t have even put the [industrial] plants there.”

Looking further:

• Cited study also says that “PM2.5 exposure has declined by 50% from 2002-2015 across the three racial-ethnic groups studies (Hispanics, Blacks and non-Hispanic whites).
• PM2.5 is the cause of 63% of deaths from environmental causes and 3% of total deaths
• Estimated 131,000 deaths; 102,000 caused by anthropogenic emissions, 29,000 from other sources such as wildfires and natural emissions, and some projected to be from Canada and Mexico
• Responsibility for air pollution assigned to emitters (factories, for example) and “end uses” as the purchase of manufactured goods
  • This is connected to PM2.5 by correlating economic input-output and pollution emission sources
• Of 102,000 premature deaths caused by domestic anthropogenic emissions, 11,000 are caused by demand for export and 91,000 are caused by domestic end users
  • 83,000 are attributed to personal consumption
  • 8,000 are attributed to government expenditures
• Findings:
  • Blacks: inequity of 56%
  • Hispanics: inequity of 63%
  • Whites: inequity of -17%
  • Interesting facts:
    • Hispanics exposed less to
      • Agriculture (11%)
      • Coal electric utilities (40%)
      • Residential wood combustion (14%)
      • Concentrated in regions with low Hispanic populations
  • Whites consume more in all seven end-use categories
  • In the seven end-use categories, the greatest differences in consumption-caused exposure are:
    • Food  (whites cause 61% more exposure than blacks and 49% more than Hispanics)
    • Transportation (whites caused 74% more exposure than blacks and 93% more than Hispanics)
    • Services (118% more than blacks, 114% more than Hispanics)
  • Income is critical for analyzing exposure caused, but race is critical for exposure disparities
• From 2003-2015
  • Absolute exposure decreased for all racial-ethnic categories between 2003-2015
  • Pollution inequity decreased for blacks by 23% but increased by 5% for Hispanics
  • Consumption for blacks increased more substantially than for Hispanics
  • Decreases in absolute exposure were caused by decreases in PM2.5 and not in geographic movement
• Spatial scale?
  • Are consumers living close to those they are exposing to pollutants?
    • This can inform national, state or local policy

Resulting questions:

• What steps are community leaders and other non-profits taking to advocate for the health of the community?
• Are there politicians on a local level who are involved in these issues?

This semester I’m participating in the Office of Sustainability’s Urban Garden Apprenticeship program. We care for the various urban gardens planted here at the College of Charleston, and learn about the history, techniques and culture of urban gardening and agriculture. As one of our many field site visits, we toured MUSC’s Urban Farm (https://web.musc.edu/resources/health-and-wellness/ohp/urban-farm). While I could talk about this space endlessly, there are a few relevant details that I want to focus on.

The MUSC space is not only beautiful- aesthetically, it is neat, clean, organized, and even smells wonderful from the many flowers planted throughout the space- but it is extremely functional and diverse in its technical trials. The series of raised beds sit in a half-acre space which was previously a parking lot. While it is a public space, which offers the numerous benefits that green urban spaces and gardens in particular offer (like reducing depression, see NPR’s “Replacing Vacant Lots With Green Spaces Can Ease Depression In Urban Communities”) the farm received a great deal of backlash for removing parking. This speaks loudly to the value system of institutions in regards to public well-being. Parking in downtown Charleston has become a more talked-about problem than ever, and taking up space for that need becomes a hot and fast point of contention. But, as we were told by our tour guide, Carmen, being a medical university, MUSC recognized the multifaceted health benefits of having an urban farm on campus. Not only are there mighty psychological and emotional benefits, the prospect of having locally grown, sustainably sourced food on campus is unrivaled (not to mention MUSC is by all technicalities within a food desert: the closest grocery store is well over one mile away). MUSC and the farm staff have utilized this huge asset by encouraging healthy eating and experimental culinary practices. The farm, thus educates not only about food systems, agriculture and farming itself, but about healthful living through food and nutritional awareness. Because of these initiatives, they sparked student interest that has resulted in expanding the crop varieties of the farm. MUSC has a very diverse student population, and by request, produce from different parts of the world are grown in the garden to reflect that diversity. So, not only is the garden serving its purpose as an emotional support, an air purifier, a supplier of food, and an educational venue, it is also acting as a cultural melting pot and incubator.

While the victory of the garden’s existence is a feat (should it be called a Victory Garden…?) the space’s history as a parking lot has dictated the use of the land in important ways. Because the land itself is covered in asphalt and largely poisoned by the emissions of the cars which have driven upon it, the growing spaces must be self-contained. The beds, as a result, are built about 10 inches high and all the soil fit for plant life is protected and above ground. Irrigation systems are in place in each bed, two of which utilize an interesting and innovative method: wicking. In short, a wicking bed will store water in a drainage pipe at its base beneath the soil, and through osmosis water will naturally ‘wick’ up to the roots of plants as it’s needed. This system is excellent here Charleston, where our excessive rainfall can be captured and utilized. One of the benefits of having many separate beds is that different methods of irrigation, planting, and using natural pesticides and insecticides can be tried without extreme adverse effects to the whole crop or to the Earth’s soil. Farms like these then, borne from environmentally detrimental beginnings,  can have innovation and progress at their ends. In a wider view, biologically and chemically this entire space is being upcycled. Once an asphalt lot devoid of life, it is now a thriving, biodiverse farm. While its origin confines it, the farm also can speak to improvements in urban planning and living.

A few years ago, I saw an extremely powerful video that has been ruminating in the back of my mind. Our class discussions and readings about media and the role it plays in our lives sparked my interest in looking a little further into it. It’s called Nature is Speaking (link here, I highly suggest watching it. It’s only two minutes long), and it was produced and released by Conservation International, a non-profit organization founded in the 80’s. Since discussing resources and their intent and agendas, I wanted to look into Conservation International further, and understand a little more about the video and it’s intentions.

Conservation International was founded with the intent of supporting, promoting and starting conservation initiatives. My initial question about the video and its source was how it could obtain such a large celebrity presence. Like “Mother Nature”, there are twelve other videos within the #NatureIsSpeaking initiative. Each is narrated by A-list celebrity, including Robert Redford, Penelope Cruz, Liam Neeson, and Ed Norton to name a few. Aside from the usual willingness to participate in activism projects, how could so many prominent actors be involved in this single project? Hardly scratching the surface of CI’s history and leadership led me to the explanation: the Vice Chair of the organization is Harrison Ford. This is an excellent example of how with leverage, resources and undoubtedly privilege, there is a whole world of opportunity unlocked, but only for those with a key.

Over time, with criticism from environmentalists, Conservation International’s scope has changed. Rather than concentrate on conservation alone, CI’s mission now involves sustainable development for productive and sustainable use of the environment, rather than total avoidance of use. In one of our supplemental readings, A Brief History of Sustainability, Robertson discusses the historic shift from conservationist mindsets to ecological mindsets. The major difference here is the idea of earth being of use to humans, versus the earth being valuable in itself. This of course relates to our discussions about ethics, intrinsic value and deeply ingrained issues with environmental justice, especially in relation to conservation.

In viewing CI’s website, and reading through their mission, current work and history, it is clear that the overarching view of the nonprofit is anthropocentric. The website includes phrases like, “Humanity is totally dependent on nature, and by saving nature, we’re saving ourselves.” This is entirely anthropocentric, nearly eliminating the intrinsic value of nature. That phrase continues on with “To that end, Conservation International is working to build a healthier, more prosperous and more productive planet.” Within the history of the development of environmental ethics, this framework fits snugly in what Arne Næss would call “shallow ecology”. For any environmentalist at heart, who appreciates nature for its intrinsic value, with so-called “environmental egalitarianism” as their foundation, this anthropocentric mindset can be hard to swallow. When being extra critical, the website alone for CI can be said to raise humans to a high pedestal, emphasizing the numerous Earth services we are destroying minute by minute and how critical they are to our survival- the planet’s value be damned. In their website panel entitled “Why we exist” they finish by saying that working toward a sustainable society we ensure we “don’t use up today what we’re going to need tomorrow.” True, but it’s still unsettling.

This made me seriously consider my own opinion on the subject, our reading on ethics, and the video that inspired this evaluation. In my own value system, and guided by a personal moral compass, I believe in the intrinsic value of the Earth, its services, ecosystems and the many components of nature that fall within them. Much like Næss’ inspiration from the sacred mountains of the Himalayas, most people experience some sort of emotional or spiritual movement from their own experiences with nature. Most people also recognize the earth as the ultimate supplier of our basic human needs. So, does Conservation International betray a moral standing by promoting the protection of nature for the sake of humans? More specifically, does that video, which aims to generate a level of fear and shock value fall on the wrong side of the moral spectrum? I say no, because the aim to protect the environment and educate the masses should come first, above disagreements and criticisms about rhetoric and philosophy. Maybe once sustainable literacy is more widely achieved, we can better confront the issue of philosophy within the field.