Michael Stravato/Polaris/eyevine
Black and Hispanic people in the US are, on average, exposed to more dirty air than white people, despite generally being responsible for less air pollution.
For the first time, a study into pollution and inequality has also factored in how people use energy, food and transport. The findings suggest that consumption patterns and their impact on air quality are, in effect, racist.
Jason Hill at the University of Minnesota and colleagues mapped the exposure of three ethnic groups to harmful particles less than 2.5 micrometres across, known as PM2.5. These are emitted by cars, power stations and when wood is burned, and are linked to cardiovascular disease and other health impacts. Dozens of US cities are affected by levels above recommended health limits, and the particles are estimated to be responsible for 3 per cent of US deaths annually.
Advertisement
Pollution inequity
The analysis generated a “pollution inequity” rating for each ethnic group, based on the difference between each group’s exposure and contribution to PM2.5 pollution.
The team found that, on average, white people were exposed to around 17 per less pollution than they created, while Hispanic people were exposed to 63 per cent more than they created. Black people were exposed to 56 per cent more PM2.5 than they created.
“We showed the train of custody for pollution. We tied the impact back to the individual responsible for it. That’s a new thing,” says Hill.
Local differences
“The study findings lend further evidence that some populations in the US have ‘the wrong complexion for protection’,” says Robert Bullard at Texas Southern Univeristy. “It also reaffirms that race is a potent predictor of exposure to goods and services air pollution.”
The big differences seen between groups are primarily explained by where people live. Previous research has found that ethnic minority children in the US bear the brunt of air pollution because schools with more ethnic minority pupils are more likely to be sited next to busy roads.
Because pollution exposure can vary drastically from one street to the next, the latest study used a higher resolution than some previous studies, analysing 1km square areas instead of 12km square patches. “You have to look at a close resolution to understand environmental justice,” says Hill.
The differences in pollution inequity between the three groups can also be partly explained by differing consumption levels. A total of 389 sources of pollution were tracked in the analysis, including direct sources like car use and indirect ones such as the emissions released when producing car fuel.
High consumption
However, what seemed to matter wasn’t what people consumed, but how much they consumed. The finding should counter previous hypotheses suggesting that ethnic minorities are exposed to more air pollution because they are contributing more to the problem, says Hill.
Sara Grineski at the University of Utah, says the results aren’t surprising, and show environmental racism happens whether intentional or not. “While policy decisions are often framed as a trade off between jobs and the environment, this new paper shows that black and Hispanic communities are not ‘benefiting’ in terms of jobs from the industrial facilities in their neighborhoods,” she says.
“It is clearly iniquitous that some ethnic groups in the US both emit less pollutants, and suffer more exposure,” says Jonathan Grigg at Queen Mary University of London. There will be an overlap between pollution and poverty hotspots, he says, meaning that some of the people exposed to more pollution will also be more vulnerable to it. This is because people in these areas having a higher incidence of health problems.
Hill says he is now embarking on mapping the role income plays in pollution inequality, given that high consumption seems to play such a big role.
Journal reference: PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1818859116
More on these topics: