Current Events > Study: PoCs deal with more air pollution than white people in the US

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/nidhisubbaraman/epa-environmental-justice-air-pollution?bftwnews&utm_term=.wegyB7gZ0#.fnXpAOjPK

People of color face more air pollution than white people, and black people bear the biggest environmental burden of any group, according to a new study by EPA scientists.

This exposure could explain disparities in health quality among different communities, scientists from the EPAs National Center for Environmental Assessment write in the paper, published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health.

Its excellent work in a top journal making the point that environmental disparity is alive and well in the US, Manuel Pastor, director of the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at the University of Southern California, who was not affiliated with the study, told BuzzFeed News.

Years of research has suggested that minority communities face an outsize burden of air and water pollution, and get diagnosed with additional health problems as a result.

Our study contributes to the narrative by providing a systematic study of burden by race, ethnicity, and poverty status across the entire US, EPA researcher and study author Ihab Mikati wrote in an emailed statement to BuzzFeed News.

Mikati and his colleagues tracked the location and quantity of air pollutants emitted by refineries and factories using the EPAs National Emissions Inventory. The team then compared the emissions with the demographics of communities within 2.5 miles of each facility, using data from the US Census Bureau.

The new report found that the average US resident lives near about five emissions sources. But, the authors noted, Blacks in particular are likely to live in high-emission areas.

Compared to the average American:

Black US residents are exposed to 1.54 times more fine particulate matter, a pollutant that contributes to haze and has been linked to heart and lung diseases.

Hispanic US residents are exposed to 1.2 times more fine particulate matter.

People below the poverty line were exposed to 1.35 times more fine particulate matter.

I do see this as a very valuable study, Paul Mohai, professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan, who was not involved with the study, told BuzzFeed News. Its very unusual for researchers to try and measure the absolute level of inequality like they do, through their ratios.

In every state except Virginia, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Maryland, and Washington, DC, the study found, nonwhite people have a higher exposure to particulate matter than white people do. The worst disparity exists in Indiana and Alabama, where people of color were exposed to more than twice as much particulate pollutants as white people.

The researchers focused on levels of PM2.5 tiny particles that are 2.5 microns across or smaller. A byproduct of burning in cars, machinery, and a range of industrial processes, these particles contribute to haze on a still day. The EPA regulates this pollutant because it has been associated with heart and lung diseases, and a shorter life.

The researchers found the same disparity when they examined other air pollutants, including lead, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.
...
The new study refutes an argument that pollution impact disparities are driven primarily by economics that factories are located in low-income communities because land there is less expensive, Pastor of USC said.

When the researchers compared exposures faced by people above and below the poverty line, that difference was less than the gap between black and white people.

It will lend credibility to people who are saying that the environmental disparities are real and something needs to be done about them, Pastor said.

---

someone will post in this topic saying "you heard it here first, folks: pollution is racist!" in 3, 2, 1...
---

This just in:
There's more pollution downtown than in the suburbs or rural nowhere!

whaaaaaaaaaaat, are you saying that cities have more pollution than suburbs and rural areas??? this cannot be!
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

This just in:
There's more pollution downtown than in the suburbs or rural nowhere!

---

Let me know if you figure out a way for citys to have less air pollution
---

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.
---

averagejoel posted...

someone will post in this topic saying "you heard it here first, folks: pollution is racist!" in 3, 2, 1...

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

Of course it had to be Admiral
---

lolol
---

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

I really wonder if you think this is what the article is saying
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

This just in:
There's more pollution downtown than in the suburbs or rural nowhere!

In general. There are some exceptions. Lancaster County (Amish capital of the country) has the worst air quality east of the rockies. 6th worst of any county in the US
---

fusespliff posted...

averagejoel posted...

someone will post in this topic saying "you heard it here first, folks: pollution is racist!" in 3, 2, 1...

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

Of course it had to be Admiral

*Jim Halpert stares at the camera*
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

In general. There are some exceptions. Lancaster County (Amish capital of the country) has the worst air quality east of the rockies. 6th worst of any county in the US

For a second I thought you were talking about Lancaster County, NE and was quite confused.
---

I read the topic title and imagined Martin Lawrence being like "Damn even the environment is racist!"
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

I really wonder if you think this is what the article is saying

The article mentions race for absolutely no reason other than to push left-wing victim agenda. The headline is really "cities experience more pollution than suburban and rural areas," which is common sense, and the racial component is purely coincidental beyond that.
---

The Admiral posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

I really wonder if you think this is what the article is saying

The article mentions race for absolutely no reason other than to push left-wing victim agenda. The headline is really "cities experience more pollution than suburban and rural areas," which is common sense, and the racial component is purely coincidental beyond that.

so we shouldn't look into anything else
like
why minorities tend to live in inner city areas, etc
lmao
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

I really wonder if you think this is what the article is saying

It really kinda is.

'The new study refutes an argument that pollution impact disparities are driven primarily by economics that factories are located in low-income communities because land there is less expensive, Pastor of USC said.'
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

I really wonder if you think this is what the article is saying

The article mentions race for absolutely no reason other than to push left-wing victim agenda. The headline is really "cities experience more pollution than suburban and rural areas," which is common sense, and the racial component is purely coincidental beyond that.

so we shouldn't look into anything else
like
why minorities tend to live in inner city areas, etc
lmao

what does this have to do with anything?
---

averagejoel posted...

someone will post in this topic saying "you heard it here first, folks: pollution is racist!" in 3, 2, 1...

The Admiral posted...

Even pollution is racist now. Just when I thought libs had blamed everything.

*Italian chef kissing fingers*
---

Antifar posted...

https://www.buzzfeed

Yup.
---

Romulox28 posted...

what does this have to do with anything?

I mean I guess if you're not constantly wondering what could be done to improve the lives of everyone and to get rid of any disparities that developed along arbitrary lines like race

I guess it doesn't have to do with anything
---

darkjedilink posted...

'The new study refutes an argument that pollution impact disparities are driven primarily by economics that factories are located in low-income communities because land there is less expensive, Pastor of USC said.'

It's actually the other way around:
Low-income communities are located next to the factory, because land there is less expensive.

Past studies have shown that non-white people face higher pollution than white people even within urban areas, and even when controlling for income:
https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/04/people-color-are-disproportionately-killed-air-pollution/8881/

Income also plays a role in pollution exposure, but not as much as you might think. "Both race and income matter, but race matters more than income," says Julian Marshall, a professor of environmental engineering at the University of Minnesota. "And that's a really important point, because when you start talking about differences by race people say, 'Oh, that's just income.'"

The discrepancy is so great that even high-earning non-whites are sucking in relatively larger quantities of pollution. For a clear illustration of that, take a look at this graph showing (at top left) pollution/income differences for large urban areas. Notice how low-income whites are exposed to less pollution than even the highest-income blacks, Asians, and Hispanics:

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/isee/o-3-42-04/

For example, within individual urban areas, NO2 concentrations are, on average, ~8% higher for nonwhites than whites (after controlling for income) and ~5% higher for low-income than for high-income groups (after controlling for race).

---

Asherlee10 posted...

So, I don't understand. What is the root if it isn't location and income based?

could it possibly be that
when comes time for policy to decide which and what locations get heavier pollution regulation stuff
they care less
about places
populated by
minorities
---

like, everybody in this topic understanding this as the problem and not the SYMPTOM of bigger issues is mistaken
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

So, I don't understand. What is the root if it isn't location and income based?

could it possibly be that
when comes time for policy to decide which and what locations get heavier pollution regulation stuff
they care less
about places
populated by
minorities

Show me ONE policy like this.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Show me ONE policy like this.

this is pretty comical, to the point that i don't believe it's real, that they're really trying to pass this
but this
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lawmakers-seek-baggy-pants-ban-article-1.3833307

is pretty recent
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lawmakers-seek-baggy-pants-ban-article-1.3833307

The hell does that have to do with pollution?

in PA this happened apparently:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/public-school-funding-and-the-role-of-race/408085/

(the policy part being that funding was continually diverted toward non-black-heavy schools)
---

Finally, do I even need to mention gerrymandering as one of THE most racist functions of government
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lawmakers-seek-baggy-pants-ban-article-1.3833307

The hell does that have to do with pollution?

oh i thought he was just asking in general
the hell if i'm gonna look up some random municipal code lmfao
---

alternatively, it could just be that poorer people tend to be in places with more pollution because it's also cheaper

i'm not saying that's not out of the question
i'm just suggesting a possibility otherwise
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

alternatively, it could just be that poorer people tend to be in places with more pollution because it's also cheaper

The study in the OP:

The new study refutes an argument that pollution impact disparities are driven primarily by economics that factories are located in low-income communities because land there is less expensive, Pastor of USC said.

When the researchers compared exposures faced by people above and below the poverty line, that difference was less than the gap between black and white people.

The study from post #24

Income also plays a role in pollution exposure, but not as much as you might think. "Both race and income matter, but race matters more than income," says Julian Marshall, a professor of environmental engineering at the University of Minnesota. "And that's a really important point, because when you start talking about differences by race people say, 'Oh, that's just income.'"

The discrepancy is so great that even high-earning non-whites are sucking in relatively larger quantities of pollution. For a clear illustration of that, take a look at this graph showing (at top left) pollution/income differences for large urban areas. Notice how low-income whites are exposed to less pollution than even the highest-income blacks, Asians, and Hispanics:

---

Antifar posted...

The discrepancy is so great that even high-earning non-whites are sucking in relatively larger quantities of pollution. For a clear illustration of that, take a look at this graph showing (at top left) pollution/income differences for large urban areas. Notice how low-income whites are exposed to less pollution than even the highest-income blacks, Asians, and Hispanics:

but i still don't want to throw out the alternate explanation as at least being another contributing factor
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I am having the hardest time understanding YOUHAVENOHOPE...

im saying their local governments are racist and don't give a shit if factories pollute worse in their neighborhoods
---

Persons of Colors?
---

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Show me ONE policy like this.

this is pretty comical, to the point that i don't believe it's real, that they're really trying to pass this
but this
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lawmakers-seek-baggy-pants-ban-article-1.3833307

is pretty recent

Literally nothing to do with your claim, that environmental policy is written to be less strict in minority neighborhoods.
---