The section of this article that discussed how areas became more white and gentrified after cleanup made me think of my home city DC. DC has gone through much gentrification in its recent years, so this article made me curious if it could potentially be related to increases in environmental health/reduction in pollution. While I could not find many articles about the specific area in DC called Shaw I had in mind that has been particularly gentrified, I do notice that Shaw now has more greenery in parks and also in trees lining the street. Whether this is a cause or effect of gentrification is unclear, but either way it leaves the wealthier white people - who may have taken living spaces away from those lower income or minorities – with better air quality. I also thought the point in the article that suggested through research that mothers may not know about the impacts of traffic congestion on air pollution to be particularly interesting. I did not know this either, and in DC, areas that have much traffic congestion such as Georgetown where cars are constantly stopping at lights or waiting in traffic, actually have very white and affluent neighborhoods surrounding them, following the article’s suggestion of this lack of awareness and mother mobility surrounding traffic congestion. Overall, I thought this article provided interesting insight on what may cause mother mobility and revealed how some might have more opportunities or education to move away from harmful pollutants than others.
For this Thursday, I found the "Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities" article to be very interesting. While reading, it is hard to not be upset. It makes me upset to read the articles we've been discussing for the past two weeks because of how ignored these issues are.
In my poverty capstone course, we are discussing human rights, and the right for countries like the United States to intervene when other countries commit human rights violations. To me, it seems absurd that the United States sits on information that could save people's lives, yet we believe we are to be the judge of other countries and their practices. Obviously, it is necessary to intervene in some capacity when human rights are seriously violated; however, I think the United States needs to do a serious evaluation of our own practices and how we can rectify the damage done to marginalized communities.
Also, this paper is really important to understand the true effects of redlining. It not only impacts the financial success of neighborhoods, but from this research we learn that living in what was considered a low-grade neighborhood can have serious health effects for those that live there. In the paper, it states that D-grade neighborhoods are more likely to be near industrial sources and that the average number of sources nearby increases from A to D. This makes me think that pollution-related issues are ignored on a national level because politicians don't live in the neighborhood where these problems are the worst.
I have heard people talk about environmental racism in the past, but I never really understood its meaning. The definition on google says it is “a form of institutional racism leading to landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste disposal being disproportionately placed in communities of color.” I’m assuming the article on the disparities associated with air pollution falls into that category. It was interesting to see how a discriminatory policy from roughly 90 years ago is still negatively affecting certain groups. The consequences they face are relatively new compared to previous issues, but it shouldn’t be a problem after national efforts to improve air quality in Urban Areas. My interest in this article aligns with how certain groups are being affected by the new technology we have started to implement. The article mentions that redlining has also been associated with many other exposures like greenspace prevalence, tree canopy, urban-heat exposure disparities, and health effects, including asthma, cancer, adverse birth outcomes. We know that people of color experience higher-than-average NO2 and PM2.5 levels and are overrepresented within C and D neighborhoods because of the location of emissions infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, industrial facilities, ports, and other major sources of pollution. This specific type of study is relatively new and it makes me think about the other types of negative effects people are beginning to experience from new sources of energy generation like solar or wind farms and nuclear plants. This probably doesn't directly align with redlining but it was an idea I began to consider while reading the study and it made me think about what will come next.
In past classes, we have looked at air quality as a public good, but I thought these readings explained how regional policies can differ in the abundance of air pollution in an area. Redlining is a destructive policy that has subjugated minority groups to poor air quality for decades. I think it’s interesting that even though Redlining was outlawed in 1968, the effects of this policy are still felt today. Another reason for these sustained detrimental impacts is the asymmetric information on pollution dangers within minority communities. Currie’s paper explains that one reason for the unequal distribution of air pollution is that minority groups do not know about the danger they live in. I think this is connected to the quality of education the region has access to, which is dependent on the funding of the federal government. It seems as though these systematic factors have coupled to form a perfect storm, exposing minority groups to an unequal level of the harms of pollution.
It was great to see so many scientific studies surrounding this topic. Environmental issues are far beyond surface-level issues as they expand into social interaction and the global economy. It’s essential to use these different scientific materials when examining economic problems because of these complex interactions and unseen effects of implemented policy.
I found both of the readings for today to be fascinating. The Pollution and Infant Health article was very similar other articles we have read; however, this one took into consideration smaller amounts of pollution and exposure. While we still have a ways to go when it comes to pollution, it is much better than it was in the past. One thing that I found interesting was that they controlled for mother mobility. This is something that I would not have considered as a confounding factor, but it very much could be. My only question is, if the mother moved because of environmental factors that she knew about, wasn't she still exposed to pollution before? Would this mother and child not only increase the percentage of deaths in one place, but also in the place they moved to? How they controlled for mobility confused me a little. Also, only a few people will have the means to move from these places since they are more often than not put in more disadvantaged areas.
The redlining article was something very new. Until now, I wasn't aware that historical redlining had such great environmental justice implications. I can't help but wonder how these two papers are connected. Obviously infant health would decrease based on everything we have read, but what I am more interested in is the mobility part. Would that have to be controlled for here as well? How would mobility affect exposure to these harmful particles? While they weren't trying to find a connection between pollution and specific health outcomes, it would be interesting to see the disparity in health outcomes for these areas as well.
As with many of the papers we discuss in this class, the study on Historical Redlining and Air Pollution is performed by observing and categorizing data rather than creating an experiment. Every time, I find it fascinating how the authors attempt to control for differences in groups. In this particular study, I thought the use of PWM (population-weighted mean) to collect air pollution data was ingenious. When I looked at the supporting information, I found that this measure controls for one of the biggest impactors on pollution, population density, alongside city-to-city differences in housing grades and racial distributions. I also found the color chart (Figure 2 in the supplemental information) showing the housing and pollution distributions in Atlanta very helpful and I'm curious as to why it did not make the final paper.
The results showed there was a greater disparity observed in NO2 pollution than PM 2.5 pollution among both house grade distributions and racial lines. I know that NO2 is primarily polluted through car and factory emissions, so it makes sense that past redlining trends have contributed to the types of people who are more exposed to these pollutions. From what I could find online, PM 2.5 has many of the same sources as NO2, so what accounts for the differences observed in these two pollutants? Do other pollutants also have similar stratification? What pollutants have the greatest impact?
Most significantly, the study discussed that racial differences within a housing grade accounted for the larger part of the disparities. Particularly for Asians, I found it very interesting that Asians living in grade A had the least exposure to NO2. On the other hand, Asians living in grade D had the most exposure to NO2 pollution. While the other groups tended to follow trends (whites were typically among the least exposed to pollution and Hispanics were among the most exposed), Asians defied this trend. What is the explanation for this? Could it do with the relative times of immigration?
The paper on historical Redlining was particularly upsetting to read, especially when policy solutions are considered in a Coasian manner. From the article, it was clear that redlining was strongly associated with higher levels of nitrogen oxide pollution today, with a weaker—but still present—correlation as it relates to race and ethnicity. The first question, "Can those suffering from the externality avoid it?" is clearly answered by the paper and the results are saddening. It appears that white college educated mothers are more likely/able to move away from a pollution source, another trend associated with historical redlining. This leaves minority mothers trapped in polluted communities, unable to move to protect the health of their infant. Combined with the Currie piece, it becomes clear that this air pollution will also inhibit the cognitive abilities of this child from an early age and likely repeat the cycle. Though it seems that this cycle is endless, some migration mentioned by the article shows it is possible for historically discriminated-against communities to move away from a pollution source, this seemed to do little more than weaken the correlation between redlining and a specifically race based health outcome today.
Even if we ignore race entirely, the fact that people living in historically redlined communities are at a statistically significantly higher risk of exposure today demonstrates that policy implementation is quite difficult. Because the damage has been so continuous and extensive, it is likely that irreparable damage has been done to some of these communities. Therefore, a standard incentive policy may be too slow to have any immediate health benefits. Still though, it is likely worth trying something, as we have seen that taxes on pollutants can actually help the economy grow and provide additional income to the impoverished.
As we have discussed in previous classes, high levels of pollutants (PM2.5 and NO2) in the environment are correlated to the rising negative effects on fetal and children’s health levels. However, certain groups of children are bearing higher levels of pollution since most of the pollutant sources are located close to marginalized communities — people of color, and immigrants. I think this is a key factor in understanding environmental justice in terms of policy-making, it shows the underlying sociological, economic, and policy drivers of those decisions.
I particularly found that fascinating, it illustrates how racial/ethnical and gender stratification in society has larger implications. This is correlated to housing discrimination for those groups since 64% of the population who lived in households located in hazardous places are people of color. I also think this a double-ended issue, because while marginalized communities are more likely to be exposed to high levels of pollution, they are also less likely to receive proper access to health care. This keeps people who belong in those communities in a vicious cycle of marginalization that deteriorates their health and presents an economic burden since they will have to spend a higher part of their income and time on healthcare access.
The problem also shows how racial/ethnic disparities that constrain social mobility are correlated to exposure to pollutants that deteriorate one’s health level, which leads me to think that probably environmental justice policy must look at the wider perspective before implementing economic incentives. This also leads me to think what would be the most efficient way to do it? Reallocating tax revenues, investing in increasing employment, creating clean energy sources to reduce emissions? What kind of policy would improve the conditions they live in but also reduce the inequities?
I found the Historical Redlining article particularly fascinating. It was eye-opening to see that the historical practice of redlining minorities into inner-city urban communities still has lasting detrimental effects on these populations to this day. The constant emissions from urban areas along with the above-average heat and typical lack of sanitary waste disposal create health implications for the minority populations in these areas. It is very interesting how a racially charged socio-economic policy in tandem with environmental and emissions issues in these areas can cause such long-lasting health issues for those living in urban areas. There is no clear fix for this issue but to start an increase in help from local, state, and federal governments through anti-emission and environmental policies would be a good place to start in combatting these pollution-related health issues. Along with that an increase in education on environmental issues in urban schools so that residents are more aware of the pollutants in their cities and ways to create a cleaner healthier place for everyone.
In the paper “Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities,” Lane and his colleagues investigate disparities in exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 by race and its connection with historic redlining. They find notable discrepancies in exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 between the grades of historically redlined regions. Areas that had the best investment risk grades of A (predominately white areas) to this day have lower NO2 and PM2.5 exposure rates than their surrounding areas. In contrast, places with a worse risk grade of D (predominately black areas) tend to have high pollution rates. This finding indicates that policies the U.S. implemented over 50 years ago continue to have detrimental effects today. This exemplifies the importance of getting public policy right in the first place and how terrible mistakes can persist despite correction.
Lane and his colleagues continue investigating the issue and discover that most of the disparities we see today between ethnicities and their average exposure to these particles cannot be explained by redlining. When looking within historically graded regions, considerable discrepancies exist, with whites consistently being exposed to less NO2 and PM2.5 than people of color. This indicates that there are other factors at play. Is there perhaps a current policy that continues to exacerbate these discrepancies today? Or is this discrepancy also partially explained by redlining and how it allowed white families to obtain generational wealth with property that they can now use to live in less polluted regions? These are interesting questions, but I find it particularly intriguing that asians, who are generally wealthier than whites, also saw considerably more NO2 exposure than whites. This is important as it indicates that this discrepancy in average exposure is not necessarily tied to wealth. As the article stated, numerous factors are undoubtedly in play, with redlining and wealth likely being among many.
In Janet Currie’s review, I was really interested to learn about the study conducted in Sweden. Researchers found that reducing lead levels in gasoline by just 5 µg per deciliter increased high school graduation rates by 2.3% and increased earnings among young adults by 5.5%, with the same exposures leading to larger effects in children of lower socioeconomic status. At the time of the study the peak blood levels of lead were already below the current threshold for US children, suggesting that lead is harmful in the long term at levels even below the current US threshold. Not only is pollution exposure early in life related to increased health issues, but it is also related to reduced graduation rates and success later in life. Knowing this information in the context of historically redlined districts being exposed to more pollution shows an even greater environmental justice issue. This issue reminded me of an example of environmental injustice in my hometown, Charleston, SC. From the late 1800s to early 1900s, Charleston and the South Carolina Lowcountry was a large mining and production site for super-phosphate fertilizer, and the sites left behind from the processing plants contaminated the soil and groundwater with lead and arsenic. These plants were all across the Lowcountry but were concentrated around the northern part of the Charleston peninsula where many historically black communities are located, most notably a neighborhood called Rosemont. There is a history of environmental injustice in the area around Rosemont including a phosphate trichloride spill, byproducts of creosote processing, and the construction of Interstate-26 in 1960 that split the neighborhood in half. According to data from 2008-2012, the number of new cancer cases and cancer deaths were 12% and 16% higher, respectively, than expected, and deaths from lung cancer exceeded the expected level by 44%. The neighborhood is so close to the interstate and therefore is exposed to more air toxins from automobiles than other communities. In addition, many residents in Rosemont have been there for generations, so they are less likely to move away from increasing sources of pollution. So many aspects of the issues in North Charleston are reminiscent of the findings in the Currie and Lane et. al. papers.
I found the article on the association between HOLC redlining in the 1930s and modern day pollution to be an interesting idea. The initial thought to even consider the causality must have been very brave due the vast effects that redlining had on minority populations. For example redlining prevented the growth of wealth of minority, which impacts a whole array of things such as access to good food, clean water, and good health care. The effects of lack of access to any of these may affect a population in a way similar to pollution, so it is vary hard to control for items such as this in an inspection of the impact of pollution. I was shocked to see the impact of redlining to be as great as >50% increments in NO2 levels between grade A and grade D neighborhoods.
I also found the particular focus on the impact of low level pollution to be thought provoking in the second article. Many people associate air pollution with dense smog that you can see in the air, but this paper pointed out how little pollution is necessary to affect the preborn and infants due to their small size. Studies such as this are essential for education on air pollution.
The redlining article was very thorough in explaining how maps made by HOLC, which practiced the discriminatory practice of redlining, systematically determined the amount of pollution neighborhoods would face. This further validifies the argument that our life outcomes are determined by where we live, but also the color of our skin. I think the lasting issue of redlining can also be seen in the general system of credit scores and lending where it seems to almost be built to disadvantage anyone not ready by an early age. Going back to what the article says, what are the other forms of racial discriminatory practices that created inequal environmental exposures for POC? How much of our systems are built on discriminatory practices and how will we get rid of them or amend them to be more equitable? The issue of D grade neighborhoods being exposed to many more environmental pollutants is complicated as well. Although we can try to lower the quantity of overall pollutants, the Pollution and Infant Health article brings up the point that low levels of pollution is still detrimental to the health of children (and everyone else too). I also found it interesting that every race experienced different amounts of pollution compared to their neighborhood grade average. For instance, black people experienced more PM2.5 on average, Asian people experienced higher NO2 levels, while Hispanic people experienced higher than average on both. I would like to see how exactly these could be explained by other discriminatory practices in future studies. I think maternal mobility should also be studied more and addressed more through general social policies as it matters who can afford to move away and who can’t. For the Pollution and Infant Health article, I found it interesting that the gap between low birthweight incidence between uneducated black and college educated white decreased although the gap is still significant. This makes me wonder if general improvements to the environment or reduction in overall pollution already contributes partially to decreasing inequality in environmental pollutant exposure.
I found the article by Janet Currie to be particularly fascinating because it continues to go hand in hand with the research and studies that we have read in this class. It is interesting to me that everything we read proves that pollution has negative effects on infants and infants in the fetus. Now, I understand Professor Casey has chose these because they show there are negative effects. However, I believe that is beside the point. It is amazing to me our country and other countries around the world find infants and children to be the most precious things on Earth. We constantly adore them and try to protect them at all costs, but we can't seem to agree on a way to stop pollution from hurting them, even though studies prove that it has. One would think that our elected officials, who make up the government we serve, could come together and make changes. The fact that infants and children are dying at a faster rate because of politicians who are supposed to serve us can't agree on anything simply because they wear a red or blue jersey. It seems simple. We put aside our political differences and work towards a common goal of saving children. It really shouldn't be that challenging.
I thought both articles did a good job at examining their respective areas, and they did go hand in hand when discussing how air pollution impacts poor and minority communities more. I especially found the fact that not all people can "vote" with their feet very profound, because they simply cannot escape their predicament because they don't have the means, which in turn leads to their children's health being negatively affected. Something I would've liked to see examined in Currie's paper is the birthweight of babies born to white dropout mothers compared to black dropout mothers. Of course there is a correlation already between education, race and the averse effects of pollution on babies, but I think it would be interesting to see what the comparison would be like if both groups were not educated at the college level. I feel perhaps that college educated mothers, no matter the race, will tend to have better at home lives, meaning better health overall, not including pollution as a factor. I think if this comparison could be done, the pollution affection disparity will be much clearer. Of course I am going off presumption rather than statistics or data, but I do think there is some truth to it.
I found Lane et. al's paper on the association of air pollution disparities and redlining highly interesting, especially considering how many people think the effects of redlining and other systematically racist systems do not affect our lives today. This paper was just one example of how that is not true, and how environmental injustice, especially from the stand point of race, is incredibly prominent and intertwined with our complicated history. I thought the data in figure 2 was really intriguing, and the fact that the pattern of higher effects in hispanic and black groups was higher than than Total and White for both PM and NO2 really hammered in the fact that this is an issue of race and redlining. I did wonder why Asian groups seemed to be more affected by NO2 than PM as visible in figure 2? Something this paper made me wonder in terms of ways it could be expanded was I wonder if it would be worthwhile for someone to explore how gentrification has affected air pollution disparities in the United States? Does the movement/creation of more affluent areas in poorer, urban areas (affordable housing) change environmental outcomes and how could this compare/compliment to the redlining data?
Both Lane’s “Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities,” and Currie’s “Pollution and Infant Health” suggest that pollution disproportionately impacts people of various minority groups. While Lane explores this effect through historical redlining, and its modern effect on minority communities, Currie demonstrates maternal inequality across minority mothers and children.
Lane’s piece conveys how communities of color in the US are systematically exposed to higher levels of air pollution. Prior to reading Lane’s piece, I had never heard of redlining. Now, I understand it to be a discriminatory mortgage appraisal practice from the 1930s, where members of low-graded communities were refused loans. By focusing on two key air pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5, Lane elucidates a strong modern association between redlining and present-day environmental health disparities in the U.S. Since this paper suggests that historical redlining is only one of many racially discriminatory policies that have contributed to disparate environmental exposures for people of color, I am left wondering what these other policies might be and what their environmental consequences were.
Currie’s “Pollution and Infant Health” builds on this conversation by specifically delving into harmful environmental exposures of pregnant mothers and the subsequent consequences for their children. I found it interesting that minority mothers are more likely to be exposed to hazardous waste sites listed in the Superfund program and industrial plants listed in the TRI due to differences in maternal mobility. Currie proves the importance of the concept of mobility, concluding that failing to control for mobility can cause estimates of effects that are too high or too low. Further, reasons for mothers not leaving harmful areas include their lessened ability to move, lack of awareness of existing problems, and their reasonable concern about other, non-related, issues. Lack of mobility amongst minority mothers contributes to the same level of pollution having disproportionate effects on various groups.
I think a common point made in discussion is that communities of color and of low socioeconomic status are the ones living in areas of higher pollution. I limited myself to this statement rather than elaborating why it is that communities of color are exposed to higher levels of air pollution. As soon as I read the title “Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities,” it clicked. For one, it is engrossing how the result of a discriminatory mortgage practice from the 1930s has such an impact on communities now. Today, in another one of my classes, a peer of mine reminded the class of the impact of redlining and how it is not limited to housing. This negative impact extends to education as certain neighborhoods must attend their respective schools with an underlying intention. This article further extends the impact of redlining, but more-so, historical. The effect of redlining is isolated by holding constant the city-to-city differences in air pollution. This then allows for the sole observation of urban disparities, which I am slightly struggling to understand as to how this means the effect is isolated.
They came to the conclusion that historic redlining does in fact set up the communities of color to experience higher concentrations of air pollution. One question I do have is that now that this is proven to be a result of the U.S’ historic behavior, what can be done to better these communities now that this impact is so engrained throughout time. I cannot recall which article exactly said this, but to do nothing may result just as costly as investing into the cost of changing for the better. This author in particular also argued how it is even immoral to not do anything considering the overwhelming evidence. This is yet another example of this.
In her 2019 article covering the effects of pollution on infants, Janet Currie looks at a few different metrics as to how pollution from toxic chemicals in certain areas affect mothers and their newborn children, including low birthweight, conditions such as autism or asthma, and even infant mortality (sort of similar to our other recent readings). At one point, Currie looks at Carbon Monoxide levels from cars and how they affect mothers and their babies, citing research that showed mothers near tolls having less problems with birth and their babies than mothers outside those areas. While this makes good sense and seems a viable solution in this case, the bigger problem is that if this were to be implemented everywhere, there needs to be a viable alternative. Our infrastructure is so centered around cars that while in this case, drivers can just take another road, sparing those mothers from their pollution, if every road was tolled like that to protect all mothers and babies, drivers would simply have no good choices without any good alternatives (either driving a different route or using another means of transportation). With viable alternatives, however, (better public transportation, more walkable/bikable cities, this idea would have a desirable effect with minimal negative outcomes.
Currie critically reviews current literature on the relationship between infant health and nearby pollution levels to conclude there is a positive correlation between the two. There are more studies on infants done to review because has to be collected about this demographic and outcomes are seen sooner, making it a faster longitudinal study, and therefore less expensive longitudinal study. Many of the studies utilize similar techniques like ‘twin’ studies or using the difference-in-difference approach. Both of these seem difficult to employ as it may be hard to find sibling pairs in which one was not affected by pollution yet the other was. As most of these studies focused on direct health effects, it made me question why I have not heard, or read as much pushback from the scientific/healthcare community. Supporting policies to control particulate matter and other emissions would directly affect communities and patients they serve, as one’s environment is a large social determinant of health.
Pollution, a problem that has been thought to be an indiscriminate force in those it affects, however, through the incentives and older public policy relating to where factories and roads get built and who can buy houses, have been sometimes unintentionally and intentionally weaponized pollution against minorities. You shouldn't have to have worse health because of the neighborhood you were born in. It's interesting that often we put these things in the neighborhoods of those who have supposedly the least amount to lose. However, this logic is just wrong because people are more than just the income they make; instead, they are individuals who have families and communities. I also found it fascinating that we talk about the compounds of NO2 pollution; however, there are over sometimes 80,000 different compounds being emitted by factories, and the vast majority of those are unregulated, even though these could be extremely damaging to individuals. I also thought it was interesting how if you have a history of smoking, oftentimes pollution exposure can affect you even more than it does a normal individual.
I guess one of my main questions is why companies aren’t really held liable for their pollution. Is this just because it is too difficult to prove they were the cause of your cancer or something like that? I also was interested in since a lot of these cities have expanded, have we seen the same pattern of factories or large highways being in these new neighborhoods? I think the redlining incident just shows how much history does matter and trying to say that was so long ago is an ineffective and dangerous rhetoric since the long-term effects of these policies can be lasting!
I found the first article about redlining and air pollution to be particularly interesting because of the intersection between the issues we discuss in class and politics / history. I was not surprised about the findings of the study, as I can easily imagine that urban populations bear the brunt of negative externalities related to pollution. The history of redlining and denying certain financial / housing benefits to US citizens, particularly communities of color, highlight how environment AND social justice are symptoms of the same political issues often times. I believe that the call to action of this particular article was that public health must be addressed much more holistically than many people imagine, and must have implications when it comes to urban planning and inequality. This idea also relates to themes that we have reviewed in previous weeks, such as neighborhoods of low socioeconomic status being more strongly impacted by negative effects associated with warming and heat illness. With these issues often implicated with those who live in urban settings, in my opinion it would be reasonable to conclude that community engagement and equality must be a top focus when it comes to the cities in the United States due to looming environmental hazards.
I had not realized the extent to which redlining could cause such impactful changes to the quality of health that neglected communities experience. For example, while I understood that African Americans were segregated through districting, I had not considered the extent to which they experience greater health problems due to the poor surrounding environment that they would be subject to. Not only do factories reduce the quality of health that people in these communities have, but the issues related to increased emissions can drive down wealth as people in the community must spend more time and money on health issues.
Additionally, the prevalence of problems that policies instituted decades ago created is shocking. The fact that laws still have drastic effects on people positioned in D neighborhoods shows the reluctance of politicians to address real issues in our society. When talking about redistricting and zoning policies, I feel that there should be much more importance put on how these are determined because society operates around how areas are laid out. Providing more resources to issues like the ones outlined here, rather than pouring money into potentially useless efforts, could do more for welfare and equality than many prominent welfare programs.
The Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution
Disparities in U.S. Cities paper interested me because of the overlap it has with my society and natural resources class. As Kiki mentioned on Tuesday, we discussed the Flint water crisis and environmental justice with Professor Betancourt more in a social context as a case study for EJ. In ENV 202 we also discussed redlining and other historical practices used to segregate communities of color. Articles such as these are essential because they supply evidence of incredibly relevant societal problems that require addressing. It ties into my SOAN class, race and ethnic relations as well. Redlining and other such practices are examples of systemic racism, and Lane et al.'s paper is one of many to contribute to a growing body of evidence of the existence of systemic racism in the United States. Many, including politicians, will vehemently deny the existence of the concept, but this paper and so many others are great arguments for this destructive form of racism. It also reminded me of cancer alley in Lousiana along parts of the Mississippi River. It is another prime example of lower income communities and communities of color being subjected to incredible levels of pollution due to large scale industrial operations. The paper noted this important finding in their example as well where they "find that, within HOLC-mapped areas, D-grade neighborhoods are more likely to be near industrial sources and that the average number of sources nearby increases from A to D." In both situations, these industrial/petrochemical corporations must be held accountable because of the apparent effects they've had on marginalized communities. Whether it be a form of monetary or land-related reparations, something needs to be done.
The section of this article that discussed how areas became more white and gentrified after cleanup made me think of my home city DC. DC has gone through much gentrification in its recent years, so this article made me curious if it could potentially be related to increases in environmental health/reduction in pollution. While I could not find many articles about the specific area in DC called Shaw I had in mind that has been particularly gentrified, I do notice that Shaw now has more greenery in parks and also in trees lining the street. Whether this is a cause or effect of gentrification is unclear, but either way it leaves the wealthier white people - who may have taken living spaces away from those lower income or minorities – with better air quality. I also thought the point in the article that suggested through research that mothers may not know about the impacts of traffic congestion on air pollution to be particularly interesting. I did not know this either, and in DC, areas that have much traffic congestion such as Georgetown where cars are constantly stopping at lights or waiting in traffic, actually have very white and affluent neighborhoods surrounding them, following the article’s suggestion of this lack of awareness and mother mobility surrounding traffic congestion. Overall, I thought this article provided interesting insight on what may cause mother mobility and revealed how some might have more opportunities or education to move away from harmful pollutants than others.
Posted by: CampbellMusslewhite | 04/02/2024 at 03:54 PM
*In the Pollutant and Infant Health article*
Posted by: CampbellMusslewhite | 04/02/2024 at 03:57 PM
For this Thursday, I found the "Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities" article to be very interesting. While reading, it is hard to not be upset. It makes me upset to read the articles we've been discussing for the past two weeks because of how ignored these issues are.
In my poverty capstone course, we are discussing human rights, and the right for countries like the United States to intervene when other countries commit human rights violations. To me, it seems absurd that the United States sits on information that could save people's lives, yet we believe we are to be the judge of other countries and their practices. Obviously, it is necessary to intervene in some capacity when human rights are seriously violated; however, I think the United States needs to do a serious evaluation of our own practices and how we can rectify the damage done to marginalized communities.
Also, this paper is really important to understand the true effects of redlining. It not only impacts the financial success of neighborhoods, but from this research we learn that living in what was considered a low-grade neighborhood can have serious health effects for those that live there. In the paper, it states that D-grade neighborhoods are more likely to be near industrial sources and that the average number of sources nearby increases from A to D. This makes me think that pollution-related issues are ignored on a national level because politicians don't live in the neighborhood where these problems are the worst.
Posted by: Jana | 04/02/2024 at 04:17 PM
I have heard people talk about environmental racism in the past, but I never really understood its meaning. The definition on google says it is “a form of institutional racism leading to landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste disposal being disproportionately placed in communities of color.” I’m assuming the article on the disparities associated with air pollution falls into that category. It was interesting to see how a discriminatory policy from roughly 90 years ago is still negatively affecting certain groups. The consequences they face are relatively new compared to previous issues, but it shouldn’t be a problem after national efforts to improve air quality in Urban Areas. My interest in this article aligns with how certain groups are being affected by the new technology we have started to implement. The article mentions that redlining has also been associated with many other exposures like greenspace prevalence, tree canopy, urban-heat exposure disparities, and health effects, including asthma, cancer, adverse birth outcomes. We know that people of color experience higher-than-average NO2 and PM2.5 levels and are overrepresented within C and D neighborhoods because of the location of emissions infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, industrial facilities, ports, and other major sources of pollution. This specific type of study is relatively new and it makes me think about the other types of negative effects people are beginning to experience from new sources of energy generation like solar or wind farms and nuclear plants. This probably doesn't directly align with redlining but it was an idea I began to consider while reading the study and it made me think about what will come next.
Posted by: Tate Harrison | 04/02/2024 at 09:15 PM
In past classes, we have looked at air quality as a public good, but I thought these readings explained how regional policies can differ in the abundance of air pollution in an area. Redlining is a destructive policy that has subjugated minority groups to poor air quality for decades. I think it’s interesting that even though Redlining was outlawed in 1968, the effects of this policy are still felt today. Another reason for these sustained detrimental impacts is the asymmetric information on pollution dangers within minority communities. Currie’s paper explains that one reason for the unequal distribution of air pollution is that minority groups do not know about the danger they live in. I think this is connected to the quality of education the region has access to, which is dependent on the funding of the federal government. It seems as though these systematic factors have coupled to form a perfect storm, exposing minority groups to an unequal level of the harms of pollution.
It was great to see so many scientific studies surrounding this topic. Environmental issues are far beyond surface-level issues as they expand into social interaction and the global economy. It’s essential to use these different scientific materials when examining economic problems because of these complex interactions and unseen effects of implemented policy.
Posted by: William Knight | 04/02/2024 at 11:24 PM
I found both of the readings for today to be fascinating. The Pollution and Infant Health article was very similar other articles we have read; however, this one took into consideration smaller amounts of pollution and exposure. While we still have a ways to go when it comes to pollution, it is much better than it was in the past. One thing that I found interesting was that they controlled for mother mobility. This is something that I would not have considered as a confounding factor, but it very much could be. My only question is, if the mother moved because of environmental factors that she knew about, wasn't she still exposed to pollution before? Would this mother and child not only increase the percentage of deaths in one place, but also in the place they moved to? How they controlled for mobility confused me a little. Also, only a few people will have the means to move from these places since they are more often than not put in more disadvantaged areas.
The redlining article was something very new. Until now, I wasn't aware that historical redlining had such great environmental justice implications. I can't help but wonder how these two papers are connected. Obviously infant health would decrease based on everything we have read, but what I am more interested in is the mobility part. Would that have to be controlled for here as well? How would mobility affect exposure to these harmful particles? While they weren't trying to find a connection between pollution and specific health outcomes, it would be interesting to see the disparity in health outcomes for these areas as well.
Posted by: NoltonHannah | 04/03/2024 at 09:10 AM
As with many of the papers we discuss in this class, the study on Historical Redlining and Air Pollution is performed by observing and categorizing data rather than creating an experiment. Every time, I find it fascinating how the authors attempt to control for differences in groups. In this particular study, I thought the use of PWM (population-weighted mean) to collect air pollution data was ingenious. When I looked at the supporting information, I found that this measure controls for one of the biggest impactors on pollution, population density, alongside city-to-city differences in housing grades and racial distributions. I also found the color chart (Figure 2 in the supplemental information) showing the housing and pollution distributions in Atlanta very helpful and I'm curious as to why it did not make the final paper.
The results showed there was a greater disparity observed in NO2 pollution than PM 2.5 pollution among both house grade distributions and racial lines. I know that NO2 is primarily polluted through car and factory emissions, so it makes sense that past redlining trends have contributed to the types of people who are more exposed to these pollutions. From what I could find online, PM 2.5 has many of the same sources as NO2, so what accounts for the differences observed in these two pollutants? Do other pollutants also have similar stratification? What pollutants have the greatest impact?
Most significantly, the study discussed that racial differences within a housing grade accounted for the larger part of the disparities. Particularly for Asians, I found it very interesting that Asians living in grade A had the least exposure to NO2. On the other hand, Asians living in grade D had the most exposure to NO2 pollution. While the other groups tended to follow trends (whites were typically among the least exposed to pollution and Hispanics were among the most exposed), Asians defied this trend. What is the explanation for this? Could it do with the relative times of immigration?
Posted by: Sanjheev Rao | 04/03/2024 at 09:57 AM
The paper on historical Redlining was particularly upsetting to read, especially when policy solutions are considered in a Coasian manner. From the article, it was clear that redlining was strongly associated with higher levels of nitrogen oxide pollution today, with a weaker—but still present—correlation as it relates to race and ethnicity. The first question, "Can those suffering from the externality avoid it?" is clearly answered by the paper and the results are saddening. It appears that white college educated mothers are more likely/able to move away from a pollution source, another trend associated with historical redlining. This leaves minority mothers trapped in polluted communities, unable to move to protect the health of their infant. Combined with the Currie piece, it becomes clear that this air pollution will also inhibit the cognitive abilities of this child from an early age and likely repeat the cycle. Though it seems that this cycle is endless, some migration mentioned by the article shows it is possible for historically discriminated-against communities to move away from a pollution source, this seemed to do little more than weaken the correlation between redlining and a specifically race based health outcome today.
Even if we ignore race entirely, the fact that people living in historically redlined communities are at a statistically significantly higher risk of exposure today demonstrates that policy implementation is quite difficult. Because the damage has been so continuous and extensive, it is likely that irreparable damage has been done to some of these communities. Therefore, a standard incentive policy may be too slow to have any immediate health benefits. Still though, it is likely worth trying something, as we have seen that taxes on pollutants can actually help the economy grow and provide additional income to the impoverished.
Posted by: Sam Mitten | 04/03/2024 at 03:21 PM
As we have discussed in previous classes, high levels of pollutants (PM2.5 and NO2) in the environment are correlated to the rising negative effects on fetal and children’s health levels. However, certain groups of children are bearing higher levels of pollution since most of the pollutant sources are located close to marginalized communities — people of color, and immigrants. I think this is a key factor in understanding environmental justice in terms of policy-making, it shows the underlying sociological, economic, and policy drivers of those decisions.
I particularly found that fascinating, it illustrates how racial/ethnical and gender stratification in society has larger implications. This is correlated to housing discrimination for those groups since 64% of the population who lived in households located in hazardous places are people of color. I also think this a double-ended issue, because while marginalized communities are more likely to be exposed to high levels of pollution, they are also less likely to receive proper access to health care. This keeps people who belong in those communities in a vicious cycle of marginalization that deteriorates their health and presents an economic burden since they will have to spend a higher part of their income and time on healthcare access.
The problem also shows how racial/ethnic disparities that constrain social mobility are correlated to exposure to pollutants that deteriorate one’s health level, which leads me to think that probably environmental justice policy must look at the wider perspective before implementing economic incentives. This also leads me to think what would be the most efficient way to do it? Reallocating tax revenues, investing in increasing employment, creating clean energy sources to reduce emissions? What kind of policy would improve the conditions they live in but also reduce the inequities?
Posted by: Majoperezguirre | 04/03/2024 at 04:01 PM
I found the Historical Redlining article particularly fascinating. It was eye-opening to see that the historical practice of redlining minorities into inner-city urban communities still has lasting detrimental effects on these populations to this day. The constant emissions from urban areas along with the above-average heat and typical lack of sanitary waste disposal create health implications for the minority populations in these areas. It is very interesting how a racially charged socio-economic policy in tandem with environmental and emissions issues in these areas can cause such long-lasting health issues for those living in urban areas. There is no clear fix for this issue but to start an increase in help from local, state, and federal governments through anti-emission and environmental policies would be a good place to start in combatting these pollution-related health issues. Along with that an increase in education on environmental issues in urban schools so that residents are more aware of the pollutants in their cities and ways to create a cleaner healthier place for everyone.
Posted by: Owen Williams | 04/03/2024 at 04:20 PM
In the paper “Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities,” Lane and his colleagues investigate disparities in exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 by race and its connection with historic redlining. They find notable discrepancies in exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 between the grades of historically redlined regions. Areas that had the best investment risk grades of A (predominately white areas) to this day have lower NO2 and PM2.5 exposure rates than their surrounding areas. In contrast, places with a worse risk grade of D (predominately black areas) tend to have high pollution rates. This finding indicates that policies the U.S. implemented over 50 years ago continue to have detrimental effects today. This exemplifies the importance of getting public policy right in the first place and how terrible mistakes can persist despite correction.
Lane and his colleagues continue investigating the issue and discover that most of the disparities we see today between ethnicities and their average exposure to these particles cannot be explained by redlining. When looking within historically graded regions, considerable discrepancies exist, with whites consistently being exposed to less NO2 and PM2.5 than people of color. This indicates that there are other factors at play. Is there perhaps a current policy that continues to exacerbate these discrepancies today? Or is this discrepancy also partially explained by redlining and how it allowed white families to obtain generational wealth with property that they can now use to live in less polluted regions? These are interesting questions, but I find it particularly intriguing that asians, who are generally wealthier than whites, also saw considerably more NO2 exposure than whites. This is important as it indicates that this discrepancy in average exposure is not necessarily tied to wealth. As the article stated, numerous factors are undoubtedly in play, with redlining and wealth likely being among many.
Posted by: Ryan Bascom | 04/03/2024 at 04:32 PM
In Janet Currie’s review, I was really interested to learn about the study conducted in Sweden. Researchers found that reducing lead levels in gasoline by just 5 µg per deciliter increased high school graduation rates by 2.3% and increased earnings among young adults by 5.5%, with the same exposures leading to larger effects in children of lower socioeconomic status. At the time of the study the peak blood levels of lead were already below the current threshold for US children, suggesting that lead is harmful in the long term at levels even below the current US threshold. Not only is pollution exposure early in life related to increased health issues, but it is also related to reduced graduation rates and success later in life. Knowing this information in the context of historically redlined districts being exposed to more pollution shows an even greater environmental justice issue. This issue reminded me of an example of environmental injustice in my hometown, Charleston, SC. From the late 1800s to early 1900s, Charleston and the South Carolina Lowcountry was a large mining and production site for super-phosphate fertilizer, and the sites left behind from the processing plants contaminated the soil and groundwater with lead and arsenic. These plants were all across the Lowcountry but were concentrated around the northern part of the Charleston peninsula where many historically black communities are located, most notably a neighborhood called Rosemont. There is a history of environmental injustice in the area around Rosemont including a phosphate trichloride spill, byproducts of creosote processing, and the construction of Interstate-26 in 1960 that split the neighborhood in half. According to data from 2008-2012, the number of new cancer cases and cancer deaths were 12% and 16% higher, respectively, than expected, and deaths from lung cancer exceeded the expected level by 44%. The neighborhood is so close to the interstate and therefore is exposed to more air toxins from automobiles than other communities. In addition, many residents in Rosemont have been there for generations, so they are less likely to move away from increasing sources of pollution. So many aspects of the issues in North Charleston are reminiscent of the findings in the Currie and Lane et. al. papers.
https://charlestoncitypaper.com/2016/03/09/is-pollution-poisoning-charlestons-african-american-and-low-income-communities/#
Posted by: McCabe | 04/03/2024 at 04:39 PM
I found the article on the association between HOLC redlining in the 1930s and modern day pollution to be an interesting idea. The initial thought to even consider the causality must have been very brave due the vast effects that redlining had on minority populations. For example redlining prevented the growth of wealth of minority, which impacts a whole array of things such as access to good food, clean water, and good health care. The effects of lack of access to any of these may affect a population in a way similar to pollution, so it is vary hard to control for items such as this in an inspection of the impact of pollution. I was shocked to see the impact of redlining to be as great as >50% increments in NO2 levels between grade A and grade D neighborhoods.
I also found the particular focus on the impact of low level pollution to be thought provoking in the second article. Many people associate air pollution with dense smog that you can see in the air, but this paper pointed out how little pollution is necessary to affect the preborn and infants due to their small size. Studies such as this are essential for education on air pollution.
Posted by: Wyatt789169 | 04/03/2024 at 04:59 PM
The redlining article was very thorough in explaining how maps made by HOLC, which practiced the discriminatory practice of redlining, systematically determined the amount of pollution neighborhoods would face. This further validifies the argument that our life outcomes are determined by where we live, but also the color of our skin. I think the lasting issue of redlining can also be seen in the general system of credit scores and lending where it seems to almost be built to disadvantage anyone not ready by an early age. Going back to what the article says, what are the other forms of racial discriminatory practices that created inequal environmental exposures for POC? How much of our systems are built on discriminatory practices and how will we get rid of them or amend them to be more equitable? The issue of D grade neighborhoods being exposed to many more environmental pollutants is complicated as well. Although we can try to lower the quantity of overall pollutants, the Pollution and Infant Health article brings up the point that low levels of pollution is still detrimental to the health of children (and everyone else too). I also found it interesting that every race experienced different amounts of pollution compared to their neighborhood grade average. For instance, black people experienced more PM2.5 on average, Asian people experienced higher NO2 levels, while Hispanic people experienced higher than average on both. I would like to see how exactly these could be explained by other discriminatory practices in future studies. I think maternal mobility should also be studied more and addressed more through general social policies as it matters who can afford to move away and who can’t. For the Pollution and Infant Health article, I found it interesting that the gap between low birthweight incidence between uneducated black and college educated white decreased although the gap is still significant. This makes me wonder if general improvements to the environment or reduction in overall pollution already contributes partially to decreasing inequality in environmental pollutant exposure.
Posted by: Lucas Kim | 04/03/2024 at 05:05 PM
I found the article by Janet Currie to be particularly fascinating because it continues to go hand in hand with the research and studies that we have read in this class. It is interesting to me that everything we read proves that pollution has negative effects on infants and infants in the fetus. Now, I understand Professor Casey has chose these because they show there are negative effects. However, I believe that is beside the point. It is amazing to me our country and other countries around the world find infants and children to be the most precious things on Earth. We constantly adore them and try to protect them at all costs, but we can't seem to agree on a way to stop pollution from hurting them, even though studies prove that it has. One would think that our elected officials, who make up the government we serve, could come together and make changes. The fact that infants and children are dying at a faster rate because of politicians who are supposed to serve us can't agree on anything simply because they wear a red or blue jersey. It seems simple. We put aside our political differences and work towards a common goal of saving children. It really shouldn't be that challenging.
Posted by: Miles Wood | 04/03/2024 at 05:18 PM
I thought both articles did a good job at examining their respective areas, and they did go hand in hand when discussing how air pollution impacts poor and minority communities more. I especially found the fact that not all people can "vote" with their feet very profound, because they simply cannot escape their predicament because they don't have the means, which in turn leads to their children's health being negatively affected. Something I would've liked to see examined in Currie's paper is the birthweight of babies born to white dropout mothers compared to black dropout mothers. Of course there is a correlation already between education, race and the averse effects of pollution on babies, but I think it would be interesting to see what the comparison would be like if both groups were not educated at the college level. I feel perhaps that college educated mothers, no matter the race, will tend to have better at home lives, meaning better health overall, not including pollution as a factor. I think if this comparison could be done, the pollution affection disparity will be much clearer. Of course I am going off presumption rather than statistics or data, but I do think there is some truth to it.
Posted by: Greg Bafalis | 04/03/2024 at 06:02 PM
I found Lane et. al's paper on the association of air pollution disparities and redlining highly interesting, especially considering how many people think the effects of redlining and other systematically racist systems do not affect our lives today. This paper was just one example of how that is not true, and how environmental injustice, especially from the stand point of race, is incredibly prominent and intertwined with our complicated history. I thought the data in figure 2 was really intriguing, and the fact that the pattern of higher effects in hispanic and black groups was higher than than Total and White for both PM and NO2 really hammered in the fact that this is an issue of race and redlining. I did wonder why Asian groups seemed to be more affected by NO2 than PM as visible in figure 2? Something this paper made me wonder in terms of ways it could be expanded was I wonder if it would be worthwhile for someone to explore how gentrification has affected air pollution disparities in the United States? Does the movement/creation of more affluent areas in poorer, urban areas (affordable housing) change environmental outcomes and how could this compare/compliment to the redlining data?
Posted by: Marcie Bernard | 04/03/2024 at 06:03 PM
Both Lane’s “Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities,” and Currie’s “Pollution and Infant Health” suggest that pollution disproportionately impacts people of various minority groups. While Lane explores this effect through historical redlining, and its modern effect on minority communities, Currie demonstrates maternal inequality across minority mothers and children.
Lane’s piece conveys how communities of color in the US are systematically exposed to higher levels of air pollution. Prior to reading Lane’s piece, I had never heard of redlining. Now, I understand it to be a discriminatory mortgage appraisal practice from the 1930s, where members of low-graded communities were refused loans. By focusing on two key air pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5, Lane elucidates a strong modern association between redlining and present-day environmental health disparities in the U.S. Since this paper suggests that historical redlining is only one of many racially discriminatory policies that have contributed to disparate environmental exposures for people of color, I am left wondering what these other policies might be and what their environmental consequences were.
Currie’s “Pollution and Infant Health” builds on this conversation by specifically delving into harmful environmental exposures of pregnant mothers and the subsequent consequences for their children. I found it interesting that minority mothers are more likely to be exposed to hazardous waste sites listed in the Superfund program and industrial plants listed in the TRI due to differences in maternal mobility. Currie proves the importance of the concept of mobility, concluding that failing to control for mobility can cause estimates of effects that are too high or too low. Further, reasons for mothers not leaving harmful areas include their lessened ability to move, lack of awareness of existing problems, and their reasonable concern about other, non-related, issues. Lack of mobility amongst minority mothers contributes to the same level of pollution having disproportionate effects on various groups.
Posted by: Sofia Iuteri | 04/03/2024 at 07:31 PM
I think a common point made in discussion is that communities of color and of low socioeconomic status are the ones living in areas of higher pollution. I limited myself to this statement rather than elaborating why it is that communities of color are exposed to higher levels of air pollution. As soon as I read the title “Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities,” it clicked. For one, it is engrossing how the result of a discriminatory mortgage practice from the 1930s has such an impact on communities now. Today, in another one of my classes, a peer of mine reminded the class of the impact of redlining and how it is not limited to housing. This negative impact extends to education as certain neighborhoods must attend their respective schools with an underlying intention. This article further extends the impact of redlining, but more-so, historical. The effect of redlining is isolated by holding constant the city-to-city differences in air pollution. This then allows for the sole observation of urban disparities, which I am slightly struggling to understand as to how this means the effect is isolated.
They came to the conclusion that historic redlining does in fact set up the communities of color to experience higher concentrations of air pollution. One question I do have is that now that this is proven to be a result of the U.S’ historic behavior, what can be done to better these communities now that this impact is so engrained throughout time. I cannot recall which article exactly said this, but to do nothing may result just as costly as investing into the cost of changing for the better. This author in particular also argued how it is even immoral to not do anything considering the overwhelming evidence. This is yet another example of this.
Posted by: Joanna Guevara | 04/03/2024 at 07:35 PM
In her 2019 article covering the effects of pollution on infants, Janet Currie looks at a few different metrics as to how pollution from toxic chemicals in certain areas affect mothers and their newborn children, including low birthweight, conditions such as autism or asthma, and even infant mortality (sort of similar to our other recent readings). At one point, Currie looks at Carbon Monoxide levels from cars and how they affect mothers and their babies, citing research that showed mothers near tolls having less problems with birth and their babies than mothers outside those areas. While this makes good sense and seems a viable solution in this case, the bigger problem is that if this were to be implemented everywhere, there needs to be a viable alternative. Our infrastructure is so centered around cars that while in this case, drivers can just take another road, sparing those mothers from their pollution, if every road was tolled like that to protect all mothers and babies, drivers would simply have no good choices without any good alternatives (either driving a different route or using another means of transportation). With viable alternatives, however, (better public transportation, more walkable/bikable cities, this idea would have a desirable effect with minimal negative outcomes.
Posted by: Will V | 04/03/2024 at 08:02 PM
Currie critically reviews current literature on the relationship between infant health and nearby pollution levels to conclude there is a positive correlation between the two. There are more studies on infants done to review because has to be collected about this demographic and outcomes are seen sooner, making it a faster longitudinal study, and therefore less expensive longitudinal study. Many of the studies utilize similar techniques like ‘twin’ studies or using the difference-in-difference approach. Both of these seem difficult to employ as it may be hard to find sibling pairs in which one was not affected by pollution yet the other was. As most of these studies focused on direct health effects, it made me question why I have not heard, or read as much pushback from the scientific/healthcare community. Supporting policies to control particulate matter and other emissions would directly affect communities and patients they serve, as one’s environment is a large social determinant of health.
Posted by: Amelia Macholz | 04/03/2024 at 09:36 PM
Pollution, a problem that has been thought to be an indiscriminate force in those it affects, however, through the incentives and older public policy relating to where factories and roads get built and who can buy houses, have been sometimes unintentionally and intentionally weaponized pollution against minorities. You shouldn't have to have worse health because of the neighborhood you were born in. It's interesting that often we put these things in the neighborhoods of those who have supposedly the least amount to lose. However, this logic is just wrong because people are more than just the income they make; instead, they are individuals who have families and communities. I also found it fascinating that we talk about the compounds of NO2 pollution; however, there are over sometimes 80,000 different compounds being emitted by factories, and the vast majority of those are unregulated, even though these could be extremely damaging to individuals. I also thought it was interesting how if you have a history of smoking, oftentimes pollution exposure can affect you even more than it does a normal individual.
I guess one of my main questions is why companies aren’t really held liable for their pollution. Is this just because it is too difficult to prove they were the cause of your cancer or something like that? I also was interested in since a lot of these cities have expanded, have we seen the same pattern of factories or large highways being in these new neighborhoods? I think the redlining incident just shows how much history does matter and trying to say that was so long ago is an ineffective and dangerous rhetoric since the long-term effects of these policies can be lasting!
Posted by: Thomas Finnegan | 04/03/2024 at 10:24 PM
I found the first article about redlining and air pollution to be particularly interesting because of the intersection between the issues we discuss in class and politics / history. I was not surprised about the findings of the study, as I can easily imagine that urban populations bear the brunt of negative externalities related to pollution. The history of redlining and denying certain financial / housing benefits to US citizens, particularly communities of color, highlight how environment AND social justice are symptoms of the same political issues often times. I believe that the call to action of this particular article was that public health must be addressed much more holistically than many people imagine, and must have implications when it comes to urban planning and inequality. This idea also relates to themes that we have reviewed in previous weeks, such as neighborhoods of low socioeconomic status being more strongly impacted by negative effects associated with warming and heat illness. With these issues often implicated with those who live in urban settings, in my opinion it would be reasonable to conclude that community engagement and equality must be a top focus when it comes to the cities in the United States due to looming environmental hazards.
Posted by: Mitch Benjamin | 04/03/2024 at 11:05 PM
I had not realized the extent to which redlining could cause such impactful changes to the quality of health that neglected communities experience. For example, while I understood that African Americans were segregated through districting, I had not considered the extent to which they experience greater health problems due to the poor surrounding environment that they would be subject to. Not only do factories reduce the quality of health that people in these communities have, but the issues related to increased emissions can drive down wealth as people in the community must spend more time and money on health issues.
Additionally, the prevalence of problems that policies instituted decades ago created is shocking. The fact that laws still have drastic effects on people positioned in D neighborhoods shows the reluctance of politicians to address real issues in our society. When talking about redistricting and zoning policies, I feel that there should be much more importance put on how these are determined because society operates around how areas are laid out. Providing more resources to issues like the ones outlined here, rather than pouring money into potentially useless efforts, could do more for welfare and equality than many prominent welfare programs.
Posted by: Keaton Rush | 04/03/2024 at 11:07 PM
The Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution
Disparities in U.S. Cities paper interested me because of the overlap it has with my society and natural resources class. As Kiki mentioned on Tuesday, we discussed the Flint water crisis and environmental justice with Professor Betancourt more in a social context as a case study for EJ. In ENV 202 we also discussed redlining and other historical practices used to segregate communities of color. Articles such as these are essential because they supply evidence of incredibly relevant societal problems that require addressing. It ties into my SOAN class, race and ethnic relations as well. Redlining and other such practices are examples of systemic racism, and Lane et al.'s paper is one of many to contribute to a growing body of evidence of the existence of systemic racism in the United States. Many, including politicians, will vehemently deny the existence of the concept, but this paper and so many others are great arguments for this destructive form of racism. It also reminded me of cancer alley in Lousiana along parts of the Mississippi River. It is another prime example of lower income communities and communities of color being subjected to incredible levels of pollution due to large scale industrial operations. The paper noted this important finding in their example as well where they "find that, within HOLC-mapped areas, D-grade neighborhoods are more likely to be near industrial sources and that the average number of sources nearby increases from A to D." In both situations, these industrial/petrochemical corporations must be held accountable because of the apparent effects they've had on marginalized communities. Whether it be a form of monetary or land-related reparations, something needs to be done.
Posted by: Asa | 04/03/2024 at 11:14 PM