Signature Biden Program Won’t Fix Racial Gap in Air Quality, Study Suggests
Signature Biden Program Won't Fix Racial Gap in Air Quality, Study ... The New York Times
sdgtalks
The White House’s Environmental Justice Program May Not Address Racial Disparities, Analysis Finds
The White House aimed for a race-neutral environmental justice strategy, but a new analysis questions whether the program can actually achieve its goals.
A new analysis has found that the White House’s signature environmental justice program may not shrink racial disparities in who breathes the most polluted air, in part because of efforts to ensure that it could withstand legal challenges.
The program, called Justice40, aims to address inequalities by directing 40 percent of the benefits from certain federal environmental investments toward disadvantaged communities. But the Biden administration, in designing the program, purposely omitted race from the process of calculating who could benefit. The Supreme Court recently struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, a ruling that some believe could affect federal environmental programs.
Unless carefully implemented, the program may not work as hoped and could even widen the racial gap by improving the air in whiter communities, which may also be disadvantaged in some ways, faster than in communities of color, according to a peer-reviewed study published Thursday in the journal Science by researchers from several universities and environmental justice groups.
The investments included in Justice40, which span 19 federal agencies, amount to billions of dollars. “This is not just play money,” said Robert Bullard, director of the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Texas Southern University. Dr. Bullard’s research in the 1980s provided some of the earliest evidence that polluting facilities have been systematically sited near communities of color.
The new study predicts concentrations of one type of air pollution, known as PM 2.5, or fine particulate matter, throughout the country using a model of pollutants moving through the atmosphere.
The researchers compared the current “business as usual” trajectory in air quality improvements with two alternative scenarios in which air quality in disadvantaged communities, as defined by the White House, improves at double or quadruple the overall rate. They found that even if PM 2.5 pollution improved faster in these broadly defined disadvantaged communities, the pollution would remain significantly worse for people of color.
People of color in the United States breathe 14 percent more PM 2.5 pollution than the overall population, according to Thursday’s study. People with low incomes, regardless of race, are also exposed to more of this kind of pollution than the general population, but only about 3 percent more. Disadvantaged communities, as defined by the White House, face about 6 percent more of this pollution.
PM 2.5 consists of microscopic particles in the air, small enough to enter people’s lungs and bloodstreams. In the worst cases, persistent exposure can lead to lung cancer, heart attacks or strokes. Estimates of deaths from air pollution vary, but one 2017 study found that PM 2.5 can be linked to almost 90,000 premature deaths annually in the United States.
Still, the omission of race in the primary screening tool is being criticized by activists and researchers. Race isn’t just one factor among many in determining American’s air quality, it’s “the top indicator,” said Manuel Salgado, a research analyst at WE ACT for Environmental Justice, a nonprofit group. Mr. Salgado was not one of the authors of Thursday’s paper, but his organization was involved in research for the analysis.
Francesca Dominici, a data scientist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health who has researched the unequal effects of air pollution but was not involved in this study, said the research was rigorous and based on “state of the art modeling.”
The White House screening tool is meant to be updated each year. Mr. Salgado of WE ACT suggested the administration could use the existing screening tool in a more refined way, not just dividing the population into two discrete categories of “disadvantaged” and “not disadvantaged” but considering a spectrum of pollution and identifying which communities are the most burdened.
This may be closer to the approach that individual
The article discusses the issue of racial disparities in air pollution and its impact on health, which is directly related to SDG 3. It also highlights the need to address inequalities and reduce the racial gap in air quality, which aligns with SDG 10. The article mentions the Justice40 program, which aims to direct environmental investments towards disadvantaged communities, contributing to SDG 11. Finally, the article touches upon the impact of air pollution on climate change, linking it to SDG 13.
Based on the issues discussed in the article, these targets are relevant as they address the need to reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution, promote social inclusion regardless of race or ethnicity, improve air quality in cities, and strengthen resilience to climate-related hazards.
The article mentions PM 2.5 pollution as a specific type of air pollution that can be measured to assess progress towards reducing hazardous chemicals and air pollution (Target 3.9). It also highlights the disparities in PM 2.5 pollution exposure based on race and ethnicity, which can serve as an indicator for measuring progress towards promoting social inclusion (Target 10.2). Additionally, the reduction in deaths and illnesses related to air pollution can be used as an indicator for Target 3.9. Lastly, the inclusion of disadvantaged communities in environmental investments, as outlined in the Justice40 program, can be measured to assess progress towards Target 11.6.
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: nytimes.com
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
Introduction
Justice40 Program
Potential Impact
Investments and Importance
Air Pollution Study
Disparities and Health Impacts
Criticism and Suggestions
Conclusion
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
4. Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
SDGs
Targets
Indicators
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.
Indicator: Reduction in deaths and illnesses related to air pollution
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.
Indicator: Disparities in PM 2.5 pollution exposure based on race and ethnicity
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
Indicator: Inclusion of disadvantaged communities in environmental investments
SDG 13: Climate Action
Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
Indicator: Concentrations of PM 2.5 pollution
