Adding to the growing evidence of the health harms of freeways and auto-dependency, a recent study highlighted by Infrastructurist found that particulate matter from freeways triggers the fight or flight response in humans:

Scientists at the University of Michigan, led by Dr. Robert Brook, found that [polluted air] can increase your blood pressure, and cause unhealthy changes in your blood vessels that last for hours and perhaps even days. […] [Study] participants were exposed in the lab to the same amount of particulates and ozone that would be found near a local highway. People who breathed in polluted air registered higher blood-pressure readings a short time after exposure and their blood vessels showed impairment as long as 24 hours later.

In a series entitled Toxic Waters, the New York Times has been chronicling hazards to the nation’s drinking water supply:

Almost four decades after Congress passed the Clean Water Act, the rate of water pollution violations is rising steadily. In the past five years, companies and workplaces have violated pollution laws more than 500,000 times. But the vast majority of polluters have escaped punishment.

A map of Clean Water Act violators in California is available here.

Let us take action
Let us take a stand
As we march and clap our hands
let our voices be heard

We can all wonder
and sit and ponder

We can all say what if and whose who,
but what I know is environmental justice is true

Transit racism, pollution
all things we fight against

Opression and Depression
And now we are in a recession

Who’s to say, who’s to blame
When we are all playing the game

So now everyone asks what can we do
let us join in rallies, and protest
I know I will how about you.

I have been interning with Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), an Environmental Justice Organization in Huntington Park, since June. I drive through South LA and Vernon to get there, and once I get into Vernon, the traffic pattern changes immediately. I suddenly have to compete with enormous trucks for road space. Because the behemoths drive in the left lane of two lane streets, cars desperately try to pass them, speeding up and changing lines, usually with little notice, making for dangerous driving conditions. Vernon wreaks from the excess diesel and factory pollution. I can tell that I’ve entered Vernon by the smells and by the absence of single family homes, which are normally a staple in Southern California.

The city boasts on its website that the Los Angeles Economic Development Company named it the most business friendly in 2008. No company could have awarded the city a more apt prize – the city has over 1,200 businesses and only 90 residents. Their website explains that their “city services are tailored to the industrial needs of the community.” I’m not sure how they have chosen to define ‘community’, but I’m guessing it differs from how CBE and other EJ organizations understand it.

CBE has been campaigning against the construction of the Vernon Power Plant since 2006, which they’re researchers have determined will emit at least 1.7 million pounds of pollution annually, adding to the poor air quality and disproportionate asthma and cancer rates in surrounding neighborhoods. They have seen some success, but recent legislation SB 696 could make it easier for the plant to win the battle.

Big Business, Corporate America, Dirty industry – they all have a disproportionate amount of say in our city infrastructure and our health. Please take the time to support EJ organizations throughout LA and the US that try to make these polluters more accountable to the public. CBE, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, The Labor and Community Strategy Center and the Bus Rider’s Union, The Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, are a few examples in LA. Check them out!

Check out these campaign posters courtesy of the CBE office:

[Show as slideshow]

A recent study has shown that high levels of pollution may lead to lower IQ scores in children.  This study was done in New York where pollution is just as much a problem as it is here in LA.  It was done by researchers at Columbia University which is a very prestigious Ivy league college.  Although this is by no means absolute fact, the trend seems to associate those children whose mothers were in the high exposure to pollution group the last few months of pregrancy had lower scores than those children of mothers in the lower exposure group.  As I said this is by no means absolute because there are many other factors that go into this, for example diet, smoking, and alcohol consumption by the mothers.  It may just be genetic because the fewer of the mothers in the high exposure group graduated high school.

Lois Henry who has her doubts about this study writes in her article

“Oh brother. Those were my first thoughts when I read yet another study designed to scare the breath out of us, literally. This time around, it’s air pollution making babies dumb in utero (that means before they’re born). …Words like “link,” “may,” “suggest,” “associated with” and “could” make me very nervous when used in frightening studies like this one that not only cause worry over the health of our children but could, might, may, probably will, be used to create even more restrictive regulations for benefits that are at best uncertain.”

Although this is just a study and by no means absolute fact is safe to assume that as we all probably know pollution is bad for all and should be curbed.

Just recently California has received permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new requirements that  could become the model for fighting pollution associated with global warming.  California finally received a waiver for it to pursue stricter air pollution laws that those that are required by the federal government.  It helped clear the way to implement a 2002 state law that required new cars to increase their fuel economy by at least 40 percent by the year 2016.  Other states have also been waiting to implement the same type of requiremets as California.  This will make cars and trucks sold in the state of California to have an average of at least 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.  Higher auto mileage results in less carbon dioxide being released from the car because less gasoline is being used per mile.  President Obama has also promised to push for federal standars at least as stringent as those being used in California.

Also in addition to new standards on fuel economy the Air Resources Board mandated all cars sold in 2012 and beyond must feature windows that reflect or absorb sunlight.  This will help to improve fuel use because of the reduced need for air conditioning.  The standards set for the 2012 are that they block 45 percent of the sun’s heat which will be braised to 60 percent by the year 2016.  The windows will cost approximately $70 in 2012 and $250 in 2016.  These windows will save anywhere from approximately $16  per year on gas for the 2012 regulations and $20 per year in gas

Shifting subjects to another large source of pollution in the state of California, ships.  Under rules that have recently taken effect, ships that enter ports in the state of California must switch to lower sulfur content fuel when within 24 nautical miles of the shore.   California has some of the dirtiest air in the country but they also have some of the most innovative pollution policies affecting all sources of pollution.  Also the EPA has proposed standards that will lower sulfur content of fuel below 1,000 per million matching  standards that the state of California has imposed for 2012.
California is not the only state that wants to impose these new restrictions. New York Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington all will hopefully soon follow.

The old Negro Spiritual after which I have named this post tells a happy tale for those who sing it, but the story of Mountain Top Removal Coal Mining will not end on a joyous note. MTR mining quite literally blows off the top off mountains with dynamite after clearing any forests and greenery in order to reach the coal beneath. Coal is a non-renewable fossil fuel that energy companies must burn to create electricity. This releases CO2, fly ash, and sulfur compounds, which contribute to global warming, health problems, acid rain and severely polluted water. Coal mining companies are required to restore the habitat that they have destroyed after they exhaust the mine, but the impact is still severe. Some argue that new technology has appeared that will allow coal to burn cleanly, but clean mining is impossible.

I learned more about mountain top removal from the Planet Green news show Focus Earth, whose host, Bob Woodruff, traveled to the Appalachians in West Virginia where MTRM is prevalent and creates as much controversy as it does jobs (watch the trailer here). There, a fierce battle rages between environmentalists who seek to protect streams and health and coal miners who need to retain their jobs. Aside from the destruction of habitat, the contribution to global warming and the rendering of streamwater undrinkable and un-swimmable, mountain top removal strikes me as particularly unjust because it continues despite the fact that most Americans oppose it and that viable, sustainable alternatives exist that could provide healthier and safer jobs. It worries me that the government of a self-proclaimed democracy seems to choose the interests of big coal over the health and opinions of its citizens.

Southern California Edison purchases energy from Argus Cogen Plant

Even 3000 miles away from the coal-filled mountains and valleys in West Virginia, we Angelenos indirectly support mountain top removal because both Southern California Edison and the City of Los Angeles purchase energy from mountain top removal companies, making it difficult for consumers to oppose massive fossil fuel consumption in practice. Thankfully, rebates and tax credits exist for people who can afford to install solar panels and wind turbines, so energy companies are attempting to increase their access to clean energy. For people who can’t take these ideal measures, more practical solutions exist. I, for one, make  a point of not turning the lights on in my room during the day. Luckily, I have a bay window that allows in sufficient natural light all day for me to use my computer, read books  and draw. As it gets darker in the late afternoon, I turn on my desk lamp, which remedies that problem until it is dark outside. Only then do I turn on my overheads. I save a lot of energy (and a lot of my dad’s money!) that way. He, even though he pays the bills, has a habit of leaving lights on after he leaves the room, so I’ve made a habit of making sure the lights are off in unused rooms when I walk through the house.

It’s the simplest, quickest and cheapest way to reduce energy demand – use less! After seeing Focus Earth, I decided to take a little advice from the late great King of Pop – “I’m gonna make a change for once in my life; its gonna feel real good, gonna make a difference, gonna make it right.” Cliche, yes, but true – “If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.” I try not to quote Michael Jackson too often, but these just might be words to live by for people anywhere attempting to fight environmental injustices. If your house doesn’t get enough natural light during the day, consider replacing existing light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, which last longer and consume less energy and therefore less money and fewer fossil fuels. The same goes for appliances like refrigerators, washers and dryers, ovens and stoves: EnergyStar rated appliances can save households around 33 percent on energy bills and lessen the demand for atrocious practices like mountain top removal coal mining! They even pay themselves off in less than a year. We may still depend on controversial fossil fuels at this point, but more ways keep popping up that will allow us change our ways.

Downtown, Los Angeles, buildings decorated by a coat of smog.

Los Angeles Times printed a editorial talking about the pact made by nations to reduce the amount of green house gases.  “The club of industrialized nations agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050,” says the article. China and India are both not playing a role in the club of nations trying to stop global warming, as U.S. president, Barrack Obama, would had hoped, but this would be the first time the U.S. is playing a role in “climate change since the 1990′s.” The U.S. is also taking responsibility for being the biggest nation to contribute to global warming. I think it’s great that the U.S. is finally stepping up. Most cities in the U.S. are car dependent, cars that run on petroleum and ultimately affect the air we breath.  The pact of the nations is great but it still has to be backed up by Congress.

I definitely think that  Congress should back up the pact to reduce greenhouse gases. The reduction of greenhouse gases means that we would also reduce the amount of illnesses. In the U.S., a large amount of people suffer from asthma, other respiratory illnesses, and birth defects. If Congress doesn’t back up the pact, the U.S. should takes other measures to reduce the global warming. Agencies can start by creating green jobs, jobs that don’t require the use of toxins or any gases that contribute global warming. It’s great that U.S. is taking the blame but honesty will not reduce global warming. The U.S. needs to start taking action now.

When I came into this program, I came in with a strong background in social justice and stuff around community rights. I knew a good amount of things here and there, but I can’t say that I really didn’t know much about environmental justice. What I have come to find through this program is that there is a strong link between environmental and social justice.

Give or take, I did know about gentrification and in a sense, I knew about how our communities are shaped on a systemic and institutional level, but I didn’t know about the “Panopticon,” about how our communities seem to be getting specifically shaped on a architectural and institutional structure to cater to how officials and the more privileged (which tends to be predominantly white middle to upper class) people want to treat minorities and people of color. It was a first to see how some of the communities had to deal with pollution that was much more hazardous and toxic than the simple smog that we have here in Los Angeles. That is not to detract from the importance of smog emission in Los Angeles, because it is horrible, but there are communities that that are susceptible to suffering instant illness (whether that be cancer of something of the like, because the government will not mandate that pollution causing industries move out of neighborhoods or that they won’t force people to effectively clean their environments or clean up after themselves, should they abandon a factory or something). This was the first time I had gone to an MTA board meeting and while I did start to find it boring after the second hour of being in there, I do have to say that the legislative process of dealing with complaints and seeing what the “power players” choose what and what not to deal with was pretty interesting.

I don’t think that there was anything that was notably surprising to me. Given all of the work that I’ve already been doing with the Bus Rider’s Union and learning about how the US likes to screw people over, sure, there are interesting and unfortunate circumstances and instances, but I’ve come to even be a little expectant at this point of all that is going on, whether I know or not the specific ways that oppression plays out in our community. I guess the most interesting (and somewhat surprising) thing that I learned about how were the people in Moss Point in New Orleans (in a movie called Renewal), who not only had to deal with murderous toxic waste, but that also had to deal with Katrina and the multiplication of the intensity of the health problems in that community.

Environmental justice means fighting for what’s right to me. Why? Because if we were given the things that we needed as a society and community, the we wouldn’t have to worry about pollution or environmental issues because everything is so interconnected that it would just line up with creating better environments.

So that’s everything as far as what I learned and stuff like that. I had fun. It was a really interesting experience.

Reminds me of something else I did: Spring Break, Take Action