Even as the U.S. explores the complex challenges of global warming, air pollution remains widespread and dangerous. Millions of Americans live in areas that have recognized air pollution problems. Grave health effects—including death—are all too common. And the threat is not just to people: dirty air sickens and kills plants and animals and creates ugly haze that obscures spectacular views.

Five policy changes could make the air we breathe cleaner and healthier. The American Lung Association and other public health and environmental organizations recommend these steps as the core of a clean air agenda for the nation:

1. Clean up coal-fired power plants. Coal plants are one of the largest contributors to atmospheric particulate matter and ozone—which are linked to worsened asthma and increased rates of heart attacks and premature death—as well as greenhouse gases and toxic substances, including mercury. We need to immediately reduce these emissions once and for all.
2. Strengthen ozone air standards voluntarily. In March 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency issued new national air quality standards limiting ozone smog. Unfortunately, the standards allow far more ozone than the agency’s own science advisers unanimously recommended and far more than Clean Air Act requirements would allow. President George W. Bush overturned recommendations for stronger protections. The American Lung Association, along with several states and public health and environmental groups, challenged those decisions in court. But now the EPA could voluntarily remand its 2008 decision and issue new standards that truly protect people and ecosystems.
3. Clean up oceangoing vessels. Cruise ships, container ships and tankers emit staggering amounts of smog-forming nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, heat-trapping carbon dioxide and particulates, among them black carbon (soot). New evidence shows that pollution from these vessels reaches surprisingly far inland. The U.S. government has requested that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) create an “emissions-control area” in American waters, including off Alaska and Hawaii. Although the U.S. signed the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, it cannot enforce those requirements until the IMO grants the right to create the control areas along its coastlines.
4. Improve the pollution-monitoring network. Numerous sensors regularly collect data about air quality that can be sent to an EPA database to determine if the air in a community meets national standards. Yet the instruments are installed only in about 1,000 of the nation’s 3,141 counties, and budget cuts have forced states to reduce the number of sensors or staff who maintain them and analyze the data. Emerging science indicates that some areas with no monitoring face serious health risks, particularly poor neighborhoods adjacent to highways or dirty industries. The EPA should work with scientists and state officials to lower monitoring costs and expand the ability to track pollutants.
5. Enforce the law. Since 1970 the Clean Air Act has driven the nation’s ability to curb air pollution. But rules have eroded as political decisions have taken the place of scientific ones and as delay after delay in enforcing specific requirements have mounted until only costly lawsuits prompt action. By restoring a commitment to science and law, the nation can make great strides.

The full list of needed steps is more detailed (see www.lungusa.org/cleanairstandards). But these five actions will go a long way toward breaking the pattern of weakening clean air safeguards by ignoring science and delaying actions. America must continue to reduce air pollution; the health and lives of people and ecosystems depend on it.

8 Comments

1. 1. Airqual 08:46 PM 6/19/09

   Its great to see the health problems from air pollution being recognised, but why mention power stations but not domestic wood stoves?
   
   Residential wood burning contributes more fine particle (PM2.5) pollution to Southern California's air than all the power plants in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties combined: http://www.aqmd.gov/healthyhearths/index.htm
   
   The Lung Association of Quebec reports that wood heating is responsible for 61% of Quebec's fine particle emissions: http://www.pq.lung.ca/environment-environnement/wood_smoke-fumee_bois/enjeu-montreal/
   
   In Sydney, Australia, wood heating, used by less than 8% of households, is the largest single source of PM2.5 pollution  4,503 tonnes per year, compared to 840 tonnes from light duty diesels, 797 tonnes from petrol cars and 681 tonnes from heavy duty diesels: http://www.3sc.net/airqual/NSW07_emss_invent.html
   
   Virtually all Sydneys electricity comes from coal-fired power stations, but filters and tall chimneys ensure it doesnt affect the health of the population, unlike woodsmoke and diesel emissions. Using woodstoves often creates a dangerous build-up of fine particle pollution in areas where families live. In Christchurch, NZ, estimated health costs exceed $2,700 dollars per woodstove per year: http://www.3sc.net/airqual/mapping.html
   
   There is no safe level of PM2.5 pollution, below which no adverse health effects are observed. The requirement to meet air quality standards forced Montreal to ban the installation of new woodstoves in April 2009, their health costs being many times greater than any possible benefits.
   
   Southern California, too, prohibits woodstoves in new homes, subsidises the removal of existing stoves and even bans their use on days when a build-up of woodsmoke is forecast.
   
   The first step in any program to clean the air should be to restrict or ban devices (e.g. diesel engines with no pollution control equipment and woodstoves  even new one have average more PM2.5 pollution per year than 100 to 200 passenger cars) that create health costs far greater than any possible benefits of using them.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Soccerdad 01:44 PM 6/24/09

   So (due to air pollution), "grave health effects—including death—are all too common". That's odd. I don't recall ever hearing of any particular person dying from air pollution. I'll have to read the obituaries a little more closely.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. eco-steve 06:01 AM 6/25/09

   Soccerdad : Have you ever wondered why smoking was virtually banned? And just look at the statistics on Asthma in polluted areas. People may not die often of asthma, but it is a very incommoding problem to the millions of sufferers, often pre-adolescents. But lung cancer does kill, and it kills more and more non-smokers, especially in China.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Soccerdad 11:35 AM 6/25/09

   eco-steve,
   
   What does smoking have to do with air pollution as referenced in the ariticle? The implication is that this is caused by industry and ships - not cigarette smoke. It's always more dramatic to blame industry as the bad guys when most deaths are self inflicted due to life style or other natural causes unrelated to the environment.
   
   And, because of references to the Clean Air Act, it is clear that the article is focused on the U.S., perhaps including other modern Western countries. China is a whole different discussion with regard to air pollution due to all the coal burned without any scrubbing.
   
   So, my point is undiminished. If deaths from air pollution are "all too common", you would think the average person would know of at least one person that they knew who is suspected of having died from air pollution. I would venture that this is not the case, and therefore the statement is assuming facts not in evidence.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Chryses 06:43 PM 6/25/09

   Just a reminder: these efforts will cost serious money.
   
   For those who are old enough to remember when dirty diesel cost less than gasoline; now that it has been cleaned up, diesel costs more than gasoline.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Stickman1719 07:09 PM 10/12/09

   My eldest son has asthma which is triggered by wood smoke burned outdoors recreationally by several of my neighbors in Livonia, MI. We moved here from Troy, MI where fire pits were not a problem. Unfortunately the local fire and police department will not direct my neighbors to put out their fires since there is no law against it even if it threatens the health of my son (and also my next door neighbor who has asthma). I checked with several other cities in the area and I was told that open burning is legal and popular and that perhaps we should live elsewhere", by some individuals due to our health need. I find it shocking and very disappointing that these cities refuse to protect people with asthma who especially need clean air to breathe. We cannot even open our windows in order to reduce the levels of normal indoor pollutants on many days due to the terrible acrid smell of wood smoke outdoors. The cities who responded negative are: Plymouth, Canton, Farmington Hills, and Livonia.
   
   The only city I interviewed that responded favorably to my concern was the city of West Bloomfield since I received a positive response from the City Clerk, Ms. Catherine Shaughnessy. West Bloomfield offers protection for my son! Therefore, perhaps we will need to move to this outstanding city with cleaner air. I commend West Bloomfield for their intelligent, caring, and progressive stance supporting clean air for our environment!
   
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. sysEngineer1054 11:22 PM 7/14/10

   We live in a society where people have been trained to expect simple answers to complex problems. Conventional wisdom holds that if one cannot prove causation then we can dismiss the concern. This could not be further from the truth. The real truth is that we live in an environment that is full of environmental (such as pollution) stressors. At some point these stressors can trigger disease. But no 2 individuals experience the same collective set of environmental stressors and no 2 physiologies are going to respond in the same way to those stressors. That is why we have to resort to looking for correlations to look for tipping points.
   
   When we observe more deaths due to lung ailments than is normal for a given population and the air pollution levels are known to be significantly higher than the norm, we start to make inferences that air pollution is likely to be the primary culprit. But don't expect to read a specific obituary that claims death due to air pollution any time soon. If you want that kind of unfounded assertion, try the FOX channel.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. yoonnk 02:24 AM 11/29/11

   If you are living in rural areas where public transportations are not available it can be understandable. However, people from big cities where public transportations, such as subway or buses, are accessible should use them as many as they can instead of driving their own vehicles all the time. Back in South Korea, People are not allowed to drive their vehicles once a week depending on the last number of people’s license plates. For example, if your last number on license plate ends up with 0 or 1 you should leave your car at your house and use public transportations. Governments should come up with ideas like this in order to reduce the air pollution levels.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this