NRDC Switchboard, Oct. 17, 2013

By John Walke

A new report from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency announced the classification of outdoor air pollution and particulate matter as known human carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) independently reviewed over 1,000 of the latest scientific studies on air pollution across five continents to conclude there is sufficient evidence to show that with increased levels of air pollution and particulate matter (commonly known as soot pollution), cancer risks increase too. As my colleague Dr. Jennifer Sass noted, “[t]he link is strongest for lung cancer, but bladder cancer was also flagged as a risk.”

This places particulate matter and outdoor air pollution in the company of asbestos, plutonium, silica dust, ultraviolet radiation and tobacco smoke. The IARC lists all of these as “Group 1” carcinogens (the highest classification) that are known to be carcinogenic to humans.

Beyond causing cancer, the report confirms that “[a]ir pollution is already known to increase risks for a wide range of diseases, such as respiratory and heart diseases.” These findings have been confirmed by numerous peer-reviewed studies and the 2010 Global Burden of Disease report, which estimated that particulate matter worldwide caused “over 2.1 million premature deaths and 52 million years of healthy life lost in 2010 due to ambient fine particle air pollution.”

Despite this overwhelming scientific consensus that “[t]he air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances”, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly attacked the extensive science on this pollution in an effort to undermine health-protective EPA standards that limit soot pollution.

In 2011, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) asserted at a congressional hearing on EPA clean air standards that even though he is not a “medical doctor” there is no “medical negative” to particulate pollution. In response to this astonishing statement, the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association and American Academy of Pediatrics wrote the Congressman expressing “shock… at such statements.” These doctors stated that they “see in the patients we treat what… the scientific literature lets us know to expect: that air pollution makes people sick and cuts lives short.”

But the political attacks did not stop there. For a June 2012 hearing attacking clean air safeguards and particulate matter science, House Republicans on the Energy and Environment Subcommittee declined to invite respected scientists from the National Academy of Sciences, Health Effects Institute, American Heart Association or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, all of which have found a causal relationship between particulate matter and mortality. Instead, House Republicans chose to invite a Texas state official who presented outlier testimony that “[s]ome studies even suggest PM [particulate matter] makes you live longer.”

Most recently, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) of the House Science Committee subpoenaed EPA to seize confidential patient data underlying one study showing the linkage between particle pollution and premature death. I’ve outlined the problems with this outrageous witch hunt here.

While House Republicans waste time attacking well-established science that clearly shows the devastating health impacts from air pollution, the IARC’s report tells us that “[t]here are effective ways to reduce air pollution and, given the scale of the exposure affecting people worldwide, this report should send a strong signal to the international community to take action.” Denial by politicians won’t reduce this deadly pollution. Only health-protective standards will.

The IARC report underscores the urgency of cleaning up the sources of dangerous particulate matter―such as dirty diesel fuels and dirty coal plants, both in the U.S. and globally―to limit the outdoor air pollution that we know leads to heart attacks, asthma attacks, premature death and now, cancer.

========

John Walke is Clean Air Director/ Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Washington, D.C.

Associated Press, Oct.17, 2013

PITTSBURGH — Thousands of young environmentalists from around the country are heading to Pittsburgh, planning to strengthen the green movement by involving more people of different races and backgrounds.

The four-day Power Shift conference beginning Friday takes on some traditional issues in a new way. Organizers are fighting coal mining, fracking for oil and gas, and climate change, but doing it through sessions such as "Racism and the Climate Movement," ”Sex and Sustainability," ”Young Leaders from Puerto Rico’s Frontlines," and "Lessons from Transgender Activism."

Power Shift, the Sierra Club and other groups are making a concentrated effort to reach working-class black, Latino, and Asian communities, seeking to change the typically mostly white and upper-class membership of national environmental groups. The meeting in Pittsburgh is the first Power Shift conference outside of Washington, D.C., where conference organizer Energy Action Coalition is based.

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, chief executive of Green For All, said the lack of diversity within the environmental movement is "shocking." She said it’s important to note that "communities of color really have a strong environmental record, they just don’t have a strong connection" to national groups.

"We just didn’t call it environmentalism. We just did it to survive," she said of such practices as recycling.

Ellis-Lamkins said the challenge for the environmental movement is to get minority and working class people to expect and demand both good jobs and clean air and water.

About 8,000 people are expected to attend the meeting, which includes training sessions and evening music concerts.

Conference spokesman Whit Jones said the group doesn’t ask attendees to list their race so a breakdown on those attending isn’t available. But he estimated hundreds of students are coming from historically black colleges and universities.

There’s little debate that minority communities suffer from excessive pollution. A 2012 report from the NAACP found that in areas around the 12 most-polluting coal-fired power plants in the U.S., people of color were about 76 percent of the population.

Allison Chin, a past president of the Sierra Club, said environmentalists won’t become a more diverse group "without us rolling up our sleeves." She said the Sierra Club has launched programs to provide environmental training, scholarships and even jobs to people from minority communities, as well as a Spanish language website, Ecocentro.

That kind of outreach helped attract Erica Thames, a 23-year-old woman with a multi-racial background who lives in Inland Empire east of Los Angeles and now works for the Sierra Club.

"In the past, the environmental movement has been upper-middle class, white male. I’m really excited that it’s getting more inclusive," said Thames, who’s working on a project to bring rooftop solar panels to her heavily polluted, working-class community, which also suffers from high unemployment.

Thames said many of her friends and neighbors were skeptical when she began the project, partly because some recalled that in 2004 an anti-immigration faction ran for seats on the national Sierra Club board. The battle spawned allegations of racism, lawsuits and ugly headlines before the anti-immigration candidates were defeated.

Thames said that at first community groups "didn’t want anything to do with us" because they suspected an elitist underside to the environmental agenda. Then, she had to deal with practical questions.

"People were like, how does that apply to me really? I don’t have $20,000 to put rooftop solar on my house," said Thames, who would then explain that solar panels would mean jobs for local construction workers, savings for the property owners in lower electric bills and cleaner air for everyone.

"When you start talking about health benefits and jobs, people become really intrigued," she said.

Bill McKibben, a leader in the national climate change group 350.org, said in an email to The Associated Press that diversity among environmentalists is critical to the fight to limit damage from climate change.

"It’s people on front-line communities who are crucial to leading this fight — and the hardest hit front-line communities, not surprisingly, are full of poor people and people of color," said McKibben, who plans to speak at the conference.