Community Leaders and volunteers gather around a giant inhaler at Stewart Field to raise awareness the dangerous health problems of air pollution. Photo by Christy Newell, Will Steger Foundation Intern

On Tuesday, Minneapolis residents protested dangerous air pollution from cars and coal-fired power plants with an 18-foot-tall human hand holding an asthma inhaler. Concerned citizens gathered at Stewart Field, warning that air pollution causes asthma attacks and makes kids sick, and demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reduce toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants and from cars and encourage a 21st-century transportation system.

“Dirty air costs Minnesotan families too much,” said Jessica Tatro from the Sierra Club North Star Chapter. “Children with asthma need the EPA to adopt tough air-quality standards to protect our health and to transition us toward clean energy solutions like wind and solar.”

Burning coal for electricity and gas in our cars and trucks generates toxic air pollutants like smog and soot, which exacerbate asthma and other health problems. Children and seniors are especially vulnerable to the health risks of air pollution. The EPA estimates that smog and soot pollution cause over $100 billion in health costs nationwide each year. This startling number has not gone unnoticed by local community leaders, like State Senator Torres Ray.

On Tuesday, State Senator Torres Ray said, “I’m delighted to participate in the air quality awareness event organized by the Sierra Club in Minneapolis. Air Pollution caused by humans is an increasing danger for people and the environment. I’m very concerned about the threat to public health posed by cities' air pollution. Many children and seniors in our City are being diagnosed with asthma disorders and need to take strong measures to address it.”

Asthma is one of America’s worst public health problems affecting over 400,000 people – including 118,111 children – in Minnesota alone. A local community member and a parent of a child with asthma, Valerie Martinez, shared the heart wrenching story of when her two month old son had trouble breathing because of environmental toxins. “Communities with less resistance are not aware of developments like freeways that add toxins to their community,” said Valerie. “Or they are not educated about the implications of these developments. Too often, it is these communities that bear the brunt of development in the city.” More than 35 million Americans live within 300 feet of a major road, which puts them at greater risk for illnesses like asthma.

State Representative Clark commented on Valerie’s statement, saying, “Clean air protection is an environmental justice issue because air pollution disproportionately affects low income neighborhoods like the Phillips neighborhood in South Minneapolis” where the press conference took place.

During Tuesday’s event, Sierra Club members and local residents demanded that the EPA take action to reduce harmful air pollution that causes asthma. This summer, the EPA is expected to set new standards for cleaning up smog and soot. If strong enough, these protections will lessen public health problems like asthma and save thousands of lives every year. Strong standards would also boost to the economy by saving billions of dollars in health costs, reducing sick days, and creating jobs for workers installing pollution controls on power plants and building better public-transit systems. Strong new EPA air pollution standards would also help encourage development of clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar that create even more green jobs.

Residents are also calling upon the Obama administration to protect children’s health by issuing strong protections from air pollution like smog. The EPA was scheduled to release its final rule on smog on July 29 but announced last week that it would delay finalizing the rule. The new ozone standard would protect some of America’s most vulnerable populations, including children and the elderly, from respiratory illnesses like asthma. “EPA's Science Advisory Board and health professionals have advocated a stricter standard for most of the 40 years that we've been monitoring ozone in the air we breathe,” said Dr. Simcik, a faculty member at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. “We need an educated public to support these experts and politicians in protecting both our health and our economy.” Dr. Simcik and other concerned citizens of Minneapolis urged the Obama administration to stand up for public health and to issue long overdue clean air protections that protect public health.

Jessica Tatro said. "We need to clean up our air and foster a healthy economy, with clean energy sources like wind and solar and a 21st-century transportation system.”

[via Minnesota North Star Chapter]

What is the Clean Air Act?

For forty years the Clean Air Act has given the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to set limits on harmful air pollutants. From mercury to lead, the EPA has enforced needed safeguards to ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution for all Americans. For this, it is one of the strongest public health protection laws in the country.

Since Nixon signed the Clean Air Act into law in 1970, it has prevented over 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory illnesses, such as asthma; the six commonly found air pollutants have decreased by more than 50 percent, while the U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, has tripled; air toxics from large industrial sources, such as chemical plants, petroleum refineries, and paper mills have been reduced by nearly 70 percent; and, new cars, light trucks, and heavy-duty diesel engines are more than 90 percent cleaner.

The process for cleaning up air quality starts with the EPA setting national health-based air quality standards on dangerous pollutants like ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. The Clean Air Act also gives EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills.

In 2009, after thorough scientific investigation, the EPA ruled that climate change pollutants are dangerous to human welfare. And on January 2, 2011, the EPA’s rulemaking for regulating these emissions took effect.

After the EPA sets a standard on pollutants, states, tribes and local governments use their understanding of local industries, geography, housing, and travel patterns to create an implementation plan to clean up polluted areas. These plans must meet national health standards by a certain date.

The EPA helps by providing scientific research, expert studies, engineering design, and money to support clean air programs. Since 1970, Congress and the EPA have provided several billion dollars to states, tribes, and local governments to reduce air pollution.

The EPA then approves implementation plans that reduce air pollution. If a plan does not meet the necessary requirements, EPA can issue sanctions against the state and, if necessary, take over enforcing the Clean Air Act in that area.

Why do we need to defend the Clean Air Act?

Despite the health benefits and bi-partisan support that the Clean Air Act has fostered, polluters and their allies in Congress are currently working to weaken Clean Air Act standards. They are proposing rollbacks that would have a devastating impact on our health and economy.

As polluters spend millions of dollars lobbying members of Congress to weaken standards, we need to tell our elected officials to keep protecting American families and our environment.

If you are interested in taking action on the issue, check out our other blog, Fighting for Clean Air.

Further Reading:

• EPA.gov
• The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act
• U.S. Climate Action Network

Over the last month it has been hard to miss the news reports, blogs and editorial commentary on the extreme weather events that have been sweeping the country.  Tornadoes, flooding, and above normal temperatures have caught the media and the nation’s attention and looking for answers, inevitably the question has risen, “is THIS climate change?”, and furthermore as climate change educators, what do we say?

I have come across a number of great discussions and responses to these questions and these, in combination with some suggestions from co-workers and colleagues in the Climate Literacy Network, I have shared and summarized below. 

The bottom line?  Linking a specific weather event to climate change is very difficult (although possible as described in the first source cited), and tornadoes are especially tricky because there is still little known about how they even form.  That said, most sources agree that these weather events “could signal the future,” “we ain’t seen nothing yet,” and finally:

“...our local weather-demons have dropped an important teaching moment on our doorsteps--in some cases with a mighty splash. We may not have reached the new normal yet, but we can probably see it from here. Asking if climate change caused our crazy weather this year misses a more focused and potentially important question: Is this something we should plan for over the long term?”

As educators this is a “teachable moment” to delve deeper into how weather works  and how models work.  Inevitably it also presents the opportunity to discuss what adaptation means, if these extreme weather events become more frequent, as the IPCC and many other credible sources have predicted.

Further Reading
Going to extremes:  Real Climate Blog
This summary of recent articles in Nature on whether we can attribute specific weather events to climate change was the best I came across.

Missouri weather whips up media discussion of climate change and extreme weather:  Joseph Romm for grist
Excellent overview of responses to the big question.

The “new normal” weather
Nice article one how this scientist has decided to answer the question and why it is important.

Are You Ready for More?
Comprehensive article on the consequences of inaction on climate change at the policy level as it relates to extreme weather.

Another Day, Another Deadly Tornado Strikes the US
Nice in depth explanation of how tornadoes and other extreme weather are linked to climate change and La Nina, including some videos

Yale 360Forum:  Is Extreme Weather Linked to Global Warming?
Eight climate scientists answer this very question. 

Looking for causality in all the wrong places
This short commentary wonders if perhaps the media is just asking the wrong question.

Extreme Weather May Be The New Normal:  NPR’s Here and Now
Great 13 minute podcast
From floods to blizzards to wildfires, droughts and tornadoes, 2011 has seen some of the most extreme weather in decades. What’s fueling Mother Nature’s fury and can climate change alone explain the reason we are seeing more devastating and destructive storms?

A link between climate change and Joplin tornadoes? Never!
Bill McKibben's most recent op-ed call to action.

The Union of Concerned Scientists released an excellent peer-reviewed report Thursday called Climate Change and Your Health: Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution. The full national report is at www.ucsusa.org (PDF 2.3MB).

The report found climate change-induced ozone increases in Minnesota could result in about 62,000 additional cases of serious respiratory illnesses and almost $107 million in additional health costs in 2020. Addressing these two problems—reducing ozone pollution and global warming—share the same solution: reducing reliance on fossil fuels like coal and oil. To get a handle on these problems, we need the EPA to set stronger ozone standards as well as global warming standards for power plants. The EPA is set to establish these rules this July. Unchecked global warming could threaten public health and increase health costs. Joining a conference call for media to discuss the report’s findings were the UCS report authors and representatives from Fresh Energy, Minnesota Conservation Federation, American Lung Association, and a friend of the Will Steger Foundation, a mother and public health professional with a son who has acute asthma. The call highlighted startling facts: 50% of Americans are breathing unhealthy air in the summer; 9% of children in Minnesota have been diagnosed with asthma; and rising temperatures exacerbate ozone and global warming pollution which means an increase in asthma, respiratory illness and premature death, especially for children, elderly and low income populations.

The fact that the EPA will be establishing rules this summer, including a new ozone pollution standard and another that places limits on emissions from power plants, is extremely promising. The EPA has been very effective for 40 years at reducing air and water pollution in the US and protection our health and environment. We want to maintain the EPA’s authority to do what it does best.