Our Terms & Conditions | Our Privacy Policy
As America slowly grows in size and power, so does its production. The number of warehouses in the US increased by over 117% from 2010 to 2021. More production means more emissions. More emissions means worse health outcomes: everything from asthma to cancer.
Minorities are often the ones who suffer the most. Gaige Kerr, an assistant research professor at GW’s Milken Institute of Public Health, focuses on this phenomenon. I sat down with him to discuss the impact of his research and what this could mean for Americans across the nation.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
What is the impact of globalization on the environment?
We have seen a really stark rise in emissions of greenhouse gasses since the industrial revolution. As we began to produce more and more goods, we see increases in greenhouse gasses, and we’re also seeing increases in air pollutants. When we look at air pollutant emissions and economic output measured through something like, let’s say, GDP, we see a really tight correlation of air pollutants with economic output.
For example, during the 2007-2008 recession, we can see decreased air pollution emissions that scale with the level of manufacturing. So all this is to say there is this tight relationship between what we produce, what industries we have, and then air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
You focus specifically on NO2 levels in your piece. Could you explain what that is and how that can specifically hurt air quality?
There are a handful of air pollutants that are highly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. Those pollutants are called criteria pollutants. They include particulate matter, ozone, lead, sulfur dioxide, and then nitrogen dioxide, or NO2. NO2 is unique because it’s short-lived in the atmosphere, which means that concentrations of that pollutant are really high near where it’s emitted, but low elsewhere, whereas some longer lived pollutants are redistributed by the wind.
That makes their concentrations more homogeneous in space and time. NO2 is produced anytime that we combust a fossil fuel, and because of those origins, coupled with the fact that it’s short lived, we can think about NO2 as a proxy for fossil fuel intensive processes.
You said that it sticks around a certain area. If people are living in those areas, what are the health outcomes that you see for them?
It depends on the type of exposure window. If folks are exposed to high NO2 levels for a day or two, people that have pre-existing conditions like asthma might experience more wheezing, coughing, and shortness of breath. For people who live in areas that are consistently exposed to high levels of NO2, maybe a community right next to a heavily trafficked road, we expect they would have a higher risk of developing asthma, diabetes, cancer, and even dying prematurely.
You point out that this occurs among different ethnic groups. Could you talk a bit more about how you found that connection?
We can trace this back to redlining, back in the 1940s and 50s. Redlining was a discriminatory home loan lending practice that graded or judged neighborhoods based on the composition of people living in those neighborhoods, and changed interest rates for mortgages based ostensibly on the race and ethnicity of people who lived there.
Because of the high mortgage rates, many of the populations that lived there couldn’t afford houses. People that don’t have a stake in the community through home ownership can be targeted by developers for new highways and interstates or new factories and power plants.
Many red-lined communities became home to really heavily trafficked interstates, frontage roads, and bypasses. We’re still seeing the impacts of that discriminatory practice today where emission sources are located. If we look at modern day cities, neighborhoods that have a high proportion of Hispanic and African American individuals often have higher levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution, as well as other criteria pollutants. When communities have higher levels of pollution, that translates into higher public health damages attributable to those pollutants.
A study that I published early last year in 2024 showed that asthma rates due to nitrogen dioxide pollution were about eight times higher in the least White neighborhoods throughout the US compared to the most White. Something that’s very disheartening about this field of study of air inequality is that no matter really how you slice and dice it, we see these disparities persist. Neighborhoods that have a higher proportion of marginalized and minoritized residents have higher pollution levels generally. It’s a systemic problem that exists across many different scales.
Factory with smoke on the horizon. (KarinKarin/Pixabay)
How do we start to prevent these outcomes moving forward? Because it’s hard to move people once they’ve settled in one area. Should the responsibility be on the warehouses?
I don’t think the solution is just moving people out of polluted areas. I think the onus should be on policy makers and industry. There are some jurisdictions in the US that have implemented what we call “indirect source rules” for warehouses, so that requires a given warehouse operator or company to offset emissions that are occurring from the traffic that frequents those facilities in other ways. There are more widespread policy decisions.
One example of that would be stricter engine standards for cars. So if the EPA helps to set standards for the amount of greenhouse gasses and air pollutant emissions coming out of exhaust pipes of cars and semis, and if we continue to lower those standards as we’ve done over the last several years and decades, that would be another way to reduce pollution. Not just greenhouse gasses in overburdened neighborhoods, but reduce those emissions anywhere that semis drive.
I saw that in September 2024, the EPA approved this measure near the south coast in California saying that they would give warehouses incentives if they implemented solar panels or invested in more sustainable technologies. Do you realistically see that happening in other areas?
Overall, across the US, I would say no. The example that you pointed out is somewhat of an exception. California in general is a leader when it comes to environmental policies and specifically air quality. While we could all aspire and hope that other parts of the country would follow California’s example, realistically, it’s not going to happen. I think in the coming years we’re going to see a growing role of the state EPA or state departments of environmental conservation.
Is there a way to conduct warehouse production at the rate we’re going right now without harming the environment?
That could be accomplished through low emission or zero emission freight, but we don’t really have the infrastructure in place to roll that out at a large scale in the US. We would need to see a really large rollout of charging infrastructure and more research and development into how we can make batteries that would actually power semis to transport goods.
What can we do as consumers to combat this contribution to air quality?
Every time that we buy something at our local grocery store, Ace Hardware, or farmers market, we could be saving a trip that otherwise would have caused emissions and air pollution from Amazon or another big box retailer. I am cognizant in saying this idea that sometimes those local goods can cost more money or be inconvenient.
Although, I think there are ways that our consumer habits can reduce pollution. I don’t think that the entire onus should be on us as consumers. I think the companies themselves that are raking in enormous profits could be doing a better job at allowing their industry and the convenience that it offers to people to continue, but in a way that is more sustainable and more protective of public health.
What role do you want your research to play in the next 10-15 years of this issue?
I think my study, if I may say so, did a good job at setting the stage for the type of air quality impact associated with this industry. I would hope that the study can be kind of foundational and could spur further studies that don’t just document this problem, but try to invent and quantify solutions on how to fix this problem.
I would love to see studies that did modeling of traffic emissions and transportation to understand the type of benefits that we could receive if we rethought the way that we move goods around.
If someone was sitting here and making the argument of “People are going to consume, and there’s naturally going to be a byproduct,” what’s your sell to them? Why should we care about what’s happening?
We have not realized the far reaching consequences of climate change yet. We’re starting to see little things pop up. You know, maybe this tropical storm was stronger than it should have been, or maybe there’s extreme precipitation that wiped out a town. We’re going to see more of that, and I think we’re going to reach a point where denying climate change will no longer be possible.
How do you move the planet forward?
Submit Story
[ad_1]
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
Aggregated From –
[ad_2]
Comments are closed.