Search

BACKGROUND: Recently enacted environmental justice policies in the United States at the state and federal level emphasize addressing place-based inequities, including persistent disparities in air pollution exposure and associated health impacts. Advances in air quality measurement, models, and analytic methods have demonstrated the importance of finer-scale data and analysis in accurately quantifying the extent of inequity in intraurban pollution exposure, although the necessary degree of spatial resolution remains a complex and context-dependent question. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this commentary were to a) discuss ways to maximize and evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to reduce air pollution disparities, and b) argue that environmental regulators must employ improved methods to project, measure, and track the distributional impacts of new policies at finer geographic and temporal scales. DISCUSSION: The historic federal investments from the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Biden Administration's commitment to Justice40 present an unprecedented opportunity to advance climate and energy policies that deliver real reductions in pollution-related health inequities. In our opinion, scientists, advocates, policymakers, and implementing agencies must work together to harness critical advances in air quality measurements, models, and analytic methods to ensure success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Air pollution levels in the United States have decreased dramatically over the past decades, yet national racial-ethnic exposure disparities persist. For ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5), we investigate three emission-reduction approaches and compare their optimal ability to address two goals: 1) reduce the overall population average exposure ("overall average") and 2) reduce the difference in the average exposure for the most exposed racial-ethnic group versus for the overall population ("national inequalities"). We show that national inequalities in exposure can be eliminated with minor emission reductions (optimal: ~1% of total emissions) if they target specific locations. In contrast, achieving that outcome using existing regulatory strategies would require eliminating essentially all emissions (if targeting specific economic sectors) or is not possible (if requiring urban regions to meet concentration standards). Lastly, we do not find a trade-off between the two goals (i.e., reducing overall average and reducing national inequalities); rather, the approach that does the best for reducing national inequalities (i.e., location-specific strategies) also does as well as or better than the other two approaches (i.e., sector-specific and meeting concentration standards) for reducing overall averages. Overall, our findings suggest that incorporating location-specific emissions reductions into the US air quality regulatory framework 1) is crucial for eliminating long-standing national average exposure disparities by race-ethnicity and 2) can benefit overall average exposures as much as or more than the sector-specific and concentration-standards approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]