

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The flow of smoke down from Ontario has produced a perfect MRI of the MAGA nervous system, revealing with unparalleled clarity the belligerence, ignorance, self-love, and utter lack of irony that mark the species.
Everything I’m about to write is fairly obvious. But since wildfires, and hence smoke, will persist all summer, and since the hot world we’re creating produces ever more wildfire and hence an endless supply of future smoke, I think it’s worth taking a moment to get all this on the record.
Also, the flow of smoke down from Canada has produced a perfect MRI of the MAGA nervous system, revealing with unparalleled clarity the belligerence, ignorance, self-love, and utter lack of irony that mark the species.
To hit the basics: Roughly 1,000 wildfires are currently burning in Canada, many in northern reaches of the province of Ontario. Much of the direct fire damage is being borne by members of Canada’s First Nation communities, whose small communities are the main inhabitants of these wild places. People are crowded into Thunder Bay, Ontario, where every hotel room is filled; the stories of escapes like the one pictured above are truly harrowing. Alessandra Freitas, for instance, interviewed members of the Namaygoosisagagun First Nation in the northwest part of the province. Here, for instance, is the account of Miiyah Paavola:
“It was all very fast-paced. There was not really much time to think about what was happening,” Paavola told CNN.
She grabbed a wet towel before squeezing aboard a small aluminum boat with five other people, three dogs, and a cat. The isolated community, also known as Collins First Nation, has no road access, only a railway line and Collins Lake.
Paavola couldn’t fully grasp the scope of the danger until her boat pulled away.
“All you could see was orange and gray and it was very dark,” she said. But as they sailed away, she could finally see just how close they’d been to the fires. “When I was going across maybe about the second island, that’s when I watched it. I could just barely see the flames reach the shoreline. And it was a very thick wall of smoke that followed it very quickly.”
“If we had waited any longer, we would have been dead.”
As Johnnie Jae, the founder of Red Pop! News pointed out:
It's NOT just that people and wildlife are losing their homes... it's the history that is being lost for generations to come.
It's tribal records, artifacts, art, regalia, ceremonial grounds, things that have been passed from generation to generation, hidden, protected and preserved, repatriated and restored.
So, just to be clear—the most powerful disruption from these fires is to small bands of people who have done nothing to cause them, and whose culture has been endlessly damaged by the larger Western project of settlement and control.
But flame, of course, is not the only product of fire. There’s also smoke, which contains high concentrations of particulates, the solid and liquid droplets in all forms of air pollution that are especially dangerous because they can slip past a body’s natural filters, aggravating asthma and pulmonary disease and contributing to heart attacks and smoke. Those clouds of smoke drift on the prevailing winds, which have been blowing south towards southern Ontario, where Toronto has been engulfed in smoke. Here’s a particularly vivid portrayal of the life in North America’s fourth-largest city.

But of course the border with the US does not prevent smoke from spilling across, and some of the most densely populated parts of America have been inundated with smoke as well. Last Thursday, for instance, Detroit had the most polluted air in the world, as Charles Ramirez chronicled:
Detroit had an air quality index, or AQI, of 724 at one point, the No. 1 spot on IQAir’s ranking of the most polluted global major cities on Thursday. IQAir makes air quality monitoring and air cleaning products. The index is a measure of PM2.5 or particulate matter, and the index reading makes the air “hazardous,” according to the company, which means unhealthy for everyone.
By 5:00 pm, Detroit’s index number had fallen to 341 and its ranking to second, behind Chicago’s 402. Both measures were considered “hazardous.”
Parts of Ohio were even worse. Toledo, for instance, doubled its old record for air pollution, and nearby Monroe recorded AQI values above 800. I’ve been in Beijing and Delhi on days when you couldn’t see across the street, and this was worse.
Jeff Masters has the most comprehensive set of numbers, as per usual:
The award for worst air in the nation on July 16 went to the city that has in the past billed itself as a climate haven: Duluth, Minnesota. The city’s 24-hour air quality index, or AQI, for PM2.5 particle pollution hit 934, over three times the threshold for “Hazardous” pollution. This shattered Duluth’s previous all-time AQI record of 159 set July 20, 2021. EPA pollution records go back to 1999.
Now, in a normal world, this scenario would trigger a compassionate response, as leaders sought to help the people most at risk. But MAGA is an almost perfect mirror world, where every impulse is bad. On Fox, for instance, the channel’s public health expert timidly (“I know you’re going to cringe”) recommended that people at risk wear KN95 masks to prevent particulates from getting sucked down your throat. “Not a chance. Not a chance,” said host Brian Kilmeade.
Meanwhile, a series of Republican “leaders” started producing angry denunciations of Canada, for polluting America’s air with their thoughtless fires:
Michigan congressman John James, whose campaign for state governor has been endorsed by President Donald Trump wrote in an X post on Thursday: “FINAL WARNING TO CANADA: Manage your forests to prevent these fires. American lungs are paying the price for Canadian inaction, year after year.”
Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno, longtime car dealer, said he planned to introduce “a bill next week to sanction Canada and the responsible Canadian government officials for this atrocity.”
And of course the ultimate source of all MAGA craziness weighed in as well. Here’s Donald Trump:
We are holding Canada responsible for the fact that they are not properly maintaining their Forests, and Brush therein, and the United States is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air, the quality of which is dangerous, and totally unacceptable!
Trump promised tariffs to make up for the costs, and indeed—and remember this—insisted that “maybe they should pay us some damages.”
The GOP case, such as it is, rests on the idea that Canada has erred in “managing” its woodlands, an outgrowth of the idea that he expressed during one wave of California’s hideous fires that the state should simply “rake its forests.” Or, as he expressed it during its first term, “You gotta clean your floors.”
Whatever the use of this prescription in America’s forests, it doesn’t apply to most of the land now burning in Canada. That’s because Canada has never managed these forests in any way, certainly not to suppress burning the way that America did across the 20th century. These are not forests with roads; these are vast, trackless expanses. Climate analyst Zeke Hausfather has performed his usual public service by actually looking at the data:
Here’s the short version. Canada’s area burned has surged, and it has surged in step with warming: hot, dry fire seasons burn far more forest, with area burned rises roughly 80% for each 1°C increase in fire-season temperature (with a correlation coefficient of 0.61). This relationship is robust to a variety of statistical tests and controlling for confounding variables. The boreal burns in rare, high-intensity crown fires on a natural cycle measured in a century or more, across enormous remote areas that have never been logged, thinned, or effectively suppressed. Only about a fifth of Canada’s burned area over the past four decades was even inside forest regions that have ever been actively managed. You cannot have a fuel-buildup from forest mismanagement in a forest you were never managing.
As he points out, even if the Canadians somehow decided to go “thin the forest,” it wouldn’t work:
The boreal is on the order of 3 million square kilometers. You are not going to thin or prescribe-burn your way across it, and the crown fires that produce the smoke wouldn’t stop at a fuel break anyway.
So what is driving the huge increase in Canadian wildfires? It appears some mysterious force is raising the temperature of the Earth. As Quinn Gablicki points out, quoting the University of Michigan climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck:
As long as humans continue to burn fossil fuels, global temperatures will increase, droughts will worsen, and there will be bigger, more frequent wildfires and smoke events.
The haze hanging over much of the United States today, Dr. Overpeck said, is “the harbinger of worse times to come.”
Or, as Eleanor Olszewski, Canada’s minister of emergency management put it on Friday:
“Warmer, drier weather is becoming more common, increasing wildfire risk in Canada and around the world,” she wrote. “Northern Ontario and Quebec, for example, received less than 40% of normal precipitation this June, with temperatures above historical averages.”
None of this, of course, is surprising in any way. America’s forests are currently on fire too, and in remarkable fashion. With our no-pack snowpack year, large fires are burning across the interior West—and what do you know, lots of the smoke is drifting north into Canada, causing bad air quality in British Columbia:
“As wildfire activity increases, so has smoke across many areas of the region. Much of this smoke is originating from fires south of the Canada-US border and will have varying impacts over the coming days,” an update Saturday evening from the provincial wildfire service said.
This is far from the smallest irony in this saga. In fact, “irony” hardly seems an apt word, suggesting that there is something even slightly subtle about the idiocy. For instance, as our leaders complain about Canada, it seems as if it might be nice if they also noted that our neighbors to the north have consistently set firefighters south to help America fight its great blazes. When Los Angeles caught on fire in January of 2025, Ontario deployed 150 firefighters to help:
“Our closest friend and our closest ally needs help, and we’re going to make sure we’re going to be there supporting them,” the province’s premier said.
And what do you know, last week a Canadian pilot died fighting one of the vast conflagrations on the Colorado-Utah border. As Michele Brunoro reports, Nicholas Dale left behind a wife and two sons:
“He was out there doing his best and just so very sad that we lost a great person and an experienced person fighting something, a natural disaster,” said Dale’s long-time friend Adam Gilliver.
While we’re on ironies, let’s note in passing that the smoke pouring out of these great blazes temporarily diminishes the power of the solar panels that are our main weapon in slowing the heating of the Earth. Miriam Wasser reports on the experience of one Massachusetts homeowner:
In the two days before the first big plume arrived, Stephen Gordon’s solar array produced about 53 kilowatt-hours of power per day—an amount he said is typical for a warm summer day, and more than covers his household needs during daylight hours.
Then came Wednesday, when people throughout New England woke up to gray or even orange-tinted skies. Gordon’s total output that day was just under 23 kilowatt hours, less than half of what his panels generated the previous day.
But of course all of those ironies pale next to the main one: Smoke drifts across borders when there’s a big fire, but carbon dioxide constantly drifts across every border every day. And if you could see carbon dioxide, and watch its flow over time, the biggest single cloud has emanated from the United States. China may catch us someday, but we’re the ones who have produced the current mess.
I’m sitting listening to David Wallace-Wells lecture this morning at the Chautauqua Institution, and he reminds us that the carbon humans have produced “weighs more than everything we have ever built on the surface of this planet. It weighs more than the total mass of life on the planet. It weighs more than the total mass of life and buildings combined.”
So—if there are “damages” to be paid, who should pay them? Canada, whose forests are burning? Or America, who set those forests on fire.
This is not an academic question. Lots of players are trying to extract damages from the fossil fuel companies. As the Center for Climate Integrity documented:
Eleven US states and dozens of city, county, and tribal governments collectively representing more than 1 in 4 Americans are currently taking major oil and gas companies to court to hold them accountable for deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and make them pay for the resulting damages.
And MAGA politicians are doing everything they can to try and stop those suits from succeeding. As Abraham Lustgarten reported in April:
Republican-led state legislatures are passing a slate of laws that effectively shield oil and gas companies from legal claims that they are responsible for the destruction and mounting toll caused by climate change. Fifteen laws have either been passed or are currently being debated in 11 states. Together, they threaten to remove long-standing tools for the public to hold corporations accountable.
A ProPublica investigation has found that most of these bills are part of a coordinated effort, orchestrated by a constellation of groups that share staff or have funding ties to the prominent conservative activist Leonard Leo, who is credited with placing conservative justices on the US Supreme Court. These groups have drafted state legislation, planned its dissemination and engaged a well-connected lobbying firm to get them signed into law.
At the federal level, the very same politicians complaining about Canadian wildfires are trying to moment, this takes the form of the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act. They’ve drawn support from the industry that owns them:
“We thank Senator Cruz and Rep. Hageman for introducing legislation to stop a growing patchwork of state laws and lawsuits that threaten American energy and risk raising costs for consumers,” said American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Mike Sommers in a joint statement.
America, though the all-time champion, is not alone in spewing fossil fuels, of course. One of the other ironies of the moment is that just as Canada catches on fire, its Prime Minister Mark Carney is announcing a new system of pipelines from the tar sands of Alberta. As veteran climate journalist Adam Radwanski wrote in the Toronto Star, under Toronto’s “dystopian haze” Canada’s pivot away from climate action is “impossible to ignore.” In her excellent new newsletter Patterns, Naomi Klein writes, “As the nation burns, Carney celebrates new fossil fuel projects as 'nation building.'”
So irony drifts back and forth. But responsibility can never really be shed. MAGA means never having to say you’re sorry, but that’s simply not true.
An internal National Park Service report recommends Washington, DC residents "wear an N95 mask when outdoors" and "remain indoors as much as possible during and after the show."
President Donald Trump's plans for a massive fireworks show in Washington, DC on July 4th could lead to a public health disaster, according to leaked National Park Service documents obtained by The Washington Post.
As the Post reported on Wednesday, internal NPS models project that Trump's plan to launch an estimated 850,000 fireworks over a 40-minute span on Saturday will lead to "very unhealthy" air quality throughout downtown Washington, DC, Arlington, and the area around Capitol Hill.
NPS' internal report recommends that residents "wear an N95 mask when outdoors" and "remain indoors as much as possible during and after the show."
George Thurston, a professor of medicine and population health at New York University, said that the amount of pollution projected by the NPS is so severe that people should "minimize exposures" to outdoor air during the fireworks show, while adding that wearing "an N95 mask would be a good idea."
Thurston also expressed concern about DC residents living in low-income neighborhoods, which are disproportionately exposed to environmental pollutants and could be particularly vulnerable to hazardous air quality stemming from the festivities.
A Tuesday report from Capital Weather also expressed concerns about Trump's planned fireworks, noting that "the approximately 860,000 shells anticipated in this year's show will be at least roughly 50 times more than the usual 10,000 to 20,000 shells" launched during past events.
The problem could be made worse, Capital Weather added, by the extreme heat Washington, DC is expected to get on July 4, with temperatures projected to peak at 100ºF.
"Unless there are strong winds, there will very likely be near-record amounts of smoke to go with all the fireworks," Capital Weather explained. "As of now, winds only look to be around 5 to 8 mph, which will struggle to push the smoke along. If a chance of scattered storms materializes, it could become even more humid and primed for smoke to hang around."
"We are happy about the delay, but these projects don't ever need to be approved and neither does any other LNG facility," one frontline advocate said.
Frontline communities along the Gulf Coast were granted a "temporary reprieve" last week when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission moved to pause its approval of the controversial Calcasieu Pass 2 liquefied natural gas export terminal while it conducts an assessment of its impact on air quality.
FERC approved Venture Global's CP2 in late June despite opposition from local residents who say the company's nearly identical Calcasieu Pass terminal has already wracked up a history of air quality violations and disturbed ecosystems and fishing grounds in Louisiana's Cameron Parish, harming health and livelihoods.
"This order reveals that FERC recognizes that CP2 LNG's environmental impacts are too great to pass through any real scrutiny" Megan Gibson, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), said in a statement on Monday.
"FERC's pause on construction may give us some temporary reprieve, but this project never should have been authorized in the first place."
FERC's decision follows a request for a rehearing of its June decision filed by frontline residents and community groups including For a Better Bayou and Fishermen Involved in Sustaining Our Heritage (FISH) as well as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. In their request, the groups and individuals pointed to errors the commission had made in its approval decision.
"With this order, it seems FERC is finally willing to acknowledge that it has not done enough to properly consider the cumulative harm on communities caused by building so many of these LNG export terminals so close together," Nathan Matthews, a Sierra Club senior attorney, said in a statement. "Prohibiting construction of CP2 LNG while FERC takes another look at the environmental impact of this massive, polluting facility is the right thing to do."
"Still," Matthews continued, "FERC must take concrete steps to properly evaluate the true scope of the dangers posed to communities from gas infrastructure moving forward and avoid making unwarranted approvals in the future."
FERC's decision comes over four months after the D.C. Circuit Court remanded the commission's approval of Commonwealth LNG, also in Louisiana, over concerns that it had not fully assessed the impacts of that project's air pollution emissions. Now, frontline advocates are urging FERC to do its due diligence as it weighs the environmental impacts of CP2.
"Through the lenses of optical gas imaging, we've seen massive plumes of toxic emissions, undeniable proof that these projects poison the air we breathe," James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, said of LNG export facilities. "Modeling must use the latest data from the most local sources to fully capture the harm these facilities inflict on Cameron Parish. Anything less is a betrayal of our community. FERC must choose justice over profit and stop sacrificing people for polluters."
Gibson of SELC said that FERC had already repeated some of the errors in its CP2 approval in its new order.
"This continued failure to fulfill its regulatory duty is not just an oversight—it is a failure to protect vulnerable communities and our economy from the real potential harms of this massive export project," Gibson said.
FERC's decision comes as the fate of the LNG buildout itself hangs in the balance. The Biden administration's Department of Energy is currently rushing to complete its renewed assessment of whether or not LNG exports serve the public interest. Environmental and frontline groups have argued that they do not because of local pollution, the fact that they would raise domestic energy bills, and their contribution to the climate emergency. CP2 alone would spew 8,510,099 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per year, which is about the same as adding 1,850,000 new gas cars to the road.
While President-elect Donald Trump has promised to "drill, baby, drill" and is likely to disregard any Biden administration conclusions, a strong outgoing statement against LNG exports would help bolster legal challenges to Trump energy policy.
At the same time, Bill McKibben pointed out in a column on Tuesday that the administration's pause on LNG export approvals while it updates its public interest criteria has acted to slow the industry's expansion, and that FERC's reconsideration of CP2 could add to this delay.
"The vote for the new review is 4-0, and bipartisan," McKibben wrote. "It could slow down approvals for the project till, perhaps, the third quarter of next year. And that's good news, because the rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow."
Ultimately, frontline Gulf Coast advocates want to see the LNG buildout halted entirely.
"I, along with the fishermen in Cameron, Louisiana, know firsthand how harmful LNG exports are, and see the total disregard they have for human life as they poison our families and seafood," said FISH founder Travis Dardar, an Indigenous fisherman in Cameron, Louisiana. "FERC's pause on construction may give us some temporary reprieve, but this project never should have been authorized in the first place. As far as anyone who believes in the fairytale of LNG being cleaner, we have paid with our communities and livelihoods. It's time to break these chains and turn away from this false solution."
Roisheta Ozaine, a prominent anti-LNG activist and founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, said that she, as a mother in an environmental justice community, saw "firsthand how LNG facilities prioritize profit over the well-being of our families. Commonwealth and CP2 are no different."
"We are happy about the delay, but these projects don't ever need to be approved and neither does any other LNG facility," Ozane continued. "My children are suffering from health conditions that threaten their daily lives, all while regulatory agencies and elected officials turn a blind eye. It's time for our leaders to put people before profit and prioritize the health of our communities over the pollution that harms us. We deserve a future where our children's health is safeguarded, not sacrificed."
"The science is pretty clear about the impacts of air pollution and yet we are so accustomed to having a background level of pollution that's too high to be healthy," said an official at Swiss firm IQAir.
A Swiss air quality monitoring firm on Tuesday said its latest worldwide data reveals the need for more walkable cities and a swift transition away from planet-heating fossil fuels, as just 7 out of 134 countries were found to meet global standards for dangerous air pollution.
IQAir found that Australia, Estonia, Finland, Grenada, Iceland, Mauritius, and New Zealand were the only countries that met the World Health Organization's (WHO) guidelines for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) pollution, which is made up of microscopic airborne particles and can become embedded in peoples' lungs and even their bloodstreams, especially in cases of high exposure.
Three territories—Bermuda, French Polynesia, and Puerto Rico—also met WHO's standard.
PM2.5 can cause or aggravate asthma and has been linked to worsened lung function, heart attacks, respiratory ailments, and irregular heartbeat.
While IQAir measured countries' air quality against WHO's guideline for "safe" PM2.5 levels—five micrograms per cubic meter—U.S. scientists found last month that there is no safe amount of PM2.5 for humans.
IQAir found that PM2.5 levels were highest in the Global South. Bangladesh was found to have more than 15 times the amount of PM2.5 pollution than what is advised by WHO, while Pakistan's level was 14 times higher. The most polluted metropolitan area in 2023 was Begusarai, India, and India had four of most polluted cities in the world.
But "things have gone backwards" in wealthy countries as well, Glory Dolphin Hammes, North America chief executive of IQAir, told The Guardian, particularly as planetary heating has fueled wildfires like those that stunned scientists in Canada and Europe last year.
Canada, long a leader in air quality, had a PM2.5 level of 10.3 in 2023, and air quality across North America was "significantly influenced by extensive Canadian wildfires that raged from May to October." More than 40% of Canadian cities recorded annual PM2.5 levels that exceeded 10 micrograms per cubic meter. Eleven percent, or 35 cities, exceeded 15 micrograms per cubic meter, compared to just a single city in 2022.
World Weather Attribution directly linked Canada's wildfires to the climate emergency,
saying fossil fuel combustion and the resulting planetary heating made the blazes twice as likely.
The country's PM2.5 levels last year showed that governments "should act to make their cities more walkable and less reliant upon cars, amend forestry practices to help curtail the impact of wildfire smoke, and move more quickly to embrace clean energy in place of fossil fuels," Hammes told The Guardian.
"The science is pretty clear about the impacts of air pollution and yet we are so accustomed to having a background level of pollution that's too high to be healthy," she said. "We are not making adjustments fast enough."
Robb Barnes, climate program director for the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said the report shows Canada is "no exception" as governments are urged to confront the fact that "climate change, pollution, and burning fossil fuels is disastrous for human health."
Air pollution is blamed for an estimated 7 million premature deaths each year, with countries in the Global South—where clean energy sources are less available for heating and other uses—reporting the most deaths linked to PM2.5.
Frank Hammes, global CEO of IQAir, noted that much of the Global South, including many countries in Africa, lack air quality monitoring mechanisms.
"A clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a universal human right. In many parts of the world the lack of air quality data delays decisive action and perpetuates unnecessary human suffering," said Hammes in a statement. "Air quality data saves lives."
In order to prevent more premature deaths linked to PM2.5 pollution, the report said, policymakers in Canada and other wealthy countries where air quality suffered in 2023 must take decisive steps to decrease PM2.5 emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles, power plants, and industrial processes, including:
"IQAir's annual report illustrates the international nature and inequitable consequences of the enduring air pollution crisis," said Aidan Farrow, senior air quality scientist for Greenpeace International. "In 2023 air pollution remained a global health catastrophe. IQAir's global data set provides an important reminder of the resulting injustices and the need to implement the many solutions that exist to this problem."
"Particulate pollution remains the world's greatest external risk to human health, with the impact on life expectancy comparable to that of smoking."
High and rising levels of global particulate matter pollution—caused by wildfires, the combustion of fossil fuels, and other factors—are cutting 2.3 years off of the average human's life expectancy, according to research unveiled Tuesday.
The latest version of the Air Quality Life Index (AQLI), produced annually by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC), estimates that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution's impact on global human life expectancy is "comparable to that of smoking, more than three times that of alcohol use and unsafe water, more than five times that of transport injuries like car crashes, and more than seven times that of HIV/AIDS."
Despite the terrible impact of air pollution on human health, governments around the world are doing little to address the crisis, according to EPIC's research.
"While there is a large global fund for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis that annually disburses 4 billion USD toward the issues, there is no equivalent set of coordinated resources for air pollution," the new report states. "The entire continent of Africa receives under 300,000 USD in philanthropic funds toward air pollution. Just 1.4 million USD goes to Asia (outside of China and India). Europe, the United States, and Canada receive 34 million USD, according to the Clean Air Fund."
Michael Greenstone, a creator of the AQLI, noted in a statement that "three-quarters of air pollution's impact on global life expectancy occurs in just six countries, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, China, Nigeria, and Indonesia, where people lose one to more than six years off their lives because of the air they breathe."
In the United States, 20 of the 30 most polluted counties in 2021 were in California, which saw more than 8,800 fires that year. Plumas County, California was the most polluted area of the U.S. in 2021.
The new research estimates that Plumas residents could gain 2.1 years of life expectancy if air quality in the California county is brought into line with World Health Organization (WHO) air quality standards.
EPIC's report notes that the annual average PM2.5 level worldwide "has shifted between 3.8 to 7.2 times the WHO guideline, making air pollution the greatest external threat to human health globally."
Reducing global air pollution to levels recommended by the WHO would save a combined 17.8 billion life-years worldwide, according to EPIC.
"Our study clearly adds to the evidence that the current regulatory standards are not sufficient to protect the public," the study's lead author says as the EPA considers stricter standards.
Adding to the body of research that highlights the deadly effects of air pollution, a study published Friday in JAMA Network Open connects long-term exposure to fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, to heightened risk of having a heart attack or dying from heart disease.
Conducted by experts at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the study was released as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering tougher air quality standards for PM2.5, which comes from sources including construction sites, fires, power plants, and vehicles.
The researchers focused on over 3.7 million adults who were members of the Kaiser Permanente healthcare consortium in Northern California from 2007-16 and had lived in the state for at least a year. They linked each patient's address to a geographical location to establish annual average exposure, then they identified who experienced heart problems.
"Our work has the potential to play an important role in ongoing national conversations led by the Environmental Protection Agency on whether—and how much—to tighten air quality standards."
"We found that people exposed to fine particulate air pollution have an increased risk of experiencing a heart attack or dying from coronary heart disease—even when those exposure levels are at or below our current U.S. air quality standards," said lead author Stacey E. Alexeeff, a research scientist and biostatistician at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research.
Specifically, they found that PM2.5 exposure at high concentrations, or between 12 and 13.9 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), was tied to a 16% increased risk of dying from heart disease and a 10% increased risk of experiencing a heart attack—officially known as acute myocardial infarction—compared with exposure to concentrations under 8 μg/m3.
"We found strong evidence that neighborhood matters when it comes to exposures to this type of air pollution," noted study co-author and Kaiser research scientist Stephen Van Den Eeden. "The strongest association between exposure to air pollution and risk of cardiovascular events in our study was seen in people who live in low socioeconomic areas, where there is often more industry, busier streets, and more highways."
According to Alexeeff, "Our work has the potential to play an important role in ongoing national conversations led by the Environmental Protection Agency on whether—and how much—to tighten air quality standards to protect the public from pollution's effects."
The EPA in January proposed strengthening the annual public health standard for PM2.5 from 12 μg/m3 to 9-10 μg/m3 but is currently accepting public comment on a range of 8-11 μg/m3. The pending rule notably would not change the PM2.5 standards for exposure over a 24-hour period and for public welfare; it would also keep current standards for larger particles known as PM10.
As Common Dreams reported, in response to the plan, Earthjustice attorney Seth Johnson said last month that "though aspects of EPA's proposal would somewhat strengthen important public health protections, EPA is not living up to the ambitions of this administration to follow the science, protect public health, and advance environmental justice."
Alexeeff said Friday that "our study clearly adds to the evidence that the current regulatory standards are not sufficient to protect the public."
"Our findings support the EPA's analysis that lowering the standard to at least 10 μg/m3 is needed to protect the public," the researcher added. "Our findings also suggest that lowering the standard to 8 μg/m3 may be needed to reduce the risk of heart attacks."
"The EPA and the Biden administration have missed a vital opportunity to enact transformational change, to advance environmental justice, and to protect the most vulnerable Americans," said one critic.
While welcoming efforts to update U.S. air quality standards for soot, environmental and public health advocates on Friday warned that the Biden administration's new proposal falls woefully short of what's needed to protect vulnerable communities from deadly pollution.
Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declined to make any changes during the industry-friendly Trump administration, the United States currently relies on 2012 standards for soot, or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from sources such as construction sites, fires, power plants, and vehicles.
"EPA is not living up to the ambitions of this administration to follow the science, protect public health, and advance environmental justice."
The EPA is now proposing to strengthen the primary annual PM2.5 standard—which is about public health—from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9-10 micrograms per cubic meter, but over a two-month period the agency will take public comment on a range of 8-11 micrograms per cubic meter.
The rule would not alter the secondary annual PM2.5 standard, which is meant to protect public welfare, including animals, crops, and nature. It also would retain existing primary and secondary standards for both PM2.5 over a 24-hour period and larger inhalable particles known as PM10.
The agency estimates the new standard would prevent up to 4,200 premature deaths and 270,000 lost workdays each year while resulting in as much as $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032. EPA Administrator Michael Regan claimed that "our work to deliver clean, breathable air for everyone is a top priority" and framed the proposal as "grounded in the best available science."
However, campaigners and representatives from overburdened communities argued Friday that the EPA should listen to pleas for cleaner air from people at risk—rather than business groups fearmongering about potential economic impacts—and impose even stricter standards, which could reduce health issues like asthma and heart attacks and save thousands more lives annually.
"This delayed proposed rule on soot is a disappointment and missed opportunity overall. Though aspects of EPA's proposal would somewhat strengthen important public health protections, EPA is not living up to the ambitions of this administration to follow the science, protect public health, and advance environmental justice," said Earthjustice attorney Seth Johnson.
Sierra Club senior director of energy campaigns Holly Bender agreed that the rule "does not fully reflect the serious danger of this pollutant, the scientific record, or the positive impact stronger standards would have on communities across the country."
"The health burdens of air pollution are disproportionately borne by communities of color near heavily polluting facilities and infrastructure, like power plants, factories, and roads, and this standard is a long-overdue step toward correcting enduring environmental and health injustices faced by fenceline communities," she stressed. "Anything short of the most protective standards gives a pass to the biggest polluters."
Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition executive director Yvonka Hall also lamented that "with the new soot rule proposal, the EPA and the Biden administration have missed a vital opportunity to enact transformational change, to advance environmental justice, and to protect the most vulnerable Americans."
"Thanks to redlining, Black people are more likely to live, work, play, and pray in communities that are toxic," Hall pointed out. "With this proposal, we have missed the chance to right some of those historical wrongs."
Noting that "Black children go to the emergency room for asthma 10 times more often than their white counterparts in the city of St. Louis" and "it's eight times more often for Black adults," Jenn DeRose, a Missouri-based Sierra Club campaigner, emphasized that "we need strong reductions in particulate matter pollution in my city and across the country to address problems created by generations of environmental racism targeted at Black communities."
Latinos are also "far more likely to live and work in areas where air quality is the poorest, and regularly breathe soot and smog, which can cause and exacerbate respiratory illness," said Laura Esquivel, the Hispanic Federation's vice president of federal policy and advocacy. "This rule falls short of taking steps to mitigate the decades of neglect and harm done to the health of our communities and to the health of Latino children in particular."
Echoing the campaigners, Anita Desikan, a senior analyst for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union on Concerned Scientists, said that "the science is clear—PM pollution causes serious health problems, and the biggest impacts are hitting Black, Latinx, and low-income people, many of whom are already overburdened with exposure to multiple pollutants."
"Over the past decade, study after study has shown how breathing PM pollution causes real, meaningful damage," Desikan continued. "Today's proposal gets us closer to where we need to be—but the problem is urgent and the solution is long overdue. EPA needs to act quickly, follow the science, and finalize the strongest possible rule."
While Dr. Doris Browne, former president of the National Medical Association, the largest U.S. organization representing Black physicians, expressed gratitude for the Biden administration's efforts in the official EPA statement announcing the proposal, other public health leaders were far more critical.
American Lung Association president and CEO Harold Wimmer said that the proposed rule "misses the mark and is inadequate to protect public health from this deadly pollutant," citing scientific research to advocate for an annual standard of 8 micrograms per cubic meter and a 24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter.
Declaring that "health organizations and experts are united in their ask of EPA to finalize the national standards for particle pollution" at those levels, Wimmer pledged that his group "will file detailed technical comments and provide testimony at the public hearing to urge EPA to strengthen the final standards," and encouraged the public to do the same.
Air Alliance Houston executive director Jennifer Hadayia highlighted that "during the recent cold snap, we were exposed to 24-hour industrial flares that spewed particulate matter across the region. And, our state regulatory agency—the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—does nothing to stop it."
"We applaud the EPA for stepping in where our state will not, but we wish they had gone further," said Hadayia. "A stronger 24-hour standard would protect more Houstonians from the recent flares."
Critics of the proposal also want the EPA to reconsider not just the primary, or health-based, standards, but also the secondary, or welfare-based, ones.
"Because countless people and organizations like the National Parks Conservation Association spoke out and demanded the Biden administration take action, they've taken this modest step toward cleaner air, but it doesn't go far enough," said Ulla Reeves, campaigns director for the organization's Clean Air Program.
"Beyond the harm it causes people, soot wreaks havoc on our national parks' plants, wildlife, waters, and our views," Reeves said. "People deserve to visit national parks and not only breathe clean air but also experience the natural world free from this haze and soot pollution."