4.8 Article

Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1818859116

Keywords

air quality; environmental justice; fine particulate matter; input-output; life cycle assessment

Funding

  1. University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment [Rl-0026-09]
  2. US Department of Energy Award [EE0004397]
  3. US Department of Agriculture Award [MN-12-083]
  4. National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2013-67009-20377]
  5. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [RD83587301]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution exposure is the largest environmental health risk factor in the United States. Here, we link PM2.5 exposure to the human activities responsible for PM2.5 pollution. We use these results to explore pollution inequity: the difference between the environmental health damage caused by a racialethnic group and the damage that group experiences. We show that, in the United States, PM2.5 exposure is disproportionately caused by consumption of goods and services mainly by the non-Hispanic white majority, but disproportionately inhaled by black and Hispanic minorities. On average, non-Hispanic whites experience a pollution advantage: They experience similar to 17% less air pollution exposure than is caused by their consumption. Blacks and Hispanics on average bear a pollution burden of 56% and 63% excess exposure, respectively, relative to the exposure caused by their consumption. The total disparity is caused as much by how much people consume as by how much pollution they breathe. Differences in the types of goods and services consumed by each group are less important. PM2.5 exposures declined similar to 50% during 2002-2015 for all three racial-ethnic groups, but pollution inequity has remained high.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available