One of the World’s Biggest Health Risks Is a Philanthropic Blind Spot
Main Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/opinion/health-air-money-pollution.html
Scientific Study: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2201092119
Before graduate school, I had no idea how significant the impact of pollution in our atmosphere truly was on our climate or health. Regardless of which source one consults, air pollution consistently remains one of the largest sources of reduced lifespans or premature deaths across the world. Thankfully, we are fortunate enough to live in a country with the resources to quantitatively and qualitatively monitor it in terms of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and more per the Air Quality Index. In doing so, we can not only work to prevent further pollution, but even conduct further research to try and counteract its negative effects. While we are lucky enough to have these resources and extreme events of poor air quality are uncommon, not every country is as fortunate. Often, other countries lack the means to do the same while also experiencing these extreme events much more often. According to a report published by OpenAQ, a nonprofit who seeks to provide universally accessible air quality data, (cited by Dr. Christa Hasenkopf) 39% of countries don’t provide this kind of data to their citizens, with these countries being some of the most polluted ones who could benefit from it most.
In Dr. Christa Hasenkopf’s article “One of the World’s Biggest Health Risks Is a Philanthropic Blind Spot” she explains that despite air pollution being one of the leading causes of death worldwide, when compared to other contributors like HIV or malaria, it consistently remains one of the most overlooked and underfunded philanthropic efforts. She cites a report published by the Clean Air Fund stating only $41.3 million on average goes into combatting air pollution yearly, with major funders like the Global Fund spending up to $5 billion total yearly. And of the minimal money that does go towards tackling air pollution, typically 60% goes to countries like the United States or Canada, whose impact due to air pollution is minimal when compared to that of some other countries. For example, despite many countries within Africa having some of the worst air pollution in the world, “from 2015 through 2022, the entire continent received an average of $238,000 per year in philanthropic grants aimed at reducing air pollution.” Dr. Hasenkopf urges that this funding not only be increased, but better distributed, as it has the potential to bring about positive change within these countries. She argues that with this funding comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes power. With the means to collect and interpret this data, countries can develop standards for monitoring their air while reducing their contributions and instead counteracting it, which they wouldn’t be able to do if they lacked the means to properly study and keep track of it.
Dr. Hasenkopf used a study conducted in 2022 to highlight her point that if citizens are made aware of the dangers of air pollution and can stay up to date on its status in their area, they will care enough work towards a positive change and thus improve their quality of life. In the study, their results showed once US Embassies began rolling out PM 2.5 air quality monitors in other countries so their citizens could be made aware of their pollution and could stay up to data on it, both PM2.5 emissions and concentrations as well as the premature mortality rates decreased as a result. In addition, internet searches using the term “air quality” increased as well, indicating that people were seeking to stay informed and up-to-date. This study proved that if made aware of their pollution status, people would not only be interested and care, they would also take the opportunity to make a positive difference to better their community.
In Dr. Hasenkopf’s article, while she refers to the aforementioned study, she doesn’t share any of the figures or data collected in it, instead just linking it so the reader could check it out If interested. While I believe this was a missed opportunity because the study itself is easy to read and understand for those without a heavy science background, I recognize that the point of her article isn’t to focus on this study alone. Her primary focus was to raise awareness about how we should shift our philanthropic funding to better address air pollution in under-resourced areas, and she more than adequately supplements her argument with monetary data supplied by reports from groups like The Clean Air Fund, OpenAQ, The University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute, and many more.
Ultimately, I would rate this article a 9 because Dr. Christa Hasenkopf effectively evaluates how philanthropic funding could be better distributed to address high pollution/particulate matter issues in under-resourced areas. To do so, she pulls from a variety of reports and organizations to show how this issue has been underfunded and underdressed in many countries, especially ones who would benefit from it most. While I believe the 2022 study she briefly references would further strengthen her argument if she were to have referred to it more, this is only a minor critique because her argument was already well backed up by a plethora of other sources. Overall, this article makes a strong, effective argument that, after reading, I now believe could really have a larger positive world impact if some of the suggested changes were to be implemented.
Dr. Hasenkopf is the Director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago?! That holds a lot more weight for this article than I previously assumed.
ReplyDeleteSince the claim from this article is that accessibility to data on environmental quality leads to more community interest and action, is there any information on why that is? Is it because people start to care more, or is it because access to that data includes education about environmental problems and mitigation?
That's a great point Bryson! I was looking at the scientific paper that Dr. Hasenkopf referred to and they suggest that more access to air quality information may lead to reductions in a variety of ways. They suggested it may provide the government officials with the data needed to implement policies to enforce reduced emissions or even that the monitors themselves are more credible because they were installed by US embassies without any ulterior motives. A third possible reason is that people care more now that they have the data and employ pressure on those in power to make more decisions with air quality as a consideration. Although, like your question, they too pose it similarly, saying that to derive an exact reason, they would have to look more into the specifics of each area in which they were implemented.
DeleteThis article points out the lack of awareness of the governing bodies, and it elevates the need for political interventions needed for the improvement of environmental quality. There should me more governmental policies implemented to monitor and act upon the detriment of environment. This has many challenges to be addressed,. First, there is an imbalance in the socio-economic conditions in between various countries, which vastly affects the allocation of funds for environmental issues. Secondly, the governments are unaware, as they are more focused on the short term economic and industrial empowerment rather than long term policies for environment. They slack off on the environmental issues until it becomes worse and starts to show it's effects. Third, there is a need to update the old policies with changing times.
ReplyDeleteYou make a lot of excellent points Kiruthieek. I especially agree with the idea that governments are lacking on urgency for environmental issues and in doing so, fail to see the benefits that are long-term in scale. I hope in the future the socioeconomic statuses and urgencies within each country for this kind of assistance and monitoring are better evaluated so that funding can be better distributed. In addition, I wish that future government leaders better recognize and prioritize the need for this emphasis on improving their environment for the overall benefit of their citizens.
DeleteThe funds used in air quality monitoring could be a life changer in developing and underdeveloped areas by building a system for data acquisition and report, and therefore establishing public awareness and law enforcement to supervise their own pollutions, as what they discussed about Beijing.
ReplyDeleteBefore the air pollution monitor set by US Embassy in Beijing, most of us lived in China had never considered respirable particulates as a threat to health, and we complained more than reporting for treatment. Although the tweet reports were initially controversial for political reasons, it finally forced the government to release a more scientific standard of their own to report air quality. This initial external effort genuinely aroused the awareness of how air quality should be rated, how air pollution is cutting their lives and how to protect themselves from inspirable particulates among Chinese people. Now checking real-time air quality report is pretty common before we decide not to go outdoors or go with face masks, especially in more heavily polluted cities. Similar positive impacts may happen if funds can cover more areas.
Your post is a great summary of those articles and really helped me to check something that happened around me but I wasn’t aware of. (I didn’t know it was the tweets by US Embassy that urged the Chinese government to have their own report.)
Thank you so much for your comment Bomin, it's really neat to hear how you experienced this implementation in your own life and the impact it really had. I liked your comment about how it became more common for people to check the air quality before they left the house because it shows how this kind of implementation provides the opportunity for citizens to be more aware of their surroundings and truly benefits them. It shows how this kind of implementation can be helpful and people will care and stay kept up to date and informed if given the opportunity..
DeleteYour post is well-structured and effectively highlights the disparities in air quality monitoring and the allocation of philanthropic funding for air pollution. You clearly summarized Dr. Hasenkopf’s key arguments while emphasizing the urgency of redirecting resources to underserved regions. However, delving into the specific health impacts of air pollution and drawing comparisons to other major global health crises, such as HIV or malaria, would have make this report more comprehensive.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments Ernest, you make a great point. Looking back, I need to do more research and I think it would be really interesting to break down each global health issue with respect to how much funding each receives, where they impact most, and their respective mortality rates. That would really help me develop a more holistic perspective in order to better evaluate the issue.
DeleteThis is a really nice topic. I still remember that when I was in college, we have a mandatory outside running activity. But there is a very big problem. Our campus was built near a chemical factory, and the emission actually makes the air quality not good. The worse case is we can even smell the odor. even if we do not smell the odor, sometimes the foggy day is also very obvious not suitable for a running. Still, our campus insists to continue the activity. Since I was learning chem major, I talked to the student union about this, and they talked to the campus leaders. And they decide to share the live air quality before the running activity. I think we should have this kind of report built in right into our weather app in the phones. this could be a really effective warning for people and this could also raise their awareness for air quality
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting and sharing your story Charlie. I also think this kind of report would be really helpful everywhere for people if they could have ready access on their phones. I'm also really glad to hear your school modified its practices after you raised your concerns.
Delete