Many years ago, a spokesman for a large factory on the Raritan River defended his company’s pollution, claiming “It’s the price to pay for progress.”
Such attitudes are still pervasive today.
Last year, this time-worn excuse was invoked when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to decrease the allowable amount of industrial airborne pollutants called particulate matter (PM 2.5) to within the range of 9 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter, (µg/m³) versus the current standard of 12, which industry favors.
The EPA has estimated health savings from this proposed rule would far exceed the costs to industry of installing additional pollution control measures. If the rule is for 9 µg/m³, the benefit in health savings, including reduced emergency room visits, premature deaths, and asthma, could be as high as $19 billion to $43 billion in 2032 alone.
The respective 2032 costs to industry are pegged at $393 million.
Corporations have bemoaned the relatively low increased costs (to them) and ignored the potential number of lives saved (ours). Improving standards “would harm America’s ability to revitalize our supply chains and manufacturing, as well as to restore and revitalize our nation’s infrastructure,” a group of manufacturers, farmers, and petrochemical companies stated in a comment to the EPA in September 2023.
The Many Forms of PM
PM comes in many sizes, shapes, and chemical combinations, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants, industry, and–yes–our non-EV automobiles.
Sierra Club has united with many other environmental organizations in demanding that the EPA tighten both the annual and 24-hour standards for these particles–a deadly mix of metals, organic chemicals, and acidic substances that can enter our bloodstreams. The coalition maintains that by following clear scientific consensus and setting the final annual soot standard no higher than 8 µg/m³, the EPA could save nearly 9,200 lives in 2032 alone.
However, the EPS draft rule, by calling for 9 to 10 micrograms per cubic meter, falls short of that mark.
The Sierra Club has described PM 2.5 as the “most deadly and destructive air pollutant there is.” A recent study from the University of Minnesota found that air pollution, including fine particulate matter, kills over 100,000 people every year.
These pollutants can affect our eyesight by causing cataracts, glaucoma (the second-most-common cause of blindness), conjunctivitis, and age-related macular degeneration.
The health hazards of PM 2.5 include deaths from heart or lung disease, other cardiovascular problems, aggravated asthma, and increased susceptibility to Covid-19 and its variants, to name but a few.
What’s worse, they have been detected throughout our bodies–the bloodstreams and brains of infants, children and adults–and even in mothers’ breast milk and placentas.
Without realizing it, we breathe in particulate matter copiously every day; PM 2.5 are generally no thicker than the wall of a plastic trash bag. They also can be quite obvious when concentrated, such as from industrial emissions and even forest fires, especially those that have been raging worldwide the past few years.
The environmental damage caused by PM 2.5 includes acid rain, concentrations of toxins in lakes and streams, depleted nutrients in soils, damaged forests and farm crops, and generally imbalanced ecosystems.
Levels of PM 2.5, as well as many other pollutants, are partly controlled by the Clean Air Act, which the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations have criticized for loopholes that must be closed. Chiefly, the EPA’s draft rule for PM 2.5 management needs to be made stronger.