White Drivers Pollute: Air Quality Crisis In Affluent Areas

A recent study has brought to light the racial disparities in Los Angeles, where white and affluent drivers are contributing to air pollution in lower-income Latino and Black neighborhoods. The study, titled Local Inequities in the Relative Production of and Exposure to Vehicular Air Pollution in Los Angeles, reveals that residents of wealthier and predominantly white communities are more likely to drive to work, spewing pollution in low-income communities of color. This phenomenon is a result of decades of racially motivated freeway infrastructure planning and residential segregation, leading to environmental racism and health disparities. The study highlights the need for climate solutions and urban planning that address these injustices and benefit all communities equally.

White drivers exposed to less air pollution

In Los Angeles, a study has found that residents who drive more are exposed to less air pollution, while those who drive less are exposed to more. This trend is also racialized, with predominantly white neighborhoods contributing more to air pollution and minority communities bearing the brunt of it.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Urban Studies, found that for every 1% increase in miles driven to and from work by people in a particular part of Los Angeles County, there is a corresponding 0.62% decrease in the lung-damaging "fine particulate matter" those residents are exposed to. This means that residents of whiter, wealthier communities who drive more are exposed to less air pollution, while lower-income Latino and Black neighborhoods are disproportionately affected by pollution.

This disparity is a result of decades of racially-motivated freeway infrastructure planning and residential segregation. Predominantly white neighborhoods have been able to block the construction of highways through their communities, resulting in truck traffic being rerouted through lower-income communities of color. This dynamic has been termed an environmental form of racism by LA Times writer Sammy Roth.

To address these injustices, researchers have proposed several policy interventions. These include offering tax credits to incentivize working from home, implementing "congestion taxes" to discourage driving, and allowing more apartment construction in wealthier neighborhoods to reduce the need for long commutes.

While the issue of racial disparities in air pollution exposure is well-documented, this study adds a new dimension by considering consumption patterns. White Americans' consumption of goods and services that cause air pollution was found to be higher than that of minority communities, further contributing to inequities in pollution exposure.

Racial history of LA's freeway planning

Los Angeles County's history of freeway planning has been described as "shameful", with low-income communities of colour often being forced to make way for freeways. This has resulted in many residents of whiter, more affluent neighbourhoods commuting to work through lower-income Black and Latino neighbourhoods, contributing to air pollution in these areas.

One example of this is the 10 Freeway, which split the affluent northern parts of the LA basin from economically struggling Black areas of South LA. The construction of this freeway affected thriving Black communities, such as the Pico neighbourhood in Santa Monica and the Sugar Hill area in West Adams. Many residents of these communities ended up leaving, and the freeway also enabled white flight to the suburbs.

Another example is the community of Boyle Heights, which was a thriving, ethnically mixed neighbourhood before it was gutted by freeways. The construction of the 135-acre East Los Angeles interchange, one of the busiest in the country, pushed out at least 10,000 people from what was a Mexican and multiethnic community. Despite a mandate to avoid parks at all costs, planners put lanes through the middle of Hollenbeck Park while rerouting around a park in the white suburb of San Dimas.

The racial history of LA's freeway planning has been described as a form of structural racism, with freeways seen as monuments to segregation and racist elements of regional planning and politics. The 1944 Federal-Aid Highway Act, which allocated funds for freeway construction in California, has been criticised for obliterating the casual mingling of races, with planners destroying thousands of homes in racially diverse communities.

Policies at the time, such as Jim Crow federal lending policies, also barred developers from creating racially integrated housing. As a result, freeway construction enabled the expansion of car-dependent, white-only suburbs. This has contributed to the inequitable air pollution that disproportionately affects communities of colour in LA, with long-term health impacts on residents.

Inequitable air pollution in LA

Los Angeles, California, is notorious for its smog, a combination of particle and ozone pollution. The city's unique geography, surrounded by mountains, traps air pollution, preventing it from dispersing. This phenomenon, known as a marine inversion, occurs when warm air from inland traps cooler ocean air, creating a layer of haze that shrouds the city. While Los Angeles has made significant strides in improving air quality over the last few decades, it still faces challenges due to its history of racial disparities and the impact of commuters on air pollution levels.

A study by Geoff Boeing, a professor at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, revealed the racial dynamics underlying air pollution in LA. The study, titled "Local Inequities in the Relative Production of and Exposure to Vehicular Air Pollution in Los Angeles," found that residents of predominantly white and wealthy communities disproportionately contribute to air pollution by driving to work through lower-income Latino and Black neighborhoods. These findings were visually represented in a map from the study, where red areas indicated places in LA County with a higher proportion of white commuters, while blue areas showed neighborhoods with fewer white commuters.

This disparity can be traced back to the shameful history of Los Angeles County's low-income communities of color being displaced to make way for freeways. As a result, residents of whiter, more affluent neighborhoods were able to prevent highways from being built in their backyards, forcing traffic through lower-income communities of color. This dynamic has led to environmental racism, where communities of color bear the brunt of air pollution while benefiting less from the convenience of freeway access.

To address these inequities, policymakers have proposed several solutions. These include offering tax credits to encourage working from home and implementing "congestion taxes" to make driving more expensive. Additionally, allowing more apartment construction in wealthier neighborhoods could reduce the need for long commutes and alleviate the burden of freeway pollution on lower-income communities. While these measures may help mitigate the issue, they do not undo the decades of racially motivated freeway infrastructure planning that has contributed to the current state of inequitable air pollution in LA.

Despite these challenges, Los Angeles has made notable progress in improving its air quality. The Clean Air Act, established in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, played a significant role in reducing air pollution. The COVID-19 pandemic also provided an unexpected opportunity for cleaner air, as lockdown measures and reduced economic activity led to a significant drop in pollution levels. While LA still has a long way to go to address inequitable air pollution, these improvements demonstrate a positive trajectory and highlight the potential for effective policy interventions.

Electric vehicles not a panacea

Electric vehicles are not a panacea. While they are marketed as a consumer-friendly face of the energy transition, they are not a solution to the climate crisis. This is because the production and use of electric vehicles are still associated with carbon pollution.

Firstly, the manufacturing of electric vehicles requires a lot of metal and components that are shipped worldwide. The mining and processing of minerals needed for electric vehicle components have significant environmental and health impacts, particularly in the Global South, where most of the mining occurs.

Secondly, the electricity used to charge electric vehicles can create carbon pollution, depending on how local power is generated. For example, using coal or natural gas to generate electricity emits carbon pollution, while renewable resources like wind or solar power do not.

Thirdly, electric vehicles are an inefficient way to move people around, especially in crowded cities. This is because they require a lot of energy to be produced and contribute to congestion, which internal combustion engine cars also do.

Furthermore, the focus on electric vehicles as a solution to climate change places too much emphasis on the automobile, rather than on rethinking mobility in general. For instance, investing in public transportation, cycling infrastructure, and walkable cities can help reduce the number of cars on the road.

Additionally, electric vehicles are often marketed as a status symbol, contributing to conspicuous consumption among those who can afford them. This can lead to social and racial inequalities, as seen in Los Angeles, where predominantly white and affluent drivers commute through lower-income Latino and Black neighborhoods, contributing to inequitable air pollution.

Therefore, while electric vehicles may be a step in the right direction, they are not a panacea for the climate crisis or air pollution issues. A successful energy transition must be done strategically, focusing on reducing energy use and investing in sustainable mobility solutions.

Solutions for environmental injustice

The automotive industry is facing a critical juncture, where sustainability is transitioning from a choice to an imperative. The industry significantly contributes to global carbon emissions, air pollution, and resource depletion. As a result, automotive businesses must proactively adopt sustainable practices to address these pressing issues and preserve the planet for future generations.

One key solution to mitigate environmental injustice is to address the root cause of the problem: the historical racism that has shaped the freeway infrastructure in Los Angeles and other cities. Policy interventions and urban planning strategies are necessary to rectify this injustice. For instance, policymakers can incentivize working from home by offering tax credits and disincentivize driving by implementing "congestion taxes," making driving a more expensive option. Additionally, governments should encourage the construction of more apartments in wealthier neighborhoods to provide affordable housing options for low-income families, reducing the need for long commutes.

Another solution lies in the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrids, which are gaining popularity among environmentally conscious consumers. While switching from oil to electricity is not a panacea, as electric vehicles still contribute to air pollution through brake pad dust and toxic tire chemicals, they significantly reduce carbon emissions and improve fuel efficiency. Automotive companies that offer these alternatives can capture a growing market segment and build brand loyalty.

Furthermore, sustainability in the automotive industry extends beyond the vehicles themselves. It encompasses the use of sustainable materials in car interiors, such as natural fibers, biomat-plastic, recycled materials, and renewable and natural raw materials as alternatives to plastics. Premium manufacturers, in particular, are expected to focus on sustainability, even if it means compromising comfort, practicality, and price to a certain extent.

Lastly, to address environmental injustice, the automotive industry must embrace technological innovation. This includes the development of electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, as well as improvements in fuel efficiency and cleaner manufacturing processes. By investing in research and development, automotive businesses can stay ahead of the competition while contributing to a healthier planet.

Frequently asked questions