What is pollution and how does it affect us and our environment? Although I have always had a concern for the well-being of the earth and all that lives upon, above and in it, I never knew the technicalities in deciding what pollution actually was. Obviously when you see smoke or smog in the air, that is pollution. What is in that smoke or smog that is harmful? When you see a film of oil on the water, that is pollution, but what will it do to me? The following is information obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency at <www.epa.gov/ enviro/> and <www. scorecard. org> sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund.

What is  measured?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency keeps a TRI, Toxics Release Inventory database, which includes reports from covered facilities of approximately 650 toxic chemicals and chemical categories discharged into air, water, and land, and other activities. The drawbacks are that TRI does not cover all toxic chemicals and does not require reporting from many sources.
Additionally, the EPA monitors Criteria Air Pollutants that are the six most common air pollutants in the U.S. Exposure to criteria air pollutants can cause severe health problems. The pollutants are carbon dioxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

The sources of these criteria air pollutants are: Area Sources, which are sources that emit less than 10 tons per year of criteria or hazardous air pollutant or less than 25 tons per year of a combination of pollutants. These sources include dry cleaners, gas stations,  auto body paint shops, and even a lawnmower or barbecue grill; Mobile Sources, including both on-road vehicles such as cars, trucks and buses and off-road equipment such as ships, airplanes, agriculture and construction equipment; Point Sources, including major industrial facilities like chemical plants, steel mills, oil refineries, power plants, and hazardous waste incinerators. They are sources that emit 10 or more tons per year of any of the criteria pollutants or hazardous air pollutants or 25 tons or more per year of a mixture of air toxins.

Information from www.scorecard.org shows that in Pueblo County mobile sources accounted for 59.7% of the total criteria air pollutants, point sources for 27.4% and area sources for 12.9%, based on 1996 amounts from the EPA. In 1990 Pueblo County ranked among the worst 20% of all counties in the US in terms of the number of people living in areas where cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants exceeds one in 10,000. People in Pueblo County face a cancer risk more than 100 times the goal set by the Clean Air Act. Of the cancer risk, 68% was from mobile sources, 26% from area sources and 5.9% from point sources. In 1996 Pueblo county also ranked among the worst 20% of all counties in terms of emissions of sulfur dioxide. The vast majority of sulfur dioxide, 98%, came from point sources.

So what are these things that we are breathing? Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon fuels. Seventy-seven percent of the nationwide CO emissions are from transportation sources, most of which are motor vehicles. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) can affect breathing and may aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular disease. SO2 is also a primary source of acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops and more. Most sulfur dioxide comes from burning fuels that contains sulfur like coal, oil and diesel fuel. Sources are primarily coal and oil fired power plants, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills, and nonferrous smelters.  The other Criteria Air Pollutants are just as harmful to our health and the chemical combinations of all these sources of pollution are extremely disturbing.

What do we do, stop breathing, stop drinking water, stop eating? Of course not, but for those most susceptible in our society, the young, the old, the sick, expectant mothers, where can they hide, what can they do? I have no answer for that other than supporting the people who are trying to limit, or eliminate, our exposure to these harmful chemicals. Humanity has survived about 100,000 years without the current extreme level of exposure to these chemicals. Why can’t we at least try to limit our exposure and look for other materials that can give us a good life style, but not a deadly one?

April, 2001

Many issues concerning the environment are being discussed and actively contended within the Sangre de Cristo area. The issues of water transfer, chemical weapons destruction, polluting industries, open space preservation and protection, and many others are all presenting challenges to Sierra Club members and others to do something about making our environment a safe and pleasant place. Our environment includes all of the ecosystem that surround us, vegetation, wildlife, the air we breathe, and our coexistence with all of them.

The challenges, in fact, seem so immense that at times trying to do anything about them seems hopeless. Government, many corporations, small businesses and even our own neighbors, at times, seem intent on getting the very last bit of life out of our earth. Drill, mine, cut, widen, pave, exterminate, and on and on, are part of our society’s psyche. The definition of the earth and all that is on it as an economic unit that needs to be developed, harvested and exploited has become the norm around the world.

The thought of the earth being a spiritual entity that should be respected and loved as we would our own family is rare. Only a few groups of aboriginal peoples around the earth and those who live in this society, but believe that there is more to life than economic gain and unrestrained consumption are in this category. The argument that humans have the absolute right to manage and exploit all that they see is faulty. The future of our species will depend on an earth that is diverse and rich in natural ecosystems, not just natural resources to exploit. As many Native American tribes believe, we should be concerned about the welfare of our descendants at least seven generations from now and not try to fulfill our every material desire, and leave nothing for the future.

Can we believe that defacing the earth, leveling mountains for coal or other minerals, widening highways so that more single occupant automobiles can go faster, warming and refrigerating to the extreme so that we can ignore the natural conditions around us, and building over every square inch of available land  is better for future generations? Should we believe that the future generations can live in a scarred and polluted earth? Perhaps, but they will live with contempt for those who left them with a world that only a few hundred years ago was a much healthier and ecologically vibrant  place to live.

April, 2001

Compañero Home Page