Another way of looking at it

Image sources: (1) Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain: Air Pollution in India, (2) Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain: Exhaust gas, (3) Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain: Pollution

Recently I wrote about the environmental impact of automobiles, metric loads of CO2 per year, miles per gallon and potential carbon tax. Cities are cracking down on pollution in dense urban environments, carbon taxes while encouraging use of EV’s, bike riding and public transportation. For example, New Delhi in India has considered banning all cars 15 years or older due to pollution. As I think about this, I must confess I never directly connected the pollution to human fatalities until I read a recent article in The Economist, “Cleaner than what?” Among other things, the article stated; 100,000 deaths in the US per year are directly connected to vehicle pollution. By comparison, approximately 33,500 traffic fatalities in 2012, which is only a third of the total fatalities due to vehicle pollution. With approximately 250 million vehicles in the US, 100,000 total deaths due to vehicle pollution, there are roughly one death per 25,000 vehicles.

Image source: coloribus.com

Let’s play with the math for a couple of minutes. For example, in my town of 30,000, I could easily imagine there are at least 12,500 cars (assuming an average family of 4 has 2 cars). Granted, the entire town is not made up of 4 person households, but we’ll use that approximation for this thought experiment. So, using my back-of-the-envelope math, the inhabitants of my town are indirectly responsible for the death of someone for every two years that we drive around. Given I have lived in this town for 22 years that puts the indirect total of fatalities due to pollution at 11! Of course, this is a bit a stretch given my improbable math. While my town doesn’t have the population density of say L.A., New York or Boston and as such we probably have a pollution dilution factor that drops the actual fatality rate nearer to zero, the real problem is in our cities, not the outlying suburbs. That said, I have been driving into downtown Boston for those same 22 years, from that same suburb, importing my pollution in ever increasing stop start traffic the closer I get to the office. So, what has been my contribution to the ill health of all those folks who live in Boston? And given that I work in Boston, my health? In my efforts to live more sustainably, I have purchased a couple of Prii over the years to do my part. On the one hand, this choice cuts my dependence on foreign oil by half, but on the other hand, have I still contributed to the fatality of half as many people by using half as much gas?

When Madison Avenue got hold of the advertising for the Prius, I seem to recall cars driving through green fields with lots of flowers, blue skies and smiling faces. No traces in the campaign of, ‘buy a Prius and poison half as many people as a Chevy.’ This sentiment isn’t very PC and not particularly reassuring, but maybe I shouldn’t be so smug the next time I fill up my car. What has the media done with sustainability? Is it all about those green fields and flowers? What is the ugly truth we don’t want to be reminded about and can one be content with only having half the impact, good or bad?

At the end of the day we cannot all walk to work, live and work in net zero buildings, live pollution free lives, eating tofu and free range whatever. After all, we are all a part of the messy vitality we call society. We need to think about our push towards sustainability as being more than energy and saving water and the polar bears. We have a direct impact on ourselves and those around us. Every so often we need to remind ourselves that there is another way of looking at it, no matter how off putting it may be.