Are health risks from air pollution less serious than we think? Mainstream scientists call this a fringe view, but it’s getting high-level attention at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Gas mining is expanding across Australia, and has been touted as part of the answer to cutting emissions. But there is evidence that this rollout will pose significant health and environmental risks.
Wood smoke may smell good, but it is not good for you.
(Shutterstock)
Fertilizer is a key source of nitrogen pollution which fouls air and water worldwide. Current regulations target farmers, but focusing on producers could spur them to develop greener products.
Evidence shows that the growth of air pollutants – as well as rising temperatures, increased rain and flooding – connect breast cancer with climate change.
(Shnutterstock)
The number of substances emitted into the atmosphere is immense and growing, but some are particularly harmful to health and are subject to increased monitoring.
President George H.W. Bush (right) fishing on the Kennebunk River in Maine, Aug. 27, 1990.
AP Photo/Doug Mills
Matthew E. Kahn, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
George H.W. Bush, who pledged to be ‘the environmental president,’ took a market-based approach to pollution control that helped clear the air. Now some experts think it could work on climate change.
Industrial facilities like this oil refinery in Anacortes, Washington are significant air pollution sources.
Walter Siegmund/Wikimedia
An air pollution expert with years of experience advising federal regulators describes how the Trump administration is speeding up reviews and reducing scientific input.
Professor & Chair in Air Quality and Health; Founding Director, Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Co-Director, Institute for Sustainability, University of Surrey, University of Surrey