Glamorous homes, booming industries and sunny beaches have put
Los Angeles on the map as one of the most desirable places to
reside in the country.
But the large influx of crowds and the bustle that keeps the
city pulsing creates a less-advertised damper on the city’s
list of highlights: It is ranked in the 90th percentile of the
United States’ most hazardous places to live and breathe,
according to Environmental Defense, a national non-profit
environmental group.
The production of air pollutants and waste in major U.S. cities
such as Los Angeles and New York have been long-time antagonists in
the country’s constant struggle to maintain a healthy
environment. While government agencies do pass environmental laws
and regulations, the country’s success in sustaining its
natural resources and ensuring health safety has rarely been
determined beyond local estimates.
Only recently, with the publishing of the Environmental
Sustainability Index 2005 by a team of Yale and Columbia University
researchers, did the United States learn of its middle ranking in
terms of worldwide countries and their potential for sustaining the
environment.
Of 146 countries, the United States was 45th “”mdash; the exact
spot it held in the 2002 index scoring 52.9 out of 100.
The U.S. trailed far behind such countries as Costa Rica,
Lithuania and Malaysia. Finland, Norway, and Uruguay finished
first, second and third in the rankings, respectively.
The results of the index garnered mixed responses from campus
environmental groups, and simultaneously encouraged students to
continue their efforts to better the environment with greater
fervor.
“The way (politicians) will respond is from what the
little guy does,” said Trevor Johnston, a member of the UCLA
branch of CALPIRG.
“The only reason we have a bad environmental policy is
because there aren’t enough people standing up to fix
it.”
In creating the index, the Yale and Columbia team said its goal
was to influence environmental policy by displaying which countries
are doing well and which ones are not.
“The most fundamental change we seek is greater
seriousness concerning environmental sustainability,” said
Marc Levy, associate director for the Center for International
Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University, which
co-produced the index.
“This kind of in-depth investigation and index is often
routine with economic, health education and other policy
realms,” Levy said. “Until we start doing the same in
the environment, we will have bad results.”
Environmental sustainability is determined by several
components, such as whether the country’s environmental
system is improving, human stresses on environment, vulnerability
of a country’s population to environmental disturbances, and
cooperation of governments in improving environmental standards
worldwide.
Though the United States scored above average in some aspects,
the index reported the country was below average for regional
environmental stresses; the study indicated particular lags in
greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation.
On a typical day in Los Angeles, 9.5 million cars each release
2.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide per liter of gasoline burned into
the atmosphere. This emission, along with methane and nitrous
oxide, contributes heavily to the rise in global temperatures,
according to the Environmental Defense Web site. Statistics such as
these lend to a better understanding of the current environmental
situation.
In addition, the index revealed that developed countries did not
necessarily have an advantage in ranking higher on the scale. The
United Kingdom, Italy and Greece all had lower scores than the
United States.
News of the nation’s 45th-spot ranking was surprising to
environmental organizations including certain UCLA student
groups.
“Considering we have about the highest GDP per capita
second to Luxembourg, it’s appalling that we can’t
implement better environmental policy,” said CALPIRG’s
Johnston.
But others were unfazed by the results. Philip Wegge, a graduate
student and vice president of the UCLA branch of Engineers Without
Borders, said, “Wealthy countries become rich by exploiting
the environment, so it seems fair that the U.S. is ranked
low.”
The Yale and Columbia research team suggests that individuals
and local communities can put pressure on elected officials to
strengthen clean air policies or to manage solid waste more
effectively.
“We all essentially agree that environmental
sustainability is a worthy goal, but we haven’t done the more
difficult tasks that come with taking that point of view
seriously,” Levy said
Despite the efforts of student groups, results will not be
immediate, Levy said.
“This is not a case where a single report can
revolutionize decision-making overnight,” Levy said, adding
that “what matters is setting clear targets on where a
country wants to end up in the long term and then to chart specific
actions to get there.”
One of the projects taken on by CALPIRG is an attempt to get a
bill passed which would make solar power a standard offer for all
new homes built in California.
“This would channel energy into your household appliances
and you end up making up the cost of installation,” Johnston
said.
According to the bill, solar power is capable of generating
pollution-free electricity. Every megawatt produced from solar
energy would prevent more than 300 pounds of smog-forming pollution
and more than 870,000 pounds of pollutants that contribute to
global warming from being released each year.
Engineers Without Borders contributes to helping the environment
by inviting several lectures to the campus to speak on
sustainability issues. In addition, the group goes to middle
schools to teach children how to measure water quality and to
recycle.