A recent study conducted in part by a SUNY-ESF faculty member found a connection between toxic polluters and minority and low-income communities.

A class of hyper-polluters was found to disproportionately expose environmental justice communities — the minority and low-income communities affected by the super-polluters — to chemical releases, according to the paper.

The paper was written by Mary Collins, assistant professor of environmental studies at the State University Of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry; Ian Munoz, a former data scientist at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center; and Joseph Jaja, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Maryland.

The trio researched roughly 16,000 facilities and found that 5 percent of the facilities — roughly 800 — generated more than 90 percent of the environmental harm, Collins said. Those super-polluters, she said, are located in minority and low-income communities.

The researchers used toxicity information for every square kilometer across the country derived by emissions from the facilities, Collins said. She added that the main goal in publishing the study was to bring attention to the disproportionality on the pollution production side and the connection to disproportionalities in minority and low-income communities.

Although Collins did not study potential explanations for the disproportionality of pollution generation, she has a few speculative ideas.

The first is embodied in the paper: structural discrimination.

Not explored in the paper is the issue of environmental context, meaning that the facilities may be located in a more vulnerable environmental location, leading to increased environmental harm, Collins said.

Other reasons suggested by Collins are rules, regulatory surveillance and government restrictions. These may vary across space, she said, leading to different levels of pollution. On the other hand, she added that management strategies, products made, methods used and number of employees at the facilities may also have an effect.

“These categories are meant to help guide thinking; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive,” Collins said.

The research shows that super-polluters impact not only the environment, but also communities that face specific hardships, Collins said.

“The greatest environmental gains could potentially happen by targeting a few individual (facilities) rather than all,” Collins said.

The researchers conceived the idea to conduct the study in early 2014, and the paper was published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters” in January 2016, Collins said. They noticed that past research had shown that some facilities pollute more than others. From there, they decided to look across the United States to see if a pattern held, Collins said.

“I did not expect to find that 5 percent of the facilities generated 90 percent of the risk,” Collins said. “I re-ran that and checked the data so many times, thinking that it had to be wrong.”

The strength of the relationship between the 5 percent of facilities and minority and low-income communities was also greater than Collins had anticipated, she said.

Throughout the research process, the researchers faced roadblocks — such as being able to manage “about one billion chemical releases” — but managed to overcome them through collaboration.

“It never would have happened if we hadn’t been working together,” Collins said.

As for a resolution to the problem, Collins is hopeful but not certain that one will be found immediately.

“Instead of looking at 16,000 facilities you are looking at 800,” Collins said. “But I know there is a lot of work left to do.”

Published on February 7, 2016 at 10:48 pm

Contact Taylor: tnwatson@syr.edu