Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Gas Stove Pollution Risk Is Greatest in Smaller Homes, Study Finds

News Feed
Friday, May 3, 2024

For decades, scientists have worked to clean up air pollution from factories, cars and power plants. But researchers are increasingly turning their attention to the air that people breathe indoors. And one appliance has come to the fore as a source of pollutants harmful to human health: the humble gas stove.A new study from researchers at Stanford University sheds light on how much Americans may be exposed, indoors, to nitrogen dioxide, which comes from burning coal and gas and has been linked to asthma and other respiratory conditions.The researchers found that, across the country, short-term nitrogen dioxide exposure from typical gas stove use frequently exceeded benchmarks set by both the World Health Organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In the longer term, using gas or propane stoves meant that the typical American could breathe in three-quarters of the nitrogen dioxide levels deemed safe by the W.H.O. within their own homes.As with outdoor pollution, disadvantaged households may be more exposed, the researchers found. Because gas more easily spreads throughout smaller spaces, people in homes smaller than 800 square feet were exposed to four times more nitrogen dioxide in the long term than people in homes larger than 3,000 square feet, the study found. Black and Latino households were exposed to 20 percent more nitrogen dioxide compared with the national average.“We’ve done a really good job in this country of reducing outdoor pollution,” said Rob Jackson, professor of earth system science at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and a principal investigator on the study, which was published on Friday in Science Advances. “But we’ve ignored the risks that people face indoors. And that’s the air that we’re breathing most of the time.”And though home cooks who use a gas stove are particularly exposed to nitrogen dioxide, he said, “we’re getting a better handle on the migration of pollution down the hall, to the living room and the bedroom.”Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Gas-burning ranges, a significant contributor to indoor pollution, can produce and spread particularly high levels of some pollutants in smaller spaces.

For decades, scientists have worked to clean up air pollution from factories, cars and power plants. But researchers are increasingly turning their attention to the air that people breathe indoors. And one appliance has come to the fore as a source of pollutants harmful to human health: the humble gas stove.

A new study from researchers at Stanford University sheds light on how much Americans may be exposed, indoors, to nitrogen dioxide, which comes from burning coal and gas and has been linked to asthma and other respiratory conditions.

The researchers found that, across the country, short-term nitrogen dioxide exposure from typical gas stove use frequently exceeded benchmarks set by both the World Health Organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In the longer term, using gas or propane stoves meant that the typical American could breathe in three-quarters of the nitrogen dioxide levels deemed safe by the W.H.O. within their own homes.

As with outdoor pollution, disadvantaged households may be more exposed, the researchers found. Because gas more easily spreads throughout smaller spaces, people in homes smaller than 800 square feet were exposed to four times more nitrogen dioxide in the long term than people in homes larger than 3,000 square feet, the study found. Black and Latino households were exposed to 20 percent more nitrogen dioxide compared with the national average.

“We’ve done a really good job in this country of reducing outdoor pollution,” said Rob Jackson, professor of earth system science at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and a principal investigator on the study, which was published on Friday in Science Advances. “But we’ve ignored the risks that people face indoors. And that’s the air that we’re breathing most of the time.”

And though home cooks who use a gas stove are particularly exposed to nitrogen dioxide, he said, “we’re getting a better handle on the migration of pollution down the hall, to the living room and the bedroom.”

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

LA County Sues Pepsi, Coca-Cola Over Plastic Bottles

Los Angeles County is taking on Pepsi and Coke for their role in plastic pollution

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles County is taking on Pepsi and Coke for their role in plastic pollution.In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the county alleged PepsiCo and Coca-Cola companies have misled the public about the recyclability of their plastic bottles and downplayed the negative environmental and health impacts of plastic disposal. “Coke and Pepsi need to stop the deception and take responsibility for the plastic pollution problems your products are causing," LA County supervisor Lindsey Horvath said in a statement. "Los Angeles County will continue to address the serious environmental impacts caused by companies engaging in misleading and unfair business practices.”Coca-Cola owns brands like Dasani, Fanta, Sprite, Vitamin Water, and Smartwater, while PepsiCo owns Gatorade, Aquafina, Mountain Dew, and more. The two companies have been ranked as the world's top plastic polluters for five consecutive years, and Coca-Cola has taken the number one spot for six years, according to global environmental group Break Free From Plastic.PepsiCo produces approximately 2.5 million metric tons of plastic and Coca-Cola produces approximately 3.224 million metric tons of plastic annually, according to Break Free from Plastic.A European Union consumer protection group and environmental organizations filed a legal complaint against Coca-Cola, Nestle, and Danone last November, accusing them of being misleading when representing packaging as 100% recycled or 100% recyclable.The LA lawsuit said Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have employed “disinformation campaigns” for consumers to purchase single-use plastic, believing them to be recyclable and less harmful to the environment.It alleged that both companies promised to create a “circular economy” for its bottles, in which plastic bottles can be recycled and reused an endless number of times, while in reality plastic bottles can only be recycled once, if at all.The American Beverage Association, which PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are a part of, denied the lawsuit’s accusations about their plastic bottle recycling labels.“The allegation that our packaging is not and will not be recycled is simply not true,” the group’s spokesperson William Dermody said in a statement.Dermody said California had a 71% bottle recycling rate in 2023, one of the highest in the country, and that their bottles are “designed to be recycled and remade and can include up to 100% recycled plastic.” In 2022 alone, an estimated 121,324 to 179,656 tons of plastic waste leaked into the land and ocean in California, and plastics make up seven of the top 10 litter products found on beaches, the lawsuit states. Plastics that have leaked into the environment eventually disintegrate into tiny pieces of plastic measuring five millimeters or less. They can affect soil and plant growth, marine and fish life, and are nearly impossible to remove from the environment, the lawsuit states. Some Australian researchers, on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, calculated in 2019 that many people each week consume roughly 5 grams of plastic from common food and beverages, and microplastics have been found in body tissues and organs. Though research is still limited overall, there are growing concerns that microplastics in the body could potentially be linked to heart disease, Alzheimer's and dementia, and other problems.The lawsuit is seeking a court order to stop the companies’ “unfair and deceptive business practices” as well as restitution for consumers and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. In February 2020, environmental nonprofit Earth Island Institute filed a lawsuit in California asking for damages and an order for Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle USA, Procter & Gamble and six other companies to clean up the plastic waste they should be held responsible for. New York state also sued PepsiCo last November for its role in creating the plastic waste that littering the Buffalo River, which empties into Lake Erie and supplies the city of Buffalo’s drinking water. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Los Angeles County Sues PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Over Plastic Pollution

By Nate Raymond(Reuters) - Los Angeles County has sued beverage makers PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, accusing them of polluting the most populous U.S....

(Reuters) - Los Angeles County has sued beverage makers PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, accusing them of polluting the most populous U.S. county with plastic bottles and misleading the public about the environmental impact and recyclability of their containers.The county in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court said the companies were contributing to plastic pollution with their single-use plastic bottles and were engaging in a campaign to deceive consumers into believing they were recyclable.According to the Democratic-governed county's lawsuit, the companies did so despite knowing the plastic in their bottles cannot be recycled at a scale meaningful enough to offset the environmental harms of the containers, most of which end up at landfills or as litter.The county contends the plastic pollution traced to products made by the companies constitutes a public nuisance that they must be forced to redress. According to the lawsuit, Pepsi and Coca-Cola should be required to pay penalties for engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices."Coke and Pepsi need to stop the deception and take responsibility for the plastic pollution problems your products are causing," Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Lindsey Horvath, a Democrat, said in a statement.The companies did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. In response to similar lawsuits in the past, they have denied making misleading statements and have said they were working toward environmental sustainability.The case marks the latest in a string of lawsuits by U.S. state and local governments and environmental advocates against companies that make and market plastics.Pepsi is currently fighting a plastic pollution lawsuit filed by New York's attorney general last year, and California's attorney general in September similarly sued oil company Exxon Mobil, which produces polymers, which are used to make single-use plastic. Both attorneys general are Democrats.An appeals court in Washington, D.C., in August revived a lawsuit filed in 2020 by the environmental group Earth Island Institute accusing Coca-Cola of misleading consumers into believing its business was environmentally sustainable.More than 400 million tons of plastic waste is produced globally every year, with less than 10% of it being recycled, according to the UN Environment Programme, choking landfills and despoiling oceans.According to the new lawsuit, plastic accounted for 246,124 tons of all waste materials produced by residences in Los Angeles County in 2024 and 628,211 tons of all commercial waste in the community.(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Will Dunham)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

‘It won’t wash’: Environment secretary’s bid to cosy up to water pollution protesters backfires

Steve Reed’s letter to campaign groups ahead of demonstration met with anger from those who say he has ignored the key issue of privatisation The environment secretary has caused a backlash among groups demanding an end to the pollution of rivers by water companies, after a direct appeal ahead of a demonstration backfired. The intervention by Steve Reed, who wrote to activists saying they could trust him with forging change within the water industry, was met with anger by campaigners who said he was avoiding the key issue – that water privatisation has failed.In his letter to members from the 130 groups taking part in the March for Clean Water on Sunday, who include Surfers Against Sewage, the GMB union, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, Reed said he shared their anger about record levels of sewage pollution. He wished them a well-attended march and said he looked forward to working with them towards a shared ambition of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas for good. Continue reading...

The environment secretary has caused a backlash among groups demanding an end to the pollution of rivers by water companies, after a direct appeal ahead of a demonstration backfired. The intervention by Steve Reed, who wrote to activists saying they could trust him with forging change within the water industry, was met with anger by campaigners who said he was avoiding the key issue – that water privatisation has failed.In his letter to members from the 130 groups taking part in the March for Clean Water on Sunday, who include Surfers Against Sewage, the GMB union, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, Reed said he shared their anger about record levels of sewage pollution. He wished them a well-attended march and said he looked forward to working with them towards a shared ambition of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas for good.But since Labour took power, Reed has ruled out what many who will take to the streets are calling for: the return of the water industry to some kind of public ownership. In making the decision, using powers available to him under the special administration regime, he was accused of relying on flawed analysis paid for by water companies.The environment secretary, Steve Reed. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty ImagesIn the letter, distributed by the march organisers River Action, Reed said the independent commission he set up, along with the water (special measures) bill going through parliament, would start the change needed in the sector.Some campaigners criticised Reed’s attempt to claim allegiance, saying he had failed to address deep-rooted problems in the privatised water industry in England, where ownership has become concentrated in a web of private equity, foreign investment and pension funds.Becky Malby, of Ilkley Clean River Group, said Reed should use his existing powers to take failing water companies into special administration. She said the public would not tolerate paying increasingly large bills to companies which remain under criminal investigation by the Environment Agency for suspected illegal sewage dumping and the financial regulator Ofwat.Ash Smith, of Windrush against Sewage pollution, who is scheduled to speak on Sunday, said attempts to win over the marchers would not wash. “Steve Reed is trying to own the march by supporting clean water,” said Smith. “But there is massive public support to end the scandal that privatisation has brought. His refusal to face the facts and to rely on water company-funded fiction about costs is setting captive bill payers up to bail out private equity and keep the unforgivable exploitation going on for another five years.”River Action said it had concerns about Reed’s repeated references to the need to promote economic growth within the sector. “Our polluted water bodies do not need economic growth,” a spokesperson said. “They need effective and uncompromising environmental protection and regulation. As we can see with recent developments at Thames Water, the financial model of the water industry is unravelling fast and in some cases broken beyond repair.”Matt Staniek, of Save Windermere, said Reed’s intervention was a weak attempt to pacify public anger. “The government is clearly failing to enforce existing laws and continues to allow private equity to profit at the expense of bill payers and the environment,” he said. “They are proposing measures that fail to address the core issue – that privatisation has failed.”A Defra spokesperson said: “We share the public’s concern about the health of our waterways, and it is encouraging to see so many people actively engaged in this important cause. This government is committed to cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas and has wasted no time in acting.”The spokesperson added that the new bill would hold companies to account and ensure they met the high standards the public rightfully expected. “This includes strengthening regulation to ensure water bosses face personal criminal liability for lawbreaking, and giving the water regulator new powers to ban the payment of bonuses if environmental standards are not met,” they said.

Port of Los Angeles receives unprecedented $400-million grant to electrify operations

The grant is part of a larger $3-billion initiative to deploy zero-emission equipment at the nation's ports, which are significant sources of pollution.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded the Port of Los Angeles more than $400 million to support its transition to electric cargo-moving equipment — a major boost to efforts aimed at curbing pollution at America’s busiest container port.The so-called Clean Ports grant, announced Tuesday, is part of a larger $3-billion initiative to deploy zero-emission equipment at the nation’s ports, which are significant sources of lung-searing smog and greenhouse gas emissions. The Port of Los Angeles received the largest single award, securing $411 million in federal funding. The port and its private partners have committed an additional $236 million in matching funds for zero-emission initiatives.“This transformative investment will be a tremendous boost to our efforts to meet our ambitious zero-emission goals, improve regional air quality and combat climate change while accelerating the port industry’s transition to zero emissions across the country,” said Gene Seroka, executive director at the Port of Los Angeles.The landmark grant, funded through the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, will significantly accelerate the port’s efforts to replace diesel-powered equipment with all-electric alternatives.The funding is expected to finance the purchase of more than 400 pieces of cargo-moving equipment, such as yard tractors and forklifts. The grant also aims to increase the number of battery-electric trucks and expand the port’s charging infrastructure.These investments will help the port avoid burning 3.5 million gallons of diesel fuel each year, according to port officials. It will reduce smog-forming emissions by 55 tons and planet-warming carbon emissions by 41,500 tons per year.“Our ports are the backbone of our economy — critical hubs that support our supply chain, drive commerce, create jobs and connect us all,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan, who visited the port in March. “But we cannot overlook the challenges faced by the communities that live and work near these ports. Too often these communities face serious air quality challenges due to diesel pollution from trucks, ships and other port machinery.”Six other California ports were also awarded federal funding: Oakland, Oxnard, San Diego, San Francisco, Stockton and Redwood City. The Port of Long Beach however, which operates adjacent to the Port of Los Angeles and is the second-busiest port in the nation, was notably absent from the list of announced grant recipients. The Port of Los Angeles — nicknamed America’s Port — serves as a vital gateway between Asia and the United States. From furniture to electronics, roughly $300 billion worth of goods pass through the sprawling seaport every year. These operations provide tens of thousands of jobs to dockworkers, truck drivers and other laborers who help move this cargo. But the port’s activity is also one of the region’s largest fixed sources of smog-forming emissions. Although the port has drastically slashed diesel exhaust and nitrogen oxides through cleaner fuels and engines in the past two decades, it is now faced with its stiffest challenge to date: adopting zero-emission technology. The new funding will help push it toward its ambitious goal of having all terminal equipment be zero-emission by 2030. The port has more than 2,100 pieces of cargo-moving equipment — about 72% of which are diesel-powered while 9% are electric.The Clean Ports funding could phase out more than a quarter of the diesel equipment. It will assist the port tenants in purchasing 337 yard tractors that ferry containers across the harbor; 56 top handlers that load and stack cargo; and 24 forklifts.The trucks, cargo ships and trains that transport these goods continue to generate pollution and planet warming emissions, however. More than 22,000 trucks are registered to serve the Port of Los Angeles. Ninety percent are diesel-powered. Fewer than 2% are zero-emission, and they include 332 electric trucks and 51 hydrogen fuel cell trucks. The EPA grant will fund the financial incentives for trucking companies and operators to purchase another 250 electric cargo trucks. It is also expected to cover the installation of 300 electric chargers, two solar arrays and 10 battery storage systems. “The San Pedro Bay communities have struggled with the impacts of cargo-goods-related emissions for far too long, so we congratulate the Port of Los Angeles on its substantive EPA Clean Ports Grant award to make meaningful progress towards the stated zero-emissions goal,” said Ed Avol, who sits on the board of the Harbor Community Benefit Foundation, an organization working to mitigate pollution at the ports. “The Harbor Community Benefit Foundation looks forward to working with the Port to achieve that goal without delay.”In July, the EPA announced another historic $500-million federal grant to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which plans to encourage the adoption of zero-emission cargo trucks, delivery vehicles and some locomotives. The Port of Los Angeles partnered with Yusen Terminals LLC, Everport Terminal Services, TraPac, Fenix Marine Services, APM Terminals and the Harbor Community Benefit Foundation for the grant application. The port’s bid was supported by elected officials, public agencies, business groups, environmental justice advocates, community groups and labor organizations. Beyond the environmental benefits, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union emphasized that the grant funding will be spent on human-operated equipment that won’t automate operations and eliminate jobs. This includes $50 million toward community benefits, including training for residents who are interested in learning how to operate and repair this new equipment. “The men and women of the ILWU are thrilled to learn of this over $400 million investment, by the U.S. EPA, in the environmental and economic well-being of our members and local community,” said Gary Herrera, president of ILWU Local 13. “Human-operated, zero-emission cargo handling equipment is the gold standard for maritime port operations not only because it protects good jobs while cleaning the air, but is also the most efficient and cost-effective in terms of port operations, while additionally providing the necessary safeguards against cyber threats to our national security.” Newsletter Toward a more sustainable California Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution. You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Biden administration announces $3 billion to reduce air pollution from U.S. ports

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced $3 billion in funding through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions associated with U.S. ports. EPA Administrator Michael Regan made the announcement on a call with reporters ahead of a planned visit Tuesday by President Biden to the Port of Baltimore, where the...

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced $3 billion in funding through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions associated with U.S. ports. EPA Administrator Michael Regan made the announcement on a call with reporters ahead of a planned visit Tuesday by President Biden to the Port of Baltimore, where the Maryland Port Administration is set to receive $147 million of the award. Although American ports are vital to the U.S. and international community, “we cannot overlook the challenges faced by the communities that work and live near these ports,” Regan said on the call, noting the air pollution and potential for other environmental degradation associated with the status quo in those communities. “At EPA, we know that protecting people and our environment doesn’t come at the expense of a booming economy.” The Biden administration has frequently sought to emphasize the economic benefits of decarbonization and increased proliferation, rather than a trade-off. The EPA said in its announcement that the Clean Ports Program will support 40,000 American jobs. The program will aim to reduce over 3 million metric tons of carbon pollution associated with port activity over a 10-year period, mostly through installation of zero-emission freight and ferry infrastructure. The $3 billion announced Tuesday will go to an estimated 1,000 drayage trucks and 10 locomotives, as well as more than 1,500 units of machinery used to handle and move cargo, according to the EPA. The Port of Baltimore, one of the Eastern Seaboard’s busiest, holds symbolic value after the collapse of the Key Bridge in March following a collision by a container ship. The accident killed six maintenance workers and briefly shut down imports and exports into the port, but the port had fully reopened by June. A full replacement for the bridge could come as soon as 2028.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.