3 November 2018 | NewScientist | 25Chelsea WhyteTHERE are places in the US where air
quality is so poor that it can lead to
serious health problems, but you
wouldn’t know that if you took
President Trump’s word for it.
On 22 October, Donald Trump took
to Twitter to declare that the US has
“the cleanest air in the world – by far”.
His tweet included a map based on
data gathered by the World Health
Organization, showing the global
distribution of PM2.5 – air pollution
consisting of particles less than
2.5 micrometres in diameter.
These fine pollutants come from
vehicle exhaust, power plants and
the burning of wood or heating oil, as
well as natural sources like wildfires
and volcanic eruptions. They are
small enough to penetrate deep into
the lungs and aggravate respiratory
problems like asthma. Long-term
PM2.5 exposure has been linked to
lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.
The map Trump tweeted stems
from an April 2018 WHO report but
included a label not present in the
original. It read: “91% of the world
population (none in the U.S.) areexposed to air pollution concentrations
above WHO suggested level”.
That statement is simply false, as
was pointed out by John Walke, an
attorney who once worked for the US
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and is now director of the Clean
Air, Climate & Clean Energy Program at
lobby group the National Resources
Defense Council.
Contrary to the president’s claim,
Walke tweeted, 45 US cities have
PM2.5 levels above those suggested
for healthy air, according to the WHO
data. These include some of the
country’s most populous cities likeAtlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles.
Whether wilfully or unintentionally,
Trump has misinterpreted the WHO’s
map. When taken in bulk, air pollution
in the US may be lower than in
other countries. But a country with
vastly varied land use like the US –
including urban areas, desert and
large nature reserves – cannotbe summed up by one number.
It is true that, compared with many
urban areas across the world, those
in the US do have relatively clean air.
Nevertheless, cities in Australia,
Canada, Sweden and several others
have it much better.
Not only are plenty of people in
the US exposed to pollution above
the WHO recommended levels, but
nearly 94,000 people in the US are
thought to have died in 2016 as a
result of PM2.5 pollution, according
to the 2018 State of Global Air report,
compiled by health researchers in
North America. That puts the US in
third place after China and India, which
together account for more than half
of the world’s deaths due to fine
particulate matter.
“There is no safe level of exposure
to PM2.5 pollution, which is deadly
well below the US standard of 12
or the WHO level of 10 micrograms
per cubic metre,” Walke tweeted.
And while Trump touts the
greatness of US air quality, he is
simultaneously overseeing the
dismantling of environmental
protections in favour of cost-saving
measures for industry. He has got rid
of the part of the Clean Air Act that
places limits on cancer-causing
pollutants, and the EPA is looking to
reverse strict ozone standards brought
in by the Obama administration.
If that goes through, US cities will
be plagued by yet more smog, further
exacerbating PM2.5 pollution. ■Why Trump’s ‘cleanest
air’ boast is just wrong
ANALYSIS US air pollutio
TED SOQUI/GETTY“ The only countries with
more deaths linked to this
kind of pollution than the
US are China and India”For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
more privileged groups. They
have key jobs at the heart of
government. They have seats in
the House of Lords, and can be
found at the top of universities
and businesses. They have close
links to media institutions. When
they speak, policy-makers are
compelled to listen and respond.
Thanks to these relationships,
the UK’s science budget was
relatively protected throughout
the years of austerity. As welfare
benefits were cut and children’s
centres closed, scientists saw a
succession of new institutions
come on stream. Both the Labour
and Conservative parties are
committed to yet further funding
increases, taking the science
budget from 1.7 per cent of GDP to
at least 2.4 per cent inside a decade.
The value to society of all of
this is not in doubt, but after a
succession of good years, now is
the time for the scientific elite to
start taking a longer view. They
have both political power and
intellectual heft. They should be
using more of their access to argue
on behalf of others whose lives
could be destroyed by Brexit. ■Ehsan Masood was editor of Research
Fortnight from 2009 to 2017. His latest
book is The Great Invention: The story
of GDP and the making and unmaking
of the modern worldfinancial system and produce oil
for the advanced nations. Maduro
and former president Hugo
Chavez have refused to play along.
Post-colonial governments
have long tried to achieve
financial independence from neo-
imperialist powers, but doing so
invites sanctions and attempts at
regime change. Cryptocurrencies
were explicitly intended to free
the underdog from the influence
of big banks. Venezuela is hoping
the petro can make that promise
a reality. ■Brett Scott is author of The Heretic’s
Guide to Global Finance: Hacking the
future of money