The simple act of breathing puts Hudson County residents at a greater risk of developing cancer than other New Jerseyans.
National environmental statistics rank Hudson’s air quality as the second worst in the nation, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than 1,500 people throughout Hudson – who are otherwise not at risk either through genetic predisposition or behavioral factors like smoking – will develop cancer if they breathe the air as it stands now for 70 years.
Public advocacy organizations like the New Jersey Environmental Federation (NJEF) are attempting to convince residents that they are not powerless when it comes to ensuring both their own health and that of their children.
"We should be outraged in urban communities," said Kim Gaddy, North Jersey Organizer for NJEF, at a press conference Monday at St. Francis Hospital in Jersey City. "Children and elderly people are at an especially higher risk and [air pollution] causes severe problems. We are a community that just can’t survive in these conditions."
The outrage to which Gaddy refers is caused by what she says is the state’s hesitation to pass the Clean Cars Act, a bill that has been floating through Senate and Assembly committees since January 2002.
Co-sponsored by Jersey City’s own Assemblywoman Elba Perez-Cinciarelli, the Clean Cars Act would bring the emissions program initiated by the state of California in 1966 to New Jersey. Already in place in New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, the bill would, advocates say, cause a 23 percent reduction of air toxins by 2020.
Car and truck emissions are the cause of 80 percent of air toxins in New Jersey, according to a report by the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).
"Cars are the single largest source of air pollution triggering asthma attacks and increasing the cancer risk in Hudson County," said Sam Boykin, field director for the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group. "Cleaner cars mean cleaner air, and passing the (CCA) is the single most important thing the Legislature can do to protect public health."
Boykin’s statements come on the heels of the report recently released by NJPIRG, which outlines alarming statistics that paint a grim picture of the serious health threat that air pollution poses to Hudson residents.
The threat to Hudson’s health
Air monitoring agencies across the state, including the one located in Bayonne, collect data that tells us just how safe our air is to breathe. To determine the risk posed by air pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a standard formula that was set by the federal Clean Air Act – the air is acceptable if only one person in a million has a chance of developing cancer from the carcinogens in the air.
New Jersey’s average is that 1,600 people out of a million will develop cancer from air toxins. Hudson’s average is that 3,600 people out of a million will.
To support those estimations, the NJPIRG report says that Hudson not only has more cases of pediatric asthma than any other county in the state, but that almost 60,000 adults here have asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
"Hudson County’s air is too polluted," said Sen. Bernard Kenny (D-Hoboken) in a release. "Seniors with oxygen tanks and kids with asthma can’t afford to wait while another smog season goes by."
Last summer, federal pollution monitors recorded 291 violations of the federal health standard for smog in New Jersey. In addition, the state’s air was unsafe to breathe one out of three summer days.
The EPA indicates that nearly 200 chemicals known as hazardous air pollutants are what contribute to air toxicity, and more than 10 percent of those are generated primarily by mobile sources.
"The amount of cars is deadening to us," said Jersey City resident Yvonne Balcer at a meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council Wednesday night. Balcer appeared before the board and read from NJPIRG’s "Hudson County at Risk" report, and she urged the council to take action to protect the health of the city’s most vulnerable people: children and the elderly.
Children are more susceptible to health risks from air pollution because of four factors:
- They breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults;
- They spend more time outdoors than adults, particularly during summer months when pollution levels are at their peak;
- They generally exercise more than adults, breathing heavily and drawing more contaminated air into their bodies; and
- because their lungs are still developing, any damage to them may be permanent.
Elderly citizens, moreover, are at risk precisely because their lungs have been weakened with age.
Resistance to bill
Business groups, car manufacturers and oil companies have resisted proposals to introduce clean car laws in various other states, and groups like the New Jersey Business and Industry Association (NJBIA) have spoken out against the legislation because they say it will cause undue hardship to the state’s car dealers and car buyers.
But PIRG’s Boykin said that in terms of cost, the cleaner cars that will be made available to the public through the bill would save consumers more money than if the CCA didn’t pass.
"Health problems cost the state of New Jersey a lot of money," Boykin said. "The Office of Legislative Services says [the CCA] would have a zero financial impact on the state. And while car companies might say that cleaner cars cost more to make, there are studies that show it won’t put a car company at a competitive disadvantage."
Any costs incurred by consumers would clearly be made up for by the savings in gas mileage, Boykin added.
He added that business organizations are confusing cleaner car legislation with the idea that it will unfairly force them to manufacture super low-emission vehicles, otherwise known as "hybrid cars," Boykin added. The CCA only requires that 10 percent of a manufacturer’s fleet be hybrid cars. What makes all the difference is the changes it requires in the manufacturing process, like ensuring tighter seals.
"What we need is a paradigm shift," Gaddy said Monday. "It’s just like when they were resistant to the inclusion of seatbelts. It’s a habitual resistance to change."
Representatives from the NJBIA did not return calls seeking comment.
Deadline this Monday
Public advocates are trying to capitalize on the bill’s current momentum before the Legislature goes into summer recess after this Monday, June 30.
But Perez-Cinciarelli said Wednesday she didn’t think the bill would be rushed through the Legislature just yet. Saying that she has heard the state of California is rethinking the ground-breaking legislation it enacted almost 40 years ago, she spoke reservedly about a final vote happening before tomorrow.
"I think we need to do more research as to how it’ll help our children and elderly," Cinciarelli said. "But I do think that (the CCA) is moving in the right direction and I support it."
Advocates think that the bill is still much better than anything currently existing to regulate vehicle emissions.
"[The CCA] is equivalent to taking half a million cars off the road," Boykin added. "This is the most significant piece of environmental legislation in the Statehouse right now."