Death by air

Australia is a car dependent country. A majority of people travel to work by car in all Australian states and capital cities. And poor or no access to public transport is quoted as the main reason for people to drive to work or study. The recent finding that the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, a nine-year-old girl in the UK, is attributed to air pollution draws attention to an often-ignored fact; air pollution kills. In fact, air pollution is a serious threat to our health and wellbeing, and we need to reconsider the way we are living in and designing our cities.

Last week’s landmark decision from the Coroner’s Court in London found that air pollution substantially contributed to the death of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s seven years ago. Ella suffered from serious asthma and died after almost three years of serious illness. Living close to South Circular Road, a major road on the outskirts of London, exposed Ella and her family to high levels of nitrogen dioxide. Dangerous levels that contributed to her ill health and the asthma-attack that led to her death.

Ella’s reoccurring incidents of poor health coincided with episodes of high air pollution in the area where she lived. The coroner concluded that the levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air where Ella lived exceeded the World Health Organization’s guidelines. The dangerous levels of air pollution persisted for a prolonged period of time despite efforts to reduce them. Following Ella’s death, the government has promised to oversee transport in the area and to reduce the pollution.

The harms of ambient air pollution are well-known, although, perhaps more associated with smoke from nearby bushfires, rubbish burning, and to particular locations such as near coal-fired power plants and in countries such as China, India and Bangladesh, than to transport in capital cities in the UK or Australia. The London Coroner’s decision contradicts this assumption. Instead, air pollution in heavily trafficked areas is harmful and even lethal. And what is worse, it affects those struggling economically more since they cannot always choose where to live. The World Health Organization estimate that nine out of ten people breathe air that exceeds their pollution guidelines and that annually about seven million people die as a result.

Apart from contributing to global warming, private vehicles cause harmful and deadly air pollution in our cities. We need to reconsider our options and prioritise extending the public transport network across Australia. Moreover, locating job opportunities across the city will reduce the need to travel. Finally, we need to closely monitor air quality around residential areas to minimise the risk of exposing people to hazardous levels of pollution.

Advancing to normalcy

Many countries around the world are starting to lift the COVID-19 emergency measures and to slowly return back to normalcy. The reason, more than anything, seems to be to slow the effects of the anticipated recession as state funds are dwindling and money printing presses are running warm. The dos and don’ts of managing this health crisis, I leave to others to discuss. Instead, I want to think through travelling and transport choices in the COVID and post-COVID world. Clearly, many communities are put under enormous economic pressure, especially those that are dependent on tourism, and unemployment numbers are climbing. However, I argue that we should not be so quick to rush back to previous travelling behaviours and in this blog post I want to think through ways to advance to a new normalcy, rather than moving back to what was before.

Firstly, how will the pandemic affect the way we move in the city? The question of public transport is caught up in the issue of contamination as the system is currently built around a high density of bodies in shared spaces. During the last two months, a few times I have had to utilise public transport for essential travel, and the change in travelling behaviour is striking. The empty trams have an eerie feel to them with only a handful of passengers in the otherwise so packed spaces. Naturally, this is due to less people moving around in the city but during the last two months more people have also been selecting cycling over public transport. As we transition out of in-house lockdowns and people once again have a reason to move around the city, will people continue to avoid public transport in favour of cycling, or will there be an increase in the use of cars? Resorting to the private spaces of the individual vehicle is not an option for everyone and it is certainly not a sustainable one. Instead I suggest that other options should be explored. In Melbourne, following the examples of major cities around Europe, there is a proposal for footpaths and bike lanes to be expanded in order to provide alternatives to public transport and to allow for more distancing between people. This will be at the expense of on-street parking. These are great examples of the ways transitioning out of isolation can be combined with more sustainable patterns of life.

At the same time, the European Union is urging European countries to reopen the boarders. “This is not going to be a normal summer… but when we all do our part we don’t have to face a summer stuck at home or completely lost for tourism industry,” Margrethe Vestager, the EU Commission Executive Vice-President announced at a press conference last Wednesday. Although I strongly sympathise with the tourist industry and European countries dependent on wealthy tourists from abroad, let us consider alternative to air travel with less adverse effects on the environment.

Luxuries become habits and habits becomes taken for granted. Before the pandemic, travelling to faraway destinations was no longer a luxury but rather the bare minimum requirement for many. For the last two months, here in Melbourne, we haven’t been allowed to travel anywhere really. As someone who works from home, my life has consisted of a five-kilometre radius around my house, which is about as far as I get on my runs. To travel anywhere right now seems like a luxury to me. I long for the Victorian countryside outside of Melbourne, the beaches and the valleys. I long to meet up with my friends in the city, to see my colleagues at work and to travel to visit my friends in different suburbs. Let us not resort to old habits of treating international flights as the norm. Let us instead treat it as something special, a luxury or the last resort.

Tourism can be undertaken in various ways and local attractions have a lot to offer. Nonetheless, the allures of the different, the far-away and the unknown remain. So, perhaps it is time to properly invest in more sustainable modes of travel. Holidays by train is the new black in Europe, but it is expensive and as many other ‘green’ alternatives therefore not available to or desirable for everyone. I am not sure whether the cost of train travel is representative of the cost of building and managing the infrastructure or, which I suspect, the discrepancy in flight and train prices is the result of allowing the ‘market’ to rule. Nonetheless, before we rush back into normalcy and previous travel behaviours, let us think about what travelling is necessary, what is sustainable and whether this is a good time to readjust some of those itinerant expectations.

Fire and fever: a new spatial awareness

My first post on this site treated the toxic Melbourne air as a result of the large bushfires burning around the country. In that post I considered how the toxicity of the air changed the way air looked and smelled, making us suddenly aware of its presence. The threat of bad air heightened our awareness of our senses, allowing us to pick up on any irregularities in the air. I would argue that it changed the way that we interacted with the space around us, including the normally unnoticed gaseous aspects of that space. Although today, the continued fires around Australia are all but vanished from our minds, a similar awareness of the space around us is evident during the current coronavirus pandemic. The disease has sensitised us to the air and spaces around us and their potential harmfulness. The virus, just like the toxic air, makes us attentive to space in new and unexpectant ways.

To demonstrate, think of your most recent visit to the supermarket. Weren’t you suddenly acutely aware of every part of your body (and even clothes) that were in direct contact with the spaces and objects around you? It was almost as if you were left with a burning invisible mark on your hand after having picked up the shopping basket. As you walked around the shop were you not intensely conscious of the way other people were moving in relation to you? Someone was standing too close to the brand of soymilk you wanted to grab so you hesitate for an extra movement, waiting for them to move on. As you turned around a corner, looking for the non-existent liquid hand soap did you not almost bump into someone moving towards you and suddenly, without thinking, you found yourself holding your breath? Some of us have taken to protective measures such as disposable gloves and face masks, attempting to create a protective barrier between ourselves and the outside world. Others, we are almost too fearful to go outside at all. As you escaped the supermarket you took your first deep breath in a while and made your way home, still feeling the germs burning the skin of your hands. The current health crisis has heightened our sense of touch to a point where we can feel the burning of unclean skin, it has sensitised us to our place in relation to the space and the people around us and it has made us intensely aware of the sounds and signs of flu symptoms.

These are new experiences for most of us and they can be understood as a different awareness of space. The invisible virus threatening us cannot be seen by the naked eye, yet it is perceived by every part of our body. The fact that we do not know if it is there makes us constantly assume that it is. Sure, we might slip up for a moment, moving our unclean hands to our faces, but we soon remember, kicking ourselves for our mistake. Of course, we were always aware that venturing into public space and the proximity of other people meant exposing ourselves to the risk of different forms of infections. However, never before have we been so keenly aware of the risk. Similar to the way the toxic air during the bushfire season made us aware of its existence, we are becoming cognisant of the fact that the virus might be present in the air that we move through or the places that we touch. Once this virus no longer is considered everywhere around us, most of us will return to moving through space in a manner similar to before. Nonetheless, just as with the air during the bushfires I think that, in a way, the virus pandemic will come to slightly change our relationship to space for quite some time.

For more considerations on the sounds of the pandemic and what it does to us, have a listen to the podcast ‘Listening to the city in a global pandemic’.

After pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic has transformed human behaviours around the world with some positive effects on the environment. In Australia, everyone whose work allows it is now working from home which means that less people are commuting to and from work each day. There is very little international travel and much less national travel taking place as state borders are closing and we are encouraged not to undertaking any unnecessary travelling. In addition, some industries have temporarily reduced their activities. I am, for example, now working from my home and I only leave my house to buy groceries, go for a run, a walk or to sit down at the creek close to my house. I have had to cancel my planned international trips to conferences and to see my family back in Sweden. These changes in mine and in millions of people’s lives have led to a slashing of air pollution globally as observed by the European Space Agency via satellite images. Although from a personal perspective the pandemic and the isolation are both tragedies, from a purely environmental perspective, these are all important behavioural changes and vital pollution reduction that we have been waiting for.

This is a time when we all worry about the future, wondering whether after the pandemic, life will return to something resembling normality. The Chinese city Wuhan, where the virus was first detected in December last year is now slowly lessening their strict mass quarantine rules. This, I think, is providing us all with some sanguinity. I hope that soon we can go back to living without the anxiety of death and disease being all around us. I also hope that we once again will seek closeness and social inclusion rather than fearing the person beside us and practicing social distancing. But will we also go back to travelling as much as we did before? I certainly hope not.

As someone who has been working from home for two weeks now, I do not believe it to be a good solution for everyone, or at least not every day. Nonetheless, perhaps those who can should work from home two days a week or find alternatives to the car. Moreover, there are a lot of national and international meetings that quite successfully can be undertaken via conference calls which has the potential to lessen the degree of business trips. If you drive to the grocery store, perhaps try to make less trips in a week and consider what consumption practices are absolutely necessary. In rough times it is natural to wish for something positive to arise as a result, for all the suffering to have led to something good. I would hope that this experience in all its tragedy could open up our minds towards alternative ways of life. I also hope that it has shown us how able we are to act and adapt in order to save lives. In what is hopefully not more than a few months, as we once again rebuild our societies after this frightening disruption, let us think about what world we want to live in and what we want Earth to look like in 20, 50 and 200 years. And then let us consider the best possible way forward and work together to get there.

Attuning to air and atmosphere

Over the Christmas holidays, I left Melbourne to spend a few weeks in Sweden with my family. A few days before my return to Melbourne I was reached by the news that Melbourne was experiencing reduced air-quality due to drifting smoke from the large bushfires along the Victorian coast. As I landed in Melbourne a few days later, the air quality was very bad. It was the morning on the 15^th of January, the air was glimmering yellow in the morning light and it tasted off. Although air is necessary for survival, breathing is an unconscious reflex which is often forgotten about. However, Choy reminds us that in places where air quality is bad, it becomes a topic of medical, political and social importance. Decreased air quality forces us to think about the atmosphere in more concrete ways. I know that for me, to check the air quality in my neighbourhood has now become a regular part of my morning routine. I have also downloaded an app which gives me daily updates, similar to weather notifications. Apart from employing such technological means of control, I am increasingly aware of the sight, taste and smell of the air. Preferably, air should not be seen or tasted but during bad days it is like you can see the dust and the chemical particles moving in the air, smell dirt in the wind and sense the minute particles through your taste buds. Twice so far, I have run around my house at night whiffing, after having detected an unusual smell, only to draw the conclusion that it must be coming from the air outside.

So, at least for me, the fact that air quality has become an issue in the city where I live is making me aware of air in ways that I previously was not. In addition, the fact that the air quality is not constant but rather erratic and changing intensifies this experience. A few years back I spent some months in Mexico City. At the time I would sometimes hear reports of the damage of breathing the air there being equivalent to smoking a packet of cigarettes a day or something to that effect. That is not a pleasant thing to hear but something that I quietly accepted and mostly avoided thinking about. The bad air was constant and largely due to the compact and laxly regulated traffic in the city. Nonetheless, the consistency of the air allowed me, for the most part, to forget about it. Similarly, recently I was complaining to my partner about the bad air in Melbourne and he, who had just returned from a trip to his hometown Dhaka, Bangladesh, answered by telling me about the air quality in Dhaka which often reaches hazardous levels. This of course does not stop people from going about their daily activities and I highly doubt they check the air-quality index each morning. Since, I believe, once again, the air quality is always pretty bad. In contrast, recent bad air in Melbourne has been a temporary and varying condition. ‘Hazardous’ air in the morning might be ‘moderate’ in the afternoon and ‘good’ the next day. Although the air quality has been good for a while, before going for a run I check the air to make sure that it hasn’t decreased.

Whether this acute attention to air would last even if the air quality continued to fluctuate, I do not know. Perhaps even that we would get used to. But for now, many people around Melbourne are on hyperalert for bad air and hazardous conditions as bushfires around the state are expected to burn all summer. This puts us in touch with air and the atmosphere within which air circulates in new, terrifying and exciting ways. Whether this attunement to air will lead to a change in behaviour or stricter carbon emission targets, is yet too early to say. What is clear is that we now exist in an atmosphere of increased climate urgency, which is making many people realise that climate change is affecting us here and now, not only there and then.