Indoor Air Pollution: Dangers and Policy Responses

Pollution caused by vehicles, manufacturing plants, mining, and other industry are often what we think about when it comes to pollution problems. What about indoor air pollution? Because of technology that allows us to monitor gas levels in our homes, systems that filter our air, and a collection of regulations restricting industry, indoor pollution is not something that poses a real threat in the US. However, in developing countries, indoor air pollution is a serious problem that continues to have negative side effects on many people.

Almost 50% of citizens in developing countries rely on coal and biomass in the form of wood, dung, and crop residues to heat their homes and cook their food (Bruce 2009). These materials are typically burnt indoors in open fires or in simple stoves with very incomplete combustion. As a result, women and children using these processes are exposed to high levels of indoor pollution every day. Countless studies point out the health risks of indoor air pollution such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute respiratory infections. In fact, respiratory infections are one of the most common causes of death among children under five years in developing countries (Bruce 2009). Furthermore, studies also associate this pollution with low birth rate, increased infant mortality, asthma, and certain types of cancer. Even in areas of developing countries where cleaner energies are available, simple biomass fuels continue to be used. The slow rate of development in these countries suggests that biomass fuels will be used for many more decades (Fullerton 2008).

Despite the seriousness of this pollution, the problem is often overlooked. In developing countries suffering from indoor air pollution, a small number of wealthy citizens hold the majority of political power over the rest of the population. Because those in power do not live in poverished conditions like the majority of the population, they do not see these problems nor know what it is like to live in the poor conditions (Fullerton 2008). They have little incentive to fix problems such as indoor air pollution and it is not uncommon for politicians to ignore the issues completely. In contrast, more developed countries see this issue as a link to global warming and take it more seriously. Specifically in South Asia, the use of dung, crop waste, and wood in these stoves produces black carbon that builds up above the Himalayas and settles on the ice and snow. The layer of soot cuts the ability for the snow to reflect the sun's rays and may add to the melting of the regions glaciers (Bruce 2009). The destruction of forests is also a major concern, as villagers chop down trees daily to use for firewood.
Education is also a factor in the equation. Citizens using coal and biomass in their homes often come from poor families who simply don't know any better. They don't know and can't afford the difference between clean and 'dirty' energy - they just know that the wood, dung, and crop residue allows them to have heat and to cook their food. Negative health effects take a back seat to the benefit of having these necessities. Although government in some countries has tried to distribute cleaner burning stoves, etc., they have failed to educate their citizens as to why they should move toward a cleaner, healthier form of energy. Even when initiative is taken and outsiders attempt to enter villages to educate them and replace their stoves with cleaner energy, the efforts are often not enough. There have been many reports of villagers accepting the clean stoves but not using them, and even reports of outsiders being chased away from villages.

Educational efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Healthy People Initiative created by the US Department of Health and Human Services strive to raise awareness about healthy living conditions and the harmful effects of unhealthy behavior. Unfortunately, little efforts of these groups have been seen overseas. Interest groups in other countries have been a part of movements to implement cleaner energy and draw attention to the issue. For example, in July 2008, a large number of clean burning stoves were launched in India by Environfit and Shell Foundation. Many interest groups have joined forces with The Partnership for Clean Indoor Air which is perhaps the largest and most successful effort toward improving indoor air pollution. PCIA works with hundreds of partners to provide local communities with clean, efficient, and affordable cooking and heating options. The organization works to improve cooking technologies, to develop commercial markets for clean technologies, and to monitor the social, economic, and health impacts of household energy interventions (pcia.org). Although some of these interest groups work with financing institutions to provide low cost financing options to make alternatives available for villages, and the issue is said to have moved up on the global agenda, little progress has been made with direct policy in these developing countries.

Though indoor air pollution is still a major issue worldwide, there have been many efforts to improve the problem. For example, for the past two decades, Dutch and German governments have funded a 'Green Revolution' to rural Nepal. The project provides households with a biogas option at heavily subsidized rates, allowing citizens to burn cleaner, affordable energy. The project has already installed around 210,000 biogas plants, each plant reduces carbon emissions by around 4.7 tons/year (hedon.info). While biogas seems like a perfect solution as it burns clean energy and uses a renewable fuel, it is not economically attractive. The value of biogas is rather low and the yields are lower than other forms of energy, making it impractical on a large industrial scale (hedon.info).

In November 2009, Karnataka, India government jumped on board with the Shell Foundation's campaign on indoor air pollutions. Partnered with district and state administration, the campaign launched in 111 villages to raise awareness and improve stoves (hedon.info). Although the project is still in its infancy, it has already had much success educating locals. Using the concept of Sustained Activist Householder, the project educates through a local villager who has agreed to convert their household and travel to other households and inform the villagers about the problems of IAP and solutions (hedon.info). Stove demos have also been conducted at weekly markets to introduce villagers to the benefits and effectiveness of the smoke-less stoves.
In September 2007, the Honduras Stove Project was launched as a cooperative effort between the Department of Family Medicine, the Department of Public Health, and the Honduran government. It's main goal is to provide and document health effects and economic benefits of more fuel efficient cook stoves (hedon.info).

There are several additional examples of efforts in developing countries to implement cleaner energies. All of them are very similar: educate the local villagers about the harmful effects of IAP, then convert them to cleaner energy. Because all of these solutions are relatively similar, they all have similar negative side effects, the main one being the loss of disposal of waste. Biomass energy has sometimes been referred to as waste reduction, as it uses materials like dung and crop waste for energy. Although the side effects of burning these biofuels are extremely harmful, if all villages in even one developing country converted to clean energy, there would be a surplus of waste that would call for a new disposal method (Pluschke 2004). Residents have already seen a glimpse of this surplus in areas such as Nepal who have made strides in converting to clean energy.
IAP is obviously an issue that crosses national boundaries. Hundreds of developing countries are home to residents in rural households, up to 90% of these households still rely on unprocessed biomass fuels (Smith 2009). The biomass form of energy production is not only harmful to the residents of the country, but also to other countries who do use cleaner energy. As previously stated, the build up of black carbon settling on ice and snow may contribute to global warming. Also, the destruction of forests also will eventually have negative effects globally. In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002) took place in Johannesburg, South Africa. The conference brought together over 100 heads of state and 40,000 delegates to set up goals to reduce poverty and save the environment. Representatives from Latin America (Brazil, Cuba, El Salvador, Ecuador), Asia & Pacific (Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia), Europe (Denmark, Switzerland, Romania), as well as representatives of Africa were in attendance (earthsummit2002.org). A major result of this conference was the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air. As previously mentioned, PCIA works to provide clean, affordable cooking and heating options to local communities as well as improve cooking technologies and establish commercial markets for these technologies. Unfortunately, because of the level of development in the countries most affected by IAP, there has not been much progress as far as international efforts or agreements to address the problem. In my opinion, two crucial dynamics of these countries need improvement in order to move forward with international cooperation: political stability and IAP awareness. Of course complete political stability is unrealistic in most of the countries, but delegated representatives for decision making and collaboration with other countries are needed to advance policy internationally. Also, IAP awareness is necessary for international cooperation to even be considered.

As indoor air pollution does not greatly affect us here in the US, most are unaware of the problem in general, let alone its devastating side effects and potential to have negative effects on the globe as a whole. Although we may not personally suffer from IAP, that does not mean we should not consider the problem, as pollution caused by these biomass fuels has the potential to affect our environment here. It is apparent that simple education efforts as well as reasonable government cooperation is all it would take to drastically reduce the amount of dangerous IAP. As a leading cause of death worldwide, and a potential threat to the global environment, IAP is not something that should continue to be ignored.

Sources:

(2007). Earth summit 2002: Building partnerships for sustainable development. Retrieved from
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/

(2010). Indoor air pollution. Retrieved from
http://www.hedon.info/Category:IndoorAirPollution

Bruce, N., & Perez-Padilla, R. & Albalak, R. (2009). Indoor air pollution in developing countries: A
major environmental and public health challenge. Special Theme - Environment and
Health, 9.

Fullerton, D. G. (2008). Air pollution and health: indoor air pollution in the developing world is
the real key to reducing the burden of ill health. Thorax, 63.

Hansen, D. (2000). Indoor air quality issues. CRC Press

Pluschke, P. (2004). Indoor air pollution. Springer Verlag

Radut, Dr., (2010). The partnership for clean indoor air. Retrieved from
http://www.pciaonline.org/

Smith, R. & Samet, J. & Romiew, I. & Bruce, N. (2009). Indoor air pollution in developing
countries and acute lower respiratory infections in children. Thorax, 55:518-532. doi:
10.1136/thorax.55.6.518