Chicago
through the eyes of an environmentalist
By Peter
Schwartzman
It
is great to back in the ÔBurg—my home for the past eight years. From
mid-January to late May, I spent the majority of my time in Chicago during my sabbatical—a
ÒleaveÓ of absence every seven years taken by professors to give them time (usually
absent of teaching) to focus on aspects of their professional work. Though I
had visited the Windy City on occasion over the years, I have never stayed there
for an extended period. Though a newcomer to the ÒCity by the Lake,Ó I decided
to locate there (rather than in Costa Rica, which was another option for me)
because, after considerable thought, getting to know my regional environment was
deemed more important than learning about distant lands. Chicago had a lot to
offer an environmental thinker and I was happy to have the opportunity to be an
observer as well as participant during my stay. In the following remarks, I
will elaborate on a few of my observations. Perhaps some of them will provoke
and prompt readers to reconsider what urban environments have to offer and
where some of their challenges remain.
While
in Chicago, I dedicated most of my time to an environmental justice
organization located in a community about 5 miles southwest of the downtown
area. This volunteer work constituted my new 9-5 job (usually more like 10-5,
as it was sabbatical, remember) three to four days a week. My evening hours in Chicago (say 7 PM
to 1 AM) involved carrying out additional research on many of the subjects that
have piqued my interest recently (e.g., the food industry, nutrition, air
quality, alternative energy forms, and national sex ratios). This research resulted
in several Zephyr essays, a book
review, website contributions, and substantive changes to my yet-unpublished book.
When not Òworking,Ó I definitely spent a good deal of time studying and playing
Scrabble¨ as well as writing a puzzle book for enthusiasts of the game. Otherwise,
sadly to some, little of my Chicago experience was spent in characteristically
ÒculturalÓ centers—such as, playhouses, coliseums, museums, or cafes. Nevertheless, I had a very fruitful
experience and one that rejuvenated me for the long trek ahead before my next
opportunity to explore.
Transportation. For more than half the time that I was living in
Chicago, my car was in Galesburg. Thus, I availed myself of the public forms of
transportation (PFTs)—bus and subway (run by the CTA, Chicago Transit
Authority), and train (know as the Metra)—and walked a great deal as I
navigated myself to, through, and in many of ChicagoÕs seventy-seven official
communities (neighborhoods). Prior to my Chicago stint, I had had a great deal
of experience riding subways and buses (more of the former) while growing up in
the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. However, I had only ridden the Chicago
subway system a few times and I never had taken a bus or the Metra there. Upon
reflection of my nearly one-hundred hours of riding PFTs in Chicago (in
addition to a fair bit of experience attempting to get around in my car), here
are my conclusions: (1) In terms of transit time, PFTs, in general, often take
longer, perhaps twice as long as personal vehicles. During ÒrushÓ hour, PFTs
may often provide faster service because highways are often backed up and city
streets are nauseatingly stop-and-go as well. This delay in PFTs has more to do
with a lack of trains and train spatial coverage than due to anything inherent
to public transportation.; (2) In terms of quality of life concerns, public
transport is preferable. Trains and buses are clean and less nerve-racking than
cars that tailgate and/or weave in and out of traffic or trucks and SUVs (of
all shapes and sizes) that dominate the roadways. Also, while on a train or
bus, I was able to do an immense amount of reading and thinking, something not
possible in the ÒheatÓ of traffic; (3) the plethora of trucks and oversized
personal vehicles make it virtually impossible to use bicycles (despite their
being the most efficient form of transportation known to humans); (4) aspects of
ChicagoÕs PFTs are decidedly discriminatory. Recently efforts by the CTA to
reduce fraud resulted in eliminating the paper transfer method (which enabled
passengers needing more than one bus or train to use paper transfers to
continue on their route). Now, for those that donÕt have a credit card, a PFT
rider has one of two choices—buy cards that can only be recharged at a
limited number of locations (fewer in poor neighborhoods) or pay cash. But here
is the catch. The paying cash option, which is by far the easiest, least
invasive method forces riders to pay an extra quarter to ride a bus (than the
card holders) and, worse yet, forces them to pay full fare each time they
transfer. And since the ÒcashÓ users tend to be the poorest and recently
immigrated residents of the city, it hurts those that are least able to able to
afford it. Additionally, an effort is underway to reduce subway service to
communities of color by way of diverting service to communities that are
gentrifying, i.e., getting richer and whiter. ÒPublicÓ hearings held by the CTA
to assess the needs of communities are public only in the sense that regular
people can be seen but few are heard; so much for a working democracy; for more
on this issue visit: www.lvejo.org/restoringCTA.htm.
Environmental
Organizations. Working with the
Chicago Clean Power Coalition (CCPC; www.chicagocleanpower.org)
provided me an opportunity to witness first-hand how environmental
organizations vary from one another. Large organizations, which have thousands
of members nationwide, tend to focus their attention and energy on persuading
state and national politicians to support a particular position, platform, or policy
by providing cogent, well-supported arguments. They appeal to their membership
primarily for monetary support. On the other hand, smaller, grassroots,
community-based organizations attempt to educate local citizens in hopes that
they, once enlightened, will organize, Òtake-to-the-streets,Ó and force
politicians to support policies and platforms that protect residents
immediately. Each of these two strategies has its strengths and weaknesses. In
short, the larger organizations are often forced to settle for a compromise
position and can be corrupted by a political system that cajoles them to
negotiate in the first place. They will get something done but the ÒsomethingÓ
may be a weak position. Additionally, large organizations also often forget
which communities are most impacted by their recommended changes; hence, it is
imperative for the organizations involved find out what the local people really
want, rather than figuring out what is best for them independent of their voice.
On the other hand, the grassroot groups often expend a lot of energy building a
movement (albeit locally) that may or may not materialize. When a movement
forms, it can be very influential in eliciting significant change. Grassroot
organizations also reflect the spirit of democracy in a very tangible
way—people becoming educated, participating in decision-making, and
demanding progress. As a member of a coalition consisting of both types of
environmental groups, at times, I found it painstaking to get these groups to
work together. Yet, the CPCC was able to accomplish some things and its efforts
over the next few months may determine the future of clean air in Chicago and
elsewhere.
Air
Quality. As I detailed in my last Zephyr column, Chicago air has much to be desired. Air
pollution is an everyday problem (although the ÒwarningsÓ are only issued when
things really get out of hand). Sources for pollution abound, from the
thousands of cars, buses, and trucks that weave through (or sit endlessly in)
traffic, from the numerous industrial emitters in and around the city, and from
the two coal power plants located just a few miles from the Million Dollar Mile (i.e., Michigan
Avenue downtown). Chicago also gets a fair bit of pollution from Joliet
(located only 33 miles SW) where one of the largest coal power plants in the
state operates (along with hoards of other industrial factories; Will County,
where Joliet is located, ranks 6th worst—out of 80
counties—air pollution producer in the state; Cook County, where Chicago
is located, is ranked 2nd worst; Knox County is ranked 40th
worst).
Yet
despite this situation, many people I spoke with (outside of my coworkers)
didnÕt seem to think much about the danger they face each and every day just by
breathing. Contrastingly, the fear these same folks expressed on the issue of
violence was substantial. However, according to the American Lung Association
of Metropolitan Chicago, more people die each year because of the filthy air in
Chicago than do because of all forms of homicide. Apparently such statistics
havenÕt yet registered with the public. If they did, we might have thousands of
EPA officers in the streets of Chicago writing citations and making arrests of
polluters. WouldnÕt that be something that we could benefit from?
And
not all communities or people face the same pollution levels. Those that live
on the south and west side of Chicago have much greater exposures to pollution.
Whether from a large manufacturing plant, a giant landfill, a steel drum cleaning
and processing plant, a bus depot, or even a facility that culls the ÒvaluableÓ
recyclables out of the public waste stream, people living in low income
neighborhoods must endure much more by way of stench and poisonous fumes. If
clean air is a human right, then there are many, many violations of human
rights occurring among the nearly three million residents of Chicago.
Immigration.
Over the past few months, this
country has witnessed some the largest marches in its history. While anti-war
protests have been numerous and sizeable, recent Pro-Immigration marches,
especially in Chicago, have even been larger. On May 1, 2006, at least 400,000
people peacefully walked through the streets of Chicago demanding that
immigrants be treated with respect and humanity (nationwide, participants in similar
marches numbered over 2 million that day). Fortunately, I had a chance to witness
and participate in this event and as a result came to the following
conclusions.
Immigration
has occurred on this continent for millennia. Most American citizens today
descend from immigrant families that came to the United States after its
founding. Currently, ~69% of the population growth in the United States stems
from newly arriving immigrants (both legal and illegal) and the children that
they give birth to while here. Yet surprisingly, in 2000, only 10.4% of the
U.S. population consisted of immigrants, whereas in the first three decades of
the 20th century, the proportion of immigrants were a few percentage
points higher. In summary then, this country was (and is being) built with the
backs and the sweat of immigrants, something that will likely continue in the
future.
When we think of what compels people to come to the
United States now, especially from countries to our south, it is imperative we
consider the impact of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement).
Starting in 1994, NAFTA has resulted in the growth of larger industrial farms
across the border which has forced (by economic necessity) many farmers to seek
work in urban metropolises (such as Mexico City). Finding little work there
(due to the rapid increases in population size), some of these agriculturalists
(and their families) have decided that it is worthwhile to take the substantial
risk involved in entering the U.S. rather than continue to face NAFTA-induced
economic hardship in their country of origin.
As
a worker in a largely immigrant community—Little Village on the southwest
side of Chicago—I was able to interact with recent immigrants on a
regular basis. I found them to be hard working, moral, and family-oriented
people. Watching them function in new surroundings was heartening to me because
I often wondered what life was like for my great-grandparents (on both sides of
my family) that came to the New York area in the early 1900s from Eastern
Europe. I am grateful that my ancestors found refuge here and were able to
build a life that I am currently benefiting from. Thinking that they might have
been sent back home on their ship (or worse) because this country would have
deemed them ÒsuperfluousÓ (pick another pejorative term) seems outrageous.
Obviously we must come to recognize the social and economic pressures that
exist on the planet today (in part due to environmental damage and excessive
takings of resources) which creates the situation that we find ourselves in.
Bigger walls, more guards, better sharpshooters or booby traps may appear to be
the easy solution, but certainly one that ignores the real sources of modern migration
and the humanity involved.
ÒGreenÓ
Mayor. Recently, ChicagoÕs Mayor,
Richard Daley, has received accolades for being ÒgreenÓ (i.e.,
environmentally-conscientious). And while Mayor Daley deserves some recognition
for his environmental record (including, the reforesting of parts of Chicago,
the conversion of Miggs Field into a park, rooftop gardens downtown, a plan to
put wind turbines on select buildings; for more on what is being done in
Chicago, go to: www.cityofchicago.org/Environment/), he has failed the city in
some critical ways. First and foremost is the continued operation of two coal
power plants in the city limits which can (by law) ignore all pollution
reduction measures called for in the 1977 Clean Air Act (because they were
built earlier and, therefore, grandfathered out of the law). Efforts to clean
up these plants by Chicago Alderman have fallen on deaf ears in the Daley camp.
Without his support it is unlikely that the city will make progress in this
area. While these plants cause death of many and declining lung function for
thousands all across the Chicagoland area, they have a particularly damaging
impact on the communities—Little Village and Pilsen—in which they
are located.
The
recycling program in Chicago is a joke—something I heard over and over
again from people throughout the city. Supposedly, materials are being recycled
and residents are encouraged to put recyclables in ÒblueÓ garbage bags. In
fact, some materials are being recycled (with the dirty and smelly task of sorting
taking place in poor neighborhoods). However, the percentage of the Chicago waste
stream that is actually recycled is abysmal. Yet, the city uses propaganda to
mislead its residents. A city cannot be considered
environmentally-conscientious if it doesnÕt have a state of the art recycling
program underway.
Brownfields
abound throughout the city of Chicago. These Òabandoned or underused industrial
or commercial propertiesÓ suffer from environmental contamination which can be
extremely toxic (as is the case in the Celotex site in Little Village which has
dangerous levels of the carcinogenic compound benzopyrene in its soils). Others
are just are fenced off eyesores that greatly diminish areas available for
playgrounds, parks, or urban gardens. Forty-four (of seventy-seven, or 57%) of
ChicagoÕs communities have less than 3% park coverage. For these contaminated
sites to go uncleaned for so long and for so many abandoned parking lots to be
left fenced off from the public, speaks to the lack of dedication and
commitment of its political leaders.
So
until Mayor Daley makes a demonstrable effort to clean up the coal plants, to
expand recycling aggressively, and to clean up polluted brownfields and
increase neighborhood parks (all three activities that disproportionately
affect people of color and economically-challenged communities), he will be
deserving of only very lukewarm accolades from me connected to environmental
stewardship.
ÒNewsÓ Media.
One of the most striking
things that occurred to me during the five months in Chicago definitely had to
be the horrible quality of the press. In the area of air pollution, of which I
was centrally focused, the mainstream press was repeatedly contacted by
well-known and highly respect civic organizations—to inform them about a
press conference, public hearing, or a recent scientific study—and repeatedly
the press paid little or no attention to them. Yet, the press seemed to have an
insatiable desire to report on any occurrence of violence. On occasion,
environmental subjects did get some treatment in the main Chicago newspapers
but even when this occurred, the presentation was relegated to deep within any
given newspaper section. The radio coverage wasnÕt much better. Though NPR
Chicago interviewed me for over 20 minutes on the phone, only one sentence of
the interview aired. Yet, on the same 1-hour program, a 15-minute interview
with a local music conductor aired. In order for a community to be informed of
the environmental dangers and options they face, publicly available media needs
to aggressively and visibly provide information that the public can use. With
the environment in the shape that it is in, if we, the people of this nation, continue
to accept the status quo of our media, one can expect continue degradation of
our neighborhoods and our health.
I hope readers will reflect on my observations and
offer theirs as well. A healthy democracy requires the active exchange of ideas
by its citizens.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is associate professor
and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a
climatologist with publications in the area of climate change and human
population growth. An avid Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder and
maintainer of a website dedicated to peace and empowerment (www.onespower.org), natural spaces (www.blackthornhill.org), and clean air and
energy (www.chicagocleanpower.org).
6/29/06