NYC takes a step for the environment?

Last Wednesday, the New York Times printed an article entitled City to Replace School Lighting Tainted by PCBs . Evidently, the devices that regulate electric current for fluorescent lights was leaking the toxic chemical compound, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) onto light fixtures and tiles in New York public schools. Knowledge of this has outraged parents and officials across NYC for months and has sparked EPA campaigns to address the issue. Although the specific dangers of exposure remain foggy, PCB has been linked to cancer and poor cognitive development. Interestingly, PCB production was banned in 1979 by the US Congress. Luckily, NYC is responding with $708 million and an effort to remove PCB lighting fixtures in 800 city school buildings over the next 10 years. The light fixtures will be replaced with energy efficient lighting. Another added benefit is that the building will be energy audited. The result will be recommendations on how to improve the buildings’ energy efficiency. Additionally, the benefit of energy efficiency is framed in terms of money saved.

The article is interesting in that it doesn’t encapsulate the full danger of PCB. It highlights the health concerns as opposed to the environmental impacts. For example, PCB is toxic not only to humans, but also to wildlife. It is considered a persistent organic pollutant (POP), which basically means that PCBs do not naturally breakdown and accumulate in the environment and build up in human and animal tissue.

This story is an effective form of action, but with a caveat. It appears the city is taking steps towards energy efficiency but only following action from the public as well as leading groups, such as the EPA. The money and plan to replace the lighting fixtures is important because it addresses health concerns and also energy efficiency. Yet, the change’s purpose is health related, not environmental. Thus, this suggests that action is more easily garnered when human health is directly threatened, as opposed to environmental health. This article gives me hope only for environmental issues that are seen as directly impacting human health, as opposed to environmental issues that will impact human health in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/science/earth/24pcb.html?ref=science