Ozone Levels in Many US National Parks Are Similar to Those in Large Cities

Pollution will ruin your summer vacation, too.

Jacob W. Frank/Planet Pix via ZUMA Wire

This story was originally published by CityLab and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Even in the awe-inspiring canyons of Yellowstone and mountains of Yosemite, the fresh air may not be so fresh: Concentrations of ozone in many US national parks are similar to levels in America’s largest metropolitan areas, according to a new study in Science Advances by researchers at Iowa State University and Cornell University.

Back in 1990, the biggest US metro areas had higher average ozone concentrations and more exceedance days (when the EPA deems ozone levels unhealthy for sensitive groups) than national parks. Butby the early 2000s, the study notes, ozone concentrations were “nearly identical” in national parks and large metro areas. In cities, average summer ozone levels decreased by more than 13 percent from 1990 to 2014. The same metric for national parks increased from 1990 to the early 2000s, but declined to 1990 levels by 2014.

The researchers noted that these trends align with the timing of federal regulatory efforts, namely the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 (mostly focused on pollution in urban areas) and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (centered on national parks).
The study’s authors looked at 33 national parks across the US, including the largest and most visited in the NPS system, such as Acadia, the Great Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. The 20 largest metro areas, led by New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston, were selected based on 2015 population estimates.Sequoia National Park had the highest average ozone concentration of the parks studied, and its trend for exceedance days is similar to that of Los Angeles—the city with the highest ozone levels.
Ground-level ozone is the main ingredient in smog. It is created by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in sunlight. Common sources of nitrogen oxides and VOC include emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, and gasoline vapors. Ground-level ozone is different from stratospheric ozone, or “good” ozone, which appears naturally in the upper atmosphere.The study found that national parks had fewer visitors on days with poor visibility, presumably because some people followed air-quality warnings. Ozone exposure is associated with respiratory symptoms and increased hospitalization rates, and exposure during exercise worsens the effects.

Although the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 expanded regulation of toxic chemicals to fight acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions, the efforts largely centered on places where many people live. Substantive efforts to address air quality in national parks did not materialize until 1999, when the EPA created the Regional Haze Rule, which called for state and federal agencies to work together on the issue. This April, President Trump directed former EPA head Scott Pruitt to review the Regional Haze program. The rule has been controversial with some states and industry groups who cite the cost of regulation.

Ivan Rudik, one of the researchers, told CityLab that about 10 percent of all park visitors since 1990 (or about 80 million people) have been exposed to ozone levels that are unhealthy for sensitive groups, including older adults, children, and individuals who have a lung disease or are exercising outside. “So pretty much everyone who goes to national parks,” he said.

One of the most consequential findings, Rudik said, is that “there’s still quite a [number] of people being exposed to potentially unhealthy levels of ozone when they go to national parks.” Something to keep in mind the next time you escape the city for a dose of fresh country air.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate