As students at the University of Utah School of Medicine, we log countless hours studying in classrooms overlooking The Salt Lake Valley. Too often, however, these stunning views are obscured by smog.
Our field of study makes us aware of how detrimental this smog is to our health, but our interest in the topic was piqued when we noticed just how consistently it blankets the valley. This pushed us to start our research, and eventually gave us a sobering look at the future of Salt Lake City’s air quality.
In 2018, there were only 138 days in which the Environmental Protection Agency declared air quality in Salt Lake City as safe enough to take a deep breath outside. Despite this, state officials have approved plans for an inland port, a distributional hub for cross-country shipping set to be built right here in the valley. Alarmingly, environmentalists have noted that there has been little transparency from state officials about plans to offset the new port’s projected emissions. Despite this intentional vagueness, one thing remains clear: At such a high cost to our health, Utah has no room for additional air pollution.
The impact that poor air quality has on health is well-documented, and Utahns are already expected to lose from one to three and a half years of life due to current pollution exposure. This means that even small increases in pollution translate into astronomical health care costs. Residents of Salt Lake City are projected to incur around $200 million in new health care costs as a result of the pollution generated by the inland port. Salt Lake City’s air quality already boasts an “F” grade from The American Lung Association, and with transportation as one of the largest contributors to our pollution, it’s clear that we cannot afford the additional 11,600 truck trips and 22,000 hours of pollution production a day that the port will introduce.
On the other hand, with the creation of a projected 647,000 jobs and 36% GDP growth, proponents of the port promise that it will provide unparalleled economic development. The governor’s office and the port’s development committee have assured environmentalists that the port will have a negligible effect on air quality, citing plans to work with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to build it sustainably, and have even mentioned plans to develop zero-emissions truck fleets.
Unfortunately, any concrete details of these plans are not easily accessible to Utahns, and government officials have rushed to approve legislation concerning the port without giving citizens the time nor the data to form an opinion. The plan that the port’s development committee has released to the public, while filled with eco-friendly buzzwords, is vague and lacks tangible data.
Utah already has the country’s second lowest unemployment rate and this decade’s largest population increase of any state, making it clear that risking Utahn’s health in the name of economic stimulus is unnecessary. The port’s development committee claims that the projected pollution will be offset by “sustainable” plans like their push to develop zero-emissions truck fleets, but has neglected to address the fact that creating that fleet includes costs that would bankrupt most long-haul trucking companies. (14).
To our legislators: We ask that you increase the transparency surrounding this project so that citizens and activists can ensure the environmental integrity of the port. To citizens who find the approval of the port concerning, there are still actions that you can take to improve the project. Please visit the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment’s Inland Port webpage to see how you can help.
Courtney Rada
Sophia Grazian
Courtney Rada and Sophia Grazian are students at the University of Utah Medical School.
