Around 10 percent of properties in the US already have to cope with a week or more of days when air quality is considered unhealthy due to fine particle pollution, also called soot. Nearly half of those properties have it much worse, experiencing two weeks of unhealthy air quality days.
Climate change is erasing previous gains in air quality as a result of wildfires.
Climate change is erasing previous gains in air quality as a result of wildfires. Around 10 percent of properties in the US already have to cope with a week or more of days when air quality is considered unhealthy due to fine particle pollution, also called soot. Nearly half of those properties have it much worse, experiencing two weeks of unhealthy air quality days.
Air quality in the US is projected to backslide in the coming decades as a result of climate change.
Around 10 percent of properties in the US already have to cope with a week or more of days when air quality is considered unhealthy due to fine particle pollution, also called soot. Nearly half of those properties have it much worse, experiencing two weeks of unhealthy air quality days.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that air quality will backslide due to climate change and wildfire smoke but fails to mention other factors such as pollution from human activities which also contribute to poor air quality. Secondly, the author states that around 10% of properties in the US already have to cope with a week or more of days when air quality is considered unhealthy due to fine particle pollution, also called soot. However, this statement is misleading as it does not provide context on what percentage of these properties are located near sources of pollution such as power plants and industry. Lastly, the article uses sensationalist language such as 'wiping away 20 years of air quality improvements' which exaggerates the impact of climate change on air quality.
The title implies that air quality will backslide due to climate change and wildfire smoke but fails to mention other factors such as pollution from human activities which also contribute to poor air quality.
The article uses sensationalist language such as 'wiping away 20 years of air quality improvements' which exaggerates the impact of climate change on air quality.
The author states that around 10% of properties in the US already have to cope with a week or more of days when air quality is considered unhealthy due to fine particle pollution, also called soot. However, this statement is misleading as it does not provide context on what percentage of these properties are located near sources of pollution such as power plants and industry.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority when it quotes experts such as Justine Calma and Drew Shindell. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that climate change is erasing previous gains in air quality and that around 10 percent of properties in the US already have to cope with a week or more of days when air quality is considered unhealthy due to fine particle pollution, also called soot. The author also uses an informal fallacy by using colloquial language such as 'really bad floods and really bad wildfires are relatively rare' which implies that the frequency of these events is not significant enough to be a concern.
1 in 4 Americans breathes unhealthy air because of climate change.
About 83 million Americans are exposed each year to air quality that is categorized as 'unhealthy' by the Air Quality Index (AQI).
eMore than 125 million Americans will be exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution by the middle of the century, largely because of increased smoke from wildfiresω
Climate change is amplifying wildfires
Accuracy
The number of people with unhealthy AQI levels could grow to 125 million within decades due to climate change.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that about 83 million Americans are exposed each year to air quality that is categorized as unhealthy by the Air Quality Index (AQI), which could grow to 125 million people within decades. However, this statement implies a linear increase in poor air quality when in fact there have been fluctuations and improvements over time due to regulations such as the Clean Air Act. Secondly, it states that additional heart attacks are being added back because of rising poor air quality but fails to provide any evidence or data to support this claim. Thirdly, it mentions a study by First Street Foundation which predicts an increase in unhealthy AQI days due to climate change but does not disclose the methodology used for this prediction. Finally, the article uses sensationalist language such as 'worsening air quality' and 'downstream effect of people moving away is that property values start to suffer because the area becomes less desirable', which can be seen as misleading.
The statement about 83 million Americans being exposed each year to unhealthy AQI could grow to 125 million people within decades implies a linear increase in poor air quality when in fact there have been fluctuations and improvements over time due to regulations such as the Clean Air Act.
The article mentions that additional heart attacks are being added back because of rising poor air quality but fails to provide any evidence or data to support this claim.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Air Quality Index (AQI) and First Street Foundation's analysis without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by stating that air quality is either unhealthy or healthy, when in reality there are different levels of AQI that correspond to varying degrees of health risks. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric by describing wildfires as
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with First Street Foundation and Environmental Protection Agency as they are mentioned in the topics provided.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of climate change as they are reporting for First Street Foundation which is an organization that focuses on property value protection from natural disasters such as wildfires and sea level rise. The article also mentions the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which may have its own agenda regarding climate change.
The author reports on a study by First Street Foundation, which found that 1 in 4 Americans today breathes unhealthy air because of climate change.
`More than 125 million Americans will be exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution by the middle of the century, largely because of increased smoke from wildfires`
Smoke from last year’s Canadian wildfires blanketed the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City’
`There are few good ways to protect communities from wildfire smokec
ੴUS air pollution began to steadily improve in the 195os, largely because of increased regulation, but starting around 2OIOOd-l5, the trajectory reversed due to climate change causing more extreme heat and drought which made wildfires worse and caused more smokec
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the research of First Street Foundation without providing any context or evidence for their claims. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by stating that there are few good ways to protect communities from wildfire smoke when in fact there are measures that can be taken such as evacuation plans and air purifiers. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric with phrases like 'more extreme heat has increased the levels of ozone in the air' which is not a neutral statement but rather an emotional appeal to fear.
The author cites First Street Foundation as their source for information without providing any context or evidence for their claims. This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy.
Bias
(80%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'protections are few' to suggest that there is a lack of resources being allocated towards protecting communities from wildfire smoke. This implies that those in power have not prioritized this issue enough, which could be seen as an example of political bias.
More than 125 million Americans will be exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution by the middle of the century, largely because of increased smoke from wildfires
The United States has gotten better at coping with other climate perils, like floods, hurricanes and even wildfires themselves. Smoke is different: It's more challenging to anticipate, to get people to take seriously and to keep out of people's homes.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Christopher Flavelle has a conflict of interest with First Street Foundation as he is an author for them.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Christopher Flavelle has a conflict of interest on the topic of wildfires and climate change as he is affiliated with First Street Foundation which studies the impact of extreme weather events such as wildfires.
A new study from the First Street Foundation categorized air quality in the US as 'atrocious'.
The foundation noted a trend in 'climate penalty' as worsening climate conditions undo federal and local efforts to improve air quality, landing back to where it was in the mid-21st century.
At least 83 million people, or 25% of the population, are annually exposed to unhealthy air.
More than 10 million people are living under very unhealthy levels of air quality with an estimated 1.5 million of that population exposed to hazardous air.
Accuracy
Climate change is real and it will soon make living in the US more unbearable than it was before.
Many areas with poor air quality are found in California, particularly in Central Valley and San Francisco.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that climate change will make living in the US more unbearable than it was before. This statement is not supported by any evidence and exaggerates the impact of climate change on air quality.
unhealthy air
Climate penalty
hazardous air
very unhealthy levels of air quality
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing a study from the First Street Foundation without providing any context or information about their credibility. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by stating that climate change is real and it will soon make living in the US more unbearable than it was before, when there are many other factors that contribute to air pollution such as industrial emissions and transportation. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric with phrases like 'atrocious' and 'hazardous'.
The foundation noted a trend in
Bias
(80%)
The article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses extreme language such as 'atrocious' and 'hazardous' to describe air quality in the US which is not an objective assessment. Secondly, there are multiple instances where the author quotes statistics without providing any context or explanation for their significance. For example, they mention that 10 million people are living under very unhealthy levels of air quality but do not explain what this means or how it affects them. Thirdly, the article contains a statement from an environmental group which may be seen as biased towards improving air quality in the country.
At least 83 million people, or 25% of the population, are annually exposed to 'unhealthy' air
'Maroon days', which refer to worst air quality alert under Air Quality Index where everyone is more likely affected by polluting particles in the air
The foundation noted a trend in 'climate penalty' in the past years
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kyle Marcelino has a conflict of interest on the topic of climate change and its impact on air quality in the US. He is affiliated with First Street Foundation which advocates for increased funding for flood mitigation efforts.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of climate change and its impact on air quality in the US. The article mentions that First Street Foundation is working to help communities adapt to extreme heat and drought, which could be seen as an effort to mitigate the effects of climate change. Additionally, Kyle Marcelino's affiliation with iTechPost may also raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
First Street Foundation mentioned in article: 'The First Street Foundation is working on a new tool that will help communities adapt to extreme heat and drought.'
Kyle Marcelino's affiliation with iTechPost mentioned in author bio: 'Kyle Marcelino is an experienced journalist who has worked for several publications, including iTechPost. He specializes in covering technology and science news.'
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24710039/236691_Air_pollution_NYC_AKrales_0034.jpg)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25277136/Screenshot_2024_02_09_at_11.50.21_AM.png)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25276995/Screenshot_2024_02_09_at_9.39.43_AM.png)
