TIME Developmental Disorders

ADHD Linked to the Air Pregnant Women Breathe

AR5037-001
Heavy traffic can pollute the air with compounds that can contribute to ADHD Alan Hicks—Getty Images

Everything an expectant mother does can have an impact on her baby’s development—including the air she breathes

Research has long connected what a mom-to-be eats and drinks to the health of her baby, and recent studies have even linked behavioral experiences such as stress, sleep and mood to the growing fetus’s development.

Now, scientists reporting in the journal PLOS ONE have pinpointed one exposure that could contribute to a baby’s higher risk of developing attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), which the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control show affects around 11% of children aged four to 17 years.

MORE: Early Exposure to Air Pollution Tied to Higher Risk of Hyperactivity in Children

Frederica Perera, director of the center for environmental health sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, and her colleagues focused in on how the pollutants in the air that pregnant women breathe can affect their babies’ cognitive development. Perera previously found a correlation between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) emitted by burning fossil fuels (such as in car exhaust and some forms of residential heating) to developmental delays by age three, reduced IQ in kindergartners and attentional problems by age six. So the team looked specifically at symptoms associated with concentration and evaluated how these effects connected to PAHs might be contributing to ADHD.

The scientists measured the level of PAHs in both the cord blood retrieved when the mothers gave birth and the mothers’ blood following delivery. They also collected urine samples from the children at age three or five years and analyzed them for PAH levels. The children born to mothers with higher levels of PAH during pregnancy had five-fold increased odds of showing symptoms of ADHD than those who were born to mothers with lower levels. The effect remained strong even after the researchers adjusted for the babies’ exposure to air pollution and smoking after birth.

“This is a new finding, and if the PAHs are identified as a contributor to ADHD, that opens up new avenues for preventing ADHD,” says Perera.

MORE: Study Links Exposure to Pollution with Lower IQ

PAHs, says Perera, circulate in the body for a long time, so even brief exposures could contribute to changes in the body. And each person processes the chemicals differently. Some may be more prone to breaking down the compounds into their potentially toxic elements, while others are less affected by the exposure.

While mothers may not be able to control some exposures, such as those from traffic and heating sources, there are some ways that expectant women can reduce their risk. Pushing local legislators to adopt clean air laws is one way to improve air quality, and on a more personal level, families can make sure that cooking areas have proper ventilation, avoid burning candles and incense and other sources of PAHs, and most importantly, ensure that they aren’t exposed to tobacco smoke. “Air quality is a policy problem, but individuals can be empowered to take steps,” Perera says.

MORE: Mom’s Exposure to Air Pollution Can Increase Kids’ Behavior Problems

Women who are pregnant can also eat more antioxidants from sources like fresh fruits and vegetables, since these can counteract some of the oxidative damage that PAHs wreak on fetal cells.

Perera stresses that limiting exposure to PAHs isn’t the only answer to reducing the increasing rate of ADHD in the country. Genetic and other environmental factors all contribute to the disorder, but identifying as many potential factors as possible could start to reduce the effect that the chemicals have not just on mothers, but on their developing babies as well.

TIME Environment

See the Worst Place to Breathe in America

It's not Los Angeles

If you think about smog, you’re probably picturing a major city like Los Angeles, where in the 1960s and ’70s the air was so bad that smog alerts telling people to avoid outdoor activity were regular occurrences. The air has improved in L.A. and other big cities in recent years, thanks to cleaner cars and air-pollution regulation.

But the real capital of air pollution in the U.S. is a farming city that sits to the northwest of L.A.: Bakersfield.

Bakersfield is in the San Joaquin Valley, a major agricultural area that stretches through much of California. The San Joaquin Valley contains some of the richest, most productive agricultural land in the country. But its geography — the valley is surrounded on all sides by mountains — creates a bowl that traps air pollution. Levels of soot and ozone — which in warm weather, which the valley has much of the year, can create smog — are some of the highest in the country. And while air in much of the U.S. has improved, in Bakersfield and other towns in the southern San Joaquin Valley, the air quality is as bad as ever — if not worse.

How bad? School officials in Bakersfield have used colored flags to indicate air quality: green for good, yellow for moderate, orange for unhealthy for sensitive groups and red for unhealthy for all groups. But this winter, the air became so bad that officials had to use a new color on the worst days: purple, even worse than red. Because of high levels of air pollution, asthma is prominent throughout the region, and the bad air can also raise levels of respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

Photographer Lexey Swall grew up in Bakersfield, and in this collection of photographs, she shows the human cost of living in one of the most polluted cities in the country. For Bakersfield residents, there’s simply no room to breathe.

TIME Environment

Your Electric Car Isn’t Making the Air Any Cleaner

Inside The 1st International Electric Vehicle Expo
A Nissan Motor Co. Leaf electric vehicle (EV) is driven for a test drive during the first International Electric Vehicle Expo. Bloomberg/Getty Images

Rich places get most California green vehicle subsidies—and the environmental benefits of rich people’s Teslas are canceled out by all the gas-guzzling clunkers still on our roads

This is a tale of two zip codes.

First there’s 94582: San Ramon, California.

Since 2010, the roughly 38,000 citizens and businesses of this prosperous Bay Area suburb, where the median household income is $140,444, have purchased 463 zero emissions vehicles. Such vehicles receive major state subsidies; nearly $1 million of these subsidies went to vehicle purchasers in San Ramon. But San Ramon doesn’t need the anti-pollution help. Despite being home to a large highway complex and a business park, the city scores in the cleanest 10 percent of California’s zip codes, according to the Cal EPA’s Enviroscreen Index.

The second zip code is 93640, the Central Valley town of Mendota, population 11,800, with a median annual household income of $28,660, which is less than the $36,625 sticker price of a Honda Fit EV. Mendota is in the top 10 percent of California zip codes for pollution and vulnerabilities such as childhood asthma, according to the CALEnviroscreen. And how many vehicles were purchased there under state subsidies? Exactly one, a lone car whose owner received $2,500.

California’s green vehicle policies have been successful enough to become a model for other states, fueling a movement that is electric, both literally and culturally. The state’s audaciously utopian vision has cajoled an initially reluctant auto industry into producing cheaper, better behaving electric cars, led by the media-savvy upstart Tesla. Since 2010, Californians have put more than 100,000 electric vehicles on the road. But those green vehicle policies contain a flaw that undermines their intent and magnifies the unfairness of California’s economy. These rebates—of as much as $5,000, funded by an extra charge on vehicle registrations—go mostly to affluent communities on California’s coast.

Of the $151 million in subsidies paid since 2010, people who bought zero emissions vehicles in the Bay Area, South Coast (Los Angeles) and San Diego Air Basins have gotten $132 million. Over the same period, people in the San Joaquin Valley have gotten $3 million, despite having the most intractable air quality problems in the state.

Go below the Valley’s smog, and the problem runs much deeper: Its cars are old—much older, on average, than the state’s vehicle fleet. Estimates suggest that the median vehicle in poorer Valley communities is from 1996. According to the Air Resources Board, a vehicle made in 1996 produces 29 times as much pollution per mile from its tailpipe as one sold in 2012.

Translation: The Valley’s stock of old gas guzzlers is wiping out the clean air benefits of the subsidies we’ve bestowed upon the wealthy parts of the state.

You can see the dynamic by looking at those two zip codes together. Every 1997 vehicle in Mendota wipes out emissions benefits of 29 electric vehicles in San Ramon. More precisely, it only takes 16 of Mendota’s finest clunkers to turn the benefits of nearly $1 million in subsidies for San Ramon into a pile of sooty particulate.

I am not making this point to advocate the end of the green vehicle subsidies, but to point out that these subsidies were created to target the state’s wealthy. And they succeeded.

Rebates, tax credits and HOV lane stickers appealed to the better off in parts of the state with thriving economies and traffic congestion. Now the state needs to come up with a new set of policies to target California’s many Mendotas. We need a suite of incentives—low interest loans, non profit auto leasing, and more accessible, appropriate rural transit—to get working families out of older polluting vehicles and into cleaner transportation (which doesn’t have to be electric).

Last year I spoke with a Mendota farmworker who drives a 1995 Ford Explorer. Mr. Hernandez drives twice as far to his skilled job every day—115 miles roundtrip—as the average driver of a Nissan Leaf. Last year he had to pay for two smog tests and repairs, totaling around $500, just to keep his car registered.

From Mr. Hernandez’s point of view, the car is a money pit, but it’s necessary for him to get himself to work and bring his daughter to high school. (Parents have to drive their kids to school when the Valley’s Tule fog delays school start times.) Because the car gets only 15 mpg, he spends $400 to $500 a month on gasoline, and often puts off paying other bills to keep getting to work.

Mr. Hernandez said he’d love to get “a little Honda.” Ironically, if he had access to credit, he could get a Ford Fiesta for $1,400 down and $194 a month, which would cut his gasoline bill in half. But such credit is not easy to come by: The percentage of families without a bank account in Fresno is 3.5 times the national average and used car dealers charge much higher interest.

A well-designed state program to enable families to finance or lease better cars would improve their financial situation and reduce gasoline consumption, and carbon emissions. Mr. Hernandez’s clunker is a big opportunity to make much more dramatic air quality gains than we’re currently achieving. Once they’re in place, these programs can be extended to make electric or other zero emissions vehicles accessible to more families and income levels. This will not be easy, but it is no more utopian than the dream of kick-starting an electric vehicle market.

And as it now stands, California’s air incentive policies miss the people who could use them, and sometimes even seem to work in reverse.

California’s air districts offer cash to owners who turn in old, polluting cars to junkyards, but these programs seem to pick up clunkers that are not driven much. In a survey of 164 vehicles scrapped in Southern California, 29 percent were incapable of driving 25 mph.

By contrast, Mr. Hernandez, with his high weekly mileage, got stymied when he went to his local scrapyard. He was offered a $400 incentive, but was told he’d need to pay $650 to clear up an issue in the title. The deal simply didn’t make sense.

“Now I own an antique!” he said throwing up his hands like a man who’s trapped. But he’s not the only one: California’s big green vision will be stuck in neutral until we figure out how to extend its promise to every zip code.

Lisa Margonelli is an editor at large at Zócalo Public Square, for which she wrote this. Her white paper on vehicles in the Central Valley is available here.

This piece originally appeared on Zócalo Public Square.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Iran

A Side Effect of Iranian Sanctions: Tehran’s Bad Air

An overview of Tehran, July 7.
An overview of Tehran on July 7, 2014 Kiana Hayeri for TIME

Air pollution has decreased significantly since sanctions were temporarily lifted in January. As Iran and the U.S. attempt to hammer out a comprehensive nuclear deal before the July 20 deadline, the capital city’s newly cleaner air hangs in the balance 

When the U.S., the U.N. and Europe implemented, in 2010, one of the harshest sanctions regimes ever seen globally to curb Iran’s suspected development of a nuclear-weapons program, it was widely expected that the country would soon fall to its knees. Instead, Iran absorbed the blow, and though weakened, has managed to keep its economy afloat.

The sanctions all but stopped international financial transactions, limited military purchases, reduced the import and export of petroleum products and significantly curtailed trade — but you wouldn’t know it by walking the bustling streets of Iran’s capital of Tehran. According to economist Saeed Laylaz, Iran imported $3 billion worth of European luxury cars last year, triple the number before sanctions. Grocery stores are packed with all kinds of American products: from Coca-Cola to Snickers candy bars to Duracell batteries, while electronics shops even in small towns proudly display the full range of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Apple products — even the iPhone 5S. The sanctions didn’t hurt Iran, say Iranians; they merely amplified an economic crisis wrought by government mismanagement in the preceding years.

About the only place where the impact of sanctions is visible is in the skies above Tehran. Iran may have the fourth largest proven petroleum reserve in the world, but it refines little of its own product, depending instead on imports of fuel from Europe. Sanctions cut those commodities off, sharply reducing supplies of gasoline. In order to keep Iran’s 26.3 million cars, trucks and motorcycles on the road, government officials were forced to convert petrochemical factories into ad hoc refineries, an expensive and inefficient process that produces a low-grade fuel choked with pollutants.

The results were devastating. Already home to some of the world’s most polluted cities, Iran saw a dramatic increase in the air pollution that contribute most directly to ill health, according to a worldwide World Health Organization assessment released in 2013. It is impossible to definitively link the impact of sanctions to the rising rates of childhood asthma cases and lung disease documented by Iran’s Health Ministry over the past four years — the concurrent increase in car ownership may also play a role. But when some sanctions, including those on the import of gasoline, were lifted in January under an interim agreement that proffered relief in exchange for substantial negotiations over the scope of Iran’s nuclear program, the impact was visible.

In June 2013, the pollution in Tehran was so bad that the mountains surrounding the capital could not even be made out from the 13th floor of a hotel popular with journalists in the city center. A year later, however, the last vestiges of winter snow could be spotted high on the mountains to the north of the city. “Sanctions significantly contributed to pollution, and particularly the kinds of pollution that are damaging to health,” says Rocky Ansari, an economist and sanctions expert at Cyrus Omron International, a firm that advises international companies on investing in Iran. Even before the sanctions were lifted, he says, the government was working on improving refining capacity in the country, but the international decision to clear the way for increased imports of refined fuel was a huge boost. “Now that hardly any petrol from petrochemical factories is being used, the pollution has reduced, and already people can breathe better air.”

That may be the case, but many Iranians are still holding their breath. The interim agreement ends on July 20, and a comprehensive deal that limits Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons in exchange for a permanent lifting of sanctions is still in doubt. Iran says its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, but a long history of subterfuge when it comes to international inspections has raised doubts about the country’s true intentions. The U.S. wants to see a sharp reduction in Iran’s ability to enrich nuclear fuel to weapons grade; Iran says it will not submit to overly onerous limits on its nuclear energy program.

The temporary agreement can be extended by up to six months, a point raised by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on the sideline of talks in Vienna on July 13. “If we can reach a deal by July 20, bravo, if it’s serious,” he told reporters, according to Reuters. “If we can’t, there are two possibilities. One, we either extend … or we will have to say that unfortunately there is no prospect for a deal.” Should the talks fail, as with several previous attempts to strike a deal, the U.S. is likely to lead the call for even tougher sanctions, risking more conflict in a region already in turmoil — and further darkening the skies above Tehran.

— With reporting by Kay Armin Serjoie / Tehran

TIME Air Pollution

Broccoli-Sprout Beverage Can Detoxify Pollutants

84782489
Image Source—Getty Images/Image Source

Scientists have developed a drink that can clear people in China of pollutants

China has a serious pollution problem and it’s harming the health of people who live there—even those living outside of the biggest cities.

But scientists from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health think they’ve found a very simple and cost-effective solution. Or at least something that could curb risk. Their answer is a broccoli-sprout beverage.

It sounds so simple, and it really is. The results appear promising, too.

It’s pretty well established that cruciferous vegetables like broccoli have cancer-preventative compounds. Broccoli sprouts specifically are a source of glucoraphanin, which creates sulforaphane when chewed or swallowed. That compound accelerates the body’s ability to detoxify from various pollutants.

The researchers had about 300 Chinese men and women living a rural community in Jiangsu Province, China, drink a beverage of sterilized water, pineapple, lime juice and dissolved freeze-dried broccoli sprout powder. The control group drank a mixture without the sprout mixture. All the participants had their urine and blood tested, and when they did, the scientists discovered that among the participants drinking the broccoli beverage, the rate of excretion of the carcinogen benzene increased 61% and the rate of excretion of the irritant acrolein rapidly increased 23%.

“The situation is that people throughout China are breathing dirty air, and the exposure is largely unavoidable,” says study author Tom Kensler. “We wanted to boost the defense mechanism that accelerates the rate that these are cleared form the body so there is less opportunity for harm to be evoked by chemicals.”

Photo courtesy of Tom Kensler

When asked if people living in other large cities like New York or Los Angeles could benefit from drinking the same mixture, Kensler says he thinks their approach could be extended across all people. Here’s another excuse to scoop an extra helping of broccoli on your plate.

The study was published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research.

 

 

TIME

It’s Time to Stop Ignoring the Bad Air We Breathe

Air pollution
Nearly half of Americans breathe unhealthy air Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

A survey shows nearly half of all Americans breathe unhealthy air — but air pollution doesn't get the attention it deserves

Take a look outside your window. Chances are the air you’ll see is far cleaner than it was decades ago. Since 1980 levels of ozone pollution — one of the main ingredients in smog — have fallen by 25% in the U.S., while nitrogen dioxide has fallen by 55% and sulfur dioxide by 78%. The change is visual too — the smog-obscured skies that were once a constant backdrop to cities like Los Angeles in the 1960s and ’70s are far less common. It’s easy to assume that America won the war on air pollution, and to look with pity on developing cities like Beijing and New Delhi where the air is still poisoned.

There’s just one problem with that sense of satisfaction: the data doesn’t back it up. According to a new report from the American Lung Association (ALA), nearly 148 million Americans live in areas where smog and soot particles have led to unhealthy levels of pollution. That means that for almost half of all Americans, simply breathing can be dangerous. Even worse, the report shows that some aspects of air quality have been deteriorating over the past few years in many cities — from 2010 to 2012, ozone worsened in 22 of the 25 biggest metropolitan areas, including cities like New York and Chicago. “Air pollution is not just a nuisance or the haze we see on the horizon; it’s literally putting our health in danger,” Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior policy director of the ALA in California, told the Los Angeles Times. “We’ve come a long way, but the status quo in not acceptable.”

The news is far from all bad. Thanks in part to the retirement of a number of older coal-fired power plants, levels of particulate pollution — soot, in other words — have been dropping in recent years, with cities like Philadelphia and Indianapolis recording their lowest levels yet. And historically, we’re far better off — as Brad Plumer notes over at Vox, air pollutants as a whole have fallen 72% since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, even as the economy, population and energy use have all risen.

But as the ALA report makes clear, some of that progress is being lost, in part thanks to climate change — one environmental challenge we’re very much not meeting. Rising levels of ozone pollution have been linked to warmer temperatures, which will make it that much tougher to fight smog in the future. And the government could have done more — in 2011, President Obama went against the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and rejected a proposal that would have tightened the ozone standard to between 60 and 70 parts per billion. (The level is currently at 75 ppb, set by former President George W. Bush, who was not exactly known as an environmental paragon.)

Those regulatory battles matter because it’s becoming increasingly clear that healthy air is a moving target. The more scientists learn about the health impacts of air pollution, the more dangerous it appears — even at comparatively low levels. Last October the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared air pollution to be a carcinogen, connecting it directly to lung cancer as well as bladder cancer. And bad air doesn’t just hurt the lungs — a raft of studies have connected air pollution, especially soot, to cardiovascular disease, even triggering heart attacks. Even autism has been linked to pollution. In March the WHO estimated that outdoor air pollution caused 3.7 million premature deaths globally in 2012 — nearly three times the number of people who die each year from tuberculosis.

Climate change gets most of the environmental attention, with reason — its effects are already being felt, and it has the potential to radically change our world for the worse. But air pollution is sickening and killing millions of people around the world right now. And unlike global warming, the technological and regulatory solutions to conventional air pollution already exist. That’s why it was good news yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s ability to control coal-fired power-plant emissions in 28 states. The decision excited greens because it indicates the court will eventually back even more controversial carbon regulations that the Obama White House is busy formulating now, but the regulation that was upheld — the Cross-State Pollution Rule — will prevent an estimated 45,000 deaths a year from conventional air pollution once it’s in place.

Air pollution remains stubbornly difficult to eliminate, in part because of the vagary of the wind itself, which separates the victims of pollution from its source. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her decision yesterday, quoting from the Book of John: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound therof, but canst not tell where it cometh, and whither it goeth.” But if we can’t control the air, we can control what we put into it — and protect ourselves.

 

TIME Courts

Supreme Court Ruling Will Force Power Plants To Stem Downwind Pollution

The 6-2 ruling is a victory for the Obama administration’s efforts to clean up air pollution from power plant emissions

The Supreme Court restored a 2011 Environmental Protection Agency rule governing power plant emissions that cross state lines Tuesday, in a 6-2 ruling that could force about 1,000 power plants to improve pollution controls or simply reduce electricity production.

The Cross-State Air Pollution rule requires 28 states, mostly in the midwestern and southern United States, to take steps to limit power plant emissions that pollute the air downwind, The Wall Street Journal reports. The regulation deals primarily with emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, both of which are known to cause heart and respiratory problems.

Tuesday’s decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reverses a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which found that the rule was too onerous in demanding emissions reductions on certain states and that the EPA didn’t give states the chance to develop their own standards. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

[WSJ]

TIME Air Pollution

Smoggy Sand: How Deserts Spread Air Pollution

Smog levels are high in London
High levels of air pollution in London were caused in part by Sahara sand Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Sand can blow a long way—as residents in suddenly smoggy London are learning

For the last few days, the skyline of London—so often an indifferent gray—has resembled Los Angeles in the 1960s, or Beijing. A nasty bout of smog has gripped Britain’s capital and much of England, with pollution levels so high that people with health problems and the elderly have been warned to avoid strenuous activity outside.

London’s current smog is nothing compared to the air pollution the city once suffered—the city was choked in coal smoke for much of the 19th century, and the Great Smog of 1952 killed some 4,000 people. But what’s truly unusual is the cause: not just local emissions from cars and power plants, but from dust that has blown in from the Sahara Desert in northern Africa, over 2,000 miles (3,218 km) away. The dust has blown in on northern winds, where it mixes in the air with local pollutants. The dust is brought down to earth by rain, and when that water evaporates, it leaves behind a layer of visible dust.

Britain isn’t the only place that can have dust-related smog. In East Asia, sand from the Gobi Desert is blown east every spring. The so-called Asian Dust passes over parts of China, North and South Korea and Japan, sometimes so heavy that residents can feel the dust in their eyes and their teeth. The dust can even be carried thousands of miles across the Pacific to North America—a study published in Science last year found that dust in the atmosphere can actually increase rainfall in California.

But what’s worrying is that the Gobi is growing every year, as excessive farming in China and increasingly dry weather converts grassland into desert. The Chinese government has tried to create what it calls a “Green Belt” of millions of trees that it hopes will hold back the spread of desertification, but so far, many of them have died. And climate change seems likely to increase the rate of desertification, as the Gobi gets even hotter and drier. In a changing world, not even deserts can be trusted to stay in the same place—as London is learning.

TIME

It’s Raining Saharan Sand In The U.K.

The skyscrapers of the Canary Wharf business district in London are shrouded in smog, April 2, 2014.
The skyscrapers of the Canary Wharf business district in London are shrouded in smog, April 2, 2014. Matt Dunham—AP

The hills and dales of England and Wales were covered in a fine layer of red dust, thanks to a continental air flow containing dust and sand blown up by storms in the African desert. The unusual conditions are expected to cause record pollution in the U.K.

Although Brits are used to unpleasant weather, Saharan sand is a new one.

Motorists in parts of England and Wales found their cars covered in a layer of fine red dust last weekend, The Daily Telegraph reports, which environmental experts say was blown over from the Sahara desert.

The government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the pollution was caused by south-easterly winds meeting with a continental air flow containing dust and sand blown up by storms in the African desert. Those parts of the U.K. who have noticed the change in air quality will therefore experience abnormally high levels of pollution in the next few days.

Environmental experts warned on Wednesday that it will exceed the U.K. government’s official scale for measuring pollution, and that anyone with pervasive heart and lung problems should avoid intensive activity. When pollution reaches 7 or 8 on the scale older people, children with lung problems and those with asthma are warned not to exert themselves physically. However when it reaches 10, the highest point on the scale, the general population in the affected areas is told to “reduce physical exertion, particularly outdoors.”

Although the pollution is expected to reach very high levels on Wednesday, it is predicted to ebb away by Friday.

[Telegraph]

TIME China

Actually, You Can’t Buy Smog Insurance in China Anymore

Visitors are silhouetted against thick smog on the top of Jingshan Park near the Forbidden City in Beijing
Visitors are silhouetted against thick smog on the top of Jingshan Park near the Forbidden City in Beijing © Kim Kyung Hoon – Reuters

What a pity. Given China's appalling pollution, smog insurance looked a real winner

A week after insurance companies in China announced that they would start selling smog insurance, government regulators have ordered an end to the practice, Reuters reports. No official explanation has been offered.

One of the smog policies would have guaranteed travelers booking three- to seven day package tours to certain major cities a refund of about 50 yuan (about $8) per day if they suffered two or more consecutive days of severe smog. It was sold by the insurance group Ping An and the online travel agency Ctrip.

Another policy, launched by the People’s Insurance Company of China (PICC), was directed at Beijing residents. The insurance company promised to pay 300 yuan (just under $50) to policy holders if the official index of smog in the Chinese capital exceeded the hazardous 300 level for five consecutive days, and to pay 1,500 yuan (roughly $240) to policy holders hospitalized as a result of smog.

Both Ping An and PICC have said that policies sold before the ban will be honored.

[Reuters]

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser