Environmental cleanliness is an overlooked yet essential part of living a healthy life. Thinking in terms of managing nature to minimize negative effects on individual health can at first seem ridiculous or nebulous. However, humans have altered the health of our environments, and those changes are beginning to cascade down to a personal level. Consider the Flint, Michigan Water Crisis, a localized environmental disaster in 2015. It is the story of children in a predominantly-Black city being poisoned from drinking water. “Simply put, the economic situation in Flint and the logic that made providing poisoned water seem like a reasonable idea would not have occurred without racism” . While no single person or explicit racism was to blame for the lethal levels of lead in the town’s drinking water, the outcry led to a nationwide focus on “structural racism”. Kemi Fuentes-George–a Middlebury College political science professor–may have synthesized it best:

While the American political economy has done pretty well so far at externalizing environmental costs to the poor and marginalized, environmental hazards do travel, perhaps more easily than poor black citizens. In the same way that racist and authoritarian police practices have killed Eric Garner, Jack Crawford and Kelly Thomas, the environmental vulnerability that has devastated Flint – rotting infrastructure, industrial pollution, intransigent political institutions – puts us all at risk.1

For years, local officials denied claims of elevated lead concentrations and occurrences of Legionnaires Disease. The city government violated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations by flushing samples for reporting water cleanliness. Further, chlorine in the water supply excessively reacted with lead in the pipes and impeded its antibacterial effect. The dilution triggered an uptick in Legionnaires’ disease, a dangerous bacterial pneumonia. Negligence imparted elevated blood-lead levels in as many as 1 in 10 children, according to investigations at Hurley Medical Center. Flint’s child population is now facing developmental risks and lower life expectancies. Although the Flint water crisis is an extreme example, it demonstrates that environmental trends are difficult to track and agencies may not be held accountable. Despite modern-day progress, a lack of responsibility for environmental health pervades the zeitgeist. The story of Flint tells us that although environmental indicators point to health risks on a statistical basis, there is a motivation to confound and dismiss data inappropriately.

So, what happened after Flint, Michigan’s water crisis of the 2010’s? Was change made? In August 2025, the city declared the problem “fixed,” but many citizens argued this was only partly true as the structural racism associated with the original problem had not been addressed. The question then becomes, what next? Or, more accurately, where is next? Where is the next city that will face infrastructural and environmental racism and have to wait over a decade for a health problem to be “fixed”?

Pollution is well-known to have affects on the environment, primarily by leaving microscopic pollutants. People are also affected by changes in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Many studies have noted the affects of CO2 on cardiovascular health, and even a 7% increase can increase a person's blood pressure, an increase that has happened to the worldwide average in the past decade. Data further tells us that certain areas are more susceptible to higher pollution and are consequently more likely to have higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease.

Existing research finds consistent evidence on how air pollution has adverse effects on adolescent cognitive development, learning performance, and susceptibility to diseases in their adult life. Studies in large urban school districts found an increase in school absences and a decrease in grades for those regularly exposed to higher levels of air pollution. Particularly marginalized student groups, such as Hispanic and Black youth, were observed to be more susceptible to pollution exposure, having lower grades and higher disciplinary referrals in tandem with worsening air conditions.

The first step toward meaningful progress is understanding how pollution affects the world around us. Awareness is at a high point as more people recognize the consequences of catastrophes like Flint’s water contamination. Scientists began closely tracking pollutants like CO₂ emissions in the 1950s through Charles David Keeling’s measurements in Hawaii. However, it wasn’t until the 1990s that the United Nations held a convention focused on stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. This timeline shows how long it can take for a problem to move from scientific observation to global action. Raising awareness to create policy on such a large scale is progress, but this alone cannot solve the problem. Real change depends on the institutions that shape society, especially businesses and governments. The actions taken up to this point have not been enough to create lasting improvements. Recycling is a clear example. A joint study by the World Economic Forum, SAP, and Qualtrics found that around 80% of Americans believe recycling is important, but many face barriers such as limited services and weak local programs.

Recognizing who has the power to create change and where that change is most needed is essential. Seeing pollution’s effects in American cities is the first step toward building a cleaner, healthier future.