Healthy Places, Healthy People: An Inteview with Andrea Durbin
By:
NWHF Staff
| Posted on: July 31st, 2008
| Share: 
Categories:
Environmental Health •
Interviews •
Public Health •
Rural Health •
Transportation •
Urban Issues
Andrea Durbin is executive director of the Oregon Environmental Council, an organization that “safeguards what Oregonians love about Oregon – clean air and water, an unpolluted landscape and healthy food produced by local farmers.” Andrea sat down with CHP’s Chris Palmedo to discuss her organization’s priorities for the future, and the important connections between environmental health and the health of the public.
The OEC focuses on kids’ health from toxic pollution, cleaning up the Willamette and other rivers, slowing global warming, building a sustainable economy, creating a sustainable food and farm system, and strengthening support for effective environmental policy in the Legislature. Is it safe to say that all of these areas are directly related to human health?
Absolutely. Whether you’re talking about toxic pollutants that are emitted into the air we breathe and water we drink every day, or the impact of global warming, these issues have a direct impact on the health of each of us, our children and our future generations.
Do you spend a lot of your time talking about the health implications of environmental policy?
Yes, particularly with certain programs. Children’s health is our focus as we try to reduce toxic pollution and exposure to dangerous chemicals, whether they are in consumer products or from manufacturing processes. We’re continually talking about the direct health impact of diseases caused by these chemical exposures.
Community Health Priorities seeks to integrate health into the discussions within other policy domains such as environmental policy. Have you seen increasing integration between environmental policy work and public health recently?
The interrelatedness of public policy issues is a trend that I’ve seen emerge over the last couple of years. For certain issues, such as toxics, the health element has been obvious, as people have been concerned about toxic pollution contaminating their bodies, their homes and places they work. But what’s interesting to me, as I sit on the public health committee of Oregon’s global warming commission, is the increased attention recently paid to the health impacts of global warming.
Global warming will result in more large fires which will impact health from smoke inhalation in affected communities. Also coastal flooding – how will we be able to deal with the effects those developments will have on health? Even the increase of pests and viruses such as the West Nile Virus — these connections to human health have become more apparent in the past couple of years.
So despite the fact that global warming has been actively discussed for well over a decade, it took some time for the human health impact to become an important part of the conversation?
Yes. But now, the impact of global warming on our health is increasingly raising concern among public health officials as they see the connections between global warming and the issues they are already working on. That has expanded the conversation in a positive way.
What’s most exciting to me is that our ability to see those interconnections is stronger than ever. These issues are not black and white - they’re not separate from other public issues.
When we’re talking about the health of our forests, we also need to be aware of the health and viability of our communities, the need for living wage jobs. A healthy community is one that lives within a natural resource system that won’t easily burn down and expose people to lung cancer years later, for example.
More and more, I am seeing a lot more recognition that all these issues are interconnected, and we need to figure out a cooperative way forward.
What have you seen as some of the catalysts or impetuses for this increasing recognition that issues such as health, environment, housing and economy must be considered to be interconnected?
I wouldn’t credit it to one person or event. In Oregon, you saw it in the 2007 legislative session. There was a lot more collaboration and connectedness, with different constituencies working together as they did in passing a renewable energy standard, where the environmental community teamed up with representatives of rural areas of Oregon and farm organizations.
Oregon legislators told me that they saw a difference in the 2007 session. Something has happened over the last couple of years, and I think we’ll see even more collaboration around these issues in the future. Collaboration yields a much better result.
Just to be clear — the innovations were not coming from the Oregon Legislature itself, but from the constituencies interacting with the Legislature.
That’s right. It was the constituencies.
What have been some of the greatest legislative achievements you’ve been involved in recently?
Global warming has been a great concern of ours, and during the most recent legislative session, we helped pass some of the nation’s most aggressive greenhouse gas emissions standards. Now we’re working very hard to make sure we have an aggressive, bold, and forward-looking plan for continuing to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions, and trying our best to make sure we’re dealing with the impacts of climate change. We’ve helped put Oregon on the map for being one of the leading states on the issues of both helping to slow global warming and helping us prepare for the effects of global warming.
There are a lot of states taking action, but Oregon is setting the bar higher than most. We helped pass a clean car standard to reduce tailpipe emissions, which has a positive impact for reducing global warming emissions and for people’s health.
We’ve done a lot of work on toxic reduction. We passed bans on flame retardants and helped reduce mercury exposure. We’ve looked at the chemicals that pose the most significant threat to public health and have been able to position Oregon to take action to ban and regulate those chemicals more aggressively.
What are Oregon’s most pressing legislative and regulatory needs right now in terms of environmental policy?
Global warming is one of our top concerns and priorities. Looking ahead, we still need to be sure Oregon sets the framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We need a mandate where polluters pay for their pollution and we need to create a public benefit so the money generated can be re-invested into renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and support for low-income communities, who are directly impacted by increased energy prices. Our goal is to make the shift necessary toward a clean energy economy in Oregon.
And that will be a multifaceted effort?
It will be. The conversation we’re having is about setting up that framework that there’s a mandate for polluters to pay and making sure the money is re-invested back into society, We also need investments into more renewable energy and energy efficiency, requiring new buildings to be built with lower carbon impacts over time, investing in different modes of transportation so people have choices for ways to get out of their cars, and walk, ride bikes or take public transportation.
How do you enact the changes you’re talking about in rural areas outside Portland?
The needs of Portland and the needs of rural areas are very different. The key concern for rural areas is to make sure the bus system is viable and that there’s a transport system for seniors or the disabled — which, outside of the city, is often a van system. A lot of towns, such as Bend, need more investment in their bike pathways too. No one size fits all for every community.
We also need to make sure that there are better connections between communities so people can get from Eugene to Portland on inter-city rail, for example. We can do a lot to make sure that our rural communities are connected by a good bus system. Oregon actually had a better bus system 70-80 years ago than we have today. It was easier then for people to move across the state by bus than it is today.
The rail system in this country is an embarrassment.
Absolutely.
It’s outrageous that you can’t ride from Seattle to San Francisco, or Los Angeles for that matter, without serious hassles.
Or on a high-speed rail the way they do in Europe. Even if we were to connect Ashland to Seattle it would provide serious economic benefits to our state.
How much do you communicate the positive economic benefits of making progressive changes such as the ones you propose — and does that message carry much weight with the public?
We talk a lot about the economic benefits of making these kinds of investments because if you look at the studies and analyses of companies that are addressing global warming, they are saving money. They’re more profitable. They’re more competitive because they’re ahead of the curve.
We live in a carbon-constrained world and it’s going to get more expensive for companies that are overly reliant on energy or are carbon polluting. Oregonians will benefit significantly by getting out ahead and making that sure we look at investments in clean energy and technology and making that shift.
Progressives seem to get it, but do those messages have traction with libertarians and conservatives?
Yes. Democrats and Republicans are both concerned about our fiscal resources. Passing the renewable energy standard in this state was a bi-partisan agreement. When we look at where we want to make investments in our energy sector, everyone should recognize that cleaner renewable energy technology is the direction we’re headed in. It’s exciting that there is less partisan divisiveness than there has been in the past.
Isn’t there still tension between proponents of progressive energy policy and those who argue that over-regulating is bad for business?
The question of how we draw from the regulatory toolbox is always up for consideration and certainly, there are some who want to see less regulation and more voluntary approaches. While that might work in some cases, voluntary approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not working. We need a cap and trade system which mandates reductions of emissions over time.
That doesn’t mean that there can’t be other incentives, but effectively reducing global warming pollution can’t be done voluntarily.
Along with global warming, what are some other important priorities for the Oregon Environmental Council?
In the next legislative session, we have two bills that are related to children’s health. One of them promotes healthy schools. We’re working with the school board, school districts, the Oregon Education Association, and a number of public health partners on a healthy schools initiative so that every child has the basic right to a healthy environment to learn, to thrive, and to grow.
What specifically would this bill do?
It would promote green building for new buildings and retrofit older school buildings. It would address integrative pest management when pesticides are used on school grounds. It would address indoor air quality, as well as outdoor air quality from school bus idling. Idling is a significant exposure pathway for children in emissions, particularly emissions that contribute to asthma, and Oregon has one of the highest rates of asthma in the nation.
What are some of the school-related toxicities you’re concerned with?
Buildings have been using toxicities in their carpeting, some buildings have lead in their paint, and off-gassing is happening because of the basic materials in the schools.
The green building movement is exciting as we learn more about building non-toxic or less toxic buildings, but how to design them to give students and teachers increased ability to be more successful. An example of this is when new buildings apply greater use of day lighting. This not only reduces energy use, but studies show that it’s a better way to learn and work; people with more daylight in their workplaces perform better.
That seems logical, but what about the costs?
Obviously this is a big question, especially in trying economic times but we’re exploring different financing options, such has local bonding opportunities.
The second bill around children’s health will be the Child Safe Products Act. Many states are taking action on regulating consumer products because the federal authorities have not really addressed this issue. The national law regulating toxic substances and products hasn’t been updated in more than twenty years so states are stepping in and dealing with this, and we know a lot more today than we did decades ago. We will be promoting a bill to look at regulating toxics in children’s products, what level of information is provided to consumers and take steps to look at chemicals in our every day products differently.
The way that Oregon Environmental Council and others have dealt with this issue in years past was chemical by chemical one at a time, and that’s not working today because we have more than 80,000 chemicals in use today. We need to apply what we know about the long term impacts of these chemicals and band them together in classifying them by low-risk or high-risk, then zero in on the high risk chemicals that are in our products and begin to take regulatory approaches and reduce exposure risk that way.
It’s hard to stay abreast of every risk of every product, whether it’s a baby bottle or a Nalgene bottle, or the lead in your lipstick. It’s impossible for people to have to keep up on these risks, and it shouldn’t be their responsibility. It should be the responsibility of companies, ultimately through the government, to regulate in a way that’s safe for the public. So we’re going to be taking steps in Oregon so that, years down the road, we’ll be able to buy any product off the shelf and know that it is safe.
The federal government has been remiss in dealing with this?
If we wait for the federal government to address this issue, we’ll be waiting a very long time, as we already have.
Are you working with similar organizations in other states?
We are. Several states have already passed legislation like this, including Washington, and a number of others are considering legislation soon.
According to the Oregon Environmental Council, the environmentally attributable costs of cancer in Oregon are somewhere between $52 to $262 million. How are these costs borne out?
Those costs include direct medical costs for treatment, lost work days, lost school days, lost productivity. What we tried to do in the Price of Pollution report is look at the negative impacts we incur as a state in addition to the personal costs. Wouldn’t it be wiser if we invest less money overall into a preventive approach that reduces these exposures? The personal costs are significant as well, for people who suffer, and families who suffer. We’re trying to raise the point that these diseases do have long term economic costs, and it’s smarter and wiser to invest in prevention.
Taking a preventive approach means taking a different approach to regulating the chemicals that are part of the manufacturing process and in consumer products. We know a lot more than we did decades ago about long term impacts and connection to cancers, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and asthma. Let’s take that knowledge and apply it in a way that’s smart for people.
Are there certain areas in Oregon where the cancer rates are high?
I don’t know of specific areas in the state, but Oregon does have one of the top five highest rates of breast cancer. My sense, though, is that it’s a statewide issue.
Why is Oregon’s rate so high?
I don’t know. But clearly, these are not the kinds of statistics where Oregon wants to lead the nation. Reducing pollution and banning and regulating chemicals in our everyday products will help prevent us from being high on those lists in the future.
The knowledge of environmental causes of cancer, identifying where those specific risks are, still seems somewhat vague. Is that because, politically, it can be hard for a community to say that “this paper plant has to go”?
One of the of the most exciting things we’re involved in is focusing not only on regulating and banning these chemicals, but also learning about safer alternatives that can be developed. Rather than saying “this paper plant has to be shut down,” we can pinpoint the chemicals that are causing these human health impacts, and replace those chemicals with safer alternatives.
Green chemistry is an exciting field, and the University of Oregon has one of the leading research departments looking at green chemistry, and that positions Oregon as able to address high cancer rates or other significant diseases and making sure we’re replacing those chemicals with safer alternatives.
At the OEC, we’re assembling a group people from academia, industry and the state to help make sure that Oregon knows how to best identify and replace our chemical risks.
One of your goals is to clean up the Willamette and other rivers in Oregon. What are these other rivers?
The Willamette and the Columbia are the two rivers with the most serious pollution problems. The biggest issue when you look at all the rivers in Oregon is temperature, which is actually defined as a pollutant by the EPA. Rising temperature presents a risk for salmon, because they thrive in cold water. Global warming and rising river temperatures are both factors that are leading to the decline in salmon fisheries.
Obviously, Oregon’s rivers are also dependent on the actions of other states and other nations.
Ultimately, you need national and international action. But what Oregon does will position us to be more resilient as a community.
Looking back at the floods last winter that closed the I-5 corridor for three days is like looking right into the mirror and into the future. We are going to see more significant rainfalls and weather events, and we need to be better prepared.
And we need to position our economy to invest in clean energy, make all of our buildings green and healthy, and use less energy and resources such as water.
Tammy Bray has emphasized that Oregon has so much to offer the world in terms of ideas, experience, and technologies. What comes to your mind when you think of areas where Oregon can help out the rest of the nation and even the world?
Portland obviously has a reputation as a trend setter in sustainability, but Oregon as a state is considered an innovator in environmental policy from the bottle bill to the beach bill. All of those are our historical accomplishments.
Even though, for many years we’ve rested on our laurels from the past, I think that’s starting to change. The 2007 legislative session was seen as the environmental session, and in the next legislative session the environment will be a big priority as well.
The conversations emerging in Oregon are about demand side management (reuse, conservation, etc). Our objective in transportation should first be to reduce the number of cars on the road. We need to ask how we can reduce overall emissions by building compact communities and giving people choices to walk a few blocks to the grocery store or bike to work. Those kinds of investments are what we’re hoping to achieve and we will look toward the state legislature and the governor to help lead us in this direction.
Across the board, you will see that kind of integrative conversation which Oregon can model for the nation. We need to reinvest in our infrastructure nationally, whether it’s our transportation, water, or energy system, and what we’re doing in Oregon can provide some models for that process.
We also have a lot to contribute from our green building industry,
What are some examples that come to mind?
On a per-capita basis, Portland has the most LEED certified buildings in the nation, and if we pass the requirement to improve the building codes even further, then that will have a significant contribution. Oregon is known for its green building industry, and people come here from all over the world.
You’re also seeing a reemergence of a renewable energy sector. There is wind and solar, and on the horizon, wave energy and biomass potential.
Where are they working on the wave energy?
There are a couple of test projects off the coast right now which is affiliated with the Oregon Economic & Community Development Department (OECDD)
There’s also the Oregon Solutions project based in Reedsport. They are doing some test buoys to identify what the impact might be on the local ecosystem and on the local fishing industry and they’re working to ensure that we develop wave energy in a way that doesn’t create another problem with unintended consequences on fisheries or marine mammals.
Another innovative project that we’re working on is our Healthy Food and Farms. We have been holding workshops with farmers on what we call value added products. Many consumers are willing to pay more for products that have been certified as being raised sustainably with less, or no, use of chemicals. There has been tremendous interest among farmers to better understand what those opportunities are and to try to figure out how they change their agricultural practices to become more sustainable. We see sustainable agriculture as a strong element of the Oregon economy as more and more agriculturists find ways that they can be more sustainable.
Is this happening outside the Willamette Valley?
We have an exciting project down on the south coast right now. We’re working with sheep ranchers and cranberry growers and fishermen. They are all looking at how to develop a regional brand on their sustainable practices and increase their market share based on their sustainability practices. They will be able to market their products as being regional and sustainably grown.
Those are some very interesting sounding projects. Any final thoughts?
The Oregon Environmental Council has been working for over forty years to protect the health of our environment and Oregonians. Looking ahead as we see the interconnectedness of these issues, I feel very positive about where we’re heading. Oregon is well-positioned to think creatively about long term solutions to protect our people and our ecosystems. Even in the face of global warming and toxic pollutants that are causing serious risks, there is a lot of creative thinking here.
There’s also a great sense of community in Oregon, whether it’s riding across the bridge with twenty other cyclists, or going to your local farmers market and getting to know the people who are growing your food. I think there’s a growing interest in supporting the values that people generally agree on throughout this state.
And that, to me, is very exciting.
Next entry: 
Previous entry: 
Back to main
