“Argentina is a world leader in setting voluntary greenhouse gas targets,” declares the CIA World Factbook, yet Mauricio Macri, mayor of the city of Buenos Aires, believes that air pollution in the city needs “an urgent solution”.

This debate is definitively contradictory. The right to clean air is written into Argentine law. Section 41 of the constitution states:

“All inhabitants are entitled to the right to a healthy and balanced environment fit for human development so that productive activities shall meet present needs without endangering those of future generations; and shall have the duty to preserve it.”

But estimates show that for the period between 1997 and 2012, greenhouse gas emissions will have risen by 20% in the industrial sector, by 17% in the export sector and by 16.7% in the energy sector.

The nation is party to 17 international environmental agreements, including the Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone Layer Protection and the Kyoto Protocol.

But in April the capital was shrouded in a thick layer of smoke as the farmers to the north-west burnt their crops. Last summer was one of the hottest on record.

As policymakers meet in Congress and congratulate themselves on their latest green targets, another colectivo bus is starting another day puffing out fumes throughout Buenos Aires.

What effect is this having on the capital? Isn’t it about time president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner made more than empty promises, stopped blowing hot air, and tried making some real changes?

Transport Terrorism

Buenos Aires has a mature transport system. There are 15,000 buses on 749 different routes, and 40,000 taxis weaving around the city’s streets. The subte, opened in 1913, is the oldest subway system in the southern hemisphere and the Spanish-speaking world.

So you can get from A to B in good time and in relative comfort. But the transport system’s contribution to CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions is startling; 90% of the air pollution in Buenos Aires comes from transport, and 50.69% of CO₂ emissions in the entire country are also from transport.

The bus system, usually the escape-clause, or ‘green’ option in this issue, is responsible for almost half the emissions that the entire transport system produces.

A recent study conducted by the Universidad Tecnológica found that in some parts of the city, the air pollution caused by colectivos was six times the tolerable level of contamination for humans. The air was found to contain high quantities of black smoke (which is essentially soot), hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides.

The buses are poorly maintained due to a failure in the capitalist system: they are privatised and receive almost no public funding, which keeps the market competitive, but leaves the buses unregulated and neglected; so long as they function, companies are not required to improve them.

Nevertheless, there are some official safety standards. In 2004, 4,600 colectivos were tested for air pollutants. Twelve percent were running below the required standards, but a mere 1% – some 46 buses – were pulled off the roads until they met the requirements. The rest were fined between $100 and $1,000 and sent back on their way.

The buses continue to circulate and we continue to cough.

Crosstown Traffic

There are almost two million vehicles every day on the roads of Buenos Aires. The capital has the longest road in the world (Avenida Rivadavia) as well as the widest (9 de Julio); both of which are brought to a standstill on a daily basis by the heavy rush-hour traffic.

The main arteries that lead into and out of Buenos Aires feed directly into the principal streets in the centre, the heart, meaning many of the heavy goods vehicles and general traffic that only need to pass through the city, are brought all the way into the centre to fight for the limited space with those vehicles that are only doing short, local journeys. The result is a daily artery attack.

To reduce traffic through the centre, the government has proposed additional exclusive bus lanes. Several are already in use, but 35 new lanes have been suggested which would be for the sole use of buses and occupied taxis.

The proposal has inevitably caused a backlash from taxi drivers, who rely on cruising along side roads to pick up passengers. Many taxis have ‘NO carriles exclusivos’ signs plastered on their windows.

Hector, 42, is a taxi driver from Buenos Aires province. “The lanes are a bad idea. They won’t work. There is too much other traffic and too many taxis to ignore,” he says.

Hector believes other projects would better reduce traffic: “Money should be put into other projects, such as the subte. When that stops working, the city is overrun with people, they are like ants.” If the city wants to reduce traffic and emissions, first it must ensure there are viable, working alternatives.

His reservations aside, exclusive bus lanes are a tried-and-tested method of reducing congestion and speeding up bus circulation in inner cities, something from which Buenos Aires could evidently benefit.

Traffic, apart from being an enormous burden on the economy, morale and day-to-day life in the city, causes vast quantites of air pollutants.

Increased strain on the engine leads to the incomplete combustion of the fuel which means higher levels of black smoke and greenhouse gas emissions. This strain on the engine is caused by many factors but traffic, and heavy congestion, is a sure-fire way to high greenhouse gas emissions. Stopping, starting and idling (at traffic lights or bus stops, for example), causes more emissions than straight cruising, or regulated flow.

Flat or deflated tyres, pot-holed and damaged road surfaces and a heavy or unbalanced load also cause increased strain on the engine, and therefore higher emissions. These factors are ignored by the majority of vehicle users in Buenos Aires, as a five-minute walk around Microcentro will show you.

Environmental effects

In January this year, local newspapers referred to Buenos Aires as an “Island of Heat”. This, according to reports, was due to “a large concentration of people, a lot of road traffic and industrial activities which generate greenhouse gases”.

Concrete buildings absorb the heat of the summer sun, which, in the case of Buenos Aires, is not allowed to escape due to the blanket of exhaust fumes sitting above the city. Furthermore, a lack of green areas and water weakens the city’s ability to expel heat. It results in huge disparities of temperature, with reports of up to a 2.5ºC difference between locations in the centre and on the outskirts.

This thick blanket of fumes, or ‘smog’, is the most dangerous part. There are two types of smog: first, original smog is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and is currently less common.

The second, ‘photochemical smog’ is more common and much more dangerous. It occurs when sunlight reacts with air pollutants and makes new compounds; mostly airborne particles (called particulate matter), aerosols, gases and ground-level ozone; one of the biggest contributors to asthma, lung disorders and respiratory problems.

The specific pollutants necessary for this reaction are among those found in exhaust fumes. This smog is therefore associated with modernity and urbanisation, and is more common in cities with sunny, warm and dry climates.

The sulphur compounds released also mix with dust and water droplets to make sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄), which in turn falls as ‘acid rain’ causing further damage to crops, buildings and wildlife.

These chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidising, causing paint degradation and plant damage, not to mention a catastrophic impact on human health.

A Breath of Fresh Air?

High levels of air contamination – and especially those gases that are released from exhaust fumes (including ozone (O₃), SO₂, carbon monoxide (CO), lead and NO₂) – lead to many serious human health effects, including respiratory illnesses and allergies.

Studies conducted across the past decade suggest extended exposure to high levels of outdoor air pollution directly effect asthma morbidity and mortality.

The University of Southern California conducted a study that showed children living on or near a main road were more susceptible to asthma than those living elsewhere. The two principal factors in getting asthma, the study found, are hereditary predisposition and the local environmental conditions.

A report undertaken in 2006 showed more than 11 million Argentines suffer from chronic respiratory illnesses, out of a population of 40.3 million. Of these, 2.7 million suffer from asthma.

Dr. Natalio Salmún, president of FUNDALER, the Foundation for the Study of Asthma and other Allergic Reactions, says: “One theory for these high rates is the increase in air pollution…there are pollutants from combustion, which are damaging to the respiratory system…the levels could produce an allergic reaction even among people who don’t suffer from asthma.”

One international student, Josh Harding from the UK, says: “At home I have what’s known as ‘an asthmatic response to chest infections’. So since living in Buenos Aires I have either developed full-on asthma, or have a permanent chest infection. I use an inhaler every day.”

However, according to Dr. Salmún, the main problem with air pollution is not that it causes asthma so much as it aggravates it. “The high levels of pollutants in the air raise the chance of sufferers having an attack…it brings the patient in contact with the substances to which they are allergic; the pollutants,” he says.

An International Study for Asthma and Allergies in Children (ISAAC), which involved 35 countries, shows Argentina has relatively normal levels. Around 17.2% of children aged six had asthma, which decreased to 11.2% in children aged 13. Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Peru were shown to have higher rates than Argentina, and Mexico had the lowest. The UK and New Zealand registered higher values than the whole of Latin America, despite consistently lower levels of air contamination.

This study, among others, demonstrates inconclusive evidence to prove pollution actually causes asthma; so it remains one of many possible sources, along with genetic predisposition, the increase of indoor pollution from tobacco and domestic animals, for example, as well as the increase of allergies.

A Clean Green Machine

One case study conducted in Latin America highlighted one city determined to reverse its effect on the local environment: Mexico City. Between 1990 and 1992, air pollutants in the city reached emergency levels on as many as 177 occasions annually. By 1999, with more than three million vehicles in circulation daily, emergency levels had nonetheless dropped to only five days a year. The average ozone reading fell from 197.6 in 1990 to 144 in 1999 (where normal air quality is 100).

This was as a result of anti-pollution measures undertaken by the Mexican government. Shortly after, in October 2000, the environment and development ministry of Argentina met in Mexico City and drafted the Clean Air Programme for the city of Buenos Aires. This draft included the installation of a network dedicated to monitoring the city’s pollution levels, a study into the health effects of pollution on its citizens and the promotion of new technology and biofuel.

Part of the current plan includes 100 Argentine scientists and technicians who are employed on a US$1.14m project, funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which will attempt to deal with all of Argentina’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The project, to be run by the non-governmental organisation Fundación Bariloche, is in the planning stages at the moment, but it aims to fully assess Argentina’s contribution to emissions, its weak points, possible solutions, and attempt to raise public awareness as well as suggest educational programmes.

Argentina seems to be doing something right. In the international rankings on CO2 emissions, it is currently ranking 63. Its emissions, at 5.71 tonnes a year, compare, for example, with the UK, 11.81 tonnes, and the US, 20 tonnes.

Under a flexible mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, called the Clean Development Mechanism, developing nations can participate in projects that reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and also contribute to local sustainable development, as part of the greenhouse gas emission-reduction commitments.

Olavarría, small city in the province of Buenos Aires, has been running a Landfill Gas Recovery Project under this scheme since 2004. The project takes gases emitted by rubbish dumped into the landfill site, and destroys it through ‘flaring’. The reductions in gas emissions will be monitored and verified, and then sold as official greenhouse gas emissions reductions to the Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF). The money from this fund has been put back into the system, with a scheme for potable water in the town of Espigas, 80km from Olavarría.

Buenos Aires’ city government is trying to regulate the transport system at last. A National Environmental Information System (SIAN) was established in 1998. Part of this includes the creation of a statistics scheme for vehicle emissions. This will register and approve all vehicles’ gas emissions and noise levels, modify the maximum limit of air pollutant emissions allowed in new and used cars, outline ways to satisfy these levels, and supervise and fund the completion of the whole project.

There is also movement at the top. The government is making big gestures: it has currently promised to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 10% before 2010. But the promises lack backing, and financing.

Until the colectivo system is rehashed or abandoned altogether, and a maximum level is put in place to monitor emissions from transport in Buenos Aires, the air in the city cannot hope to improve and the people and the planet will continue to suffer.