About two weeks ago, the American Lung Association released a report on the United States’… About two weeks ago, the American Lung Association released a report on the United States’ most air-polluted cities. The traditional leader of the pack, Los Angeles, has been replaced by Pittsburgh.

Although Pittsburgh’s status as the most air-polluted city in the United States certainly perpetuates images of a city dominated by dirty and polluting steel factories, Pittsburgh’s rating is not so much a reflection of increased pollution in the city as it is a reflection of an increase in cleaner technologies and efforts to reduce particle pollution in other metropolitan areas.

Nevertheless, Pittsburgh’s status as the most polluted city in the United States must be met with urgency. Aside from the environmental aspects, the levels of pollution in the city present significant health risks as well.

Fortunately, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has “taken to arms.” Within the last few weeks, Ravenstahl has committed to turn vacant lots in the city into “green” areas with urban farms and community gardens. Additionally, Pittsburgh recently partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency in a project that will turn 10 of the city’s waste companies into green organizations through the adoption of advanced emission-reduction technology.

Yet despite the recent initiatives taken by Ravenstahl and Pittsburgh in their commitment to reducing pollution in the city, will the perceptions of Pittsburgh as a dirty, smog-filled area diminish? Or will the historical images of the “Steel City,” which have surely been corroborated by the American Lung Association’s findings, be continued?

In a society so consumed with making the environment cleaner and safer, Pittsburgh’s reputation continues to be marred by its environmental record. After the closing of many of the steel plants in the 1970s and 80s, Pittsburgh underwent and continues to undergo a major effort to reinvent its image.

The lots that were once dominated by booming smokestacks and ash-consumed skies were replaced by chic and vibrant shopping centers. Unfortunately, the findings of the American Lung Association seem to promote historical images of Pittsburgh rather than an up-and-coming city that is a leader in medicine, education, technology and financial services.

Following Los Angeles’ ranking as America’s most air-polluted city in 2007, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made it a top priority to turn Los Angeles into America’s largest “green” city. Through extensive environmental policies ranging from the expansion of renewable energy resources and preserving water to simply planting more trees in the city, Los Angeles’s swift response to its ranking as America’s most polluted city has already seen results.

Consequently, L.A. has become a leader in eco-friendly technologies. Most notable, however, is Los Angeles’ quick response to reduce dangerous diesel exhaust emissions from trucks, buses and port operations through widespread legislation.

Unlike Los Angeles, Pittsburgh’s investment in more energy-efficient resources and a cleaner environment has been more gradual. Addressing pollution and environmental problems has been a significant issue in Pittsburgh since the 1940s. Yet the same steel corporations that were largely responsible for Pittsburgh’s previous environmental issues continue to harm the environment.

U.S. Steel’s Clairton Works coke-producing plant has been arguably the most significant player in the high levels of ash, soot and diesel exhausts that contribute to particle pollution in the Pittsburgh region. Although U.S. Steel has committed to modifying the plant so as to lessen pollution, the damage done to the Pittsburgh environment is so reprehensible that local leaders should demand that the project be expedited.

However, Pittsburgh’s transformation from a city that was once described as being “hell with the lid taken off” to a much cleaner city, though unfortunately still America’s most air-polluted city, is incredible.

Already, Pittsburgh is one of the nation’s leaders in “green” buildings that meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards.

Additionally, Pittsburgh has begun investing in alternative energy sources, specifically solar and wind power. Yet it is time that Pittsburgh’s response to its environmental issues took a more aggressive approach. Although I applaud the city for its significant environmental improvements over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, in order to rid itself of its negative historical images it is necessary that the city take a hard stance on controlling the particle pollution in the air.

Whether through new legislation that effectively fines corporations that do not control their levels of particle emissions, much like Los Angeles has done, or through the development of newer and cleaner technologies on buildings, trucks, buses and boats, it is vital that Pittsburgh take a hard and immediate stance on preventing further air pollution.

E-mail Shane at [email protected].