Day: February 26, 2017

Air pollution is one of the issues arise from industrialization. The excessive carbon dioxide, ozone, and pm 2.5 in the atmosphere caused global climate change. These harmful particles are also dangerous to the vulnerable group of people, such as elders and children. According to CQ Researcher, “Air pollution kills 3.3 million people a year, including 55,000 in the United States, mostly from strokes and heart attacks…” Air pollution has indirectly caused many people to have serious health issues. The government therefore steps in to regulate the amount of pollutants that can be released into the air. The Clean Air Act set up regulations for power companies and factories. President Obama raised the standard even higher after the participation in the Paris conference. Environmentalists are happy about this because finally there is a degree of control for air pollution. However, the power corporations are not happy because they need to invest more money for cleaner energy. This would also mean some of the coal or oil burning factories would be shut down due to the high level of pollution. Corporations would have to build new plants to keep up the demand of energy. It would take them years before they can retrieve the up-front investment. The energy bills for average residents will increase as a result.

Both environmentalists and the corporation owners have valid point. While the price would definitely go up if the equipment undergoes upgrade, the local air quality will become better. The current Clean Air Act is not as strict as the environmentalists would like because the energy corporations have more money to lobby the Congressmen or Congresswomen. In order to upgrade or renew the Act, I strongly believe listing out the economic benefits for corporations would be more useful. We cannot only look in short-term revenue, but also long-term revenue. Clean coal or renewable energy will be more sustainable on the Earth and brings beneficial health effects. It does cost a lot of money to invest in sustainable energy, but this is the road that the planet needs to go. The Earth cannot support lives on this planet if the greenhouse gas would not reduce. Currently, we are making our own end-of-world apocalypse by pollution the planet. If the energy corporations wish to earn more money in the future, they need to act now to reduce the release of carbon dioxide. We need to think about our future generations.

Air pollution and climate change are two of the most pressing issues facing the United States today. Reading this chapter of the CQ Reader, it became more clear the scope of environmental problems, as well as the current policy resolutions aimed at alleviating pollution and climate change. At its core, the main conflict of government environmental regulation, such as President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, boils down to two issues: First, the economic implications surrounding the policy action; Secondly, the increasingly partisan lines along which policy is favored or deplored. The dilemma posed by environmental action debate pits public health and the well-being of the nation’s children against the livelihood of American laborers as well as those in the energy industry. A complex issue, I finished the chapter considering the many angles to my own stance on President Obama’s Plan. Though I ultimately agree more with the points cited in the reader regarding the benefits and necessity of a plan like President Obama’s to prevents deaths and illness, I came away feeling slightly uncomfortable with the approach of our government when it comes to dealing with pressing, life-altering policy questions such as those related to the environment.

Probably the most surprising information in the chapter was the discussion of the imperfect implementation of policy deviant from electrical energy. There were two examples in particular that highlighted the inefficiency of “advanced” energy. In Arizona, grid problems caused there to be too much solar energy, meaning that utility companies lost major revenue, despite the fact that they provided a service to homeowners on cloudy days when they needed to use the electrical grid. Two energy experts in the chapter agreed that a situation like that, wherein homeowners did not owe money for use of utilities, mandates that new structures be developed; however, expert Hebner believes that these problems can be solved only with money to improve energy storage and to update grids. Considering the contention surrounding a de-facto shift away from electrical energy in the country, it seems unlikely to me that more money will be invested in the near future into advanced energy storage facilities, such as the one in Canada. In fact, it was mentioned that there was a facility built in Texas, now stalled due to domestic political pressures and concerns over profitability. The second example was that of Germany, who has implemented the most ambitious plan out of all of the EU member countries. Though advocates hail it as an achievement for business and for the people, opponents see faults with the plan, namely that cities are producing green energy that no one needs, but are entitled to sell it, leaving consumers to pay around double, over the next ten years, what they were paying for non-green forms of energy. This is another striking example of implementation and regulation gone wrong, as the policies are certainly aimed at helping the environment and citizens of certain countries, but industry or consumers themselves can be impacted negatively by yet-to-be perfected policy implementation.

Another interesting aspect of the chapter was the timeline provided of environmental policy changes through the years. What stuck out most to me was the dates of policy initiatives, as well as the commentary provided on the actions of some administrations to combat pollution and climate change. It seems to me that environmental action has grown as a partisan policy issue since the days of Republican President Ronald Reagan. As mentioned, his administration took no action against acid rain, and for the most part, it seems that the parties today have fallen in line with the position of leadership for or against action. Indeed, the environment was predicted to be a main issue of the Election of 2016, and hindsight now proves that prediction painfully true. It is immensely troubling, though not surprising, that such important issues as the future of the planet have fallen to bipartisan bickering; however, though I firmly support action to protect the environment and the health of the public, I can understand the pushback against recent policy introductions. Statistics provided within the chapter point to the conclusion that industry itself blows out of proportion the costs they will incur due to policy changes, but I think it is important also to look at individual people impacted by the policies, such as the unemployed Kentucky man who lost his job as a coal miner, featured in a photo near the end of the chapter. If anything, this chapter tells us that the issue is not black and white as some may suppose, but rather an incredibly complex policy question facing the country, as well as the City of New York.

It’s terrible and disheartening that money takes precedence over even one of the most pressing issues of our time—climate change. The main takeaway that I got from this chapter on air pollution and climate change was that energy businesses are more concerned with maintaining their wealth than making the planet more livable and saving lives. Perhaps the most nonsensical argument I read in this entire chapter was the following: “Market forces, not the government, do the best job of picking winners and losers in the energy sector.” The audacity of the opponents of the Clean Power Plan to choose capitalism over the fact that pollution is deadly and must be regulated is unbelievable.

In addition, although lawmakers from states whose economies depend on coal mining and other forms of non renewable energy argue that making the switch to renewable energy would create unemployment and higher energy bills for the public, they fail to realize that there are ways to remedy these problems—however, there is no way to remedy the damage that is being done to our ozone layer, and much more harm can come to us from that than from unemployment or higher bills.

The fact that we are experiencing 60-degree weather in New York in February is not a blessing. It is a sign that there is something seriously wrong with the planet. Yet, Trump and his administration are trying to maintain that climate change doesn’t exist, despite the innumerable amount of scientific evidence that proves that it does. It is perfectly normal and acceptable for people to have opinions, but the issue of climate change is not a matter of opinion. It is even worse that the people who are promoting these fallacies are the ones with the power to disregard policies that benefit the planet. In the short time that Trump has been president, he has appointed a nonbeliever of climate change to the head of the EPA, signed off on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, and pledged to get rid of the Clean Power Plan. We are receding into dangerous territory and putting all of our lives in danger for the power of the almighty dollar.

I was shocked when I read Jeff Holmstead statement that said, “All the companies I deal with are concerned about greenhouse gases.  And pretty much all of them think the Clean Power Plan is not a lawful way of doing this.” What also isn’t lawful is the amount of deaths per year due to air pollution that the companies contribute to. So to cut carbon emissions to save lives and the planet shouldn’t be such a problem but to the companies, money is more important.

Some people see things differently and see that the cost of changing is too great. Coal burning industries contribute to excessive green house gas emissions, while natural gas emits half the carbon emissions than coal when used to generate electricity. This change isn’t costly and industries have yet to switch. The government should intervene and make changes when necessary. The temperature is going to rise two degrees at the rate we’re going? OK, let’s implement a change and cut green house gas emissions. Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. There are many opponents to changing traditional coal industries. The government should also intervene in the market place because if market forces continue to pick winners and losers, when will clean and renewable energy sources be able to provide more energy without help?

Obama’s Clean Power Plan aims to cut emissions 32% by 2030. The plan aims to limit emissions of power plants because they are the biggest contributor to carbon emissions. But as a society, we can limit our emissions as well. Automobiles are very very very very fuel inefficient. The U.S.’s second largest greenhouse gas emissions is transportation. About 86% of fuel that is pumped into the tank of an automobile is used for something other than driving. Only 14% of the fuel put into car is actually used to move the car. More fuel efficient automobiles need to be considered to cut down on air pollution, and we can take mass transit to help (and mass transit needs to become better in general, too).

The EPA should impose regulations and restrictions when greenhouse gas emissions are out of hand and become a hazard to society, as the EPA did when they proposed the Clean Power Plan. There needs to be a limitation on emissions, and a movement towards natural gas and renewable energies in order to have cleaner air that people are supposed to have, and to limit more extreme weather events, because we ignored climate change for so long that avoiding it is impossible.

One of the most surprising pieces of information from this chapter, dealing with air pollution and climate change, was that it took over two centuries to discover that humans were the source of the problem. According to the chapter in Urban Issues, the burning of fossil fuels began in the 1700s with the Industrial Revolution and it was not until 1938, did Callendar present a theory that it was indeed humans who were contributing to global warming by burning fossil fuels. Upon discussing climate change, it was always mind boggling to me that despite Americans and more so the government knowing how negative an impact greenhouse gases have on the environment, they still continue to engage in the emission of those gases. The main argument against the Clean Air Act and other measures to curb carbon emissions is that it will hurt coal and other manufacturing industries. But think of it, if we really wanted to rely more on clean air technology, we would most certainly find a way to do so just like Germany and so many other European countries have already. What it comes down to just like everything does these days, is the politics surrounding the issue and how effective the government wants their incentives and policies dealing with climate change to be.

Under the Clean Air Act, funding was provided for research which sought to improve public health and welfare. This act was deemed relatively effective since through one of its provisions, cap and trade, emissions were reduced by three million tons in the first year. According to Urban Issues, the act also allowed citizens to sue violators and gave the EPA authority to shut down coal fired power plants and for solar plants to be built to replace them. One of the opponents, Jeff Holmstead, argued that the Clean Power Plan was not a good policy because it gave too much power to a federal agency. He claimed that the federal government in itself should be monitoring greenhouse gas levels instead, and authorize the removal of coal plants. I think that was a weak argument because at the end of the day the EPA is a federal agency and it is executing its task for the government itself. The real issue therefore, is who is in control of the situation and thus the major limitation the policy has on many businesses that rely on the burning of fossil fuels since it is a cheap factor of production.

As the chapter in Urban Issues stated, solar and wind power are experiencing record growth but so far solar power only accounts for 1% of the energy sector and wind power only accounts for about 4% of the energy sector. Based on these statistics, the implementation of renewable energy still has an incredibly long way to go. If citizens are more fully aware of how damaging greenhouse gases are to the environment and the major impact it can have on future generations, they can begin to make more environmentally friendly choices. They can even lobby and help to convince government officials that renewable energy is the best option moving forward in helping to reduce further carbon emissions.

Air pollution and climate change are serious issues that are often taken lightly. However, the reality is that there are major social and economic concerns that come along with these issues that must be addressed. With every decision that we make as a society, there are ramifications for current and future generations. We have a responsibility to become as educated as we can on the matter in order to make these very difficult decisions.

After reading chapter 4 of the CQ reader, I have many mixed feelings regarding President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. When reading the statistics regarding the number of heart attacks, asthma attacks and premature deaths that can be avoided by decreasing ozone levels, my gut reaction was that we have a responsibility towards the health of our fellow Americans. Contemplating the financial burden—jobs lost and higher cost of living—forced me to think twice. This brings up a reoccurring question: is the large financial burden this generation needs to swallow worth it for future generations? This is not an easy question to answer, but we have a responsibility to really think about it. We do need to consider future generations. There have been tangible changes in our climate and weather.

This winter alone we experienced a beautiful 50-degree day followed by a blizzard that closed schools and offices. This is not something we have seen in the past. There is no denying that this issue exists. According to scientists, the main goal is to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Sea levels have risen by more than six inches in the last century and there are more extreme weather events occurring.

I don’t know what the answer to all of this is. Perhaps we need to bite the bullet now and find ways to finance the switch to renewable resources including helping those who will not be able to afford losing their jobs or pay higher bills. Where are we supposed to find the funding for this? I don’t know. I do think it is important for us to advocate for what we believe in because I cannot imagine us living in this world, trying to make our mark, for it all to melt away.

Another important issues that kept arising in this reading was how political climate change is. President Obama made an executive order for the Clean Power Plan to come about instead of going through Congress. There were also questions of whether he had the authority to do this. These were things he was criticized for. I also thought it was interesting that the chapter ends with the 2016 election and how things will be with a republican president. Now that we have a republican president and we have seen some of the actions he has taken with regard to climate change, I am curious to see how things play out in the months to come. As usual, it all falls back on politics. We need to do our duty and advocate for what we believe in.

This chapter in Urban Issues showed me that, like pretty much everything, there are two sides to this whole issue, each with legitimate concerns, and neither looking willing to budge. Whether or not you agree or not with what has been transpiring in this country regarding the way we are treating climate change, you have to see that the other side does have real claims that have to be heard and possibly dealt with. That is one thing I liked a lot about this reading; it gives you both sides of the argument in an unbiased manner, something extremely hard to find nowadays. As someone who is obviously aware of climate change and the effects it has, I did not know as much regarding the politics behind all of it. Reading this gave me a lot of information about the issues that arise with the government getting involved with climate change.

While there are still be people out there who would like to try and deny climate change and the effects that air pollution has, they are mistaken and can only realistically still hold on to that fallacy for a little while longer. However, the main issue that comes up with things like Obama’s Clean Power Plan is government regulations. Whenever that gets thrown into something, the issue automatically takes on a lot larger argument. People will never be fully comfortable with the government being the ones to tell private companies what they can and can not do. Regardless of if someone might agree with the what a certain bill or order accomplishes, they might oppose it solely because of it’s association with the fact that the government is now regulating something. So that is one major issue that come up in all this.

Another thing that the CQ spoke about was the effect that Obama’s plan would have on many families and individuals. There are many effects across the board, from rising prices of electricity to loss of jobs, and people are, rightfully, cautious about them. Naturally, as stated in the reader, many Republicans are the ones who voice these concerns and they are legitimate. The economy is always a central part of any discussion, and it is not only taking place here. Towards the end of this chapter it talks about how other countries will have to “find ways to implement they pledges they made” at the Paris conference and many of them will deal with the same issue of controlling how much we contribute to air pollution, while trying not to hurt their economy as much as possible.

Regarding the other side, the arguments for are pretty self explanatory. Just looking at the chart on page 75 shows the fact that air pollution has to be dealt with, one way or another. Government intervention and enforcement is definitely one way to go about it; however, as mentioned earlier that is not always so simple. Many argue that changes are already occurring and we should just let the adaption to better sources for cleaner air happen naturally. While that might be true, the changes that are taking place are likely not sufficient enough to have as much of an effect, as soon as they needed.

The fact of the matter is that this issue is not as simple as whether or not you believe climate change is a serious matter and whether it needs to be dealt with. Like most things, it can’t be boiled down to one issue. These 20 pages show that there are many things to take into account and they all must be discussed and thought about. At the end of they day, there will be things that both sides don’t like, regardless of whatever happens; but hopefully the negatives are left to a minimum and for the most part, compromises will be reached.

In reading chapter 4 of the CQ reader, and subsequently writing a response paper to it, I’m choosing to focus on the portion which I had the strongest reaction to.  Interestingly, this reaction was towards one sentence about halfway through the reading, which read in regards to the effect of the cap of acid rain producing emissions, “In addition, the health of Adirondack lakes in New York state rebounded”.  This one sentence focused on a subject which I find equally as, if not more important to, climate change.  Furthermore, it was perhaps the only sentence of the passage which examined this point.

The point I’m referring to is the effects of air pollution on wildlife and nature within the United States, and specifically in New York.  It seemed throughout the reading that the studies which have been conducted were focused on the effects of air pollution in relation to climate change and global warming.  While this is crucial and necessary work, throughout the narrative it seems as if our natural life was forgotten.  The United States has a rich history, beginning with President Benjamin Harrison, spanning through President Theodore Roosevelt and the Bureau of Land Management, up until today, to maintaining public lands of untapped wilderness to be accessed by all the citizens of the United States.  These national parks, of which there are state equivalents, are one of the most valuable commodities our nation has to offer.  In few other countries in the world are there massive plots of land accessible to all citizens, of any socio-economic background. Furthermore, these national parks protect valuable natural resources, as well as provide habitats for countless species of animals.  Unfortunately, millions of acres of public lands have been privatized, so that our parks system is beginning to dwindle as compared to its territory in years past. As such, it is our responsibility to protect and cherish that which remains.

While the reader did raise many significant points regarding why the air emission issue can be labeled an issue, I fear researchers have missed the potential damage such significant air pollution could have on our public lands.   I do concede that global warming would of course impact these lands, but logically speaking, it does not make sense to me that polluted air, polluted water sources, and so on, would not have further drastic consequences on our wild life and wild areas.   In reading the CQ reader, I would have preferred to at least see some attention being given to these effects.

On another note, in regards to the debate regarding the transferring towards the use of renewable energy, I have a personal contradiction of my own values.  On one hand, I believe it would be beneficial for there to be increased regulation of the emissions which pollute our planet, including enforced policy of the procedures used by individual business.  On the other hand, I find the concept of heavy regulations by the government of the private sector troubling, and as such I can understand why this debate is such a controversial one, in that I do not believe that anybody would go out of their way to harm the planet, barring potential economic gain. It thereby makes sense that the Conservative and Libertarian right would be troubled by this regulation, whereas Liberals would have less difficulty.

As someone whose sister suffers from asthma due to air pollution, this article underscored why I feel the urgency for government to make major policy changes in the control of air pollution and industrial emissions.  What people who lead and control these industries, and politicians who are removed from the scene, refuse to realize or know the problem but refuse on monetary grounds to make changes, is that they are avoiding the gravity of the problem. Air pollution regulations have to be installed, or all of us will regret the worsening environment that will come to pass if we don’t have the foresight to make changes now.

This article, “Air Pollution and Climate Change,” brings attention to the economic, political, and sociological factors associated with air pollution regulation. Currently, because of advances in science, there is an increased understanding of the effects of air pollution on human health as well as a greater appreciation of the “greenhouse effect,” the presence of greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. These pollutants are primarily attributed to the use of coal and oil.  Thus our own behaviors as humans in an industrial society presumably increase the risks of human diseases as well as that of global warming. This is a problem with universal application that may herald the cooperation of governments around the world to act collaboratively to bring about change. However, on the local level, especially in the US, the pros and cons of various regulations are largely determined by money and industry, political party (Democrats vs. Republicans), and where one lives (coal vs. non-coal states). President Obama tried to address this problem, despite the ambiguity of Congress, with the Clean Power Plan, whose intent was to reduce carbon emissions. However, the plan’s legality is still widely debated. Despite the many published studies that point out the number of lives lost, and the number of people falling ill due to air pollution, big industry and politics still lobby against this extension of the original clean air bill.  I would understand the antipathy to the bill if the health risks associated with pollution were uncertain, but science not only points to the destruction from pollution of many human lives but also to the dangers to the future environment as well.

I understand through reading the article that the industry associated with coal burning and the energy companies that supply oil and fuels are unhappy.  There are Republicans who don’t want to contribute to these regulations and align climate change rules with the Democratic party,  but I don’t see how people don’t look beyond the trees to understand that this is a serious issue and that we can’t be stuck in the present. People, regardless of political leaning, need to change their attitudes about air pollution and climate change. There are many possible economic, political, and medical ramifications associated with maintaining the status quo, with not doing anything now.

Change is always hard. However, once the changes are initiated, they become less difficult to accept. The article supports this view by pointing to industries that have had to make changes and are surviving despite the initial bite.  We need to take the medicine to fight the disease.  Regulations need to be developed and then the rules need to be followed.  Why else do we have government but to protect its people? Change not only refers to altering our current practices, but also requires that we develop new regulations, and ask government, industry, and individuals to take preventative measures for the future. We must invest in fuel that will not continue to increase pollution. The government has to put its money where its mouth is, to require that current industry reduce coal and oil emissions. However, the government itself must invest in and reward those following its prescribed practices. The government must invest in options that encourage alternative cleaner methods of providing fuel. Moreover, the current use of solar and wind power needs to be facilitated more and incentivized by the government.

Air pollution and climate change are problems common to all mankind. It is something that can bring the world together. We can learn different approaches from various countries’ efforts, from their successes and failures, such as Germany’s’ renewable energy endeavors and Canada’s carbon capture power plants, so that we can help each other in this common battle against air pollution and climate change.  We must protect all citizens of the world and the habitats they live in. The world has come to recognize that the dedicated work of research scientists can influence these positive changes to the environment through economic and political action.