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.
Good points.