Day: February 27, 2017

I had always realized that global warming was a problem, but this CQ reader chapter put everything in perspective and opened my eyes to the policy issues surrounding this sensitive topic. Obama’s Clean Power Plan represented a major effort to combat rampant greenhouse emissions responsible for this climate change but it was met with major resistance from republicans and others dependent on fossil fuels emissions for their economic self-interests. The core issue here, and the main source of conflict, comes down to a question of what’s more important: public health or the nation’s economic growth?

Personally, where I stand on the issue is completely on the side of public health. The concern that removing fossil fuels or cutting greenhouse emissions will reduce jobs and contribute to lower economic growth is indeed a valid one. However, the truth is that such a problem, while hard to deal with, is still very much resolvable in the long run. The other alternative –continuing on our dangerous fossil fuel escapade– will result in irreparable damage to our environment and to the health of future generations which cannot be remedied easily in the same way.  Therefore, the major take away for me after this reading this chapter is that nothing will improve until we all agree to unite on this issue and get past the many policy hurdles in our way.

This week’s reading in the CQ Researcher touched on a problem plaguing the science community and the entire world: air pollution and climate change. In the analysis of statistics and several viewpoints provided by the CQ Researcher, the complexity regarding solving the issues are illuminated upon and dissected. On one hand, there is the claim that the implementation of the Clean Power Plan under the Obama administration can cause economic distress on the United States. More specifically, enforcing such regulation is claimed by companies that there will be a job shortage in their fields and it will be too costly. However, proponents of the plan state that the execution of these policies hopes to decrease in CO2 emissions by 32% in 2030. Considering the health risks such as asthma and premature deaths CO2 can pose, this plan seems like it can help lessen the negative effects excessive CO2 has on the health of people.

However, the possibility of saving many lives didn’t seem appealing enough for people like Jeff Holmstead who made the assertion that while companies are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Power Plan is unlawful. His comment was backed by commentary from people such as Mike Pence who declared Obama’s plan ignored “ the separation of powers enshrined in our nation’s Constitution.” Ironically enough, in the short time the Trump Administration has taken office, a series of executive orders have been passed that can possibly threaten the already fragile environmental state of the United States. As with many other policies up for debate in this country, the issue of climate change has reached a point where we must all decide whether the next dollar for companies will be sacrificed for the greater well-being of the general public.

Air Pollution poses our greatest environmental health risk. In America, 55,000 people die as a result each year. It causes strokes, heart attacks, as well as many diseases and cancers. On a global level, it causes climate change; meaning more frequent natural disasters, the loss of species, and flooding from the rising sea levels. And yet, the issues of climate change and air pollution are not taken seriously very often. New York is one of the most polluted cities in the country and yet I hardly think about the quality of the air I am breathing. This issue is so overlooked, even though, if we continue emitting more and more greenhouse gasses each year, air pollution deaths will double in 35 years.

President Obama decided to take climate change seriously by tackling the electricity-generating power plants that account for 37% of the United States carbon emissions. He intended to lower the number of premature deaths in the US and to work toward a better future for the earth. His “Clean Power Plan” was not widely accepted by the public or in Washington. Many feared that the plan would make electricity costs higher, and cost many Americans their jobs. Those opposed felt that Obamas executive order would be too costly and was an “overreach of Government”. Much like President Trump, who has been using executive orders to pursue his agenda. Interestingly enough, then-governor Mike Pence was against Obama bypassing congress and using executive order, and yet now has been supportive of Trumps executive actions.  President Obamas plan would be expensive. It was estimated that 1.4 billion dollars would be lost each year, however, 3-6 billion would be saved because fewer people would be getting sick, or fatally ill from air pollution.

The Majority of Americans, from both parties, want to lower our carbon footprint. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, it is understandable that the toxic fumes coming from our cars, factories, and power plants are harmful to breathe in, and our harmful for our earth.

The CQ Researcher for this week was an eye opener as I saw the history of air pollution, and I realized that it is a extensive problem that needs to be addressed by lawmakers here in the United States. I understood that burning of fossil fuels was helping in accelerating the process of producing goods for a growing population, but the drawbacks of it have proved to be a lot more detrimental than developers have assumed. What I find alarming is that it took so many some centuries, long past the first Industrial Revolution, to figure out that humans were the cause of air pollution, and the rapid production of the green house gas effect. Although the green house gas effect is a natural process, the excessive burning of fossil fuels over the centuries has led to the increase in earth’s overall temperature, which in turn led to other problems such as rising sea level, which is causing coastal flooding.

Another air pollutant that is a source of environmental problems according to the CQ Researcher is sulfur dioxide which produces acid rain that is destroying trees, infrastructures, and intoxicating rivers killing wildlife (CQ Researcher 2986). Not only is air pollution affecting the geography around us, but it is also affecting humans, to the point where it is deadly. Within the reading it states that air pollution kills about “3.3 million people worldwide”, which has a larger than death rate than HIV and malaria (CQ Researcher 3159). The fact that air pollution is more deadly than two viruses, and is much easier to be stricken with due to it being the air that we breather, proves that it is something vital that needs to be focused on. Here in the United States air pollution is so terrible that in places such as Los Angeles, people can barely see across the street because of smog. There are also thousands of asthma and heart attacks yearly that are caused by air pollution. With the domestic statistics, it is pivotal for policy makers to be more aggressive when it comes to dealing with air pollution since it has a domino affect on wild life and human life.

Although it has taken government officials an extremely long time to find the correlation between fossil fuels and air pollution, I find it to be commendable that they have taken steps to improve carbon emissions, with some agreeing with their approach, some who oppose, and others who feel there needs to be a more aggressive approach with air pollution legislation. One of the first acts that have been passed to combat air pollution is the clean air act which was passed into law in 1965, which was used to regulate carbon emissions from motor vehicles, and industry smoke shacks. Other amendments throughout the years that have been used to measure the amount of carbon emissions were acceptable for factories to produce. Due to the clean air act, carbon emissions have drastically decreased in the United States.  More recently, a lot of environmental actions have been passed under President Obama to improve air quality. One of them being him rejecting a “1,179 Keystone XL pipeline,” which would carry oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast (CQ Researcher 3148). Another being a promise with Brazilian leaders was to “increase renewable energy by 20% by 2030” (CQ Researcher 3160). The Obama administration taking active steps to turn away from non renewable pollutants, and turn to renewable sources show that he was thinking progressively with improving the health of the people and the environment. While some environmentalists felt that the steps Obama made to improve air quality were great, other environmentalists believed that he was not being aggressive with passing legislation, which I can understand will be difficult when you have a congress that opposes most of your policies. Conservatives and business owners on the opposing side feel that the government should not be involved in how businesses handle resources because oversteps their regulatory power. I find it to be funny that business owners are more concerned on how the materials they are using are being regulated, and the expense of changing to renewable energy rather than worrying about the health of the people. What also makes it disheartening is that with  a new administration that does not believe in global warming, and is business oriented, it will be difficult to pass more policies that would promote the use of fossil fuels and increased use of renewable energy.

This week’s reading in Urban Issues has confirmed the idea that we cannot take significant action against air pollution and climate change without coming to a consensus. Former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which was aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions in order to improve the public health of the people living in the United States, faced heavy resistance from Republican lawmakers as well as people who have big stakes in the energy and fossil fuel industries. These industries would be largely affected by policies regarding environmental regulation and it seems like their primary focus is in making sure that they receive their profits no matter the cost. It does not seem like improving public health is in their best interest and that is something I find very troubling.

To take action against the major issue of air pollution and climate change, it is important that the public realizes the consequences of not solving it. The fact that air pollution kills millions per year is something irrefutable but not everyone believes that the planet’s climate is actually changing. However, you have climate scientists from NASA like James Hansen who has set a CO2 threshold at 350ppm (with anything higher being a threat to Earth’s safety) and the 400ppm mark has already been broken and will become the norm this year. These observable rises in temperature could potentially lead to all sorts of environmental crises in the future, many of which our own children in the future will have to face. Yet we still have lawmakers in addition to many powerful individuals in the fossil fuel industry that question the legitimacy of these claims. One of the first steps to solve a problem is to acknowledge that its actually there, so perhaps the right step going forward is to encourage citizens to contact their lawmakers and voice their concerns.