Day: March 1, 2017

This weeks reading from the CQ Reader highlighted an important concept of the complexity and connectivity that social, political, and economic factors have with public health and the environment. Air pollution and climate change are two of the most highly discussed environmental issues faced today and in order to resolve this problem, all factors must be considered.

Climate change and air pollution has proven to be environmental and health risk; premature death, asthma, and heart attacks are tied to the rise of CO2 emissions and ozone layer depletion.  President Obama’s efforts to improve air quality and the environment through the Clean Power Plan was faced with both support and opposition.  On the one hand, this policy aims at decreasing CO2 emissions by 32% in 2030, which would help improve public health. However, many politicians, industries and private sectors oppose it for economic interests saying the proposed energy solutions are too costly and would raise prices and possibly cause people to lose jobs.

There is a clash between what is environmentally beneficial versus what is economically beneficial; to what extent do we sacrifice one for the other? And what price do we put on our health? This piece from Urban Issues made me more aware of the complexity of the situation in regards to air pollution and climate change, but also on a broader spectrum for all types of policies; not only does the issue at hand need to be considered, but all the branching factors and individuals effected as well.

In Seminar 3, “Science of New York City”, we learnt a lot about how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has worked to improve water quality across the nation. In addition to solving water pollution issues, the EPA creates and enforces regulations for any type of pollution. Prof. Gregory O’Mullan made it clear that there are many economic hurdles the EPA and local governments must jump over to make environmental change possible, and until this CQ reading, I always thought that he was just referring to money that is needed to make changes – nothing is free after all. I never thought about the economic impacts EPA mandated changes may take on different industries, the energy industry in particular.

While I agree that it is seemingly unfair to impose restrictions that would make sectors of the energy industry obsolete, time has proven that all old technology must make way for new technology in the face of innovation and public progress. So although coal companies have been, and will continue, to lose business as we switch to more efficient and sustainable energy resources, it is necessary so that we as a society can move into a bright future.

With that in mind, President Trump’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA (as well as other organizations) brings some scary pictures to mind. As previously mentioned, one of the problems the EPA faces when attempting to enact environmental policies and cleanups is a lack of funs in local governments. By cutting the EPA budget, it will become harder to preform

New York City: 1973 vs. 2013 Source: EPA Documerica “Then and Now Challenge”

environmental studies and clean up superfund sites – locations so polluted the federal government needs to step in to support clean-up efforts. Take a look at the photo on the right. That is New York City before regulations to prevent smog were in effect, and over 30 years after those regulations took effect. Do you want to see our amazing city go back to the way it was? What is the point of bolstering our military budget if all we have to protect is an American cesspool of pollution? Before we take our efforts across the sea, let us create and maintain a home worth living in.