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.
Very important points on the health effects.