Looking back at my notes from last Thursday’s class session, I cannot help but notice the numerous toxic products released into the air by none other than…us, the humans! Interestingly, air pollution is, perhaps, one of the more personal types of pollution to us, with regards to our health and well being, because are not some forms and quantities of some of these chemicals present in the air that we breathe everyday? With this said, my next notion is to invoke some thought about how such personal problems should be dealt with on a governmental scale. That is, should the government be involving itself with the rights of the companies to do what they will with the air and the right of the people to invest in the products and services they wish, no matter their costs to the environment?
Many individuals feel that the government’s hand in anything, let alone the environment is an omen for destruction, because these people feel that the government is infringing upon their rights to free enterprise. What this notion translates to, in several cases, is the want for the government to not infringe upon the company’s rights to use the cheapest materials it wants, which in many cases are harmful for the environment. For example, after using the cheap materials in a certain process, a primary pollutant may be created, which consists of harmful oxides, gases, and particles. One may think then that, in the end, using such potentially harmful materials will cost the people, or society, much in the end, including their health and the money they will use to fix their health.
If the government, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requires companies to amend harmful processes to mend our environmental crisis now and that of the near future, then why should we continue to suffer health risks? If personal liberties are at question here, I should note that our personal liberties rest on the state of the future. Currently, the environmental crisis does not make the future sound too great!
To this notion that the government should become involved brings me to a quote that we discussed in class. Ricardo Navarro stated, “In our free-enterprise economy, the benefits are privatized but the costs of pollution are socialized.” Navarro tries to convey that companies want the tangible profits for themselves but want the government to deal with the aftermath of the lengths at which the companies went to make their profits. If the companies, thus, turn to the government ultimately, then why not get them involved now?
I notice that I asked my myself many questions in this response regarding why we, humans, are not taking certain actions that can rectify or make lighter some of the problems we are dealing with now. This sheds light on the reality that, even though we believe we are doing something about the environment’s state, we clearly are not doing enough and acting faster, at that. For as I type this response, more and more pollutants, be they primary or secondary, are released into or formed in the air.
While it seems as though I ranted on about allowing the government to become more involved in the actions of companies with regards to the environment, be wary that I mean that government officials must do so with limits. Just as we must practice limits when it comes to our effect on the environment, so should the government when it comes to the rights of the people. That is, the government, the companies, and the people must all work together to find a balance that will help restore the Earth, including its atmosphere, to a proper state.
One might ask then what this proper state may be and if it is achievable. To me, a proper state is one that allows humans to exist on the Earth, for we are a form of life too, yet also allows the Earth to operate with minimal harmful effects from our actions. To achieve such, however, the key element rests at us humans putting aside our political biases and doing what is best and right for the environment.
Sherifa Baldeo
