Category: Response Papers (Feb 27) (Page 1 of 2)

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.

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.

Air pollution is one of the issues arise from industrialization. The excessive carbon dioxide, ozone, and pm 2.5 in the atmosphere caused global climate change. These harmful particles are also dangerous to the vulnerable group of people, such as elders and children. According to CQ Researcher, “Air pollution kills 3.3 million people a year, including 55,000 in the United States, mostly from strokes and heart attacks…” Air pollution has indirectly caused many people to have serious health issues. The government therefore steps in to regulate the amount of pollutants that can be released into the air. The Clean Air Act set up regulations for power companies and factories. President Obama raised the standard even higher after the participation in the Paris conference. Environmentalists are happy about this because finally there is a degree of control for air pollution. However, the power corporations are not happy because they need to invest more money for cleaner energy. This would also mean some of the coal or oil burning factories would be shut down due to the high level of pollution. Corporations would have to build new plants to keep up the demand of energy. It would take them years before they can retrieve the up-front investment. The energy bills for average residents will increase as a result.

Both environmentalists and the corporation owners have valid point. While the price would definitely go up if the equipment undergoes upgrade, the local air quality will become better. The current Clean Air Act is not as strict as the environmentalists would like because the energy corporations have more money to lobby the Congressmen or Congresswomen. In order to upgrade or renew the Act, I strongly believe listing out the economic benefits for corporations would be more useful. We cannot only look in short-term revenue, but also long-term revenue. Clean coal or renewable energy will be more sustainable on the Earth and brings beneficial health effects. It does cost a lot of money to invest in sustainable energy, but this is the road that the planet needs to go. The Earth cannot support lives on this planet if the greenhouse gas would not reduce. Currently, we are making our own end-of-world apocalypse by pollution the planet. If the energy corporations wish to earn more money in the future, they need to act now to reduce the release of carbon dioxide. We need to think about our future generations.

Air pollution and climate change are two of the most pressing issues facing the United States today. Reading this chapter of the CQ Reader, it became more clear the scope of environmental problems, as well as the current policy resolutions aimed at alleviating pollution and climate change. At its core, the main conflict of government environmental regulation, such as President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, boils down to two issues: First, the economic implications surrounding the policy action; Secondly, the increasingly partisan lines along which policy is favored or deplored. The dilemma posed by environmental action debate pits public health and the well-being of the nation’s children against the livelihood of American laborers as well as those in the energy industry. A complex issue, I finished the chapter considering the many angles to my own stance on President Obama’s Plan. Though I ultimately agree more with the points cited in the reader regarding the benefits and necessity of a plan like President Obama’s to prevents deaths and illness, I came away feeling slightly uncomfortable with the approach of our government when it comes to dealing with pressing, life-altering policy questions such as those related to the environment.

Probably the most surprising information in the chapter was the discussion of the imperfect implementation of policy deviant from electrical energy. There were two examples in particular that highlighted the inefficiency of “advanced” energy. In Arizona, grid problems caused there to be too much solar energy, meaning that utility companies lost major revenue, despite the fact that they provided a service to homeowners on cloudy days when they needed to use the electrical grid. Two energy experts in the chapter agreed that a situation like that, wherein homeowners did not owe money for use of utilities, mandates that new structures be developed; however, expert Hebner believes that these problems can be solved only with money to improve energy storage and to update grids. Considering the contention surrounding a de-facto shift away from electrical energy in the country, it seems unlikely to me that more money will be invested in the near future into advanced energy storage facilities, such as the one in Canada. In fact, it was mentioned that there was a facility built in Texas, now stalled due to domestic political pressures and concerns over profitability. The second example was that of Germany, who has implemented the most ambitious plan out of all of the EU member countries. Though advocates hail it as an achievement for business and for the people, opponents see faults with the plan, namely that cities are producing green energy that no one needs, but are entitled to sell it, leaving consumers to pay around double, over the next ten years, what they were paying for non-green forms of energy. This is another striking example of implementation and regulation gone wrong, as the policies are certainly aimed at helping the environment and citizens of certain countries, but industry or consumers themselves can be impacted negatively by yet-to-be perfected policy implementation.

Another interesting aspect of the chapter was the timeline provided of environmental policy changes through the years. What stuck out most to me was the dates of policy initiatives, as well as the commentary provided on the actions of some administrations to combat pollution and climate change. It seems to me that environmental action has grown as a partisan policy issue since the days of Republican President Ronald Reagan. As mentioned, his administration took no action against acid rain, and for the most part, it seems that the parties today have fallen in line with the position of leadership for or against action. Indeed, the environment was predicted to be a main issue of the Election of 2016, and hindsight now proves that prediction painfully true. It is immensely troubling, though not surprising, that such important issues as the future of the planet have fallen to bipartisan bickering; however, though I firmly support action to protect the environment and the health of the public, I can understand the pushback against recent policy introductions. Statistics provided within the chapter point to the conclusion that industry itself blows out of proportion the costs they will incur due to policy changes, but I think it is important also to look at individual people impacted by the policies, such as the unemployed Kentucky man who lost his job as a coal miner, featured in a photo near the end of the chapter. If anything, this chapter tells us that the issue is not black and white as some may suppose, but rather an incredibly complex policy question facing the country, as well as the City of New York.

It’s terrible and disheartening that money takes precedence over even one of the most pressing issues of our time—climate change. The main takeaway that I got from this chapter on air pollution and climate change was that energy businesses are more concerned with maintaining their wealth than making the planet more livable and saving lives. Perhaps the most nonsensical argument I read in this entire chapter was the following: “Market forces, not the government, do the best job of picking winners and losers in the energy sector.” The audacity of the opponents of the Clean Power Plan to choose capitalism over the fact that pollution is deadly and must be regulated is unbelievable.

In addition, although lawmakers from states whose economies depend on coal mining and other forms of non renewable energy argue that making the switch to renewable energy would create unemployment and higher energy bills for the public, they fail to realize that there are ways to remedy these problems—however, there is no way to remedy the damage that is being done to our ozone layer, and much more harm can come to us from that than from unemployment or higher bills.

The fact that we are experiencing 60-degree weather in New York in February is not a blessing. It is a sign that there is something seriously wrong with the planet. Yet, Trump and his administration are trying to maintain that climate change doesn’t exist, despite the innumerable amount of scientific evidence that proves that it does. It is perfectly normal and acceptable for people to have opinions, but the issue of climate change is not a matter of opinion. It is even worse that the people who are promoting these fallacies are the ones with the power to disregard policies that benefit the planet. In the short time that Trump has been president, he has appointed a nonbeliever of climate change to the head of the EPA, signed off on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, and pledged to get rid of the Clean Power Plan. We are receding into dangerous territory and putting all of our lives in danger for the power of the almighty dollar.