Dealing With Air Pollution

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Claims
Brief Background
Reasons for Proposing Change
Opposing Arguments and Counter Arguments
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Automobiles play an integral role in the development of society. They are the primary means through which transportation within a continent is achieved. Fossil fuels serve as the primary source of fuel for automobiles. Therefore, these cars produce emissions that include greenhouse gases. As a result of this, vehicle emissions are considered to be one of the primary sources of air pollution in the world today. Air pollution has several significant adverse effects on the environment.

Polluted air contains nitrogen oxides and other toxic substances that dissolve in the atmosphere to return to the Earth in the form of acid rain, which is detrimental to the ecosystem. When it falls on water bodies, it causes changes in the aquatic ecosystem. Automobile emissions also contribute to climate change, which is a phenomenon with adverse environmental outcomes.

While climate change is a natural phenomenon, it has been accelerated over the past century as a result of human’s industrial activity. The excessive use of fossil fuels has led to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, and this has contributed to global warming. Some of the detrimental environmental effects of global warming include a rise in sea levels leading to the destruction of coastal habitats through flooding, the devastation of flora and fauna, and the spread of diseases.

Claims

Considering the significant adverse environmental impacts on air pollution, we have to seek solutions to the vehicle emission problem currently facing the country. Several alternative ways can be used to reduce significantly or eliminate automobile emissions. To begin with, the government could invest in light rail and high-speed trains to provide an alternative and more environmentally-friendly means of transportation.

Increased use of these alternatives would reduce the usage of automobiles, therefore decreasing the harmful vehicle emissions. The federal government could also provide better support for the development and use of hybrid cars by US citizens. Hybrid cars are a viable alternative to vehicles with conventional engines. These cars have engines that work using electrical motors, and thus the gasoline consumption may be reduced.

This leads to the emission of the minimal possible levels of CO2, therefore minimizing air pollution dramatically. Finally, the local government can encourage the use of non-automotive means of transportation, such as bicycles. Such a move can be promoted by the construction of bicycle lanes in cities all over the country.

The roads would encourage people traveling for short distances to the use of bicycles, which do not cause any pollution. This would lead to the elimination of automobile emissions that would have been produced if individuals had to use personal cars or taxis to travel short distances.

Brief Background

Transportation has always been the key to the economic and social development of society. Through advances in transportation, trade and commerce are promoted as people and goods can move to the desired destination promptly.

The relationship between transportation and development can be seen from the fact that historically, advances in transport technology follow the changes in human civilization. In modern society, the transportation infrastructure of a country is a marker of the social and economic health of the country. While developed countries have expansive and impressive transportation networks, developing countries suffer from poor transport infrastructure.

In the US, all states possess modern road systems. In addition to this, US citizens enjoy a high income per capita due to the economic development in the country. Citizens are, therefore, able to afford personal vehicles, and the country has the most significant percentage of passenger vehicles relative to the population of the country.

As of 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation recorded that there were over 246 million passenger vehicles in the country (US Census). This figure represents an increase of over 58 million from the number of motor vehicles in 1990. The number of cars is expected to increase even further as the cost of acquiring a vehicle in the US decreases, and the population of the US increases. It can, therefore, be projected that the auto-emissions currently experienced in the US will increase over the coming decades.

Reasons for Proposing Change

As noted above, the transportation sector is integral to the development of society. However, the rapid increase in the number of fossil fuel-powered automobiles in our country is unsustainable. As the number of vehicles on the road increases, the level of air pollution also increases. The adverse effects of air pollution caused by cars are evident in many states. The Environmental Protection Agency reveals that marine life in the country was adversely affected by air pollution.

Water bodies have been contaminated as air pollutants are transferred through precipitation to the water bodies. Due to the contamination, up to 40 states have issued advisories after observing significant pollution in specific water bodies in the respective countries. In addition to damaging water bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency warns that the ground-level ozone created by the toxic air pollutants released by vehicles is damaging to plants and trees.

The Environmental Protection Agency documents that in recognition of the adverse effects that vehicle emissions had on the environment, the California State government imposed regulations aimed at reducing automobile emissions in the 1960s. These regulations have been progressively tightened over the decade to reduce the emissions from vehicles even further. Due to these efforts, the region enjoys a relatively lower level of vehicular pollution as compared to other states that have an equally high density of cars.

The negative effect of automobile emissions, already evident in many states, can be expected to increase as the number of vehicles in the country rises. The changes proposed in this paper can ensure that automobile emissions are reduced drastically by decreasing the number of cars on the road. The proposal also states that vehicles that have minimal tailpipe emissions should be utilized, therefore reducing CO2 emissions.

Opposing Arguments and Counter Arguments

An argument made against the light rail and high-speed trains is that they still require the use of fossil fuels to run. Using these transportation alternatives would therefore even contribute, although indirectly, to the increase in air pollution in the country. This argument is correct since, in as much as these trains use electricity, it is still generated by the use of fossil fuels. Approximately the US produces 68% of the electricity from fossil fuels, with coal being the primary source used in power plants.

Sweet reveals, “Burning coal produces more than half the country’s electricity” (par. 3). Due to this, coal is responsible for 33% of overall carbon emissions in the country. Opponents of the use of light rail and high-speed trains as alternatives to automobiles argue that these measures would reduce automobile emissions, but without any benefit to the environment since air pollution would still occur through electricity production. This argument is correct in stating that coal is currently the primary producer of the country’s electricity.

However, the case wrongfully says that the electricity used to run trains is obtained from coal plants. It ignores the fact that the US has over the past decade showed significant interest in developing renewable energy sources (Sweet par.5). Due to the realization that coal contributes to climate change, successive US administrations have increased their investments in technologies to develop alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar power.

In addition to this, nuclear power plants, which have zero carbon emissions, are used extensively to produce electricity in the US. McKinney and Schoch state, “the US has more than 100 nuclear power plants, and it generates 19.9% of its electricity from nuclear power” (216). There is, therefore, a high likelihood that the electricity used to run light rail and high-speed trains will be obtained from sources that do not cause air pollution.

In disapproval of hybrid engines, their opponents have asserted that that was an immature technology, and advancements were still to be made to those systems. Darrel and Anderson confirm that most opponents of hybrid engines stated that it was an unproven technology that could not be trusted to replace standard engines (83). In addition to this, hybrid vehicles are costly, making them unattractive to many consumers. As such, the widespread use of these vehicles is unlikely to be achieved.

The supposed benefit gained from hybrid engines in terms of air pollution reduction will, therefore, be minimal since a large-scale adoption of the technology would be needed to make a significant change in automobile emissions. These critical comments leveled against hybrid engines are legitimate since they are an immature technology compared to fossil-powered engines that have been in use over the many decades.

However, it would be wrong to refer to them as an “unproven technology” since significant manufacturers, such as Honda and Toyota, have made advances in the technology in over ten years (Darrel and Anderson 84). This argument that hybrid technology is unproven also makes a wrong cause and effect assumption.

The fact that hybrid engines are a young technology does not mean that they will not contribute to the reduction of vehicle emissions. Research shows that hybrid engines are more efficient than internal combustion engines, and their environmental impact is reduced due to their lower carbon emissions (McKinney and Schoch 237).

A major criticism leveled against bicycle lanes is that they would not lead to emission reduction since people cannot be expected to use bicycles to travel over significant distances. While bikes might be ideal for short distances, critics argue that they cannot be used for long distance travel. In addition to this, opponents maintain that most cities in the US already suffered from traffic congestion. Instead of constructing bicycle lanes, it would be more beneficial for local authorities to expand the existing roads to ease congestion.

Therefore, while bicycle use does not lead to air pollution, critics argue that this is not a feasible alternative to vehicle use in the US. However, the significance of bicycles as travel devices, especially in cities, cannot be overstated. Research has shown that most of the pollution in the cities occurs as the cars are idling in traffic jams. The USA Today notes that bicycle lanes bring “bring economic as well as environmental benefits to communities” (par.1).

Pollution also increases when people use vehicles to travel for short distances that could easily be covered on foot or by bicycle. By constructing bicycle lanes, the local government would encourage people to use bikes and therefore avoid causing the pollution that occurs when cars are stuck in traffic or as they move for short distances.

The USA Today reports that bicycle lanes lead to an increase in the number of cyclists since they “get the people who are interested in cycling but are concerned about their safety” (par. 17). The argument that a better use for the bicycle lanes would be the expansion of existing roads is inconsistent with the reality that the usage of bicycles would reduce the number of vehicles on the road. This would, therefore, reduce air pollution by eliminating auto-emissions among bicycle users.

Conclusion

The paper is set out to argue that the air pollution caused by automobile emissions is detrimental to the environment, and as such, alternative ways to significantly reduce or eliminate such emissions should be implemented. It starts by highlighting the importance of automobiles in the growth and development of society. The paper then notes that emissions are an essential source of air pollution. It highlighted the significant adverse environmental impacts that vehicle emissions cause.

While these impacts have been there since the invention of vehicles, they have become more pronounced as the number of cars in the country has increased markedly. The paper has proposed solutions to reduce or eliminate automobile emissions.

These solutions that include developing light rail and high-speed trains, investment in hybrid cars, and construction of bicycle lanes are feasible and promise great benefits. All the citizens who are eager to contribute to the protection of our environment should petition the government to implement these changes to reduce air pollution in the US.

Works Cited

Darrel, Curtis and Judy Anderson. Electric and hybrid cars: a history. New York: McFarland, 2010. Print.

Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Planning and Standards: Taking Toxics Out of the Air. 2012. Web.

McKinney, Michael and Robert Schoch. Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions. Boston: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2007. Print.

Sweet, William. Better Planet: Nuke Power is Earth’s Friend: It’s time to replace coal power with wind and, yes, nuclear. 2007. Web.

US Census Bureau. Motor Vehicle Registrations: 1990 to 2009. 2013. Web.

USA Today. “More protected lanes for bicyclists pop up in cities.” The USA Today 2013. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!