Comparing China’s polluted cities to the cities of other countries amounts to a flawed analysis because there is a fundamental issue of scale. China is in a phase of unprecedented change. The past years have seen the state undertake one of the highest growth trails in the record, and this has led to massive economic and social changes.
Due to developments in and transformations in China’s economy, the country has become the second biggest economy in the globe. Most China residents have evolved from low-class to middle-class, and they are now main players in sustaining China’s market as they order more goods and services for consumption.
Presently, however, Chinese expansion is slowing down following an unprecedented period of rapid growth for the last thirty years. No one still knows the rate at which the economy is slowing down. Knowing the rate at which China’s economy is slowing down is significant as it indicates that the amount of pollution in the country is also reducing.
The fact that we do not know the rate at which the economy is slowing down denotes that we cannot tell the rate at which air pollution in the country is reducing and those who claim that China’s rate of pollution is the highest in the world ignore this point. Research shows that in the past years, air pollution in China has been a key problem.
According to Hill (2012), the overall emission of leading air pollutants such as soot, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and dangerous gases from industries raised in the mid-1990s and has been declining from that time. While we may acknowledge that China experienced much pollution in past years, we cannot say that China is the leading country in air pollution presently.
First, the country says that it has slowed down its industrial processes, which were the leading contributors of air pollution in the past years, and second, we do not have a scale to compare China’s rates of pollution with other countries.
Scholars claim that China’s industries have been the leading contributors to air pollution in the country. “The pollutants responsible are emitted by coal-burning power plants, smelters, and chemical factories” (Hill, p.23). China, similar to other countries, has been meeting most of its energy needs through burning coal, in the past years. Another key contributor to air pollution in the past years has been the automobile industry.
China has had a growing number of motor vehicles that burn low-grade gasoline, causing many dangerous emissions into the air. Since China has begun to reduce the rate of its development, it is obvious that the amounts of emissions from industries have reduced. In the same way, motor vehicle transport has reduced because there are fewer goods to transport to the market and fewer movements by workers.
Consequently, air pollution in the country has reduced. At the beginning of this year, China decided to start reducing the pace of its development and maintain its overall economic development lower than 7%. So far, the country has met its goal since the rate of growth reduced in the first quarter of the year. “The economy grew by 7.7% year-on-year in the first quarter, the slowest pace of growth since the Asian financial crisis 13 years ago” (Yueh, par.5).
Besides, there are indicators that suggest that the rate of growth in the second quarter will even be lower. These achievements are in line with China’s new policies of maintaining a 7.5% growth or less for the next seven years (Yueh).
Research also indicates that the amounts of fine particulates in various urban areas in China have been the highest in the globe for the past years (Hill, 2012). Seemingly, this claim is an understatement because there exists no clear way of comparing levels of pollution in different countries. Different countries have different air quality indices, and this makes comparison rather difficult. Even though there are average pollution indexes, they also do not give accurate results.
The average pollution index fails because it fails to recognize that different regions have diverse climatic conditions, and both the structure of the index and the breakpoints ought to be data independent. Another drawback is that the average pollution index only considers a single pollutant while the intensity of pollution should get consideration in relations to the different pollutants in the environment concurrently.
Besides, these indices do not consider population differences among different regions. China has a large population, and we cannot compare it with other countries that have less population. China has a population of about 1 billion people and more than 220 cities (Hill).
The country’s metropolitan cities serve as a home for about 100 to 200 million citizens. The rest of the population resides in rural areas. Europe, on the other hand, has only thirty-five cities and twenty for megacities, and less than 200 million residents. Those who claim that China’s amount of population is high do not take into account the number of residents in the country.
In conclusion, comparing China’s polluted cities to the cities of other countries is a flawed analysis. We do not know the current rate of China’s expansion, and we cannot ascertain that the amount of pollution dumped into the atmosphere in the past years is similar to the amounts dumped presently. Besides, the average pollution index, which rates countries in terms of their pollution levels, has many limitations. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the pollution of cities in China with pollution in cities of other countries.
References
Hill, N. (2012). Understanding environmental pollution. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Step 1: The Overview of the Issue and Academic Evidence
Single-use plastic items have become the inescapable reality of our lives. Plastic bags cost next to nothing, and in some shops, they are being handed out for free. The majority of drinks are purchased in plastic bottles, while coffee machines dispense polystyrene cups to pour the beverage into. They are thrown away, whether into a trash bin or on the ground, after which it disappears out of sight and out of mind. However, the journey of a single-use plastic item does not end there. In addition, the non-existent monetary costs of purchase are compensated by disastrous costs to the environment.
Plastic bags, bottles, and containers constitute up to 80% of the Earth’s land and water pollutants (Singh & Cooper, 2017). They pose a danger to various types of wildlife by becoming dangerous obstacles, polluting animal food, water, and natural habitats. Eriksen et al. (2014) report that the total mass of plastic pollutants found in the oceans constitutes over 5 trillion pieces, with the total weight of the pollutants exceeding 250,000 metric tons.
Plastic is not biodegradable and is not digestible either, making it extremely difficult to recycle. Surveys by Miranda and de Carvalho-Souza (2016) show that roughly 83% of turtles, 44% of all seabirds, 43% of all marine mammals, and 23% of all marine fish have plastic pellets within their bodies. This presents a threat not only to the animals, who can suffer injuries or even death from swallowing a small piece of plastic mistaken for food but also to humans and other animals who consume fish for nourishment.
One of the biggest dangers of single-use plastic items is the inability to utilize them properly. While there are recycling plants specializing in the reuse of plastics, only 5% of the total plastic output reaches the reutilization lines (Wagner, 2017). 95% of plastics end up in floating heaps in the ocean, with small bits and pieces slowly broken off of them by the elements. These large numbers of plastic are explained by the increased consumption of the human population. An average person purchases and disposes of roughly 316 plastic items a year (Singh & Cooper, 2017).
Step 2: Plastic Pollution and Conflict Theory
Social conflict theory, pioneered by Karl Marx during the second half of the 19th century, is typically focused on the materialist interpretation of social and environmental events existing in the world, perceiving them through the lens of inter-group conflict. “Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature” (as cited in Craib, 2015, p. 55). Therefore, conflict theory acknowledges the importance of harmony in nature.
At the same time, nearly all ecological problems, from overpopulation to plastic pollution, are explained in two ways (Craib, 2015). The theory claims that international corporations engage in practices that pollute the air, water, and ground in order to exploit the working class and prey on vulnerable races (minorities) while waging competitive warfare against one another. The second claim the theory makes is that the world governments, in league with multinational corporations, fail to introduce new, strong regulations against pollution and ineffectively enforce the regulations already in place.
Step 3: Proposed Solutions
The articles reviewed and summarized in this paper propose a series of solutions to the problem. Singh and Cooper (2017) propose the reduction of plastic use in modern consumption in favor of biodegradable replacements. Eriksen et al. (2014) suggest using reusable, durable materials, such as glass, in order to replace bottle containers. Wagner (2017), as well as Miranda and de Carvalho-Souza (2016), are in favor of increased recycling efforts to prevent more plastic from escaping into the sea. However, based on conflict theory, these measures would not be efficient, as humanity’s plastic problem is perceived as political rather than purely ecological.
References
Craib, I. (2015). Modern social theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C.,… Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS One, 9(12), e111913.
Miranda, D. D. A., & de Carvalho-Souza, G. F. (2016). Are we eating plastic-ingesting fish? Marine pollution bulletin, 103(1-2), 109-114.
Singh, J., & Cooper, T. (2017). Towards a sustainable business model for plastic shopping bag management in Sweden. Procedia CIRP, 61, 679-684.
Wagner, T. P. (2017). Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. Waste Management, 70, 3-12.
Some people may frown upon it, while others might nod their heads with their whole-hearted smile on their faces – no matter which category you belong to, as a person, especially as a person who must live in a neighborhood, the quality of the neighborhood has always been an important issue to be concerned about when you are looking for a place to live. For most people, the quality of the neighborhood is at the center of attention even more than the quality of the living spaces. As much as a good neighborhood can positively affect our mental and physical health and improve the quality of our lives, a bad neighborhood can increase anxiety among neighbors and can decrease their lives’ efficiency. Although there exist lots of problems that need to be solved in every neighborhood, noise pollution, no matter whether this noise is made by your neighbors or the surrounding environment, is with no doubt the most important issue in almost all neighborhoods. First, it is essential to investigate the reasons why noise is an important issue in almost every neighborhood and then explore the main contributing causes of the noise problem.
Effects of Noise Pollution
The first and also foremost reason why noise is an important issue in neighborhoods lies in the inevitable fact that noise pollution can have negative effects on our physical health. Living in a noisy area can affect the quality of people’s sleep, daily activities, and even general physical health factors. According to the International Program on Chemical Safety, “an adverse effect of noise is defined as a change in the morphology and physiology of organism that results in an impairment of functional capacity, or an impairment of capacity to compensate for additional stress or increases the susceptibility of the organism to harmful effects of other environmental influences” (Siano). Environmental noise exposure is responsible for a range of health effects, including increased risk of ischemic heart disease as well as sleep disturbance, cognitive impairment among children, annoyance, stress-related mental health risks, and tinnitus. This noise pollution becomes more important when we look at the noise level in residential neighbors where people spend most of their time.
For instance, “the health risks caused by noise pollution in high income European countries account for a loss of 1-1.6 million disability adjusted life years (DALYs) – a standard measure of healthy years of life lost to illness, disability, or early death” (Siano). Also, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), “noise pollution is one of the most dangerous environmental threats to health” (IBERDROLA). Moreover, according to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), “noise is responsible for 16,600 premature deaths and more than 72,000 hospitalizations every year in Europe alone” (IBERDROLA). Not only noise pollution can cause health issues for human, but it has a devastating impact on animals as well. According to the National Park Services (NPS) in the United States, “noise pollution has an enormous environmental impact and does serious damages to wildlife” (IBERDROLA). Most of the experts say that noise pollution can interfere with breeding cycles and rearing, and it is even hastening the extinction of some animal species. Therefore, noise pollution can not only affect mental health, but it can also affect our physical health.
Another reason, which is as important as the preceding one, if not more, is that noisy neighborhoods can substantively affect the efficiency of people’s work and their daily life activities. In the present day, the amount of noise in a living neighborhood becomes even more important since most of the people are forced to work from home due to the rules that companies made for their employees during the pandemic. To elucidate, the noisier a neighborhood is, the harder it becomes to concentrate on the activities that neighbors do, especially for the employees who work from home. The lower efficiency of activities will result in the lower efficient people in society. Moreover, the lower efficient people in society become more anxious and depressed as they see their activity outputs. Based on the report of the IKO Community Management survey, “48 percent of all survey takers said noise is number one complaint among the people who live in a neighborhood in large cities, whether this noise is from raucous late-night parties or opposite sleep schedules that result in one neighbor waking up the other” (IKO Community Management). As an illustration of the effect of noise pollution in the community that I live in, we always see struggling between the people who work at home during the day and the teenagers who play loud music and have parties at their apartment. Once, our neighbor, Larry, who is a programmer, complained to the community management office about George, a young boy who invites his friend to their apartment any time of the day to play loud music and laugh loudly. Larry told me, “it is important that people like George be aware of the rights of other people who live in the same area with them” (Pileggi). Therefore, noise pollution can affect our mental concentration level and efficiency at work.
Causes of Noise Pollution
After understanding the effects of noise on the neighbors, it is highly essential to explore the main contributing causes of noise. In comparison with ancient times when there were not many sources causing noise, these days, multiple different causes of noise exist. These causes can range from natural environment causes to human-generated causes. Although nature can make noises caused by animals and natural effects, human-generated noises are usually more dangerous and annoying. From a personal perspective, the most important three causes of noise that are also generated by humans are traffic and transportation noise, construction sites, and nightlife, though noise can come from a variety of other places as well.
Among these three sources of noise, I believe that the first and the most important cause of the noise is traffic and transportation noise. Without a doubt, we all live in homes that are close to at least one street or one alley. Living close to streets or alleys will cause being affected by the noise that is generated by passing cars. Moreover, some homes are close to bus stations or railroads, which means that people who live in these apartments suffer from louder noises generated by these huge public transportation facilities. According to the IBERDROLA, “a car horn produces 90 dB of noise and a bus produces 100 dB of noise.” On the basis of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of noise, if we consider noise above 65 dB as noise pollution, this generated transportation noise can have a negative effect on our health. To be precise, noise becomes harmful when it exceeds 75 dB, and it will become painful if it is above 120 dB.
According to WHO, “it is recommended that noise levels to be kept below 65 dB during the day and 30 dB during nighttime” (WHO). A worse case is living close to the rail yard, as neighbors of the rail yard suffer from a higher level of noise pollution. Based on the interview that has been done about pros and cons of living close to a major rail yard, the interviewees felt that despite the fact that “the rail yard had a positive reputation and was highly valued for the jobs and economic growth it provides, it was also perceived, however, as a major contributor to the surrounding air quality as well as the noise pollution” (Spencer-Hwang). Several participants believed that “living in such close proximity to the rail yard had caused ailments in family, friends, and neighbors, as well as themselves” (Spencer-Hwang). Moreover, transportation noise can cause health-related issues, as previously discussed ones. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Clark et al. 2017 found “an increasing risk of diabetes with increasing exposure to transportation noise, but not with increasing exposure to traffic-related air pollutions.” In their study, noise pollution was independently associated with the incidence of diabetes in adult residents of metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia (Clark). Therefore, transportation noise is not only unacceptable for most of the neighbors, but it is also risky for our health.
As the second source of noise, which is not as common as the first resource, we can consider construction. You may have experienced construction noise, even in the early morning, that affected your sleep quality and caused you to wake up because of this construction noise. Although not all the neighbors are close to construction zones and construction noise is not a common cause of the noise, building, car park construction, and road and pavement resurfacing generate an even greater amount of noise, with noise level even higher than transportation. As an example, according to IBERDROLA, “a pneumatic drill produces 110 dB noise,” which is higher than the noise that is generated by car horns and buses. Whether self-inflicted or common, everyday living noise can cause temporary or permanent deafness. When one is around noise for long periods of time, the risk of deafness is increased. “Construction noise has become the second most serious acoustic pollution in many cities, which could cause significant health damage and social costs. In addition, housing renovation and construction noise, which has rarely been investigated before, is a significant covariate of a wide range of mental health symptoms” (Ma). Specifically, as big cities are experiencing rapid urbanization processes, there are numerous ongoing construction projects that have led to an increase in environmental complaints, and construction noise has become a serious problem in the majority of big cities. For example, among people at higher risk of health problems caused by construction noise, “construction workers are at increased risk for being hearing impaired” (Cunningham). Therefore, construction as the second cause of the noise can result in serious mental and physical health problems as well.
The third cause of the noise is related to the nightlife. Humans have been created to live in social groups naturally. That is why all of us spend most of our time and socialize with our friends and family. However, sometimes this socialization can affect other people, especially if gatherings and socialization are generating loud noise and we are not paying attention to the others living close to us. Especially, a person who lives close to bars, restaurants, and clubs will feel noise that is generated by socialization and gatherings much more. According to IBERDROLA, “bars, restaurants, and terraces that spill outside when the weather is good can produce more than 100 dB noise. This includes noise from pubs and clubs”. According to Peplow et al., “sustained exposure to noise in areas close to public places also has been correlated with cognitive impairment and behavioral problems in children, as well as the more obvious hearing damage and sleep deprivation”. The European Environment Agency (EAA) has blamed “900 thousand cases of high blood pressure (hypertension), 43 thousand hospital admissions and 10 thousand cases of premature deaths a year in Europe on noise”. As a real example, I talked to our neighbor, Mr. Smith, about the reason of his high blood pressure. He told me that “the doctor told me that the main reason of my high blood pressure is living in the busiest part of the Santa Monica area. To decrease my blood pressure, the doctor recommended my wife and me to move to a suburb area”. Therefore, living close to the places that are designed specifically for nightlife can increase the risk of being affected by noise pollution.
Having scrutinized the issue, although people’s ideas vary on different points of the spectrum regarding the noise pollution issue in a neighborhood, I strongly believe that noise pollution is the first and most important issue that should be solved because of its destructive effects on mental and physical health. Although there exist many causes for noise pollution, I believe that transportation noise as the first and the most important cause, construction, and night life are the three most important causes of noise pollution. Hence, I think the explanation that I have provided above in favor of the destructive effects and the main causes of noise pollution are much stronger.
Potential Solutions
After finding out that all types of noise in living areas have an immeasurably negative impact on people’s health, work efficiency, and daily life activities, I see that the potential solutions to the problem of noise pollution are to either control its level by the government or allow people to use various techniques in order to decrease the level of noise independently. However, as the government cannot apply effective measures to all areas where people live, citizens’ individual measures will be more efficient.
It goes without saying that noise pollution has already become an international problem as almost all big cities across the globe face it. In general, the most common measures aimed to reduce the level of noise include the limitation of noisy leisure activities, especially at night, the use of bicycles instead of cars, environmental education, and the insulation of houses with noise-absorbing materials (IBERDROLA). As a matter of fact, governmental policies may ensure noise control and correct control management by area protection and sustainable building construction. For instance, the United States Environmental Protection Agency established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) under the Clean Air Act to study noise pollution and investigate its impact on the public health and people’s welfare (EPA). Since 1972, ONAC had been operating “to coordinate federal monitoring and regulation of noise at its source and facilitate informed policy-making at the state and local levels” (APHA).
The Office’s scope was expanded in 1978 by Congress that passed the Quiet Communities Act, including research funding and public health education dedicated to noise pollution (APHA). In general, ONAC created model noise ordinances, issued standards for local governments, and promulgated guidance documents in accordance with recommended or already existing exposure levels. In general, the governmental response includes appropriate planning policies and the introduction of the standards of sustainable construction in order to reduce the level of noise from the external environment in living buildings. In addition, the level of noise in residential buildings should be reduced as well according to the Building Regulations Approved Document E (Simonsen).
At the same time, governmental control cannot be regarded as a highly efficient measure. First of all, in 1981, the Administration decided that all issues related to noise pollution should be monitored by state and local governments (EPA). That is why, due to funding limitations, ONAC was closed. As a result, since 1986, no standards, regulations, or rules have been promulgated to limit sources of noise in electronics, appliances, industry, recreational items, or machinery (APHA). In addition, contemporary measures are not fully efficient due to their limited scope. In other words, only such territories as city parks, areas of natural interest, and new parts of the city may be protected (IBERDROLA). As a result, the majority of districts, especially old ones with established infrastructure, will be left without any changes. In addition, the idea of the construction of houses with the use of noise-absorbing materials is relevant only for new buildings. Thus, old buildings will be unprotected, and the level of noise in them will remain the same. Consequently, people who live in old districts with established infrastructure will suffer from the same levels of noise until they solve this issue by themselves.
That is why private measures that aim to reduce noise pollution for individuals and families who apply them are more efficient in comparison with policies that cannot affect all people. In other words, citizens may apply multiple useful, cost-effective techniques in order to reduce noise pollution in their apartments by themselves. The measures include the installation of acoustic wall panels, window shutters, or noise-blocking doors, placing furniture strategically, and turning off electrical appliances that constantly produce noise as well (JosTec). Noise cancelling headphones or earplugs may serve as a short-term solution in the case of construction work. Due to them, people will have a good sleep at night. Moreover, such design elements as wall hangings and carpets or rugs help reduce the level of noise. In addition, planting bushes and trees around the house by community members will reduce noise pollution and improve air quality as well. All these techniques may be defined as an excellent alternative for all people living in big cities, especially for those ones who cannot afford to move to another area protected from noise pollution.
One of the issues that modern farming has to respond to is the nutrient pollution of soils and water. Key agricultural nutrient pollutants are nitrates and phosphorus; their recommended concentration in drinking water is limited, and they can damage the marine life of a contaminated area (OECD 127). The latter aspect is especially costly: apart from demanding an expensive remedy, it is harmful to commercial fishing and marine farming. Over the years, the share of agriculture in water pollution has been rising, which has made the issue acuter and more dependent on modern farming (68, 127).
The solutions that have been proposed for the issue are varied: there is the possibility of upgrading farms with the help of better technologies, controlling the use of fertilizers and waste discharge with the help of the government or even promoting smaller-scale farms that a less dangerous to the environment than “factory farms” (Opperman 119). Each of the solutions has its advantages and drawbacks, and the current paper is devoted to finding out how the modern society intends to reduce agricultural nutrient pollution and what are the arguments for and against different proposals.
The solutions are designed for various levels of participation. For example, an individual farmer is capable of keeping his or her farming small-scale and thus contribute to the improvement of the situation. Jeff Opperman describes this approach in his article. Admittedly, it is suitable for an individual farmer but not for a government member: as Jeff Opperman admits, this measure is very unlikely to resolve the problem on a larger scale. Although he also insists that a small farm is capable of feeding several people, Opperman acknowledges that it is unlikely to keep up with the demand for food of the 9 billion people who are expected to populate the Earth in 2050 (120). Similarly, a small-scale farm is less profitable than a big one, which means that the proposed solution will suit the farmers who do not have the ambitions of a farming magnate and want to help the environment.
However, it is well-known that extensive, scale-related measures are typically considered inferior concerning intensive ones that are concerned with the improvement of quality and technological advancement. There exist intensive solutions for the issue of nutrient pollution, and new ones are being developed as the pressure for the preservation of our natural resources increases. An example is the newly developed and tested agricultural method that presupposes using catch crops (an approved technique of fighting pollution) followed by flood irrigation (an extension proposed in this scheme) (Kondo et al. 776). Planting catch crops is an environmentally friendly method of farming: it allows more extensive use of space since such plants grow faster and can be cultivated in-between the key commercial product. Apart from that, catch crops are beneficial for the soil as they reduce erosion (Bechmann et al. 110). As for the suggested method, it also allows catching up to 91% of nitrogen from the soil (Kondo et al. 778-781). Certainly, this scheme is aimed at nitrogen only, which means that it is not comprehensive, but it also causes a decrease in nitrous oxide emission, which makes it more feasible (Kondo et al. 780).
There are other methods of informed, environmentally-friendly farming that have been discovered throughout these years. They include proper soil management (Bechmann et al., for example, mention autumn plowing as an environmental risk) and fertilizer use. Environmentally conscientious farmers will choose to learn about the risks and advantages of varied agricultural methods and work to improve their practice. Similarly, an environmentally conscientious government is likely to invest in agriculture research. This solution is not an easy one as it requires a lot of inputs (primarily money and time), but it appears to be intensive and applicable to bigger farms as well as smaller ones. The evident drawback of the solution consists in the fact that not every farmer is likely to be conscientious and allocate the time and money to environmentally friendly practices. After all, it is not always feasible, and the outcomes are, to be honest, of no consequence to farmers personally. To deal with this issue, governmental standards and regulations can be introduced.
The government has numerous ways of attracting farmers to participate in the quest for improving the environmental situation. Herzog et al. describe the case of an intervention carried out by the Swiss government: in the 1990s, it introduced a voluntary scheme of environmentally sustainable farming, which did yield some results and attracted several farmers (656). What is more, the practical application of the agricultural guidelines allowed to deduce the requirements that were optimal both for the farmers and the government? As a result, the government decided to provide greater incentives, and a cross-compliance scheme was introduced: in other words, financial support is provided to the Swiss farmers who comply with the requirements nowadays. This way, the farmers have the necessary incentive to take care of the environment, and it is truly necessary, to which the study also testifies. As it turned out, the farmers who are not eligible for the support (for example, because of the income or the age of the farmer) are likely to avoid adopting environmentally-friendly farming methods (Herzog et al. 656).
The campaign that is described by Bechmann et al. and that is being carried out in Norway is similar but more comprehensive. Apart from the direct payment, it includes the economic incentive of subsidies, legislative and regulatory interventions, “targeted information campaigns and individual support through extension services” (Bechmann et al. 102). Apart from that, it follows from the article that research in the field of agriculture and Norway farming was promoted, and the resulting tools (for example, soil erosion maps) were recommended for use.
This example demonstrates that the government has the opportunity to carry out a comprehensive solution that is capable of attracting a large number of contributors and providing them with the necessary knowledge and tools. However, this solution also has its limitations and drawbacks. As shown by Herzog et al., the governmental efforts are not always successful: the Swiss government has failed to achieve its goal, particularly concerning nitrogen emissions (665). What is more, as fairly pointed by Herzog et al., governmental spending on environmental campaigns like this one is always impressive but rarely assessed (656). This fact is noteworthy, but it is hardly an argument against this approach; rather, it indicates a direction for its improvement. Herzog et al. compare such governmental campaigns to major experiments (656). It is only logical to assess the results of such experiments to define problematic areas and successful practices.
It can be concluded that there are three levels of contributing to the solution of agricultural nutritional pollution. First of all, individual farmers can improve the situation by keeping to lower-scale farming and introducing advanced techniques and methods. Secondly, governments have several means of convincing farmers to participate and, what is most important, of helping those who are willing to alleviate pollution. Thirdly, the efforts of a single country maybe not sufficient to deal with the global issue, which is why the cooperation of governments is needed for the best of results. An example of such collaboration is the agreement of the countries that have access to the North Sea to protect it (Bechmann et al. 102).
The cooperation on an even larger scale has a greater potential. It is similarly apparent that not every country has an equal opportunity to contribute due to the different levels of economic development. Apart from that, it is not unlikely that not every country is willing to cooperate. However, the lack of cooperation should not dissuade us from contributing to the protection of the environment. The same can be said about the inputs that the solutions demand: all of them either require expenditures or are correlated with the loss of profit (in the case of smaller-scale farms), but the resulting environmental costs of pollution are going to be greater, and the humanity is going to pay the price. By reducing nutrient pollution on different levels and with different methods, the humankind can contribute to the protection of our natural resources.
Works Cited
Bechmann, Marianne, Johannes Deelstra, Per Stalnacke, Hans Olav Eggestad, Lillian Øygarden, and Annelene Pengerud. “Monitoring Catchment Scale Agricultural Pollution In Norway: Policy Instruments, Implementation Of Mitigation Methods And Trends In Nutrient And Sediment Losses.” Environmental Science & Policy 11.2 (2008): 102-114. Elsevier. Web.
Herzog, Felix, Volker Prasuhn, Ernst Spiess, and Walter Richner. “Environmental Cross-Compliance Mitigates Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution from Swiss Agriculture.” Environmental Science & Policy 11.7 (2008): 655-668. Elsevier. Web.
Kondo, Kamin, Kenta Inoue, Tomi Fujiwara, Shinzo Yamane, Daisuke Yasutake, Morihiro Maeda, Hideaki Nagare, Satoshi Akao, and Kunio Ohtoshi. “Seasonal Changes in the Performance of a Catch Crop for Mitigating Diffuse Agricultural Pollution.” Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research 68.4 (2013): 776-782. EBSCOhost. Web.
OECD. OECD Compendium of Agri-Environmental Indicators. OECD Publications Centre, 2013. Print.
Opperman, Jeff. ” Getting to Know Your Bacon: Hogs, Farms, and Clean Water.” Sustainability: A Reader for Writers. Ed. Carl George Herndl. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 118-121. Print.
Many rare animal species around the world are suffering due to changes in their living environment. Specific criteria – habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution, population growth, and overhunting (HIPPO) was developed to identify potential threats. For this examination of HIPPO, an endangered specifies is selected to illustrate the specific criteria that affect it, which is Podocnemis lewyana commonly known as Magdalena River Turtle. This paper aims to summarize habitat destruction, overhunting, and pollution in regards to the Podocnemis lewyana.
According to the International Union for Conservation of Animals (IUCA)
Magdalena River Turtle is subjected to the first HIPPA factor – habitat loss. More specifically, agriculture and the need to use the land for cattle breeding leaves no space for this species survival (Páez, Gallego-Garcia, and Restrepo 2016). These animals can be found in forests or wetlands, which are affected by the human-indulged destruction because those are transformed into pastures.
The second factor is overhunting, which in the case of Magdalena River Turtle leads to the inability of these animals to locate food. The IUCA states that fishing in the territory where these turtles can be found in the primary cause of the problem (Páez, Gallego-Garcia, and Restrepo 2016). This intensive harvesting can affect the Magdalena River Turtle directly as well because some local inhabitants consider it a good source of protein or medication. The final factor that hurts the number of Magdalena River Turtles is pollution, which impacts both beaches and water that these turtles use. According to IUCA, Podocnemis lewyana is unable to live normally due to damps and polluted air that affect the territory where these animals can be found.
Conclusion
Overall, the following three factors impact the population of Podocnemis lewyana – habitat loss, overfishing, and pollution. These animals are unable to live in forests because those are converted into pastures. The factor is worsened by human-constructed dumbs, which affect the environment. Additionally, local inhabitants hunt both Magdalena River Turtle and fish that it consumes. Finally, pollution affects nature and water; thus these turtles are unable to use beaches.
Reference List
Páez, V., Gallego-Garcia, N. & Restrepo, A. 2016. Podocnemis lewyana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T17823A1528580. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T17823A1528580.en.
It is a pleasure for me to address you today. The matter that I wish to discuss is the problem of environmental pollution, which, as you have probably heard, is becoming direr and direr with each passing day. In particular, air pollution poses a major threat both to the natural world and to human society.
Exhaust gas emissions often contain sulfur dioxide, which reacts with the oxygen and water steam contained in the air to form highly corrosive sulfuric acid:
2SO2 + O2 → 2SO3
SO3 + H2O → H2SO4
Nitrogen oxides also react with oxygen, forming other oxides with more oxygen atoms in them, which then react with water steams, forming highly corrosive nitric acid:
3NO2 + H2O → 2HNO3 + NO
These then form noxious precipitations such as acid rain or smog, which profoundly upset the balance in the local ecosystems. The acidification of water bodies leads to the death of numerous species that are susceptible to the presence of acid. This causes other living organisms feeding on the destroyed species to also die out, etc. Simultaneously, creatures the population of which was previously controlled by the destroyed species start multiplying rapidly, possibly destroying even other organisms, and so on (Likens & Bormann, 1974). Acidic rain also has profoundly adverse effects on plants; whole forests may die (Walgate, 1983). Furthermore, acidic precipitation directly harms human society by increasing the rates of respiratory disease, quickly corroding and destroying buildings, roads, industrial objects, etc. (Likens & Bormann, 1974).
Hungary is suffering severely from air pollution. This is easy to see once one knows what happened to the Black Forest, where the trees have been dying out rapidly (Walgate, 1983). Part of the problem is caused by the fact that Hungary is currently forced to use lignite (brown coal) to produce electricity. Lignite contains up to 10% of sulfur and thus greatly contributes to air pollution.
Another problem is the high concentrations of CO in the air, caused by car gas emissions. CO reacts with other components of the air, creating harmful concentrations of ground-level ozone, which hurts people’s health.
While the problem of high CO concentrations is local, the issue of acidic precipitations is not. Acidic clouds can be easily carried by the wind throughout the continent, which means that exhaust gas emissions from Hungary can be harmful to the rest of the European countries. This means that not only our country but your countries as well have a dire interest in reducing air pollution in Hungary.
Furthermore, most of the air pollution in Hungary is imported from other European countries. Therefore, the deterioration of the Black Forest and the economic expenses that we currently face are also partially due to the industrial activity of other European countries. Needless to say, everyone should be interested in preserving biological diversity represented by e.g. the mentioned Black Forest; besides, it stretches through other countries as well–for example, through German territories.
There are several ways in which air pollution can be reduced in Hungary. One option is pollution controls on cars, which can decrease the exhaust of CO. Currently, we have certain regulations about pollution controls, but we may have to make them stricter in the nearest future. I understand that this might increase the cost of production of vehicles, but if we do not introduce greater measures, the money will go on medication for respiratory diseases. I believe people should stay healthy and spend more money on cars than vice versa.
Another way is related to decreasing the amount of sulfur and nitrogen emissions. This matter is of utmost urgency and is also difficult to address. As was mentioned, lignite is practically the only fossil fuel that Hungary can easily obtain to produce electricity. It would be practically impossible for Hungary to completely transfer to alternative sources of energy. Nevertheless, it is possible to install flue-gas desulfurization technologies to remove the sulfur oxides from the plants’ exhaust gasses. However, scrubbers are very costly, and in our current situation, we will be able to afford only a very small number of them, far lower than needed to decrease the air pollution to acceptable levels. This is why we require your assistance in this matter. Please remember that our pollution is also transferred to other European countries by the wind.
Also, we are currently planning to start switching to alternative sources of energy; as was mentioned, a complete transfer is impossible, but we can transfer to them partially. While nuclear energy might appear an attractive proposal, practice shows that considerable safety concerns exist (Zeigler, Brunn, & Johnson, 1981); also, nuclear waste is exceptionally difficult to dispose of. Therefore, we have plans of switching to wind and hydroelectric power. Clearly, wind power plants cause noise pollution and may kill animals caught in the turbines, and water power plants are also harmful to the environment, their adverse effect is very small in comparison to that of the sulfur and nitrogen emissions from burning fossils. Thankfully, as a socialistic government, we have control over our industrial capacities; however, we still lack the resources needed to implement transfer to alternative sources of energy to a sufficient degree.
I believe that you both understand our current dire situation and care about the ecological future of your own countries. I should also point out one crucial matter, namely, that your cooperation in this issue will provide Hungary with a greatly increased incentive to sign the treaties here in Geneva. Thus, I hope that you will help us financially to overcome these problems.
Thank you for your attention.
References
Likens, G. E., & Bormann, F. H. (1974). Acid rain: A serious regional environmental problem. Science, 14(4142), 1176-1179. Web.
Walgate, R. (1983). Too late for Black Forest? Nature, 303, 742.
Atmospheric chemistry is the field in science that deals with the atmosphere and the chemical reactions occurring in it. Earth’s atmosphere that forms the immediate cover is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases. The chemical reactions that happen in the troposphere making new and different chemicals have a direct impact on human beings and all other life forms on the earth. The troposphere is the first atmospheric layer and is about 7 km at the poles and 17 km at the equator. The stratosphere is the next layer of the atmosphere and is from that 7 – 17 km range to about 30 km above the earth’s surface (Wikipedia n. pag, 2007a). This layer is rich in ozone and forms a proactive layer from the sun’s ultraviolet rays. The stratosphere is followed by the mesosphere, the heterosphere, and the exosphere.
Chemistry of the atmosphere
As mentioned before the earth is surrounded by a blanket of gases. This blanket of gases traps energy in the atmosphere, in a similar way a man-made greenhouse does. The earth’s natural greenhouse results in a build-up of energy, and the overall warming of the atmosphere. This is called the greenhouse effect and is a natural process because of which life on earth is possible. Without this, naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, the Earth’s surface temperature would have been very cool, and live on it could have been impossible for all of us (Earth Science n. pag). Because of the increase of greenhouse gases due to man-made activities, the enhanced effect which is caused is increasing the earth’s temperature or in other words, global warming is occurring. Besides, greenhouse gases such as CFCs are responsible for depleting the ozone layer. The ozone layer is being damaged mainly by certain industrial chemicals, vehicular pollution, and also due to ozone-depleting refrigerants, halons, and methyl bromide (ESS n. pag, 2000).
A complex series of reactions occurring in the atmosphere results in the chemistry of the atmosphere. The presence of the sun’s UV rays makes these reactions more and more complex. In the troposphere, atmospheric chemistry forms ozone (a pollutant) and many highly reactive intermediates and molecules including acids, peroxides, and other undesirable products that can result in serious problems for human health and the environment. However, in contrast, stratospheric chemistry leads to the destruction of natural stratospheric ozone, our protective shield from short ultraviolet radiation at the earth’s surface (Calvert 1-12).
Oxygen cycle
The oxygen cycle is the biogeochemical cycle that describes the movement of oxygen within and between its three main reservoirs: the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the lithosphere. Oxygen is mainly obtained as a by-product of photosynthesis. Since vast amounts of oxygen are present in the atmosphere, it is estimated that even if all photosynthesis were to cease it would still take about 2.5 million years to strip out more or less all oxygen.
Much of the discussion on the oxygen cycle has focused on the question of the origin of atmospheric oxygen and its variations over geologic time. Since both photosynthesis and respiration are cyclic processes, both involving release and utilization of oxygen there is a balance established. Through the process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water is broken down to convert into sugar or glucose. As a by-product of this reaction oxygen is released into the atmosphere. The following is the reaction that occurs:
Photolysis is another source of atmospheric oxygen. In this chemical reaction, high-energy ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks down atmospheric water and nitrite into component atoms hydrogen and nitrogen. These components escape into space leaving oxygen in the atmosphere. The following is the reaction that occurs:
Respiration and death and decay of organisms are the two main ways in which oxygen is lost from the atmosphere. In the decay mechanism, animal life and bacteria consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide. In addition, several other reactions are occurring in the atmosphere involving oxygen. Figure 1 shows the complete oxygen cycle in detail.
Natural pollution
Pollution is a major concern for the global community. Though man-made pollution and poor air quality are a major environmental concern due to industrial and vehicular pollution, there are many natural sources of pollution such as volcanoes, forest fires, death and decay, and others. They release probably much greater pollutants than their man-made counterparts.
Sulfur dioxide is a major pollutant that is released from volcanoes, biological decay, and forest fires. Oxides of nitrogen are released from volcanoes, oceans, biological decay, and lightning strikes. It is estimated that a range between 20 million and 90 million tonnes per year nitrogen oxides is released from natural sources when compared to around 24 million tonnes from man-made activities worldwide.
Ozone is yet another secondary photochemical pollutant formed as a result of chemical reactions taking place due to the presence of sunlight. About 10 to 15% of low-level ozone, however, is transported from the stratosphere, where it is created by the action of ultraviolet radiation on oxygen. In addition, particulates are another pollutant. Natural sources of particulate matter include volcanoes and dust storms. But man-made sources of particulate matter are higher when compared to natural sources.
Pollutants are also released by plants and trees. The most important of it is that green plants through evapotranspiration release a huge amount of carbon dioxide. Volatile organic compounds such as isoprene are naturally produced by plants and trees. These are believed to be a more significant trigger for asthma than man-made irritants. Pollen is yet another pollutant that occurs in the air all around the year. In addition, natural pollutants found indoors include dust-mite, mold spores, and radon gas.
It has become increasingly evident that Air pollution, in general, is affecting health and the environment. Though we all know for a quality life healthy environment are essential, it becomes even more important to preserve the environment for the future generation. Man-made sources of air pollution include deforestation, burning of fossil fuels, emissions from vehicles, industries, and agricultural activities. As a result of air pollution, there is an increase in global warming, ozone depletion, acid rains, smog, and other serious problems.
Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere. Even though it forms a small component of the atmosphere, it plays a vital role in limiting the amount of harmful solar ultraviolet radiation that reaches the earth’s surface. The ozone in the stratosphere is different from ground-level ozone. When ozone in the ground level increases it is an air pollutant and contributes to the smog over large cities. The formation of ground-level ozone occurs as a result of a chemical reaction between many forms of pollutants released from both natural and man-made sources and sunlight. Two main groups of chemical pollutants are involved: nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere is the result of man-made chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. There are several treaties signed by many countries to reduce the concentration of these chemicals in the atmosphere. For instance, the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987 and subsequently strengthened, has led to the phase out of most CFC and halon use. But regrettably, CFCs and halons remain for a long time in the atmosphere. Besides scientists in the Global Atmospheric Change Program are tracking changes to atmospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals and contributing to international efforts to assess and minimize ozone damage.
The main reason for acid rains to occur is the release of the gases such as sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides. Besides the natural causes like volcanoes, the main sources of nitrous oxide emissions are vehicles and fossil fuel combustion. Sulfur dioxide reacts with water vapor and sunlight to form sulphuric acid. Similarly, nitrous oxides form nitric acid in the atmosphere. There are several harmful effects of acid rain. It can increase the acidity of lakes, and other water bodies and can cause the death of aquatic life. These can even be so harmful that they can erode buildings and monuments.
Smog mainly occurs in urban situations due to the high amount of pollutants in the atmosphere. It is a chemical mixture of gases that forms a brownish-yellow haze. The main components of smog include ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, acidic aerosols and gases, and particulate matter. These gases are the result of the reaction between certain airborne pollutants and strong sunlight. Hence smog is linked with the amount of sunlight present and high temperatures and hence it is seasonal. Smog is common in the summer months when there is the most sunlight and temperatures are the highest. Smog is a threat to the animal, plant, and human life.
There is a worldwide concern about atmospheric pollution. There are several steps taken by governments to reduce the load of pollutants. However, every individual must take charge of this issue and take corrective steps to prevent pollution and safeguard the environment from further contamination. This will not only help to prevent human health problems but also every life on the planet earth.
Figure 1: Schematic representation of oxygen cycle
References
Natural Air Pollution. 2007. Web.
Calvert , J. G, The chemistry of the atmosphere and its perturbations through human activities, Pure & Appl. Chern., (1997) Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Collins, J. Acid Rain, 2001, Enviro Facts. 2007. Web.
CSIRO, Ozone depletion (2006) University of Cambridge, 2007. Web.
Earth Science, The Earth’s Atmosphere, Moorland School, 2007. Web.
ESS Earth’s Protection Shield is Being Destroyed – Ozone Depletion and Global Warming (2000) Environmental Support Solutions, 2007. Web.
Atmospheric chemistry is the study of atmospheric pollutants which are on the rampage in the atmosphere, occur both indoor as well as outdoor, both through nature and human activity. This includes acidic deposition, global warming, photochemical haze, poisonous air pollutants, and ozone diminution. It explains any unnecessary substances and other resources that pollute the air we take in, resulting in the dreadful conditions of atmospheric excellence. Fossil fuels are used as a source of energy by humans for comfort.
Acidic Deposition
The most important open-air pollutants include oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and lead given off from road automobiles, wastes from industries, hydrocarbons, and a complex mixture of natural and lifeless substances present in the environment in the form of liquid and solids. These pollutants experience a sequence of difficult effects and are converted to secondary pollutants, called photochemical pollutants.
Research by Chang Raymond (2006) showed that indoor pollutants are oxides of carbon and nitrogen given out from gas heaters pressure cookers, compounds from cigarette smoke, vinyl flooring, paints, dust mites, and mold. We spend 90% of our time living inside, we are therefore likely to affect our health due to bad air quality. Natural sources include volcanoes, dust storms, remains from life decay and forest fires, and lightning from thunderstorms.
Ozone, a photochemical pollutant, is formed by the oxidation of explosive organic compounds in the presence of sunlight and oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are made of many substances (Simpson, D., Tuovinen, J.-P, Emberson, L. D., and Ashmore, M. R., 2003). Oxidation of the carbon-based compounds in the fuels produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide and is known to be a major contributor to the greenhouse effect which causes an increase in the atmospheric temperature.
When coal in fossil fuels burn, waste heat produced by the combustion of sulfur is released into the atmosphere as sulfur dioxide. This oxidizes in the air to sulphuric acid that survives as vapors in the air. These fall on the surface of the earth with a multiplicity of ecological dangers.
According to (Seinfield, J. H. and Pandis, S. N., 1998), atmospheric pollutants dilapidate air quality. Acidification of ecological units is an environmental alarm The conversion of sulfur dioxide into sulfur trioxide is used as a source of energy elsewhere in the chemical works.
Water cannot be used to absorb the sulfur trioxide because when two compounds are mixed, a mist of sulphuric acid is formed, which will not readily condense as a liquid. Such a mist is a major pollution hazard.
The small amount of sulfur dioxide remaining, cause acid rain, and is removed before the nitrogen present is released in the atmosphere.
High applications of sulphuric acid vapors are so hazardous that these cause rigorous respiratory problems in human beings.
Since most of the sulfur plummets in uninhabited areas, can cause damage to plant life, metals from the soil are released into the lakes, rivers, and seas causing damage to marine life.
The carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and oxides of sulfur that occur naturally in an unpolluted atmosphere are expected to give rainwater a pH of about 5.6-5.0. Globally the natural and industrial gases are similar. In the Northern Hemisphere over 90% of all sulfur dioxide emissions occur as a result of industrial activity. It is thought that oxides of nitrogen from car exhausts may oxidize sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide. But once in the air, these pollutants know how to travel extensive distances prior to returning to the earth’s surfaces either in a dry form and as rain or snow. Acid rain washes nutrients from soils and lowers the pH of rivers and lakes. It also significantly damages limestone and marble in buildings, sculptures, and other artificial constructions like the Taj Mahal, Acropolis, and Cathedrals. Evaluating transformations in acidic deposition and identifying regions open to the elements of acidification is a constant warning to the environment for the reason that the deposition intensities are exceeding the environmental damage level.
References
General Chemistry: The Essential Concepts, Chang Raymond, Fourth Edition, McGraw Hills, 2006.
Seinfield, J. H. and Pandis, S. N., 1998, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. From Air Pollution to Climate Change, John Wiley and Sons, inc., New York.
Simpson, D., Tuovinen, J. –P, Emberson, L. D., and Ashmore, M. R., 2003b, Characteristics of an Ozone Deposition Module ii: sensitivity analysis, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 143, 123 – 137.
Noise pollution is reported to affect the general concentration levels of the employees which in turn develop into chronic ailment in most cases. In such circumstances the company is liable to compensate the employees as per the labor acts thus would generate a huge loss in the context of finance apart from man hour’s losses. To avoid all these circumstances it would be better to concentrate into the investments in pollution prevention factors where there are enough subsidies and assistance available making the burden of installation of pollution prevention devices less taxing. (White, 116) At present, there is a substantial amount of noise pollution in Lagos, Nigeria.
Aim
The aim of the study would be to understand and evaluate the amount of noise pollution in Lagos, Nigeria and its affects on public health.
Objectives
The objectives of the study would include:
To understand the nature of noise pollution
To formulate preventive measures against noise pollution.
Literature Review
Several studies have shown that the impact of noise pollution could be fatal and this could be more serious for a developing country like Nigeria. The indicators of state exhibit the present form of our environment which may have been degraded by the pressure, like lead concentration in urbanized areas, noise pollution and mean temperature of the world. Impact define the eventual effects that are caused by the changes in state, like health problems due to lead, mortality rates that have been increased by heart attacks or death due to starvation caused by losses in crops due to climatic changes. These impacts cause the society to respond demonstrating their efforts in order to solve the various problems, like the maximum noise allowed at 60-90 decibels. (Wolf, 65-66) Thus, it would logical to study the matter with great extent. The literature included in the study would be from peer reviewed journals published within the last half decade to understand the situation with comparatively current data.
Methodology
Qualitative research is almost always stated as a process which considers interpretative standards along with the various actions of theoretical assumptions. This definition can be based on its sustainable nature which highly depends on the experience of an individual with respect to communication. We can also consider the fact that the entire definition considers the fact that social formulations are responsible for the creation of reality. Further, it is also important to declare that qualitative research basically targets the social context so that we are able to describe interpret and even decode the fundamental importance of such a phenomenon. Such a process is completely functional within the constraints of the interpretative standards which lessen its illusions by sharing subjectivity through conforming to the intricacy, genuineness and contextualization of such a study. Thus, this method would be used.
For a statistical method to fulfill its requirements it should properly interview the entire study at a particular location that is properly selected. The entire process should be closely observed to see to it that the specific variables are contained by the testable subjects. The existence of these variables is particularly important as they help in the evaluation of the fundamental data during the later stages of the investigation. Here adjustments may be made based on observations to the calculated data. These fundamental variables should be taken into account since they are extremely important and pertains to an individual’s religious values, ethnicity and positive support. (Arthur, 225-226).
Study Time Table
The study will be undertaken according to the following Gantt Chart:
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Interviews
Data Interpretation
Results Compilation
Results and Conclusion
Works Cited
Arthur, Dennis. ‘A Conceptual Model of the Corporate Decision-Making Process’ Journal of Management, 11.3 (2000), pp- 223-233.
White, Ruth. Are You an Environmentalists or Do You Work for a Living?: Work and Nature. New York: William Cronon,W.W.Norton, 2006.
Wolf, Austin. Principles of Environmental Law. LA: Cavendish Publishing, 2004.
The Preposition 23 states that the implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (according to Global Warming Solutions Act), will be suspended, until the employment level in California decrease to 5.5 %. In addition, the Proposition 23 suspends the program on greenhouse gas emission reduction that involves cleaner fuel requirements and augmented renewable energy.
It also suspends reporting on mandatory emotions for such emission sources as oil refines and power plants (League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, n. p.). During the period of suspension, the state organizations will not allowed to adopt and propose new regulations and enforce previously accepted regulations.
The proposition 23 received a mixed feedback from the voters. On the one hand, it was approved by the California Air Resources Board that considered it more realistic to suspend the implementation of this law due to the existing $ billion deficit leading to the rise of unemployment rates and to destruction of the economy and society (Official Voter Information Guide, n. d.).
On the other hand, the proposition was highly criticized because it could impose adverse effects on the situation with air pollution in California. Moreover, the voters believe that “…Texas oil companies are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to promote Prop. 23 because 23 would allow them and other polluters to escape accountability and increase their profits” (Official Voter Information Guide, n. d).
A thorough analysis of the situation reveals that the Proposition 23 can save workplaces and, at the same time preserves clean water and air in California; it should also prevent from destruction of economies. Nevertheless, the measure can be also evaluated as the oil companies’ attempt to promote their businesses and to reduce export of foreign oils (Pros and Cons. Suspension of AB 32 Air Pollution Control Law).
Despite the fact that there is equal amount of arguments in favor and against, the majorities of voters did not support the Proposition because they are more concerned with climate change issues. In particular they believe that air pollution and natural disaster refer to much more serious problems (Forum with Michael Krasny n. p.).
However, there were voters that explained their approval by their concerns with the economic situation in California that had considerably aggravated within the period of 40 years. Therefore, the problem is difficult to resort. Two-polar views are presented in Walter’s article called Airing Out Prop 23 where he presents a neutral position on the case (Walter 1).
In my humble opinion, the Preposition 23 has both positive and negative outcomes for the members of our society. Such mixed attitudes to the issue are predetermined by setting different priorities. In particular, some people believe that the suspension of Air Pollution Control Act will have an adverse effect on the ecological environment in California and will impose inevitable losses. However, there are people whose are more economically predetermined believing that a short suspension will improve the economic situation.
I believe that suspension will not beneficial for either of the supporters because the unemployment rate can be decreased by other, more efficient methods. In addition, there should be other methods and programs on providing clean air and waters in California that would not require significant funding. Otherwise, the secretary of state will turn out to be in a tight corner.
Works Cited
Forum with Michael Krasny. Proposition 23. KQED Radio. 2010. Web.
League of Women Voter of California Education Fund. Proposition 23. Smart Voter. 2010. Web.
Official Voter Information Guide. Prop 23 Suspends Implementation Of Air Pollution Control Law (Ab 32) Requiring Major Sources Of Emissions To Report And Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5 Percent Or Less For Full Year. Initiative Statute. California Statewide General Election. 2010. Web.
Pros and Cons. Suspension of AB 32 Air Pollution Control Law. League of Women Voters of California. 2010. Web.