Advocacy project: Understanding the Issue

What is the issue/problem?- 3.9 billion pounds of toxic pollutants were released into the environment in 2008. 

What current legislation has been proposed to address this?- STOPS runoff act

Who is affected the most by this issue?- Texas, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida rank the highest for air and water releases of carcinogens.  Tennessee, Texas, and Illinois have the highest ranking for developmental problems and reproductive disorders caused by air and water emissions.  Highest rates for neurotoxicants are found in Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, and Ohio.  Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Pennsylvania ranked the highest for respiratory toxicants.  The four counties in Texas with the highest carcinogenic emissions are Harris, Jefferson, Galveston, and Brazoria.   Nevada, Alaska, and Utah ranked highest for land releases of carcinogens.  Workers from all companies emitting pollutants who are exposed earning a living.  The chemical and electric industries who release the most dioxins. The mining industry who releases the most toxic pollution to land.

Who loses, and what do they lose?-  Corporations continue to emit their pollutants rather than attempting to come up with a healthy solution.

Who gains, and what do they gain?- All of these people lose the right to good health because the land they thrive on, the water they drink, and the air they breathe is contaminated.  Thriving on toxic land, water, and air contaminates animals.  Humans who eat the contaminated animals and animal products consume the animal’s toxins.  Therefore, animals lose their right to health and consumers lose their right to quality products.  

For the individuals mostly affected?- Increased disease rates, cancer rates, reproductive troubles.  Must make the most lifestyle changes.

For their families of affected individuals?- Increased risk for contamination from same source family member encountered toxin.  Must deal with family members illness.

For society?- Toxic emissions lead to global warming.  Community members suffer when others are ill. 

What are the economic costs of the issue, and who bears these costs?- Automobile companies who need to create more fuel-efficient cars according to the CAFÉ standards.  Factories and businesses will spend money creating more efficient ways of creating products and changing their ways.  Eco-friendly products and supplies, such as organic foods for a restaurant, can cost more than conventional products.  (Austin & Dinan, 2005.) Businesses loose money when SMOG levels are too dangerous to spend time outside.  

What are the economic benefits of the issue, and who benefits?- According to the State of California Department of Justice, the report for reducing emission estimated reducing would require only 1.5% of the real investment expected in the U.S. economy from 2009 to 2030.  This cost effective reduction is possible because 40% of the avoided emissions would result in negative cost - meaning that overall they do not cost money, but end up saving money. By switching to more sustainable products, companies will save money in the long run.  An example of this is for companies to use LED or CFLs instead of traditional lighting (2011).  

What are the social costs of the issue, and who bears these costs?- Society will need to learn to not rely so heavily on fossil fuels.  Companies will need to work more closely and communicate with other people, states, and countries to decrease all toxic emissions.  There will be an increased dependence on health care system and care facilities with the rise in illnesses.  More children born with disabilities and impairments may require special education from schools that have limited space and budget for rapidly growing special education classrooms.  Those of a low SES continue to suffer more than those of a higher SES (Rubin 2007). 

What are the social benefits of the issue, and who benefits?- By decreasing the amount of toxic emissions, everyone will benefit eventually.  If companies become more environmentally friendly, they will make money in the long run like previously mentioned above.  People, especially those living in highly polluted states, will become healthier, and places will become more livable.  

What are the barriers to addressing this issue?- One of the main barriers of this issue is change.  Changing ways, attitudes, behaviors, machinery equipment, etc., is difficult and takes much effort.  Companies may be concerned about the cost of attempting to reduce emissions, rather than thinking about their future savings.  Green Marketing and being environmentally friendly is relatively new, so it is still considered against the social norm.  

How can the barriers be overcome?- To overcome, companies need to think about the people, animals, and future generations they are poisoning by emitting toxic pollutants and take action.  Companies should decrease emissions without a law forcing them to improve for the health benefits of the planet and its inhabitants.  The Summary of Environmental Law Handbook suggests review of every major regulation applicable to an industry, making pollution prevention a part of normal industrial activity, easier collection of environmental information and greater public access, flexibility for motivated companies in achieving environmental protection, improvement of permit process, and incentives for developing better technology

What resources will we need to address this issue?- New, more efficient facilities to replace old equipment no longer fit to do its’ job.  Other Green technologies such as LED lights, solar panels, and plastics that are made from plants versus petroleum. 

Where and how can they be tapped?- Decreasing dependence on fossil fuels, and following the guidelines on the EPA website.

What is the history of the issue in the community?- According to the EPA, since the 1970 creation of the Clean Air Act, production of most ozone-depleting chemicals has ceased, while at the same time, the U.S. gross domestic product has tripled, the energy consumption has increased by 50%, and vehicle use has increased by almost 200%.  In 1990 the Clean Air Act was revised to reduce air pollution nationwide, and was again revised in 2010.  The Clean Water Act was created in 1972, and pollution became a concern.

What past efforts were made to address it?- Besides the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act, the EPA has attempted to put regulations in place to protect water, air, and land. 

What were the results?- According to the EPA: Since 1970, six commonly found air pollutants have decreased by more than 50%, air toxins from large industrial sources, such as chemical plants, petroleum refineries, and paper mills have been reduced by nearly 70%, and new cars are more than 90% cleaner.  

Who would support this issue?- Allies may include newer businesses that are more environmentally conscious, people affected by pollution, people who tend to vote liberal, and the EPA.

Who would oppose this issue?- Major corporations, industries such as auto manufacturing, computers and electronics, iron and steel, metal plating, and oil refining and printing.  People who tend to vote conservatively, oil companies. 

How can you involve allies and opponents in advocacy efforts?- To involve the EPA, a focus could be placed their four main focuses: Environmental Protection Agency, Measuring Our Nation’s Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability, Environmental Protection, and Environmental Indicators.  To involve the opponents, emphasize the amount of money they will save.  Tax breaks and other incentives could also be used.  

How do you want policy-makers to vote on this proposed policy? Policy-makers should vote yes on any policy that will positively impact the environment, including the policy listed above.  

Journal article used:

Austin, D., & Dinan, T. (2005). Clearing the air: The costs and consequences of higher

CAFE standards and increased gasoline taxes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, 562-582. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2005.05.001


All sources are linked