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.
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
