In my eyes, air pollution is a complicated issue to discuss. It is without a doubt the most substantial result of human activity, and perhaps the most difficult to reverse. However, there are several views one can assume concerning this issue. First is the idea that it is a real problem that can be realistically fixed. Second is the opposite, that this is hopeless and there is no point in trying to reverse it. Among others, there is also the view that human activity resulting in massive air pollution is simply another driver of the natural ways in which the world is always changing. Before exploring the moral discussion, I will lay out some background information on the problem itself.
Air pollution is mostly caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from machines and vehicles that burn fossil fuels, generating excess carbon in the atmosphere. Most obviously, this causes a reduction in air quality for people and animals, which is often toxic to breathe. Another major effect this has is forming greenhouse gases, which insulate the Earth’s atmosphere and cause the ambient temperature to rise as a result. This causes well-known events such as reduction of polar ice caps and rising sea levels, but the temperature rise can also disrupt weather patterns which result in more severe storms, drought, and other weather concerns. This in turn disrupts farming and the global supply chain, leading to poverty and hunger in many less developed countries.
An additional, though much less commonly known problem with increased carbon in the atmosphere, is the acidification of the ocean. Carbon dioxide in the air dissolves into the ocean which lowers the pH of the water, making it more acidic, and this is problematic to many smaller marine organisms which are very sensitive to chemical changes in their environment. This causes a domino effect up the food chain, harming every organism which relies on these micro organism, and the organisms that depend on those organisms, and so on. This decreasing health of the ocean affects people too, as we depend on the ocean for food and manufacturing materials.
Warming the oceans also makes it easier for algae to grow, which can then form massive blooms which can be toxic and release toxic gases into the air when washed up on land. These blooms floating on the surface themselves cause water to warm as well, promoting the growth of more algae in a sort of feedback loop.
The obvious remedy to this course of events is to substantially reduce carbon-emitting practices, but this solution is anything but simple. Transport of people and goods is entirely dependent upon burning gasoline, from airplanes to boats to the 1.5 billion cars in the world. Machines used in manufacturing also operate by burning fossil fuels. For electrical appliances and machines, electricity is most often derived from burning coal to power electrical generators, since this is cheaper than greener sources of energy.
Even in products designed to be “green,” such as lithium batteries in electric cars or wind turbines, generate massive carbon emissions while sourcing their materials and manufacturing them. Windmills, for example, require invasive and destructive mining to acquire the necessary metals, and those materials are then formed through the use of coal-burning blast furnaces. Though these are all still greener options than relying on fossil fuels for power, most countries lack the energy infrastructure to rely on them for more than a small portion of their power.
All of this discussion is disrupted by an odd moral dilemma: as humans, are we obligated to care at all?
For clarity’s sake, I am of the opinion that yes, it is our responsibility to reverse the damage we have caused to the best of our abilities. But arguments can be made to the contrary.
One misleading aspect of this issue is that it is so frequently called “climate change.” The changing of the climate is not in itself the problem, as the Earth’s climate is supposed to change and would be doing so without human interference. The problem lies within the rate at which the climate is currently changing. Human activities have caused global environmental conditions to change faster than life can adapt to it, which is leading to the current extinction rate being hypothesized to be 100-1,000 times higher than before human activity. It is being called a new mass extinction by many scientists.
However, this itself is also not necessarily unnatural. Mass extinctions have happened several times in the past, three of which happened within 200 million years of each other and the most recent of which occurred 65 million years ago. All of these occurred due to natural events. The Ordovician and Devonian mass extinctions were both due to the rapid cooling of the planet, the exact opposite of the problem that air pollution is causing today. It could be argued that as animals, human activity in generating air pollution is a natural factor causing this change and disrupting the natural way of things is useless.
In favor of a solution, however, one could argue that it is only reasonable to act in the best interest of the world upon which our species depends, and by doing this we would be acting in the best interest of our species. After all, humans are affected by air pollution and climate change just as the rest of the world is, the difference being that we have the tools to cope with it. The fact is, we recognize the harm we are causing, and although it will take a long time to do so, we have the intelligence and tools capable of reducing it, so there is no reason we shouldn’t. Maybe, the fact that something is natural or isn’t doesn’t matter, and what matters is that it could be better, both for us and for the rest of the planet. The knowledge that it is within our power to improve the quality of life across the globe is powerful, though we have yet to take full advantage of it.
Though I am in favor of the latter mindset, I do not want to persuade you in either direction. I find this to be a deeply layered and confusing, yet intriguing debate and only aim to provoke deeper consideration of it.
Sources:
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms#:~:text=Warmer%20temperatures%20prevent%20water%20from,warmer%20and%20promoting%20more%20blooms.
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=43516673cd9c
Species going extinct 1,000 times faster than in pre-human times, study finds
Air pollution is a very important topic when discussing improving sustainability and becoming more environmentally friendly. I agree that it is the responsibility of humans to produce more clean energy and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, since humans were the ones to put them there in the first place. It was a very good point to include that although we are trying to switch to cleaner and more sustainable energy, such as lithium batteries in electric cars, the process of mining that lithium is also incredibly harmful to the environment. We as humans do recognize that air pollution is incredibly harmful to the environment, and has harmful effects to our bodies as well. With the intelligence and knowledge of the problem, I do agree that the problem of air pollution can be solved.
Such a wonderful post to read! This is such a great topic to write about as well. It’s crucial to raise awareness about the issue of air pollution and its consequences to encourage people to take action to reduce it. Governments must implement policies and regulations that promote clean air, and businesses should adopt sustainable practices to minimize their impact on the environment.