Family Discussions

This Thanksgiving was a somewhat stressful one to begin with, so I chose to go the more boring route and simply co-author a journal with my mom rather than go with a full scale debate.  I appologize if this makes my post a little less entertaining, but sometimes keeping the peace is worth forfeiting a bit of excitement.

My family doesn't often talk about the environment in any more detail than it takes to decide whose turn it is to take the recycling to the garage or drive the full containers to the local deposit site, so when the topic of air pollution came up, I was suprised to discover that she had pretty strong feelings on the topic, and that it was a topic that was much discussed when we lived in Ohio (as I was between the ages of 2 and 6 at the time, I wasn't exactly a participant).  When I asked her to write a bit about her thoughts on the topic, this is what she gave me...

"Common colds, ear infections, bronchitis, asthma, emphysema, COPD and pneumonia… anywhere from a nuisance to a debilitating or life threatening disease.  All can be exacerbated by air pollution.  All are costly in terms of quality of life or lack thereof and financially. 

After living in the metropolitan Detroit and Chicagoland areas, I moved to the Ohio River Valley in Ohio.  Many chemical plants lined the riverbanks producing multiple pollutants.  I’m sure that many pollutants were released into the river but the majority of observed effects were from air contamination that just hung over the river valley.  Upper respiratory illness occurred much more frequently than in other areas where I had lived.  For many young people it was not only inconvenient but also costly financially in terms of physician visits, pharmaceutical interventions and time lost in employment.  For others, it was a daily struggle for the very breath of life.

The amount of air pollution released by manufacturing companies must be regulated and monitored.  Non-compliance must be reprimanded with stiff monetary penalties; otherwise we all will incur the soft and hard costs of pollution.

Incidentally, after moving from the Ohio River Valley the incidence of upper respiratory illnesses in my family dramatically decreased. "

In this we have the citizens' perspective.  From this point of view, the costs of pollution are high, both in cases of quality of life and in financial terms.  For some, it's a simple inconvenience, but for others, it can have a huge effect on their daily life.  For the citizens, regulation of pollution and strict enforcement of these regulations definitely seems to be the most beneficial course of action.

There are other costs to be considered.  Pollution affects not only the human inhabitants of an area, but also the local flora and fauna.  Toxins released into the air and water upset the balance of nature, affecting the soil, water, plants, and wildlife. 

Unfortunately, however, there are also costs to regulation and monitoring of pollutants that cannot be ignored.  In taking the extra time and resources required to limit emissions of pollutants, companies lose valuable production time.  Monitoring is also expensive and time consuming.  Such things affect the efficiency of the plants, and the health of these companies directly affects the economy of the area. 

As in almost all situations, there are both costs and benefits to whatever option is pursued.  In my opinion, the factor it finally boils down, however, is the right of the citizens to clean air.  I see this situation as similar to the Coca-Cola plant depeleting the aquifers and taking over the resources of the local farmers in the video we watched in class.  Ultimately, in both situations, the people have a right to the basic resources required for a healthy, quality existence, including both water and clean air. 

This is easy to state, but not so easy to turn into reality.  I find that I agree with my mom; despite the costs to the chemical plants and therefore local economy, strict regulation and monitoring of the emission of pollutants is required to ensure that the citizens of a particular place have living conditions that support good health.

Not a Toaster

I never realized until this week how much I take things like water for granted.  It's never really occurred to me to think about where my water comes from or be concerned about it.  It's just there.  I mean, I know that in third world countries clean water is a huge problem.  I've seen movies in class about the lack of clean drinking water, and church mission activities such as 30 Hour Famine often discussed it.  My family has even donated money in the past to an organization that builds tube wells in third world countries instead of doing stockings for each other for Christmas.  I know water is a problem, but I was shocked to see it be such an issue in such close proximity to clean drinking water.

Owning a natural resource like water doesn't seem right to me.  We all need water to survive.  Does this right belong only to those who can pay for it?  Water isn't like a toaster, to use the example given in class.  You don't need a toaster.  Not having a toaster will not cause you any great distress (and if it does, you have bigger problems than not having a toaster).  If you can't buy a toaster, than you simply don't have a toaster.  No big deal.  The lack of clean drinking water, on the other hand, will very much affect your life.  If you have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for clean water and can't afford it, it's a problem.  Like the family in the video, you end up with things like easily preventable diseases, overall lower level of health, and the social stigma of being "dirty".  In cases like these, the market system does a great disservice to the people who are in the highest need of the product being sold, which is in this case water.

I can see how privatization is an appealing option to cities in financial trouble.  It's a relatively easy option that at first appears to bring many benefits to the city.  But although the immediate payoff is great, having for-profit companies handling something like the city's water ends up creating problems in the long run.  You end up with large cost increases as companies attempt to make enough of a profit to satisfy share-holders.  The efficiency of deliever often suffers as well.  You end up with situations such as those in Detroit that were disucssed in the movie, where many citizens are without water, despite living in the world's wealthiest nation.

A good, healthy life shouldn't be something that is only available to the wealthy.  It's unfortunately not realistic to think that we can provide everyone with clean water, no matter their circumstances.  But does our inability to solve the problem for everyone excuse our lack of concern for those who we can help?  We should be doing our best to help those in need, not making their situations worse by making something as essential as water so far beyond their reach.