Discussion Host Presentation:

Air Pollution

Hilary French’s article, “You Are What You Breathe” discusses the significance of air

pollution and how it is in fact a devastating global issue, rather than just a worry of

individual countries. The crucial point that humans need to understand is the idea that air

pollution is not a problem that stops at borders. French explains that, “because the wind

carries polluted air from one nation to another, this problem requires international as well

as national action and cooperation” (Pojman & Pojman: 314). Whether it is a physical,

biological, or chemical alteration to the air in the atmosphere, air pollution leads to poorer

health outcomes to a nation as a whole. Not only does this contamination of the air disrupt

the thriving of humans, but it also hinders the growth of the environment as well. French

further emphasizes the idea that air pollutants and greenhouse gases stem from the same

agents which supports her driving argument that “if we are to solve the problem [of air

pollution], our lifestyles will have to change” (Pojman & Pojman: 314). In other words,

faced with the extreme costs to human health and the environment, the preservation of air

quality should not be seen as a burden, but more as an investment for the future.

1. Primarily, French believes that air pollutants and greenhouse gases stem largely

from “fossil fuels burned in energy, transportation, and industrial systems” (Pojman

& Pojman: 315). Understanding that these toxins come from a common source,

French believes that these issues can have a common solution as well. There is an

emphasis in the text which explains that many individuals have the misleading

impression that air pollution is in fact yesterday’s problem. Although there have
 been efforts throughout history to improve air quality and cut down on air pollution,

these efforts have not made a significant change over the decades. In other words,

French believes that in order to combat air pollution, we must fight it at its sources

instead of acting after the fact. French explains that, “this will mean reorienting

energy, transportation, and industrial structures toward prevention” (Pojman &

Pojman: 315). Over the years, the atmosphere has turned into a sort of chemical

soup. Not only are sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions released into the

atmosphere from coal burning, but pollution from automobiles creates a second

battle for pollution prevention as well. These toxins that are released into the air,

some known as greenhouse gases, then trap the outgoing heat of the sun, warming

the surface of the Earth and the lower atmosphere. This significant consequence of

air pollution becomes the issue of global warming which will affect all life forms if

human ways are not changed quickly.

2. French further goes to explain that “the health damage inflicted by air pollution

comes at a great human cost” (Pojman & Pojman 316). Not only does air pollution

affect the environmental growth of the planet, but it actually poses direct

consequences for humans as well. In the United States, there are roughly 150 million

individuals who live in areas that are considered to have poor air quality, according

to the Environmental Protection Agency. On top of this, French explains that this

statistic has led to the death of more than 120,000 individuals each year. Just

looking at automobiles, the dangerous toxins, which are emitted from driving only

20 minutes, are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and other toxic

emissions. These pollutants have been linked with causing bronchitis, pneumonia
 and other respiratory health concerns. Furthermore, high levels of nitrogen oxides

can “increase susceptibility to viral infections such as influenza” (Pojman & Pojman:

316). Overall, these pollutants have been shown to affect circulatory, reproductive,

nervous, and kidney systems in relatively health individuals. French also states the

concern that there are dangerous health threats that are caused by less common,

but extremely harmful toxins such as benzene, vinyl chloride, which can cause birth

defects, and a variety of cancers. However, since these pollutants are not as

common, they receive far less attention than they should be getting. Recognizing

that air pollution is a serious threat to human health is the first step in making

lifestyle changes. According to French, if international and national action and

cooperation is not taken within the next few years, air pollution will be the leading

cause of death around the world very soon.

3. Upon further discussion on air pollution, French speaks about the driving factor that

has been contributing to this issue—the lack of adequate government regulation

and technology in developing countries. Western nations like the U.S. have been

fighting for clean air with pollution control equipment and improvements in energy

efficiency for years. In fact, the U.S. cut sulfur emissions by 28% between 1970 and

1978. Although this was a big step towards pollution prevention, this trend has not

continued. As Western nations have technologies to help with air pollution, the

same cannot be said about Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In countries like

these, “pollution technologies have been virtually nonexistent,” according to French

(Pojman & Pojman: 316). An issue that is mentioned in the text explains that our

nation’s biggest problem is the perspective on solving this crisis. Instead of

 developing newer technologies and having the government increase regulations, the

technological efforts that currently exist are used as “Band-Aids rather than efforts

to address the roots of the problem” (Pojman & Pojman: 318). Additionally, there

are not too many governmental regulations that are being enforced in the U.S, today.

Instead of covering up the problem, French suggests switching to more efficient

energy sources, modifying car engines, passing legislations against excessive

pollution, and even placing driving restrictions on the American people. Other

countries such as Italy and Mexico have already placed driving restrictions to reduce

automobile emissions, which has been helping tremendously. French also believes

that in order to make a lasting impact, governmental regulations cannot only be

aimed at big businesses and factories, but at the common man as well. It is

important for the government to “discourage automobile use, boost public

transportation, and control household activities that contribute to smog” (Pojman &

Pojman: 320). In other words, according to French, the government needs to play a

larger role in regulating how individuals are treating their environment on a daily

basis or else there will be serious consequences in the coming future, which will

result in serious economic costs.

Discussion Question #1

What is your opinion on government regulations in order to help the environment? Would

this be interfering with our property rights? How far should the government go towards

protecting the environment? Finally, who do you think is more responsible for pollution,

the individual, or the government?

 According to French, it would be beneficial for the government to enforce laws for

anything to change with how we take care of the environment. I think that the government

should be able to make regulations because for each individual harming the environment,

someone else is affected. The libertarian view explains that we may do anything we want

with our property as long as it is not harming someone else’s property rights. However, at a

closer examination, we understand that everything we do will always affect someone else.

For example, driving our own gas guzzling truck will put toxins into the air that someone

else will be breathing in. Overall, although French’s view is very anthropocentric, I do think

that it is in our best interest as humans to take care of the environment. According to the

article, “The American Lung Association estimates that air pollution costs the United States

$40 billion annually in health care and lost productivity” (Pojman & Pojman: 318). Seeing

this statistic, we can see why it is important to be aware of the economic costs of air

pollution even if it is for humans’ own selfish purposes. The negative aspect of this view is

that the environment then becomes an instrument to our own selfish purpose. Humans end

up valuing and taking care of the environment because they will be able to benefit in the

future instead of appreciating its intrinsic value.

Discussion Question #2

Do you believe that we can truly find ways to reduce air pollution? Or is it by human nature

that we are going to leave our carbon footprint on the world?

Although we have are in a very capitalistic society driven by a greed for money and

materialistic items, there are still a few ways that the world has been fighting for clean air.

Modifying car engines and installing catalytic converters have been one way to lower
harmful emissions into the atmosphere. According to French, these devices have reduced

hydrocarbon emission by 87% over the past 10 years. Another way that humans have been

trying to prevent air pollution is by using alternative fuels such as methanol, ethanol,

natural gas, and hydrogen. Seeing these examples, it would be unfair to make the comment

that we as humans will never find a way to reduce pollution. However, although we may

reduce air pollution, I do not think that we will ever go 100% “green” due to our capitalistic

ways. In order for our economy to strive, businesses need to grow which hurts the

environment. In turn, toxins are released into the air, which leaves us with a vicious cycle of

protecting the environment and helping the economy grow.

Discussion Question #3

Do you think it would be beneficial for countries to work together to solve the problem of

air pollution? In other words, do you think the United Nations should place a priority on

pollution prevention?

As French explained in the text, nations should be working together to solve the

issue of air pollution because toxins get carried from one country to another by the wind.

This means that if one country has been working very hard to improve its air quality, their

hardwork may be useless if their neighboring country is not doing the same. This is why

countries around the world should come together and address air pollution as a national

issue. The text explains that to make a dent in their pollution, Eastern Europe and the

Soviet Union would need help from Western technologies. Countries like these do not have

the resources or technology in order to purchase pollution control, energy efficiency,

renewable energy, and waste reduction technologies. If countries around the world can

help each other out to cut down pollution, it will definitely benefit them in the long run. An
example of this is seen with Sweden and it’s neighboring countries. According to French,

“Sweden receives 89 percent of the sulfur that contributes to acid rain from other

countries” (Pojman & Pojman: 320). Due to this issue, Sweden would most definitely

benefit from helping these other countries combat emissions so that it would ultimately

help their own country.

Discussion Question #4

What role should wealthy nations such as the US have in caring for the environment in

comparison to poor nations? In other words, do you believe that the US should be more

environmentally conscious than other nations around the world?

As said earlier, it is important for nations with pollution reducing technology to help

out less fortunate countries in order to help air pollution as a whole. However, I do not

think that the U.S needs to be more environmentally conscious than other countries. Each

nation should understand the consequences of air pollution on the environment and the

health of their people. This being said, there are, however, some countries that release

more toxins than other countries. In this case, it would be important that the government

play a part in regulating emissions released from coal burning, automobiles, and large

factories. Although some countries play a larger part in contributing to the pollution of the

world, I think it is important that each country be aware of the consequences and do

whatever they can with the resources and technology that they have. In other words,

although New York City and Somalia would be letting out different amounts of toxins into

the air, both countries should realize that they are responsible and be aware that air

pollution is a serious problem.

Concrete Application: A Global Pandemic - Air Pollution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKBVwX8dVhI (0:00-5:33)

A pandemic is a worldwide spread of a disease that kills individuals over continents.

In this Ted Talk, Romain Lacombe speaks about how air pollution is a global pandemic

underway. In fact, air pollution kills more individuals each year than smoking. He explains

that research done by the World Health Organization has shown that deaths from air

pollution are the number one preventable health risk. Lacombe even states, “This means

that breathing is more dangerous than poor diet, high blood pressure, lack of exercise, and

tobacco itself” (Lacombe, 2014). Lacombe goes to further explain that there is an

environmental inequality that feeds off of social and economic inequalities. This

environmental inequality contributes to individuals losing different periods of time lost

from their lives just because of air pollution. Through watching this video one can see how

air pollution can quickly become the next global pandemic. Similarly to what French

believes, Lacombe also explains that if we do not make serious lifestyle changes, lives are

going to be lost. In other words, “the future of mankind, is in the air” (Lacombe, 2014).