UK Divided Over Air Pollution

UK Government Faces Court For Failing to Act on Air Pollution

                         by ClickGreen Staff

                Published Mon 28 May 2012

Image: This picture was taken in London, the capital city of the United Kingdom. You can clearly see the thick smoke/smoggy air that surrounds Big Ben. This is exactly why the English government is being charged with not following European air pollution limits. 

Summary: The United Kingdom Government will be taken to court for failing to uphold air pollution laws set by European Union pollution limits This was brought to the attention of and environmental law group named ClientEarth, whom the High Court dismissed back in December when they brought up this air pollution problem. James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO, explains some of the situation by stating: “The Government is failing to act to tackle Britain’s air pollution crisis – by its own admission the UK won’t meet legal air quality standards until 2025." The reason ClientEarth has brought this to the court's attention is because one, it is against the law, and two, the amount of air pollution related deaths has increased. Not only does air pollution kill simply from inhaling it, but it also causes road accidents. The excess amount of pollution fills the air, which makes the road ahead of a driver less visible. Over 29,000 people have died in the UK because of air pollution, even more if you count the road accident deaths/injuries. The deadline for air pollution plans in the UK was January of 2010, yet current plans will not be carried out until 2020, and none will be carried out until 2025 in London. 

Reflection: Normally when we think of air pollution, we think of the United States and our trouble with air pollution. This obviously is not the case, because air pollution is a global problem, especially in England. I can not believe that the beautiful city of London that I visited last summer has such dirty air. It especially upsets me that the English government has gone as far as simply not worrying about the amount of pollution local factories and business release into the air. Though it's horrible to say, it is a bit comforting to know that we aren't the only country having trouble with air quality and pollution. It is very clear that air pollution was put on the back burner by the court handling this case because they dismissed the case for five months. In our world today, it goes to show that the environment is not our first priority, even though this is the only Earth we'll ever have. 

Questions

1. How do you think the Court should rule? Either in ClientEarth's favor or the UK's government, and why?
2. What should the consequences be for the UK for violating the European Union pollution limit?
3. Why do you believe air quality and the overall environment has not been global governments first concern? Do you think it will ever be a first concern?
4. Do you believe this decision could possibly affect future our government on future environmental laws about air quality? What do you think we would do to improve our air quality and decrease air pollution?

Article url:

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/123551-uk-government-faces-court-for-failing-to-act-on-air-pollution.html

Region at Risk: Can Higher Rates of Death Be Linked to Air Pollution?

http://tinyurl.com/82b8vpy

By Don Hopey, Published December 12, 2010 by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

This photo shows a blanket of air pollution over a large city. Why is anyone letting it get this bad?

In the town of Shippingport, approximately 14,636 died from heart disease, respiratory disease or lung cancer. Chad Hysong and his family moved his family when pollution from all the smokestacks was causing an endless cycle of respiratory problems, even ash falling from the sky, pitting his car’s paint. This was caused by all the air pollution and smog filling the air of their once clean, upbeat town. This article is mostly about the link between air quality in an area and the amount of deaths. These air problems still remain in many towns today. The number of deaths in Shippingport were a 10% increase in mortality than what would be expected of a population of nearly 3 million people. The air still contains fine airborne particles, soot, and smog. This is raising costs to nearly $9.4 billion a year in damage to the community’s health. It is shown that if we improve the air quality, there will be less kids in the hospital for sure. For some, they wake up in the morning, go outside to drink their morning coffee, and are already blanketed in a cloud of air pollutants. This is taking deathly tolls.

Opinion/ Reflection:

I honestly do not understand this at all. Factories, industries, even little shops are all contributing to this. Every little bit counts. If we really put our minds to it, (it might have to take a tear-jerking documentary or maybe even some more deaths) we can stop this. Once we start realizing that humans and the earth are really being harmed by all of this, I hope that we can start to make a change. It can be done.

1. What are some things you an do to raise awareness about air pollution in your community? How much of an impact could this make?
2. What would have to happen to make people start acting upon this issue?
3. What are the long-term consequences for air-pollution?

Breathing Smog While Pregnant May Worsen Asthma In Offspring

No Author Mentioned. Written on May 20, 2012
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/05/20/breathing-smog-while-pregnant-may-worsen-asthma-in-offspring

Picture: Does this child look happy to you? She certainly does not look happy to me. Well why does she look so unhappy? Because she struggles with asthma along with many other kids around the world. And when we pollute our air we are only making it worse for them and giving other kids a bigger chance of getting asthma.



Summary: New studies are now showing that not only can smog make kids that already have asthma have more difficulty, but can also harm the lung function of kids who are still in their mother's whom. How was this discovered and proven? A study of 162 kids that range in ages 6 to 15 in california that have been diagnosed with asthma were evaluated along with their mother's exposure to air pollution during pregnancy. What was discovered? Well according to the article, "The study showed that exposure to airborne particles and the pollutant nitrogen dioxide during the first and second trimesters was associated with poorer lung function growth in both boys and girls with asthma.". These results have added to 2 things. 1. the evidence that a mother's exposure to air pollution during pregnancy does affect lung development in children with asthma and 2. our current amount of air pollution does greatly affect human health.


Opinion/Reflection:
This really wasn't a long article and it didn't have much to say. But, I wanted to share it with you guys because I think what it did have to say was very important. Honestly, I know I have said this before, but so many people seriously do not understand how bad air pollution actually is!!! I personally hate air pollution so much, (I know some people might jump on me for saying this) but I think air pollution is something we need to worry about more then water pollution. This really is so important and it's scary to think that air pollution can affect you before you even get to say daylight! I never took air pollution so far to think it could affect a child in a womb, but when you think about it, it really makes sense! This article only made me want to raise more awareness for air pollution! I am so happy my family owns a prius!!!

Questions:
1. Could air pollution affect human organs other then the lungs? Which ones?
2. Many articles debate over whether or not air pollution actually causes asthma. Although there is not yet a deffinate answer to the cause of asthma many people strongly believe its caused by air pollution. What are your opinions on this? Does air pollution really cause asthma or does it just make it worse and cause more symptoms?
3. How many people in the U.S. are affected by asthma? Has this number increased or decreased?
4. Do you think we are on the right track to lowering our amounts of air pollution or do you think there is still more that we could do?

Acid Rain: All you need to know

The Cause of Acid Rain
by the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/education/site_students/whatcauses.html

Picture: Does this picture creep you out a little bit? It definitely scares me. This is an example of what acid rain can do to statues made of hard concrete and stone. Imagine what is can do to plants and animals!
Summary: Earlier this year, I posted a blog about acid rain during our biosphere unit and how it affects trees. Today, I found an article that highlights what acid rain really is, and how it happens. Acid rain is formed by the mixture of unnatural chemicals in our atmosphere. These chemicals are caused by the release of sulfur dioxide and (non-atmospheric)nitrogen oxides into our atmosphere and ozone layer.  These chemicals are most commonly released by factories burning fossil fuels for electricity and the release of exhaust from cars and trucks on the road. Since over 1 billion cars are on the road every day worldwide, this accounts for a huge amount of exhaust release and acid rain likelihood. 


Reaction:
It seemed like everybody was pretty unaware of what acid rain was last time I posted, so I wanted to find an article that summarized how it's made and what it consists of. Did you also know that acid rain can, in high consistencies, burn the skin? That scared the crap out of me, to be completely honest, as a person who is very sensitive to air quality and skin condition. I really hope that in future years the amount of acid rain can significantly decrease as more people become aware of the terrifying circumstances it presents.


Questions:


1) How aware were you of this situation before this point?


2) Do you think environmental groups should make an effort to spread awareness about acid rain? Why or why not?


3) Do you think the affects of acid rain will increase or decrease in the future? Why?

Air Pollution: Smog, Smoke and Pollen

http://www.nrdc.org/health/climate/airpollution.asp

Picture: This map shows the air pollution in 2002-2006. Notice the areas in brown and red which show there is an unhealthy ozone. Even us, livng in Pennsylvania are affected.

Summary: As a result from different vehicles, factories, and a rise in temperature, there is an increase in smog pollution. Smog pollution leads to irritation in your eyes, nose, and lungs. Smog pollution also leads to an increase in wild fires. The increase in wild fires enlarges the amount of air pollution. This air pollution puts everyone who gets exposure to the outdoors in risk. Smog air pollution has a big affect on people with allergies, asthma, and other respiratory issues. “In 2010, the American Lung Association estimated that about 23 million Americans suffered from asthma.” These 23 million people could face more problems with the amount of smog pollution that is rapidly increasing. Only 11 states have raised awareness about the amount of smog pollution. We need more awareness about this deadly pollution so we save more lives and improve the air quality.

Reflection- I think this is a very important topic to learn. Everyone is affected by this smog pollution if you are outside. It is affecting our health and the environment. I was surprised that only 11 states have raised awareness about this pollution. If over 23 million people are affected by asthma and smog pollution worsens asthma, more states should raise awareness. If more states raise awareness, we could all come up with alternative ways for factories and vehicles to run better than ever.

Questions:

1.) Do you think it will make a difference if more than 11 states raise awareness? Why or why not?

2.) What kinds of alternative energy can we use for factories and or vehicles to reduce the amount of smog pollution?

3.) What kind of impact do you think smog pollution has on wild life? (like animals and plants)

Slimegate: Should USDA Require Labeling for LFTB?
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/slimegate-should-usda-require-labeling-for-lftb/
Written by: Helena Bottemiller On April 3rd, 2012

Picture: This picture shows what pink slime looks like before it is used and then after it is in the meat. You can't even see it in the meat can you? That's what is so scary.

Summary: Many people are upset and are arguing over the Lean Finely Textured Beef, commonly known as pink slime or ammoniated beef. Buyers want to know if the beef they are buying has indeed been used with pink slime, but beef sellers are not required to tell you. Although many places are saying they are pink slime free, the beef is not required to be labeled if it is ammoniated beef. Why? Dr. H. Russel Cross who is a USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service administrator says, "There is no need for labeling LFTB--because nothing is being added that is not beef". Other people added that the ingredients in the pink slime do not stay in the product. This was proven false. While untreated beef had about 100-150 ppm of ammonia, beef that has been treated with pink slime contains about 400-500 ppm of ammonia. The product also takes beef from a normal pH of 5.7 to about 8.5. Although the products pH drops to about 7.5 when it leaves the facility in a large frozen brick, that is still 100 times more alkaline then it was before treatment. Although there are these facts there are still major arguments. While some people believe not labeling the pink slime beef is a form of fraudulent labeling, others believe that beef is beef. According to the article, Though it's probably a safe bet USDA won't require it anytime soon, consumers demanding an LFTB label at the grocery store look like they're going to get it.

Opinion/Reflection:

I 100 percent agree that the pink slime meat needs to be labeled!! Just like with everything, I want to know what I am eating (I am not a big surprise person when it comes to food). I remember we went into some detail about pink slime in Mrs. Ulmer's class. After that day, I went home and did research on pink slime and became really grossed out about it! I didn't eat ground beef for a while, I'm not gonna lie, I was scared. But now the grocery store I shop at, Giant, has sent out emails and says that they do not use pink slime. That first burger i ate once I learned the pink slime was no more was so tasty! Food labeling is deffinatly a topic everyone should be aware of. Honestly I am so happy I picked this article about pink slime so I could be more informed.

Question:

1. What Are your opinions on pink slime? Do you think they should have to label beef with pink slime?

2. Are there any other products that the USDA does not require you to have on your labels?

3. How important do you think it is for manufacturers to label their products?

4. Do you ever look at the ingredients in your food? Why or why not is this important to you?

No pests, no pesticides?

Effective Pest Control Without Chemical Pesticides
by Arlington Organic Club Newsletter
http://www.aogc.org/effpest.htm

Picture: This photo shows a sign in a local neighborhood where using pesticides on lawns is prohibited. If more people would adopt this policy, pollution would be severely decreased.

Article: This link talks about the alternate ways you can prevent bugs on your lawn and in your garden without the use of harmful pesticides. Although the article focuses mainly on gardens, many of these same measures can be taken to prevent bugs on your lawn as well. There are several different methods used. First, you could try using water on certain areas as a natural pesticide. This works against many aphids and spiders. Also, try and diversify the different kinds of plants you have in one area. This helps prevent a large amount of one type of insect overrunning an area. You also should regularly tend to your lawn and garden to prevent weeds. The most damage-inflicting critters often are only found in areas which are untended and overgrown.

Reflection

This idea sounds really good to me. Although it focuses mainly on gardens and not on lawns, I think that's a good thing. Gardens are a more environmentally-friendly use of space than lawns are anyway, except for the use of pesticides they cause. I think if more people followed these ideas, our environment would be fundamentally healthier.

Questions:
1) What are some things that could go wrong with this plan?
2) How affective do you think this could be?
3) Can you think of any other ways to prevent insects without using pesticides?