Biology

High Levels of Air Pollution in Hong Kong

Wassener, B. (2010, Mar 22). Hong Kong Issues Warning as Air Pollution Sets Record. The New
York Times. httpwww.nytimes.com20100323scienceearth23hong.htmlscp4sqenvironmental20issuesstcse.

Summary
Wassener (2010) writes that Hong Kong experienced its highest air pollution level since the year 1995 when air pollution records started being kept for the first time in its history.  A sandstorm in China was at least partially responsible for the high level of air pollution in Hong Kong in March 2010.  The record level of air pollution was twelve to fourteen times greater than the amount that is recommended by WHO.  Wassener mentions various experts with facts and opinions on this environmental problem.
Most importantly, the author mentions an official warning issued by the government, advising the residents of Hong Kong to refrain from activities outside of their homes in addition to expending excessive physical energy.

Response and Analysis
The title of Wasseners article, Hong Kong Issues Warning as Air Pollution Sets Record makes the reader assume that the government is going to do something substantial to reduce air pollution.  However, Wassener has only written one sentence about the governmental warning itself.  Although her article is easy to understand, which is in fact one of the strengths of the piece, the author merely describes the high level of air pollution through most of her article.  She mentions the impact of this environmental issue on international business.  But, the article does not engage the reader in an analysis of permanent solutions to the problem in the interests of business and public health, etc.  This is certainly a weakness of Wasseners article.  Even so, this weakness leaves the conscientious reader considering permanent solutions to Hong Kongs problem with air pollution, even if the government is unmindful of them at present.  Perhaps there are governmental initiatives in this area.  The fact that Wassener does not mention any such initiative in her article compels the reader to search for them elsewhere.

E.P.A. Speaks the Truth on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Broder, J. M. (2009, Apr 17). E.P.A. Clears Way for Greenhouse Gas Rules. The New
York Times. httpwww.nytimes.com20090418scienceearth18endanger.html_r1scp29sqenvironmental20issuesstcse.

Summary
Broder (2009) writes that the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States has finally released a declaration confirming that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are dangerous pollutants that impact public health in addition to welfare.  This declaration is bound to be followed up by regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions in the United States for the first time.  According to the author, the United States lags behind other developed nations in this area, as the government of the U.S. had been hiding facts connected with the dangers of greenhouse gases in the past.  Now the declaration has been released, certain entities such as environmental advocates are glad, while others such as automobile companies are not so.    

Response and Analysis
Broder must be applauded for his important article describing the governmental stance toward this declaration.  It allows the people of America to judge their government in the spirit of democracy.  It is, indeed, a great strength of Broders article to compare the stance of the United States on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions with that of other developed countries.  This comparison allows the reader to understand that the government of United States has been hiding scientific facts on greenhouse gas emissions only to increase economic growth.  In fact, this problem has been happening since the dawn of the Industrial Age.  Overly excited about their achievements during and after the golden Industrial Age, human beings did not realize that materialism and greed may even be responsible for ending their existence on Earth in the near future.  Indeed, if climate change is not managed through effective global policies at present, huge natural disasters may very well finish off life on our planet.  This is the assertion of various environmentalists nowadays.  Broders in-depth article on the beginning of a certain regulation in the U.S. helps the reader to comprehend the significance of such assertions.  What if they are true, and the government would keep scientific facts hidden as though we were asking for information on UFOs

When Environmental Benefits Outweigh Economic Costs

Mouawad, J. (2009, Sep 30). State Issues Rules on Upstate Natural Gas Drilling Near Citys
Water. The New York Times. httpwww.nytimes.com20091001nyregion01drill.html_r1scp39sqenvironmental20issuesstcse.

Summary
Mouawad (2009) writes that New York regulators have finally issued rules to manage gas production.  As extensive drilling for gas could have contaminated the water supply of New York City, there was debate before the new regulations were issued.  The rules are set to manage drilling locations and also demand of drilling contractors to disclose the nature of the chemicals used through the process.  Those who opposed such regulations through the debate were of the opinion that the economic benefits of gas production in New York would outweigh environmental costs.

Response and Analysis
It is absolutely unreasonable to oppose regulations on gas production in New York.  Kate Sinding is correct to state that there should be a zero-risk policy here (Mouawad).  Mouawad explains the science behind gas production in New York to back Sindings statement.  Even though his scientific explanations may be perfectly understood by scientists alone, the fact these explanations back the new regulations is important.  The case of the Aral Sea disaster sheds light on the importance of these regulations, as the case describes how natural resources can be exploited when governments or corporations refuse to consider the trade-off that the concept of sustainable development is built upon.

E.P.A. Controls Water Pollution in Appalachia

Zeller, T. (2010, Apr 1). E.P.A. to Limit Water Pollution from Mining. The New York Times.
httpwww.nytimes.com20100402scienceearth02coal.htmlscp2sqwater20po
llutionstcse .

Summary
Zeller (2010) writes that the Environmental Protection Agency has issued rules to check coal mining techniques with an adverse environmental impact in Appalachia.  These techniques were responsible for water pollution.  The decision to issue guidelines for coal mining made by the Environmental Protection Agency is based on scientific facts.  Those who do not appreciate the rules issued by the Agency are concerned about the economic impact of the changes, including unemployment.

Response and Analysis
Zellers article is clear about the fact that the new guidelines issued by the Environmental Protection Agency are necessary.  There is no doubt in the readers mind that those who fail to appreciate the guidelines are unreasonable, seeing that they, too, might be affected by water pollution in the absence of such guidelines.  Zeller does not describe these opponents in detail.  Rather, he focuses on the science behind the new guidelines so as to leave no room for debate.  This is a good approach to environmental thought.  As for the opponents of the new guidelines, it is possible to pacify them with the example of the Aral Sea in former Soviet Union.  This was the worlds fourth largest lake, fed by the  HYPERLINK httpquestia.comPM.qstaod101273368 Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers.  When the dictator Stalin rose to power in 1941, and right up to his death in 1953, he desired to make the Soviet Union self-sufficient in cotton, which is used for gunpowder and clothing to boot.  Hence, an unlimited amount of irrigation water was allowed to be tapped from both the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya  to quench the thirst of the cotton fields.  The worlds fourth largest lake that once supplied approximately fifty thousand tons of fish every year lost a staggering ninety percent of its volume as a result.  As though the death of fish is not a big deal, a dried former sea bed also spawns dust storms spreading salt, pesticides and fertilizers, thereby adversely impacting peoples health.  In fact, anemia figures exceeded ninety percent in the area.  

New U.S. Regulation For A Positive Global Environmental Impact

Broder, J. (2010, Apr 1). U.S. Issues Limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cars. The New
York Times. httpwww.nytimes.com20100402scienceearth02emit.htmlscp116sqenvironmental20issuesstcse.

Summary
Broder (2010) writes on the new U.S. regulation to limit greenhouse gas emissions from light trucks and automobiles.  This regulation has been passed after thirty years of debates between automakers and the government.  The automobile industry is expected to respond to the regulation by developing new technologies to render light trucks and automobiles more fuel-efficient than before.  Moreover, the new law is expected to help consumers save on costs of automobile usage.

Response and Analysis
Broder has rendered the environment a great service by describing the implications of the new law.  The new regulation is, indeed, a breath of fresh air.  It is a strength of Broders article that it merely summarizes the implications of the new law.  Readers are expected to conduct research on their own to further understand these implications.  But, the author failed to mention that this new regulation would have a positive, global environmental impact as well.  It is a weakness of the article that it makes no mention of conflicts and wars around the world, said to be in the name of oil.  After all, the United States is the largest consumer of oil in the world.  Oil has been vital to military power and modern industrial society since the early twentieth century.  The possession of sufficient domestic oil supplies and control over access to foreign oil reserves is a significant factor in the power position of the United States with respect to its rivals.  Hence, foreign policy of the nation must take oil into account, without due consideration for the environmental impact of wars.

For the Protection of Birdlife

Revkin, A. C. (2009, Sep 7). Study Finds Risk to Some Birds Nesting Near Oil Fields in Alaska.
The New York Times. httpwww.nytimes.com20090908science08bird.html_r1scp153sqenvironmental20issuesstcse.

Summary
Revkin (2010) describes a scientific study that reveals the dangers posed to birdlife by pipelines and wells placed by oil and gas companies in a coastal region of Alaska.  Oil companies, environmental groups and biologists have all assessed the negative impact of the wells and the pipelines.  Revkin writes that certain species of birds in the area are more at risk than the others, for example, the red phalaropes are more at risk than sandpipers.  Therefore, it is recommended for oil and gas companies to consider the importance of wildlife management as they extract oil and gas in the area.

Response and Analysis
It is a strength of Revkins article to mention the viewpoint of BP Exploration, which would hopefully inspire other companies to take a similar stance to that of BP  vowing to take wildlife management as its corporate social responsibility.  But, it is a weakness of the article that it fails to mention regulations that may ultimately be required as a response to the scientific study.  Undoubtedly, Revkins article is rather interesting from a scientific standpoint, and could have been published in Discover magazine and Popular Science to boot.  It leaves the reader wondering whether a regulation akin to the Convention on Wetlands  nowadays referred to as the Ramsar Convention  would be required to protect birdlife in the area under consideration.  The Ramsar Convention was developed to protect bird habitats.  Guidelines developed for this Convention may serve as a framework for the development of regulations to protect birdlife in Alaska.