Friday, October 08, 2004
Air pollution in St. Louis by power plants--Resarch Paper
The air quality in St. Louis is getting worse and many people suffer from respiratory disease. This is because there are too many power plants and they release too much toxic air. This paper argues for three solutions. First, the government should set up proper emission standards. Second, the government should list all the air pollutants instead of focus on one element. Finally, the government should offer some jobs to compensate for the jobs that are offered by power plants and collect the air pollution taxes.
The emission standards are not proper and are too late. One way to reduce the unhealthy air released by power plants is to set up emission standards. However, the government does not set up the standards properly. The Electric Utility Week says, “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) plans to pursue a MACT standard to achieve a 90% reduction nationwide and with at least achieve 70% reductions at the plant level between 2010 and 2015” (2004a, p. 11).
These improper emission standards are too high and the deadlines are too late for those power plants to install their pollution control equipment. The government should know that those power plants won’t do anything before the deadline is due and they will continue to release toxic air from now. Those standards would allow power plants to continue to release toxic air uncontrolled (Electric Utility Week, 2004a).
As we know, flexible standards will not be able to achieve the goal. Therefore, I suggest that the government should set up an average standard and force each power plant to follow it. On the other hand, if there is any power plant doesn’t follow it, the government should fine it.
After that all power plants will follow the standard at the beginning, then raise the emission standards for the next step. If all the power plants develop air pollution control and monitoring technology, it can be inferred that there will be a 50% to 70% reduction in current emission (Electric Utility Week, 2004b).
Of course, the earlier the government starts to execute this plan, the more people we save. For example, the study shows that the government‘s Clear Skies proposal to cap power plants emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury by about 70% in 2018 would save at least 14,000 people in 2020 (Electric Utility Week, 2004b).
Some people argued that the government spent too much money in those clean air actions and the economy would stop growing because of lacking electricity. A statistic shows that it costs at least $6.2 billion in 2007, but this is only 30% of clean up costs (Electric Utility Week, 2004a). Therefore, if the government set up basic rules first for power plants, it would be easy to have the beginning, and then raise the standards annually until we have healthy air.
The government should also educate those power plants’ owners that making money is important but having good health is more important. This method is the only way to reduce the emission of unhealthy air if the power plants are still operating.
When a proper standard is set up, the next thing that government should do is to ask those power plants to enhance the requirements of technology and equipment to control the air quality. This is because without strong technology and equipment, nothing is helpful for controlling air quality and doing cleanup activities. Megawatt Daily says, “new developed air pollution control equipment can reduce 50% of unhealthy air, more than that of the old equipment does” (2004b, p. 11).
In all the controlling unhealthy air emission standards, EPA just focuses on the mercury. There are many kinds of unhealthy elements in addition to mercury such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide. They are harmful and could cause humans to suffer from respiratory diseases. EPA is failing in controlling power plants’ emission because EPA just focuses on the emission of mercury (Megawatt Daily, 2004a). There were some levels of toxic air that were qualified by EPA. However, EPA thought that mercury is the main cause of unhealthy air.
Not only mercury causes respiratory diseases but also carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide causes respiratory diseases. A statistic shows that in those people who already died or had respiratory diseases, 65% of them breathed too much carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide (Megawatt Daily, 2004b).
In fact, EPA makes some power plants operate illegally because they had reduced the mercury emission level but they continued to release other toxic air (Megawatt Daily, 2004a). Therefore, the most important thing that EPA should do is to reset the toxic air levels. The Megawatt Daily says, “EPA labeled mercury the greatest concern of reducing toxic air, but a few other metals, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride are remain as potential treatment of public health” (2004b, p. 9). This tells us that there are many kinds of toxic elements that were released by power plants and we should not just concentrate on one or two elements.
On the other hand, the power plants think that the more elements the EPA adds in, the less electricity can be produced. The Megawatt Daily says, “EPA never attempted to establish the need of regulation and to control the emission of toxic air of those power plants and the power plants believe that the situation is far from making the necessary of emission regulation level higher” (2004a, p. 9).
As we know, the air quality in St. Louis is getting worse and many people are dying or have respiratory problems. Medical Letter by the CDC & FDA says, “Airborne microscopic soot annually causes 15,000 premature deaths, 95,000 cases of chronic or acute bronchitis, and thousands of hospital admissions because of respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses” (2004, p. 30). As many as 22,000 premature deaths could be avoided in the United States each year if the government already contained this harmful toxic air instead of just containing mercury in the regulation (Electric Utility Week, 2004). Therefore, the situation of air quality is worse now in St. Louis. It is time to change the regulation and save people.
I suggest that the government should add those toxic elements such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide in the regulation that used to control the emission of toxic air by power plants.
The jobs offered by power plants are the biggest incentives that make people believe that power plants can help economic growth. There will be 1,000 jobs if a power plant starts to construct and after the plant begins to operate, an additional 200 people will be hired (White, 2004).
However, the more power plants there are, the more dangerous the environment we live in. As we know, there are many other kinds of companies that rely on the power plants such as manufacturing companies. However, the most important problem is that 5,000 tons of nitrogen oxides will be produced annually (White, 2004).
As a result, the government should stop those power plants from producing so much nitrogen oxide by offering other kinds of jobs to people.
Another thing that the government should do is to set up the pollution taxes law. It has two kinds of benefits. First, if the power plants release too much toxic air into the air, they would need to pay the pollution taxes. The payment of the pollution taxes could make those power plants stop producing toxic air because they should pay the more money than they could earn. Second, if those power plants still want to release toxic air, the money that is earned from the taxes could be used to do those clean up activities by the government.
In fact, setting up the pollution taxes law is not to enrich the government, the real meaning is to educate those power plant owners to know there are many ways to make money, but money can’t buy the health. This process could also make the government focus on preventing air pollution, not on cleaning up the air pollution.
Moreover, there still have some problems that the government should think about such as where the pollutants come from and how much toxic air each power plant releases. Those problems may cause power plants to argue that the pollution taxes are not fair. Actually, if the government can regulate the air pollution limit and set up the measuring equipment in each power plant, those problems can be solved easily.
It’s time to think about whether we want to live with harmful toxic air or not. We should determine which is important between money and health. We should determine if we need more hospitals to show our reputation or just have healthy people. If you agree that health is the most important thing in the world, you just choose that right thing. With the three things above that the government should do, the air quality in St. Louis will become better.
Reference
Electric Utility Week (2004a, June 14). Current scrubber technology would save 22,000 lives, clean air group study says. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Electric Utility Week (2004b, June 12). Senate Democrats mull EPA mercury rule; hearing to air state officials’ assessment. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Medical Letter by the CDC & FDA (2004, July 25). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 30. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Megawatt Daily (2004a, July 1). EPA to reconsider NSR revision for power plants. p. 7 vol. 9. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Megawatt Daily (2004b, July 1). Mercury rule lets plants off hook: Enviros. In The News; p. 9 vol. 9 no. 165. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Roleff, T. (2000). Pollution Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
White, A. (2004, Sept. 16). It’s not all that bad here, Really. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Editorial p. C13. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
The emission standards are not proper and are too late. One way to reduce the unhealthy air released by power plants is to set up emission standards. However, the government does not set up the standards properly. The Electric Utility Week says, “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) plans to pursue a MACT standard to achieve a 90% reduction nationwide and with at least achieve 70% reductions at the plant level between 2010 and 2015” (2004a, p. 11).
These improper emission standards are too high and the deadlines are too late for those power plants to install their pollution control equipment. The government should know that those power plants won’t do anything before the deadline is due and they will continue to release toxic air from now. Those standards would allow power plants to continue to release toxic air uncontrolled (Electric Utility Week, 2004a).
As we know, flexible standards will not be able to achieve the goal. Therefore, I suggest that the government should set up an average standard and force each power plant to follow it. On the other hand, if there is any power plant doesn’t follow it, the government should fine it.
After that all power plants will follow the standard at the beginning, then raise the emission standards for the next step. If all the power plants develop air pollution control and monitoring technology, it can be inferred that there will be a 50% to 70% reduction in current emission (Electric Utility Week, 2004b).
Of course, the earlier the government starts to execute this plan, the more people we save. For example, the study shows that the government‘s Clear Skies proposal to cap power plants emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury by about 70% in 2018 would save at least 14,000 people in 2020 (Electric Utility Week, 2004b).
Some people argued that the government spent too much money in those clean air actions and the economy would stop growing because of lacking electricity. A statistic shows that it costs at least $6.2 billion in 2007, but this is only 30% of clean up costs (Electric Utility Week, 2004a). Therefore, if the government set up basic rules first for power plants, it would be easy to have the beginning, and then raise the standards annually until we have healthy air.
The government should also educate those power plants’ owners that making money is important but having good health is more important. This method is the only way to reduce the emission of unhealthy air if the power plants are still operating.
When a proper standard is set up, the next thing that government should do is to ask those power plants to enhance the requirements of technology and equipment to control the air quality. This is because without strong technology and equipment, nothing is helpful for controlling air quality and doing cleanup activities. Megawatt Daily says, “new developed air pollution control equipment can reduce 50% of unhealthy air, more than that of the old equipment does” (2004b, p. 11).
In all the controlling unhealthy air emission standards, EPA just focuses on the mercury. There are many kinds of unhealthy elements in addition to mercury such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide. They are harmful and could cause humans to suffer from respiratory diseases. EPA is failing in controlling power plants’ emission because EPA just focuses on the emission of mercury (Megawatt Daily, 2004a). There were some levels of toxic air that were qualified by EPA. However, EPA thought that mercury is the main cause of unhealthy air.
Not only mercury causes respiratory diseases but also carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide causes respiratory diseases. A statistic shows that in those people who already died or had respiratory diseases, 65% of them breathed too much carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide (Megawatt Daily, 2004b).
In fact, EPA makes some power plants operate illegally because they had reduced the mercury emission level but they continued to release other toxic air (Megawatt Daily, 2004a). Therefore, the most important thing that EPA should do is to reset the toxic air levels. The Megawatt Daily says, “EPA labeled mercury the greatest concern of reducing toxic air, but a few other metals, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride are remain as potential treatment of public health” (2004b, p. 9). This tells us that there are many kinds of toxic elements that were released by power plants and we should not just concentrate on one or two elements.
On the other hand, the power plants think that the more elements the EPA adds in, the less electricity can be produced. The Megawatt Daily says, “EPA never attempted to establish the need of regulation and to control the emission of toxic air of those power plants and the power plants believe that the situation is far from making the necessary of emission regulation level higher” (2004a, p. 9).
As we know, the air quality in St. Louis is getting worse and many people are dying or have respiratory problems. Medical Letter by the CDC & FDA says, “Airborne microscopic soot annually causes 15,000 premature deaths, 95,000 cases of chronic or acute bronchitis, and thousands of hospital admissions because of respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses” (2004, p. 30). As many as 22,000 premature deaths could be avoided in the United States each year if the government already contained this harmful toxic air instead of just containing mercury in the regulation (Electric Utility Week, 2004). Therefore, the situation of air quality is worse now in St. Louis. It is time to change the regulation and save people.
I suggest that the government should add those toxic elements such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide in the regulation that used to control the emission of toxic air by power plants.
The jobs offered by power plants are the biggest incentives that make people believe that power plants can help economic growth. There will be 1,000 jobs if a power plant starts to construct and after the plant begins to operate, an additional 200 people will be hired (White, 2004).
However, the more power plants there are, the more dangerous the environment we live in. As we know, there are many other kinds of companies that rely on the power plants such as manufacturing companies. However, the most important problem is that 5,000 tons of nitrogen oxides will be produced annually (White, 2004).
As a result, the government should stop those power plants from producing so much nitrogen oxide by offering other kinds of jobs to people.
Another thing that the government should do is to set up the pollution taxes law. It has two kinds of benefits. First, if the power plants release too much toxic air into the air, they would need to pay the pollution taxes. The payment of the pollution taxes could make those power plants stop producing toxic air because they should pay the more money than they could earn. Second, if those power plants still want to release toxic air, the money that is earned from the taxes could be used to do those clean up activities by the government.
In fact, setting up the pollution taxes law is not to enrich the government, the real meaning is to educate those power plant owners to know there are many ways to make money, but money can’t buy the health. This process could also make the government focus on preventing air pollution, not on cleaning up the air pollution.
Moreover, there still have some problems that the government should think about such as where the pollutants come from and how much toxic air each power plant releases. Those problems may cause power plants to argue that the pollution taxes are not fair. Actually, if the government can regulate the air pollution limit and set up the measuring equipment in each power plant, those problems can be solved easily.
It’s time to think about whether we want to live with harmful toxic air or not. We should determine which is important between money and health. We should determine if we need more hospitals to show our reputation or just have healthy people. If you agree that health is the most important thing in the world, you just choose that right thing. With the three things above that the government should do, the air quality in St. Louis will become better.
Reference
Electric Utility Week (2004a, June 14). Current scrubber technology would save 22,000 lives, clean air group study says. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Electric Utility Week (2004b, June 12). Senate Democrats mull EPA mercury rule; hearing to air state officials’ assessment. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Medical Letter by the CDC & FDA (2004, July 25). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 30. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Megawatt Daily (2004a, July 1). EPA to reconsider NSR revision for power plants. p. 7 vol. 9. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Megawatt Daily (2004b, July 1). Mercury rule lets plants off hook: Enviros. In The News; p. 9 vol. 9 no. 165. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Roleff, T. (2000). Pollution Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
White, A. (2004, Sept. 16). It’s not all that bad here, Really. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Editorial p. C13. Retrieved Step. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Air pollution by power plant in St. Louis
The air problem in St. Louis is that the electric utility industry companies release too much mercury. A Medical Letter by the CDC & FDA says, “this dirty air annually causes 15,000 premature deaths, 9500 cases of chronic or acute bronchitis, and thousands of hospital admission because of respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses” (2004, p. 30) The reason power plants are necessary in St. Louis is that there are many other kinds of industries that rely on the power plants or they won’t be able to operate. These power plants make air became unhealthy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) has started to sue some industries, then finally win the lawsuit. As we know, humans can’t live under unhealthy air for a long time. After that, power plants have to follow the law and spend some money for cleanup cost. According to Electric Utility Week (2004), the government sets the standards too high and the dateline is too late to protect public health. Those standards would allow many power plants to continue to release mercury emission uncontrolled.
In my opinion, the government should understand how important this problem is and try to overcome this serious problem. There are three things that the government should do right now.
First, the government should ask those power plants to enhance the requirements of technology and equipment to control the air quality. This is because without strong technology and equipment, nothing is helpful for controlling air quality and doing cleanup activities. The installment cost of the controlling equipment is 20% of the cleanup activities cost (Megawatt Daily, 2004). Therefore, it’s worthwhile to spend these installment fees and it will have a long—term effect for our good health and clean air.
Second, the government should invest money to search for any other possible way that can control or solve air pollution efficiently. The government should not just sit there and wait for the clean up results. If the government spend lots of money to clean up the air and don’t have obvious result, why not spent the money to search other methods that can make the clean up actions more efficiently?
Finally, the government should set up rules step by step. According to Electric Utility Week (2004), half of the 80 companies have developed air pollution control and monitoring technologies, but the EPA believes that there will be a 50% to 70% reduction in current mercury emission if all the companies follow the laws. Therefore, if the government set up basic rules first for power plants, it would be easy to have the beginning, and then raise the standards annually until we have healthy air. For example, if the standards were too high at the beginning, those power plants might not want to follow because it cost a lot. On the other hand, if the standards were low at beginning, it would not so difficult for power plants to follow. When they follow the first step, they will follow next step because it is easy do reach the goal. This reason is like that, we can't run if we don't know how to walk.
Nowadays, more and more people don’t care about our environment but care about how much money they can earn. Air support we human beings to live and the only thing we can do is to maintain it high quality. The government should educate those power plants’ owners that making money is important but having good health is more important. Our next generations will appreciate for what we do for their health today.
Reference:
Electric Utility Week (2004, July 12). Senate Democrats mull EPA mercury rule; hearing to air state officials’ assessments. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Health & Medicine Week (2004 July 19). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Hilling, T. (2003, January 23). Laclede Steel cleanup could cost millions; States, U.S. Environment Agencies have ok’d proposed sale; Agreement for Alton Mill. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Medical Letter by the CDC & FDA (July 25, 2004). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthy air. Expanded Reporting, p. 30. Retrieved Sept. 15, 2004 form Lexis-Nexis database.
Megawatt Daily (July 1, 2004). EPA to reconsider NSR revision for power plants. p. 7, vol. 9. Retrieved Sept. 17, 2004 form Lexis-Nexis database.
In my opinion, the government should understand how important this problem is and try to overcome this serious problem. There are three things that the government should do right now.
First, the government should ask those power plants to enhance the requirements of technology and equipment to control the air quality. This is because without strong technology and equipment, nothing is helpful for controlling air quality and doing cleanup activities. The installment cost of the controlling equipment is 20% of the cleanup activities cost (Megawatt Daily, 2004). Therefore, it’s worthwhile to spend these installment fees and it will have a long—term effect for our good health and clean air.
Second, the government should invest money to search for any other possible way that can control or solve air pollution efficiently. The government should not just sit there and wait for the clean up results. If the government spend lots of money to clean up the air and don’t have obvious result, why not spent the money to search other methods that can make the clean up actions more efficiently?
Finally, the government should set up rules step by step. According to Electric Utility Week (2004), half of the 80 companies have developed air pollution control and monitoring technologies, but the EPA believes that there will be a 50% to 70% reduction in current mercury emission if all the companies follow the laws. Therefore, if the government set up basic rules first for power plants, it would be easy to have the beginning, and then raise the standards annually until we have healthy air. For example, if the standards were too high at the beginning, those power plants might not want to follow because it cost a lot. On the other hand, if the standards were low at beginning, it would not so difficult for power plants to follow. When they follow the first step, they will follow next step because it is easy do reach the goal. This reason is like that, we can't run if we don't know how to walk.
Nowadays, more and more people don’t care about our environment but care about how much money they can earn. Air support we human beings to live and the only thing we can do is to maintain it high quality. The government should educate those power plants’ owners that making money is important but having good health is more important. Our next generations will appreciate for what we do for their health today.
Reference:
Electric Utility Week (2004, July 12). Senate Democrats mull EPA mercury rule; hearing to air state officials’ assessments. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Health & Medicine Week (2004 July 19). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Hilling, T. (2003, January 23). Laclede Steel cleanup could cost millions; States, U.S. Environment Agencies have ok’d proposed sale; Agreement for Alton Mill. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Medical Letter by the CDC & FDA (July 25, 2004). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthy air. Expanded Reporting, p. 30. Retrieved Sept. 15, 2004 form Lexis-Nexis database.
Megawatt Daily (July 1, 2004). EPA to reconsider NSR revision for power plants. p. 7, vol. 9. Retrieved Sept. 17, 2004 form Lexis-Nexis database.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Air pollution by power plant in St. Louis
I am interested in what pollutes air in St. Louis after I read some articles. The problem is that the electric utility industry companies in St. Louis release mercury emission. The reason power plants are necessary in St. Louis is that there are many other kinds of industries that rely on the power plants or they won’t be able to operate. These power plants make air became unhealthy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) has started to sue some industries, then finally win the lawsuit. As we know, humans can’t live under unhealthy air for a long time. After that, power plants have to follow the law and spend some money for cleanup cost. According to Electric Utility Week (2004), the government sets the standards too high and the dateline is too late to protect public health. Those standards would allow many power plants to continue to release mercury emission uncontrolled.
I plan to write about three things the government should do about cleaning the air. First, the government should ask those power plants to enhance the requirements of technology and equipment to control the air quality. This is because without strong technology and equipment, nothing is helpful for controlling air quality and doing cleanup activities. Second, the government should invest money to search for any other possible way that can control or solve air pollution efficiently. The government should not just sit there and wait for the cleanup results. Finally, the government should set up rules step by step. According to Electric Utility Week (2004), half of 80 companies have developed air pollution control and monitoring technologies, but the EPA believes that there will be a 50% to 70% reduction in current mercury emission if all the companies follow the laws. Therefore, if the government set up basic rules first for power plants, it would be easy to have the beginning, and then raise the standards annually until we have healthy air. The government should educate those power plants’ owners that making money is important but having good health is more important.
I found that there are lots of articles on the Internet, newspaper, and magazines about the background of this problem more efficiency.
Reference:
Electric Utility Week (2004, July 12). Senate Democrats mull EPA mercury rule; hearing to air state officials’ assessments. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Health & Medicine Week (2004 July 19). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Hilling, T. (2003, January 23). Laclede Steel cleanup could cost millions; States, U.S. Environment Agencies have ok’d proposed sale; Agreement for Alton Mill. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
I plan to write about three things the government should do about cleaning the air. First, the government should ask those power plants to enhance the requirements of technology and equipment to control the air quality. This is because without strong technology and equipment, nothing is helpful for controlling air quality and doing cleanup activities. Second, the government should invest money to search for any other possible way that can control or solve air pollution efficiently. The government should not just sit there and wait for the cleanup results. Finally, the government should set up rules step by step. According to Electric Utility Week (2004), half of 80 companies have developed air pollution control and monitoring technologies, but the EPA believes that there will be a 50% to 70% reduction in current mercury emission if all the companies follow the laws. Therefore, if the government set up basic rules first for power plants, it would be easy to have the beginning, and then raise the standards annually until we have healthy air. The government should educate those power plants’ owners that making money is important but having good health is more important.
I found that there are lots of articles on the Internet, newspaper, and magazines about the background of this problem more efficiency.
Reference:
Electric Utility Week (2004, July 12). Senate Democrats mull EPA mercury rule; hearing to air state officials’ assessments. Environment, p. 11. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Health & Medicine Week (2004 July 19). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Hilling, T. (2003, January 23). Laclede Steel cleanup could cost millions; States, U.S. Environment Agencies have ok’d proposed sale; Agreement for Alton Mill. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Air pollution by mill in St. Louis
According to Terry Hilling in “Laclede Steel cleanup could cost millions” (January 23, 2004), Laclede was bought by Alton Steel Inc because of bankruptcy. Those investors want to operate Laclede’s mill. The company said that they would pay $1 million for cleanup activities. Laclede had violated the agreement of air emission rules before. Therefore, the government started to monitor if Laclede follow the agreement.
In my opinion, the restrictions of emission standards has made some problems. The starting of having high quality will make us lose many things that will never come back.
First, because the emission standards may make Laclede’s mill have to slow down their product line in order to follow the agreement, it will make the company cut its employment. For example, about 350 workers won’t be employed when the government sets up higher standards (Hilling, 2003). The most important thing is that the unemployed problem will make people have difficult lives. No job not only means no money to earn but also means no money to pay tax, no money for school or suicide.
Second, there are relationships between Laclede’s mill and other companies. They collaborate each with each other. Sometimes other companies need Laclede’s mill to strongly support them to manufacture their products. If the government emphasizes the agreement of cleanup activities and air quality protection, those companies have to spend more cost to manufacture their products without collaborating with Laclede’ mill. As time goes by, no company will want to stay in St. Louis, and then the competition of St. Louis will go down.
Finally, according to Terry Hilling (2004), Laclede has to pay an additional $25 million to $30 million for cleanup work over 20 years. The point is that the government should do some actions to find out how to control and clean up air pollution efficiently, not just wait for the money and then do the cleanup activities. Maybe having a clean environment is important, but we cannot totally ignore our economic competition ability. We can clean up our environment when we have some new approaches that will not need to pay so much money instead of paying so much money just to make a little change.
Reference
Health & Medicine Week (2004, July 19). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Hilling, T. (2003, January 23). Laclede Steel cleanup could cost millions; State, U.S. Environment Agencies have ok’d proposed sale; Agreement for Alton Mill. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2004 from Lexis- Nexis database.
In my opinion, the restrictions of emission standards has made some problems. The starting of having high quality will make us lose many things that will never come back.
First, because the emission standards may make Laclede’s mill have to slow down their product line in order to follow the agreement, it will make the company cut its employment. For example, about 350 workers won’t be employed when the government sets up higher standards (Hilling, 2003). The most important thing is that the unemployed problem will make people have difficult lives. No job not only means no money to earn but also means no money to pay tax, no money for school or suicide.
Second, there are relationships between Laclede’s mill and other companies. They collaborate each with each other. Sometimes other companies need Laclede’s mill to strongly support them to manufacture their products. If the government emphasizes the agreement of cleanup activities and air quality protection, those companies have to spend more cost to manufacture their products without collaborating with Laclede’ mill. As time goes by, no company will want to stay in St. Louis, and then the competition of St. Louis will go down.
Finally, according to Terry Hilling (2004), Laclede has to pay an additional $25 million to $30 million for cleanup work over 20 years. The point is that the government should do some actions to find out how to control and clean up air pollution efficiently, not just wait for the money and then do the cleanup activities. Maybe having a clean environment is important, but we cannot totally ignore our economic competition ability. We can clean up our environment when we have some new approaches that will not need to pay so much money instead of paying so much money just to make a little change.
Reference
Health & Medicine Week (2004, July 19). Environment Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Hilling, T. (2003, January 23). Laclede Steel cleanup could cost millions; State, U.S. Environment Agencies have ok’d proposed sale; Agreement for Alton Mill. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. B1. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2004 from Lexis- Nexis database.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Air pollution by power plant in St. Louis
According to Health & Medicine Week editors in “ Environmental Toxins” (July 19, 2004), the air quality in St. Louis is getting worse and worse. This is because the microscopic soot that comes from power plants makes St. Louis face an unhealthy air problem. The fatal air caused many people to die, so the EPA organization has started to sue some industries and win finally. They said this is the beginning of controlling the air quality, and everyone needs healthy air. The winning of the lawsuit let many counties including St. Louis start to take new steps to control the air quality, for example to improve emission control and restrict wood stoves.
In my opinion, it is time to start to protect our air. Although we need modern products, we need higher air quality. It’s not worth earning anything without having good health.
First, if we have low air quality, we would lose our health. Healthy air is necessary for human beings to live with. Most people don’t care about the quality of the air, but when they suffer from the air pollution and become weaker, then they will know how important good health is. Nothing is better than good health.
Second, not only power plants but also others factories will pollute our air. If the government does not pay attention to the air quality or does not set up a high standard of emission, other harmful factories would start to run their companies, then pollute the air. At that time, people in St. Louis will suffer from unhealthy air and people in St. Louis will pay lots of money looking for doctors. After that happened, the government will need to pay lots of money and labor to control this problem.
Finally, the environment does not just belong to people who lived there, it also belong to all kinds of creatures. People cannot live without other kinds of creatures such as animals and plants. Unhealthy air affects not only people but also animals and plants. If we still let those power plants continue to pollute our air, our environment will not support us some day. All the creatures live depending on each other. Therefore, all the creatures including people will die if the air quality gets worse and worse.
It is not too late for St. Louis to control and change its air quality. We know that the disadvantages above will make people sick under the unhealthy air. Sometimes we cannot just promote our economy; we also need to promote our living quality. If we pollute our environment, worse then we will have to pay money or even our lives to change that kind of problem.
Reference
Health & Medicine Week (2004, July 19). Environmental Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
In my opinion, it is time to start to protect our air. Although we need modern products, we need higher air quality. It’s not worth earning anything without having good health.
First, if we have low air quality, we would lose our health. Healthy air is necessary for human beings to live with. Most people don’t care about the quality of the air, but when they suffer from the air pollution and become weaker, then they will know how important good health is. Nothing is better than good health.
Second, not only power plants but also others factories will pollute our air. If the government does not pay attention to the air quality or does not set up a high standard of emission, other harmful factories would start to run their companies, then pollute the air. At that time, people in St. Louis will suffer from unhealthy air and people in St. Louis will pay lots of money looking for doctors. After that happened, the government will need to pay lots of money and labor to control this problem.
Finally, the environment does not just belong to people who lived there, it also belong to all kinds of creatures. People cannot live without other kinds of creatures such as animals and plants. Unhealthy air affects not only people but also animals and plants. If we still let those power plants continue to pollute our air, our environment will not support us some day. All the creatures live depending on each other. Therefore, all the creatures including people will die if the air quality gets worse and worse.
It is not too late for St. Louis to control and change its air quality. We know that the disadvantages above will make people sick under the unhealthy air. Sometimes we cannot just promote our economy; we also need to promote our living quality. If we pollute our environment, worse then we will have to pay money or even our lives to change that kind of problem.
Reference
Health & Medicine Week (2004, July 19). Environmental Toxins; EPA blames soot for unhealthful air. Expanded Reporting, p. 339. Retrieved Aug. 31, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
What I thought about building a cement plant
According to Sara Shipley in "Cement Plant gets air permit" (June 9, 2004), the government will permit a cpmpany to build a cement plant beside the Mississippi River. Although it provides lots of jobs, some environment groups still think that this plant will spread fatal air and make people unhealthy. So, the company is required to meet the emission limits with the technology equipment.
In my opinion, the government should stop the plan; there are three reasons why I do not support building a cement plant and letting it run in such unhealthy way.
The first reason is that after the cement plant starts running, it will pollute the air and get people involved in respiratory diseases. Although it provides many jobs, I may imagine that people will be sick and wonder how they can work. Maybe new technological equipment can cause less less pollution, but it's still polluting our air and causes everynoe to be sick.
The second reason is that if the government lets the company receive the permits without stringent thinking, other harmful companies will start to apply for the licenses very easily, and more and more people will have bad health. They should set up standards and laws to make those harmful companies follow them, just let them run without doing anything if it continues to pollute our environment.
The last reason is that much agriculture depends on the Mississippi River. Because the company will be built on the bank of the Mississippi River and it will pollute the air and the water, we can imagine that the farms and the animals living beside the will have problems. People may eat food that includes some harmful elements and then get sick. Animals living beside the river may drink the water and get sick too. Therefore, if the company starts running, it may impact not only human beings but also the whole environment.
With the reasons above, I think they should stop this plan. Maybe jobs are very important for people to earn money. However, we can't ignore the pollution that will impact us for thousands of years. Nothing is better than having good health.
Reference
Shipley, S. (2004, June 9). Cement plant gets air permit. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. A01. Retrieved Aug. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
In my opinion, the government should stop the plan; there are three reasons why I do not support building a cement plant and letting it run in such unhealthy way.
The first reason is that after the cement plant starts running, it will pollute the air and get people involved in respiratory diseases. Although it provides many jobs, I may imagine that people will be sick and wonder how they can work. Maybe new technological equipment can cause less less pollution, but it's still polluting our air and causes everynoe to be sick.
The second reason is that if the government lets the company receive the permits without stringent thinking, other harmful companies will start to apply for the licenses very easily, and more and more people will have bad health. They should set up standards and laws to make those harmful companies follow them, just let them run without doing anything if it continues to pollute our environment.
The last reason is that much agriculture depends on the Mississippi River. Because the company will be built on the bank of the Mississippi River and it will pollute the air and the water, we can imagine that the farms and the animals living beside the will have problems. People may eat food that includes some harmful elements and then get sick. Animals living beside the river may drink the water and get sick too. Therefore, if the company starts running, it may impact not only human beings but also the whole environment.
With the reasons above, I think they should stop this plan. Maybe jobs are very important for people to earn money. However, we can't ignore the pollution that will impact us for thousands of years. Nothing is better than having good health.
Reference
Shipley, S. (2004, June 9). Cement plant gets air permit. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. A01. Retrieved Aug. 25, 2004 from Lexis-Nexis database.
