“It is an incalculable added pleasure to any one’s sum of happiness if he or she grows to know, even slightly and imperfectly, how to read and enjoy the wonder-book of nature.” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt’s 1905 book, Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter, shows why protecting nature should be an American virtue. America has changed since 1905; the population has grown by more than 225 million citizens, 5 new states have been admitted, and, according to Bloomberg, 69 million acres of the U.S. land has been urbanized (Merril). With a rise in population, the amount of waste and resources needed to sustain the amount of people in America has also risen, with devastating effects on “the wonder-book of nature” in America. The U.S. federal government should use its powers to keep our water and land clean, while strengthening its conservation policies to protect wildlife and indigenous species in our nation.
Pollution is the “contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms” (Dictornary.com). Pollution can have a detrimental effect on the ecosystem. For example, “if you poured gallons of ink into a river every few seconds through a pipe…the ink could very quickly have an effect on the quality of the water” (Woodford, Water Pollution). This would not only harm the humans using the water, but also the animals and plants that need it in order to survive. The United States has already taken the right steps toward lessening pollution. In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, closely after the Clean Air Act of 1970, which has limited the introduction of harmful waste into safe drinking water and clean air (EPA). They were the first and most influential environmental laws in the world at the time and were a stepping stone for future environmental legislations (Gordon). In 1970, Congress established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an independent federal agency for environmental protection. The EPA conducts environmental research and enforces national policies for environmental procedures. It also imposes regulations on environmental practices, such as requiring all car manufacturers to have a certain miles per gallon for each car or by requiring power plants to cut their carbon dioxide (CO2), emissions by a certain percentage. In fact, during President Obama’s tenure, the EPA issued 4,000 regulations (Sykes).
While laws and regulations are in place, there is still a profound amount of pollution in America. One of the most recognized forms of pollution is water pollution, which can range from lakes, rivers, and oceans. Water pollution can result in complicated health issues within the surrounding environments, such as towns and animal habitats. Despite all these efforts and regulations, there are still 63 million Americans left without safe drinking water (Phillip). According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the U.S. pumps 850 billion gallons of untreated sewage each year (Denchak). An environmental policy that could conserve fresh and clean water sources should restrict the amount of fertilizers used near bodies of water. Explained by the EPA, fertilizers contain “nitrogen and phosphorus, and can contribute to nutrient pollution if not properly used or disposed of” (Sources and Solutions). High levels of phosphorus can lead to algae blooms, which could potentially kill off fish populations (Kinhal).
Regulation on fertilizers are currently in existence and have had much success. In Pinellas County, Florida, there is a ban on the use of fertilizers containing nitrogen and phosphorus from June 1st through September 30th due to the heavy rains that occur during the summer (Matics). Similar policies should be enacted by the EPA to protect chemical pollution of water. If fertilizers containing nitrogen and phosphorus are used near rivers or lakes, natural erosion and heavy rain could cause these chemicals to contaminate the water. Officials and residents of Pinellas County argued that the level of chemicals in the water has significantly decreased and resulted in the preferred use of iron-based fertilizers, which limits excess growth in plants (Matics). If a federal regulation, issued by the EPA, were to be implemented that limited the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus put into the soil, this would protect clean water and its surrounding environments.
Banning or restricting fertilizers would face backlash because iron-fertilizers will not create the abundance of crops seen with the phosphorus fertilizers that are commonly used (Matics). This might hurt additional revenues for some businesses if the overall production of crops decreases. However, any regulation placed on a type of fertilizers would only be in effect for a period of time, and around specific areas near bodies of water. Any states with low rainfall and areas with no surrounding lakes or rivers would not be affected. Also, the lack of excess growth in under-utilized materials, like grass, would be beneficial to farmers. If grass is growing at a decreased rate, farmers would not have to spend more time and money cutting grass, which could balance the loss of revenue from additional crops grown (Matics). Because farmers and businesses would rely on more environmental-friendly fertilizers, such regulations could systematically change the approach people take when buying and using fertilizers, thus creating a long-term impact on the environment.
Pollution is not just limited to water but can affect land and air. Mining, chemicals, and urbanization can rupture the land beneath our feet, while industrial plants, factories and automobiles can feed harmful toxins in the air. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that in 2016, “91% of the world population was living in places where the WHO air quality guidelines levels were not met.” The U.S. federal government should protect the environment by requiring energy producers to monitor and restrict methane and harmful toxins in order to protect clean air. Methane, which is the main component of natural gas production, should be monitored with a new EPA regulation so that less methane is leaked into the atmosphere. While nontoxic, methane can lead to ill side effects in large concentrations and can lead to explosives mixtures in the air, leading to disastrous events such as mining explosions (Dozolme).
Congress should also pass a new statute that would cut carbon emissions by 33%. The EPA unveiled in 2015 that the “Clean Power Plan mandated that the U.S. power sector’s carbon emissions be cut by 32 percent from 2005 by 2030” (Parker). Currently, the emission of CO2 is primarily attributed to industrial power plants (Parker). This plan was repealed on October 4th, 2017 by former EPA administer Scott Pruitt, however, a similar plan should be pursued with congressional action. According to the EPA, unchecked CO2 pollution would result in a change “in ecosystems, habitats and species divers, worsening smog, [and] increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus” (EPA). A new law should be implemented by a similar 1/3 cut, but with a longer deadline in order to assist states that are dependent in the energy sector. This will limit CO2 emissions which will prevent negative environmental and health impacts in America.
These recommended policies have come under scrutiny. Many regulations that were instated during former President Obama’s administration were rolled back under President Trump’s EPA. The current administration has repeatedly cited the high expenses that industries have had to endure under these federal regulations. For example, the previous rule on methane was reduced on September 18th, 2018, citing that cost for the energy industry would be $530 million (Parker). President Trump also announced on August 2nd that the required fuel-standards that were instated for the production of all cars and trucks would end (Parker), and proposed the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule on August 21st that dismantles previous federal rules on coal power plants to give regulatory power to the states (EPA Proposes Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule). According to the EPA, overall CO2 reduction under Trump’s administration would be 1.5% by 2030, much less than the previous goal of 32% (EPA Proposes Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule). While it is understandable that immediate changes to the energy sector would have a negative effect on the economy, slow rollouts on the recommended policies would benefit America in the long-run. Despite the efforts, these actions initiated by the federal government will not solve every problem. However, regulations and laws will lead America towards a cleaner environment that can inspire businesses, as well as state and local governments to follow in the federal government’s footsteps, and hopefully create new innovations that will propel America forward.
From the cliffs of Yosemite, to the tropical wilderness of the Everglades, preserving America’s beauty should be a foundation in the United States’ environmental policies. Conservation should be a vital environmental policy to protect American land and the species that inhabit it. The National Parks Service, NPS, operates U.S. national parks and monuments in order to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (Organic Act, 1916). The NPS should expand the current 60 national parks, and 89 national monuments (with an additional 41 administered by other federal agencies) to protect certain areas in America. In addition, these protected areas should never be used to extract coal or other natural resources. For example, on September 3rd, 2018, the Bureau of Land Management approved a sale of 2,000 acres at the Bryce Canyon National Park to extract coal (Witham). In addition, there have been major efforts from the coal industry to withdraw 30,000 acres of Yellowstone National Park for mining (Zuckerman). Any current national parks and monuments should not be open for mining, and the federal government should impose a ban on future mining activities. These actions could threaten public health, and the health of the wildlife and ecosystems (Voyageurs National Park Threatened by Plans to Allow for Toxic Mining).
The U.S. federal government should also push for protection of endangered species. On July 19th, 2018, rollbacks on the 1974 Endangered Species Act were proposed to Congress (Parker). The proposal, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat” called for lifting a rule that forbid the discussion of economic impacts to place a species on the endangered species list. It also changed the verbiage of protecting threatened species that are soon to be endangered from the “foreseeable future” to “only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that the conditions potentially posing a danger of extinction in the foreseeable future are probable” (Parker). The proposal would also revoke a policy that would grant threatened species the same protections as endangered species. The U.S. federal government should expand the list of endangered species, while also including protections for threatened species. Any species on this list should be banned from getting hunted, and the federal government should make it a priority to increase the population of the animals. The U.S. federal government should be committed to protecting its indigenous species, not endangering them. It is important to ensure that species are not going extinct because their extinction would be a sign that the ecosystem’s health is deteriorating. If one species goes, that would have a negative effect on other animals and plant life in the ecosystem (Importance of the Endangered Species Act). If the health of an ecosystem slowly erodes, which includes forests, lakes and grasslands, this could affect the health of the people who use it as well.
The energy industry is vying for the use of protected areas because there is a large amount of natural resources shielded away. While these mining extractions will be economically profitable in the short-run, the long-term environmental impact will be worse. After all the coal is extracted from Bryce Canyon, mining companies would either find new land to mine, or keep purchasing the national park until it ceases to exist. Current mining expeditions should be allowed, as it will give companies time to find new energy options that do not depend on the potential destruction of an ecosystem. However, because almost 300 coal mines have closed since 2010 (Merchant), it is vital for America’s energy sector to look towards new solutions and not destroy entire ecosystems. With conservation of national parks and increased protection on living species, American ecosystems can remain healthy and will continue to prosper.
More than a century ago, the United States paved the way in preserving the environment, but its efforts have fallen behind in recent years. While allowing mining and CO2 emissions might not be an issue today, it will lead to an inevitable destruction of America’s ecosystem. In his August 31st, 1910 speech dubbed “New Nationalism”, Theodore Roosevelt discussed the importance of conservation, “of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.” Conservation and environmental protection policies should be an American virtue. Protecting our rivers, oceans, lakes, land, and animals should a vital interest for the federal government. It is the duty of the U.S. government and its people to ensure each generation can experience all the beauty America has to offer.