Environmentalism: Public Health Issue or Political Issue?
Sustainability. Recycle. Global warming. Climate change. These terms are haphazardly tossed around like waste that eventually reaches the ocean. The real implications of environmental issues have been clouded by political debates over the terminology of “global warming versus climate change.” While skeptics of climate change have vehemently voiced their views to the public, the issue of environmental public health has taken a backseat to political opposition.
The “Green Movement” started out in the late twentieth century as an innocent environmental advocacy unit. Of course, it was met with its fair share of criticism, but it catalyzed the American public to think about the environment and people’s actions associated with it. The phrase, “Go green,” became a household name. The importance of recycling and conservation of resources was expressed, and the concept of a carbon footprint was made known. By the early 2000s, climate change became an increasing concern. In 2007, the percentage of Americans concerned a “great deal” about the quality of the environment spiked to 43 percent, according to a Gallup poll. Ever since then and the downturn of the economy in 2008, that percentage has gone down, and increased slightly, but is yet to be restored.
As of 2015, the percentage of Americans expressing a great deal of concern about climate change in particular is 32 percent. Moreover, there is a major divide in expressed opinion between Republicans and Democrats — whose concern is at 13 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Opposition to and skepticism of climate change has reached a treacherous peak — one that has morphed the discussion of environmentalism from an issue of health and the natural’s well-being into a contentious political debate.
Besides the onslaught of denial, the rationale for failing to address climate change is the unwillingness of the Republican Party to fund alternative energy initiatives. In contrast, the Democratic Party has generally supported such efforts. Naturally, each party has its own established beliefs and agendas. What each party has in common is that all its constituents live on Planet Earth. Regardless of opinion, irrefutable scientific facts depict the condition of the environment.
Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas and has made the largest impact on atmospheric warming over the last several decades. Largely emitted by human activity, its atmospheric concentrations and impacts are far-reaching. According to research conducted at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) in the pre-industrial era (1000–1750 AD) to approximately 383 ppm in 2007. It’s evident that the majority of this increase is due to fossil fuel emissions from human activity. Differing numbers of neutrons among carbon isotopes can distinguish fossil fuel carbon from that of natural sources, such as oceanic carbon. Climate change due to CO2 emissions has further environmental, health, and safety impacts aside from atmospheric warming. Among them are a rise in sea level; more destructive wildfires; and an increased incidence of asthma, lung conditions, and other respiratory conditions.
Unsurprisingly, Americans cite healthcare as one of the most pressing issues of this time. Further, according to a 2015 Gallup poll, 54 percent expressed another great deal of concern over the accessibility and affordability of healthcare. Health is of an utmost concern to humans, and environmental quality plays a major role in one’s state of health. Environmental health concerns extend beyond warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Depletion of the ozone layer, methane emissions, and overconsumption of crude oil have also contributed to deteriorating air quality and an increase in the aforementioned health risks.
Vigorous anti-smoking campaigns have led to a change of heart in the American public. If the health tolls of operating a coal-fired power plant or driving a diesel-powered truck can be articulated to the public in a similar fashion, environmental issues will be simultaneously treated as public health matters. Taken as a public health matter, an environmental issue will be regarded as more pressing and more applicable to us human individuals. If consideration isn’t conferred to the Earth, it should at least be given to the people.
As long as convenience — in its habitual and fiscal forms — continues to trump conservation, environmental progress won’t be seen on Earth. Perhaps more importantly, the condition of human health won’t see much improvement either. As a social movement and political issue, environmentalism has garnered the attention of the people. Now, it’s time for its presence to be seen and heard in the public health arena.
