The Environment Case Study

Section I:

• Summarize the article

• As of right now, Texas is included on a list of states that need to comply with rules against cross state air pollution.  These rules are put in place when the EPA observes air pollution in a state that may be caused by another states power plant, mainly coal fired plants.  The idea is to reduce the pollution by making the plant operators clean the emissions and make them safer.  Ultimately, it would have cost too much for these Texas plants to comply and some would potentially have to shut down.  Rather than using their money to clean the emissions, they fought it in court and the court ruled in favor of Texas saying that it wasn’t clear whether the pollution was actually coming from the Texas plants.  Although only part of the restrictions were overturned, the other part, the regional haze rule, is also being fought in courts even though since the suits have been in court Texas’s air pollution levels have decreased due to the switch from coal to natural gas so Texas is actually in compliance with the rules they are fighting to overturn.  

• Clearly identify what is the environmental issue involved

• The environmental issue involved is air pollution.  Although several plants have already switched to natural gas to reduce their pollution, many have not and are still using coal and causing more harmful emissions than necessary.  

• The 5 W’s (Who, What, Where, When Why)

• Who: The EPA, Texas and the court system is involved in the decision making.  The people of Texas and bordering states as well as the companies that are giving off the harmful emissions are also relevant because the people who live in and around Texas could be benefitted from harsher rules against air pollution while the companies would suffer from it.  
• What: The what in this case is the air pollution given off by power plants in Texas, specifically the ones using coal still.  
• Where: Texas and the surrounding states are affected by this but also the entire environment as a whole since we only have one world.  
• Why:  Money, if it was cost affective for these companies to all switch to natural gas or to simply treat the air emissions they would all do it without going to court.  Since it cost less to fight it than it does to comply they are fighting it.  

• Date article was published: November 15, 2016 on Austin’s NPR Station

Section 2:

• Impact of the issue on the community/ society

• The impact this has affects more than just the people of Texas it also affects the surrounding areas.  The impact it has on the surrounding area is a higher level of air pollution caused by the coal and it not getting cleaned or switched to a greener alternative.  This issue does positively impact the companies power plants that continue to operate with coal and less clean energy.  

• What are the possible outcomes?

• The possible outcomes would be Texas power plants complying to find safer emissions options and therefore most or all switching to natural gas or other safer alternatives to coal or they continue to operate as in (which is still considered complying with the law) but without the safe guards of the law in place to make sure they keep their emissions levels low.  
• We should be aware of this situation because in many cases, decisions like this come down to money, whether or not it is cost affective for the company to generate less emissions.  They know and we know as a society that it would be better if they found a different alternative but because they are profit seeking they choose not to when everyone knows there are options better for our environment and community.    

• Solutions/ considerations for the future

• If everyone looked at it objectively and just said ok well there is  a right and a wrong decision, we know what is good for the environment we just need to do that then this world would be a better place and more sustainable.  That generally does not happen though, the only thing that would technically be a solution is if we found a way to make it cost affective for the company to change their policies, if enough people boycotted the company and did not do business with them they would be forced to change their ways.  

• How my opinion changed

• My opinion changed because Texas is fighting the EPA in courts to defend the rights of their businesses rather than to improve the air quality of their state for their residents.  This changed my opinion because I realized environmental issues is not necessarily going to be a thing fixed by the government simply because it is the right thing to do, it needs to be pushed harder by the people.  If Texans decided that this was not right and they wanted to have someone representing them rather than the big corporations they’d need to change who they vote for in the next election to ensure they have someone who values the health of the citizens and the environment more than the success of companies.  

• Do I recommend this article?

• I do not recommend this article, although it did a good job summarizing the point, I had some questions that were not answered by the article that I wish had been.  I would try and find a different article about this situation but since it happened today there was less information available about it.  

Source

http://kut.org/post/epa-removes-texas-requirements-cross-state-air-pollution-rule