How Human Population, Fracking, Ozone Standards and Pollution Impact Our Environment

During the course of Environmental Science, multiple topics have come into light about the current situation of both our environment and our world. The media has been able to clearly elaborate on the topic as well. Four media articles chosen include human population effects on animals, problems with fracking, standards for Ozone and pollution from the Environmental Protection Agency, and also problems with some clean energy sources, such as geothermal.

“Humans Caused 322 Animal Extinctions in the Past 500 years” provides a stark introduction about the effects of the human population; in the past 500 years, humans have managed to cause the extinction of over 300 animal species. Most of the extinctions occurred during the last two centuries, approximately the same time as the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. The article continues and states that by 2100, human population on the earth would have reached a staggering 27 billion, over three times as much as the population is currently. Multiple scientists have expressed concern over the findings, going on to state that “animals do matter to people, but on [a scale and balance], they matter less than food, jobs, energy, money, and development” (Galetti 1). The environment also plays a major role in economics, as some developing countries, such as Namibia, account for as much as 14 percent of the economic development. However, the article leaves on a note of hope, as humans can still de-endanger animals, mentioned was the bald eagle returning to the soar the skies. Another issue, described in “America’s Fracking Dilemma: Not in My Backyard” delves into the problems of extracting oil and natural gas, fracking, in the environment. Fracking does provide a large amount of crude oil, around 8.5 million barrels as stated by the article, and has led to decline in imports. Unfortunately, local communities situated around the hydraulic fracking zones have had their water supplies tainted, causing a closure of the pumps in the area. Various congressmen and environmentalists have battled over the subject. Gov. Hickenlooper of Colorado stated the “We have an obligation to develop energy in a way that is safe for our residents…and protects our health and environment.” Many residents have expressed concern about fracking in their communities, and hopefully, fracking businesses can negotiate and settle in order to protect their environment.

Conversely, lowering the pollution in the United States could have costly effects on the economy. In the article “EPA’s New Ozone Standards and the Case for Optimal Pollution” the EPA’s proposal of lowering the parts per billion of Ozone pollution in the atmosphere could amount to a large sum of about $270 billion dollars annually for Americans, with a possibility of putting millions of people without jobs, and higher prices for energy. The article goes on to state other controversial subjects, implying that environmentalists need pollution to have a job of being an environmentalist. The article continues to assert that the businesses’ economic benefits of dropping their emissions diminishes as they continue to drop more and more pollution. The article ends on the note that there is a best level of pollution, but even still, the EPA will continue to push their mandates onto the public. Clean energy, as well, is having problems of its own, with one of the newer “clean” alternatives being put under heat. Geothermal energy, in “Hot Rocks: Why Geothermal is the New Fracking” is criticized due to the chemicals that are injected into the ground to extract the water used to create energy. Geothermal sites also create earthquakes, as they puncture the ground. Fortunately, the article does go on to state the good in geothermal energy, stating that it produces a large amount of electricity at a lower cost. Geothermal is also a constant source of energy, unlike wind and solar, with zero emissions, providing a great addition to the sources of clean energy.