Health benefits of Greenhouse Gases Mitigation

Health benefits of Greenhouse Gases Mitigation

Introduction

Greenhouse gases have proved to be a nuisance in various parts of the world because of the numerous negative impacts that they cause to living things. Human beings, plants and animals always get affected by the emission of these gases. To get a better understanding of the gases together with their mitigation, it is good to understand that greenhouse gases absorb and, at the same time, give out radiant energy. The gases bring about the greenhouse effect. There are various gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, ozone, methane and water vapor (Montzka et al. 2011). Human activities have led to an increase of these gases in the thermosphere leading to global heating

Leading causes of the abundance of these greenhouse gases are human activities, including mining, farming and industrial emissions. People tend to pollute the environment because it is a cheap way of disposing of goods that have been used and produced. The gas concentrations also increase in the atmosphere because of smog caused by the emissions from vehicles and industries. It goes with no doubt that when driving a car, one can enjoy a personal benefit. However, there are very high costs that he or she is imposing on the people outside the car environment relating to air pollution and noise. Interestingly, there is no need for the car owner to compensate the people outside for the damage caused to the environment. The situation is called externality (Meade, 1973).

Discussion and analysis

There are various health benefits that people can enjoy when greenhouse gases get mitigated. It is a well-known fact that these gases can trap the heat on the atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the earth’s surface.  By doing so, all the living organisms get forced into adapting to the changes. The amount of money used in climate change is very high, estimated to be around one hundred billion us dollars annually (Chakraborty et al. 2000). Thus high amount indicates the changes in the ecosystems, loss of crops and organisms, and the health complications that arise. What if this amount was used to improve the health of different people across the globe? By the mitigation aspect, the money can pay for the improvement of the healthy living of people, thereby improving the health status in society.

There is a dire need to reduce global climate change, and this can get done through the reduction of the number of carbon fuels burnt by different industries in energy production. These fuels include oil, gasoline and coal. It might be hard to completely eradicate them because they prove to be the cheapest energy sources, no wonder their extensive use in the energy industry.  The green energy sources such as solar and wind are expensive and their reliability levels are low. If at all we want to have health benefits, then there is no other option other than facing them off. Some of the gases released into the air cause respiratory diseases to people. The more the gases get released into the atmosphere, the more the hospitals receive higher cases of respiratory diseases. Some of these diseases have even caused numerous loss of lives. The costs incurred in seeking medical attention because of these diseases can get used in generating green energy, which shall be environmentally friendly.

Canada, as a country, has its natural capital that has three divisions, namely environmental capital, natural resource capital and land resource capital. The natural resource one includes resources such as minerals, fish, forests and energy. The environmental capital contains things such as pollution assimilation, watersheds and water runoff wetlands. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there shall be functional, safe and healthy drinking and irrigation water available for the country’s citizens (Mejia and Madramootoo, 1998). That will boost the health of the people and there shall be strengthening of Canada’s natural capital. The primary avenue for the achievement of this objective is through the reduction of the amount of wastes in the environment. There has to be less production of goods, minimize wastes from production and appreciate the recycling process. Relating the reduction in output with the demand and supply curve, it is likely to shift in the curves. The lower the supply of a good in the market, the higher its demand shall be. However, some factors may lead to an increase in the need for a particular product. They include an increase in income, seasonal changes, changes in preferences, among others. All these factors shall be under consideration when reducing the production of goods that increase greenhouse gas concentration. There should be less burning of products at the factories and less production means that people will have to adapt to the changing income levels to save the environment.

It is a well-known fact that the more pollution, the more the negative impacts and effects it brings. That means that the more we produce the greenhouse gases, the more we shall feel the effect. The future generation is more likely to suffer from the pollution activities caused by the current generation. There is a need for introducing the damage function in this scenario because it brings into mind the variation between wastes quantity and damage value. The more the world puts at a halt the mitigation of these gases, the more the marginal abatement costs increase exponentially. It is, therefore, advisable to take the action of reduction now unless we want to incur more expenses in the mitigation soon.

There has always been a debate on the change of energy practices and the ability of the world to adapt to these changes. The main focus is still on air pollution that has caused many diseases and killings in the world.  The increase in energy generation by the use of fossil fuels is a significant threat to human health. According to research, the eradication of air pollution is likely to help the avoidance of 18,700 deaths in the United States of America (Kelly and Fussel, 2015).  By the reduction of the rate of burning the fuels in the Midwest part of the country, there is the avoidance of about 300 deaths annually and 10,000 asthma and cardiac attacks. According to the World Health Organization statistics, indoor and outdoor air pollutions is a major cause of disability among people. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has a lot of health benefits, especially in our case study country of Canada.

Another disease caused by a high concentration of these gases in the atmosphere is bronchitis. The condition calls for one to make numerous visits to the hospital in seeking treatment. There is a lot of lung damage caused by the same disease. In the worst-case scenarios, there is the development of lung cancer, which is very detrimental and can cause death unless treated carefully. The people who get affected by these diseases are mostly children because they are exposed to the outside climate for more hours than adults. During their time of play, they inhale the polluted air and when they fall sick, the parents incur a lot of expenses in terms of medical bills. Pneumonia and pleurisy are also diseases that have the same effects as bronchitis discussed above.

It is every sane person’s dream to have an environment free of pollution. Clean air, clean water and healthy living are vital in the survival nature of any living thing, especially human beings. We have to take personal responsibility for what has occurred on the planet and look for ways of controlling the greenhouse emission levels. Otherwise, the future will be at limbo.

Summary and conclusion

The essay has focused on the health benefits that come along with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are more benefits other than the health ones that come along when people take this course. It might prove to be expensive at first, but the world has to look at the result where fewer deaths shall be experienced and money used on medication shall turn to savings. It all starts with a single individual deciding not to engage in activities that cause air pollution.

The different leaders and stakeholders have the primary role in this course. For example, the various government officials, through the environment ministries, have to come up with policies and laws that protect the environment, especially about the air around us. Some have already done this. The problem comes in at the implementation stage because so many vices come in. One of them is corruption. Some companies bribe the officials mandated to check their air emission levels. These are the types of leaders and companies that are slowly killing the earth. The world has to run away from such vices and protect the environment at all costs.

Some organizations have come up with a primary objective of protecting the environment for the general betterment of society. Examples include the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The work that they do is commendable because there is a noticeable improvement in the reduction of air pollution, particularly greenhouse gases. Public awareness and education are also vital in this area. With the right mindset, proper policies, adherence to the law and inclusion of the relevant stakeholders, there is an expectation that there shall be a tremendous improvement in the air quality across the globe.

References

Chakraborty, S., Tiedemann, A. V., & Teng, P. S. (2000). Climate change: potential impact on plant diseases. Environmental pollution, 108(3), 317-326.

Kelly, F. J., & Fussell, J. C. (2015). Air pollution and public health: emerging hazards and improved understanding of risk. Environmental geochemistry and health, 37(4), 631-649.

Meade, J. E. (1973). The theory of economic externalities: The control of environmental pollution and similar social costs (Vol. 2). Brill Archive.

Mejia, M. N., & Madramootoo, C. A. (1998). Improved water quality through water table management in eastern Canada. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering, 124(2), 116-122.

Montzka, S. A., Dlugokencky, E. J., & Butler, J. H. (2011). Non-CO 2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature, 476(7358), 43-50.