Melissa Burggraaf

PHIL 1250, Sp 2016

March 17, 2016
Signature Assignment
Argument Analysis
Obligations to Future Generations
We live in a day and age where people have become self-serving with a mindset that makes
them believe that the only needs that matter are their own. Of course they would think that way
because one has to think about themselves if they want to survive. But there has been talk about the
obligation we have to future generations. Some people believe that it's our responsibility to leave
behind a world that is suitable for life and not one that dies when you do. This dilemma isn't one that is
obvious and in your face. It appears in current events when people are debating about laws and social
movements. Should euthanasia be permitted? Should we prohibit factories from polluting? Should we
spend more money on fun things and not on solutions? For years, humankind has dealt with the issue of
whether or not we have an obligation to future generations. In this essay, I will be critically analyzing a
stance on obligations to future generations and if we have any. To do so, I will list the what is contained
in the argument, find the premises and subarguments, figure out what some unstated warrants and
assumptions are hidden in the argument itself, diagramming the argument, and concluding with an
overall evaluation and response.
Steps of argument analysis:
Issue: Do we have moral obligations to future generations?
Conclusion of argument I am analyzing: Yes, we do have obligations to future generations.
Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof is placed on Pedro and Tanya (the writers of the essay) because they are
the ones making the claim that we do have obligations to future generations and have to prove to me
that we do because I, the reader, believe that we have no obligations to future generations.
Major Outline of the Argument:
Conclusion: We do have moral obligations to future generations.
Major Premises:
1: We need to consider the decisions we make for the protection of human existence.
a. We need to take care of the environment.
1. We must pay for damages done on the environment

a. Developers, resorts, and manufacturing plants

b. People who enjoy the environment.
c. Wealthy people.
2. We value the natural world.
3. Benefits everyone and everything.
b. Everyone on this Earth has rights.
2: It is simply the right thing to do.
a. Since we are intelligent human beings, we have the burden to do the right thing.
b. Past people have left us good things, and we enjoy that.
c. All that counts is our intention to have compassion.

Argument Diagram:

More Detailed Argument Diagrams for each Major Premise and my Analysis and
Response

Premise One

My critique on this major premise and its warrants:

The major premise that we need to consider the decisions we make and the subpremise we need
to take care of the environment are solid and true. I agree with Pedro on the fact that helping future
generations would include bettering the environment decisions we are making. But the second sub
premise of the subpremise is what I believe to be faulty. Pedro states that everyone and everything
benefits from the environment being taken care of. What about those people who are looking for a new
home but can't buy a house in that state because no new houses are being built because of 'tree
huggers' protecting the land? There would also be less employment opportunities available because no
new businesses are being built. Do those who use wood in their products benefit from no more trees
being cut down? Taking care of the environment could also mean no more drilling for gas. Does this
benefit gas stations and those who use transportation? Taking care of the environment does not
benefit everyone. And because that sub premise is false, it does not support.
The warrant of the third sub premise states that if we spend money, the environment will be better. I
disagree here because putting money into the economy won't do anything to help better the

environment. Trees cut down are already gone. The pollution affecting the atmosphere is already in the
air. Giving money to the environment won't erase the damages already done. A millionaire can send a
check to treehuggers for a million dollars so that they can buy trees, but where would the treehuggers
plant the tree if no place is available? Money won't better the situation. It'll better the economy, but not
the environment we live in.
The warrant of the first subpremise states that we can value the world by taking care of it. In a way,
that's like saying a person who values money will save it and use it to good use. Yet a person who values
money can also know the importance of money and why we have it and use it to buy things that they
want and need. The environment (such as trees and rivers) are beautiful things to look at. They remind
us of the importance of nature. But trees and rivers are also there to help humankind. We burn trees to
keep us warm and we wash in the river knowing it'll clean us. We take value in the environment by
using it. Not taking care of it doesn't mean we don't value its importance. By using resources, we show
that we're using the environment the way it was meant to be used, and not just sitting there to look
pretty.

Premise Two

My critique on this major premise and its warrants:

The major premise that helping future generations is the right thing to do is a very strong opinion
and requires a lot of proof in order to convince me, the reader, that it's a reason that we have
obligations to future generations. First, our moral obligations are only for those who are existing. We
cannot ensure that what we do will now will affect those who are not on the Earth yet. For all we know,
a big, giant meteor will strike the Earth and all our efforts of preserving the planet will be for nothing.
We cannot make certain what will help or destroy the future, so all that we can do is care for the
present. Moral obligations require you to know who is exactly benefitting. Since we don't know what
future generations will be like, we don't have obligations toward them.
In response to the second sub premise that past people have left us good things and we enjoy them, I
believe that this is false. We study history in our education system to learn about the mistakes and
hardships people have committed in the past so that we do not make the same mistakes. The people of
the past have left us with polluted air, a burdening debt, and a corrupt society. Because of that we are
forced to do our best to survive. How can we focus on our survival and worry about a future generation
that don't have any problems yet to solve? Past people have left us with nothing and, because of it, we
must focus on the present problems now.
Lastly, the third warrant that states that our intention to have compassion is the right thing to do is
faulty. If I have intention to care for my sick little brother, but decide it would be of no use so I stay in
my room, that isn't the 'right thing to do.' If the premise was true, and compassion is what matters, it's
not the intention to help that will make a difference. It's the action of helping that matters. Compassion
that leads you to action is the right thing to do. We may believe that we do have obligations to future
generations and that our moral responsibility is to preserve humankind, but if we simply believe and not
act upon that belief, nothing will change.

The Original Arguments

Argument I have diagrammed and analyzed
Pedro Rico, Tanya Alavardo
Philo:1250
Do we have moral obligations to future generations? Absolutely. The most important aspect of
protection is to our human existence and the morality that comes with being human. We have the
obligation to live morally today in order to keep morality alive and carry it over to those who will inhibit
our planet when we pass away. Part of our future prosperity will be taking care of the place we call
home and the idea of morality to be carried out with it.
Pedro- Taking care of our planet for the protection of human existence.
The Earth doesnt care about global warming but we should: like a house we need to keep up with the
maintenance, we cant be ignorant and think the leaky roof will fix itself. By ignoring the problems of a
faulty house not only do you deal with a costly repair bill but you also impinge on the right to live a
happy life of those who reside inside. When I speak about the earth not having a care about global
warming Im speaking directly about its obligations to human existence, it is up to us to make changes in
the way we live because we benefit most from the planet such as clean air, water, etc. . . For example
the rising temperatures will have devastating effects on our coastal towns and islands that are
threatened by sea level rising. Environmental protection benefits human welfare, serves future
generations, the welfare of animals, and the worlds ecosystem.
We need to take into consideration of future generations when we make decisions; and of
course we cant make predictions of the future which is why most of our decisions are so heavily
weighted to the present since they are easily foreseeable. This mindset has led to reckless behavior of
our environment when people or our elected officials dont take inconsideration of our planet and how
it may affect human civilization; we need to convince those society that our children will live fuller and
rewarding lives if they inherit a green planet.
Every human being and civilization on this planet has the right to pursue happiness, and without
a flourishing natural world, that pursuit is under attack. We need to have a livable environment in which
we can breathe, drink, and eat. Our obligation isnt to the water, the forest or the animals that thrive
from these ecosystem, but the case should be made that our obligation is to human existence; and our
dependence on the natural world and if industries pollute or contaminate our way of life then theyre
violating that fundamental right.
The welfare of animals is the same principle for protecting people in need. We need to minimize
the suffering in the world, just as we do in human society. There is this belief: that we are free to do
what we want and that we should not impinge on the freedoms of others, and from this idea can
interpret that we need treat and respect the natural world and preserve it in order to guarantee that
animals may continue to pursue their own ends as we demand our own pursuits. This also stems that
animals can only be free within their natural environment, and that is our first obligation is to the
planet.

Which brings me to the topic of the ecosystem, heres an interesting example let us say that
there are a few common trees and they are standing in the way of a developmental plan? Well if there is
potential to make money and or progress to be made then cutting those trees shouldnt pose a threat
for we should have the guarantee to pursue our own goals.
However who do we expect to pay for these damages? Well first off would be those who
contaminated the natural world, sending bills to developers, resorts and manufacturing plant owners for
they are the ones who have the ambitions to make money; such as tourism which leads to forests
cleared and roads paved should have the obligation for the environmental renewal. Whether it is
building a resort or contaminating air or water their basic duty are to make reparation for they are
causing harm to those who enjoy and depend on the natural world and the way to compensate for that
is to repair the damages. Secondly we have those who enjoy the natural world and they too should
share in these responsibilities for protecting our environment, for example when they choose to go to a
national park and they are asked to pay for a fee that revenues is then provided to keep with the
maintenance of protecting those parks. Thirdly those who are most able to, such as the wealthy
members of society, the act is benefitting the welfare for all which remain good even if they seem to be
unfair to a few. That the happiness of the sum of total humans would increase than those who
displeased with the tax increase. Therefore protecting the environment is a human concern because it
protects the welfare of the natural world in which we value.
Tanya- Moral obligation to future generations
We have a moral obligation to future generations because its simply the right thing to do. As
human beings we have the capacity to think at a higher level than any other living thing on this planet.
Our ability to reason is what sets us apart from the rest. There is a burden that comes with the luxury of
having the highest level of thinking and that is morality.
We must live our life morally. Part of living a moral life is doing what is right. What is right is
treating everyone with the same respect you wish someone would treat on to you. There is no
exception to this. I myself will need the help of others, and I will not want them to turn away the day Im
in need of it.
The same goes for the question of having obligations to future generations, we enjoy the things
our past generations have left for us to reap so we ought to do the same for our future generations.
Whether or not certain individuals did or did not follow this obligation in the past is not of our concern;
our concern is to decide if its right or not to believe we have the obligation and then live
correspondingly.
We cannot control the turnout of future lives today but all that truly counts is our intention to
have compassion for those who come to inhabit the planet after us. We may not have time to find the
best way to take precautions in our age that will be fittest for the future but the simple intention that
we are trying to is what matters most among anything else. Trying to live in a way that will be courteous
to our future generations is better than living without giving any thought to those after us in any case.
We must not be selfish and think of it a chore and then come to the conclusion that just because Im not
willing to, means I'm not going to. No matter what your feelings are towards the issue, the right thing to
understand is that we do have moral obligation to our future generations. We need to perpetuate that
idea now in order for it to live on after we cannot.

Argument my group created for other group members:

Jakelinne Capella
Melissa Burggraaf
Jennifer Tanner
Philosophy 1250, Section 001
Reasoning and Rational Decision-Making
Spring 2016
TR 1-2:20, AAB 323
Professor: Dr. Jane Drexler
Main Premise - Our Generation Has a Moral Obligation to Improve Education,
the Economy and the Environment for Future Generations

Our generation has a moral obligation to improve educational opportunities, fix and improve the
economy in the United States and improve the environment for future generations. It would be
immoral and unfair to leave to future generations a world with poor educational opportunities, a
damaged economy so they do not have the opportunity improve themselves financially and with
a polluted environment so their health and quality of life are lower than ours.
I. Education Premise - We Must Improve Education for Future Generations
by: Jakelinne Capella
email: jakiecaa@yahoo.com
Education one of the most important tools to be developed for future generations. This is because
an education, the ability to have learning and increase knowledge, is indispensable to improving
yourself individually and improving our country collectively. Education is maybe the most
important opportunity for future generations.
Because education is one of the most important areas to be developed for our future generations,
leaders in education and the parents should promote teaching and learning of relevance for
today's quickly realigning world. Providing the children with a 21st century education will give
them opportunities to develop the skills, knowledge and mindsets they need to be successful in
college, career and life.
There is a set of four skills that experts say all kids will need to succeed, no matter what field they
go into.
Communication, students need to effectively communicate with others, orally, spatially,
gesturally, visually, and textually. Kids will need to know how to communicate his/her ideas clearly
in a written format. As the workplace becomes more global, work initiatives will get done via email,
blogging, instant messaging etc. Face to face communication will be always important, but is

becoming second to being able to convey your concise ideas. Students who cannot put a
sentence together will be left behind.
Creativity, is one of the most critical skills for the next generation, but researches indicates it is
been declining significantly on global scale in the last 20 years. Creativity creates jobs, drives
economic growth, provides answers to societal needs, and also maximizes human potential.
Creativity is related to the ability to dream, take chances, and create the things we imagine these
are the skills of entrepreneurs, innovators and change makers.
Critical Thinking, students do not need just memorize concepts that will promptly forget, but
formulate ideas, understand and effectively analyze and evaluate information, solve problems
identifying and asking significant questions that clarify various points of view and lead to better
solutions, and reflect critically on learning experiences and processes.
Collaboration, students are social beings that need to interact with each other in both physical
and virtual spaces with real and virtual partners globally. In today's global economy, high-speed
communications allow virtual teams to take on projects from locations spread out across the
globe, this includes the ability to communicate and work with people from different racial, religious,
ability, and ethnic groups.
Conclusion About Educational for Future Generations
In short, technology progress today comes faster than educational progress. It is a priority for
educational leaders and families encourage the changes our children need to meet the challenges
of the future. By keeping these strategies, the educational leaders will be encouraging the
development of future generations.

II. Economy Premise - We Must Improve the Economy for Future Generations
by: Melissa Burggraaf
email: creativitywithapen@gmail.com
We need to repair and secure our economy. Yes, the environment is important and we can't live
without oxygen. But what use is clean water when a society is in shamble and people can't support
themselves financially? We need to better and stabilize our society today by repairing and
securing our economy. That is our first step because the economy in a society is the true support.
If a society is economically fit, they can then focus on educating the population and bettering the
environment. If any other steps are done first, the economy will worsen and it may be too late to
fix. For this argument, I will focus on the United States economy. This isn't to say that the US is
the entire world and is the only one worthy of being fixed. It's simpler to explain fixing an economy
when there's one society in mind. And if the US succeeds with improving their society through
their economy, other nations may follow and do the same.
Many believe that a good economy will result in everyone in the society to be rich. No more poor
people or middle class and everyone driving Lamborghinis and owning three mansions. That is
definitely not the case when talking about a good economy. In reality, a good economy means
economic growth and a strong middle class. For that to happen, we need to increase employment
to create a strong middle class that will support the economy. A working class is still required for
a society because someone has to do the work. That's not a bad thing. But to do that, we first

need to create jobs in the society. We can do that by supporting entrepreneurship that will create
working opportunities in the country. With more job opportunities, the smaller the lower class will
become, creating a secure middle class that can support the society and economy.
On paper, social security sounds fantastic. An economic security citizens get if they were to retire
or become disabled. A pay-as-you-go system that many Americans support. The problem with
social security now is the long-term shortfall. Not only are we spending way more than we should
in supporting this system, but by the year 2033, social security would only pay 75% of its promised
benefits. We need to refine the idea of 'social security' and better execute it. If we start from
scratch and truly build up a system that will support retirements and such, money will not be
wasted and people in the society will be supported. A way to improve it would be to increase index
of inflation in retirees. Even though many citizens don't like it, taxes should be raised in order to
support a better system. If taxes are raised by 1%, it could reduce the funding gap in half. With a
strong middle class and employment opportunities, paying more taxes would hardly be noticed
when looking at your paycheck.
In order to rebuild the economy of this society, we need to improve our finances by putting money
into more efficient resources and companies. One great example of wasteful spending, is the
amount of money put into NASA. Don't get me wrong, I think studying the universe and exploring
space is pretty cool and does contribute to science improvements, but is it really necessary for
NASA to receive over $18 billion a year? Space technology may be expensive, but I think our
society can hold off on sending another telescope through the atmosphere. NASA's fund is just
an example of how unbalanced the US federal spending is. The space program isn't alone when
it comes to federal overspending. Our defenses, health care, and pensions receive the most when
it comes to federal spending and although they are all important, overspending is an issue. Then
we get to what does need more money. Education is only 3% of the annual budget. Surely, we
can cut some funding in half in order to help out those areas we truly do need in order to flourish
as a society.
Conclusion About Fixing the Economy for Future Generations
Fixing the economy is clearly not an easy thing we can do overnight. It requires years of study,
planning, and then executing. Money is such a tricky thing and has so many factors that predicting
the future is nearly impossible. But it is the first step we need to take if we want to fulfill our
obligation to future generations. Repairing the economy is the foundation of every society and is
the building block that, if it isn't repaired in time, will destroy the society for all no matter what else
is fixed. Focusing on a stronger middle class, better financing laws, and smarter investments will
secure a better future for our society.

III. Environmental Premise - We Must Improve Air and Water Quality for Future
Generations.
by: Jennifer Tanner
email: Tanner.Jenni2131@gmail.com
Two of the most important legacies our generation has a moral obligation to leave for future
generations are clean air and clean water. This part of our paper explores the places where air

and water quality are bad and where they are good. Then specific ideas are given about how and
where air and water quality can be improved for future generations.
Detecting Air Pollution
It is almost impossible to get air pollution measurements in many of the worlds developing
countries. This is because they do not have sensors to detect air pollution. But it is important to
get this information because epidemiologists, doctors and others who study the causes of
diseases and deaths, say air pollution contributes to millions of deaths in the world every year.
The air pollution that causes people and animals the most disease and death is fine particles
(called PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers or smaller. This is about 1/10 the diameter of a human
hair. The reason these fine particles cause so much death and disease is, unlike bigger particles,
they get past the normal defenses in animals and humans, traveling very deep into the lungs
where they do great damage.
New Satellite Images Show World Air Pollution Levels
New satellites have been available in the last few years which can detect levels of PM2.5 all over
the world, even in places without ground sensors. Canadian researchers started publishing the
most accurate and comprehensive world maps of PM2.5 available anywhere. (Environmental
Health Perspectives). They created their map using precise measurements from NASA satellite
detection instruments along with computer model information about vertical distribution of
aerosols. Here is what their map shows.
The Canadian scientists world air pollution map uses many measurements from 2010 to 2015,
so it is very accurate and not just a few measurements that could be an anomaly. (Global satellitederived map of PM2.5 averaged over 2010-2015; Dalhousie University, Aaron van Donkelaar).
This map shows that 80% of our world's population lives in polluted air. We are talking about air
pollution that is higher than the World Health Organization standards of 10 micrograms per cubic
meter. Compared with other countries, levels of PM2.5 are pretty low in the U.S. But
improvements could be made here to. Air pollution was really bad here in Salt Lake City during
the last few weeks until it rained last weekend. As I scrolled through the Canadian images of the
U.S., a few times a year you could see really bad air pollution in Salt Lake City.
People arent the only cause of dangerous air pollution. The Canadian map shows wind in
northern Africa and Saudi Arabia in deserts causes massive amounts of pollution. Its a good
thing these are not highly populated areas. But the worst pollution in the world is from power
plants and factories in China and India which do not have filters and just dump massive amounts
of PM2.5 into the air. These PM2.5 particles along with pollution from cars in the same places
means millions of people in China and India get sick and millions die each year from air pollution.
Proof PM2.5 Particles Cause Diseases and Death
Professor C. Arden Pope, PhD, an epidemiologist at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah is
one of the world's leading experts on the health impacts of air pollution. His work proves the
connection between PM2.5 particles caused by people in cities and its disastrous health effects
on people. Prof. Pope explains that it is the PM2.5 particles people breathe that causes health
problems and death, and the source of PM2.5 particles in cities is people. The American Heart
Association estimates that in the U.S. PM2.5 particles cause about 60,000 deaths every year.
Ways to Reduce Air Pollution

A 2008 Harvard study suggested one of the best ways to stop pollution in large cities in countries
where there is massive air pollution would be to create a global green tax on air pollution. This
would give countries like China, India, the U.S. and other air polluting countries an incentive to
reduce their air pollution to more healthy levels. The tax could be on goods and services so a
country could not just decide to ignore it. There are effective ways to install filters on factories
and cars that remove most of the PM2.5 particles. They arent that expensive. The U.S. has laws
that require these kinds of filters, otherwise our air pollution would be much worse. China and
India could do the same thing. The costs arent that high, but they dont want to spend the money.
The green tax would make it so they would want to spend the money. It would be cheaper than
paying for the filters says a U.S. News and World Report article. Here is what air pollution often
looks like in cities in China.
The five U.S. cities with the highest levels or air pollution are all in California. According to an
August 22, 2015 USA Today, they are the following.
1. Fresno-Madera, California.
Average year-round particle pollution: 18.1 ug/M3
People with asthma: 96,760
Population: 1,107,661
High ozone days per year: 68
2. Bakersfield, California.
Average year-round particle pollution: 17.3 ug/M3
People with asthma: 75,406
Population: 864,124
High ozone days per year: 69.7
3. Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, California.
Average year-round particle pollution: 17.0 ug/M3
People with asthma: 52,749
Population: 605,103
High ozone days per year: 82.7
4. Modesto-Merced, California.
Average year-round particle pollution: 15.7 ug/M3
People with asthma: 69,027
Population: 788,719
High ozone days per year: 22.3
5. Los Angeles-Long Beach, California.

Average year-round particle pollution: 15.1 ug/M3

People with asthma: 1,607,111
Population: 18,351,929
High ozone days per year: 117.7
Another way to reduce air pollution are to be sure older cars are properly inspected. All of us
have driven behind an older car or truck that has horrible exhaust emissions. That is the number
one cause of air pollution in Salt Lake City and most U.S. cities. As older, inefficient, air polluting
cars are junked or forced to comply with emissions testing, the air will get a lot better.
The U.S. should be sure to enforce the Clean Air Act which was passed in 1970. It set emissions
rules for the amount of particles in the air. Its not enforced as much as it should be. The U.S.
should make air pollution standards even stricter than the Clean Air Act now requires. But the
U.S. alone cannot fix the problem of air pollution. According to a September 14, 2014 article in
the L.A. Times, one-third of the air pollution in Los Angeles, California is from China. And the air
in Los Angeles is cleaner than 74 of the largest cities in China. If you want to see the air pollution
levels in the world real time, just click on this link: http://aqicn.org/map/world/. The highest levels
are almost always in China, India and Mexico, but the U.S. has some high levels too.
The U.S. Causes 17% of World Air Pollution
Air pollution is a world problem. The U.S. should do better, but cannot solve the problem alone.
If the U.S. could somehow reduce all of its air pollution to zero, which is impossible, that would
only reduce world air pollution by about 17% according to the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Science for a Healthy Planet and Safer World.
There are ways we as individuals can reduce air pollution. Drive as little as possible. Make laws
against wood burning stoves. Wear warmer clothes instead of turning up the heat. Recycle.
Recycling reduces air pollution because less energy is used to recycle than to create paper, metal
and glass products from scratch. We should support EPA air quality regulations.
Detecting Water Pollution
Keeping water free from pollution or returning it to a pollution free state is critical for humans,
animals and plants. Even though lakes, rivers and streams on the earth recycle naturally, they
can become polluted from too many people, too many animals or from mismanagement. Human
causes of water pollution are much greater in most parts of the world than animal caused pollution.
Agricultural runoff with pesticides and fertilizers, industrial waste and human waste and the major
causes.
New Satellite Images Show World Water Pollution Levels
I found a fantastic article on world levels of water pollution in the September 30, 2010 article in
Nature. It has the first satellite images which show the impact humans have on lakes, rivers and
streams on the entire planet. The world map in the article shows pure water areas in blue, light
blue and green. Polluted water areas and shown in yellow, orange and red. The U.S. has in
recent years done a lot to clean up its water ways. That is true for Utah as well. About 50 years
ago, Utah Lake was so polluted from Geneva Steel Mill and farm animals that it was dangerous

to swim in it. Now the lake has been cleaned up. Geneva Steel is gone and laws stop people
from keeping farm animals by Utah Lake.
Causes of Water Pollution
Water pollution is all about amounts. No natural water in the world is like distilled water. Distilled
water is water that is evaporated, then condensed, to get pure water, with absolutely nothing else
in it. All water in nature has minerals and some pollution in it. Animals in nature cause some
water pollution. Natural fires, volcanoes and natural river erosion all cause some water pollution.
But a little bit is ok. Like I said, water pollution is all about amounts. If you poured a cup of blue
ink into a lake or a river the ink would pretty quickly disappear. The blue ink would still be in the
river, spread out so much you couldnt see it. But if you pour gallons and gallons of blue ink into
a river or lake every minute of every day, the lake or river would turn blue from the ink and the
water would be polluted. Plants, animals and humans would be harmed if they drank the water.
The biggest water polluter is human waste. Billions of people live on our planet. They all eat and
drink and cause human waste every day. The most recent information I could find on human
waste is from the World Health Organizations website last updated in 2013. WHO says 780
million people, which is about 11% of the world population, don't have safe drinking water. 2.5
billion people, 40% of the world population, don't have toilet sanitation facilities. WHO says unless
something changes by 2020 polluted water will kill 135 million people a year.
Fertilizers used by farmers go into the ground and over time get into lakes, rivers and streams.
Fertilizers pollute water and cause damage to plants, animals and people. You might not think
fertilizers would harm plants, but when too much fertilizer builds up it can kill natural plants or
cause unwanted one to grow too much. WHO says this is a huge problem. In the U.S. 500,000
factories put pollution in rivers, lakes and streams. There have been big improvements though,
which is good. EPA regulations have made it so about 88% of U.S. rivers, lakes and streams are
clean now, compared with only 69% in 1972. Now we need the rest of the world where water
pollution is a problem to do the same thing.
Oil spills are a huge problem. But they are only a small fraction of the water pollution in streams,
rivers, lakes and oceans. The EPA says oil spills are about 12% of the oil that goes into oceans.
Ways to Decrease Water Pollution
How can we stop water pollution? There are four major ways, awareness, education, laws, and
economics. Making people aware of water pollution is really the first step. In the 1990s surfers
in England became angry. They were getting sick from surfing in water polluted with sewage.
They started a group called Surfers Against Sewage. They got the government in England to
force companies to clean up the water the use before it goes into rivers and streams. This shows
awareness can make a difference.
Laws against water pollution can make it hard for companies and factories to pollute. But to work
they have to be the same across state lines and in all countries. One example of this kind of law
is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was signed by more than 120
nations. Europe has a water-protection law called The Water Directives. These directives include
the 1976 Bathing Water Directive, which was updated in 2006. Here in the U.S. we have the 1972
Clean Water Act and the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act. These laws should be updated to improve
water quality and stop pollution.

Environmental experts say a good way to stop water pollution is by something called The Polluter
Pays principle. The person or business that causes water pollution has to pay to clean it up. Oil
tanker owner must take insurance to covers the cost of oil spill cleanups. Then it is cheaper for
them to make their ships safer and we will have less oil spills and they will be cleaned up faster.
Shoppers must have to pay for their plastic grocery bags. This is a law now in Ireland. The
Polluter Pays principle just makes it more expensive to pollute than to make water clean.
We Must Leave a Legacy of Clean Water and Air for Future Generations
It will not be easy, but air and water quality can be improved for future generations. Our group
believes two of the most important legacies our generation could leave for future generations are
clean air and clean water. There are many ways we can clean up our water and air, but the U.S.
cannot do it alone. We should get all other countries to help too. New satellite technology can
show us where air and water pollution is. This helps us know where we should make the most
efforts to clean up water and air. As the world population continues to grow, we have to have
ways to get air and water cleaner and to keep them that way. If we dont the future will not be
healthy for people, animals and plants.
Sources:
1. What the Smoggiest Cities in the U.S. Can Do To Improve Air Quality, by Jihan Lee,
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/09/what-the-smoggiest-cities-in-the-u-scan-do-to-improve-air-quality/
Retrieved: February 12, 2016.
2. C. Arden Pope; Xiping Xu; John D. Spengler; James H. Ware; Martha E. Fay; Benjamin G.
Ferris; Frank E. Speizer (December 9, 1993), An Association between Air Pollution
and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities. The New England Journal of Medicine 329 (24),
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401 Retrieved: February
13, 2016.
3. Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: An Update to the Scientific
Circular, Statement From the American Heart Association on Air Pollution, May 10,
2010, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2331
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2331.full.pdf Retrieved: February 15, 2016.
4. Mun S. Ho and Dale W. Jorgenson, Greening China, Market-based Policies for Airpollution Reduction and Control, October 2008,
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/greening-china-market-solutions Retrieved:
February 16, 2016.
5. Smog Solutions: A fix to China's pollution problem is expensive but worth it.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/01/17/china-can-fix-its-severepollution-problem Retrieved: February 16, 2016.
6. Chinese city of Harbin shrouded in smog as air pollution soars, The Telegraph, October
22, 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10396198/Chinesecity-of-Harbin-shrouded-in-smog-as-air-pollution-soars.html Retrieved: February 16,
2017.

7. Michael B. Sauter, Sam Stebbins and Thomas C. Frohlich, The most polluted cities in
America, August 22, 2015
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/08/22/24-7-wall-st-most-pollutedcities/32130565/
Retrieved: February 16, 2016
8. Beijing's smog makes Los Angeles air look good, L.A. Times, September 10, 2014,
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-la-smog-stats-20140910-story.html
Retrieved: February 17, 2016.
9. Each Countrys Share of CO2 Emissions, Union of Concerned Scientists: Science for a
Healthy Planet and Safer World, February 4, 2016
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrysshare-of-co2.html#.VsTaufIrJhE
Retrieved: February 17, 2016.
10. C.J. Vorosmarty, P.B. McIntyre, M.O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A. Prusevich, P. Green, S.
Glidden, S.E. Bunn, C.A. Sullivan, C. Reidy Liermann, and P.M. Davies, Global Threats
to Human Water Security and River Bio-diversity, Nature 467, 555-561 (30
September 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09440.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467504a.html Retrieved: February 17,
2016.
11. Chris Woodford, Water Pollution, An Introduction, last updated June 29, 2015,
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/waterpollution.html Retrieved: February 17, 2016.
12. Water Pollution, Wikipedia, last updated, February 10, 2016,