Hello everyone, this will be the final post before our blog assessment by Professor Taylor for GE3246 Environmental Pollution. We will be concluding our regularly scheduled postings here. However, before we go, let us reflect and discuss on the journey thus far.
What have we learnt?
Over the past 12 weeks, many concepts have been raised. From our water pollution post, we learnt that harm need not be necessary for a substance to be a pollutant (Abbot, 2006). We also need to consider a pollutant’s ability to decrease our pleasures derived from the environment. From our air pollution post, this sentiment is reaffirmed. We then learnt about the powerful presumptions which the TPHA has. When the impacts are substantial and culprits are hard to lock down, the burden of proof should be shifted to the presumed culprits instead of the victims (SSO, 2014). Up next was land pollution, where we learnt that the effects of pollution need not be in-situ (Haygarth, Condron, Heathwaite, Turner, & Harris, 2005). Pollutants have the ability to move and plague the various areas they encroach upon.
After looking at the 3 “mediums” of pollution, we investigated specific pollutants. For climate change, the pollutant of concern was greenhouse gases. This taught us how extensive pollution problems can be. Pollutants can be natural or anthropogenic, and each pollutant need not necessarily result in one problem (Haygarth et al., 2005). Afterwards, we looked at waste pollution, where we learnt that pollutants need not be unwanted or a by-product. Any substance disposed of improperly can be a pollutant, even if it is brand new (SSO, 1987). Up next we looked at noise pollution, radiation pollution and light pollution. It is here where we learn that pollution need not be a result of tangible materials. Energy based entities such as sound waves and electromagnetic waves can be considered as pollution as well (Goines & Hagler, 2007; Narisada & Schreuder, 2004). We then ended off reflecting on some “absurd” ways we can consider pollution, although they are not yet considered an issue of pollution. These issues were just theoretical types of pollution we thought of when we re-defined pollution so as to stretch the limits of what “pollution” could entail.
Final reflection
As we have come to the end of our journey (for now) on this blog, we truly hope that you have enjoyed learning about the different types of pollution and legislations behind it. The purpose of writing this blog was because we understood the difficulty of access to the legal terminologies and jargons used on top of the vast number of laws just for each specific type of pollution. Much like how environmental pollution is unexhaustive, so are the laws behind it. We hoped that by providing a starting point for each pollution type we could cover, you can assess its effectiveness and come up with novel solutions to combat pollution.
Throughout this journey, we have also grown to better appreciate the complexities surrounding pollution issues. We started the journey thinking that environmental pollution can be solved simply by stopping the source of pollution and cleaning up whatever mess we made. This was also the reason why our initial definitions fell short in comparison to the legal definitions. As we progressed, we understood the nuances of environmental issues, which allowed us to better define the different types of pollution. Even further, we also managed to critique how some legislations may fall short of their goals of preventing environmental pollution.
As environmentalists, both of us understand the gravity of environmental pollution and its issues. Thus, we hope that you will join us in this fight to save our world in your capacity. At the very least, by reading the blog posts, you will be aware of the difficulties in combating environmental pollution as it requires a multidisciplinary approach and we managed to spark a sense of urgency in saving the world. Once again, this may be the end of our blog posts, but this is not the end for our fight against environmental pollution, but rather, a beginning. For the final time, signing out!
“Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.” – First Nations Proverb
Ryan (Lee) Yang
References
Abbot, C. (2006). Water Pollution and Acts of Third Parties: Water pollution—Water Resources Act 1991—Criminal liability—Act of landowner third party—Mens rea—Meaning of ‘polluting matter’Express Ltd (trading as Express Dairies Distribution) v Environment Agency. Journal of Environmental Law, 18(1), 119-133.
Goines, L., & Hagler, L. (2007). Noise pollution: a modem plague. South Med J, 100(3), 287-294.
Haygarth, P. M., Condron, L. M., Heathwaite, A. L., Turner, B. L., & Harris, G. (2005). The phosphorus transfer continuum: linking source to impact with an interdisciplinary and multi-scaled approach. Science of the total environment, 344(1-3), 5-14.
Narisada, K., & Schreuder, D. (2004). Light pollution handbook. Springer.
SSO. (1987). Environmental Public Health Act. Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/EPHA1987.
SSO. (2014). Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. SSO: Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/THPA2014.