Using environmental science articles to gauge our progress in the environmental race can be filled with conflicting messages. While our progress is working on commendable, we are very far from where we need to be. Some of the current environmental articles praise our progress, as though we have somehow arrived because we are finally paying attention to the fact that our human activity has been destroying the world. As our level of destruction increases, there is a call to action for every member of society.

Recycling, changing buying habits, and living in a more conscientious manner is all part of changing the fate of the world, and the information reflected in environmental science articles either encourages or discourages the general public from becoming more conscientious.

When the information presented makes it seem like we are progressing nicely, environmental activism goes down. When the information reflected makes it seem as though we are struggling to combat pollution effects and natural resource harvesting, environmental activism increases. Thus, the information contained in environmental science articles can alter the state of conservation and environmental awareness.

This naturally poses the question should there be responsible reporting in such articles? If we want to see an improvement in conservation, environmental awareness, and efforts to create a healthier planet we can report the negative aspects regarding the state of the planet. Yet the advancements we make are worthy of reporting as well. Is there a way to report the positive while stressing the need for more concerted efforts for increased environmental awareness and conservation?

When environmental science articles reflect all aspects of the state of the planet the general public responds with a sense of honorable duty toward the environment while recognizing and celebrating the achievements that we have been able to attain. With every passing day, there are new developments that help the planet and there are developments which harm the planet. The best way to counterbalance the natural ebb and flow of public interest is to offer up a balanced view of the state of the world.

Who reads the majority of environmental science articles? Some of the more technical articles are aimed at the scientific community. These articles are generally highly technical and offer the scientific community an accurate report on progress, failures, ideas, and potential.

General articles are usually consumed by the public. The most read headlines by the general public include information articles that point out damage that most have not considered. When a headline reads as a potential disaster, curious people read the article. When the headlines read of promising new developments, fewer people read the articles. Does this play to human nature? Is it more likely to attract the attention of the public by playing up the negative headlines? Probably.

As a society we tend to focus on problems rather than progress. When progress happens, we often move on to the next thing on our agenda list. When problems face us, we look toward the government to focus on such problems. This can be present difficulties for the scientific community that wishes to reach the general public. We want the government to implement plans, actions, and regulations that will preserve the planet, but few people want to really put the effort into their own personal responsibility when it comes to ecological issues.

Using the environmental science articles to encourage the public to engage in their own conservation and environmental awareness in their personal life could be done without much effort. However, we have to keep the issues on the forefront of the minds of the people.

Without the headlines, the dramatization, and the playing up of the negative it is hard to get the attention of the general public. Keeping the public informed with honesty presents a very unique challenge for writers of environmental science articles. It is a challenge that a great many writers are meeting effectively.

The history of air pollution is a long and involved one. From the Middle Ages and beyond, there have been issues regarding air pollution that have proven that air quality is affected by nearly every substance that we insist on burning. Coal burning created smog, and its associated health problems, since the Middle Ages. The 18^th through the 19^th centuries saw serious health effects on the environment thanks to the burning of coal. Smog is certainly far from a new problem, and in our environment pollution still plagues the cities and towns of the world.

Water pollution is yet another plague that compounds the health of the natural world. Water pollution contaminates everything from the sea life to the sea grasses and flora that support the sea life. Our waters have become so polluted that fish harvesting to swimming have become significantly dangerous. The Hudson River became so polluted that the EPA banned the eating of all sea life harvested from the river in the 70s and 80s at various points.

Moreover, the 80s saw an influx of trash along the shoreline from dumping of medical waste, causing hypodermic needles to collect along the East Coast shorelines. Water pollution threatened the health of every sea creature and child along the country’s oceans.

Water pollution reached levels that were so high that the natural aquatic environment suffered great damage that lead to a major movement to “Save the Bay.” The Chesapeake Bay lost most of its natural grasses, which hurt the blue crab and oyster populations. This cut into the watermen’s ability to produce a reasonable living while also cutting sea life populations down to dangerously low levels. It took nearly a decade of concerted effort to reproduce the sea grasses that were demolished through human activity. Boating, dumping, and overharvesting all played a role in reducing the bay’s ability to filter the pollutants and produce healthy grasses.

Land pollution and water pollution are interconnected. Land pollution is a hazardous form of environment pollution that affects everything from our drinking water to our crops to our natural ecosystems. Land pollution can be caused by runoff from the roadways, hazardous chemicals that most households use on a regular basis, and construction sites. Natural waste can also cause environment pollution that affects our ground water, making it highly dangerous to drink unfiltered. Microbes can enter the digestive tract and cause illness. These microbes can come from unprocessed waste that can seep into the groundwater and cause serious implications.

Environment pollution that comes from land pollution is a serious problem for natural ecosystems. Mining can cause the destruction of trees, streams, and the life that is supported by these elements. As the ecosystem is destroyed, the entire ecosystem from insects to large animals find that they do not have enough food or drinkable water and starve to death. As with mining, these effects can happen from the runoff thanks to construction sites.

Chemicals and even sediment disruption can impact the land in unimaginable ways. What looks like a simple construction project can have ramifications from the immediate natural environment to the surrounding environment.

Environment pollution is on the rise. With more construction, industrial pollution, ground water threats, and air pollution causes, nearly everything we do has an environmental impact. Environment pollution is a chronic, widespread problem that seems no longer containable. Our cars, our electricity needs, and our housing needs all contribute to the destruction of our natural environment.

It is difficult to predict exactly how much destruction will be caused over the next ten years, but it has already been proven that the predictions from just five years ago were woefully inadequate and our destructive environment pollution is growing faster than our remedies. Saving the planet from this perpetual destruction requires immediate action on everyone’s part.