Hudson River Pollution and the Global Climate Crisis

The age of commerce and economic growth that swept American throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries dealt the Hudson Valley a tough card. Its rich resources became vulnerable to the bridges, roads, factories, automobiles, and people that had enhanced transportation and opportunities along the river. Factories like General Electric and Anaconda Wire and Cable dumped dangerous contaminants in the water, the Hudson River Stone Corporation blasted stone from the gorgeous mountains, and the Storm King Highway and Bear Mountain Bridge arguably imposed upon picturesque views of the valley. Seeing distinct evidence of unnatural and unsafe pollutants in and around the river, the people “bumped up against the reality that there were limits on the earth’s capacity for renewal and those limits were being reached” (Dunwell 138).
Air pollutants have pressed up against these limits as well. The introduction of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere has raised the average temperature of the earth and reportedly caused an increase in tropical storms, more difficulty in producing crops due to agricultural changes, and rising sea-levels due to thermal expansion and the melting of polar ice caps. The detrimental effects of this environmental problem have not been dealt with however.
The important distinctions between the Hudson River and global climate change rest on proximity and clarity. The Hudson River Valley overcame its misfortunes because of a mass mobilization of its constituents. People cared about their surroundings since the mountains and river characterized their unique community. Influential men and women in the Hudson River Conservation Society brought their concerns to Congress and indicated that they were willing to contribute for the preservation of their environment. The Hudson River Valley was “theirs,” after all.
Global climate change fails to interest as many because the problem may not have an evident effect on one’s own small constituency. To solve the problem, people must reach out to billions to increase awareness and catalyze behavioral changes. In the Amazon Rainforest, for example, impoverished people rely on burning the vegetation to produce soil rich in nutrients in order to plant foods to eat and sell. Without deforestation, these people would starve.
Another important distinction between the two environmental problems is the evidence of damaging effects. “At Tarrytown, residents knew each day what color General Motors was painting its production of trucks by the color of the Hudson, and people avoided fish from Manhattan’s waters; many even avoided walking beside it, as the stench on a summer’s day made a bankside stroll in Riverside Park almost unbearable.” (Lewis 262). The clear effect of pollution on the senses affected each person individually. Anyone who respected the natural beauty of the river or its surroundings would witness firsthand the detrimental effects of pollution.
On the global scale, those with the power to bring about change in the fight against climate change rarely experience any direct result of its damage and therefore have little personal interest in utilizing their own funds to remedy the problem. The temperature change is so gradual that it cannot be sensed. For this reason, carbon emissions keep increasing and humans won’t modify their behavior. Once effects are apparent, hopefully the tide will turn before it is too late.