Hi Gabriella, sorry too for missing your deadline.
I'd just like to comment on Jeremy's comment. It's a very interesting observation, but it demonstrates well the need for good studies, based on empirical data and covering all considerations. In designing studies that evaluate causes and effects, and that might suggest solutions to problems, all variables need to be considered. Jeremy has identified an interesting case, where health outcomes are good, even in a high pollution environment, and one variable that is associated with that example is wealth. It seems a reasonable conclusion, then, to say wealth is more significant than pollution, and resources would therefore be better spent on reducing poverty. That may be true. But here's another variable. What is it that make wealthy folk have better health outcomes? Are the able to spend more time away from polluted environments, such has holidaying abroad, weekending in the country, and exercising by the river if you live in Chelsea? Is the better health of those who live in wealthy areas wholly the outcome of wealth, or could it be the case that healthy people end up with better wealth outcomes, and they then choose to live in Kensington and Chelsea - very desirable places to live (and would be better places to live without the pollution). For example, I grew up in rural Yorkshire with very little pollution, and then came to London to work and to get paid reasonably well. My health outcome is statistically likely to be better than someone who spent their youth in a polluted city, "holding all other variables the same" (this is scientific speak - it means that when we do studies that tease out cause and effect from the messy real world we have to do studies that collect data from many examples so that we can work out what is really causing what). This point about the cause and effect is asking what is the cause and what is the effect - is it that wealth causes better health outcomes (which is true, for many reasons) or could there also be a relationship whereby health has an effect that ends up with folk moving to desirable places to live, because health leads to wealth which leads to living in nice places? Chelsea is close to the river, and partly a desirable place to live because of cleaner air due to the river. My opinion is that wealth and clean air both matter enormously. One reason is that there will always be better and worse places to live, and there will always be some inequality which will mean the wealthy get to live in the nicer places. One thing the lucky can do to help the less lucky is to ensure that when they live their life, they do so with consideration of the less lucky. For example, by not running highly polluting vehicles whose pollution is suffered by everybody.
These are interesting questions, and hopefully you're heading towards being someone who will continue to add to our knowledge and to take part in debates about, and research into, solutions to such as pollution. One thing to note is that we've all got our own pet theories and bugbears, and that internet forums can often be full of folk talking about theirs. What is to be hoped is that those like yourself, who has grown up with the internet, can be better than we are at having reasoned debate. Good luck. |