I recall one time in high-school my class was talking about Oregon and how green it was. There was a student making a comment about how the fresh the air was compared to Ohio. They even commented how they appreciate how ‘there’s a park practically at every corner’. My teacher then replies the fresh air is thanks to the constant rain Oregon is known for; constant rain acts as a constant air-filter.
With that thought in mind I wander onto California. California has one of the worst air-quality in the U.S. (no kidding since the sky has a hint of purple in the air; I would joke that I can tell if a picture was taken in California by the color of the sky). Yes, California has a lot of cars on their roads, but so does Washington and they don’t have poor air-quality that California suffers. However, it does not rain as often in California as it does in Washington. Especially since California is a desert. Then this brings up another question, what would California be like if it did rain more frequently?
That’s a really good thought. I wonder how our air quality is without all the rain. A thing to consider is Oregon has a great amount of trees that keep the air fresh as well. Maybe because of deforestation and wildfires California isn’t able to maintain a good source of air filtration.
Stacy,
I think that if California did get the same amount of rainfall as Oregon they would have better air quality. But California does have a larger population then Oregon, so that might negate that. What do you think?
Jamie
It could, but as Professor Scheller had mentioned during one of the discussions, the cities with the lowest resource-to-person ratio had the densest population: San Fransisco and Manhattan. Though I must agree, though California may be greener and have better air quality if it did rain as much as Oregon, they do not take as much pride in being environmentally friendly like Oregon does. However, that behavior could be because they do not have such an environment to appreciate in the first place.