A few issues with this post ... because there's always folks who like to point to isolated alarmist takes as evidence that alarmism-takes have little credibility.
First: Herculean efforts were taken to reduce pollution to Lake Erie ... significant environmental controls were implemented to reduce a lot of said pollution.
Second: In the USA, because actions were taken AND because infrastructure was funded to deal with water-treatment, potable water is relatively available in the USA. However, world-wide, accessible potable-water is a signficant issue world-wide.
Third: As it relates to global-warming, it's not isolated voices raising the alarm ... it's a freaking chorus. What's more, the data that clearly demonstrates it is freely-available for anybody to peruse and draw their own conclusions. Skeptics with scientific aptitude who actually check out the data often end up being the most-vocal alarmists ... the data is that obvious (and damning).
Fourth: Energy is what makes everything "go." We see direct observations of global warming manifest by the fact that more of Earth's EM-radiation (as infrared) remains trapped due to the "greenhouse-effect." With the Earth storing more energy and given the heterogenous nature in how it's distributed - this creates gradients (in temperature, pressure, and humidity) that are all crucial as it relates to weather patterns. Given that oceans are "dark" as viewed from space, hopefully it's obvious that they're immense absorbers of this energy. Given sea- and ocean-temperature data, it's equally obvious that ocean temperatures are higher than they've ever been. What used to be ordinary tropical storms or hurricanes get amplified due to the increased availability of energy. Thus, the question isn't that we get storms ... but rather, that those storms end up being more catastrophic than they ever were before.
The saddest thing about this is that so many folks are scientifically illiterate ... and the only way that they choose to be informed is from unvetted sources of information ... information flowing from individuals like politicians, pastors, and the like.
For instance, my father-in-law loves to bring up how a scientist in the 70s/80s was being an alarmist as it relates to global-cooling. However, the problem with the analysis of that scientist was that they were using principle-component analysis to describe dynamics that were inherently non-normal. Folks who know anything about local stability analysis of non-normal operators know that PCA fails miserably ... you need to care more about doing a singular value analysis instead. The point here being that scientific and mathematical illiteracy prevents people from discriminating between proper analysis and bullshit ... and the populace ends up just latching on to whatever is consistent with whatever narrative serves as confirmation bias of their own world-view.