Selection 39 Towards Sustainable Development
World Commission on Environment and Development
The World Commission on Environment and Development’s “Towards Sustainable Development” is a piece all about sustainable development that outlines the importance of it. The World Commission on Environment and Development writes that “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (198). One of the key components of sustainable development is that it “required meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life” (WCED 199). One of the issues that arise is the fact that not everyone is getting equal chances at the acceptable way of life. The World Commission on Environment and Development informs readers that “the essential needs of vast numbers of people in developing countries- for food, clothing, shelter, jobs-re not being met (198-199). On the flip side many of us including a vast majority of North Americans are living beyond our means (WCED 199). The commission educates readers that sustainable development is integral to the health and survival of every aspect of Earth. The commission writes that “at a minimum, sustainable development must not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, the souls, and the living beings” (WCED 199). Although much of the world is currently living beyond its means, the world needs to stop and take a step back and evaluate its actions before too much harm is done. The World Commission on Environment and Development explores the notion of common interest as being integral to the emergence and spread of sustainability. The piece is quick to point out that “the search for common interest would be less difficult if all development and environment problems had solutions that would leave everyone better off” (WCED 200). As in life the issue of sustainable development has many pros and cons for those involved. Working towards sustainable development “will require the reorientation of technology- the key link between humans and nature” (WCED 201). Technology is one of the key components that will help sustainable development thrive in both the developed and the developing world. Problems arise already as the World Commission on Environment and Development reports that “not enough is being done to adapt recent innovations in materials technology, energy conservation, information technology, and biotechnology to the needs of developing countries” (201). Lastly the commission states that the best way towards a successful future is the “need to integrate economic and ecological considerations in decision making” which can help eliminate the idea of winners and losers (201). In conclusion “the strategy for sustainable development aims to promote harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature “(WCED 202).
World Commission on Environment and Development. Towards Sustainable Development. Ed. Thomas Easton, New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009.
Selection 23 Controversy at Love Canal
Beverly Paigen
“Controversy at Love Canal” by Beverly Paigen looks at the wide range of effects from dumping hazardous waste products at Love Canal. In the year 1942 the Hooker Electrochemical Corporation began dumping toxic chemicals in an old canal (Paigen 107). “More than 21,000 tons of 200 or more chemicals” had been dumped in the canal before it was turned into an elementary school and a housing subdivision (Paigen 107). Paigen writes that it was not soon after that “chemicals from the dump site migrated as a thick black oily mixture through the topsoil into the surrounding community” (107). The state failed to get involved until 1978 when on “August 2, 1978, Robert Whalen, then the New York State Commissioner of Health, declared a health emergency (107). A couple short months later after health studies, “the department announced the preliminary results of these studies; officials assured the Love Canal residents that the neighborhood was a safe place to live and that the community beyond the homes that had already been evacuated was not at any increased health risk (Paigen 107). Paigen then stepped into the picture administering health questionnaires that found shocking results. Paigen’s results showed a “strong geographical clustering of disease that appeared to be related to former stream bed and swales” (107). Most notably Paigen found the Love Canal was associated with a whole host of medical issues such as miscarriages, and birth defects like heart defects, mental retardation, and deafness (108). Paigen pushed the Health Department to create more studies and pushed them to accept the fact that the health concerns of the Love Canal residents was in fact associated with the canal itself (108). A battle was about to ensue between “the two opposing sides in the Love Canal controversy” which were the community and the New York State Department of Health (Paigen 109). Most notably the residents of Love Canal didn’t turn on Hooker Electrochemical Corporation as many might think they would have (Paigen 109). Instead the community fights the state which prompts Paigen to devote the rest of “Controversy at Love Canal” to showing how “several factors impeded a resolution” (109). Most notably Paigen states that “when controversies arise in communities as they inevitably will, steps can be taken to ease the situation and protest the public health (112). She writes of three important steps, first, “scientists should scrupulously adhere to the norms of their profession such as openness of data, peer review and criticism, and publication of evidence” (Paigen 112). Next “community involvement should be sought and used at every level of the process” (Paigen 112). Finally Paigen writes that “funds should be provided so the community can hire its own experts” (112). In conclusion the tragedy of Love Canal and Paigen’s “Controversy at Love Canal” has taught us a lot about the “scientific and political dimensions of hazardous waste controversies” (106).
Paigen, Beverly. Controversy at Love Canal. Ed. Thomas Easton, New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009.
Selection 24 Restoring Rivers
Margaret A. Palmer and J. David Allen
“Restoring Rivers” by Margaret A. Palmer and J. David Allen discusses how important it is to preserve natural waterways and to restore unhealthy water systems. It is a known fact that from 1973 until 1998 that “U.S. fresh waters and rivers were getting cleaner” (Palmer and Allen 113). Something happened in 1998 and the trend began to reverse itself writes Palmer and Allen (113). “Restoring Rivers” strives to educate readers about how the degradation of water influences human life. It is estimated that “more than one-third of rivers in the United States are impaired or polluted” (Palmer and Allen 113). River restoration is thought to be the answer to many problems associated with polluted rivers. “River restoration means repairing waterways that can no longer perform essential ecological and social functions (Palmer and Allen 113). Palmer and Allen write in “Restoring Rivers” that the “United States needs regulatory and legislative federal policy reforms in order to improve the effectiveness of river restoration and thus the health of the nation’s waterways (114). Legislative laws in the past have helped with the restoration of rivers such as the Clean Water Act which was passed in 1972 (Palmer and Allen 114). “Restoring Rivers” suggests that “poor land stewardship” is to blame for the degradation of rivers in the United States (114). Palmer and Allen also write that “human activities and alterations of the landscape have diverse and far-reaching effects” (114). Additionally when restoration is undertaken, it most often fails (Palmer and Allen 115). When the process of restoration begins, the most common goals are to “improve water quality, manage or replant riparian vegetation, enhance in-stream habitat, provide for fish passage, and stabilize banks” (Palmer and Allen 115). Throughout “Restoring Rivers” Palmer and Allen look to the government for answers on how to better protect and improve the health of rivers in the United States. They write that the “solution to pollution is to reform federal, state, and local policies” (115). Furthermore Palmer and Allen write that “river restoration is a necessity, not a luxury” and suggest that the United States should invest more in “natural capital” (117). In conclusion to save the health and vitality of the rivers in the United States, it is imperative that the government works to improve the process of river restoration.
Palmer, Margaret A. & J. David Allen. Restoring Rivers. Ed. Thomas Easton, New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009.
Blog Reflections
Since there were no blog reflections I decided to reflect on what is currently going on in Envr 2000.
Currently we are watching "Who Killed the Electric Car?" which is a documentary about the dealth of the electric car and most specifically deals with General Motors popular electric car EV1. The EV1 was noted as a popular, stylish, fast car but it was also an electric car. Drivers loved the EV1 but this was not enough to convince GM to continue forward with the program. In addition to using local drivers of the EV1, the movie also uses celebrity endorsements to promote electrical cars and the EV1.The documentary also examines the rise and fall of electrical cars. The movie looks at how the growth of fuel cells and hybrids are the future of the car industry instead of electrical cars.
In addition politician Rob Altemeyer visited Envr 2000 to discuss green political matters. Mr. Altemeyer is the MLA for Wolseley and brought up many valid points in his presentation. Most notably Mr. Altemeyer talked about think critically in terms of how we spend our money. He presented his monthly spending from May 2001 and put his spending into the good, bad, and the ugly categories in terms of environmental effects. Rob Altemeyer helped to show the green side of politics and make sense of politics.
Blog Activities
Alex Steffen sees a sustainable future
http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html
Throughout his discussion, Alex Steffen provides his optimism about sustainability and about how he believes better things are on the way for life. Steffen discusses two main points in his talk. Firstly he talks about the ecological footprint of society on Earth. He states that an ecological footprint is a measurable impact on the Earth. Currently the majority of Earth is living at an unsustainable level. Steffen believes that at current levels it would take 5 planets just to keep up with the impact of humans. He is also quick to point out that other estimates have been closer to a shocking 10 planets. Steffen’s second notable point about a sustainable future comes about when Steffen discusses the unfair use of the planet. It must be noted that the majority of unsustainable practices occur in the developing world and that the under developed world has a much smaller ecological footprint traditionally. Problems arise because the population continues to grow at unprecedented levels meaning the population of Earth remains quite young in age. Steffen believes this will be an issue in the future and that reducing our ecological footprint will be a challenge but completely necessary. Steffen also uses his time to push his non profit organization World Changing. Most notably Steffen discusses the “bright green city” which encourages a complete overhaul of the city. Steffen pushes for denser, more livable cities with better management such as Vancouver. Additionally he uses examples from Portland to encourage how green zones and a limit on the city is a viable option to urban sprawl. Throughout the rest of his talk Steffen pushes for sustainability and talks of promising changes that are already happening. He points to car share clubs, and a land mine detecting flower as examples that Earth is already taking a step in the right direction towards a better healthier more sustainable future. Lastly Steffen states that it will take beautiful tools to change the world which is a powerful statement about sustainability.
Additional Blog Info
http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091104/wpg_consumerwatch_bpa_091104/20091104?hub=WinnipegBin
Recently concerns over Bisphenol A have surfaced again. This time the concerns are mainly associated with canned foods. Over "seven billion pounds of BPA are produced every year" and it is found in a multitude of products. This harmful chemical can be found in plastic water bottles and is now causing a stir because it is found in canned goods. BPA is associated with many health issues such as cancer, diabetes and reproductive probems. Although Health Canada believes that the levels of BPA found in canned goods are acceptable and that canned goods are safe, there is still cause for concern.
Common uses for Bisphenol A include:
- Dental Sealants
- Eyeglasses
- Compact Discs
- Photographic Film
- Food Containers, Infant Bottles, and Reusable Water Bottles
- Medical Devices
- Polycarbonate for Water Pipes
- Epoxy-Phenolic Resins in Surface Coatings of Drinking Water Storage Tanks
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/34406849.html
Additionally the above article is also about BPA and the harmful effects associated with the chemical. Most notably the article suggests that Bisphenol A can be found in a shocking 93 percent of us!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment