This article begins with the definition of sustainable development and explains two of its key concepts. That the needs of the poor should be given priority and that limits should be placed on this generations state of technology and social organization to maintain the ability to meet the needs of the future. Sustainability should be present in all countries, even those developing. This development needs a progressive change in economy and society. Even the narrowest definition of sustainability involves concern for social equity between the generations that must come back to equity in our generation.
The article explains that countries that cannot take care of and feed their people will always be susceptible to ecological crisis. Living standards that cover basic needs are sustainable only when consumption is within certain standards that are ecologically possible. Meeting all essential needs will require economic growth where lacking, and growth that does not exploit others. However, growth is not enough. The world may compromise its ability to meet basic needs by over population and the overuse of natural resources. Because of this, sustainable development on earth should not destroy or compromise any of the earth’s natural systems such as the atmosphere, water, soil or living organisms. Special cares needs to be taken when dealing with renewable resources such as forests, making sure we do not over deplete within is limits of regeneration, while also taking into consideration is over effects of the exploitations. We should also take care to make non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels last as long as possible for future generations.
Ordinary develop simplifies natural systems and ecosystems, leading to extinction. As this can limit future generations, sustainable development requires the conservation of living things, as well as reducing impacts on air, water and other natural elements quality.
Individuals can be persuaded to sustainable development through education, institutional development and law enforcement, however many issues of resource depletion come from disparities between economic and political power. Often a forestry company will have much more power than the people living in the forest. Since ecological effects know no boundaries environmental stress affects all around it. Interdependence has increased around technology and because no one trusts that other people will behave in a socially desirable way there is the pursuit of narrow self-interest. T
The existence of common interest often does not exist because political jurisdiction and environmentally affected areas are not always the same places. Common interest can only be achieved through cooperation on an international scale. It would also be less difficult to reach if the solutions to environmental did not have “winners” and “losers”. As the world will approach the very limits of its ecological capacity, these inequities will only become more pronounced. It will always be the poor who suffer more.
The fulfilment of sustainable development will require a re-orientation of technology. It will need to be greatly enhanced in developing nations so they can more readily meet the demands of sustainable development and technology needs to focus its attention on environmental factors. Often environmental risk falls on people and places that had no influence in the decision process. It is imperative their interests are taken into account. Public policies must be in place as to assess the potential impacts of new technologies before they are put into practice.
An important theme in sustainable development is the need to merge economic and ecological considerations in the decision process. These concerns are not always in opposition. Their compatibility is often lost in the pursuit of individual gain. There is also the tendency to deal with things in isolation without considering connections and linkages. These connections are what links ecological and economic concerns, but this is seldom reflected in policies. Sustainability requires the taking of a broader responsibility for the impacts of decisions. However, the law be itself cannot enforce the common interest, and needs community knowledge and support as well. Sustainable development needs the merging of economics and ecology in international relations and policy.
In the widest sense, sustainability strives to promote harmony and balance between humans and nature.
Selection 23: Controversy at Love Canal
The hazardous waste problem is not large just from the number of waste sites, but because of their proximity to people’s homes and work places. The problems that plagued Love Canal will happen over and over again, lessons learned there may help people in the future.
A manufacturing company began to fill an abandoned canal with toxic waste in 1942. By the end of their dumping, more than 21,000 tons of waste had been dumped there. The Niagara Falls school board approached them to buy the land for a school and bought the land for a token dollar. Any elementary school was put up in the center of the site, and 98 homes were built alongside it. In the following 25 years chemicals from the site came up through the soil in the community. Children were suffering chemical burns and residents had various other complaints that were ignored.
Finally, through the efforts of residents and a reporter, the EPA and the New York State Department of Health became involved. They discovered an increased frequency of miscarriages in women living right next to the canal, and a health emergency was declared. Health studies were done and the area outside the immediate proximity to the canal was deemed safe. The community was not convinced and still had complaints of chemical seepage into their basements and illness that were occurring even 4 blocks away from the canal.
The article writer did a study, wanting to discover if the susceptibility to lower level chemical exposure was genetic. Instead he found that clusters of illness were found in areas where the chemicals were allowed to seep out of the dumping site. The chemical seeped in areas that were “historically wet”, such as places that were marshes or bordered steams. This allowed the scientist to compare “wet” and “dry” families and their instances of illness. They discovered that a myriad of illness and miscarriages were far more likely to happen to people living in wet home. With this data, it was still a scientific controversy whether it truly was dangerous to live in Love Canal.
In Love Canal, the two opposing sides of the controversy were the community and the Health department. The community turned on the Health Department rather than the manufacturing company that dumped the toxic waste in the first place because of certain allowances they made for the company. It dumped under regulation many years before toxicity was better understood and it employed many people in the area. Once the controversy was going, there were several factors that blocked a resolution. The first may have been that a failure to resolve the controversy would benefit one opposing side. In this controversy, the state stood only to gain by delaying a resolution. The second may have been that the opposing sides did not agree on the question that needed to be answered. There were disagreements between the two about what was acceptable risk. The third may have been the fact that only one side gathered the information that could influence the outcome. The state was responsible for all the studies. The scientists who disagreed with the official opinion that
Love Canal was safe place to live, were silenced. This silencing is a method often used stifle controversy. A fifth factor was that the data collected was secret and
not peer-reviewed, breaking the norm of scientific behaviour. A sixth factor may have been that the parties involved did not agree on which facts needed resolving, the body chosen to resolve the problem or the procedures used to resolve the problem. All parties have to agree to abide by these decisions. This certainly did not happen at Love Canal.
Many of the issues and controversies at Love Canal were treated as scientific issues; however many of the problems had their roots in ethical questions. Had these questions been addressed the controversy would have been much easier to resolve.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Photo: Love Canal
Selection 24: Restoring Rivers
The current trend of US bodies of water is that they are getting dirtier and dirtier. Water quality is not the only issue, but water over-depletion as well. There are some American rivers that no longer reach the ocean all year and communities with water shortages are everywhere. All over the United States, water is heavily depleted, taking water quality down with it. There have been flood disasters linked to river and stream degradation that could have been avoided with some ecological restoration.
Restoration is the process of repairing rivers and streams that no longer can perform their ecological function. Restoring bodies of water also increases property values while providing a place for recreational activities. However the way we restore rivers and streams needs some repairing as well.
The United States reached a point of such river degradation by centuries of dumping waste in water, hoping it would be carried away. Cutting down forests has also contributed to this degradation. Dams were also built to the benefit of people, but starved native plants and animals.
Crisis was realized in the 1960’s when it was discovered that 2/3 of US rivers and streams were polluted. A Clean Water Act was passed, and rivers and streams started getting cleaner. However, in 2004 it was reported that the waters were once again polluted. The primary cause of this is human activity and our changes to the landscape. When land is cleared, entire watersheds are affected. Building and the erosion of soil and farmland increase sediment in water. When flat surfaces replace natural land, we get devastating flash floods.
Some policies and efforts have been put in place to lessen the impact of development; however the rivers and streams continue to degrade. The main issue is that there are no polices to support restoration standards, to encourage the employment of proven methods, or to provide basic data needed for planning and putting in motion restoration. The solution is to reform federal, state and local government policies. This article focuses on the federal level because of its role in funding and permitting the restoration projects and gives a list of reforms for this branch of government. First, that federal agencies should employ and follow standards for successful river and stream restoration. Second, that a well coordinated system for tracking restoration projects should be used. Thirdly, that nationwide studies need to be done to determine the effectiveness of the restoration projects. Lastly to use funding for restoration more efficiently and increase funding.
So much may be accomplished by allocating resources properly and giving the right priority to efforts based on solid policies that take care to ensure the best methods are used for restoration
Class Reflection:
In class, we are currently watching the film “Who Killed the Electric Car”. I have watched this film once before, and few since have managed to fill me with the same outrage as this documentary. It’s difficult to watch the plight of the electric car owners who desperately wanted to keep their cars. The injustices of the events that take places are staggering. One scene in the film I found particularly difficult to watch was when the proponents of the electric car were in front of the California board of energy, trying to get them to keep the clear air mandate. It’s particularly frustrating because to me it was obvious that the gentlemen in charge was paid out, or convinced by some outside party to kill the mandate. Talking to someone else who had viewed the film, they felt the same as me, getting the vibe that they had their minds made up before the vote.
I found learning about the distaster in Bhopal, India a particularly difficult subject. I had never heard of the disaster before, and I find it hard to reconcile with the idea not very much is being done to the help the affected population, who are still very obviously feeling the effects of the diaster, even after all these years. I talked to a friend about it, and they shared my view that the inequity of the world is definitely more visiable after a disater, as if the fact nothing is done for the suffering of the third world highlights how the developed world does not view them equals.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/victims-of-bhopal-gas-tragedy-still-deprived-of-clean-water/520667/
This is an article about how the people of Bhopal are still drinking polluted water and suffering even after 25 years. The fact that the state government is aware and does nothing is extremely sad.
Online Activity:In Praise of Slowness
This talk is very inspirational to me. I always thought the world’s inclination towards speed was from our modernism, urbanism and the increasing amount of technology present in our lives; I never before thought that it was because of our western view of time as linear and finite instead of cyclical. After giving this idea some thought, I realized that I am in possession of this view. Mostly since childhood, life has been a race to get to the next thing. High school was finished, now I have to hurry through university to get a career. I’m sure once my career is obtained it will be “now I must speed toward retirement”. I enjoyed how his son was sort of the catalyst for discovering his slow movement. Children often do approach life with a slow mentality, enjoying what they are doing in the moment rather than racing to the next thing right away. I hope to take away from this talk a reminder to slow down and enjoy what happening now instead of racing toward the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment