Category Archives: Uncategorized

Pakistan Floods- Connection to McKibben

1 Reply

I found a really disturbing and interesting article about the 2010 Pakistan floods. It reminded me a lot of what McKibben was talking about in Eaarth, especially in the first chapter. Notice how the article mentions the floods affects on infrastructure, politics, international relations (foreign aid and U.S’s regional strategy to combat the Taliban and Al Quaeda) and military issues, disease, food shortage, economics (severe inflation), and
political instability.

Imagine what will happen when the number of climate-related storms, floods, and droughts continues to increase around the world? What role will the U.S play?

Environmental Justice Scorecard

1 Reply

Hey everyone,

I thought I’d share the environmental justice mapper since Cire and I didn’t have a chance to in class.  Scorecard is a pollution information site that provides information on environmental justice and distribution of environmental burdens.  I entered in the zip codes of some major U.S. cities, and if you’re interested, try entering your hometown.  There isn’t data for every town, though.  Also keep in mind that the numerical values on the bar graphs are indicators rather than actual pounds of pollution released or actual number of cancer cases.  Here’s a website to look up zipcodes if you don’t know them: Zip Code Database.

-Nick

Canada Declares BPA, a Chemical in Plastics, to be Toxic

1 Reply

I thought I’d share this article about a chemical widely found in plastics that is thought to be toxic (at least by the Canadians). I came across this article for biology because we’ve been learning about hormones and the chemical in the article, bisphenol A or BPA, is thought to act as an endocrine disrupter. But I also thought it related to our class, especially in how different governments have reacted and the role that industry has played.

Just food for thought…

  • How large a role should the federal government play in protecting the health of their citizens? (vs. states, health agencies, etc.)                                                                                                                                                                                                     “In the United States, about half a dozen states have banned BPA in children’s products. The federal government has taken no action, saying there is no proof of harm in humans. But health and regulatory agencies have concerns about BPA and have commissioned more studies.”
  • How is it that Britain and the U.S found it to not be toxic, while Canada, France, and Germany did (based on the same scientific evidence?)                                                                                                                                                                          What does this show about these countries interests? (Note the line: “Canada’s move, which was strenuously fought by the chemical industry….”)
    What makes Canada so different?
  • Do you think the American Chemistry Association’s argument, that Canada’s announcement will “unnecessary confuse and alarm the public”, is legitimate?
  • Why do some health issues get more media attention than others?
    “The compound was formally listed as being toxic to both the environment and human health in an official notice published online by the government without fanfare, a noticeable contrast to the earlier baby bottle announcement, which was made by two cabinet ministers.”
  • Does BPA’s high prevalence in products add or take away from an argument against it?

Also, I noticed that even though the federal government has not declared BPA to be a toxic substance, water bottle companies like Nalgene are still now making “BPA free” bottles…..

Commenting on Is there hope?

Personally I believe that the move to detergents with less phosphates is a step in the right direction. Rarely have producers knowingly lowered the quality of their goods to become more environmentally friendly. Usually, corporations only try to “go green” as long as it doesn’t hinder their economic success. Although this change is coming as a result of government interference and not because groups such as Cascade are voluntarily altering their products, it is still comforting that some people out there are beginning to make at least moderate changes. However, despite the good intentions behind the switch to detergents with less phosphates and although I view it as a positive, it will take a while for the public to buy into this concept. The reasoning for going green in this case was to help preserve lakes and reservoirs that these harmful phosphates enter and pollute. Yet, this is not the main concern of the consumer. Fortunately, more and more states are starting to force companies such as Cascade to decrease the amount of phosphates in the detergents, but when given the option of buying a product of high quality that is harmful to the environment, or one that is “green” but will leave your dishes almost as dirty as when you put them in the dishwasher, people are going to go with the former, at least for now. Just look at the article. Quote after quote, people are saying things like, “this is the worst product ever made for use as a dishwashing detergent.” It’s a sad truth, but most people are going to look out for themselves first, and the world after.

In addition, many people feel that this switch to environmentally friendly detergents is futile because although there may be less phosphates in them, the new methods required to successfully wash one’s dishes are almost as hazardous to our planet. For instance, one of the negative quotes that particularly caught my eye was that of Thena Reynolds, a 55 year old from Texas. She says, “If I’m using more water and detergent, is that saving anything?” when talking about how she has to do the dishes twice to fully clean them. She feels that the move was too extreme and that there should be a “happy medium somewhere.” I hate to bring up economics in an environment class but this quote made me think of one of the basic principles of econ- weighing costs and benefits. Yes, lakes and streams will most definitly benefit from the move to less phosphates but if people are going to be wasting more water and detergent, as well as leaving their tap water running as many tend to do if they are washing their dishes by hand, is the change even worth it? Clearly detergents with many phosphates and detergents with less phosphates have their flaws, but in deciding which path to go down, we should consider which will be more beneficial to us as a whole in the long run-personal interests aside. So to answer Joey’s two questions at the end of his post, I do think this is the start of a trend of changes that will help the environment, but it is a very small one. No one thing will completely get us out of a crisis but if this type of action and involvement in environmental issues, we will soon start improve. In order for this to happen though, the public must be on board. Corporations may not want to “go green” but things escalated to the point where they might need to. However, if the consumers refuse to buy their environmentally safe products, these changes are useless. They are not completely in the wrong for rejecting these new detergents, but not matter the changes that are going on, everyone has to be on the same page for anything to work. There cannot be a clash between the producers, or more directly, government policy, and the people.

Offshore Wind Power

Here is a really cool article I found today on the cover of the NY Times. It is about the recent funding of offshore wind turbines 15-20 miles along the Atlantic seaboard. Potentially this project could help allow a majority of mid-Atlantic states be self-sufficent on renewable energies. This project is similar to the Cape Cod Wind Turbine Project yet these turbines would be relatively unseen by the naked eye. Actually, the Dad of one of the girls who lives in our hall  is a leader behind this project with Good Energies,a leading global investor in renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. Check it out.

Here is the article.

Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Backing

-Hig