Week 2 – Hayley Desmond

I’m almost disappointed that there are no libertarians in our class, as I’m sure they would make for some lively exchanges. Then again, it’s probably best that my blood pressure not skyrocket during class. The argument for increased environmental protections as a result of consumer demand raises a question of economics: does demand create supply, or can supply dictate demand? In today’s developed world, in which a few large corporations hold a huge percentage of the consumer market, it seems silly to insist that somehow average individuals can band together to change the practices of superrich and super-powerful businesses. I would even say that it reflects a downright disconnection from reality, but I will move on before I launch into a diatribe against objectivism. The point is that American businesses need to be regulated by an entity that can match them in force, i.e. the American government. Perhaps I long for the presence of a rightwing voice in class because it is much less fun to make political assertions, as I like to, if there is no one to engage with. In fact, this behavior probably makes me seem pretentious, as does being interested in the chemical nature of harmful compounds, apparently. Knowledge and curiosity are hallmarks of pretentiousness, don’t you know? I would say I wish we spent more time on mechanisms, such as looking at how a model of biotreatment works, but, the breadth of material that we have to cover aside, some of my peers would probably complain that this will “never affect” them. And again, I try to avoid seeing red while class in is session.
Something that piqued my interested during our first class this week was the all the legislation set forth by the EPA and its effects. Was the EPA actually not completely impotent in the 70s? In the 80s, the Reagan years? Were its rules observed? Was its board not filled with executives from Monsanto and Citigroup? These were foreign concepts for me.
During our second session, however, things became a bit more familiar. Despite the EPA’s ban on the production of PCBs for use in capacitors and its mandate for cleanup, progress on fixing the damage already done stagnated due to the efforts of the company in the hot seat: in this case, General Electric. Stalling via the courts, GE managed to take fifteen years to clean up just the areas where the chemicals were made and dumped from. Afterward, it also publicly criticized the EPA in a statement, at the same time praising the progress made by its own efforts. Meanwhile, GE would have still been producing and indiscriminately dumping PCBs in 2000 had the EPA not put a stop to it. This is the type of corporate shenanigans I recognize.
Another good point that we touched on was the issue of what to do with toxic waste. I thought Seong was insightful in equating the export of New York’s PCB-mud to the depressed Southwest with classism, but I also think that there is another aspect to this. The Hudson River is surrounded by astronomically higher population density than is a small town in Texas. This will hold true for any major city and the Podunk place to which it sends its hazardous waste. It can be argued that it is more ethically sound to store toxic substances where fewer people risk exposure to them, even if the waste was produced by or for the benefit of people in more crowded areas. However, large population centers will almost always be of higher economic standing than areas that are only sparsely inhabited, so in a way this still amounts to classism.