With the midterm coming up in the next couple of hours, it feels necessary to systematically go over two months worth of notes. But doing so isn’t just a part of the studying process for a big exam; it is also to reflect on all the harsh realities and problems that we’ve discussed along the way, and to incorporate the lecture on environmental policy into how it all intertwines. To be honest though, I’m seeing that these two goals aren’t very different.
We’ve talked so much about the problems that we all face as a society, how corporations disregard the environment in favor of profit, and how humans play an individual part in devastating their surroundings. We’ve discussed the science of how this all happens and the methods behind why we’re sinking into such a deep environmental hole. And now it’s starting to become clear that there needs to be a bridging of the gap. It’s sometimes how I feel in many of my other classes, usually philosophy or political science. I’m waiting to apply the theoretical into something tangible; the moment I realize that I’ve learned or reasoned something applicable, it feels like I’ve accomplished something.
There’s no point in learning about the New Bedford Study, or Rio 2012, or PCBs in the Hudson River if none of these things serve a purpose. But now I see that we’re attempting to mix environmental theory with environmental reality with environmental science in hopes of fostering the very emotional attachment that will spur change. I’m reminded of earlier in the semester when Seong voiced her concern about the use of emotion. I’m inclined to agree with her, at least when sentimentality is overly exaggerated in the construction of a persuasive argument; if there is no other substance beside the emotion, then there is certainly something dubious there that needs to be addressed.
This course’s balanced approach is starting to encourage discussion about environmental policy that can change the course of society. So far, we’ve only talked about the Triple Bottom Line as a framework, which sounds somewhat general, but I’m waiting in anticipation for the next lecture to discuss more policy building. When it comes to the things you care about or personal human flourishing, I’m shameless about copying other people’s idea. Good policy shouldn’t be subject to the punishment of plagiarism. It should be a goal of all human kind to increase the productivity of everyone else. Copyright laws just don’t seem to apply. Of course, there is the problem of finding out which policy is beneficial practically rather than one that seems so only theoretically.
Regardless, we should also recognize the strengthening relationship between policy and science. Our knowledge of the chemical and physical underpinnings of environmental destruction, rehabilitation, and sustainability is steadily increasing, but more studies should be done to accurately analyze and apply this knowledge. Non-biased science exploration should be mandated for the government and for corporations (from a third party perhaps). There are so many different ways that economically driven practices can cause harm, but companies wouldn’t seek alternate means of disposal anyway if it were up to them. RCRA and its renewal with HWMP was a smart move, because it helped combined an emotional response with an understanding of the environment in order to promote positive chance. If we devote more time to making great policy, then it’ll be a lot more possible to stop and reverse our negative impact on the environment as opposed to maintaining only the present and very near future.
