Our considerations of the case studies of Rio de Janeiro and Fort Edwards are rather revealing, because they show two of the reasons as to why the environment is suffering at the hands of humankind: supposed necessity and unconstrained apathy.
The fiasco of Fort Edwards is disheartening in its own right, not just because General Electric released up to 1.3 million lbs. of PCBs into the Hudson River, but also because of its indignation at having to dredge the river. I completely understand the concept of profit motive and cutting costs, but General Electric’s decision to battle the Environmental Protection Agency in the courts and purposely stretch out not dredging is immoral in the greatest of senses. It’s one thing to accept the blame, but it’s another thing to take advantage of our country’s judicial system to avoid penalty costs of corrective action. It’s hard for me to feel sympathy for the corporation because the situation it created clearly implicates GE in deaths and potential deaths from the PCBs toxic effects.
In a way, this personal indignation of mine stems from the belief I expanded on in my last reflection—great power and influence necessitates moral responsibility. It is ridiculous for General Electric to wash their hands clean of the Hudson Falls incident merely by stopping the use of PCBs in their capacitors. The detrimental effects of its actions were compounded by the lack of motive to willingly reverse them. This might bring us back to the issue of sustainability, and balancing cost effectiveness with environmental health, but the hands-off approach that this corporation has towards its environmental impact goes beyond just fulfilling the needs of its consumers; it spills over into moral disregard.
And this brings me from the higher moral responsibly of corporations to the slightly lesser, but still tremendously influential responsibility of the individual. Rio de Janeiro, from what I hear, is a beautiful city, but the reality that its environment is polluted to the point of toxicity is not something that could have happened in an instant or by a single ill-willing person. I don’t doubt that a combination of bad policy, excessive sewage dumping, and detrimental human practices caused the Rio de Janeiro Bay to become what it is today, but a river whose flowing water has been almost completely replaced by sewage in some parts is not merely just incomprehensible to someone who thinks NYC water is dirty, it seems impossible. Alas, knowledge is just the realization of how unknowledgeable one can be, and I most certainly found this piece of information to be eye-opening, because the fact that garbage and used diapers were ubiquitously found in the water suggests an extreme involvement of the human element. This unrestrained disregard amongst the people is something that should not be tolerated by the government.
Thus, the unfortunate situation in Rio de Janeiro reminds me of the necessity of government involvement in environmental conservation and protection. The $1 billion spent by the Brazilian government might have done some good, but with little oversight in regards to the oil terminals, refineries, factories, and trash dumps; the environmental disaster was incrementally getting worse. If anything, I would completely stand by a legislative measure that seeks to more strongly control the release of potentially toxic substances. Corporations might argue that doing so would expose their secrets or burden them economically, but the reality is that the impact of their actions will be far more damaging in the future. The government steps that will be taken when the environmental situation becomes even more unmanageable will be far more intrusive and concentrated then; it is best to get started now, so the future doesn’t suffer as grotesquely.
