Alda Yuan
Professor Alexandratos
MHC 200
Week 4 Response
In an ideal world, scientific studies and scientific evidence would lead directly into policy decisions. Government would institute and let expire regulations according to the most reliable studies. Of course, scientists are most often not the ones making public policy and politicians seem to be consistently willing to shunt environmental and public health concerns aside.
That is not to say there is plenty of ambiguity. Sometimes, even when there exists a preponderance of evidence that there is a risk, it is difficult to determine the proper response. For instance, the implications of the study concluding that underground subway platforms in New York City contain steel dust are disturbing and far-reaching. After all, few people who inhabit the city do not use the subways on at least an occasional basis. Many people inside and outside the city rely on it almost every day for the commute and errands. Thus, any problem with the subway system would seriously impact an enormous amount of people. This is an argument in favor of taking action but can also be used as an argument against change. After all, even the most basic maintenance induced changes in schedule and alterations of route are met with vitriol and anger on all sides by frustrated people trying to make their way to work. Here is a situation where any public policy must balance the evidence one side and the practical concerns on the other. Still, to do nothing is irresponsible and it tells us that society does indeed put a price on human life and public health. This price cannot be quantified as it is not always measured in dollars and cents but it is real nonetheless. As a practical matter of course, no society can afford to protect its people against every possible harm and every possible danger. Thus, those who make public policy are necessarily required to pick and choose what is “worth” legislation and coercion. It can only be hoped then, that they rely more on cold hard scientific fact rather than politics to guide their decisions.
In the case of the landfills in New York City, there seems to be plenty of data to consult. What struck me most about the lecture is the data indicating that the amount of garbage produced per capita in 1940 was double the average in the last twenty years. Interesting facts like this are discernible because of the comprehensiveness of the data. Perhaps the population density of the city, even at that time, forced municipal officers to pay more attention to such affairs. In any case, this surprises me because if anything, I would expect the reverse to be true. In our modern lifestyle, nearly everything we buy and everything we eat comes in layers of separate packaging. The average person certainly also goes through more paper in the course of a year than the average person seventy years ago. I would like to think this is at least partially due to the recycling programs instituted but of course have no data to substantiate that. However, 430 kg of trash is still a substantial amount and just seeing the numbers of the total amount of garbage the city produces as a whole over the course of a year is rather frightening. The deposit laws may have been effective in reducing the amount of plastic and glass waste but it would be hard to impose the exact same regulations on other types of garbage. But that doesn’t mean the same principle cannot be applied to help reduce waste. Some states have already instituted a tax for using plastic bags in grocery stores. Consumers seem to have adapted to this with little protest and many now tote the reusable canvas bags back and forth from the grocery store. This is important for the plastic saved as well as for the attitude and willingness of consumers to accept what is essentially a reduction of their rights for the benefit of the environment.
