Author Archives: Duwa Alebdy

Posts by Duwa Alebdy

I am not Mad about Garbage

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

Someone has to deal with the garbage. Poor Tullytown has to deal with NYCs, and a number of other small population areas also have to deal with the huge amount of garbage coming from large cities. What I thought was obvious from that lesson is that no one should have to deal with the consequences that can occur with living near garbage. It could be a small population or a big one, it doesn’t matter, every human counts so no one person’s health should be threatened. The alternative, I believe, is definitely the best option. I will admit I was slightly disappointed to hear that San Francisco managed to go through with the zero-policy waste program before NYC did, but I still believe that if NYC were to do it, then no other big city or small town has an excuse anymore. Food scraps, coffee grounds, & soiled paper can all be used as fertilizer to make fresh organic foods! Now that I think about it, it’s slightly gross, but it’s much better than to have piles of garbage near a residential area.

And I also find it sad that many people take advantage of those who do not have enough. Tullytown had nothing going for them economically, so they were forced to take others’ trash. The same goes for all of those transfer stations in the South Bronx and Newton Creek. Anyplace in Manhattan, I believe, will always be able to defend itself and find some reason, (and it will be legitimate), for why a transfer station can’t be located in the area. So because of this, I feel Manhattan residents, as well as everyone else, should definitely push for the zero-policy waste program. If you don’t want a transfer system, then push for the better solution. I don’t recall if you mentioned how much it would cost to have this program done, but I strongly doubt it would cost much. In the end, it will save so much money for the city, the same way they did when they enacted the clean water policy.

They should definitely get this done as soon as possible before it just becomes too late. When I think of too late, I think of Treece, thanks to Will, Gidget and Reva. I didn’t seem to realize that there must be some areas that are just too far-gone. I always thought they were close to being a complete disaster and that they must be saved. Treece is a terrible case, and the EPA is just stuck on what to do with it. And what can they do with it? Where will they put all of the waste that is just contaminated with lead? Pretty sure you can’t make fertilizer with that. Though Treece isn’t entirely a lost cause, it does teach us exactly what not to do in the future, like completely burying Tullytown with garbage! Something is bound to happen to that area if the garbage just keeps increasing.

But am I mad about that? I will say I am disappointed, but I am not mad. I know how it feels to get mad, how it feels to get very, very passionate about an issue, to the point where I am able to do nothing else but concentrate on the issue. I’ve felt it before, and still feel it, which is why I know the feeling I have towards the environment just doesn’t match up. It baffles me that we humans can’t even solve issues amongst ourselves; so how in the world are we going to be able to work together, put aside our differences, and solve the environmental crisis? I guess right now my heart is still selfish, in a sense, because it’s still concentrated on dealing with our species instead of the environment, but I believe it’s getting there.  When it does, though, I’ll probably explode, because there really is a limit to how much I can care about before the anger just kills me.

Is it Worth the Risk?

Posted on November 25, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

This debate was surprisingly interesting to me. I had a huge organic chemistry exam the next day, so I assumed my mind would have been fuddled with that and not concentrating on the debate. That wasn’t the case; either my brain needed a desperate break from anything organic or the debate was genuinely interesting. I like to think it was the latter.

I entered the debate already knowing that I was going to side with Ben and Dan. Every time I hear the word ‘nuclear’ I can’t help but think ‘extremely harmful.’ But Simon and Demetra brought up some good points that I didn’t know about. For example, they mentioned that 25% of our energy here in the city comes from nuclear energy. So 25% of our energy comes from Indian Point, a nuclear power plant that had to shut down multiple times in order to fix something that could potentially cause huge harm to millions, as Ben and Dan said. I understand that a good chunk of our energy comes from this plant, but if it continuously has to be closed down, is it worth it? One day it may cause damage before they’re able to close it down, such as during an earthquake. What will happen then?

Another thing that bothered me throughout this debate was how the con side very easily disregarded the effects nuclear waste can have, because the amount created is so small. And if the nuclear power plant is created and functions correctly, it won’t cause any damage at all. I mean, how many times have we heard that? I feel maybe it would have been best for them to go into more detail here. From what I’ve read online, as of now this country has around 60,000 tons of radioactive waste. This is not the 1 kg Demetra and Simon mentioned. If we use even more nuclear power than usual, there will obviously be more nuclear waste. We tend to only worry about the consequences of our decisions only after the decision has been made, which I’m afraid will probably happen in this situation. Do we know what will happen if much more nuclear energy is used? I feel there will obviously be more accidents occurring, along with successes. It will cost more money to make sure everything is safe and sound, and in the past companies always preferred the cheaper option. What will guarantee that the nuclear power plants that will either be redone or created will actually be safe? The government? I assume many companies will not like that idea. What is their definition of ‘safe’ anyways?

I understand from what the class was discussing after the debate that once we tap into the nuclear resources under the water in the oceans, we’ll have an unlimited amount of nuclear energy. I find that weird, that something in the Earth can be unlimited when we’re so used to its resources being limited, but I’ll take your word for it! Still, it produces waste that we have not figured out how to reuse.  I’ve read that France is in the process of doing that (of course) while we were stopped thanks to Carter! J I feel if we are going to continue with this energy source, we need to figure out how to make it 100% clean, which means using its wastes. But even then, I feel it is a waste of money to figure out how to properly use nuclear energy over trying to figure out solar energy. We should first do the latter, then try and use other sources of energy. But only when we’re sure we are not going to be in an energy crisis. I agree with Ben and Dan that we should close down Indian Point and work on finding greener energy. With no nuclear power plant, it will force the city to find another energy source, thus having them work harder on finding a greener solution.

A Greener NYC: Will it be Enough?

Posted on November 18, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

I do believe the first step to doing anything in life is to plan. It’s nice to see that NYC is planning on being greener, but how many people have planned to do so? Way too many and nothing has happened. So when you were going over the steps NYC planned to take, from cleaning out brownfields to achieving the cleanest air out of all the cities, I couldn’t help but think: “yeah, yeah, being clean and stuff, yeah.” It’s unfortunate, because some of the ideas truly were good, such as developing a backup network for the water system and reducing global warming emissions by more than 30%. But I couldn’t help but believe that this was just another amazing to-do list that wouldn’t actually be done. I mean, I know from experience. My to-do lists are phenomenal but rarely get accomplished.

So it really was surprising for me to see that NYC has actually done something to achieve its goals by 2030. They aren’t procrastinating, which is the biggest shocker here! They have created new land by decking over infrastructure, Park Avenue being the example that relates most to us Hunter students. It is also good to see that brownfields have been made useful, such as in Atlas Park, Queens. It’s a shame, though, that these areas aren’t being supported enough. Not sure if it is the consumers fault or not, but I am wondering how they advertise something like this. Do they simply say “Hey, new mall over here! Grand opening!” Or do they mention that is was once nothing but a chemically polluted piece of land?

What I also liked from what NYC is doing is that they are doing something about the horrible train traffic we have to face daily! In class we discussed the 6 train and how crowded it was, to the point where it is the most crowded train in the nation (right?)! In all honesty though, I do believe the 4 and 5 trains are worse, but the class was really dead set on the 6 train so I didn’t bother saying anything. But that’s not the point; the point was that the government is building a 2nd avenue line, which I strongly believe will help very much with the overcrowding issue. Unfortunately, this will probably be built once I no longer need to use the 4, 5, or 6 trains anymore, but at least it’ll help those to come in the future. I’m wondering, though: since they are now building a brand new subway line here, why don’t they try and make it more environmentally friendly? We learned about the issue of inhaling steel and how dangerous that it. Maybe they can do something to fix that? Better ventilation? I understand if they don’t want to rebuild/fix up the old train stations, but I don’t think they have an excuse right now with this new one.

I also loved learning about the Bluebelt program in Staten Island. I think it was a very smart way of “not killing the bees” and using nature to solve the combined sewage overflow problem that we have when it rains. I read an article on Scientific American about this program and it mentioned that it did not obviously prevent the huge amount of water coming in during Hurricane Sandy, but it wasn’t built to prevent that. When it comes to rainwater, it is very successful, so they plan on building one like it in Queens. I’m wondering if they are going to build it in every borough, or if they’re just going to build it in the ones that truly need it? I assume every borough needs it, so why not build one in all of them? Why one at a time? Money issues? That seems to always be the obvious answer.

But the greener issue that I’d love to see NYC solve is making the city have lesser global warming emissions by 30%. The senate legislation (me!) was calling for 40% less by 2022, but hey, it’s something. I wonder how they’ve been doing in this area? I feel this may be the most difficult out of the bunch.

NYC Will, as Usual, LEED the Way

Posted on November 12, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

As a born and raised New Yorker, I cannot help but have an immense pride for my city of origin. I do strongly believe that we are better at almost all things, and no other state can even attempt to compare. I feel the Clean Water Policy in NYC is a clear example of that. Instead of doing what the EPA was trying to enforce upon us (with good intentions, of course) we decided to do it better. It would have cost $9 billion dollars to create a water filtration system, and $300 million dollars per year to maintain it. That is an outrageous amount of money, and I am genuinely curious to know what states have accepted this expensive challenge. (I was having trouble trying to find this information).

NYC decided to avoid this payment all together by attempting to avoid the problem instead of later on trying to fix it. In April 2010, NYC did just that by purchasing 1,026 acres of land upstate for the price of $2.8 million dollars. That doesn’t sound like $9 billion to me. All of this was purchased so that the drinking water of New Yorkers can be protected from the harm industrial chemicals would have caused it. It is because of this that I do not have to worry about lighting up my water to see if flames will arise (Thank God).

But of course, an economic problem always has to arise when something is done environmentally correct. The good ol’ natives from Catskills are upset that all of the land around the water has been purchased, because now that means the area will not be able to rise economically. Would it be selfish of me not to really care about that? I’m sure that most of them want to compromise. They want to be able to have jobs and live a good life while at the same time not sacrifice the health of 9 million people. But when does that actually happen? Whenever we decide to compromise, it ends up just being the economy taking preference, since that provides instant gratification. So I genuinely hope that NYC doesn’t do anything about this. I don’t understand why the area should complain about this purchase once it is done anyways. If they had an issue with it, they should have brought it up beforehand.

I love the idea of LEED. To have a stamp on buildings to let people know that it is environmentally friendly is a great idea. Of course, it would be nice if these buildings were actually environmentally friendly. I have yet to come across a LEED mark on any buildings so far, which I am disappointed about. I think it would also be cool to see a rating done on how environmentally friendly buildings are. The same way the Department of Health does that for restaurants, I think it is now time for that to be done for the environment as well. It will make people more aware of environmental issues every time they see a rating from LEED, or from another organization that wants to do something like this. It will influence many to want to fight for the environment, and this is an easy way for them to do it. Of course, as of now I’m pretty sure every single building ever will probably fail, but then again it takes a lot in order for a restaurant to fail for their rating system too.

But I feel I am going off track here. I just like the change in the past few lessons. I was really getting sad and thinking the apocalypse was approaching with the beginning lessons. It’s good to see that something can be done and is being done, with NYC being awesome with their approaches.

The Messianic Moment

Posted on November 12, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

The twelve principles of engineering are fantastic and all, with the whole “telling companies exactly how things should be done, instead of saying that it just should be done,” is what I like most about it. But in the end, I cannot honestly say that I remember anything else. Of course, I don’t expect you to have us all memorize the twelve principles, but I am disappointed that when I think back to that lesson, all I can remember is the main point of it. As I’m sure that probably disappoints you too, I’d just like to let you know that after your lesson that day, I did remember something that I’d probably remember for years to come. I became slightly, maybe, I don’t know, crazy, about the words “messianic moment.”

I always wondered what was the word or words for what I was striving for. I of course imagined countless times of the day where the world will finally realize that I am right and they are wrong, as I’m sure we all have. But in all seriousness, something clicked in my head when you gave out this word. In order for the world to be changed, there has to be a messianic moment, and it can come from absolutely anyone. That’s what I love so much about it. It’s not always a specific person, like an Ivy League graduate who won at least 3 noble prizes. It can be an average individual that already has the emotional engagement needed for this change. I’ve had way too many people tell me throughout my life that I am only one person, and not buying things from a certain company or organization is not going to do anything. So what if I decide not to eat from McDonalds or Starbucks or Burger King. It means nothing to them, as long as millions of others are still consuming them daily, everything will be all right for them. But I have now reaffirmed my thought that yes, doing something alone can actually make a difference. But I must make people aware of what I am doing. The same way Rachel Carson released a book, or the same way Morgan Spurlock released a documentary. If I feel something is wrong, I must put all of my effort into fixing it and finding a solution, and then sharing the information I have found with others. Because in a way, it is true that alone, I won’t get much done. But I do have to start alone and then gradually work my way up. It starts from within, of course. It can’t immediately start with millions of support. Now what it is that I will be fighting for is a completely different and a much more complicated story, thanks to my passion for wanting to find a solution to every problem in this world.

So I will switch to Macbeth, the lovely one act play that was done by Hayley, Seong, Tom, and Tom. I love creativity, and I wasn’t surprised that these four were the ones to do this oral presentation. I was excited to see what their play would be about, since I had heard earlier it was on Macbeth and I wondered how they’d fit that with the environmental crisis. And of course, they managed to alter the play wonderfully into showing the political side of the environmental situation. If only science was enough to convince people that something must be done about this problem. Unfortunately, money plays a huge part in people’s lives, and their play emphasized that. Someone may at first have cared about the environment, but once put into a position of power, greediness plays a bigger part. This was shown in Shakespeare’s play, and it makes sense that the group chose Macbeth out of all of them. Their story idea was honestly really good, and I can imagine that it would be a great, impactful, and satirical movie if someone were to actually do it!

Is Life Truly Unbalanced?

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

“I don’t remember the moment, I tried to forget,

I lost myself, is it better unsaid?

Now I’m closer to the edge.”

It is always a great moment when Pandora puts on a song with the perfect lyrics for the moment, especially right after my conflicting feelings and thoughts due to watching Koyaanisqatsi. Even now, after thinking about it for quite some time and feeling as if I’ve understood the message behind it, I still get uneasy thinking about the way the movie expressed it. Long (very long) minutes of beautiful, natural scenery to fast paced seconds of the technological, gray city life. I’ll be honest and say that during both the fast and the slow moments, I had my moments of boredom. I feel this is because the movie transitioned really well into the fast moments. It didn’t happen immediately, but instead took its time. For example, instead of going straight from the many long shots of the desert environment to the really sped up people going on the escalators, the movie instead had us have a transition moment that included the interaction of nature and technology. It showed power lines amongst the nature scenery and atomic bomb denotations in the desert. But I feel the most important nature/technology interaction was the first one shown: suddenly on the screen, a shot of a big, green truck appears and it covers everything around it in black smoke.

I honestly thought I understood the entire movie just from this one scene. The black smoke engulfing everything was what I thought was an obvious indication of how many people (and they are right in believing so) believe that we are killing ourselves with the constant use of technology without care for the consequences. I thought it was brilliant of the producers/director/whoever thought of this to have the area surrounding the truck to be bright and pure and the smoke to be so thick and black that once it covers a certain area you can’t see through it anymore. Though this was a beautifully crafted scene, it occurred way too early into the movie. After watching the entire film, I can say that I wasn’t entirely foolish to think I understood the message behind it from that scene. I’d say I was pretty close, and I like how the film acknowledged what most people were probably thinking: technology has impacted us greatly. From a calm, slow life to a now fast paced, selfish one. Pretty much everyone agrees now that technology has changed us, but I feel there was more to the movie than just this. I felt like that was a very easy message to get out of it, and this film just seemed too complicated to simply take the easy route.

I wouldn’t say there was another scene that made me have a brain blast like the green truck one did. I don’t know exactly when I realized this, but I realized that this film wasn’t really about how we are affected by technology, exactly. For example, the film showed the manufacturing industry, from workers sewing pants to others organizing hot dogs. They went through this pretty fast, which is expected because in reality it does happen quickly. But it was interesting that right after that went by, people were shown eating food and shopping, and this was done at the same pace as the items being created. Everything was happening fast, even people just relaxing and having a good time was done at the same speed as people working. I felt like this was just one of many examples from the movie that really emphasized a switch we humans have made in our lives: from living in the Earth, amongst water and air and all sorts of organisms, to now living in a giant computer chip, filled with metals and electricity and “advancements.” This is our life now, whether or not we like it or acknowledge it. We move just as fast as machines do, which is a huge change from how much slower things were going in the past. Things were much calmer too, which is why I understand why people consistently discuss the past and how much it has affected us, but I think it’s a waste of time discussing this if we don’t do anything about it to fix it. Then again, I feel like this is not an easy situation to fix. For the most part, I feel this situation is quite irreversible. I’m not talking about the environmental issues here; I’m talking about the technological ones. We live and breathe iPhone 5s and iPad Minis. Our bodies have adjusted to it, how do we make our bodies go back to being satisfied with everything going back to a slow pace? I don’t see that happening at all.

But the thing is, I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing either. We can of course learn to do everything we’re doing now in a more environmentally friendly way, but either way we’re still going to do what we’ve been doing. People can’t imagine living without their Plasma Screen TVs and lightweight laptops. Everyone is constantly with a cell phone, always using transportation, having Google as his or her best friend. I really don’t see that changing, and to be honest I don’t see anything Koyaanisqatsi about that either (if I used the word correctly here). So our lives have changed, and pretty quickly at that. But why does that mean we are living a chaotic life? Of course, this depends on a person’s definition of chaotic. If they mean spontaneous, then yes, we really should think before our actions (the environmental crisis is a very clear example of that). But if by chaotic they mean out of control in a negative sense, then I don’t really agree. I feel like this new way of living, through technology, is very different, and we humans don’t have a past time period similar to this that we can look back to. So this is a huge change, and many people usually assume that change is bad and it’s best to stick with what we already know. But we can have control in this life, I am confident about that. As mentioned loads of times, it is possible, scientifically and even economically, to live the life we are all living now in a more environmentally friendly manner so that we don’t put the entire Earth at risk. I feel many people may get out of this movie that we have officially transitioned to not caring about the environment at all, and being all about the newest, latest gadgets, so there is no hope. But it’s just so wrong to think that way.

What I got from the movie was that we are living a different life than what we used to live. Especially now, during 2012, since I assume the film was made in the 1970s. Not only have our connection with technology strengthened and our relationship with nature weakened, but also amongst fellow human beings have we changed. The scenes in the film that zoom in on people’s faces, showing immense sadness in some, just broke my heart. Especially that first man shown, the one with the hat that said something about ferry rides. It showed again how technology driven we now are. If something doesn’t work, we just throw it out and get a new one. If something just doesn’t belong or you don’t have time for it, you just set it aside. We do this amongst each other now, in big cities the most. We care about ourselves first, our closest friends and family the next, and after that, you’re on your own. If we do this with each other, how can people not imagine us doing that to the Earth? Technology is our life, and I think our only option now is to figure out a way to live with it without putting an end to ourselves and the world around us.

People Make Things so Difficult

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

So while looking through my notes at this very moment, I saw the graph you had up in your PowerPoint that had investments as the x-axis, and benefits on the y-axis. The smaller line was “optimizing the existing solution,” while the bigger line was “re-defining the problem.” Science has shown time and time again how we are digging ourselves into a deeper hole with every passing day if we do not put in lots of money into green engineering. Yet big companies (the ones who cause the most environmental issues, though we do our fair share as well) insist on just changing what they already have. You’ve already mentioned in class that it will take billions of dollars for a company to change up the system that they already have into a green-friendlier one. I understand that, but they’re going to do it anyways. Whether it’s right now or in a few years, they’re going to have go be green before it’s too late. So why waste money now? Why “optimize the existing solution” or “re-engineer the problem” when they can just “re-define the problem” from now and actually save money doing so?

The BP Commercial you showed in class reminds me of Mitt Romney. The commercial clumped together solar and wind energy with gas and oil, even though those two are completely different. Two of them are obviously cleaner and less risky than the other two. During the last debate, Romney was discussing how, unlike Obama, he would put money into green engineering but not take jobs away from coal miners. He was pretty much trying to make everyone happy, but it’s just unrealistic. It’s so contradictory to have both sources for energy. I understand that we don’t want to take away jobs from people right now, especially in this economy where the likelihood of them finding another one is quite slim, but isn’t this natural? What happened when the car was created? Horse carriage owners lost their jobs. What happened during the Industrial Revolution? Agricultural workers lost their jobs. This happens, and during these recent times and in the (hopefully) near future, we will begin to switch into more green energy jobs.  We have to, or else the hole that’s already been dug will be so much deeper with no way out.

I just now decided to look up William McDonough and learn more about him. Using the very reliable Wikipedia source, I learned that Fast Company Magazine criticized him for “…unwilling to share cradle-to-cradle specifications with suppliers, though he continues to promote it.” I assume from this line and from the ones before it that McDonough seems like a man who is making groundbreaking achievements when it comes to green engineering, but he’s being too protective over the knowledge. He’s not sharing all of it with others, as if he’s a child and wants to have all of the credit, which I find quite pathetic. Also, he even wants credit for things he didn’t even achieve himself. Quite a lot of scientists, according to the article I was reading, don’t seem to like him, but have to deal with him because he’s now the face of cradle-to-cradle, he’s the face for environmental sustainability, even if he really didn’t do as much as people think he did. I find that quite sad, and feel disbelief over the fact that even environmental sustainability is being turned into a competitive business when it shouldn’t be. I feel like doing that to it will only halt the process even more.

Link to the article: http://www.fastcompany.com/1042475/green-guru-gone-wrong-william-mcdonough

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

The issue of emotional engagement is just too complicated, that’s why it’s an issue to begin with. It would be great if we all held hands and walked towards the horizon with a great new life free of problems and concerns but that’s never going to happen, and I personally hate acknowledging that but it’s true. Each of us puts our emotions in different areas. We don’t all care about the same things. Even if we reached the point where we were near death, we may all care about surviving but how we survive is a completely different issue. Some care about the people as a whole, while others care for themselves. Not saying either is wrong, but they are on different ends of a spectrum and I can’t see us bringing them together.

You brought up Civil Rights, a huge issue that we battled for decades. It really didn’t seem like the issue would be solved, but through time it did. And it only did because new people came along and realized that what they were seeing is wrong and that the actions of their ancestors greatly damaged society. I believe that will happen again, I sincerely do. But when it comes to the environment it will be much more difficult than Civil Rights. I think it has everything to do with anthropocentrism too. With Civil Rights, the oppressed could stand and speak up about the poor morality of society and get people’s attention. Plants can’t do that. Oceans can’t do that. They can’t fight for their rights; someone has to do it for them. But the majority of people aren’t going to do that unless we start to be greatly affected by the environmental issues. No matter how hard we try, we’re still being anthropocentric. And sure, that’s a bad thing, but I don’t think we can help it. If we don’t understand a certain situation, there’s no way we can sympathize with it. We do this amongst each other, so of course we do it for the environment.

So how can we get people to stand up for it? Of course, you mentioned it with education. Education truly is key, but that means the difficult task of educating everyone. Billions of people in the world, and we need to educate every last one of them because like someone in class said (I think Gidget) the Environment Issue is different from Civil Rights because this time, it involves everyone’s participation. Doesn’t matter what the color of your skin is, if you don’t care for the environment it will affect you.

But even then, people are educated with important issues all the time and they just refuse to care about it. The emotion just isn’t there. Or it is, but they care about other things more. What do you do then? How can you force emotion on people? This is why emotional engagement is just too difficult. You have people caring about the wrong things and because of it we can’t be united.

But I think there is something we can do, and it’s to have a small amount of people show the rest of us that sustainability is possible. If everyone is able to see that, then they’ll be much more likely to stand up and fight for what’s right. If New York City, with a population of millions, is able to create a sustainable society, everyone else can definitely do it. We need an example; the Civil Rights had it with nonviolence, this issue needs to have one as well and I just can’t think of one that already exists in our time. Education won’t be enough if people believe the situation is hopeless, as many people do. We need something to show us that there is still hope and that sustainability can occur, or else it just looks too far-fetched.

A Case Study of the Here & Now

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

When I was first looking through the case of New Bedford, I guess I had the typical student response to it: boring. I mean, I understand that history is very important and all, but I guess it was reinforcing what I already knew. It wasn’t until the next lesson, about the greenhouse effect and climate change, did I put two and two together. I realized that we are actually going through what will probably be a case study in the near future, and that fascinated me.

I would also like to make a note that the new Bedford case did not just show how problems come up over time due to decisions that were made without thought of the long term consequences. It also showed that many fields could work together. Historians and scientists worked together on this, it wasn’t one or the other. So that fact really reminded me that I don’t have to just choose that one thing I want to do in life. It reminded me that I can do many things and that they are all connected in some way, I just have to figure that out and make it my own.

Back to science now! What I think the New Bedford case mentions that we should take into consideration now with our own global warming crisis is that there are some issues that will never be resolved. Scientists need to determine which issue is irreversible and which issue can be solved, or at least have the impact be lessened. In class, we discussed the Southern Ocean and how it is now pretty much completely saturated with carbon dioxide. The class kept trying to determine what solution would work and what solution wouldn’t, like mixing in some base so that the pH can increase. But where are we going to get all of that base? And what effects will that end up having on the ocean’s environment? I really don’t know if this issue can be resolved, at least not right now. I think right now the concentration should go towards there being less carbon dioxide in the first place. The amount emitted by the major countries in the world is outrageous, and it just seems to be increasing year by year, even with the crisis in mind.

Governments in the past have done things that the people have not liked, whether that be going into war or increasing taxes. The people right now might not realize the huge impact global warming is going to have in just a few decades, so I believe it is the government’s responsibility to do something about it. Isn’t that what they’re there for? To make decisions that’s best for their people? Instead they seem to be doing the opposite at times. World leaders definitely have the money to put into finding alternative energy but they are just too greedy and figure they’re going to die anyways before anything bad happens. I mean, that’s probably true, but that just screwed my friends and me over.

So I realize this essay response is all over the place, so I’d just like to end it by saying thank you for teaching us what the greenhouse effect is. To me, that’s something that everyone knows but most people probably can’t explain it. I know it’s a problem, but I can never explain why it’s a problem, but now I can! I am a firm believer that knowledge is the key to everything, and if only there was a way to teach people the environmental issues. Right now, I am in an organization that teaches teens across the major cities in America health issues that they aren’t aware about. Can’t the same be done for the environment? It’s actually a very good idea; you should try it, professor! J

The Trash

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Duwa Alebdy

I like how the last lectures were about the issue of trash. I feel this issue directly relates to us then the PCBs in the Hudson River issue did, for instance, because we are the ones generating the trash. We are the ones contributing to the issue. Of course, we have no choice. What would we do with all of our wastes, then? Right now there are the two options: the landfills or the incinerators.

I would like to say thank God for no more incinerators! The 12,000 tons of particulate matter released every year during the 1930s-1970s would have surely given us all cancer by now if it was allowed to continue. It’s interesting though that incinerators are still around in some areas. Well in actuality, Detroit doesn’t call it an incinerator, but what else would it be? They’re burning trash the same way incinerators did decades ago. Detroit is in debt and the “incinerator” is a good way to make some profit for the city, but the city should take more responsibility of its people and think of new ways for waste disposal. It is known that particulate matter can be an immediate danger to people when exposed.

Which is why I found the case study of particulate emissions in NYC so very interesting. They were trying to determine the Fe/Mn ratio, and instead found a ratio of 104- for steel. So everyday I take the train in order to go to class and I am consistently exposed to steel thanks to the train braking, causing friction and releasing steel dust. But honestly this is not going to stop me from taking the train. How else would I go from the very tip of Manhattan to the Upper East Side every morning? I already walk a few train stops in order to get exercise, but to walk the whole ride would be outrageous.

Speaking of the tip of Manhattan, though, I always loved the fact that I live on garbage! I just hope it’s not diapers. And I am still stunned at the fact that almost 15% of refuse composition in homes are made up of diapers. I would like to think that maybe we can decrease that number, but what are we going to make the mothers do? Go back to cloth? We released them from that burden and as mothers they shouldn’t be given more burdens to deal with- raising a child is enough! But diapers are quite difficult to get rid of due to their chemical complexity, and that is the problem with the majority of waste today. Through time, a lot of our products are chemically complex in order to give us instant gratification, and of course that results in a huge issue with waste disposal. No more ash thanks to a switch in fuel means we don’t know how to build out land, but can we try out plastic? I actually like the sound of that, but I just find it difficult to imagine. There was so much ash (80%) leftover to make land out of it, and there isn’t as much plastic nowadays compared to that number (10%). But let’s just say we keep all of the wastes at landfills. The one shown in the video at Florida seemed very close to the city: what effects will that have on it? There must be issues already, especially for those who are working there directly, like the truck drivers. I would assume if it ever reached its peak of 193 feet high, the wastes at the bottom must have dug into the soil and reached water, causing quite an effect on the city and everyone in it. But that’s not going to stop the use of landfills. I can only think of one sure-fire way to get rid of our wastes: send it off into space! If only.

Comments by Duwa Alebdy