Author Archives: Daniel Hart

Posts by Daniel Hart

Weekly Assignment #13

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Zero Waste – It IS Possible

            When people consume, nobody really takes a second to think what happens to their waste. To them, it simply disappears, and becomes somebody else’s problem. However, it’s alarming to see what really happens after a single day, when New York City discards 50,000 tons of garbage daily. This waste must be taken elsewhere, and it is shocking to see how inefficient NYC was in terms of waste management up until 2001. Furthermore, it is unacceptable to allow this waste to be piled up in a town in Pennsylvania. Who knows how much harm the landfill in Tullytown is really doing?

Prior to 2001, NYC had shipped all of their garbage to the Fresh Kills Landfill, causing diesel-fueled trucks to run for miles more than they really had to. In the 1940s, way after the invention of the assembly line, people should have had the mentality that it would be most efficient to split the waste management responsibilities between the boroughs that produced them. Only in 2001 did NY begin to transition to a more efficient method, which includes creating transfer stations all around New York. However, the ethical question of where to place these transfer stations became commonplace. Nobody wanted to live near these transfer station, and Tony Ard was right when he said that they don’t belong in any residential area. They simply don’t belong anywhere.

What I don’t understand is, why create transfer stations when you are just moving the problem to another location? Instead of trying to make the garbage magically disappear; why not take a step towards reusability. Why can’t New York be more like San Francisco, where they are successfully practicing a policy of zero waste? It is clear to me that the New York Officials are thinking only on the short-term track, and this has to stop. There is no time for change tomorrow, change must happen today.

On another note, the presentations this past week were rather moving. Treece, Kansas and Picher, Oklahoma were once settled towns. All that remains today are mounds of chat, which make the air toxic to breathe. This metal mining was unethical, and posed a serious threat to the immediate communities. Lead and other metals poisoned children, causing life-threatening illnesses. I suppose the towns people did not mind, as the mining provided jobs and economic prosperity, however it seems like there was no thought as to what serious hazards these towers of poison would pose to society. The fact that the EPA would then decide to shove these beacons of death into the ground is even more unsettling. They are creating a potential disaster, and the land could be seriously compromised if this poisonous material ever trickled into a ground water source. The towns’ imminent destruction was inevitable, and the irresponsible mining projects should have never taken place.

I enjoyed the ad-campaign as well – Jackie and Joe put across a serious message. The advertisement could have been taken in two different lights. One – in the sense that New Yorkers are polluting one of the greatest cities in the world and that this needs to stop, and Two – in the sense that we can should use the garbage that we produce and build on what we already have with that. We should promote the idea of zero waste, and begin creating more ad-campaigns to drive this movement. Media is one of the most influential means of getting a message across, and it should be taken advantage of for this good cause. I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore. We need to put the idea across America that producing waste is NOT ok, and should emphasize that eventually, the harm that the individual does to the planet will come back to haunt them. Zero waste is possible, it’s just a matter of getting the message across the nation.

Weekly Response #10

Posted on November 12, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Proactive Thinking, Fracking & LEED

            I always wondered how New York was able to achieve having such clean tap water. There must have been something different that New York has done in order to achieve this, and indeed there is. Rather than spending billions of dollars on water filtration plants, NYC and the EPA agreed on watershed management. The local government bought thousands of acres of land upstate to protect the watershed and maintain the water. This type of forward thinking is the type of thinking that we need the government, corporations, and the individual to utilize. With this type of proactive thinking, there will be fewer problems arising and a higher quality of living.

Although some residents in the Catskills argue that this buyout of prime real estate hinders their economic growth, I believe that this waterway protection is very much needed. Had the government not purchased the land along the waterway, there would be corporations polluting the river and New York would not have the clean water that it has today. Yes, some may say that we could create water filtration plants, but those are extremely costly. Not only do they cost $9 billion, but they also cost $300 million a year to maintain. By that token, it only cost the government $1.5 billion to purchase 1,026 acres of land along the waterways. A smart investment if you ask me. There will always be trade-offs in life, and I believe that the benefits of protecting the watershed highly outweigh the benefits of economic growth in the Catskills. Not only is clean water provided for millions of New Yorkers, but the natural environment is also preserved allowing for ecological diversity.

A huge issue that remains today is the issue of fracturing shale underground to release oils and natural gas. Even today, fracking has not been deeply explored by scientists and the hazards are not concrete. Many corporations claim that it is safe due mostly in part to the composition of the fracking fluids. They claim these fluids to be “safe” because they are composed of 90% water, 9% sand, and only 1% chemicals. However, of that single percentage of chemicals, there are at least 29 known carcinogens including benzene. Nobody in their right mind would want to get anywhere near these chemicals, so why would corporations be allowed to pump this fluid into the ground? Sure, they say it is safe, they say that the shale is so deep that the chemicals will never reach the groundwater, but there is no hard proof that their claims hold true. In my eyes, this seems just as bad as giving mercury to those in third world countries to pan for gold. People in poor areas are being exploited so that businesses can make as much profit as possible at the expense of others. Fracking is just another non-renewable source of energy, and eventually this source of energy will be used up. I see no sense in pumping hazardous chemicals into the land, potentially rendering it unusable, just to obtain this non-renewable energy.

We must shift to renewable energy. We must become sustainable. Most adults spend their time working, so it would make sense to start creating buildings that are sustainable. This is where the LEED standard comes into play, which I think is a brilliant idea. By creating buildings that are efficient in water savings, energy consumption, building materials, indoor quality, and site development, a huge movement will be made towards sustainability. Although it may seem like one green building is not doing much to help the environment, all of the green buildings in the world significantly reduce the harm that we are doing to the earth. However, the individual can make an even greater impact. Although something as small as recycling a plastic bottle may not seem like a lot, it is ultimately up to the individual to help change the world.

Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance

Posted on October 30, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Koyaanisqatsi Response Paper

Koyaanisqatsi is a movie like none that I have ever seen before. After watching it for the first time, I was left puzzled. There was no plot, no commentary, nothing concrete that my mind could really grasp onto. But that is the beauty of this film – to be left open to the viewer for interpretation. I viewed the movie for a second time, and I was able to appreciate it in a much greater sense. I thought that Koyaansqatsi parallels some very interesting ideas and events that are relevant to our MHC 200 course and leaves a strong message in the viewers mind.

Koyaanisqatsi starts off with panoramic views of unaltered nature. Shots of the Grand Canyon, sand dunes, and clouds are all shown, and then paralleled with monstrous power lines interrupting the beautiful landscape. This is the first view of human action in the movie, sending a profound message to the viewer. Humans are willing to sacrifice nature’s intrinsic value so that they can route electricity from power plants located hundreds of miles away to their homes. In the past, nature was thought of as a disposable entity. It was thought that we could do what we wished without any responsibilities and without any repercussions. Oil drilling, for instance, was and still is a way to obtain a source of energy. Koyaanisqatsi depicts oil drilling and power plants, and immediately after shows video footage of nuclear bomb test sites. This style of cinematography is used to instill the thought that we are in fact destroying our own land, as a nuclear bomb would. We are making the land uninhabitable, destroying ecosystems, and throwing life out of balance by disrupting equilibrium.

The movie then shifts towards corporations and the development of automobiles and airplanes. People were in awe of the first skyscraper – they have never seen a building of such magnitude before in their life. It was the beginning of the corporate era. Cars were produced efficiently with the development of the assembly line, and airplanes were invented. However, all of this technological development was not used for good. Instead, this technology was utilized for the war effort and weapons of mass destruction were created. One scene that caught my eye in particular was when they paralleled a parking lot full of cars with a parking lot full of tanks. Was it really necessary to mass-produce this many war machines?

The human race constantly wants more than it needs. Foods with almost no nutritional value, such as hot dogs and Twinkies, were and still are being mass-produced in the United States. This surely is a sign that Americans are indulging themselves in non-essential items. Many people were spending hours in a bowling alley, playing video games, or watching television, oblivious to the world around them. People appreciated these items simply for what they were and took no consideration in how they were created. If something tasted good, people ate it without question. If Americans had fun doing something, nobody questioned how the machinery was produced. In the 19th and even 20th century, there was an overwhelming stench of anthropocentrism.

There was an interesting scene in which the cinematographer filmed people walking on the sidewalk. Each person went about with their life until they realized that they were being filmed. Upon realizing that somebody was watching them, they seemed to become more self conscious about what it was they were doing. This is a common occurrence on both the individual and corporate level. When corporations were unregulated, they would dump huge amounts of hazardous chemicals into surrounding waters. No care was taken to maintain the environment, and corporations took any action necessary in order to raise profits. Once the EPA began to watch these companies closely, more careful in their actions were taken. I find it sad that people have different ideologies when they are being watched than from when they are not being watched. People should practice what they believe is right, regardless of if their actions are being overseen. People’s morals should ring true with how they wish to be viewed ethically. The EPA should not have had to mandate the Hazardous Waste Management Program in order to get Exxon Mobil and GE to regulate their hazardous waste. Chemicals should have never been disposed of in waterways to begin with.

There is always the publicly traded side of corporations as well, centered on Wall Street. In the last few moments of the movie, there is a time lapse of what seems to be the New York Stock Exchange. What grabbed my eye was that the actual infrastructure was apparent, but the traders had a somewhat transparent aspect to them. They were depicted as ghost-like. It seems like there is so much going on within Wall Street, yet these peoples’ lives are so transparent that they have no true significant meaning. These investors have become so focused on earning money and put all else aside. The final scene in the movie is directly after this typical day on Wall Street. It is a scene of a rocket being sent into the air, exploding, and disintegrating into a small piece of burning metal, which falls for the final duration of the movie. This last scene, juxtaposed with the Wall Street scene, leaves me with a strong message. Society has become something that values money above all else. By valuing our own self-interests above all else, we will make progress, but in a self-destructive manner.

Koyaanisqatsi is a moving film that depicts how society has become so disconnected from Nature. It is a perfect portrayal for the rise of the arc, showing the many problems that the Earth faces as a living organism.  However, I feel that a lot of progress has been made and is still currently being made to address the many issues that were represented in the movie. When this movie was filmed, I believe that many people were practicing what their current technology allowed. For instance, people were only able to utilize oilrigs because that was the only available source of energy for the human population. However since the 20th century, there has been a slow, but sure, shift in how people think.

The only thing that worries me is how much time it will take for this shift in ideology to fully take place. In my eyes, the world is currently in a state of emergency. Even after twenty years from Koyaanisqatsi’s release, we are only beginning to propose solutions to the problems at hand. There should be more strain put on the importance of shifting to renewable energy. The problems that humans have created thus far continue to get worse on a daily basis, and until the day that BP or Exxon begins to supply renewable energy, this downward trend will remain. As said in the Hopi Prophecy sung in Koyaanisqatsi, “If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster.” People will exploit these non-renewable minerals until humanity realizes that there is much more to gain than just money. The Earth is in our hands, and it is in our power to decide the world’s fate. We must stop inviting disaster, and shift our values to those of a sustainable future. We must find another way to live that better suits the environment.

Symbiosis

Posted on October 26, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Symbiosis

The world has become such a diverse place over its lifetime, from simple one-celled bacteria to humans. That must mean that something has been right from the start, which is the idea of having absolutely no waste. This has been accomplished as dead organisms provide the nutrients for new organisms to grow, which is the foundation of how we have come to evolve into smart and efficient creatures. This idea, which I think is an extremely simple one, can be and should be utilized in the corporate world, as it will only advance technology and efficiency in ways that we could never imagine possible.

Ever since the industrial revolution, many people have been thinking of how to improve the current situation, how to make things more efficient. When a system is so flawed from the foundation, such as based on coal power, a huge problem arises. It becomes extremely hard to change the foundation on which corporations were built upon. However if these corporations realize there is an exponential amount of money to make by redefining the problem, progress will be made. Instead of having to create waste and paying to dispose of it, these companies can utilize waste to make new products, minimizing costs, increasing profits. This is definitely the basis for success, as it is precisely this system that has allowed many species to arise and thrive throughout the world.

There is a lot of work to be done for cradle-to-cradle production to be entirely efficient, however we can start by having corporations slowly phase into using renewable energy. Solar energy, for example, is a prime example of a type of renewable energy source that can provide power to homes and factories. Although it may seem more expensive than using oil as a source of energy, our oil repositories will run out soon and then oil prices will be much higher than the price of implementing solar energy. This will provide the framework for future development. With green engineering, we will be able to close the loop that has been destroying the world, and possibly even reverse some of the damage that has been done.

Once this destructive loop is closed, we will all be able to celebrate biodiversity. The basis for how well an ecosystem is the amount of biodiversity that single ecosystem encompasses, which is something that we can increase only after sustainable growth and development begins to occur. Once renewable energy is utilized and no waste is generated, corporations and the environment will be able to live in harmony. There will be some costs to this shift in ideology, however the benefits will indeed outweigh the risks as time passes.

We are currently parasites to the world that we live in, using all of its resources and dumping toxic wastes into it. However, after this paradigm shift takes place, we will be able to live harmoniously with Earth. With this healthy relationship, the Earth will thrive like never before. Ecosystems will be able to diversify while the business world expands and generates profits in ways unseen just decades ago. Corporations will be able to evolve from a primitive creature into something far more advanced, utilizing its waste to make something new so that no waste is generated at all. This future needs to come sooner than later, and we must learn to develop a mutualistic relationship with our home.

The Past, Present, and Future

Posted on October 21, 2012 by Daniel Hart

The Past, Present, and Future

Many people would say that America has progressed greatly over the last century, from abolishing slavery to winning the space race. Indeed, America has progressed greatly since the early 1900s, but there are always new issues that must be addressed. Although the US is doing well socially and economically, many countries are not. Outsourcing is becoming a huge problem both for the United States and for the countries where these corporations are moving.

In developing countries, people are practically being tricked by huge corporations into working far from their home for years in factories with horrible condition, and nothing is being done. Mind you, these corporations are raking in billions of dollars in profit a year. Although some make the argument that these working are making well above the average monthly salary, they are still making less than $60 a month. For the long hours these workers put in, it is practically slavery. This is unacceptable behavior by any corporation, and more so by the companies that make tons of yearly profit. In order for that third world country to ever develop, the working class’ salary must go up to drive the economy forward. Only then will progress be made to a more developed nation.

Until that day however, these outsourced corporations will continue to pollute the environment around their facilities. I mean, that is precisely why they outsourced the jobs in the first place – to be able to do what they want, where they want, when they want as cheap as possible. Until these nations realize that there will be extreme repercussions in the future, nothing will be done. All nations should be able to agree on a set of laws that they see fit so that tomorrow’s world is not environmentally compromised. Although Americans might think that mercury filled rivers in Asia would never impact them, one day, that mercury will end up on your plate containing a deadly concentration of poison.

To address these environmental issues, I feel that there should be worldwide organizations that maintain the environmental well being of the world as a single entity. By establishing a set of guidelines to follow, progress could be made towards sustainable development. However nations that are already developed, such as the United States, would have a hard time to move towards environmental sustainability simply upon the fact that there would have to be a total shift in the manufacturing processes. Infrastructure would have to be rebuilt, and some things would even be less efficient than they are today. In my viewpoint, this is one of the largest problems that any nation would have in moving towards environmental sustainability. This progress would take much longer to achieve than it did to abolish slavery in the United States and even longer than getting a man on the moon, I believe, all because of a single fact. All humans are wired to seek instant gratification. With environmental sustainability there will be no instant gratification, which is something we must accept as a reason to push even harder towards going green.

In the case of slavery, steps were taken at a slow pace to abolish slavery, but each of those steps had immediate effects. In comparison, getting a man on the moon was practically instant – build a rocket, put a man on the rocket, and he will reach the moon given that scientists had a good knowledge of physics. However, people will not be able to appreciate the steps taken towards sustainability. Yes, the initial costs will be high and unpleasant, but if we leave things the way they are now, the total costs of living in the future will be higher than possibly imaginable.

Weekly Response #5

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Daniel Hart

The Importance of History

History is one of the most important subjects that a student can learn, as it can be viewed as one of the best learning tools for the future. Through history, we can see the cause of many desirable or undesirable periods of time such as prosperity, war, or recession. Furthermore, when considering the environment, history can be used as a way of seeing how development over time has influenced the surrounding environmental conditions. From this, new policies can be created to prevent higher pollution levels or even reduce current levels. However, there is a great deal of damage that has already been done over the centuries.

I found the class discussion about New Bedford particularly interesting this past week. This was one of the novel studies that utilized a comprehensive approach in identifying problems in the natural environment, taking centuries of data and analyzing it to see how different time periods influenced the environment around the area. From agriculture to post-textile, there were drastic changes. After building a bridge, development was hindered along the east coast of the river due to sediment deposits. The people of New Bedford began to disrupt the environmental equilibrium, and it would only get worse as the population begins to boom.

The town of New Bedford was ill prepared for the population boom. It is unbelievable how the sewage pipes were constructed, allowing raw sewage to flow directly into the river during rainfall. At the time, the idea of “infinite dilution” was widely accepted, however what about those people who swam unknowingly in the river directly next to one of these sewage outlets? They would be subjected to high concentrations of raw sewage, a serious health hazard. In my opinion infinite dilution is a flawed concept because there is a finite amount of solvent (water) that can be used and eventually, the oceans will be saturated with pollutants. However, there are not the only pollutants to worry about.

Carbon Dioxide is only one of the many gaseous emissions that we must consider in the atmosphere, as it has a hugely detrimental impact on the entire world’s environment. The fact that CO2 is present in the atmosphere is not alarming, but rather it is the rate at which CO2 is entering the atmosphere that is something to take into serious consideration. What was thought to happen over the course of centuries occurred in decades! The amount of carbon dioxide emissions was completely underestimated, and from this fact alone, steps must be taken to ensure that CO2 levels go back to normal. The government should spend some amount of money in research and development for alternative energy, as this is where the future is inevitably headed. Although many make the argument that the oil industry provides many with jobs, new jobs will be created through renewable energy to fill any voids.

In addition to CO2, we have methane to worry about (CH4), which is another greenhouse gas. As the extremely cold climates are subject to warmer temperatures, ice begins to melt. In turn, this allows trapped gas to escape from the lower layers. It is evident that there is a huge amount of methane in Russia under the permafrost, and as global warming progresses, the ice will melt allowing this greenhouse gas to enter the atmosphere in extreme concentrations. The area is so vast that I am not really sure if there are any plausible solutions to preventing or diverting this massive release of methane gas. Even if it not economically efficient, I believe funds should be used to somehow prevent this greenhouse gas from being emitted into the atmosphere. As suggested in class, maybe funnel the methane into old oil wells until they can be utilized.

Looking over the centuries, it is pretty clear that humanity must make a shift to renewable energy. Through industrialization, we have put a huge amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere – more than what the environment can handle. Now, we are experiencing the hottest summers ever, and if we keep up this rate of CO2 emission, we will be making the global problem even larger. One main problem however is that many investors do not see the true value of investing in alternative energy. Although the initial costs may be high, after some time, they will indeed make some profit. This is a reoccurring theme of how corporate mentality must change. Instead of thinking “how can I make the most profit today”, people should be asking “will this be beneficial to me in the future”. Without this shift in thinking, Earth may become Mars much sooner than anticipated.

Weekly Response #4

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Garbage in Inevitable

People will keep on creating trash, that is an inevitable fact. We consume what we wish, and dispose of things that have no value left to us. I believe that it is safe to say that only a handful of people question where this trash is going, with the others mindlessly dumping garbage at an unconceivable rate. All of this waste must be disposed of, whether it is to be incinerated, dumped into landfills, or recycled.

In the early 1900s, incineration was thought to be a great way to get rid of garbage. Simply just put whatever you want into a fire, and poof, it would turn to ash – or so they thought. Through this process, smoke, containing hazardous chemicals, was emitted into the air that we breathe. Less than 30% of the stacks had air pollution control filters, allowing lead levels in the atmosphere to reach hazardously high levels. To make matters worse, incinerators were commonplace in many apartment buildings and were operated by the superintendent of the building. This meant that many stacks were not being regulated properly, and there was still a question of where the ash would go after the trash was burned.

I was extremely shocked to find out that the ash was used to build out lower Manhattan, not too far from where I dorm. To think that New York City, the greatest city in the world, was built partially by garbage is just unbelievable. I suppose if everything is done correctly, there may be no harm in having done so. If the ash packing were done without regulation however, disaster would ensue as seen in San Francisco, California in 1989.

When I heard that New York City was one of the few cities that separate their garbage into different categories, I was baffled. Furthermore, we are one of only a handful of cities that recycles. To think that almost nobody else in the United States recycles his or her paper and plastics leaves me questioning what happens to all of this waste that is not reused? Is it simply incinerated or deposited in a landfill when it could in fact be used to create something new? Although it is costly for many cities to create recycling programs, it is something that the entire United States must work to achieve over the coming years. I feel that the benefits of recycling will indeed outweigh the costs in the long run, allowing for a more sustainable environment.

One controversy about recycling is the deposit law. Some view this law as infringing on rights, mandating people to pay a higher price for bottled beverages. However, I do not find this to be the case, as it is simply just a deposit that you can get reimbursed by recycling. This is a smart incentive program, and I know first hand that the nickels add up to a hefty sum of money. For every case of bottled water that is bought, there is $1.75 that can be recovered through recycling. In turn, this $1.75 can be used to cure a person from maternal and neonatal tetanus. We can save the environment, and save lives, all at the same time.

When looking at landfills, it is interesting to see how the refuse has changed throughout the years. In the early 1900s, ash was a major constituent of the refuse and decreased drastically in the mid 1900s and then down to 2% in 1989. Plastic on the other hand had an opposite trend, going from 5% to 35% from the early 19th century to the late 19th century. From these trends, we can tell where industry was headed, from burning coal to transitioning to oil, as well as the introduction of plastics and metal packaging. I was in utter disgust when I heard that there was a miscellaneous category for refuses that was a staggering 13% and consisted mostly of diapers. This is a huge percentage of waste, and there should be an alternative or something more environmentally friendly for this issue.

The United States Government must take an initiative to monitor the incinerators throughout the country. Additionally, I feel that a town or city should not be within a certain proximity of an incinerator, as the surrounding areas will be polluted by the vapors and chemicals produced through incineration. Although many residents of Detroit see nothing wrong with a foul smell, they are actually breathing in chemicals that may cause harm. Furthermore, the government should help cities to initiate recycling programs. This way, we will be able to take steps to environmental rec

Week 3

Posted on September 23, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Fines: A Cost of Doing Business

In the corporate world, people are out to make profit at any costs necessary, even if it means illegally harming the environment. One of the most unethical cases that I have heard of so far is the polluting of Arthur Kill by Exxon Mobil in Staten Island, New York. The lack of consideration for the environment as well as the time that it took for Exxon Mobil to address the issue is devastating and extremely unethical.

A corporation should be treated as a single entity, and if found to have broken the law, the corporation should face judicial persecution. This is how the world should work, but it simply does not. Instead, the government fines these corporations in hope that they will stop the illegal activity. However, the reality of it is that the business will not stop what they were doing, as it was probably extremely profitable. Exxon Mobil was found guilty of dumping benzene into open-air ponds as well as denied the fact that the waters were over twenty times the legal limit of benzene. Furthermore, Exxon Mobil was found to have altered their data in fear of losing their barge-cleaning business. To top it all off, the EPA told Exxon not to dump the hazardous waste into open-air ponds, and so instead they flushed the sludge into Arthur Kill.

Instead of fining Exxon Mobil of $11.2 million, I feel that the EPA should have taken at least 1% of their profits over time in order to recover the area that they have polluted with benzene. On the large scale, $11.2 million is nothing in comparison to Exxon’s total profit in 2011, $41.1 billion. This comes out to a mere 0.0003% of their total profits and an amount so miniscule that there is not much recovery that can be done in Arthur Kill.  To Exxon, this fine is just seen as a cost of doing business. After being found guilty on three separate occasions, I feel that Exxon should have faced more criminal charges as well as a larger fine. Also, I believe that it should be up to Exxon to clean up the mess that they have created instead of leaving it up to the community around Arthur Kill. We should not have to pay taxes that are used to clean up Exxon’s mess when they were the one in fault.

However, the lack of recovery however cannot be blamed entirely on Exxon Mobil. The government was given $3 million to directly restore the land on the waterway, yet from 2001 until today, the government has only used $1 million to buy and preserve wetlands. Where has the other $2 million gone? The government is also at fault by not using the funds given to them by Exxon for the sole purpose of recovering the wetlands of Arthur Kill. They are not doing all in their power to take care of something as important as the environment, and this must change.

In the 1980s, the government also made a faulty assumption by thinking that leaded gasoline was a large contributor to hazardous lead levels in the air. However, after lake bottom analysis was done on a lake in Central Park, it was found that lead levels declined drastically in the 1960s, over twenty years earlier than the ban of leaded gasoline. Lead is a cheap additive, and allowed for better fuel economy and there may have been no need to phase out leaded gasoline in the 1980s. Again, the government should base their action on research rather than on assumptions in order to allocate funds efficiently.

In order to better the environment, many steps must be taken by the corporations polluting the environment, the government, and the people. Environmental recovery will only succeed if a majority of the human population contributes in reversing the damage that has been done to the earth thus far. However, at the rate we are moving at today, with the mindset of both the corporations such as Exxon and the government itself, I feel that not much will be achieved in the years to come. Something must be done to change this.

Symbiosis

Posted on September 22, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Symbiosis

The world has become such a diverse place over its lifetime, from simple one-celled bacteria to humans. That must mean that something has been right from the start, which is the idea of having absolutely no waste. This has been accomplished as dead organisms provide the nutrients for new organisms to grow, which is the foundation of how we have come to evolve into smart and efficient creatures. This idea, which I think is an extremely simple one, can be and should be utilized in the corporate world, as it will only advance technology and efficiency in ways that we could never imagine possible.

Ever since the industrial revolution, many people have been thinking of how to improve the current situation, how to make things more efficient. When a system is so flawed from the foundation, such as based on coal power, a huge problem arises. It becomes extremely hard to change the foundation on which corporations were built upon. However if these corporations realize there is an exponential amount of money to make by redefining the problem, progress will be made. Instead of having to create waste and paying to dispose of it, these companies can utilize waste to make new products, minimizing costs, increasing profits. This is definitely the basis for success, as it is precisely this system that has allowed many species to arise and thrive throughout the world.

There is a lot of work to be done for cradle-to-cradle production to be entirely efficient, however we can start by having corporations slowly phase into using renewable energy. Solar energy, for example, is a prime example of a type of renewable energy source that can provide power to homes and factories. Although it may seem more expensive than using oil as a source of energy, our oil repositories will run out soon and then oil prices will be much higher than the price of implementing solar energy. This will provide the framework for future development. With green engineering, we will be able to close the loop that has been destroying the world, and possibly even reverse some of the damage that has been done.

Once this destructive loop is closed, we will all be able to celebrate biodiversity. The basis for how well an ecosystem is the amount of biodiversity that single ecosystem encompasses, which is something that we can increase only after sustainable growth and development begins to occur. Once renewable energy is utilized and no waste is generated, corporations and the environment will be able to live in harmony. There will be some costs to this shift in ideology, however the benefits will indeed outweigh the risks as time passes.

We are currently parasites to the world that we live in, using all of its resources and dumping toxic wastes into it. However, after this paradigm shift takes place, we will be able to live harmoniously with Earth. With this healthy relationship, the Earth will thrive like never before. Ecosystems will be able to diversify while the business world expands and generates profits in ways unseen just decades ago. Corporations will be able to evolve from a primitive creature into something far more advanced, utilizing its waste to make something new so that no waste is generated at all. This future needs to come sooner than later, and we must learn to develop a mutualistic relationship with our home.

 

Week Two

Posted on September 19, 2012 by Daniel Hart

Ecosystems: We Are All Interconnected

The earth is a ball of mass, as is any other planet, yet there are many factors that contribute to life on earth. Clean water and oxygen rich air are just a few of the multitude of factors that allow you and me to live on this very place that we call home. These factors are regulated by ecosystems, however as humans make technological advancements, such as producing cheap capacitors, there are almost always harmful repercussions that are not taken into account.

Personally, I view the earth as a single ecosystem, consisting of multiple species, each occupying a specific niche. The species that occupy any ecosystem are usually the source of regulation, and it is from this regulation that the ecosystem can equilibrate. Prior to this class however, it had not occurred to me that a microscopic organism (plankton) could contribute to such a profound part of life (cloud formation). But the question remains: To what extent can the different species regulate the ecosystem before it becomes uninhabitable?

Four hundred and seventy tons of sewage was dumped into the bay in Rio de Janeiro in 2002 alone. Although some effort was made to clean up the bay, it still remains “a toilet”. I feel that not enough effort is being put into cleaning up the environment, as the people who live there are only looking at the immediate repercussions, which is a dirty bay. If the people of Rio de Janeiro were to know that they are essentially giving themselves liver cancer, industrial companies, citizens and the government would put more effort into clearing the bay of pollutants. This amount of waste makes the bay practically uninhabitable.

Waste is being dumped into the waters in the United States as well, however the environmental protection agency has recognized that it is important to maintain a healthy ecosystem, especially in the New York Bight. Though there are people who disapprove of government regulation, I feel that it is strongly needed in environmental protection, even if it is at the cost of the consumer. I would rather pay five dollars for a product that keeps the environment clean than two dollars for the same product if it were to pollute the environment. This is because eventually, those pollutants will bio accumulate onto my dinner plate, and although I would have saved three dollars, I would be at risk for many health hazards.

However, this regulation only began in 1976 with the introduction of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This was only 36 years ago, and by then we can only imagine what damage has already been done to the environment since the industrial revolution. One particular case that I learned about was General Electric’s production of capacitors in the 1940s, in which the company discharged 209,000 to 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River.

Although the EPA mandated GE to clean up and stop production, they spent over thirty years in court appealing this obligation. By then, GE argued that the problem would be resolved via a “source-control program” and “natural recovery”. I was in utter disbelief that corporations take such an unethical approach in solving a problem so huge that it would impact millions of American lives. By the time they began to dredge the Hudson River, the PCBs have already began to bio-accumulate on a large scale.

It is truly amazing how much regulation has changed the way corporations influence the environment. However, if corporations weighed in the factors such as health risks to the general public or even the aquatic ecosystems in the long run, it would be clear that the risks outweigh the benefits when production causes a hazardous amount of pollution. The question should not be “how do we clean up this problem”, but rather, “will this potentially create a problem in the future?” We must treat the cause of the disease rather than just mask the symptoms, with the cause being the corporate mentality.

Comments by Daniel Hart