Author Archives: jtos

Posts by jtos

Jacqueline Tosto

Posted on December 3, 2012 by jtos

This week in seminar we discussed the New York City’s Solid Waste Management Plan. New York City discards about 50,000 tons of waste every day. New York City used to dump it all in Staten Island at Fresh Kill landfill. Eventually in 1997, the landfill closed and once the problem arose of where to put the ridiculous amount of garbage New York City produces. Then the government started creating transfer stations around the city where the garbage would then we shipped elsewhere. This seems like a ridiculous plan. For one, it is out garbage so why are we inflicting our pain onto other places. To be honest we should have kept it in Staten Island and improved the facilities, instead of just moving it.
Anyway, continuing the lack of significant progress, New York City decided to allocate waste management to each of the 5 boroughs to reduce the number of truck trips involved in waste transport. Manhattan, already limited in the amount of space, tried to put a transport center on East 91st Street. It has been over 6 years and still nothing has begun. At this time most of Manhattan’s garbage gets transported through Brooklyn. Once again our garbage is being dealt with elsewhere.
Lastly, after the garbage is collected and transported it is sent out of New York to Pennsylvania. A place called Tullytown collects a large portion of our garbage. Although New York City pays Tullytown’s Waste Management millions of dollars, which is then allocated to the citizens of the town, it still is not right. Is there any amount of money that replaces the pollution we are causing? There is known to be radioactive material in the garbage that can be polluting the land and there is a risk it may reach the Delaware River, polluting the entire ecosystem. I honestly do not understand the people or the government. Who in their right mind would rather have a few thousand dollars at the risk of being infected with radioactive material? And what government would allow this to happen to its people?
I understand that New York is a powerful and important city, but this is almost an abuse of its power. The most brilliant minds and innovative technologies are at our access. I do not understand why we do not use these benefit we have and continue just prolonging our suffering and giving our problems to others. It is not practical at all.
We also discussed the zero-waste policy that is an option for New York to become more sustainability. The policy would require composting of food waste, mandatory recycling, and the elimination of items that cannot be recycled. I think that composting food and mandatory recycling are quite possible. Other countries have just laws in place and they do work. I however think it will be difficult to eliminate all items that cannot be recycled. People would not be okay with eliminating diapers and phones. There should be another way around that drastic of a measure.

Jacqueline Tosto- Week 6

Posted on October 21, 2012 by jtos

This week in seminar we discussed the policies that integrate societies with the environment and human activities with environmental issues. One of the main problems is recycling when it comes to the economy. Although recycling is a great thing for the environment, its closes the loose which increases costs of products because there is less of a need for new products. Society must operate accept that the economy must operate within limits and that resources will not last forever. Very few countries however act this way.
We also learned about the UN World Commission on Environment and Development and its Chair, Gro Harlem Bruhtdland. She created the first applied definition of sustainability, which is that development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. I think this definition is a good basis to what sustainability it is, but it needs more. There are too many loopholes such as what are the needs that are necessary and how can we be sustainable.
We also discussed that in order to reach true sustainability we must work with society, the economy, and the environment. Reaching happiness in all three of those categories is nearly impossible. All three have demanding needs and for people to willing to sacrifice certain items in each category is difficult. Also, within each of these three main categories are many subcategories such as jobs, energy, social justice, and species survival. There are so many variable to create true sustainability, or at least the way people are currently thinking.
In class we also went over the triple bottom theory that means that policy decisions can be made by individuals, corporations, and government. This is a very influential concept when dealing with sustainability. Corporations are some of the greatest of criminals when it comes to harming the environment. If corporations affect policy, it will be difficult to pass policies that limit corporations in order to help the environment.
After the infinite sink theory was overruled, new theories came into play such as the end-of-pipe treatment, pollution prevention, design for environment, and sustainable development. The bad thing about these steps is that it is difficult to complete each one. End-of-pipe and pollution prevention are important and need to be accomplished, but very few people consider the next two steps. Fixing our mistakes is a major concern, but we should also be trying to prevent future mistake.
Another major problem about obtaining sustainability is outsourcing. There are laws in the US to prevent unclear work environments and dumping of chemicals, and other measures harmful to the environment, but other countries do not have such laws. Companies can basically do whatever they want in countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia where they have no constraints. This needs to be stopped. Either other countries must take an initiative and stop these corporations, or corporations must be dealt with in the US.
Lastly, we discussed the UN Conference on Environment and Development and the UN Millennium Conference, both which are very disappointing. Countries keep coming together, promising to reduce waste and their energy usage and not a single country can deliver. Instead of making ridiculous and far-fetched pledges, countries should make logical, and obtainable goals, and actually accomplish them.

Jacqueline Tosto- Week 5

Posted on October 21, 2012 by jtos

This week in seminar we discussed the government actions to fix Brownfields. In 2009, the EPA office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization created an Action Plan. This empowered community revitalization and sustainable development of contaminated properties and provided technical assistance for clean- up and re-use of contaminated property. This would maximize economical, ecological, and social uses and protects human health and environment. It also creates green jobs and uses stake holder outreach. This I feel like may be somewhat difficult. This entire plan relies on everyday citizens to try and protect their land. Getting people interested and willing to help is a much harder job than it may seem. It is a good goal but whether or not it is plausible is a different story.
We also discussed the Ecological History of New Bedford. EPA thought that it was better to study problems in their natural environment. We discussed how New Bedford’s watershed went through many stages such as agricultural, whaling, textile, and post-textiles, over the course of a few hundred years. Each of these stages affected the environment and the watershed. This case study had a very important impact on future studies and understandings about pollution. It showed that pollution occurs over time and that decisions 400 years ago affect the environment today. People today often continue polluting saying that the earth will eventually fix itself. Obviously this is not true. New Bedford shows that even the littlest damage hundreds of years ago affects us and that we must be carful of our actions.
Later in the week we discussed the Greenhouse Effect, climate change, and the effect of global warming on New York City. The United States emits billions of tons of carbon dioxide every year causing more air pollution, slowly raising global temperatures. It seems insane to me that the carbon dioxide released in the air is thirty percent more today than it was during the Industrial Revolution. When I think of the Industrial Revolution I think of constant smoke being emitted from factories, terrible sewage, and a complete lack of awareness of the pollution being created. What could we possibly be doing today that is worse than such a contaminated time period?
We know that Global Warming is affecting our city. The Mayor’s Advisory Panel on Climate Change released some alarming facts in 2009 proving this concept. The annual temperature is suppose to increase by three degrees in just over five years and the sea levels will rise by over two inches. There will be more blackouts, rainstorms, and floods over the next decade as well.
I know the world will most likely not end in 2012, but the predictions of the future seem a bit grim. The icecaps are melting, the temperature is rising, and the air pollution is getting worse. If this is the world we live in now, I am scared about what it will be like 100 years from now. I am sure that the residents of New Bedford did not think that a bridge would hurt their watershed, but it did. What actions are we doing that could be causing harm and we are completely unaware? We have the facts now it is our time to change the predictions.

Jacqueline Tosto- Week 4

Posted on October 4, 2012 by jtos

In seminar this week we discussed the consequence of the use of incinerators in New York City. For one, the amount ash from the incinerators was quite large and took up a great amount of room in landfills. The gases released from the incinerators also were quite harmful for everyone in the city. Although the municipal incinerators did damage, the worst was the sheer number of incinerators in apartment buildings. Even though the incinerators are no longer in use, they are still affecting the city. It seems amazing the damage these machines can cause in just a short time seems impossible. In just over 40 years over 12,000 tons of particulate matter was emitted, damaging both the environment and the body.
We also discussed the survey done on youths in New York to study the amount particulate emissions on an average student. The discovery was that students who have long commutes to school inhale a significantly higher amount of toxic pollutants than students who have short commutes. This is due to the high amount of steel that is released in subway stations. There are many ways that this problem could be fixed. For one, the MTA can change the wheels on the subway to a difference substance so the wheels do not cause friction releasing the steel particles into the air. Another option is to add more ventilation into subway terminals so the particles can release into open air instead of staying contained in the tiny space. A last option is to add a glass barrier between the subway and the platform. Many cities in other countries have such things such as London. Not only does this add protection from commenters falling onto the tracks, it also will keep the particles from releasing into the terminal. Something really should be done. As a commuter who takes the subway almost everyday, I do not like to think that my commute could be slowly damaging my lungs. I have to take the subway in order to get around so there is no way of avoiding inhaling the steel. I would much rather the MTA do something in order to protect the people.
We also discussed in class this week Landfills and Brownfills and what they are made of. An important part of keeping accurate records about the contents of Landfills and Brownfills is so public policy is directed in order to keep waste low. If accurate records were not kept correctly certain laws would never have been passed such as the deposit laws.
I thought the refuse composition contents over the certain years were very interesting. One of the percentages that interested me the most was the decrease in ash from 1905 to 1989. It is quite amazing to see how quickly the American population adjusted to electricity and completely gave up the old methods of keeping heat and light. Obviously this progression was bound to happen but in just 34 years, the amount of ash deposited dropped by just under 40%. A percentage that confused me however was that of glass. I would like to know why there was a sudden increase in 1971 and then a decline in 1989.
I was disgusted by the amount of waste humans throw into landfills. In 2004 millions of tons of garbage was just thrown away without any thought of where it will go and how it will affect our future. I am most disgusted by the sheer number of diapers thrown away. 3,470,000 tons of diapers in just one year are too many. Not only is that disgusting, but also wasteful. They never decompose and just stay in landfills forever. Gross.

Jacqueline Tosto

Posted on September 26, 2012 by jtos

This week we discussed the pollution of Arthur Kill by the Mobil Oil Corporation. In 1993, EPA caught Mobil discharging waste containing benzene into open-air ponds without a hazardous waste permits. In 1996, EPA filed a hazardous waste case against Mobil alleging they mismanaged the disposal of the waste. Not until 2001 was the case settled and Exxon Mobil had to pay 11.2 million dollars in fines. This entire situation seems ridiculous to me. For one, it should not have taken 3 years for the EPA to file a claim against Exxon Mobil. The EPA had to catch Exxon repeat their offense 2 more times before anything was done. The amount of damage Exxon has done to the water system is ridiculous and the EPA should have taken immediate action to make sure the damage did not continue. Also, it should not have taken 5 years for the case to be settled. Exxon could have been continuing dumping without any repercussions. Another severe problem is that regardless off the fines, Exxon Mobil still had billions of dollars worth of profit. Obviously having to pay a fine will not hurt the company making them stop dumping. Big companies do not have a hard choice between free enterprise and government regulation because no fine will be big enough to truly affect them.
We also discussed air pollution in urban environments and the dangers they cause. The primary pollutants are S, N, C oxides, toxic gases, and particulate matter. Many of these toxins come from human activities, such as the release of toxic gases from water treatment plants. Some of the gases are colorless and cause severe damage if not captured before emitted into the atmosphere. These gases cause heart disease, cancer, and various other illnesses. Obviously something must be done. People cannot be afraid to go outside and be kept indoor at the risk of being poisoned by a gas. That is ridiculous and highly illogical. Something more practical should be done, like forcing companies to not release the gases the way they do now.
I think that the policy to ban lead in gasoline is a good idea. Even if it may not be the solution to all problems, it may help a little bit. Any little bit of effort can make a difference. It is a comfort to know that scientist continue to test for gases and to see their effect on the environment, such as the experiment conducted in Central Park. Although the highest portion of lead was not due to gasoline, we still can now understand a little more of the affect it has.
The most important thing I learned in seminar this week was the on November 25th, 1968 the White Album came out by the Beatles. The Beatles are my favorite band so I am always happy when I meet new people who appreciate their genius. Although the White Album is not my favorite album by the Beatles, (mine in Abbey Road) I think that the album is a masterpiece and all should appreciate its greatness.

Jacqueline Tosto

Posted on September 23, 2012 by jtos

This week in seminar we learned about the water pollutions in various bodies of water including the Rio de Janero Bay. The Bay is one of the most polluted ecosystems in the world and little is doing to fix it. All measures so far have failed. It seems amazing to me that a country so full of wildlife and natural resources can let such an important ecosystem be destroyed. I hope that the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016 will give an incentive for the government to clean up the Bay. Something needs to be done just to maintain any form of wildlife left in it. Between the rainforest and the bay, Brazil should be more careful about their rich resources before they loose them all.
We also discussed the pollution in New York Harbor and the New York Bight. The Harbor is very important to the economy of New York. It provides a port, commercial fishing, recreation, as well as a very important estuary for the city. It is good to know that there are some things the EPA is trying to do to fix the ecosystem. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Hazardous Waste Management Program do have important initiatives about managing the disposal of wastes and keeping the amount of waste produced low, but more needs to be done. The government may need to be more forceful, but at least there is something being done. I do think the “cradle to grave” incentive is a great measure. This will make sure that companies correctly handle waste from the production of them, the use of them, and the disposal of them.
We also learned how the EPA characterizes toxic contamination, through either the ecosystem approach or the chemical specific approach. I think both systems are rather faulty but have some minor advantages. The ecosystem approach is affective and has proved that many bottom dwelling organisms are dying due to the toxic sediment at the bottom of the harbor. However it only identifies the problem when damage has already been done, instead of preventing the problem from the beginning. The chemical specific approach has brought to light the dangerous affect PCB on fish and those who eat the fish. However this system makes it difficult for the results to be very accurate. Having humans as subjects leaves a lot of variation. I think that for now these systems will manage but in the future a new way needs to be created in order to prevent the damage the chemicals are causing.
In particular, we studied the PCB contamination in the Hudson River and of Arthur Kill. I feel like there should be a better solution to this then just leaving it for future generation. I feel like people are just trying to hide the problem, first dumping it and now burying it. There is a set amount of PCB in the world, therefore the problem, once fixed will be permanent. There should be some solution that is better than burying it somewhere in Texas. PCBs are dangerous chemicals and just leaving them by citizens is not a logical solutions.
Waterways are very important to not only the environment but also the economy. We have made mistakes in the past by not protecting them, but now that we know what we have done wrong, we have to make changes. Dumping any form of waste into rivers, lakes, and other waterways is not a solution. It just causes more problems. The EPA must work with companies to find permanent solutions to dispose of their chemicals.

Jacqueline Tosto- Week 1

Posted on September 18, 2012 by jtos

This week in seminar I learned about the impact that human’s have on the environment and the destruction that we cause on a daily basis. If we continue at the same rate of damage we are now, the earth will loose many of its natural resources that we depend on. This fact is scary. However, we also learned that there are measures being taken to reverse the damage that we have already caused. We also learned that we need to create new ideas to be more sustainable.
I was surprised to learn at the extent in which our earth’s resources are depleting. The fact that only 10% of sharks, tunas, cods, and other large fish remain in the oceans is quite concerning. The Monaco Declaration states that severe damages are imminent and that the increased acidity of the seawater caused by our CO2 emissions is completely changing the composition of the ocean. The proof is there and yet no major changes are being done. I also was shocked to learn about Dead Zones and the measures been taken to fix them. The idea that there are sections of the oceans that can no longer support life because of humans is ridiculous. However, it is slightly reassuring that the EPA is taking some actions to force states to take better care of their waterways by penalizing them. Although this may not be the best solution, something is necessary.
I found the topic of environmental ethics very interesting. I am not sure whether everyone will follow the ethics that are put forth, but I believe that a difference can be made. Convincing the entire world that we must follow a certain guideline for the benefit of the earth is impossible, but convincing some may still be helpful.
Anthropocentrism is such a ridiculous concept. Although we need the earth resources, they do not exist for our own misuse. Everything has intrinsic value, and humans should be more careful when using the natural resources the earth has.
I do believe in the idea of relationism that Naess put forward. I think that all organisms are connected. Even the smallest of creature can somehow make a large difference. Humans often act as invincible creatures, but the loss of many organisms would cause great problems for everyone.
Deep ecology also seems like a logical basis for some solutions. Everything has a purpose and has value. Humans need certain things to survive. We still need to fish, raise cattle, and farm, but we have to be more cautious. We have no right to decide what can survive on this planet and in what conditions. At the rate we are going, many of our resources will be gone in just a few decades, maybe even years. Instead of complaining and continuing the same routines, we must try to find solutions. The situation is just going to get worse unless some form of effort is put forth. Not only do policies have to change, but the beliefs of the people. We need to stop taking the earth for granted and give life more respect.
Sustainability seems to be the major factor of this course. We need to find new solutions that do not deplete our earth of its resources. I think this course will be very interesting. I love nature and its scares me to know that future generations may not have rainforests or coral reefs to see. I think that at the moment, humans are too concerned with their own well being then to think about the environment, but they should. Policies must be changed to force people to think. It is our responsibility to take care of our earth and I think this seminar will demonstrate this.

Comments by jtos