Author Archives: Alda Yuan

Posts by Alda Yuan

Weekly Response 13: Alda Yuan

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 13 Response

 

 

After hearing about the success of the zero-waste programs in San Francisco and Scotland, Chairman Ard’s claim that the city needs a modern approach to the waste management seems strangely prescient. Of course, he likely meant it as a simple rhetorical device and was using it as an easy way to deflect responsibility for thinking about the hard issues. That is not to say that his argument about waste in residential areas is invalid. The usual protest in response to that is there is often no choice to locating them in residential areas. But the zero-waste program offers a clear alternative.

Were New York City to adopt this program, it would obviously have to adapt the specifics. But it makes sense from a number of perspectives. First and foremost in many official’s minds will be the monetary effects. With respect to that, a zero waste program will seriously reduce, if not eliminate entirely the money that the city needs to spend on waste management. Of course an initial investment might be needed but the city has proved itself capable of looking ahead in the past. It would also have health benefits, not only to people who live near these waste collection sites but to those who eat the food grown using the compost created rather than chemical fertilizers. And the benefits to the environment are of course huge. Here finally, is a real large scale implementation of the cradle to cradle principle. It is all well and good when applied to individual chemicals or even individual industrial processes but these are, in the end, only a small portion of the whole. If we can affect the way people in our largest cities consume and dispose, we create a ripple effect that cannot be halted. Companies, in an effort to cater to consumers in these areas will develop alternate methods of production and would have no reason not to extend them once they realize that they can be economically as well as environmentally efficient.

With regards to the Treece issue, I think the best way to turn it in into something with the semblance of a silver lining is to learn from it. It should be held up and touted as the example of what happens when businesses are not held responsible for the consequences of their actions. It is also a point against those who claim that coal mining is still the direction we should take because jobs are more important than scenic surroundings. But that is a false and misleading dichotomy. Here we see that destroying the earth neither provided permanent jobs nor prosperity. Instead, the lack of forward thinking has caused the destruction of an entire town.

If no other benefits stem from this situation, at the very least, it should lend weight to the imposition of more stringent regulations. For instance, a good idea might be for force companies who wish to engage in activities like mining to pay into a fund expressly reserved for the cleanup and revitalization of such areas. To encourage more cradle-to-cradle practices, credits could be awarded for sustainable practices that the companies enact above and beyond what the regulations require. The political force needed for such changes is of course astronomical and necessitates far more awareness than the average American now possesses. This is where smart ad campaigns like the one exhibited today can become very useful. They go directly to the people, forcing them to confront the hard truths everyone is aware of but prefers to ignore.

Weekly Response 12: Alda Yuan

Posted on November 25, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 12 Response

As to the debate, both sides did a great job of parsing words and defending their positions in a way that made it very hard to argue against. They used a strategy of giving in on certain points in order to take a stand on the more defensible ones. Interestingly enough, the result was that they ended up with positions that sounded so close together that had this been a real debate over a legislative matter for instance, a compromise could easily be reached. That to me says that the debate was carried out in a more constructive and meaningful way than most people go about the process of hashing out a dispute.

In general, nuclear power, whenever it is brought up, always causes controversy and heated discussion. It is hard to have a balanced debate for something so wrought with emotion on both sides of the question. It is hard additionally because there is a lot of evidence, both sensational and otherwise that each side can cite. For those who advocate in favor of nuclear energy, there are certainly a slew of studies and data supporting the position that it can solve all of our most pressing problems. Not only is it more efficient than fossil fuels, adopting nuclear energy on a large scale can drastically cut back on carbon emissions within a fairly short amount of time. The other side has only to point to incidents like that at Three Mile Island or of course, Chernobyl in order to generate support and muster up sympathy for their arguments. Just because it is a fairly obvious plea to emotion does not mean the argument possess no merit and just because it is mentioned so often does not mean that it does not remain a valid argument.

Indeed, it is important to note that nuclear energy, whether harvested to power homes or used to level cities, can be a real threat to human life.  It is certainly valid to compare our plants and safety regulations favorably to those in place in the Soviet Union and Japan but at some level, these do not address the real problem. The real issue is that there will always be human elements we cannot account for and accidents we did not see coming. Airtight lines of reasoning can their loopholes, foolproof plans can be foiled, fail safes can themselves fail. But most of the time, a breakdown along these lines will not have catastrophic consequences. Despite the many mechanisms in place, it is nonetheless possible for one small mistake to harm the lives of a huge amount of people. Of course, in most instances, it will be calculated that the odds of such mistakes occurring are low. And indeed, it might very well be but even low odds have to be considered when the costs could be so high.

Despite this, I am of the opinion that nuclear power can be a useful alternative, but only if it is thought of and designed to be a temporary solution to the permanent problem of high energy demand from countries both developed and otherwise. While it is true that other methods, like the retrofitting of homes, can be used to something of the same effect, they lack the concrete financial incentives of allowing private companies to help build, run and oversee nuclear plants. This is one area in which I think bureaucracy would be a boon. Having a variety of supervising committees and groups providing oversight will help to ensure maximum safety.

Old facilities like Indian Point should be phased out in favor of newer plants, ideally in areas as far away from population density as possible. This of course also becomes a monetary issue, as all things will. But if we are to indeed employ nuclear energy, no corners can be cut and no shortcuts taken for the potential costs are too high.

Weekly Response 11: Alda Yuan

Posted on November 19, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 11 Response

 

It is very assuring to hear that New York City has such a far-reaching plan in place and that its government is continually working on it.  As we have seen in this class and as I have noticed from the news, it is often the penchant when undertaking such projects to set goals and yet take no steps until the target date approaches and it becomes too late to make an impact. The fact that such a large and commercial city is taking these steps is especially heartening for it indicates at least something of a shift in values of the government officials that has proceeded through time.

The preservation of the watershed in order to reduce the necessity of constructing a costly water treatment plant was no doubt fueled largely by the fiscal benefits. Nevertheless, this instance of forward thinking became a boon to the environment as well as the city. And even if it was an effort triggered by purely a instrumental outlook, it has at the very least led to different ways of thinking in the city’s management of our natural resources, in a way that can be considered more in line with the mantra of avoiding “killing the bees.” This is simply a more eloquent restatement of the idea that people need to consider the ramification and consequences of their action. Something that might seem a small loss today may turn out to be a big detriment in the future when the details are better understood. As always, the arguments cycles back to the division between intrinsic and instrumental.

Somewhere between this parsing of terms and words lies the difference between intrinsic and instrumental viewpoints. Instrumental value is forever stuck with the body of knowledge accessible at the present time. The only things that have value are the ones, which has benefits or foreseeable benefits. But this a judgment is confined and limited by the time and information available to you at any given point. The idea of intrinsic value encompasses and goes beyond this limitation. In saying that that everything has value, we regard the parts of the whole as well as the whole itself to be of significance and worth the effort to understand and study.

As to the logistics of the plan, it seems to me at once both ambitious and flawed. Ambitious simply because there is a plan and because it recognizes that all the factors must be improved at once if there is to be improvement overall. Besides, it is much more than the majority of the world or even the majority of the country is willing to attempt or even discuss. And indeed, many of its aspects are laudable. Most impressive to me was the effort on Staten Island to extend the natural drainage system. Here is an example where natural processes are adapted and engineered by human ingenuity to maximize benefits for all. This is a great example of green engineering and demonstrates what humans can achieve if they direct their intelligence and resourcefulness toward the right avenues.

On the other hand, the lack of publicity about this plan seems to be a flaw. For instance, I had no idea that this was an ongoing process before this class. And yet, I knew of many of the individual components of the plan, such as the 2nd avenue subway. Perhaps there are difficulties of which I am unaware but I cannot imagine that it would too difficult for government officials to communicate to the public that these efforts are all part of a comprehensive plan that will help to ensure New York City’s environmental health. This would help make average citizens more conscious of the situation, which should be a major end goal. For environmental efforts can not perpetually be imposed from the top down. The necessity of the undertaking must be accepted at all levels if we are to claim success.

Weekly Response 10: Alda Yuan

Posted on November 11, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 10 Response

 

The aftermath of the hurricane makes it clearer than ever how critical it is to enact efficient environmental policy or at least environmentally conscious policy. In the wake of the hurricane, many political officials, during their press conferences, stated that polices and infrastructures would have to changed form the ground up to avoid a disruption on the scale of this one. Many officials also cited global warming and climate change as a major contributing factor to the severity of the storm. It is unfortunate that it takes a disaster like Hurricane Sandy in order to focus attention on subjects that should be covered on a regular basis by the mainstream media. Unfortunately, much of the discussion that should be taking place has been superseded and overcome by speculations of the storms impact on the election. That is not the say the results of the election are not important, only that we should not be so short-sighted or have such short attention spans as to allow the media and politicians to forget about all other issues.

The talk that has been going on is a dialogue about the pros and cons of a wall of sorts to combat rising waters in the event of another storm surge. This project would be costly and though I am no engineer, there seems to be no guarantee that it would work. The more important problem with the proposal however is that it really misses the marks. The issue that it tackles is merely a symptom of the real concern. Even with an event like the hurricane that should serve as a wakeup call, we continue to look toward the easy solutions. Although building a sea wall is a costly and expansive project, it seems, to many people, to be a less comprehensive change than would be needed if we decided to rethink the scope of the problem. The real solution is to stop the problems before they even occur, to stem the tide of pollution and adverse environmental affect at their very source.

A perfect example of this sort lack of forward thinking is evident in the fracking controversy. A common defense that the industry puts forth in order to repeal accusations is that there is no solid documentation or study proving that fracking is detrimental to healthy or to the general environment. But it appears to me that they have the whole process backwards. When any company or organization proposes to do something as invasive and potentially hazardous as pulverizing bedrock beneath inhabited communities, it is proper to preemptively demand proof of the safety of the process. Examples of stifling and inefficient federal regulations surely exist but this would not be extraneous. Demanding proof that our people and our environment will not be harmed is simply common sense.

And it is not enough to simply supply vague assurances that the fluid is too far down to affect drinking water. If they can assert that some scientific proof is needed before a moratorium can be called, why should the government be unable to demand the same before any drilling is performed? Indeed, this would probably end up being beneficial for all parties.

The green building movement discussed at the end of class is an example of how attacking the root of problems to the advantage of all. The community at large benefits when energy sources are used efficiently and the owners of the building benefit by increased longevity of the structure and lower costs of maintenance stemming from the lack of a need to rely on costly fossil fuels. If only this idea could be applied on a larger scale.

 

Koyaanisqatsi

Posted on November 6, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Dialogue is often considered the defining element of a movie. Some of the best movies of all time are also the most frequently quoted. It gives viewers a channel with which to relate to the characters, to the situations and the overall pathos of the movie. It gives viewers an idea of the message the producers are trying to send, the tone the director is attempting to the set, the personality actors are trying to portray.

Koyaanisqatsi is not however, a traditional movie. It possesses no real characters, no discernible plot and on the surface, seemingly no organization. Indeed, there is not a single line of dialogue from beginning to end. In effect, Koyaanisqatsi is more accurately a work of art than a work of cinema. As such, it is very much open to interpretation. With no words at its disposal, the movie makes no attempt at indoctrinating or necessarily even at maintaining a constant message. 

The narrative, if indeed one can be considered to exist at all, is thoroughly driven by the score. It is alternately fast and slow, languid and dynamic. The music invites contemplation and what message that can be derived from the structured mess of images flashing by on the screen is one the viewers must search out and discover for themselves.

The score in the background provides a general mood but makes nothing obvious. Mournfully slow music accompanies both sunrises painting the horizon and images of industrial plants hovering in the distance as beachgoers relax on a sandy shore. Fast paced tunes underscore both shots of river valleys and wide swaths of farmland. Almost frantic music accompanies chaotic and conflicting scenes across the screen. There are shots of clouds roiling and spilling over the mountaintops, of walls of water crashing and smashing into each other, of mountaintops blown sky high in a shower of rock and dirt, of people swarming along sidewalks and through streets.

Fundamentally, the movie appears to be an exploration of the interaction between humans and technology. Throughout the course of the film, there are more and more depictions of this interaction. A sizeable segment of the beginning of the movie contains successive scenes of nature at work. Darkness creeps through a canyon as the sun goes down, swallowing the rock face inch by inch. Wisps of clouds float in and out of existence, roiling like the seas and bursting up like the flares on the sun’s surface, expanding and ballooning. A rushing waterfall spills by the millions of gallons into an abyss, eroding the rock below through sheer force of the torrent and throwing mist into the air for miles around.

Then come factories spewing steam and dust into the atmosphere, rows of tanks as far as the eye can see, fighter jets lined up with military accuracy, bombs falling and tumbling through the air toward earth and a rocket launching up into the black void of space.

New York City itself is shown with darkened clouds floating through the skyscrapers like spirits. Cars rush past like ants on hyperdrive, trash and debris pile up on the dirty sidewalks while broken lampposts swing in the wind. Explosions take down buildings, bridges explode, cranes topple, debris is thrown into the air, flying here and there as if with a mind of their own. In the midst of this, the music stops and black clouds loom on the horizon. Lightning strikes again and again as night descends, lights flutter on and life continues.

There is again, no overt message. The film can be taken as an accusation of the damage humankind has done by misusing their profound gift for invention and creation. Or it can be seen as an ode to that exact ability to subordinate and master the forces of nature with our ingenuity and brilliance. Or perhaps it is a mix of both, a mix of exaltation at our many accomplishments and an expose of our numerous faults. What we choose to take from the movie perhaps tells us more about ourselves than the movie itself.

Personally, I prefer the last interpretation. Just like humankind’s interaction with nature and technology, the movie is not simple. It is not as easy to interpret as a straightforward yea or nay judgment on our tenure on this planet we all call home.

In the images of mists hugging mountain faces and undulating waves, I glimpse something of the awesome power of nature to both destroy and nurture, communicated in a way words can never do justice to. In the juxtaposition of images comparing the layout of a modern city to the layout of a microchip and depicting a fast and gleaming world made possible by the teeming highways, I see how technology, in its many forms, has made life possible and comfortable for so many people. But then there are shots of dynamite blowing apart age old rock faces to help machines spewing dark soot get at the raw materials helping to drive the modern world, of a radioactive mushroom cloud expanding and propelling itself up into the atmosphere, a testament to what our destructive tendencies are truly capable of. Many of the scenes have a more ambiguous meaning than the explosion of nuclear bombs. There are skyscrapers extending up, their glass surfaces reflecting the blue sky and clouds that ring it. There are buildings imploding in on themselves, at once a representation of destruction and a symbol of rebirth and renewal.

Perhaps the movie’s most important effect then is to spur the thinking processes of the viewers. When the last scene fades away on the screen and the three quotes appear one by one against the black background, the audience cannot but help reexamining the effect of technology on our lives and on the environment around us. No matter what conclusions they come to, at the very least, they are spurred to think these questions, which are integral to the future of human civilization itself. That itself is a worthy accomplishment in a society which often shrinks away from even thinking about the consequences of their actions, especially when it comes time to consider the costs of the life modern technology enables us to lead.

The way Koyaaniqatsi nudges viewers toward consideration of this topic is not so heavy handed as to cause them to recoil. Like all art, it inspires dialogue and puts the seeds of thought into the minds of the viewers. This is itself a boon for in raising awareness of the issue, at the very least more people will understand a problem exists. In a way then, Koyaaniqatsi is doing its part in affecting social change, pushing the segment of the population that views it to a heightened consciousness of our responsibility to be informed, if not necessarily to take action. For often, the most important revolutions must first be completed in the mind before they can be acted on in truth. Only when people are convinced of the need to act will they bend their efforts and sacrifice their comforts to a purpose. If we are, as a species, to perpetuate the good and eliminate the ills pictured in Koyanniqatsi, there will have to be sacrifice and there will have to be careful consideration. The movie’s purpose and its greatest success will thus be in causing us to think about these topics in different ways. What we do with the conclusions we reach and the resolutions we make is our own. 

Week 8 Response: Alda Yuan

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 8 Response

 

 

I feel that Macbeth was a particularly good choice for play adaption. The original already raises a lot of ethical and moral questions easily related to the issues we face today. Ambition and greed, the characteristics instrumental to Macbeth’s eventual downfall are also a part of the problem in changing our society so that we are no longer responsible for such sustained and horrendous harm to the natural environment. In this, I would say that all of us share guilt. Or course, unscrupulous businessmen like the one depicted in the movie can lay claim to large chunks of individual responsibility but we all, by virtue of living in and perpetuating our society, share some segment of the blame.

That is not to say that our societies and our place in history cannot be salvaged. In fact, I am firmly of the belief that it is possible to change our ways while sacrificing few of our material comforts. Indeed, I don’t believe that change is possible any other way than while continuing to preserve the way of life to which we have become accustomed. For instance, though I am well aware of the harm that carbon emissions from cars and planes do, I would hardly be willing to walk home to Virginia over the holidays or ride a sailboat to visit family overseas. But the key is that there does not exist the necessity to choose between extremes. I trust that human ingenuity, which has brought about so many change and so many benefits, has the power to offer acceptable solutions as well. And indeed, as the Principles of Engineering article shows, these middle ground solutions are already being developed and used. If we do not see their effect immediately, it is likely because there is always a barrier before the rapid evolution and dissemination of any technology or way of thinking. But, as pointed out by the article, once the changes are made, the financial benefits will come. And as long as people are conscientious about the need to recycle, these profits will come quickly.

The problem, as always is the get people to start taking these small steps, which do add up in the long run though it may not seem like it. That, I think is the idea behind the concept of the messianic moment. Many of the steps that we need to take toward redefining the problem and ensuring sustainability seem hopeless to a certain degree. This is especially true at the start, often because there are so few people around doing the same thing and providing moral support.

The same is true, I suspect of any major social movement or change. Just looking at our own past, the suffrage movements are prominent examples. Each individual protest and written tract was viewed by some as an exercise in futility. Much in the way that people maintain recycling or reusing is useless if you are the only person advocating it or doing it. And this serves as something of a cognitive barrier. People naturally shy away from positions and actions that are not accepted or at least not commonly adopted. Just as it takes an initial financial investment to kick start more efficient processes, success in something as comprehensive and overarching as environmentalism requires that one invest something as well. Participation requires an investment of time, effort but perhaps most importantly, of confidence your actions will matter. Perhaps it requires almost an element of something approaching doublethink to convince yourself that small actions will build up to a paradigm shift. But it should be a comfort to note that such things have been accomplished before.

Weekly Journal 7: Alda Yuan

Posted on October 20, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 7 Response

A few years ago, long before the BP spill, I recall a commercial they put out featuring a cartoon young boy frolicking in a field. The commercial had cheerful music and a color scheme reminiscent of the oil company’s logo. They managed to somehow depict their company as the easy choice for those worried about the environment. Instead of think about the real issues and solutions that might lead to a reality half as idyllic, BP is encouraging us to leave it all in their hands. It is as if simply by purchasing their products, we are doing our part to solve the environmental crisis. Just the juxtaposition of an oil company using such a green theme and supporting the environment will have convinced a lot of people that they were sincere. Why else would they draw attention to environmental issues and invite scrutiny unless they really are taking action? Even at the time, I recognized it to be one of the most hypocritical ad campaigns out there. I think it is certainly possible for companies to do a turnaround, even switching from fossil fuels to alternative energy but that is plainly not what BP aims to do, as evidenced by the horrendous oil spill.

The cradle-to-cradle concept and approach to engineering seems to be without too many drawbacks. In the long run, it will both be green and economically profitable. The problem will be breaking industries and businesses out of their old ways of thinking and operating. But such fundamental changes are far from impossible. Take the revolution in the way we do business today because of the information technology revolution. Once people realize that producing products in this way and indeed, rethinking the ways we consume resources is profitable, changes can happen quickly.

Obviously, there will first need to be a substantial investment. If the free market is not willing to provide those funds, the government should most definitely step in. Personally, I think the emphasis on the financial costs of investing in green energy is both irresponsible and profoundly misplaced. Or course our government must be concerned of where its money is going with the economic recession. However, to call money being placed into environmental programs wasted funds is illogical. Supporting the burgeoning companies with a focus on green energy and sustainability is not an act of picking winners and losers. Ultimately, if government is successful in spurring a new green revolution, everybody wins, except for perhaps the oil companies. Even if you only take an economic view, a revolution in the way that we obtain energy can fuel development in many directions. The new technologies and devices that will be invented, designed and produced will create the kind of high skill manufacturing jobs that everyone has emphasized a need for. And these are not jobs that would go away and become obsolete quickly. Meanwhile, it has the capability to spur something of a fourth industrial revolution as it involves an overhaul of the whole system in a way that produces more wealth for everyone involved.

Then of course there are the non-economic benefits of such a path. The health of our citizens would be improved by less pollution. That of course can still be linked to lower health costs for us as nation. Less material than that is the question of quality of life. Even if pollution and harm to the environment did not hurt human health, is it not worth investment to preserve the natural beauty of earth?

Weekly Response 6: Alda Yuan

Posted on October 14, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 6 Response

 

In my opinion, the comparison between the environmental problems and civil rights issues is actually very apt. The biggest barrier in both situations is a change in thinking. All other barriers, both economic, structural and legislative, stem from attitudes. While the people of the nation believed the races to be unequal, no amount of legislation, though of course it would never be enacted without some sort of intellectual shift anyway, could change the situation. Similarly, while the general public remains unconvinced about the severity and urgency of environmental issues, the problem will seem insurmountable.

Of course, the problem then becomes how you get the message across to individuals and “John Q. Public.” The average American certainly does not spend their days scouring scientific journals for the latest studies. A segment of the population might even consider such behavior elitist. In any case, reports issued by scientific organizations or by the UN as in their 1987 call for immediate action toward sustainability, usually have an immediate effect only on the small portion of the population that keeps abreast of such news. With the advent of the internet, information of this sort can be disseminated with much more speed and in pithier, easier to digest ways. In fact, at this point, much of the information available to the people in the field are available on the internet, either through actual copies of the studies done on environmental issues as well as editorialized explanations of the results. But equal access to information neither implies that individuals will go to the extra trouble of seeking it out or that they will accept the conclusions given therein.

A substantial portion of the public has an unfortunate mistrust of science, as the reoccurring movements against the teaching of evolution and global warning can attest to.  Perhaps this is partially a failure of our education system in not providing the average citizen with enough scientific know to at least separate science from junk science. Perhaps also, it is a function of our habit of shying away from undesirable facts and realities as if ignoring the problem will mean that it disappears altogether. This is an aspect of our culture and maybe even an aspect of human nature. But that does not mean this unfortunate situation cannot be altered.

Perhaps the key is indeed in spurring emotional engagement. Dry facts and figures, no matter how shocking and significant, seem unlikely to move large amounts of people unless they are couched in emotional terms.  At the same time I think it is important to being able to take advantage of emotion while remaining true to the scientific basis by not abandoning empirical data and analysis. Encouraging emotional engagement is how many humanitarian efforts and major social movements take off and gain public attention and nearly as important, funding. The space race for instance was fueled in a large part by the desire of average Americans to beat the Soviets to the moon and fear that the communists would use any advances in technology to wipe the country off the face of the earth. Ideally, the emotional appeal involved with the environmental movement will aim itself at more virtuous sentiments and base itself on more solid data. Recently, there have been a slew of films and shows with environmental themes and at least an underlying emotional appeal, focusing for instance, on the plight of the polar bears or the beauty of planet earth. These received attention and acclaim but have not yet brought about enough emotional engagement in the general population.

Weekly Response 5: Alda Yuan

Posted on October 7, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 5 Response

Despite the probably political and practical unworkability, I believe there should indeed be liability for companies responsible for releasing pollutants. This should be especially true for companies who continued their practices after regulations were instituted but even companies discharging chemicals into rivers for instance, before the laws should be held responsible to some degree. In some cases, they may not have known of the dangers so it could be argued that it is unfair to penalize them. But it is equally unfair for society to bear the whole cost. Presuming the company is still in business, it has derived profit and benefits from the activities related to the pollution. Thus, it is only fair that they be expected to foot a portion of the costs. The fines as such would, ideally, not be crippling but at the very least, give a warning to corporations that they may not flout the law and disregard the health of their fellow “legal persons.” With our judicial system the way it is however, such penalties are unlikely to work as big businesses will fight tooth and nail in order to prevent themselves from paying the fine, and perhaps more importantly, helping to set a precedent for further government involvement. Of course, this is the same judicial system that offers all citizens due process and offers as much of a level playing field as individuals facing off against powerful opponents can hope to get and I’m not sure that the ends would justify the means of disrupting the judicial system.

Personally, I found the New Bedford case study to be fascinating, both in form and context. The study combines two disciplines, environmental science and history, in a way that results in a much more comprehensive and realistic look at the situation. Instead of offering a sort of slice in time, as many environmental studies tend to do, it pinpoints the sources and reasons for the prevalence of pollutants in the ecosystem. A study like this offers a lot of information that can aid the area being studied as well as help to inform remediation and improvement programs in other locales. It identifies the origins of different types of pollutants and the businesses that give rise to them. This gives information on what to expect from other areas that have had similar historical patterns.  It also calls attention to the long term effects of human activities over a period of time and through multiple stages of industrialization.

In fact, I think this study should act as a model for others. Of course, not every city or area has as comprehensive of a history as New Bedford. Other polluted areas may not have records as complete as those enabling researchers to detail the types of chemical introduced into the environment at each stage of New Bedford’s development and how each wave of change altered the river shorelines. However, even the slightest bit of information about the industries that flourished in an area will provide scientists with information on how best to counteract the effects.

The issue of global warming has concerned me for a very long time. But in high school, it became very frustrating to care about because of the sheer scope of the problem and the amount of people who so vehemently denied any issue existed, including my high school biology teacher. Going to school in a relatively conservative town on Long Island meant frequent arguments and debates with both teachers and other students who refused to look at the data. Or, as my biology teacher did, asked us to take data on temperatures in our town over the last few years in an effort to have us prove that global temperatures were not in fact increasing. Therefore, it will be refreshing to learn the facts in an unbiased environment.

Weekly Response 4

Posted on September 29, 2012 by Alda Yuan

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 4 Response

In an ideal world, scientific studies and scientific evidence would lead directly into policy decisions. Government would institute and let expire regulations according to the most reliable studies. Of course, scientists are most often not the ones making public policy and politicians seem to be consistently willing to shunt environmental and public health concerns aside.

That is not to say there is plenty of ambiguity. Sometimes, even when there exists a preponderance of evidence that there is a risk, it is difficult to determine the proper response. For instance, the implications of the study concluding that underground subway platforms in New York City contain steel dust are disturbing and far-reaching. After all, few people who inhabit the city do not use the subways on at least an occasional basis. Many people inside and outside the city rely on it almost every day for the commute and errands. Thus, any problem with the subway system would seriously impact an enormous amount of people. This is an argument in favor of taking action but can also be used as an argument against change. After all, even the most basic maintenance induced changes in schedule and alterations of route are met with vitriol and anger on all sides by frustrated people trying to make their way to work. Here is a situation where any public policy must balance the evidence one side and the practical concerns on the other. Still, to do nothing is irresponsible and it tells us that society does indeed put a price on human life and public health. This price cannot be quantified as it is not always measured in dollars and cents but it is real nonetheless.  As a practical matter of course, no society can afford to protect its people against every possible harm and every possible danger.  Thus, those who make public policy are necessarily required to pick and choose what is “worth” legislation and coercion. It can only be hoped then, that they rely more on cold hard scientific fact rather than politics to guide their decisions.

In the case of the landfills in New York City, there seems to be plenty of data to consult. What struck me most about the lecture is the data indicating that the amount of garbage produced per capita in 1940 was double the average in the last twenty years. Interesting facts like this are discernible because of the comprehensiveness of the data. Perhaps the population density of the city, even at that time, forced municipal officers to pay more attention to such affairs. In any case, this surprises me because if anything, I would expect the reverse to be true. In our modern lifestyle, nearly everything we buy and everything we eat comes in layers of separate packaging. The average person certainly also goes through more paper in the course of a year than the average person seventy years ago. I would like to think this is at least partially due to the recycling programs instituted but of course have no data to substantiate that. However, 430 kg of trash is still a substantial amount and just seeing the numbers of the total amount of garbage the city produces as a whole over the course of a year is rather frightening. The deposit laws may have been effective in reducing the amount of plastic and glass waste but it would be hard to impose the exact same regulations on other types of garbage. But that doesn’t mean the same principle cannot be applied to help reduce waste. Some states have already instituted a tax for using plastic bags in grocery stores. Consumers seem to have adapted to this with little protest and many now tote the reusable canvas bags back and forth from the grocery store. This is important for the plastic saved as well as for the attitude and willingness of consumers to accept what is essentially a reduction of their rights for the benefit of the environment.

Comments by Alda Yuan