Seminar Three | Fall 2012
Professor Alexandratos
Office Hours: Monday and ThursdayITF: Karen Gregory
Contact: Karen.Gregory@gmail.com
Office Hours: WednesdaysAdd Users
If you want to add yourself as a user, please log in, using your existing Macaulay Eportfolio account.
Weekly Response 6: 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.
All Connected
Now more than ever it is evident that the environmental crisis requires an elimination of the source of the problem more than the effects of harmful processes and products that industries and civilians use. Part of the solution to the crisis is balancing the environment, the society, and the economy, which contributes to closing the loop in many industrial manufacturing or production processes. A major portion of the solution, however, does not necessarily consist of overt actions but rather internal deliberation and consideration. That is, one must acknowledge or develop an emotional engagement with the environment, its issues, and its wellbeing.
To state that one must develop an emotional attachment with the environment sounds trivial and stereotypic. Such a mindset is necessary, however, to ensure that our intentions are clear and genuine. We need to know to ourselves that we are correcting the environmental problems for the betterment of future generations, for the insurance of our personal future existences, and for the preservation of ecological and biological diversity. We also need to be sure that we know the consequences of not taking care of the Earth’s resources and its inhabitants. That is, the effects of our activities extend to species endangerment, habitat destruction, poverty, dehumanization, business corruption, polluted communities, human endangerment…in short, almost every aspect of life with which we all share some connection with. Important to this emotional engagement is the persistence of such an attitude, as opposed to one that fluctuates based on the stability of the environment.
Once one fully acknowledges, in the full sense of the word, the environment, one can then understand what is essential to correct out wrongs. One important way of doing this, especially for industries, is closing the loop. This concept entails utilizing wastes generated by the manufacturing and production processes, or reducing waste generation with resource utilization. I believe that closing the loop is an excellent way to mend many problems in the environment, but one problem surfaces in the face of these methods: economic costs. Many companies may have to expend extra money to harness, store, and valorize their wastes. While many huge companies have considerable profits, they do not wish to use such perhaps for their own convenience or wants. One must consider, however, the environmental and economic benefits that making use of waste can have. Like transportation methods, as discussed in class, certain new business ventures can become the norm after older and less efficient businesses phase out or become unsatisfactory to the needs of the present. Perhaps the norm may become resource utilization. In addition, by using waste that companies already have, they can limit or cease investing in many sources of limited energy or materials. As such, the companies may save money if such practices are made long-term. Once again, we come to terms with the notion that people must be emotionally engaged with the issues to acknowledge these goals.
Here is where a discrepancy occurs, however, because many people think about the here and now, due to unfortunate circumstances in life, such as poverty or lack of education on the issue. One example noted in class that I will comment upon was the workers in Guyana who extracted gold from rocks using mercury, some of who experienced adverse health effects. Some of the workers may not know of the effects of mercury and, thus, are not troubled about using the materials. Others who do know, yet still do the work, probably do so because the money they earn to feed their families and upkeep the little they do have is more important than the wellbeing of themselves. Most of my family is from Guyana, and were amongst the lower class. Although I do not believe any of them were or are gold workers, some surely did, and still do, have the mentality of getting the job done to support the family and live for today. In order to get others involved in finding methods to avoid environmental problems, those educated on the issues need to share their awareness with others the gravity of the issue. A method of effectively getting across the messages to others, I feel, is to appeal to the issues that directly affect them in the environment, such as their physical health.
Here we see that it is of importance to tackle many social issues in solving many environmental problems. There is a need to raise the standard of living and to create an educated society. This need demonstrates how interconnected the environmental issues are with our lives, which is one of the major reasons why we need to find solutions to the problems. Even further, when we have managed to maintain a balance with society, the environment, and the economy, we must continue to practice limits and remain emotionally engaged with the environment to ensure that we do not make way for a renewed crisis.
Sherifa Baldeo
Weekly Journal 5
Seong Im Hong
October 10, 2012
Weekly Journal 5
First off— a correction to the calculations I did regarding Exxon Mobil’s fines. $11.2 million was 0.28% of the $40 billion profit. When I calculated that I would lose $0.16 from my scholarships, I accounted for all income rather than just profit. Given that I have about $200 left over every month, I would lose $0.06 rather than $0.16 each month if I were fined similarly to how Exxon was fined. Similarly, when I proposed that Exxon’s fines be $11.2 billion rather than $11.2 million, I said that the loss is analogous to loss of $160 per month for my incomes. I also did a faulty calculation here, since I accounted for all income rather than profit ($200). Hence, I would actually lose $60 a month given how much I save every month. It’s not as nearly impressive as losing $160 per month, but it’s still $60 a month. So I’d have to eat ramen noodles every other day during the weekdays rather than every day. (Also, Professor, you can definitely use these figures for the future.) Sorry.
Now—back to talking about how the classes made me smarter.
I don’t think I truly realized how big and important the ocean is.
Well, yes, knew that ocean was a heat sink and had a great diversity and a source of delicious food, but knowing that it’s simply impossible to try to affect the acidity of the ocean by adding some strong base in there due to its sheer size made me do a double-take and realize, woah, the ocean is pretty big. It’s a bit funny how we don’t think much of the ocean, because it’s uninhabitable for humans and not many exciting things go on there. But it still plays a vital role in the earth’s equilibrium.
(This actually reminded me of other flaws in perception that we have. For example, I had to look at a map of comparative size of Africa to other countries to realize how big it was as a continent. Because we don’t think about Africa too often, we diminish its size in our minds. It’s probably eurocentrism at play, considering how Europe looks so big in maps when, in reality, it’s pretty tiny, especially compared to Africa. I suppose anthrocentricism worked the same way with regards to the oceans.)
Another thing I thought about with regards to global warming is blackouts and brownouts. I remember how impossible it was to sleep during this summer when I stayed in the dorms (where there were no air conditioners) and I can’t imagine blackouts happening regularly. But we run into a dilemma of cost v. risk. Individuals have desire to sleep soundly during hot summer nights, and air conditioners make the room cooler as well as less damp, which fans aren’t able to do. Therefore, though fans aren’t nearly as energy consuming as air conditioners, they’re not nearly as used as much. But who will use fans on hot 100’F night when they can easily say, “well, someone else would use a fan,” or, “the power plant can handle it”?
What can we do to cut down on energy costs? Should we go by the way of regulations and make sure all air conditioners have a certain upper limit on the energy they use? Should we have an automatic timer that lets people use air conditioners for, say, 4 hours at a time? Is it an invasion of privacy? It seems a bit Big Brother, but people can’t be very well expected to get up in the middle of the night to turn off or down their air conditioner. (I am assuming that by the middle of the night, the room will be sufficiently chilled enough to be comfortable in with good insulation from the heat outside.) One of the biggest discourses we have as a country is on choices. We are supposed to be land of the free, but there are certain freedoms that are actively restricted, such as acts that restrict others’ rights as people. I suppose the only way to perhaps clamp down on the energy spending is to either convince people that turning off the air conditioners are a good idea (which everyone knows, just doesn’t follow) or to turn it off for them. I don’t really know what to think about this, but my pessimism bleeds into my thoughts. I wouldn’t trust people to turn off their air conditioners—heck, I wouldn’t trust myself to turn off my air conditioner at night. And additional features such as timers will probably cost money to put in. I bet that anyone would rather buy a less green air conditioner if that means it’s cheaper. I guess it really comes down to whether we see the relatively distant threat of energy crisis as a threat immediate enough to act on.
Response #5
Last week in class, we tackled the subject of global warming and the greenhouse effect. So far, this lesson covers the most well known subject regarding the current environmental issues. At this part of the overall arc of the class, the greenhouse effect is the most often publicized and most commonly discussed issue of the last five years, at least in my experience. As a result of the widespread public knowledge and constant awareness messages in the media I had entered class with the impression that I knew almost all there was to know about the important issues regarding CO2 emissions and the climate changes. Luckily, this was not the case. While I cannot say that I feel as enlightened as usual writing this response, I do feel that I have gained a sense of wider clarity on the topic. Firstly, I had never heard quite a clearly informative and concise chemical explanation of the chain reaction caused in the atmosphere that melts the ice caps. Ben’s “Ben/Eric/Dan” experiment broke down the reaction well enough to change my incorrect previous assumption. Without having formally studied or researched the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere, I had thought that the reason for the melting ice was less direct than Ben would have me believe. In understanding the problem at an atomic level, I was able to visualize a much more clear and comprehensive picture of the reaction. While listening to his response, I visualized the air as an exaggerated, cartoonish, almost grid of atoms. The best way I can describe it is that it looks like a honeycomb, with each hexagon as an atom, with the carbon atom essentially playing dominos with the honeycomb down the ice from the atmosphere.
As for the emissions, I found it interesting that the emissions in the USA surpass Europe’s by a billion tons a year, and that China’s emissions were not nearly proportional relative to population. With the idea that America produces a shameful amount of CO2 for three hundred million people, it had me wondering if there is a correlation between the time since development of a country and the awareness of emissions and the cuts and policies instituted by governments. By this I mean that, is it possible that Europe’s relatively low emissions are due to the arc of the countries’ advancements? After a country has gone from undeveloped, to developed, does it shift its focus from constant advancement and expansion to maintaining the population that it has plateaued with? In the case of Europe, no other Western areas have been developed previously, and now whole cities in places like Germany are becoming “green” cities. This would make sense with the USA because it seems that we are at the top of the arc, waiting for changes to be made to sustain our living. Even with China, as it is currently going through a developmental revolution, it would make sense in this scenario that it would have the highest emissions by far. Finally, I felt the most new information was the absorption of CO2 in the ocean, and the effects on the food chain, as well as humans, it has.
Response 5
While environmental damage has greatly been increasing in recent years, it is also disheartening to realize that we have been causing harm to this planet for many years in our past as well. The New Bedford study is a great example of how environmental damage has been done in the past and how this combined with pollution of today can prove even more disastrous for our planet. Global warming is just another example of how pollution does not go away over the years but continues to build and damage the earth.
The New Bedford case study showed that negative impacts on an area in Massachusetts. The focus of this study is on a watershed-an area that encompasses a cycle of water movement. They broke the history of the area into different historical period and examined damage done to the area during that period. For example, during the textile period dyes were released into the river polluting it. During the post-textile period electronic parts manufactures moved to this region and polluted PCBs into the river in the process of making capacitors. Even something as seemingly harmless as building a bridge had effects on the environment. The bridge caused sediment to build up on one side, which rendered this side useless as a port. The most recent period represents the time since this region became environmentally aware. This area has since become a part of the superfund program. Attempts have been made to try and clean up the area, however some of the damage cannot be fixed.
From this study we learn that when considering environmental damages, we need to look to the past as well as the present. We can also see how we need to calculate the possible consequences of how our actions can affect the future, as the affects done to the New Bedford area in the past are still being felt by the people living there. I was surprised to learn that the bridge caused such changes to the sediment depositing patterns and that this situation currently seems irreversible. We should keep these ideas in mind when considering global warming. Global warming is caused by the expulsion of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This prevents energy in the form of heat to be rereleased into space and instead is reflected back to the earth. Although carbon dioxide may not seem like the most harmful of toxins, it can cause serious damage. The rates of temperature increase are growing faster than originally predicted. We also have to consider how much carbon dioxide has already been released into the atmosphere. We have been burning large amounts of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.
It is a shame that we haven’t began to understand harm we are causing to our environment sooner. If we had realized this earlier then our world would be in a better state today. We also need to remember this so we that leave the world in at least a livable state for future generations.
Weekly Writeup #5: Reva McAulay
Reva McAulay
10.10.12
MHC 200 Weekly Writeup #5
Learning about the process of global warming was very useful, because generally people discuss the causes and effects of global warming without explaining how it works or the evidence for it. Then if they do explain it, they give an overly simplified description of the process—for instance saying Carbon Dioxide reflects heat back towards Earth when it really absorbs and transfers heat.
It’s comforting to know the United States is no longer the biggest emitter of Carbon Dioxide. Only not really, because at least we can do something about the United States. I’m not sure if there is anybody outside China who can do anything about China’s Carbon Dioxide emissions, and if there is its not random Americans. But at least its not entirely our fault. Unfortunately the biggest problems are all things no normal person has control over. The government and industry have to fix their own stuff but waiting for other people to do something is grating even if they actually do it.
As someone who hates hot weather, knowing temperatures could rise 7 degrees during my lifetime is terrifying, in the most literal sense of the word. Now, 7 degrees is not enough to kill people (only old people and babies…) but it still freaks me out because it reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where the Earth moves closer to the sun and the incredible heat causes lots of people to die and water to run out. Obviously 7 degrees (probably) won’t cause that, but the idea still gives me that terrifying image of endless oppressing heat.
The main thing I took away from the New Bedford case study was that some really bad things can come out of people with the best of intentions, or, okay, average intentions, who just don’t know something. People really did think the river would clean itself within a few miles, its not like today when most people know that they are doing things that are bad for the environment but choose to do them anyway. But the result is exactly the same, unfortunately. Building a new bridge is something most people, smart people, today including myself would never imagine could have such a serious effect on a river. Which is scary because its impossible for everyone to know everything, and there are still things about the environment that nobody knows. The smaller capacity of the Southern Ocean is something nobody knew, not even the scientists who study this stuff. Its impossible to prepare for the future and its impossible to prevent making any mistakes, but at this point I think our knowledge and understanding of the world is enough to decide to stop polluting everything.
Doherty’s Weekly Response #5
During my last floor meeting at Brookdale the RA brought up the issue of our kitchen’s hygiene. It is terrible. The last time I made coffee the counter was littered with rice, the sink was a brown pool, and the surface of the heating coil bubbled with some white frothy unknown substance that, when burned, smelled like the smoke emissions from firecrackers. During the meeting everyone nodded his or her head in agreement. Yes, it is disgusting. Yes, anyone who uses the kitchen should clean it up. Yes, if we see something dirty, wipe it down. Then the RA asked who is going to clean it up. Someone said whoever was cooking in there last is responsible. The person who used it last piped in saying that it was dirty before she even started cooking in there. In the end, They did not move. Everyone agreed that it was dirty; no one agreed to clean it; and the kitchen is like that to this day.
This is how we treat environmental responsibility. Recall the infamous illustration of the “Boss Tweed Ring,” where all the guilty men are in a circle and pointing to the man on their right. In this illustration, who is guilty? The New Bedford case study shows us how the current status of an environment is the result of years and years of pollutants and not the result of one accident. One company did not cause the change in New Bedford’s watershed, but a multitude of people and jobs did. Who is responsible? The answer to this question is simple: Everyone.
But who will act? Many of the companies in New Bedford have changed hands, left the city, or gone out of business. Is it right to punish a company today for unknown crimes it did yesterday? If it is not, then what is the alternative? There is, however, an even more important question. While it may be easy to place the blame on an individual, how will we shift the paradigm of correct behavior? If it took years of incorrect practice to pollute the environment it will take years of correct practice to stabilize it. People will be looking for a quick fix solution to a larger problem.
For example, during last week’s lecture we spoke about the carbon dioxide absorption into the ocean. Many of the solutions proposed a way to fix the change in acidity of the ocean. But what then? If there are still high levels of carbon dioxide in the air, the same problem will arise again and again and again. The solution to this is come up with a long-lasting sustainable change in way we use the earth’s resources.
What is sad about my anecdote is that the kitchen was cleaned up, but not by any of the residents. Every other morning a cleaning lady comes in to wipe down all the surfaces and makes the kitchen look like it was newly installed the night before. This is sad because the Earth has no equivalent. The solution for cleaning the kitchen is the same for cleaning the Earth. If we can change the way we use the kitchen everyday and take immediate responsibility of the mess we create, sustainable change can occur.
The Grand Scale
After exploring the actions of specific companies and institutions, we’re moving on to the environment itself. The state of a given locale is determined not just by the willingness of nearby companies to shirk the law, but also by the human population, their choice of occupation, the location of their homes, and everything they make. Everything affects the environment in some way, and when those influences are spread over hundreds of years, their effects can be much more significant than we might otherwise expect.
That’s what the New Bedford case study showed us. By beginning the study with the founding of the settlement and chronicling each change that has occurred since then, the study gives a fuller, more complete understanding of the human impact on a particular environment. The study has enormous worth as a lesson on future planning and development. When building a new bridge, we now must consider the change in river currents. In New Bedford, this change in currents essentially destroyed the fishing economy of the east bank of the harbor, and permanently altered patterns of settlement and development over the next three centuries. The location of the city of New Bedford on the west side of the harbor is a direct result of this choice.
I find this historical approach to be fascinating in the implications it has for planners. Every choice will most likely have unforeseen consequences down the road, particularly as populations boom and systems that were once adequate stop being able to handle environmental strain. It is clear the human waste created by the population of New Bedford soon overwhelmed the natural mixing processes of the watershed, but I have to wonder what would have changed had the residents taken advantage of the local wetlands, rather than filling them in. Would the wetlands have been able to cope with and effectively treat a reasonable amount of waste, or would the influx of such new compounds make them unsustainable?
In the next session we moved from water pollution to air pollution, and moved out even further into the grander scheme of things. It is indisputable that climate change is occurring, and incomprehensible that it is not anthropogenic. This issue is the most difficult of all to regulate, because no one owns the air. While water pollution and overfishing affect the grander world, the short term problems created are localized. CO2 production has little in the way of short term or localized effects, but its long term, global effects are enormous. Coastal cities will need to build expensive walls or dams to stay above water, and some areas may need to evacuate entirely. I read earlier that the island nation of Kiribati is already making plans to relocate its entire population to due to rising sea levels.
Many people have predicted political crises ahead, and I’m inclined to agree. Although the sea will get larger and deeper, oceanic acidification due to CO2 absorption will still probably decrease fishing yields. And droughts across Africa and Asia will make fresh water extremely valuable. What are we to do when the rivers that irrigate the crops of China and India stop being fed by the Himalayan glaciers? And through all of this, the world’s oil reserves continue to be depleted.
I have a friend who comes up with all sorts of doomsday scenarios, like China invading Russia to take control of their oil. Sometimes his ideas don’t seem that far fetched, but I’m a bit more optimistic than that. I expect the ingenuity of our species will carry us through these the times ahead, but it’s not going to be easy. Working on the solutions to climate change would be a significant step forward, at least.
A Case Study of the Here & Now
When I was first looking through the case of New Bedford, I guess I had the typical student response to it: boring. I mean, I understand that history is very important and all, but I guess it was reinforcing what I already knew. It wasn’t until the next lesson, about the greenhouse effect and climate change, did I put two and two together. I realized that we are actually going through what will probably be a case study in the near future, and that fascinated me.
I would also like to make a note that the new Bedford case did not just show how problems come up over time due to decisions that were made without thought of the long term consequences. It also showed that many fields could work together. Historians and scientists worked together on this, it wasn’t one or the other. So that fact really reminded me that I don’t have to just choose that one thing I want to do in life. It reminded me that I can do many things and that they are all connected in some way, I just have to figure that out and make it my own.
Back to science now! What I think the New Bedford case mentions that we should take into consideration now with our own global warming crisis is that there are some issues that will never be resolved. Scientists need to determine which issue is irreversible and which issue can be solved, or at least have the impact be lessened. In class, we discussed the Southern Ocean and how it is now pretty much completely saturated with carbon dioxide. The class kept trying to determine what solution would work and what solution wouldn’t, like mixing in some base so that the pH can increase. But where are we going to get all of that base? And what effects will that end up having on the ocean’s environment? I really don’t know if this issue can be resolved, at least not right now. I think right now the concentration should go towards there being less carbon dioxide in the first place. The amount emitted by the major countries in the world is outrageous, and it just seems to be increasing year by year, even with the crisis in mind.
Governments in the past have done things that the people have not liked, whether that be going into war or increasing taxes. The people right now might not realize the huge impact global warming is going to have in just a few decades, so I believe it is the government’s responsibility to do something about it. Isn’t that what they’re there for? To make decisions that’s best for their people? Instead they seem to be doing the opposite at times. World leaders definitely have the money to put into finding alternative energy but they are just too greedy and figure they’re going to die anyways before anything bad happens. I mean, that’s probably true, but that just screwed my friends and me over.
So I realize this essay response is all over the place, so I’d just like to end it by saying thank you for teaching us what the greenhouse effect is. To me, that’s something that everyone knows but most people probably can’t explain it. I know it’s a problem, but I can never explain why it’s a problem, but now I can! I am a firm believer that knowledge is the key to everything, and if only there was a way to teach people the environmental issues. Right now, I am in an organization that teaches teens across the major cities in America health issues that they aren’t aware about. Can’t the same be done for the environment? It’s actually a very good idea; you should try it, professor! J
Weekly Response 5
I really appreciated the historical approach that the New Bedford ecological study took to tracking the changes in an isolated space. First of all, the approach was unique compared to the other scenarios we have studied. It is the only one that has shown concern about something as removed as the events in a small harbor town centuries ago. This teaches us many important lessons. It shows us the benefits of tracking the development of an area in order to understand the exact cause and affect relationships involved in its ecology. It also teaches us to think ahead when we make decisions today.
The study split the development in New Bedford into four distinct period of environmental consequence. I was surprised to learn that events from so long ago, such as the erection of a bridge, had such a drastic effect on the environment through shifting currents. It was also interesting to learn that ideas that people had from different eras translate into lasting effects on the environment. This is evident in the filth theory that people had and how they believed that sewage could be infinitely and immediately dissipated in water. The New Bedford study marked the negative environmental and public health effects that were brought on by this misconception.
This is relevant today in context of something like the superfund. The superfund is a project to clean up designated areas and prepare them for beneficial use by private or public entities. Because this process is expensive, the costs to taxpayers are large and must be weighed against the benefits. Furthermore, the polluters are often unknown and thus cannot be made accountable for the funds spent on cleanup. Taking a historical approach to each specific area, as the New Bedford study does, could help mitigate these issues. Detailed environmental accounts should be kept for every area because, as the study taught us, we cannot always know what will be significant and not in the future.
Going along this line of thought, the New Bedford study teaches us to think about our actions in the long term. We have seen how actions have serious repercussions not only after just a few centuries but after just a few years as well. The historical approach shows us how we, today, are affected by decisions made by the generations that directly preceded us. Bringing this to the forefront of thought may change how we think about maintaining the earth for our future generations. Personally, I would have liked for the people of New Bedford not to dump sewage directly into the waterfront. Also, the realization of how quickly things like dumping PCBs turn around and harm our grandchildren or even our children can make us more wary of environmental damage.
This thought can be extended beyond keeping tabs on our failures, but also planning for success. The window for action against global warming is though to be closing within 50 years. However, the New Bedford study has shown us that this is enough time to take initiative and affect the environment. Solar power, and wind power, is an excellent step. The New Bedford study also revealed how the environment can be changed incrementally through a combination of factors. This idea will help make people feel like they can have a concrete influence by conserving energy and voting for green alternatives.
