It’s interesting how powerful denial can be. You can acknowledge reality with your senses, take part in it, understand what’s going on, and still refuse to believe that it’s true. “I can’t believe it,” people say when a disaster strikes, because they have assumed conditions under which such a thing—fully likely in reality—could never happen. But choosing not to believe something doesn’t eliminate it as a possibility, or shake its truth. And people otherwise thinking rationally often trip themselves by denying the possibility of there being any variables which they don’t yet know of or understand.

This is what happened with the Southern Ocean. Humanity’s leading intellectuals and authorities on the matter assumed that they knew the rate at which an ocean—as a massive, circulating body of water—can absorb carbon dioxide. They underestimated the complexity of nature. They overestimated their own understanding of the situation and failed to ask themselves critical questions or search for data that could have brought the truth to their eyes sooner. They grew comfortable living in denial of the fact that, in the great scheme of nature that runs the cycles of life and physical phenomenon on this planet, they may have been something that they’d missed.

It’s not just scientists. All people do it. They assume that they know things and deny the possibility that they don’t, which is why they often let danger walk right up to them before they acknowledge the need to do anything. Even then they might deny the need for action—figuring that it’s somebody else’s job, someone else’s responsibility. So people assume that they’re safe from hazardous waste, and deny the fact that their safety, in the present climate, is not a given—that, unfortunately, violations of dumping regulations happen and are frighteningly likely to happen somewhere that comes into contact with their supply of food, water or air. And then they do nothing to push the violators to clean up, refusing—following the companies’ lead—to admit that nothing is being done.

People also have a hard time believing things that they can see firsthand—for example, that they can make a difference. Who can deny that a plastic bottle recycled is one less on its way to the landfill, or worse, to the ocean? Who would argue that turning off the lights you don’t need keeps energy from being wasted? People can, and people would, and people do. They think things like, “It doesn’t matter.” “It’s not a big deal.” “I’m too small to have any significant impact, so there’s no reason to feel guilty for not trying harder.”

In other words, people lie to themselves. They tell themselves that they see the whole truth and deny the possibility that they’re missing something or that they’re wrong. And, in doing so, they let the responsibility fall out of their hands. They lull themselves into a sense of security. They refuse to do anything to stop the disasters that creep up on them because they refuse, in the first place, to acknowledge their existence—which, in their minds, frees them from any duty to do anything.

Of essence to the environmental state of the Earth is planning ahead. Companies are constantly setting up shop without seeing too far beyond profits and economics, all at the cost of the ecological equilibrium. It is a lesson learned so often that industries, specifically manufacturing ones, become profitable, wreak havoc on the environment, and are unable to clean up the mess. Many industries established to make life more convenient and even deluxe, ultimately, jeopardize humans, other species, and the environment.

To say that we must do away with industries is virtually impossible on Earth, as long as humans are existent on this planet. I, thus, believe that instead of contributing to the environmental issues, such as the introduction of toxic wastes and excessive garbage into different habitats, we should try to practice limits in how many destructive industrial edifices and structures are built. Industries should also practice limits in how much material they use in the production of their products as well as try to find ways to use the wastes generated in the production of and by their products. Looking ahead, this practice may even help save the companies money and resources in the future, which is an incentive for everyone. That is, the company saves economically, the government does not have to give tax breaks to or make excuses for the company, and the consumers and the environment does not have to suffer the costs. Call me naïve for believing that the world can work in this way, but would we all, including the companies, consumers, and the government, rather continue on with how we are living and operating now? Other methods, obviously, have not been effective.

If we do not start helping ourselves now and fixing the source of the problem rather than the problem itself, we are leading up to the destruction of land and all that we know since the rate of change that the Earth is experiencing and its deviation from equilibrium are, respectively, rapid and extreme. We saw with the New Bedford Case Study that the agricultural, whaling, textile, fishing, and several other industries all contributed to the various toxicities present in the area now, such as the toxic water filled with dyes and PCBs. People lived in New Bedford, just as we all live in our hometowns, and dealt with such filth, especially that generated from sewage, which ended up in the water. If many of us do not become aware of the issues at hand and make an effort to fix the environmental wrongs, devastatingly polluted cities, such as New Bedford, may become the norm.

Companies may, furthermore, be emitting toxic carbon emissions into the air, which contribute to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect entails that the Earth becomes warmer due to trapped heat, which disturbs the Earth’s equilibrium, leading to climate and even ecological changes. As of such, companies should be on the lookout for environmental-friendly ways to produce their products and conserve energy. To say such is definitely easier than to do, but, perhaps, this next statement shall give companies some motivations: If we do not prepare for the worst as of now, we will have to deal with the worst eventually!

Unless certain businesses, government officials, and even consumers stop treating the environment like a business deal and pretending as if they care about the environment’s welfare and equilibrium, then much cannot be done about the environment. This notion rings true to me because a problem this enormous can only be solved with the dedicated efforts of every individual, no matter how young or old. Pertinent to every individual doing his or her part is the understanding of every individual of the issue, about what he or she should do to help, and about why he or she is taking actions. Even after the masses are educated and taking action, however, everyone must continue to be driven to do their part in the environment. Sure we would all rather blot such troubling information from our minds and not worry about the issue, but if we are not thinking about the state of the future, then how can we ensure that we will even be here to live our lives and fulfill our goals in the future?

Sherifa Baldeo

“Greenhouse gas emissions” is one of the few terms that even those largely oblivious to climate change are familiar with. Our planet’s current CO2 addiction has become so overblown that it is becoming increasingly harder for people to not take notice. Hurricanes are getting stronger, summers are getting hotter and weather over all is simply becoming much more extreme; and yet this is just the beginning. Forces such as the melting of the polar ice caps in the North Pole and Antarctica are both ones we are only beginning come to terms with, while their effects will likely become far more obvious in the next 50 or so years as sea levels rise. Nearly the entire world is just sitting back and relaxing as they cook themselves and destroy the earth for those after them. Although three quarters of Americans now believe climate change is affecting our weather, according to an article published in the Smithsonian October 9^th, nothing is changing; people are accepting that damage is being done and yet do nothing to stop it.

Of course one can herald the fact that at least awareness is increasing but the truth is, largely no one cares enough to change their actions. Moreover than that most don’t even know how to go about making any real impact. Sure recycling plastics and metals or driving a hybrid car are steps in the right direction but that is undoubtedly not enough to start reversing or even stalling the intense damage that has been taking place and has already been done. Given the scale of the damage it seems that modern society as a whole would have to restructure and almost entirely change their lives to make any kind of change worth talking about, and that just seems utterly impossible. So far history shows we are not animals who like to deal with this kind of change.

Take for instance, the case of cigarettes. Since the beginning of the 20^th century, scientists have figured out, to varying degrees, that smoking is not beneficial to ones health. These scientists were outright ignored by most and even in the 1950s when it became more common knowledge most of the population was still skeptical. Today it is absolutely unquestionable that smoking causes lung cancer and has other major risks associated. Commercials run making the public aware of the danger and students are taught in school the dangers of smoking. The hazards of smoking are now pretty universally accept – but has a great societal change come? Not so much. Although things are of course better than they were you cannot walk outside of Hunter College, even with CUNY’s new smoking ban enforced, without seeing crowds of young people smoking. They all are aware of what they are doing to themselves and although with New York City’s taxes cigarettes can cost even up to fifteen dollars a pack, people still smoke. My generation, a generation that grew up with ads and health classes teaching the dangers of cigarettes, is still a generation of smokers.

If a change so minor as giving up a drug with only a short lived buzz and health effects unquestionably noticeable to the individual cannot be achieved, perhaps the crusade to fight climate change isn’t even really worth it. The changes that would need to be made to make a serious difference seem far greater and far more expensive making the entire fight seem like something of a pipe dream. I will try to suspend my doubt until we move farther through the arc, but at this point my question really is – is it even worth it?

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.

When I first started reading the New Bedford article, I began to question the relevance of learning about the history of the area. Then, however it all made sense because we need to know the history to figure out the causes of problems, if these problems can be remedied, who is responsible, and usually these problems accumulate over long periods of time. Therefore, the best way to learn about an area’s environmental status is to review the history of the area and put the pieces together.

Something I found fascinating in the New Bedford Study is how the building of a bridge could have such huge negative impacts on the environment. The new presence of the bridge altered the current in the river and caused sediment to build up along the shore. These effects were difficult to foresee, but from studying the history of the area, we now know and can prevent the same mistakes from happening again.

After our lesson on the Greenhouse effect and global warming, I can put to bed all the theories that I have heard that global warming isn’t actually real. It is in fact a real issue that needs to be addressed immediately. Poor polar bears, seals and penguins, but especially the Polar Bears! These animals, along with dozens of others I am sure, rely on the presence of icecaps and cold climates for their survival. If the Earth keeps becoming hotter and hotter with every year at such a quick pace, these animals will become extinct and our children will grow up not knowing what a polar bear was. Future generations will feel about polar bears the way we feel about dinosaurs. We cannot keep treating the Earth like we do now. We take everything for granted without having the slightest inkling of the damage we may be causing. Environmental lessons should be taught at early ages, starting in elementary or middle school. Kids today have little knowledge about environmental problems, and it is harder to develop a desire to help at older ages.

We certainly need to deal with the methane deposits that are concealed under the permafrost in Russia. Regardless of how expensive it may be, the deposits need to be dealt with. Nations around the world should all chip in and help remove the deposits and dispose of them in a safe way. Somehow, pipes can be laid out to transport the gas to an offsite location where it can be dealt with. Otherwise, as global warming continues, the methane deposits will inevitably be released and cause crippling damage. Apparently, the amount of methane (CH₄) in the deposits is massive and has the potential to cause serious damage. A large presence of methane has been linked to the global warming problem and even endangering certain species.

As a living human being on the planet Earth, I feel as if it is my duty to help preserve the Earth, or at least pass it on in the same condition I had it in. It is like borrowing something from someone, you are not going to borrow a hammer from someone and the return it in pieces. You want to give it back in the same condition you received it in. We are morally responsible for ensuring the continued health of the human race and survival of planet Earth.

https://spaces.usu.edu/download/attachments/20971966/Last_Polar_Bear.jpg

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html