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

The goal set for the last few class periods have been to leave the room smarter than I was upon entering; I can confidently say that mission was accomplished.  A piece of information that stood out to me that we discussed last Monday is that water pollutants travel not only through water, but permutated through land masses surrounding and framing bodies of water.  While the theory of this action is not new information to me, the actual affect in the ecosystem was fresh.  I had never applied my knowledge of water being capable of seeping through land to problems faced in bodies of water.  What raised my eyebrows was the image seen of the river that ran red from pollutants from a neighboring plant.  I did not consider the permutation of pollutants prior to seeing this image, but when faced with the tangible situation up front, it is hard to imagine that there are people in this world that cannot see how draining pollutants into one body of water can affect one that shares a small wall of dirt and rocks.

Another piece of information I thought outside of class about is the Gaia hypothesis.  The Gaia hypothesis is the belief that the Earth is a living organism.  James Locelock begged the question, what regulates the life of Earth?  Before discussing the answer I believed the answer to be boiled down to the most simplistic form, of molecular and chemical reactions that keep the Earth functioning. Lovelock stated, that “it must be life that is doing the regulating.”  This stuck out to me and for the reason that Lovelock took a much more environmentalist approach than I had expected.  The idea that species are interconnected, including the Earth as a species of itself.  The survivability of a species is connected with its usefulness to the survival of other species.  I liked that idea because it relates the chemical and physical aspects of the Earth, with an environmental sustainability outlook.

As I discuss what interested me in class discussions, I would be remiss to not mention the affect of PCB’s.  September 13, marks the day I left class with the biggest jump in intelligence.  Before I entered class that fateful day, I had never even heard of PCB’s.  After leaving I not only know that PCB’s are pentachlorobiphenyl molecular structures, but are also: Excellent insulators, oily liquids, non-flammable, chemically stable, with high boiling points and capable of making certain technologies possible at low costs.  I came out of this class as smart as I did in part of the factual chemical information, but mostly because I am now more aware of an environmental problem in the world I live in, as close as the Hudson river, than before I came to class.  I enjoyed learning about PCB’s because after having left the class, I felt a bit less ignorant of my own surroundings, which I have set as my own goal for the class.

How do we balance economic stability with environmental sustainability? This is the million-dollar question. How can we come up with a solution that allows individual freedom while imposing limitations in order to protect the environment? What role should the government play, if any? Can we rely on individual responsibility? Is there even a solution where someone does not get hurt? Where does true responsibility lie?

In 1976, RCRA, the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, was passed. That same year the U.S. Government ordered GE to dredge the Hudson River in order to remove PCBs from the soil. GE finally started to dredge the Hudson in 2008. What does this say about the government, its people, and the corporation? It seems as if the corporation is fighting a surrogate of the people (i.e., the government). While the people may blame the government for not acting or not pushing the issue, it is actually the responsibility of the people to push their government to action. On the other hand, the corporation is fighting to survive in the wild frenzy of a global economy. The corporation tries to balance government regulations and global competition and all the while trying to make a profit. But who is responsible for the clean-up and can the use of PCBs be justified?

To start with the latter, PCBs were a cheap, efficient conductor used in many electronics from post World War II to 1976. A glance at a history textbook will show you that during this period American business was booming and, you could assume, PCBs made a contribution to this. Hypothetically speaking, if we traveled back to post World War II America and made a public service announcement about all of the dangerous chemicals being used at the time (e.g., PCBs, smoking, asbestos, etc.), would they listen? Would economic prosperity win over environmental sustainability? If we consider this issue realistically, Americans in the 1950’s wouldn’t believe the dangers. The environmental movement would not arise until twenty years later when the effects of the chemicals surfaced. Despite our ability of forethought, it is still hard to believe “theories” without hard evidence. As a counterpoint, consider what would happen if Americans in the 1950’s did stop using PCBs, what would America look like today? It would be reasonable to assume that the technology we have today (e.g., the plasma screen TV, the iPhone, and even this MacBook that I am typing on) would not exist. We might have TVs, but they would be a luxury. While our environment would cleaner, who would stop the rest of the world from using hazardous chemicals? Would the United States lose its world power as the “leader of the free world”? Or, if we were optimistic, would the world follow our example? Then, anyone who did not produce goods through an environmentally friendly way would be frowned upon; environmental conservation would exist in international laws but also as social norms…but this is a very optimistic outlook.

Since many companies used PCBs, dioxins, and pesticides (whether they did it out of frugal economic spending or ignorance of the aftereffects does not matter now), we are still left with a mess to clean up. Who is responsible? If the company created the pollution, it would seem logical that they, being the cause, should clean up the aftereffects. But what if they do not? Is the government responsible to make sure the companies do their job? Is this government’s role? If this is outside the jurisdiction of the government, then the people should be responsible. But how can they act if they are ignorant of the issue or feel they would hurt themselves (usually economically) if they act on this issue? Is it moral to wipe our hands clean by saying “it was the generation before us, we did not cause it,” and leave it for the next generation?

At the end of this debate there are the same recurring themes: economic stability and prosperity, environmental sustainability and conservation, and public versus private responsibility/ethics.

Every day I use water from a tap. Whether for drinking or cooking or showering I simply turn the faucet and water comes out. Like most people that is about as far as my thought process goes. Do I stop to consider how the pollutants from long closed factories upstate or the immense efforts undertaken by the state to treat the water affect me? No, of course not; in a city as developed and successful as New York the thought of having to worry about such matters seems slightly ridiculous, and sadly this mindset may be more toxic to humans then the pollutants themselves.

If you had asked me if the Hudson River was clean two weeks ago I probably would have said yes. I would have known it wasn’t perfect – I’m not that naïve, but it certainly wouldn’t have been a major cause of concern. It just seems so basic that it’s all too easy for a New Yorker to take it for granted. To discover that the Hudson is so contaminated that fishing has even been banned is simply disheartening. To think that out of everyone I know, my family, my friends and even the vast majority of my teachers, no one seems aware, never mind up in arms, about this atrocity is truly alarming. Before this class I had never even considered the state of the Hudson. Virtually my entire life I’ve never been more than a couple miles from the majestic river and yet I can’t say I have ever once, even when standing on its shores or riding down it on a boat, considered the dangers we create or the damage we have already done.

Similarly “PCB” was a term I had never encountered. It just seems so strange to something that can disrupt the structure of DNA, cause cancer and just generally so endanger humans is so off the radar to me. Given the damage they can and already have caused coupled with the fact that they will continue to haunt our ecosystem by means of bioaccumulation unless stopped, it is very sad to think that the general population is so entirely oblivious to them when they should be a household name. This attitude of indifference is far too commonplace; my only hope is perhaps attitudes will change before it is too late. The PCB problem New York has is horrible and needs to be stopped; however in the grand scheme of things the pollution problems in New York Harbor seem frivolous compared the atrocity that is Brazil’s Guanabara Bay.

Guanabara Bay exists as a testament to the danger that humans are to themselves. The degree of pollution there seems truly unreal, and unlike New York Harbor where the masses are oblivious but small factions are still able to make strides against the pollution, the situation in Guanabara Bay seems all but hopeless. While the population surrounding the bay are aware of how terrible the state of the bay is, due to the mass corruption that practically defines Brazilian government and the long established industry that thrives off the bay, whether or not change is even plausible seems unclear. How would one even go about trying to change the entire nature of a bay dominated by 6,000 factories, 16 oil terminals, 2 oil refineries and some of the worlds largest trash dumps? Millions if not likely billions of dollars worth of business thrive from being able to use and abuse the Guanabara Bay and while the government is still able to be bought off by these companies it seems there is almost nothing to be done.

It seems almost ridiculous when comparing New York Harbor and Guanabara Bay to think that New York’s problems haven’t already been dealt with. We are dealing with a (at least relatively) fair political system, we have more resources to put forward and the problem is so much less immense, yet because New Yorkers would rather be in blissful ignorance these problems remain. The further we get into this seminar the more frustrated I am becoming with those around me and with myself.

Lots of water pollution.  Slightly terrifying when you think about how nice and important it is to have clean and good-tasting tap water for free.  Also not to have to be scared of swimming in any body of water you come across.  Guanabera Bay is horrid and its hard to believe any government, national or city, could let it get that bad (then again, my mother has said that to me, so I know it happens).  Unfortunately, it seems to be a decision entirely motivated by money, because what else is new? In a way, this case is slightly more understandable, due to the extremely large amount of money and effort it would take to clean up the bay.  I’m assuming using the bay as a dump for everything dates back to the days when Rio’s population was small enough for the bay to dilute and wash away everything.

Now the problem has become paralyzing, with too many issues for any one change to seem relevant.  They would need a new sewage treatment plant.  Factories would need to come up either with ways to treat their hazardous wastes, ways to produce without them, or other places to dump them.  Somebody would get the headache of trying to come up with a way of regulating boating without impeding anyone’s life or business.  Underground storage tanks and landfills would need to be re-done or at least fixed.  And then there would be a long wait for the bay to clean itself, unless someone was willing to do the heavy lifting.  On the one hand, its sad that the only hope for the government to be motivated to clean the bay is the World Cup and Olympics.  On the other hand: shhhhh, don’t say anything.  As long as they do it.

The problems in New York State are a bit closer to home and therefore even scarier, even though they are luckily less overwhelming.  The EPA set awesome goals for the bodies of water surrounding New York City, and I have to admit they’ve done a relatively decent job.  At the very least, the water is cleaner than its been in a very long time.  It’s still not great, but hey, I swam in the East River as a kid and I’ve never turned any funny colors.  RCRA (1976!) was a good plan for the time, and the Hazardous Waste Management Program (1984!) was an improvement provided they kept up with the RCRA policies.

In regards to ecosystem approach versus chemical-specific approach, I don’t see why both shouldn’t be used concurrently for all substances.  Kind of a whichever-comes-first approach.

Now for PCBs, I take the view that the original incident was just an unfortunate but relatively blameless accident.  We still dump things into bodies of water thinking they are harmless, and we certainly couldn’t expect the company to know the harms of PCB’s in the 1940’s (unless they did know).  The serious problem was the delay between discovering the problems of PCB’s and cleaning them out.  It took not only an EPA injunction but several decades and trials to accomplish anything, and GE is still dragging their feet.  There needs to be some kind of mechanism to prevent this.  For instance, the company could have a limited amount of time to complete one appeal before beginning cleanup on a mutually arbitrated schedule, during which they could continue to appeal.  Or better yet: if the EPA is confident enough that they are right, they could begin cleanup immediately, and pay for it themselves if the company wins the appeal.

I have no opinion on the small Texas toxic waste town.  That is obviously a work of fiction.