Water is one of the most important elements to life, yet it is also something we all take for granted. This is especially true of New York where our tap water is safe enough for us to drink—we do not realize that in other areas of the world this is most certainly not the case. Many other first world countries do not have the wonderful commodity of clean, drinkable tap water, let alone third world countries where the water is so polluted we wouldn’t even wash our feet in it. This is why many people don’t see water pollution as a serious problem—it is hard to imagine that our fresh water supply is limited when we see water all around us. However, I believe that water pollution is a serious issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, before our water supply is permanently tainted.

One important issue of water pollution that hits us close to home is the water pollution of the Hudson River with PCBs. PCBs are chemicals that are harmful to us in that they can affect our DNA and lead to cancer. They are known to bioaccumulate, making the fish in the Hudson unsafe to eat. They were produced as a cheap way to insulate capacitors by General Electric and eventually dumped as a waste into the Hudson. The EPA, realizing the hazardous effects of this chemical ordered a clean up in 1976. However the clean up did not begin until 2008, and has yet to be completed. The river has been dredged, removing thousands of cubic yards of contaminated sediment. This sediment is then relocated to other areas, specifically Texas, where it is buried in the clay there. This clay should serve to keep the toxins isolated for now. While some may protest these chemicals being buried underground, this operation is a viable option for dealing with these toxins and can generate jobs for people in the community. As long as everything goes according to plan there should be no harmful effects from the PCBs. Even though it may seem a little ridiculous to dredge this sediment out of the Hudson River only to bury it underground elsewhere, I think that this plan is a good idea for containing pollutants and keeping them out of the water supply.

While this solution is a little late in coming, at least it shows that the need for clean unpolluted water is becoming more of a concern than before. This solution is a step in the right direction. It is becoming more and more important for us to keep our water clean, since around the world water sources are becoming more and more polluted. The Bay at Rio de Janeiro is extremely polluted, with different oil terminals and refineries, factories, and households all dumping their wastes into this body of water. It has become such a problem that wastes such as diapers can be seen floating freely in the bay. Even in places in America the water supply has become clearly tainted. An article about Treece, Kansas shows that this town is suffering many environmental effects due to the mining that once took place there. The water of the creek in this town has become polluted with trace minerals from the mines, which gave it an orange color, a vinegar-like odor, and killed off all of the life within this water. I sincerely hope this never happens to New York and that we can keep our drinkable tap water for future generations. Fresh water is not an unlimited resource and we must remember to do what we can to keep it clean and pure for as long as possible.

I’m almost disappointed that there are no libertarians in our class, as I’m sure they would make for some lively exchanges. Then again, it’s probably best that my blood pressure not skyrocket during class. The argument for increased environmental protections as a result of consumer demand raises a question of economics: does demand create supply, or can supply dictate demand? In today’s developed world, in which a few large corporations hold a huge percentage of the consumer market, it seems silly to insist that somehow average individuals can band together to change the practices of superrich and super-powerful businesses. I would even say that it reflects a downright disconnection from reality, but I will move on before I launch into a diatribe against objectivism. The point is that American businesses need to be regulated by an entity that can match them in force, i.e. the American government. Perhaps I long for the presence of a rightwing voice in class because it is much less fun to make political assertions, as I like to, if there is no one to engage with. In fact, this behavior probably makes me seem pretentious, as does being interested in the chemical nature of harmful compounds, apparently. Knowledge and curiosity are hallmarks of pretentiousness, don’t you know? I would say I wish we spent more time on mechanisms, such as looking at how a model of biotreatment works, but, the breadth of material that we have to cover aside, some of my peers would probably complain that this will “never affect” them. And again, I try to avoid seeing red while class in is session.
Something that piqued my interested during our first class this week was the all the legislation set forth by the EPA and its effects. Was the EPA actually not completely impotent in the 70s? In the 80s, the Reagan years? Were its rules observed? Was its board not filled with executives from Monsanto and Citigroup? These were foreign concepts for me.
During our second session, however, things became a bit more familiar. Despite the EPA’s ban on the production of PCBs for use in capacitors and its mandate for cleanup, progress on fixing the damage already done stagnated due to the efforts of the company in the hot seat: in this case, General Electric. Stalling via the courts, GE managed to take fifteen years to clean up just the areas where the chemicals were made and dumped from. Afterward, it also publicly criticized the EPA in a statement, at the same time praising the progress made by its own efforts. Meanwhile, GE would have still been producing and indiscriminately dumping PCBs in 2000 had the EPA not put a stop to it. This is the type of corporate shenanigans I recognize.
Another good point that we touched on was the issue of what to do with toxic waste. I thought Seong was insightful in equating the export of New York’s PCB-mud to the depressed Southwest with classism, but I also think that there is another aspect to this. The Hudson River is surrounded by astronomically higher population density than is a small town in Texas. This will hold true for any major city and the Podunk place to which it sends its hazardous waste. It can be argued that it is more ethically sound to store toxic substances where fewer people risk exposure to them, even if the waste was produced by or for the benefit of people in more crowded areas. However, large population centers will almost always be of higher economic standing than areas that are only sparsely inhabited, so in a way this still amounts to classism.

            Now that we’ve begun getting into some of the specifics of the issues of environmental protection and the history of implementation, I feel a bit more comfortable. I think the philosophical questions distract me from what’s important: making changes in our government and society to improve quality of life for everyone.

            Rio de Janeiro makes a poignant model for ecological destruction . It’s amazing how much money could be wasted to no effect. After thinking about it over the course of the day, the example makes me think of United States examples from a century ago. I don’t know much of the situation in Brazil beyond what we covered in class, but it seems to follow the pattern for a developing nation. High economic and/or population growth and insufficient infrastructure lead to a horrendous accumulation of trash and waste. And of course corruption accompanies all of this, leading to the waste of a billion dollars trying to fix the mess.

Someone mentioned the fact that it isn’t just the fault of the government, but the fault of society. This is true, but the government also serves as an instrument of society. The situation in Rio de Janeiro is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons, where the value of the rivers that everyone in the vicinity makes use of is slowly eroded as everyone makes use of it. It seems that the government must either make use of the river less convenient (by enforcing a fee for littering, for example), or preferably by creating a better alternative. It seems ludicrous to expect a city the size of Rio de Janeiro to remain livable without sufficient waste disposal and sewage infrastructure.

As an interlude, I’d like to mention a wonderful aspect of the class environment that Professor Alexandratos creates: a sense of wonder and appreciation for knowledge and learning. The idea that you should always leave the room smarter than you came in is a great motivating factor to learn, and presents an attitude that makes life (and school in particular) much more enjoyable. Personally, I very much enjoy learning almost any bit of information (such as the beginning of “modern times”) because it enriches my understanding of the subject, and because I know these sort of things come back again and again. As such I find it sad, and slightly appalling when someone replies “No!” to the question, “don’t you want to know…?”

On Thursday we finally did learn what exactly PCB is. As I just started Organic Chemistry I don’t yet know enough to really relate its properties to its shape, but I’ll keep it in mind as my knowledge grows. For now it’s probably enough to know that the compound is toxic and needs to be removed from the Hudson River environment if we want a clean fish supply.

GE’s ability to delay cleanup is reminiscent of the situation in Rio de Janeiro, except perpetrated by a private company rather than a corrupt government. The issue of an extensive and lengthy appeals process seems incredibly difficult. With money to spend in the courts, the company delayed cleanup for thirty years, allowing it to make large profits on its investment essentially at the expense of the public and the fishing industry. When GE finally began the job in 2008, much of the PCBs had likely dissipated naturally. GE will spend a billion dollars cleaning up what’s left, but how much did they avoid paying over the last several decades? And even if GE is fined for every dollar it wasted in the appeals system or saved by not cleaning up at the taxpayers’ expense, most of the GE shareholders, employees, and executives who profited from the issue have probably retired. The expenses will have been passed on to a new generation.

Before Monday’s class, I had no knowledge of the pollution problem in the bay of Rio de Janeiro. I think it is outrageous that all this pollution has occurred without any sort of regulation and attribution. Rio de Janeiro now has the privilege of hosting the World Cup and the Olympics in two and four years, respectively. I can see two distinct possibilities that could play out.

Hopefully, since the entire world will be watching, Rio de Janeiro will begin remedying the pollution problem in order to make their city appear beautiful, as it should, as opposed to a polluted mess. There is a problem with this scenario however, which leads into the other possibility.

Rio de Janeiro is going to have to spend millions and millions of dollars to prepare the city to host the World Cup and especially the Olympics. The city will have to work hard to build stadiums for the different events and clean up he streets in time for the thousands that will venture to Rio de Janeiro to watch the World Cup and the Olympics. Since all this money is going to be spent for preparation purposes, it is going to be difficult to find funds for cleaning up the pollution problem in the bay. Perhaps afterwards, if Rio de Janeiro makes a significant profit from all of tourists it attracts for the Olympics, funds will open up to fuel this project. If not, unfortunately this pollution problem will continue to grow and the bay will only get worse until the entire ecosystem is beyond repair.

This idea of money driving decision-making is crucial. We live in a time where people mostly care about themselves in the now, and could care less about paving the way for future generations. Since people only think about themselves, particularly big companies and corporations, most are willing to cut corners and take the cheaper (easy) way out, as opposed to the environmentally friendly alternative. A major example is the dumping of PCBs into the Hudson. This is an unacceptable way of getting rid of waste and needs to be regulated in a way that actually works including crippling fines. I think it is good that we have finally started removing the PCBs, and made a plan to ship them off to the Southwest. While this is not an ideal solution, it is the best one available. I do not like the idea of having these PCBs travel in railcars through half the country, but it is a necessary measure. Hopefully, this is the last we ever hear of PCBs.

Many people feel that there is no point in conserving now for the benefit of the future, because those of us living now will be long gone by the time we suffer the consequences of our current actions. While this is a very tempting notion, it is unacceptable. We need to change the attitudes of people to make them realize that it is our responsibility to conserve for the future. We were given the privilege of living during our time, and the least we can do is take care of our Earth, and pass it on in the same condition we lived in.

The idea of literally depleting the Earth of all of its resources does not seem real to anyone. In actuality, it is inevitable unless we are able to find some alternate means of energy. We have done this in the past, but we cannot expect to continually do it. People need to change their attitudes about conservation and the future, and start making changes. This all starts with the individual.

People are willing to accept a load of unpleasant things in their lives. As a matter of course, they have to—at least, that’s what they figure. Because what good does it do to try to change when you can’t see a better alternative anyway? Why waste the effort? Resigning yourself to unpleasant “truths” gives you a degree of peace with yourself and the world. It lets you relinquish your power and responsibility and takes all the extra work required to change these “truths” off your hands.

So why are people willing to accept toxic waste as a permanent, growing feature of the Earth? Because they don’t see the current alternatives as feasible. Properly disposing of certain types of waste, such as PCBs, is too expensive. It makes much more sense to just wrap them up in cheap plastic and send them off to Texas. (Hey, look! The people in Texas even want this poison—it creates jobs! Even better!)

Many people swallow and repeat these arguments without bothering to ask whoever is in charge, “If the bottom line is so important, why not take a paycut? Why do you need three houses and a yacht to maintain in the first place? Why not honor a commitment to corporate responsibility—to all people, not just to your stockholders? Why not practice sustainability in your own life as well as in your business practice? And, if you knew from the start that you wouldn’t have the means to follow through with the consequences properly, why did you even begin? Do you believe that things simply can’t change? Do you have that little respect for human ingenuity, not to mention human life and dignity?”

I’m not a scientist, nor am I a financial advisor. I can’t calculate whether doing the morally right thing would lead a company to bankruptcy. It could; it might, or it might not. (Certain organic collectives seem to be growing, if only because some people can afford what’s trendy.) What I want to know is this: how long can this emphasis on cost-effectiveness continue? The Earth is finite. Resources will only become scarcer and more expensive as time goes on. Wouldn’t it be better—and more cost-effective in the long run—to invest in technologies that we’ll be able to keep counting on, as soon as possible?

Finally, the idea of a space dump sounds highly unlikely, as that would require huge amounts of fuel to transport tons and tons of garbage above the Earth’s atmosphere. Even then, it would be stuck in our orbit, because the fuel required to send it outside of the Earth’s gravitational pull would be too costly. If something went wrong, toxins could wind up free-falling through the atmosphere, carried by winds to who knows where. Does any entity have the right to begin a program that could potentially poison innocent people in other parts of the world? And even if a space-rubbish program were “proven” safe, who would control it? Who would it serve? Would all people in the world have equal, affordable access to it? If not, then to what degree would it help?

So what do people reveal when they make, and then defend, decisions like General Electric’s? Dumping PCBs into a river, beginning cleanup decades and a government mandate later, and then sending the waste to a far, far land instead of disposing of it properly? It shows that the people deciding care about money—more than they care about other people, more than they care about other fragile forms of life. Whatever other good comes is wonderful, but whatever bad comes from it simply must be borne, because it doesn’t make financial sense to do things any other way. Money is the main factor in these decisions. With short-term profits foremost in mind, it would be utterly ridiculous to invest in the technologies required for proper disposal at this point. How long can this go on? Again, the Earth is finite. What will it take for people to realize that caring for their home and co-inhabitants are more important than “the bottom line”, which translates to having a few temporary comforts for themselves?

Between the assertions of the environmental ethics movement and the discoveries of modern physics, the old Scientific Revolution conception of planet Earth as a machine has taken some major hits. New evidence, like the discovery of the effect of micro-plankton upon the water cycle testifies to the degree of complexity and interconnectedness of the processes and species that make up our biosphere. Each new discovery seems to give more strength to that old Greek idea of the planet as a whole living organism. Thus, what impacts one element of the global web reverberates throughout the rest of it.

This concept is very pertinent to the subject of water pollution in urban environments. Water is undoubtedly a public good and its use is often, like many other common goods, affected by the tragedy of the commons. When an individual or a company dumps toxins or garbage into the water, it affects the water quality of everyone else in the vicinity. And when everyone participates in this irresponsible activity, the common good is not only tainted but can be utterly destroyed. A good example is the bay at Rio de Janeiro, which has become so polluted as to be essentially a reservoir of human waste and industrial chemicals. The fact that this has not been resolved even with two major international events coming in the near future is a tragic testament to society’s inherent inertia. Bereft of any decent public campaign to improve the situation or sense of social responsibility on the part of many government officials, the situation has become worse and worse. This again, is a problem with the cultural mindset. It is hard to imagine a community would not band together in an effort to preserve something as basic as their living conditions and health. But at the same time, it is not surprising given the reluctance members of our own society have shown towards giving support to such issues within our own borders.  The wastewater treatment in our city is of course to be lauded when compared with Rio de Janeiro but that is no cause to cease innovating, researching and trying to find better solutions.  In fact, perhaps the example of places like Brazil should inspire us to think about our own actions.

The streets of Manhattan are after all, far from sparkling clean. There is no evidence of cancer-inducing cyanobacteria but how likely is it that all the litter and waste on our streets and in our alleys does not foster bacteria growth? And then of course there is the concrete example of the PCB pollution in the Hudson. While neither the Hudson nor the bay contains filth comparable to the Bay in Rio de Janeiro, the PCB pollution and the long delayed clean up effort demonstrates clearly that we are susceptible to many of the same problems Brazil faces. In our country, as well as theirs, companies often dispose of their waste in the most economic way possible. Usually of course, the most economic way for the company turns out to be less than optimal for the community and society at large. That is because economic costs do not take into account social costs. But in reality, economic costs usually defined more narrowly because they include only immediate costs. Long term costs such as the price of depleting supplies are often not even considered. If companies insist on focusing on economic value, the solution would be to make sure businesses somehow internalized the societal as well as economic costs of their actions. But as it seems unlikely any businesses will voluntarily take this responsibility onto themselves, the problem becomes one of how to balance the interests of society with the need to respect rights.