Reva McAulay

MHC 200 Weekly Writeup #10

11.12.12

The history of the environmental movement in the U.S. is fairly impressive.  Rachel Carson was obviously a very multi-talented person who could have done fine without risking so much time on a book that might not have been the success it was.  The first Earth Day also had an impressive turnout in light of how now it’s basically something elementary schools celebrate.

Governer Pataki giving $230 million to create a fleet of buses and cars that run on clean energy was great, but it shows just how expensive this stuff is.  $230 million just to have a bunch of clean fuel buses and cars, so creating the kind of infrastructure to allow normal cars to run on clean fuel must have an astronomical price tag.  That must cost far far more than even the $9 billion dollar water-filtration plant, because it would require more than one building.  (It’s also really weird that you can buy 1026 acres of land for less than $3 million but one filtration plant costs $9 billion).

LEED is fascinating, but unfortunately it seems like the only buildings that live up to those standards are the super fancy ones that make every effort to look entirely environmentally friendly.  It should be something that all new buildings get.  That’s not going to happen unless regular architects and engineers learn how to build environmentally friendly buildings, instead of just the super fancy, super expensive environmental architects.  If we got to the point where LEED certified buildings were only marginally more expensive to design, marginally more expensive to build, and then a bit extra for materials, it would make economic sense to build them in all cases, since the long term energy savings would make up for it.

As for fracking, I am very much against it, especially upstate, but I still think everybody is being a little too hard on them.  There is no reason to disallow people from doing a very safe activity for economic gain if that is what they choose to do.  And nobody should forget that whatever anybody says, fracking is still very safe.  It is not like standard mining that will do serious damage to the environment, one hundred percent.  Fracking has a risk attached to it, but it is a relatively small one.  The question is whether that small risk is worth the economic benefits, which I say it isn’t, but I’m not the dictator of the country so my opinion doesn’t count (by itself).  Also, demanding proof that something is entirely safe is a little unreasonable.  How is anyone supposed to prove a negative? It’s easy to prove that something causes harm, but impossible to prove that there is exactly zero chance of something bad happening.  If every new technology had to be proved safe, there would be no advances made, because cars, airplanes, and cell phones all have never been proved safe.

That said, I think the risk entailed in fracking upstate (loss of clean drinking water for a city of 8 million people) is not worth the benefits (temporary job growth in a region that is not a ghost town like North Dakota).  It’s great that so many people (environmental organizations, citizens, Mark Ruffalo) feel so strongly about it as to make commercials, put on ads, and create and sign petitions to Gov. Cuomo.  It seems to me that public sentiment is against it here.  Also, I would much prefer to see companies spend their money on renewable and clean fuels instead of going to great lengths to scrape the last drop of natural gas out of the barrel.  That seems like a short-sighted strategy, considering that it’s going to run out in the near future while having a leg up on renewables will provide an ever increasing advantage.

Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, celebrated its 50^th anniversary a short time ago. The New York Times article that we discussed in class examines Carson’s later life, especially what she went through in order to have that book published. I never knew that she faced such a personal struggle just to finish it—we never learned about that anywhere in school. I still don’t think most people know her story. Even in the face of debilitating and deteriorating illness, she never gave up on what she saw was her responsibility to her fellow human beings, and to the future of life on this planet.

Rachel Carson knew that she was only one person, but she also realized that one person—any person—can make a huge difference. She realized that it isn’t your place in the world that determines your future, but what you do there. As J.K. Rowling wrote in the first book of the Harry Potter series, “It is our choices, Harry, that show us what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” Carson looked at the potential impact of her choices in the long run—in those moments when she struggled with her lack of motivation due to her illness and their treatments. And she made a decision that she wouldn’t be ashamed to claim personal responsibility for.  She decided to care.

Some people might point out that Rachel Carson didn’t have the pressures of a “real” life—she had no husband, no children of her own, and nobody to work for but herself. Some people might say their obligations to their loved ones prevent them from actively caring for the planet. There are two ways to refute this assertion. One is through Carson’s story—she cared for her own ailing mother and her late niece’s child while battling to finish Silent Spring—and while she wasn’t answering to a totalitarian boss at the office, she was struggling under the rule of cancer. Hence, the first refutation: the only things that prevent you from doing what you know is better for the planet are the things you allow to stop you—and if you cared enough, you wouldn’t let them. In other words—quit making excuses.

Certain uninformed people might respond that they’re not making excuses—they just happen to care more about people than they do about crickets. In other words, Rachel Carson must’ve cared an awful lot about crickets. But is that really the case? How did she finish her book—did she value her work just as much as, or more than, she valued her loved ones? I don’t think so.

I think that she worked hard on that book for the people and the world that she cared for. She knew that the Earth is our only home, that we all share it, and that we need to be careful not to cause any irreversible damage. She knew that we don’t fully understand the web of life on this planet yet, and that mankind often mistakenly imagines itself as above it, detached. This brings me to the second refutation—that when we neglect the environment, we neglect ourselves and every other human on this planet. To me, that statement is a fact.

Unfortunately, some people feel the opposite way. The recent increase in the ferocity of hurricanes? Obviously unrelated to human greenhouse gas emissions. Cancer, diabetes, hypertension, obesity? Completely irrelevant. Taking over the environment, certain people say, is what gives us a better quality of life than in other parts of the world. Better, I respond, if you devalue what is healthy, what has not brought harm to anybody in coming about, and what is lasting and sustainable. Better if you’ve convinced yourself that you “need” things that you really don’t. Better, perhaps, if you value what is quick, cheap and easy so much that, rather than take responsibility for supporting the system that produces things thus, you’d prefer to be a human being that looks the other way.

Seong Im Hong

November 12, 2012

Sexy Celebrities verses Sexy Scientists

            I thought about the three videos we were shown in class. There was the objective video, the pro-fracking video, and the anti-fracking video. We in class analyzed and criticized the pro-fracking video quite a bit, but I don’t think we looked at the anti-fracking video starring Mark Ruffalo critically enough.

I’m not disputing that he’s a knowledgeable source—I trust Professor Alexandratos to give us legitimate information—but it still stands that he is introduced as an “Actor and Director” rather than “Geologist” like that lady from pro-fracking video was. He is, despite what he knows, still a celebrity rather than a scientist. That made me ponder why exactly that foundation chose Mark Ruffalo as a spokesperson. I think the anti-fracking foundation that produced and funded that video was probably more concerned about popular opinion than introducing scientific facts into the debate. Which is, I suppose, fine, given that it’s not a news source, and hence is not morally and ethically obligated to give a fair and unbalanced opinion on the topic of fracking. And this is probably a smart move by the foundation, considering that his fans, which probably exponentially increased with the Avengers movie in which he starred as the Hulk, would be more interested in fracking and how to stop it.

On the another hand, the fact that us New Yorkers have a celebrity to speak for us will make it so much easier for the opposition to delegitimize the cause of anti-fracking. We make fun of the pro-fracking video actors for being blue-collar workers from Culture Vacuum, Middle of Nowhere, but the ridicule goes both ways, too. If we look at the anti-fracking videos with a critical/hostile eye, we can easily dismiss the impassioned speech by a celebrity as quintessential of New York City—a place of superficiality and opulence where people aren’t concerned about blue-collared workers or “making America great again”. (Though, hey, at least we’re not LA.)

I think this kind of appeal to a small segment of Americans (New Yorkers, probably not blue-collar workers, fans of Mark Ruffalo) only cause polarization. It won’t sway significant amount of people who already aren’t aligned already. Rather, it will only cement the conviction or the distaste of the demographics that already have an opinion on banning fracking.

Additionally, just the fact that we have celebrity spokespeople for environmental issues kind of doesn’t sit well with me. To illustrate, I will quote yet anther celebrity hunk, Joseph Gordon-Levitt: “The whole concept of celebrity pisses me off. While I’m not a celebrity, it’s such a weird concept that society has cooked up for us. Astronauts and teachers are much more amazing than actors.”

I dislike that we as a society have to rely on people whose talents lie far away from science to sway popular opinions on public policies that must be based on science. I suppose it’s only natural that, to sway popular opinion, we should have someone that the viewers are already familiar with (and hence more likely to have a favorable opinion of, by the way of Meer Exposure Effect) and want to identify with (i.e. attractive). And I get that, I do, that celebrities-as-spokespeople work well for all kinds of organizations. But why can’t we have scientists-who-are-celebrities-as-spokespeople? Why can’t we, as a society, celebrate science and reason to the point that we have non-quack scientists speaking regularly on TV? And I don’t think it’s that scientists aren’t hot enough to appeal to the masses. We scientists are all ugly geeks/nerds that the popular media portrays us to be. There are plenty of sexy geek/nerds who can appeal to the general population AND have solid credentials that will make them a respectable voice in the discourse instead of target for ridicule/stereotyping.

It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that many of the irrational decisions made by man in regards to their culture and the enviorment, are simply from an inability to see issues from a scope any longer than a year; and even that may be giving us to much credit. Mankind’s problem with climate change may be immense, and our addiction to our currently unsustainable lifestyles may be difficult to kick, but the change is absolutely possible. Scientists have devised ingenious strategies and technologies to live our lives in a more sustainable manner and even undo much of the damage we have done. While of course man’s achievement in finding solutions should be praised, it if anything leaves us with a sad reality: although we can change, we simply don’t care enough to actually make change happen.

Whether simply cultural or in fact inherent to human nature, examples of this laziness are seen all the time. People constantly complain that they need to go on a diet or that they need to study more, however the vast majority of the time if there is any change in action whatsoever, the change is remarkably short-lasting and fades just as soon as the next distraction comes along. Humans truly have a attention problem. Most people will not argue that they should not try to live in a more environmentally manner, however few will actually act on it. The reason environmentalists push legislation that applies to the entire population, forcing citizens into action rather than giving them total freedom is because they see no possibility in actions otherwise, not simply out of an insistence on controlling others. Sadly however even those measures will likely not work, as people are far better at doing what they want to do, and moreover what they what for short term gratification, than what they need to do even if it is in their own best interest.

I realize this is quite a fatalistic outlook on things but I truly believe that, unless mankind is able to start acting against their own nature, change will not come until what is better long term also happens to be better in the short term. Wind and solar energies are only becoming of interest as oil prices continue to rise, and while oil is still the cheaper option I just don’t see people being willing to pay more solely for the environment on a great enough scale to make any real difference.

Because of this flaw in human nature, the study of personal, smaller projects that have difference, as is to be covered in the last part of the arc of this class, to is me, brilliant. Sadly while the concept of few doing the work of the public is unfair, it is a reality that must be accepted and acted on as a reality. Humanity is in many ways like any classic group project, one or two people do all the work, some purely leach and bring nothing to the table and some fall in between perhaps supporting the effort but in reality doing little or nothing, making them not much better than their cold-hearted counterparts who do nothing. While I can admit to often being in that middle group when it comes to issues such as the environment, I’m hoping to find ways I can make an impact, as I don’t trust the public to handle these matters themselves.

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 10 Response

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

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

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

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

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

In light of Hurricane Sandy and the devastation this storm has wrought upon many people’s lives, I cannot help but ponder the role that humans have played in this climate change. If it stands that humans have not contributed to the change, then I ponder the consequences that the storm will have on the environment, especially because many people are still without power and constantly need gas for their generators. I know this first-hand because, as of today, Friday, there is still no power in Far Rockaway, my hometown.

With the long gas lines and the need to restore many people’s lives back to normalcy, I am apprehensive that many people will forget or dismiss the environmental aspect of the storm and ultimately rebuild stably yet unsustainably. On a broader scale, if many industries and communities genuinely adhered to stricter environmental policies that make sustainability the norm, especially in New York State at this time, rebuilding sustainably would be easier and possibly cheaper. Perhaps we may even be able to prevent many of the climatic and environmental changes that are occurring at an extremely rapid pace.

I do not wish to sound unconcerned or insensitive to the situation at hand. I know that survival is the goal for many people at this time. Many people just want to restore their homes to normalcy. In fact, some people do not even have a home to go to and must start anew. The circumstances that many people are in now are utterly unacceptable and frustrating. I understand this completely and my sentiments go to all of those enduring the impacts of the storm, including much of my family. The point I bring to light is that we may be able to avoid such damage and loss if we take into account on a daily basis the environmental impact of our actions. If companies took the time to invest in green engineering and promoted sustainability policies, many of the products and processes used that alter the Earth’s equilibrium will be eliminated or, at least, reduced. I am certainly not saying that we can control nature. Rather, we can favorably work with nature and ultimately prevent having to clean up larger messes.

One example of preventing the disruption of Earth’s equilibrium is to eliminate fracking, or fracturing rocks for natural gas and oil. Fracking is possibly the cause for earthquakes that recently occurred in some places. We cannot choose to deny this apparent relationship in the face of our want for natural gas to fuel our cars that contribute to the imbalance, due to their carbon emissions. These carbon emissions adversely impact the air quality of many cities and contribute to global warming, which is, in essence, a climatic change. If the government, either at the local, state, or national level, restricts fracking, we can fix many problems with a comprehensive legislation. Sure, this legislation may be expensive initially, but once we make environmental sustainability the norm, the environmental sustainability option may become cheaper.

We see that natural gas is significant in our times, given the long gas lines of both cars and people that emerged due to the limited gas shipment after Hurricane Sandy. The prices of gas also affect society because much of the people’s money contributes to gas for their cars. We have the technology and the ability to use others means of energy, such as solar or biological energy, but we do not put such means into practice. We are not making the effort to create a paradigm shift for society in general; that is, companies and citizens are not making alternative energy sources the norm, and so we continue to use what is familiar and destructive.

Hurricane Sandy, much in its aftermath, brought to light the reality of the environmental impacts of humans. If we do not make a change, be it the smallest of them now, we will not be able to easily rectify greater issues in the near future. Although we may not have caused the storm, our energy needs and insensitive actions have contributed to the aftermath of the storm. To speak of people in such a way after the storm may be troubling for those affected directly by the storm. I do no mean to offend them; the main point I intend to highlight is that we must implement policies that will help us care for the Earth and maintain its balance, such as the implementation of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating scale in the construction and maintenance of government edifices and constructs. By putting into place regulations for promoting sustainability, people generally feel obligated to comply with the rules. Even if individuals are reluctant, at first, to the laws, I hypothesize that they will come to appreciate them once they see the environmental, societal, and, especially, economic benefits.

Another such policy to help avoid added devastation is the Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act of 1996, which protects a major portion of New York City’s water supply in three watersheds, or the Catskills, Croton, and Delaware systems. By promoting the quality of our water, we reduce waste within the water, prevent extensive human activity from occurring around bodies of water, and protect other species. As of such, we can preserve biodiversity and reduce physical and emotional damage of humans when storms involving water occur.

After expounding on humans, their environmental impact, and the importance of environmental policies, I am left to say that we should all take example from Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring. She is a role model because she took a step that catalyzed a paradigm shift for many people. Her messianic moment induced emotional engagement in others towards the environment. Like Carson, we should all spread our awareness and knowledge about the environment; in doing such, we can increase support for sustainability policies. In addition, it is only until we all practice limits and care about the environment that we can truly commit to a sustainable, balanced Earth.