This lesson proved to be my least absorbed of the first half of the semester.  Not to say that I did not learn from the lesson, nor to say that I did not pay attention or take notes, rather, there was so much to absorb I failed to get it all!  This can be proved by my midterm, as the majority of my points were taken off from this lesson.  The triple bottom line, in my notes, reads “A framework by which policy decisions can be made by individuals, corporations and government.”  Past that, the triple bottom line “sustainability includes jobs, poverty, opportunity, safety, social justice, and family sustainability.”  I did not get this question right on the midterm and was wondering if what my notes reads is also incorrect.  Another question I answered incorrectly asked for the four variants of fixing a problem in places like factories.  End of pipe treatment, pollution prevention, design for environment and sustainable development.  I enjoyed this and the three level model, because I like the clear ways in which we impact the world, as well as gaining a better understanding of the conflict of creating a sustainable existence under a budget.  I felt that this lesson helped me better understand why it is nothing is being done about municipal incinerators for example, or any other issue that faces our environment.  End of pipe treatment, while not ideal, may be an effective means of dealing with our problems in the short term.  Since finding billions of dollars is not an easy task, I am glad to hear that at least some temporary changes are being done.  I feel that my opinion on the matter differs from the rest of the class, who at the time seemed to be aggravated by the situation.  Beyond aggravated, my classmates seemed to see no benefit in such means of dealing with our issues.  I do agree that simply adding filters does not fully remove an issue from the scope of a factory, but is it not better to add filters now until we have the funds to replace out of date methods?  I feel that the class sentiment was widely aggressive towards the end of pipe method, but perhaps it can be viewed as a method that has some merit to it? Needless to say it is unanimously agreed that companies must do something about the issue beyond end of pipe treatments, it is my hope that someone out there is working on it while the metaphorical filters are in place.

One of the latter anecdotes in the lesson struck me the hardest.  The issue in places like Guyana of people harming themselves by using mercury to mine gold resonated with me after class.  I find it distressing that there are people who do not have the luxury of free higher education, but rather people my age have no choice but to slowly poison themselves with mercury to make a living, so they do not quickly die of starvation.

The progress that we’ve made since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 shows just how painfully slow change can be. And it’s frustrating. Why should it take twenty years to go from acknowledging a need to actually starting to think critically about how to fulfill it? People’s priorities are elsewhere. Nearly every country in the world is obsessed with the idea of “progress”, and seems to feel that moving towards sustainability would only slow its growth. So, despite giving a nod in its direction, governments—influenced by big business and taxpayer interests alike—pass only the weakest laws and invest only the smallest amounts of money in it.

And part of the reason is that we’re stuck in a Nash equilibrium—none of the entities in the situation see anything to gain by changing. Industry bosses only see a loss of profit; most consumers see only the sting that their wallets would feel. Elected officials are afraid to pass anything comprehensive to the effect of making development sustainable because of the votes and contributions they would lose. This is a problem—people must realize that, ultimately, everybody will have to pay.

Air, water, and land, as I’ve said before, are common resources. The surface may be divided into tracts of private property, but there are no boundaries above and below it. If poisons are placed on one person’s plot, soaked up by the earth, pulled into the groundwater supply and from there taken to who knows where, they become everybody’s problem. As the saying goes, one man’s freedom to swing his fist ends where another’s nose begins. It’s easy to insist on the freedom to do whatever we wish on our own property. But is it really within anybody’s rights to take part in activities that inevitably affect the quality of life in other places? Our little plots of land are not closed systems.

It is possible to achieve total sustainability—social, environmental, and economic. Will it be cheap? Will it be quick? Easy? No. For one thing, sustainable technology is still developing. And it isn’t cheap—or, at least, it looks costly in the short run. For another thing, governments tend to be slow, especially when trying to coordinate international action, as we’ve seen with the UN. And they would be slow even if the majority of people were actively pressing the issue during elections, and even if the media were focusing on it, which they’re not.

This is why the first thing that needs to change is they way that people think. It’s not easy to try and undo the maxims society—family, media, education—has brainwashed people with since childhood. It takes time and it requires constant effort. The Civil Rights movement happened, yes—and yes, the US has elected its first Black president, but racism persists in people’s minds. That’s where the problem begins, and that’s where it needs to be tackled. When people value long-term contentment over short-term pleasure, then they will begin to ask for change. Only when they are dissatisfied with what today’s world gives them will they demand a form of progress that exploits nobody. And to be made dissatisfied, they must first be informed—they must realize the full extent of what they are paying, and what they are getting in return.

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.

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