With the visionary ideas of PlaNYC and what we’d recently learned of New York’s preventative water-pollution systems, I had higher expectations for the city’s new solid waste management system. This time, New York needs to follow the example of cities like San Francisco.

It seems that the real issues of waste management in New York have gotten bogged down in politics. I have to wonder how much thought was given to the idea of a “zero-waste” NYC when the city’s new solid waste management system was drawn up. Was the idea considered at all, or did the city government take it for granted that waste is a fact of city life? Instead of exporting garbage to Tarrytown to rot in a high-tech dump, the city could export fertilizer to farmers. Surely the idea could be successfully marketed to this organic-food loving city.

Personally, I find it hard to get “mad as hell”. I’m pretty stoic most of the time, and I don’t usually think of anger as a productive emotion. I’ve also become fairly desensitized over the years to social problems – except for a few special situations, like unfair treatment on an individual level, anger just isn’t my response to these situations. I generally think of this as a good thing, since anger clouds judgment and is generally unpleasant to experience or be around, but in cases of social justice anger might be called for. Besides being stoic, I’m also fairly passive. An angry version of me might feel more motivated to make change; I might be more emotionally engaged. Emotional engagement requires strong emotions virtually by definition.

The presentations we watched on Thursday tried to put a bit of emotional engagement into practice. The study on the towns of Treece and Pitcher presented an example of a community essentially destroyed by, and the EPA’s response to it. With the hazardous results of decades of mining surrounding the town, with a total cleanup cost that might potentially cost more than the monetary value of the homes and possessions there, evacuation may well have been the only conscionable solution. Regardless of individual free choice, a community that includes children has a responsibility to them to provide a safe environment to grow up in. With the developmental risks posed by exposure to lead and other metals, the EPA’s response seems particularly justified. The town stands as an example of the mistakes of the past, and the situations and hard choices we should do our best to avoid having to make in the future.

I have to wonder why only one couple refused every offer of reimbursement for evacuation. I don’t know the financial details of anyone who lived in Treece, but it seems unusual that only two people would be unable to move. It seems likely that they simply decided they were more happy staying where they were than picking and starting anew, which is and should be their choice.

Advertising is entirely based on emotional engagement, although feelings of envy and desire are usually the goal rather than anger or camaraderie. In the case presented by my classmates, however, the goal is to juxtapose the beautiful architecture of the city with the waste that surrounds its operation. I think the idea is clever. A possibly even more effective version might use a great number of unique images from across the city to form the mosaic, allowing more people to connect with scenes from their neighborhood and become engaged with the situation surrounding us.

The gravity of New York City’s daily waste cannot be told in its numbers only. To appreciate the full effect of the trash situation, one must delve into the implications that New York City’s trash has. That is, we must consider what this trash consists of, where this trash goes, and what happens to the trash after its exportation or deliverance elsewhere. When we consider these aspects of our trash and physically see our waste after it leaves our hands, then we realize our excessive nature as well as our destructive impacts on the Earth. These impacts and the prospect of running out of space to put the trash scare me the most and make even more urgent the need for change.

That Manhattan’s trash is shipped to Tullytown, Pennsylvania is quite disturbing because this fact means that we do not have room here in New York or must make great amendments to place our trash here. Our trash production rates, in my opinion, are bound to become worse if we do not make a change. If such does occur, we need to find more final destinations for our trash. What happens when we fill Tullytown until it overflows? We must find a new trash location, but then where would we go next? Space is limited and to begin shipping our trash further will cost more and be more unfavorable to the general public, the government, and companies. To find locations for transfer stations proves a difficulty now in New York City due to the ethical and health concerns of many people in the that area, although perhaps these people just do not want to see such unpleasant sights in their neighborhoods. Regardless, these sites are such huge issues that I see our only reasonable and environmentally ethical option is to find environmentally sustainable alternatives.

Achieving these environmentally sustainable goals seem impossible, but as I referred to in previous responses, we can be successful with small actions. As was spoke about in class, San Francisco is a great example of how we can manage and even reuse the waste we produce. For example, by creating composts for individual households, we can provide fertilizer for farms or produce as opposed to dumping our organic waste. Also, creating different waste compartments and organizing our waste in the way that San Francisco does makes reusing our trash easier.

The informed, including myself, need to spread these possibilities to others. The first portion of the ad campaign that we saw in class was brilliant and really did seem a valid way to raise awareness about New York’s trash. Joseph also touched upon that the issue is all about changing the way we are. We must adapt to the Earth and its natural tendencies, rather than try to create a new, environmentally unfavorable equilibrium. If changing the paper products we use, increasing our usage of solar power, and building edifices with sustainable material will achieve a proper equilibrium for Earth, then these actions are what we will have to carry out. We must change our habits now because, if we do not, we may end up in dire situations, such as having to leave our familiar homes and neighborhoods.

An example of such a situation is Treece, Kansas, which should no longer be livable due to the high amounts of lead and zinc present due to certain human activity. The entire town, besides one couple, was evacuated, many, if not all, for a monetary incentive. If we continue on with our wasteful and careless ways, then will we not end up in the same situation? The answer to me is that we will have to face similar situations.

I, or anyone else, with an inkling of passion for the environmental welfare can inform others as much as we want about the issues; sometimes, though, the problem arises that others do not want to listen to what we have to say. Many a times when I begin to talk about the environment and doing what we must to stabilize the Earth, especially concerning car fuel, my father does not want to hear much of what I have to say. Sure he listens but he does not always agree with me. My mother can be the same way at times it seems, especially after I explained how the increased levels of carbon dioxide and melting glaciers that contributed to Hurricane Sandy were very much due to the actions of humans.

The point I try to make here is that people will not want to hear out the environmental side of the issue, and rather care more about the economics of the issue and what they are socially comfortable with. Here, then, we see that many people need a huge paradigm shift because, if they do not care and do not lend their small actions to mend the issues, then we may reach similar fates as those of the people of Treece, Kansas.

Sherifa Baldeo