http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/public_hearing_on_mountaintop_mining_waste_draws_large_crowd/34312/
Humanity’s addiction to fossil fuel is both its greatest strength and weakness. Since the Industrial revolution humans have been able to successfully harness energy from fossil fuels to build modern empires and power them. Of these sources oil and coal continue to be the primary sources of energy worldwide. But this attraction is a fatal one; while coal is a relatively cheap and simple source of energy it also generates large amounts of pollution which compromise both environmental and human health. Despite this fact, coal mining continues to be one of the largest industries in developing countries. Before coal is even incinerated, it creates serious environmental impacts. Surface mining scars the land and creates large amounts of mining waste, which needs to be disposed of. One of the biggest challenges for mining companies in the United States is to find and get the permit for a waste site. However, there is a permit known as Nationwide 21 which enables mining companies go through the waste site permit process more efficiently and thus speed up the mining process. On October 16, 2009 a hearing took place in Big Stone Gap Virginia to debate whether Nationwide 21 permits should no longer be issued.
There are many ethical issues that come with this issue, and the position in which an individual takes depends on what they deem morally significant. Mining companies who support Nationwide 21 argue that it allows Mountaintop mining to work more effectively and therefore employ more people. It is clear to see that for the mining companies only humans count morally, and that their well being is directly tied to their job. The mining companies do not even mention the environment or any other species other than humans, this view is anthropocentric. For the environmental activists who oppose Nationwide 21 take a more biocentric holistic stance. The environmental activists argue that Nationwide 21 allows mining to operate more efficiently therefore the rate of environmental destruction that results from mining is also increased. Morally, humans, sentient animals, non- sentient animals and non living entities such as ecosystems and species matter. It is the environment as a whole which supports the survival of the organisms inhabiting it and the organisms themselves, including humans which matter.
If Nationwide 21 permit regulation were to be changes then mining companies would have a a harder time establishing mining sites due to the inefficiencies associated with acquiring an individual permit. This would lead to a decrease in mining productions therefore less environmental degradation. However the companies argue that this decrease in productivity would also lead to a decrease in jobs and of the coal industry in the area. A consequentialist in this situation would say that Nationwide 21 should not be banned because it positively impacts the interests of humans. The ecosystem in this case only has value to the humans in the area because they can extract resources from it. The health of the ecosystem itself does not matter. By being able to harvest the coal from the environment humans are able to have jobs, therefore support themselves and achieve a level of happiness. Therefore more humans benefit from not having the permit banned. In contrast a non consequentialist would argue that Nationwide 21 should be banned because it allows increases the rate of mining. The environment in this case does have intrinsic value outside of its ability to provide humans resources. The allowance of mining degrades the local environment, the species living in it, and contaminates the water table, which is accessed by people from outside of the local area. Morally the environment, the other species and the people from around the area who access the water do matter and therefore it is important to protect their interests as well. Although some people might have to find other jobs, the environmental protection for the surrounding area and people far outweighs this as jobs can be replaced, but the environment health of the environment cannot.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Analyse Trash
In a recent New York Times article, columnist Leslie Kaufman discusses new trends in waste management and recycling. Kaufman highlights many initiatives by organizations and individuals across the United States to reduce the amount of garbage sent to landfills and incinerators. These include diverting organic waste to compost systems, sending more recyclable materials to recycling programs and using more biodegradable products. Kaufman points out that many Americans, like many people internationally, have become very aware of these waste issues and are part of a growing movement toward producing less trash.
Kaufman writes “Americans are still the undisputed champions of trash”. This phrase requires conceptual analysis to avoid misunderstanding.
The author may have meant that when comparing all nationalities, Americans are doing the most to reduce the amount of trash sent to landfills or incinerators. A champion is generally defined as the one person (or group of people) who performs at the highest standard of a certain endeavour. The main context of the article is reducing trash, therefore this could be the endeavour.
But the author could also have meant that when comparing all nationalities, Americans produce the most amount of trash sent to landfills and incinerators. The article also discusses producing trash, so this could also be considered the endeavour.
The ambiguity lies in a number of concepts. Firstly, there is no indication as to the action or verb relating to trash. Are Americans the champions of producing trashing or reducing trash? This is not clear in the phrase.
Secondly, the word champion suggests the leader of a positive pursuit, while trash is a negative thing. Therefore it is not clear if Americans are doing something positive against a negative thing, or if they are the leaders in doing that negative thing.
Finally, Kaufman follows the phrase by saying that Americans produce 4.6 pounds per person per day of trash. However there are no other statistics for comparison. Therefore, we don’t know if Americans are producing less trash than they did in previous times. Further, we don’t know if they produce more or less trash than other nationalities.
References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20trash.html?_r=2&hp
Kaufman writes “Americans are still the undisputed champions of trash”. This phrase requires conceptual analysis to avoid misunderstanding.
The author may have meant that when comparing all nationalities, Americans are doing the most to reduce the amount of trash sent to landfills or incinerators. A champion is generally defined as the one person (or group of people) who performs at the highest standard of a certain endeavour. The main context of the article is reducing trash, therefore this could be the endeavour.
But the author could also have meant that when comparing all nationalities, Americans produce the most amount of trash sent to landfills and incinerators. The article also discusses producing trash, so this could also be considered the endeavour.
The ambiguity lies in a number of concepts. Firstly, there is no indication as to the action or verb relating to trash. Are Americans the champions of producing trashing or reducing trash? This is not clear in the phrase.
Secondly, the word champion suggests the leader of a positive pursuit, while trash is a negative thing. Therefore it is not clear if Americans are doing something positive against a negative thing, or if they are the leaders in doing that negative thing.
Finally, Kaufman follows the phrase by saying that Americans produce 4.6 pounds per person per day of trash. However there are no other statistics for comparison. Therefore, we don’t know if Americans are producing less trash than they did in previous times. Further, we don’t know if they produce more or less trash than other nationalities.
References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20trash.html?_r=2&hp
Global Cooling vs. Global Warming
While it is not widely recognized that waste prevention and recycling are critical to reducing climate change, many environmentalists believe that it is necessary to focus on these practises as we try to minimize our levels of greenhouse gas emissions. An example of this necessity can be seen in waste-to-energy plants, where heat and electricity are created from burning mixed solid waste (Evans, 2008).
In Steven Evans article, “Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects”, he describes current issues that arise from landfills and how they contribute to global warming. He also explains how the adoption of large scale waste prevention and recycling will help address global climate change (Evans, 2008). While doing so, he makes mention of current global warming controversies and compares it with the concerns of global cooling that were in existence in 1997. He states, “The perspective in global cooling is similar to the way people view global warming now” (Evans, 2008). This phrase requires conceptual analysis to avoid misunderstanding in the sense that there are various ways in which people presently view global warming. From reading the context that surrounds this statement, I believe that Evans meant that there were many controversies with the idea of global cooling, as there is now with global warming. He is implying that during the period when global cooling was a major issue, many people questioned the predictions of which it was based on, and the same can be said for global warming. Examples of the bases of these questioned predictions could include previous ice ages, the depletion of the ozone layer, and climate change.
A possible misunderstanding that could be derived from this statement is that since a portion of society believes that global warming is indeed scientifically proven and has concrete, evidential proof, such as the disappearance of glaciers, this must be how global cooling was perceived in the late 1990’s. On the other end of the spectrum, since another common view on global warming includes the idea that it is non-sense, and is just a political scheme, this may lead readers to interpret that the perspective for global cooling was the same.
I think it is important to arrive at the correct interpretation of this phrase, as well as in any other piece of writing that is environmentally based, because if the reader misapprehends it, the relevancy of the article is lost. In this case, the purpose of Evan's statement was to show that not all members of the community at large are on board with large scale waste prevention and recycling since there are still questions remaining about the idea of global warming. This in turn relates back to the same response that occurred during the time of global cooling concerns.
Reference
Evans, S. (2008) Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects. 5 December 2008. http://www.articlesbase.com/technology-articles/landfill-problems-and-global-warming-effects-672693.html. Accessed 25 October 2009.
In Steven Evans article, “Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects”, he describes current issues that arise from landfills and how they contribute to global warming. He also explains how the adoption of large scale waste prevention and recycling will help address global climate change (Evans, 2008). While doing so, he makes mention of current global warming controversies and compares it with the concerns of global cooling that were in existence in 1997. He states, “The perspective in global cooling is similar to the way people view global warming now” (Evans, 2008). This phrase requires conceptual analysis to avoid misunderstanding in the sense that there are various ways in which people presently view global warming. From reading the context that surrounds this statement, I believe that Evans meant that there were many controversies with the idea of global cooling, as there is now with global warming. He is implying that during the period when global cooling was a major issue, many people questioned the predictions of which it was based on, and the same can be said for global warming. Examples of the bases of these questioned predictions could include previous ice ages, the depletion of the ozone layer, and climate change.
A possible misunderstanding that could be derived from this statement is that since a portion of society believes that global warming is indeed scientifically proven and has concrete, evidential proof, such as the disappearance of glaciers, this must be how global cooling was perceived in the late 1990’s. On the other end of the spectrum, since another common view on global warming includes the idea that it is non-sense, and is just a political scheme, this may lead readers to interpret that the perspective for global cooling was the same.
I think it is important to arrive at the correct interpretation of this phrase, as well as in any other piece of writing that is environmentally based, because if the reader misapprehends it, the relevancy of the article is lost. In this case, the purpose of Evan's statement was to show that not all members of the community at large are on board with large scale waste prevention and recycling since there are still questions remaining about the idea of global warming. This in turn relates back to the same response that occurred during the time of global cooling concerns.
Reference
Evans, S. (2008) Landfill Problems and Global Warming Effects. 5 December 2008. http://www.articlesbase.com/technology-articles/landfill-problems-and-global-warming-effects-672693.html. Accessed 25 October 2009.
Recycling Computers and E-Waste
The use of computers and technology can both be a very good thing for our society, yet a very harmful and detrimental thing for our environment. Technology has advanced a lot over the years and it has really helped us to become more efficient in what we do. Computers are a form of technology which has done wonders for our society. Computers have allowed us to do much more in a much shorter time span. However, even though these new advances in technology have been great for our economy and society, they have been less than ideal for the state of our environment. Newer models of computers are coming out all the time and the older ones which become less efficient must be replaced. But what happens to these old computers when no one can use them anymore? Many of these old computers are being dumped in landfills which can be very dangerous to the environment. Most of the components used in creating computers are highly toxic and since they are being left in landfills, when we decide to finally dispose of them, the environment will be in grave danger.
In the blog “Get greener by recycling your computer equipment”, posted by the administrator in the blog “Computers”, the recycling of old computers and computer parts to prevent further damage to the environment is explored. The blog explains how there are many companies who are willing to take old computer parts for cash to recycle and reuse them. One of these companies is Staples, where you can go and drop off your old computer equipment with a ten dollar handling fee, and they will reuse the parts and recycle the parts that they cannot use properly.
The administrator writes that “It will be a dark day for the environment when we all finally decide to dispose of this clutter” (2009). This sentence has several meanings to me. First, the author means that it will be a very gloomy and horrible day when we dispose of our electronic waste. In this scenario, the author is using more colour imagery because they are using the word “dark” instead of “light” which refers to the feelings that people will get because of the disaster the environment will be in. It also has a more literal translation. The blog talks about the harmful chemicals found in batteries, cathode rays tubes and circuit boards which are dumped into landfills and can leach into soil and water, making them very polluted. These components of computers are also often put into incinerators which produce very toxic pollution in the air. In the literal way, this sentence can be seen as all of the pollution making the land, water, and air “dark” with pollution, so “it will be a dark day for the environment”. This sentence has some ambiguity to it, in that the readers can take it to be the literal meaning that it will be a dark day because the land, water and air will be dark with pollution, or that it will be a dark day as in a gloomy and horrifying day. However, although this sentence can be taken to mean two different things, both meanings agree that it will be a disaster when we finally dispose of our old computers and electronic waste.
Reference“Get greener by recycling your computer equipment” October 26, 2009. “Computers” Accessed October 26, 2009 from http://www.bigsurpowerdown.org/2009/10/26/get-greener-by-recycling-your-computer-equipment/.com
In the blog “Get greener by recycling your computer equipment”, posted by the administrator in the blog “Computers”, the recycling of old computers and computer parts to prevent further damage to the environment is explored. The blog explains how there are many companies who are willing to take old computer parts for cash to recycle and reuse them. One of these companies is Staples, where you can go and drop off your old computer equipment with a ten dollar handling fee, and they will reuse the parts and recycle the parts that they cannot use properly.
The administrator writes that “It will be a dark day for the environment when we all finally decide to dispose of this clutter” (2009). This sentence has several meanings to me. First, the author means that it will be a very gloomy and horrible day when we dispose of our electronic waste. In this scenario, the author is using more colour imagery because they are using the word “dark” instead of “light” which refers to the feelings that people will get because of the disaster the environment will be in. It also has a more literal translation. The blog talks about the harmful chemicals found in batteries, cathode rays tubes and circuit boards which are dumped into landfills and can leach into soil and water, making them very polluted. These components of computers are also often put into incinerators which produce very toxic pollution in the air. In the literal way, this sentence can be seen as all of the pollution making the land, water, and air “dark” with pollution, so “it will be a dark day for the environment”. This sentence has some ambiguity to it, in that the readers can take it to be the literal meaning that it will be a dark day because the land, water and air will be dark with pollution, or that it will be a dark day as in a gloomy and horrifying day. However, although this sentence can be taken to mean two different things, both meanings agree that it will be a disaster when we finally dispose of our old computers and electronic waste.
Reference“Get greener by recycling your computer equipment” October 26, 2009. “Computers” Accessed October 26, 2009 from http://www.bigsurpowerdown.org/2009/10/26/get-greener-by-recycling-your-computer-equipment/.com
North Pacific Garbage Band
Plastic has always been a main concern in landfills and only recently has public attention been turned to its effects on ocean environments. One widely spread image is that of an unknowing sea creature snagged in the plastic waste of our cast offs. Previously it was thought that this was the extent of plastic’s effect on ocean ecosystems. However now scientists turn their concerns towards the masticated plastic debris trapped in the ocean gyres, plastic particles that are small enough to affect the lowest chains of food. This is the focus of the article “Great Pacific Garbage Patch Swells” by Michelle Rindels.
“Seeing that influence just floating out here in the middle of nowhere makes our power painfully obvious, and the consequences of the industrial age plain” (Goldstein 2009). This statement quoted by the associated press encompasses many environmentalists’ views on plastic debris in the ocean environment. The quote comes from Miriam Goldstein who headed an expedition to document the stretch of garbage found in the north Pacific.
I believe that Goldstein meant a number of things when she stated that “our power is painfully obvious.” From a negative standpoint it could point the finger at present human society, the flaws and weaknesses in our carelessness. That maybe we have too much control and too little understanding of the way the world actually functions.
However I lean towards it meaning that since we wield such a strong influence we should be able to correct our mistakes fairly simply. Goldstein could mean that it is “painfully obvious” what we should do with our power instead of just stating we have too much. She calls it an “influence” which can be taken as our impact, however an influence is only the capacity to have effect and not the effect itself.
Goldstein also comments on the industrial age in the quote. From an initial reading it is fairly obvious she is speaking about the environmental impact and not any social or economic. However what people forget is that the environmental consequences can quickly bleed over into our everyday lives. Therefore from a conceptual analysis standpoint we can quickly see that the negative impacts of ocean pollution would parallel the negative impacts felt by ocean based industries as well as the consumer health of products drawn from the sea.
Resources:
Rindels, Michelle. Great Pacific Garbage Patch Swells. Associated Press. August 28, 2009. Accessed October 22, 2009 from http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/28/pacific-garbage.html
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Humans vs. Rats
In the animal kingdom there are few examples of creatures that almost always generate a collective response of revulsion from humans. Spiders, cockroaches, centipedes, these are all creatures which make almost all of us squirm and wriggle in disgust at the mere mention of them and the rat is no stranger to this list. Rats are remarkably adaptive animals, their omnivorous diet, scavenger habits and frightening reproduction rates have enabled this rodent to thrive and inhabit almost every corner of the world. Ironically, a large part of this success can be attributed directly to human settlement, specifically how we manage our garbage. In developed countries, municipal garbage collection generally operates on a weekly or biweekly pickup system, so in between garbage collections we tend to store the garbage in the garage. The allure of a free meal and shelter is almost irresistible to an opportunist like the rat, especially during the winter months when food is hard to come by.
In The year of the rat, which appeared in Maclean’s magazine the modern relationship between Canadians and rats is examined. Ken MacQueen, explores the human pursuit to control rat populations in our cities. Despite our best attempts and unrelenting persecution of this versatile species, humans have failed to eradicate rat populations altogether. In the article the author states, “Truly, it is the animal we can’t get rid of, the only one capable of challenging human hegemony of the planet.”(MacQueen 2009). What the author implies by this statement is that rats are resilient creatures, so resilient that they have survived mankind’s attempts to eradicate them. This resilience is a result of their: comparative intelligence and reproduction rates of 3-5 litters of 7-8 but up to 14 young per year (Burton 2002 p.299). But this resilience is also dangerous as rats can carry a number of viruses and bacteria which are harmful to humans such as salmonella and the hantavirus (MacQueen 2009). While this phrase is meant as more of a hyperbole statement rather than a literal statement, it highlights the potential of rats as a health risk due to their tendency to carry pathogens and the difficulty that we humans have in controlling their populations. Misunderstanding of the phrase could come from literal implications or the failure to realize that the statement is merely an exaggeration of the situation in order to make a point. While it’s reasonable to conclude that rats are not scheming to take over the world anytime soon, it would be foolish not to admire, at the very least, acknowledge the remarkable adaptive abilities of this rodent.
References
International Wildlife Encyclopedia Volume 3, Burton Maurice; Burton Robert, 2002 Marshall Cavendish, 3
The year of the rat: Mac Queen Ken: September 17 2009; Macleans. Retrieved October 23 2009 from: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/17/the-year-of-the-rat/
In The year of the rat, which appeared in Maclean’s magazine the modern relationship between Canadians and rats is examined. Ken MacQueen, explores the human pursuit to control rat populations in our cities. Despite our best attempts and unrelenting persecution of this versatile species, humans have failed to eradicate rat populations altogether. In the article the author states, “Truly, it is the animal we can’t get rid of, the only one capable of challenging human hegemony of the planet.”(MacQueen 2009). What the author implies by this statement is that rats are resilient creatures, so resilient that they have survived mankind’s attempts to eradicate them. This resilience is a result of their: comparative intelligence and reproduction rates of 3-5 litters of 7-8 but up to 14 young per year (Burton 2002 p.299). But this resilience is also dangerous as rats can carry a number of viruses and bacteria which are harmful to humans such as salmonella and the hantavirus (MacQueen 2009). While this phrase is meant as more of a hyperbole statement rather than a literal statement, it highlights the potential of rats as a health risk due to their tendency to carry pathogens and the difficulty that we humans have in controlling their populations. Misunderstanding of the phrase could come from literal implications or the failure to realize that the statement is merely an exaggeration of the situation in order to make a point. While it’s reasonable to conclude that rats are not scheming to take over the world anytime soon, it would be foolish not to admire, at the very least, acknowledge the remarkable adaptive abilities of this rodent.
References
International Wildlife Encyclopedia Volume 3, Burton Maurice; Burton Robert, 2002 Marshall Cavendish, 3
The year of the rat: Mac Queen Ken: September 17 2009; Macleans. Retrieved October 23 2009 from: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/17/the-year-of-the-rat/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
