No Crap

In recent years, a number of farmers have begun fertilizing their land with sludge, a bi-product of sewage and other wastes from municipal wastewater treatment facilities. As outlined in an article by renowned author Holly Dressel, posted on this blog, the small Quebec town of Elgin recently adopted a by-law banning sludge use. The by-law was challenged by a local farm wishing to use sludge, with the backing of a multinational waste management company that sells sludge to farmers. The case went to a Quebec Superior Court where the town set a legal precedent when the judge upheld the by-law. Judge Steve J. Reimnitz, in his decision on the case, invoked the precautionary principle, writing “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”. I believe the application of the precautionary principle is appropriate in the case.

The primary concern raised by Elgin citizens (and that which influences my support of the judge’s decision) is that sludge has been shown to contain toxic substances including pathogens like flu or E. Coli, medications, hormones, dangerous chemicals and heavy metals from small industries and the de-inking process of paper recycling. These heavy metals can sterilize soils and render them useless or even dangerous for crop production. The sludge, which is shown to often wash into nearby water systems, poses further threats of measurable negative effects to the environment. Given my biocentric view of the environment, I would claim that these negative effects stand to cause harm to a number of the living things in the surrounding area, and downstream. I am often reluctant to stand behind the precautionary principle, but in this case, I believe the amount of evidence supporting the potential for harm or damage warrants its application.

As Dressel points out, Canada’s water treatment systems are unable to remove many of the harmful substances described. So, after sludge began to be used on farms in the early 1990s, a number of human deaths occurred from pathogen-contaminated sludge. Also, a number of dairy herds were sickened by pastures treated with sludge. Researchers at the Cornell Waste Management Institute stated, in an assessment, that "The sheer number of dangers associated with treating sludge as if it were a fertilizer is so great, so various and so serious that it would be the life work of thousands of professionals to divide up and respond to the categories of problems that will arise from this practice." As I discussed in my previous blog post “Degradation of Cootes Paradise”, a recent study by Environment Canada found high levels of dangerous chemicals in the dumping sites of municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge. This discharge is similar to the sludge used as fertilizer. The study described a number of harmful effects of these chemicals on many organisms.

Sludge offers farmers an alternative form of fertilizer at a cheaper price. Aside from the cost benefits, the advantages of sludge over traditional fertilizer are debatable. However, the negative effects are becoming more apparent, though they may not always be felt by the farmers who save money by using sludge. Regardless, the widespread application of sludge on vast expanses of farmland creates the potential for environmental damage and irreversible harm on a large scale. In accordance with the precautionary principle, this practice should not be allowed.

References:

http://vernonsludge.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-happening-in-quebec-block-that.html

http://gmeansgreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/degradation-of-cootes-paradise.html

The Polluter Pays Principle and Waste Management

Everyone must do their part in the prevention, reduction and clean-up of pollution, and large companies and industries are not spared from this obligation. When industries are creating large amounts of pollution, the government makes them pay for the damage they have done to the environment and for the control and prevention of future pollution. The money that the government makes them pay is part of a principle enforced by the government called the polluter pays principle (as discussed in Sharon Beder’s “Principles and Policies”). This is a concept that is discussed in the blog “Pollution partners not all paragons” written by Ellen Ley on November 22, 2009. Ley talks about the new rules being enforced in Indiana, which state that industries, companies and households that are producing pollution, must pay the government for damage control and to prevent further harm to the environment. Many large companies are talked about in the blog and they are criticized for being big polluters. They have had to pay money to the government for the amount of pollution they have created. Some of these companies include Duke Energy, General Motors and BP products.

The polluter pays principle is enforced in a strict sense which means that the polluter must pay for the cost of pollution control equipment, the cost of government infrastructure and services for the reduction of pollution, and in some cases for the administration for the government to oversee pollution control. The pollution pays principle is a sort of economic incentive because the companies are allowed to diminish their pollution however they want, but they must pay money if they do not reduce it enough. The companies mentioned by Ley were among the top 25 companies and industries that were discharging pollution into Indiana’s lakes and rivers in 2007. Because of this, the government is making them pay for clean-up of the streams and lakes and they must pay for new technology to make their companies and industries more eco-friendly in order for them to create less pollution. The companies mentioned were not managing the waste they were producing in environmentally safe ways at all, so they must be the ones who pay for the damage they have caused to the lakes and streams.

The largest steel manufacturing facility in the Western Hemisphere which is located on the shores of Lake Michigan has to follow the polluter pays principle also, because it is producing huge amounts of pollution. The steel manufacturing facility is called ArcelorMittal and it had put more than 200,000 pounds of toxins in the air as of 2007. Ley says, “All told, ArcelorMittal’s plants participating in the program have been fined more than $100,000 since 1997, according to the IDEM records” (2009). In my opinion, these companies should be forced to pay for the large amounts of pollution that they are creating because sooner or later someone is going to have to pay to have it cleaned up, so it might as well be the ones causing the problems.

The polluter pays principle works well for companies who are not managing their waste properly because it forces them to think about how much they are polluting. No company is going to want to spend more money than they have to, so it is good economic incentive for them to cut down on their waste and to handle it in cleaner fashions.

References

Beder, S. Environmental Principles and Policies- An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan, 2006.

Ley, E. Pollution partners not all paragons. A Greener Indiana, 22 November 2009. http://www.agreenerindiana.com/forum/topics/pollution-partners-not-all. Accessed 23 November 2009.

The Need for Environmental Justice

Throughout history it has become evident that communities of minorities have had to suffer the burden of pollution from landfills, incinerators, sewage treatment plants and chemical industries. This is mainly due to the fact that large companies want to find the cheapest and least resistant areas for their dumping grounds, causing minority communities to become sacrificial zones for the benefit of these companies. Dickson, a small town in Tennessee, has become the focal point of this particular environmental racism issue. For years the Holt family has claimed that the poisons from a local Dickson landfill have caused some of them to acquire potentially deadly diseases, including cancer. In 2003, the family took legal action for compensation, but it remains unclear who is at fault for their mistreatment. The article “NAACP Hold Rally; Claims Toxic Well Poisoned Black Families” published by the Associated Press describes the controversial issue that is at hand, as well as the legal evidence that demonstrates the carelessness of the landfill company, the city, and the country.

The proof demonstrating that this family was a victim of environmental racism lies within the fact that their Caucasian neighbours were advised not to drink the well water. Unlike the Holt family, white members of the community were informed that their water contained the toxic chemical trichloroethylene, which was leaking from the landfill, making the water unsafe to drink. Furthermore, the owners of the landfill who resided across the street from the Holts knowingly allowed local African American families to bathe, drink and cook with the contaminated water (Associated Press, 2009).

This negligence can be connected with the equity principle, and more specifically, intragenerational equity. The latter includes justice and the considerations of what is fair for people within any one nation (Beder, 2006) and it is apparent that this principle was not correctly applied to all members who resided in the Dickson community. It is one thing that the neighbours did not inform the Holts of the contaminated water, but it is discriminative and illegal for the landfill company not to educate the entire community on the conditions of the water. If the equity principle was applied correctly, the community at large would have been informed about the issue, no matter their ethnicity or race.

This dispute also touches on human rights, which are entitlements based on morality, justice and fairness that all people ought to have (Beder, 2006). The rights of all people, including the Holt family, can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes a person’s right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family (Beder, 2006). All of the families living within the community had the right to be informed of the chemicals that were leaking into the well water, and by failing to do so, the landfill company neglected these rights.

The main cause behind this controversy is that the Holt family did not receive the environmental justice they were entitled to. This term includes “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and programs and policies” (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). In part, this means that no racial group should possess an unequal share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial operations. If this justice was initiated in the first place, family members would not have used the contaminated water, preventing the deadly diseases that were acquired.

Unfortunately, the Holt’s story is not the first incident concerning environmental racism. In fact, a US Environmental Protection Agency study found that “black Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighbourhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger” (Beder, 2006). Due to statistics such as this and inequities such as the Holt’s story, environmental justice has become a public issue, especially in the United States. By creating awareness of the environmental racism that occurred in Dickson, it will be shown how important it is that all people be given the equity and rights that they are entitled to.

References
The Associated Press. (2009) NAACP Hold Rally; Claims Toxic Well Poisoned Black Families. September 2009. http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11082691. Accessed 22 November 2009.

Beder, Sharon. 2006. “Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction.” University of New South Whales Press Ltd.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008) Environmental Equity and Human Resources. http://www.ateec.org/publ/critical_issues/ci-environ.cfm. Accessed 23 November 2009.

Cigarettes and your fish

http://news.discovery.com/earth/cigarette-butts-tobacco-fish.html

We have all seen those carelessly tossed cigarette butts lying on the pavement, walked by them, thinking of all the bad habits they represent. We all know the dangers of smoking and we’re pretty sure there’s a good amount of chemicals in that one sleazy roll of paper more than enough to poison the average human being. What we haven’t thought of, or thought in good amount of, is what happens to that little poison capsule after its been discarded. In an article, “Cigarette Butts Toxic to Fish” by Michael Reilly, the unhappy ending of that one cigarette butt is explored and its implied negative effects on the environment via a recent study done are explored.

“A single cigarette butt soaked for a day is enough to . . . kill 50% of the fish swimming in it. “ (Reilly 2009) This is an alarming factoid, considering the number of cigarette butts usually found littered across beaches. Also alarming is the fact that this kind of reaction usually takes 4 smoke filters to provoke the same end (Reilly 2009). A cause of concern is that many of these cigarette butts are also littered where they can easily contaminate the water systems their smokers have recently enjoyed. Precautionary principle would tell us that the future costs of cleaning up the amount of chemicals contaminating our water systems brought on by the carelessness of smokers would be more than enough reason to put into action some plans to stop its progression.

In fact there has been talk of banning smoking on beaches by various municipalities, a clear example of regulatory control being put into effect. However just simply having government regulation may not be as effective as educating the public first on how cigarettes affect the environment. Though government regulation is effective in keeping individuals who simply do not care from causing further harm. Especially if there is a fine involved.

There are also ethical issues to consider. Though there have long been places set aside for smokers to do their thing, who are we to tell someone where they can or cannot smoke. In a utilitarianistic view however, the majority of us are much happier, and probably the environment too, if smokers kept their activities as far away from us as possible. Its also ethically unfair to have non smoker suffer from the adverse affects of second hand smoke, and similarly unfair to have no concern of what those deadly chemicals in each little cigarette can do to the animals around us. Especially disconcerting when we do tend to eat fish, and fish filled with chemicals such as nicotine and poisonous benzenes suddenly do not seem as healthy or appetizing.

If you could help keep the ecosystems around you pristine with something as simple as making sure a cigarette butt is disposed properly, would you? I don’t believe it’s too much to ask. Now that more research is being done on the negative affects cigarettes have on not only us humans but other animals as well, it makes us more conscious of the little choices we make everyday in life. A simple regulation put in place does seem the best solution to this problem, but also increasing awareness of the dangers of cigarettes would help create a public knowledge that might actually give people a reason to quit. Not to mention we’ll be able to keep eating that well loved fish.

E- waste and the Equity principle

Electronic waste or E-waste is a major problem for the 21st century. Since the 1990’s, relatively cheap electronic technology has been made available to the public and this has lead to some serious repercussions. With new and improved models appearing every couple months consumers are pressured to upgrade their “old” models. In the USA alone, 350,000 cell phones and 130,000 computers are thrown out every day (Walsh 2009). As a result E-waste is becoming a major component of solid waste. E-waste is even worse than household solid waste because of the nasty combination of toxic chemicals such as mercury and lead, which if improperly disposed of can cause serious health problems for both the local environment and local human populations. For humans, these heavy metals bioaccumlate in the body and cause a range of neurological disorders.
Only 20% of the American population recycles its E-waste, but despite this effort, some recycling companies ship the waste to developing nations(Walsh 2009). Once in these countries the E-waste goes to poor people, for dismantling. The precious metals are extracted through opening burning and the use of corrosive chemicals. With no regard for health or safety, these people expose themselves and the local environment to a wide range of toxic chemicals that have been linked to a startling number of health issues. For example, Guiyu , a town in China, is a common destination for a large proportion of E-waste. Guiyu has the highest levels of carcinogenic dioxins in the environment anywhere in the world and high incidence rates of miscarriages (Walsh 2009).
This issue of E-waste touches upon many of the topics discussed in Environmental Principles and Policies, but specifically, the equity principle and the human rights principle. These two principles highlight how social inequalities are tied to environmental degradation. The E-waste issue can be considered as a socio-economic problem that inevitably leads to environmental degradation.
In theory, “equity means that there should be a minimum level of income and environmental quality below which nobody falls” (Beder 2006). Unfortunately this is not the case in the world, where a vast majority of the population lives in poverty. While burning E-waste and living in squalid conditions seems unthinkable to people living in developed countries, for the individuals of towns such as Guiyu, it is a way of feeding their families. In addition, these people generally lack an education and as a result, they are unaware of the harm that their practises are causing on their own health and the environment. For individuals who live in perpetual poverty, where meeting basic needs such as food and water are the primary concern, environmental protection is quite often the furthest thing from their minds. These people do not have the luxury of making good environmental choices because they must focus all of their efforts towards keeping themselves alive.
The human rights principle also reinforces the main points of the equity principle. Every human being has a right to life, health and general wellbeing as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Beder 2006). Since the most fundamental requirements for life such as food, water and air come directly from the environment it is then reasonable to conclude that in order for these rights to be met a level of environmental health must be maintained as well. The processing of E-waste directly damages the local environment and health of the local people thereby preventing their attainment of the above rights.

The E-waste issue is just one example of the conflict between poverty and environmental protection. All over the world there are similar stories, where the environment is put second to meeting people’s basic needs. In privileged countries lack of environmental action is due to apathy, whereas in developing countries, a large proportion of environmental degradation is linked to poverty. Up until recently, poverty and environmental degradation were viewed as two separate issues. But as the urgency to protect the environment increases, more individuals are beginning to realize that if we are to solve Earth’s environmental issue we will also have to address poverty as well.

References
Beder, S. (2006). Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary introduction. New South Wales: Earthscan
Walsh, B. (2009). E-waste not. Retrieved November 20 2009 from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870485,00.html