gretamclaughlin

[gretamclaughlin]

Final Practicum Report

I enjoyed my time working with the Climate Impact Initiative, and I believe we positively affected Fordham and the larger Bronx community. At the Practicum, I worked about four hours a week, and I focused on the Community Business Partnerships group. There, we partnered with the Bronx River Alliance, and we created and promoted volunteer opportunities to Fordham students to help with the organization’s work. Our volunteer events, such as the Paddle and Pick Up event, aided them in progressing towards their goals. I learned about what the group does and the effects of their work. With the Bronx River Alliance, we also organized a seed giveaway for the Sustainability Fair. I enjoyed promoting the Initiative at the fair, and Fordham students came to get their free seeds and soil. Hopefully, this event caused more people to think about growing their own food and connected them to nature more. Community Business Partnerships also partnered with Confectionaires Bakery near Rose Hill to give Fordham students, administration, and staff a 15% discount 0n Tuesdays. Hopefully, this deal will bring more customers to Confectionaires, and it promotes purchasing from local businesses rather than major corporations, which are massive polluters and generally bad for the environment. I helped promote this event and brought a group over to Confectionaires. We plan to partner with other businesses near Rose Hill and Lincoln Center next semester. I also was a part of Rams Against Aramark and worked a bit on the social media team specifically. I helped craft posts to promote our message and generally helped get more organizations and students on board with the movement. The group as a whole met with the Fordham administration to speak about our goals. Additionally, we are trying to find alternative food options to bring to campus, and we researched different tools to help us get there. Options include working with Phood, a company that partners with universities to allow students to use dining dollars with delivery services, thus providing healthier and more sustainable options outside of Aramark. Certainly, the work of the two groups I am a part of overlap, and it has been fulfilling to see how the steps we are taking put Fordham and the Bronx on a greener path.

I found that a lot of my work with the Bronx River Alliance aligned with class material. The organization uses the environmental history of the Bronx River to restore it to its former glory. It actively relies on information about ecosystems, the path of the river, and climate to improve the area. The Alliance is an excellent example of how we can use information about our past to better the environment. Additionally, the Alliance’s goals significantly reflect what we learned concerning ethics and philosophy and the importance of building up green spaces. With Community Business Partnerships, one of our main goals was to restore the river for the people who live near it, many of whom are impoverished. Similar to the readings in the Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, we wanted to promote intragenerational and intergenerational environmental justice; that is, we wanted to aid in efforts to clean up the area so that more people could have access to nature now and in future generations, which would also satisfy a sense of biophilia. Evidently, these objectives were also similar to those of the No Child Left Inside movement, and cleaning up the river would allow for a greater number of the area’s youth to enjoy nature. PlaNYC has similar goals to those of the Alliance as well. Furthermore, in these cleanup efforts, the Alliance tries to reduce the river’s water pollution, and restoring its ecosystems will also help in this objective. Hopefully, we will be able to clean up the river to the point that people can safely swim in it in the coming years; the information about toxic chemicals worries me for the people who use the river now.

Community Business Partnerships’ work with nearby businesses built on the sustainable business reading. Generally, we need to support sustainable and local businesses over massive corporations because of large companies’ contributions to environmental degradation. I found that with Confectionaires Bakery, I decided to go there sometimes instead of Dunkin’ or Starbucks, even if it was not Tuesdays; I hope other students did this too. Furthermore, we plan to partner with more sustainable, vegan businesses in the future to further these goals, and it will hopefully reduce our environmental impact when it comes to eating, as Food, Inc. and Symphony of the Soil spoke about.

Rams Against Aramark’s work reflects the ideas in the two agricultural films we watched in class, and we are trying to get food on Fordham’s campus that is not as degrading to the environment. For example, much of the food is heavily processed and not organic, so its production releases a lot of emissions and destroys the soil and water through pesticides and fertilizers. This food is also unhealthy for people because of the same reasons. My work with the social media team dissected Aramark’s supposed sustainability initiatives, and we spoke about how the company is an environmental threat. It reminded me of the material about climate change disinformation, like the “Ethical Abhorrence of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign” video, in that these companies are just greenwashing their efforts or dismissing the effects of climate change (though not at the same level as coal companies). Certainly, Aramark is not a sustainable business, and it contributes emissions and generally degrades the environment. Furthermore, it produces a lot of waste, and we can see this at dining establishments at Fordham that contribute to water pollution, air pollution, toxic chemicals, and more, which the textbook speaks about. With Aramark, it is difficult to get out of this wasteful style of living that “The Story of Stuff” video talks about. Rams Against Aramark is trying to work with sustainable businesses for cleaner and greener food. Although options like Phood are not entirely sustainable, they are a step in the right direction.

I genuinely believe that my work at the Initiative has been impactful. Even if we do not see the results of our work yet, especially with Rams Against Aramark, we built the foundation for the future. It is small efforts like these that will help us take down corporations and restore the environment. The work begins at Fordham, and I am grateful to be a part of this team.

#sustainable business #the bronx #nyc #fordham #fordham university #aramark #organic #climate change

[gretamclaughlin]

Thirsty Nations: The World’s Water Crisis

For several weeks, we have been speaking about agriculture and its effects on the environment and human health. People need to employ alternative methods for a more sustainable and safer future. This week’s materials focus on water resources, availability, and pollution and their effects on ecosystems. Globally, water is unevenly distributed and contaminated for many individuals. People use water in an unsustainable manner, rendering it impossible for it to replenish itself. Although I will speaking about general water issues in this blog, I will be paying particular attention to those dealing with agriculture. We must handle the world’s water issues before it is depleted.

The textbook highlights how the water problem is an economic, security, and environmental issue, worsening as time goes on. Currently, a significant amount of our water supply comes from groundwater. Humans deplete aquifers too quickly for them to replenish themselves, thus rendering a semi-renewable resource non-renewable, and they drain surface water sources as well. Climate change aggravates the problem; it causes snowpacks to melt earlier and faster, and water is not available when people need it during dry seasons. Rather than conserving this depleting resource, people just move to the next area they can exploit. However, this method is bound to stop at some point in the near future because there will be no other sources to turn to. Without water, there is no life on earth, and people should treat it as so.

The long-term consequences of drying out water sources, building dams, diverting rivers, and more for human use outweigh the short-term benefits. Dams and reservoirs supply an ample amount of water for surrounding communities, and they increase water’s availability for irrigation and electricity. However, these practices destroy biodiversity and affect the geography of the land by creating sinkholes. Reservoirs do not last long either, filling up with silt within a few decades of being built. Additionally, diverting water from its natural path reduces its ability to clear out pollution, as is what occurs in the San Francisco Bay. These promising methods are often detrimental. However, few people understand or care; they only see the positives that come from exploiting water right now. Unfortunately, the effects of this ignorance are already being seen across the world, and it is affecting human health and agriculture.

A significant amount of our water footprints come from virtual water. Freshwater is used to produce food and other products like clothing and paper. According to María Del Mar Sánchez Espejo, the avocado trade is unsustainable concerning water resources (Espejo 2018, 24). Demand for avocados has increased greatly in the past 30 years, and it has caused virtual water to move from water stressed areas like Mexico and Chile to less water stressed areas like the United Kingdom and Japan. Therefore, areas where the avocados are being grown suffer from water depletion. Certainly, although a lot of water is used at the pre-consumer level, we are still personally responsible for a great deal of it, even if we are not directly using it. When eating an avocado, you waste water because of its cultivation. The individual can play a role in reducing this unsustainable water usage by carefully selecting what we consume. We have the power to adjust our habits, which will hopefully influence agricultural practices and industry as a whole.

Today, agriculture relies on irrigation, especially in dry regions. Irrigation makes up a significant percentage of water usage in the U.S. and is widely unregulated. According to The New York Times, agriculture companies, many coming from the Middle East, flocked to Arizona in the early 2000s (Shannon 2018). Although the climate is generally arid, these corporations exploited aquifers because of the state’s minimal groundwater regulations. These companies grow thirsty crops like nuts and alfalfa and have been drying out the water to the point that smaller farmers cannot survive. Non-farming families also suffer and cannot access enough water to meet their basic needs. California has another problematic agricultural system, and farmers rely on irrigation to grow crops that naturally would not survive there. Even in areas where government regulations exist, such as with the Colorado River treaty between Mexico and U.S. states, they are often inadequate in properly preserving water for the future, both for humans and other organisms. Increased climate change will only aggravate the problem.

Water pollution presents another issue, and agricultural activities are the leading cause of it for reasons such as sediment runoff and fertilizers. Animal wastes pollute waters and can cause fatal illnesses for those drinking the water, an issue that is even more profound in developing nations with little to no water treatment facilities. Further issues come about from industrial issues like the leaking of pathogens and chemicals into the water. Many of these problems relate to the previous blog posts, so I will be brief.

New solutions are emerging to handle depleting water including the treatment of wastewater, which is in tune with natural cycling processes. In California, there are a number of facilities that remove contaminants from wastewater (Water Education Foundation, n.d.). Water can either be purified for potable uses or nonpotable uses (like landscape irrigation). It is run through a variety of systems including grit chambers and disinfection processes. Different challenges arise, such as issues with pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and other chemicals present in water. However, at the rate that the technology is advancing, I am confident that the agencies will be able to tackle these issues. California’s treatment system should serve as an example to other states and nations as a way to preserve water. We can recycle water and ensure that toxins are not being dumped into the environment, thereby reducing our reliance on unsustainable sources and cleaning up ecosystems.

Constructed wetlands can also treat wastewater, and they use natural cycling processes. Wastewater flows through a pipe and on top of soil or through gravel, and the plants in the system take in organic materials (National Small Flows Clearinghouse, n.d.). Solids and trace metals settle. This system effectively cleans many toxins out of the water and builds up ecosystems in the process, even if said ecosystems are human-made. There are some disadvantages, and engineers are still unsure about its ability to deal with some chemicals. However, constructed wastelands are clearly better than not treating water at all, and they cost significantly less than conventional systems. They also could be important to implement in areas that are located far away from wastewater treatment centers, so complicated and expensive transport systems do not have to be built, and more people will not have to deal with the effects of dirty water.

However, many issues remain with dumping trash and sewage into bodies of water, including oceans. Relatively recent regulations in the U.S. have limited the ability of companies and individuals to do this, but companies still contaminate water resources. In January 2020, Donald Trump rolled back the Obama Administration’s pollution restrictions, and he favored corporations, effectively removing protections on clean water (Davenport 2020). The Albatross film and Chris Jordan’s photographs highlight the depressing reality of water pollution across the world. We are killing our fellow organisms, and nobody seems to care too much about it. It stuns me how difficult it is for some people to just dispose of their trash in the correct manner, and I see it a lot at Fordham. People do not care about the environment enough to even adjust their actions the smallest bit, and they litter, do not recycle, and create unnecessary waste.

Significant changes should be made at the federal and global levels to ameliorate the water crisis. We need increased programs to monitor groundwater supplies through satellites. Through this method, scientists can analyze variations to the earth’s gravitational pull, which tell us about changes in groundwater supplies, surface water, and more. By monitoring this, we can take preemptive measures to prevent further degradation, such as issuing standards for water use for specific seasons. Ultimately, state governments are likely to be more responsive to these concerns than the federal government, such as how California regulates its water use. The government should also remove subsidies supporting unsustainable agriculture in arid regions. There is no reason for thirsty crops to be grown in these areas, and they put a strain on water supplies for the whole nation. If more natural crops are planted, the water issue will decrease. Therefore, greater subsidies for farmers for crops that are easier to grow in the climate may prove to be necessary. Subsidies can also be shifted to promote the farming of more thirsty crops in regions that can support them. This may require shifts in urban planning initiatives to ensure there is space for farming, and this will be difficult. However, the federal government can use policies like mandates to require spaces to open up farming (i.e. withholding federal funding for infrastructure if the Northeast does not set aside land for certain crops).

Irrigation presents another issue, and we should encourage farmers to use more efficient methods to prevent water waste. Drip irrigation significantly improves efficiency. In the film Symphony of the Soil, one of the farmers uses drip irrigation in California. He explains that this process allows him to save money because he does not have to pay for as much water. Certainly, if changes in irrigation systems are presented in this manner, being an initial investment that pays off, more farmers will support shifting their methods. Grassroots organizations will play a role in this by distributing information to farmers and local agricultural organizations. If major farming groups can understand this position, they will have a significant impact on agriculture in the U.S. In developing countries, it is important to promote using the traditional, low-cost irrigation methods that the textbook describes, which are often more efficient than industrialized ways. Organizations speaking to farming communities directly may expedite this process. Promoting the use of polycultures throughout the world, rather than monocultures, will reduce soil erosion and evaporative water losses, preserving the soil and decreasing reliance on such large quantities of water; waterways will be dually preserved. Comprehensive education is important to enact these changes. Farmers must understand the benefits of turning to more sustainable agricultural methods. Although there are often up-front costs, they will pay off in the future with reduced water and resources as a whole.

Agricultural companies must be regulated in the amount of land they can acquire in a certain region during a certain period of time. In Arizona, a handful of corporations were able to buy up land quickly. Thus, they were able to quickly set their agenda in motion and degrade resources. If the government can prevent these corporations from buying such large swaths of land, this fast-paced environmental degradation is less likely to occur and will give authorities time to review the companies’ actions. Of course, in the U.S., this could prove to be difficult with courts often being strict readers of the Constitution. However, if individuals can put pressure on the government, perhaps some progress can be made. These large land purchases infringe on people’s rights to resources, so perhaps this angle can be used to convince officials.

Widespread water conservation policies should also be enacted. Municipalities can begin instituting policies that restrict the amount of water residents consume and raise the cost of it. By instituting lifeline rates, households can use a set amount of affordable water to meet basic needs. After this limit is reached, they must pay higher and higher amounts for water; this is a user-pays approach. Therefore, impoverished people still have access to water. However, people who want to use an unsustainable amount must pay for it. Hopefully, this method will discourage individuals from overusing water and will make them more conscious of their environmental impact. Additionally, there must be limits on the amount of water that can be extracted from aquifers during a certain period of time. If people do not follow the regulations, they should face heavy fines. If policies like these had been implemented in Arizona, families and farmers would not be suffering. Instead, unregulated companies were able to drain the lifeblood of the region. Wastewater treatment plants should also be built across nations to recycle water and reduce the strain on groundwater and surface water. California provides an example of what this can look like, and we should learn from their treatment processes to make water usage more cyclical rather than linear. These treatment facilities should be presented in the light that they will save money in the long run by preserving water. On an international level, comprehensive treaties must be pursued to divide water usage rights among countries. The Mexican-American agreement is an example of poor policy because it allowed people to extract an unsustainable amount of water; other organisms were not considered. Treaties that consider entire ecosystems and ensure that water will be preserved at a sustainable level will be important in ensuring that future generations and other organisms have access to the same resources that we do.

Better and more comprehensive urban planning in communities is important in order to prevent soil erosion and runoff. If we work to concentrate people in cities, we can help preserve natural vegetation and ecosystems outside of these urban areas. Additionally, new communities should be built in a way that protects natural features. For example, cluster developments should be used, and this can be instituted at the municipal level through zoning laws. Covering cropland with vegetation and employing different farming techniques like conservation tillage also help in preventing erosion and runoff.

The U.S. must work with developing nations to improve their sewage systems. Throwing sewage into waterways is a public health disaster. Therefore, new methods can be introduced, like compost toilets, which will help reduce this problem. Low-cost, constructed wetlands are another possible solution.

Individuals should also make some changes in their lives. By not purchasing products that require a lot of water, not buying produce from arid regions that require a lot of irrigation, and supporting sustainable companies, people can effectively vote with their wallets. Companies will hopefully see this shift in public opinion and change their practices accordingly. Using low-flow showerheads and front-loading washers can also reduce household water usage. People should ensure that the pipes in their homes are not leaking, so no water is wasted.

At Fordham, improvements can be made to the sprinkler system. I have seen sprinklers running when it has just rained or even while it is raining. The maintenance staff needs to fix this problem to ensure that water is not wasted. Taking steps to prevent this would also save money and improve the quality of plants. Furthermore, the University should introduce more native vegetation as opposed to plants that require a significant amount of water. Native species require less attention, too, so it is a win-win situation.

Generally, a bottom-up approach is necessary to deal with water issues. After all, this has been the way that many U.S. environmental acts have passed. If people bring these issues to the population’s and the government’s attention, we can create real change in how we deal with water. This invaluable resource must be protected because without it, life on Earth cannot exist.

Word Count: 2545

Question: Is it possible for us not to rely on aquifers at all in the future?

Water Footprint: 917.9 m³ per year

Diagrams:

2015 water usage in the U.S. - states heavily using irrigation like California and Texas use the most.

Rise of water withdrawals nationwide (in billion gallons per day)

Drip irrigation system, which ensures that plants take in most of the water

Works Cited:

Espejo, María Del Mar Sánchez. 2018. “The Implication of the Avocado Trade for Global Water Scarcity.” MSc Thesis, Cranfield University.

Shannon, Noah Gallagher. 2018. “The Water Wars of Arizona.” The New York Times, July 19, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/magazine/the-water-wars-of-arizona.html.

Water Education Foundation. n.d. “Wastewater Treatment Process in California.” Accessed April 29, 2021. https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/wastewater-treatment-process-california.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. n.d. “Constructed Wetlands Factsheet.” Purdue University. https://engineering.purdue.edu/~frankenb/NU-prowd/cwetfact.htm#:~:text=Constructed%20wetlands%20provide%20simple%20and,operating%20costs%20are%20very%20low.

Davenport, Coral. 2020. “Trump Removes Pollution Controls on Streams and Wetlands.” The New York Times, July 6, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/climate/trump-environment-water.html.

#water #irrigation #water crisis #california #trump #wetlands #arizona #fordham #nyc #environment #environmentalism

[gretamclaughlin]

The Waste Dilemma

This week’s materials speak about the prevalence of chemicals in our environment due to agriculture (like last week’s blog), manufacturing, and other human activities, as well as how people aggravate natural hazards. The readings and videos further talk about the production of solid waste and methods of handling it.

In our world, there are biological hazards, chemical hazards, and issues that come about as a result of lifestyle choices. Biological hazards include viruses and diseases, which we can see with the COVID-19 pandemic. These dangers often worsen due to humans. Today, a prominent health issue is the growing antibiotic resistance of diseases. In addition, antibiotics used with livestock are linked to greater antibiotic resistance in humans. The warming climate will also cause diseases to spread to new areas. Unfortunately, those living in poverty and in less developed countries suffer more from biological hazards. Developing nations do not have the resources to treat or prevent the spread of diseases, and the issue persists with impoverished people in the U.S. According to the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, COVID-19 disproportionately kills those living in poverty (Juergen et al. 2021). This can partially be attributed to poor health care, more frontline workers, and decreased ability to self-isolate. Today, India faces the rapid spread of COVID-19 without access to vaccines. If climate change and capitalism continue, this inequality will only grow.

Chemical hazards also threaten human health and have been linked to cancer, fetal developmental issues, and other illnesses and defects. Unfortunately, our bodies are full of trace amounts of toxins, and links between chemical hazards and illnesses, like those mentioned above, suggest they are dangerous. A study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research indicates the connection between metallic pollutants and neurodegeneration, specifically speaking about autism spectrum disorder (Kaur et al. 2021, 8989). These impurities “play a significant role in altering the basic neuronal pathways and degenerating the neural processes,” and “environmental factors might activate and aggravate the genetic mutations responsible for the neuronal alterations” (Kaur et al. 2021, 8991).

Those who generate these pollutants and those who profit off medical treatments lead various health organizations. “Cancer, Inc.” paints a bleak picture of breast cancer awareness initiatives. For example, AstraZeneca, which manufactures fungicides, herbicides, and carcinogenic pollutants, leads efforts. The American Cancer Society has a history of opposing policies that would protect people from carcinogens in favor of those that protect corporations. I am usually not one to believe conspiracies, but this just seems like the actual state of corporate America and the health care system. The fact that people are profiting from cancer is disgraceful. Polluters place the burden on their victims (encouraging mammograms, breast checks, etc.). Although breast cancer awareness initiatives have helped many people, it is disheartening to think about how much more could be done if these companies focused their efforts on reducing the chemicals they release.

Some companies have taken initiative when it comes to pollution prevention. The corporation 3M reformulated products, decreased raw materials, gives solid waste to other companies, and more. These efforts have both reduced 3M’s environmental impact and saved the company money. Nike recently set the goal to become zero carbon and zero waste, but I wish its website and impact report provided more detailed steps (Nike, n.d.). Still, it is a move in the right direction. Janine Benyus’ TED Talk advocates for using biomimicking design approaches. The ultimate solution for environmental degradation is to dismantle capitalism; however, as I often say, this will not happen in time to preserve the planet. Therefore, we should lean on sustainable business models to reduce environmental degradation.

Current methods to reduce solid and toxic waste encourage both individuals and companies to preserve the planet. The four Rs model (refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle) emphasizes refusing certain waste-creating products or practices, reducing the amount of material one uses, reusing this material over and over, and, when done, recycling it into a better form, the same form, or an equally valuable form. Another method, Cradle to Cradle, focuses on circulating materials to reflect the natural cycling of nutrients. In this mode, inorganic and synthetic materials are reclaimed, and organic materials decompose. Dangerous technical nutrients are removed, and products are cheaper because one is only paying for part of synthetic materials’ use. Resource exchange webs are also important in reducing waste, which 3M participates in. C2C has the potential to save companies and consumers money. Shrinking resources may allow for C2C to gain popularity as people reuse and recycle what they have, rather than creating everything from scratch. A society completely based on C2C principles seems unlikely, or at least doubtful before ecosystems collapse. However, if more companies and people begin using the C2C approach, their output of toxic and solid wastes will reduce dramatically. Nike is trying to institute circular design in some of its products, and its impact report includes goals to increase sustainable material in footwear, reduce emissions, and divert waste going to landfills (Nike, n.d.). Currently, the company uses 100% renewable energy at owned or operated Nike sites in the U.S. and Canada.

There is a debate over whether or not recycling economically makes sense, and some believe that it is too costly. However, this position is simplistic. Recycling creates jobs. Additionally, it reduces emissions and pollution, which saves money regarding health costs, pollution cleanup costs, and more. The actual price of not recycling is more than just monetary value. Furthermore, we need to stop only paying attention to the economic costs of environmental issues. Ecosystems are dying, and we have the means to preserve our planet, yet people do nothing because of the up-front costs. I would argue that there is nothing more expensive than losing life on earth.

There are many steps that individuals can take to reduce their impact on waste production. Eating organic foods decreases pesticides. Refusing single-use bags and packaging is also important, and it is simple to bring your own bags and containers when shopping or eating out. Farmers markets offer more sustainable solutions to supermarkets, and they provide local food options that do not need to be transported long distances. Accepting food stamps at farmers markets, which the South Bronx Farmers Market does, is important in giving low-income communities access to this food. Shopping at yard sales, flea markets, and secondhand shops and donating used goods also helps reduce the waste we produce and saves money. If more communities establish shared use initiatives, less waste will be produced because fewer goods are purchased; this can be done for tools, books, and essentially any other item that one uses.

Municipalities should require people to separate their garbage and should implement centralized composting facilities. This way, more waste is recycled and does not end up in landfills when it could be put to good use. The compost can be sold back to residents or used in parks and community gardens to improve soil. Fee-per-bag collection services will also encourage recycling. People should push their local governments to implement these systems since they are more concerned with daily issues. If fee-per-bag systems are implemented in communities across the country, there will be a significant reduction in the amount of waste produced, and more people will follow the four Rs.

However, pre-consumer waste makes up a large amount of waste, so governments should regulate corporations more than individuals. Officials should adopt standards similar to the European Union’s REACH regulations, which require the registration of untested and unregulated chemicals, and hazardous substances cannot be used if there are safer alternatives. REACH requires companies to show if chemicals are safe rather than the government, and it is a possible solution for waste issues in our capitalist system. If companies want power, they must also deal with the consequences. Like those in New York City, local and state laws should require electronic companies to take back their products and properly dispose of them; this is an example of the C2C system in action. These policies follow the same principles as the REACH system; companies need to take responsibility for their damage. Further C2C policies should require companies to pass on their waste to other companies who can put it to use. Limits on the amount of waste a corporation can produce will also be critical. To pass these laws, we need to vote for candidates who have a history of caring about the environment and then hold them accountable once they are in office. It is not enough to simply recognize the scope of environmental degradation; we need policies that actively combat the pollution and practices that are hurting us all. Working to pass laws at the municipal and state levels will be more efficient and effective. Democracy, especially at the federal level, is slow, so perhaps local officials will be more responsive and face less resistance.

Customers must vote with their wallets and purchase from more sustainable companies to bypass the inefficiency of the government. Walmart’s shift to carrying more organic products (as featured in Food, Inc.) displays the power that customers have over companies. Therefore, if we can show businesses that it is in their best economic interest to implement C2C systems, they are more likely to do so. After all, if they do not, they may lose significant revenue. Some C2C options include companies taking back used clothing and shoes and repurposing the materials, recycling electronic waste from products, and sharing waste with other corporations and industries. Creating products with more recyclable materials, like Nike, enables consumers to sustainably dispose of waste. Installing recycling facilities on-site can allow for some waste to be used again in production.

Grassroots organizations will be integral in implementing these changes, and by organizing the population, we can have a significant impact on government and company policies. Both entities derive their power from the people, and we need to remember this in order to make change through protests, phone calls, and more. Grassroots organizations will also help when it comes to community education, and they will have to take on the responsibility of teaching people about the toxins that exist in the environment and what needs to be done to fix the issue. Education initiatives will also help in mobilizing people.

Humans created the system, and humans can get out of it. We have degraded the environment for centuries, and we must make a shift soon before the environment is completely broken down. In other words, the world’s resources are being drained at an astounding rate, and we are then dumping everything back into the earth in an unsafe manner. It is up to us to fix the issue of waste before it is too late, and everyone dies. The clock is ticking; what will you do?

Word Count: 1792

Question: How will Biden’s American Jobs Plan affect the health of Americans when it comes to industrial pollution?

Diagrams:

Visual representation of the C2C system, which does not produce waste

Effect of poverty on COVID-19 deaths in NYC

Growth of antibiotic resistance in England

Works Cited:

Jung, Juergen, James Manley, and Vinish Shrestha. 2021. “Coronavirus infections and deaths by poverty status: The effects of social distancing.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization: 311-330. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756168/.

Kaur, Ishnoor, Tapan Behl, Lotfi Aleya, Habibur Rahman, Arun Kumar, Sandeep Arora, and Rokeya Akter. 2021. “Role of metallic pollutants in neurodegeneration: effects of aluminum, lead, mercury, and arsenic in mediating brain impairment events and autism spectrum disorder.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 28 (8): 8989-9001. EBSCOhost.

Nike. n.d. “FY20 NIKE, Inc. Impact Report.” Accessed May 8, 2021. https://purpose-cms-preprod01.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/30191535/FY20-NIKE-Inc.-Impact-Report_Executive-Summary1.pdf.

[gretamclaughlin]

Modern Agriculture and the Death of Healthy Eating

This week, we watched two films: Symphony of the Soil and Food, Inc. Both cover the pitfalls of modern agriculture and explain how the Green Revolution has destroyed the soil, the water, humans, animals, and the earth as a whole. On the bright side, they speak about the steps we can take to progress past these unsustainable practices. To put it simply, modern agriculture is ruining our earth and everyone who inhabits it. People’s views of idyllic, agrarian farming are completely disconnected from the machine-heavy reality that we live in. The rise of industrialized agriculture and biotechnology was promising at first, and they offered solutions to some of the world’s most pressing issues related to food insecurity. At first, especially in places like India, the Green Revolution revitalized agriculture and fed the population. However, as more time passes, industrialization is becoming a lot less promising, and it is the reason for depleting soils, health issues, and more, pushing the world food system to the brink of collapse. We must evaluate how we got here and what we should do to change this reality.

Industrialized agriculture leans on artificial pesticides, fertilizers, GMOs, machinery, and other human-made technologies. Due to their prevalence, there are few farmers who do not rely on them in some way. In fact, because of the degradation of soil, environmental conditions, and more, many crops are now unable to grow without chemicals and engineering, thus increasing the gravity of the situation. The number of breeds of plants has decreased rapidly in the past century, and the increase in monocultures worldwide has degraded ecosystems and left the door open for an impending food crisis. Essentially, what was introduced as a saving grace is now a growing issue.

In a natural system, the soil is supported by nutrient cycling and the rich organisms that live there. Plants feed microorganisms called exudates, and these exudates grow bacteria and fungi, which protect the roots from diseases. The bacteria and fungi also release nutrients for the plants through nitrogen fixation. If there is enough nitrogen in the soil, fertilizers are unnecessary. However, modern agriculture has caused for the planting of monocultures. Instead of a wide breadth of plants feeding the soil, only one variety does, and the soil quickly becomes exhausted. Even organic farming often just uses organic alternatives to chemical fertilizers, rather than creating agroecosystems.

Huge corporations control America’s food system. Meat companies, like Perdue and Tyson, control wide shares of the market, and they produce meat in unnatural conditions. Animals and birds are genetically modified, pumped with hormones and antibiotics, and raised in inhumane conditions, disconnected from the natural world. Their bodies often do not resemble the natural versions of themselves, and they are abused, beaten, and fattened for slaughter. To make matters worse, when they are killed, it is done in massive slaughterhouses under reprehensible conditions. The animals are doused with chemicals like ammonia. These conditions are the root of significant health problems in the U.S., including E. coli outbreaks and even early-onset puberty in girls, which was spoken about in a previous blog post. Watching Food, Inc. deeply disturbed me. Birds and animals are raised in small pens, living in their feces and on top of each other. The slaughterhouse scenes were especially alarming, and when one owner explained the process of adding chemicals to meat, I was absolutely disgusted. There is nothing that seems safe about it. The documentary truly changed my view of the food industry, and I am now a vegetarian because of it. I just could not stand by any longer and support such an exploitative and inhumane practice.

Growing plants is also done in an unsustainable manner. Monsanto controls most of the seeds in the U.S., and even farmers who do not use the seeds can have crops infiltrated by them through the wind carrying them over. At this point, almost all the soybeans in America are grown with Monsanto seeds. The corporation is also ruthless when it comes to farmers, and they control their usage of seeds, not allowing farmers to save them for the next year. If the farmers do not comply, they are hit with massive lawsuits that push them out of business. There seems to be no way out because Monsanto’s “RoundUp Ready” options are often the only ones that can be grown given the state of soil and ecosystems. While learning about this, all I could think about was how Monsanto is just like the typical, greedy capitalist villain that you imagine as a child, destroying nature and people’s livelihoods for a quick buck.

The usage of pesticides and other chemicals completely depletes the soil and the rich breadth of organisms inside of it, and plants are unable to grow without biotechnology. In other words, much of the earth’s soil today cannot support traditional agriculture. Additionally, they are harmful to the people who consume the food as well. According to Melanie D. Mason, hundreds of contaminants are not regulated by the EPA, causing them to be left in drinking water sources in the U.S. (Mason 2013, 53). These contaminants have been linked to cancer, reproductive difficulties, issues with nervous system development, and immune system suppression. The byproducts of pesticides and fertilizers can enter the ground and surface water through runoff caused by irrigation water, another effect of industrialized agriculture. The government is currently putting the interests of corporations above the people, and we are all suffering because of it.

Agriculture needs to become completely organic if we want to reduce the environmental degradation that it causes. Symphony of the Soil features farmers who have made the switch to organic farming, and they lauded the quality of the soil and production levels of their methods. Many also explained that organic farming was a lot less expensive production-wise than non-organic farming. In Food, Inc., the owner of Polyface Farms spoke about how people often see industrialized agriculture as the only solution to the world’s food problems. He explained that this was untrue, and organic agriculture could be as much, if not more, efficient and productive than industrialized agriculture, and it is more sustainable in the long run. This truly opened my eyes because I always saw GMOs and modern agriculture as the way that we were going to feed the planet. Looking back, these opinions were definitely influenced by propaganda. However, now I understand their disadvantages, and I am fully a proponent of organic agriculture.

Customers need to be educated more about what is in their food, how and where it was produced, and its effects on their bodies, the environment, and workers. Food, Inc. displayed the power of this. Walmart altered the food it carried based on customer preferences towards organic foods. According to Jennifer Chait, as of 2019, Walmart is the largest seller of organic products in North America (Chait 2019). Therefore, if customers learn about what actually happens in the food industry and the effects of their actions, they will demand companies to change what they offer. It is the economical decision for many of these corporations to listen to consumers or else they will lose business. Education can take the form of grassroots campaigns aimed at teaching the public, such as public screenings of documentaries, advertisements, and events. Even just a small amount of exposure to the realities of the food industry could affect people to the point that they alter their buying and consumption habits, allowing them to break out of the “consumer bubble.” This has clearly worked for me. Many people still have this romanticized, agrarian vision of agriculture, and if they understand how this has changed since the Green Revolution, their vision of their food will subsequently be altered. If more retailers sell organic food, more people will gain access to these healthier, more sustainable options.

More extensive knowledge of food could come about through formal education; classes and lessons regarding “food literacy” should be established in school curriculums throughout the U.S. in order for people to better understand what they are consuming and how they can switch their habits. Understanding basic principles of ecology, such as chemical cycling, is also essential in shifting how Americans view agriculture. People should begin campaigning to local boards of education to implement these changes. If all students are required to take certain courses about the environment, farming, and food, more people would understand the impact of industrialized agriculture. Obviously, there would be pushback because of the hold that companies have on the U.S.’s governments. However, even if more courses that just speak about the environment in general are implemented, people will be more likely to understand the pitfalls of the food system. A little progress is still progress.

Sweeping government regulations must also be established. Corporations cannot keep getting away with ruining the environment and endangering public health, and they must be held accountable through new laws. There must be stronger policies about agricultural practices. For example, there should be limits on the number of pesticides one can use per square acre per year, and there should be heavy fines for those who violate the policies. Better crop-planting practices are also necessary, and if the state and federal governments could distribute subsidies to farmers who follow these techniques, more people will make the shift. There should also be regulations on what can be deemed organic. For example, some organic farmers import organic versions of chemical fertilizers. Although this is a better option, it should be noted that it still leads to more pollution than traditional methods and does not return the soil to its natural state. In addition, organic foods do not need to be 100% organic to be labeled as that, and this needs to change. There should be a new labeling system that gives numbers that correspond with the “level” of organic ingredients, as well as how the food was produced. For example, a rating of five could mean that all of the components of the product are organic, and all of the fertilizers came from local, natural sources (such as animal manure). On the other hand, a rating of one would indicate that no aspects of the product are organic. Similarly, there should be labels on all products containing GMOs and hormones. If people saw how prevalent they are in our food, more people would be concerned and demand change in agriculture. Companies do not want you to know this information, so we should petition our representatives to create new policies. Perhaps if they hear the people speak directly to them, they will understand the gravity of the situation. Additionally, as consumers, we can boycott companies that are a part of the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association’s movement against GMO labeling. General Mills, Coca-Cola, and Cargill are among the “Terrible Twenty.” If readers are interested, they can visit theboycottlist.org for more.

There is no reason that we should have so many disease outbreaks, and there are better solutions than just dousing the meat with chemicals. If the government regulates how many animals can be in a square foot at once and fines those who do not follow these regulations, animals will be treated better, and meat will be safer to consume. Kevin’s Law must be implemented in order to regulate the safety of these facilities so that everyone is safer and healthier. We should work to shift laws at the state level first because states are generally more responsive to environmental issues. If more and more states set standards for agriculture, companies will have no choice but to change.

Campaign finance laws must be reformed for the sake of the American people. Currently, politicians listen to corporate interests over their constituents, and it is causing people and the environment to suffer. Therefore, if stricter laws are passed regarding campaign donations, corporations will hold a smaller grip on government officials, and we will have a safer and healthier future. The same goes for lobbying laws. This is obviously a large undertaking, but if environmental groups start working with other public activist organizations, together, they can put more pressure on elected officials to change the laws. Then again, it is unlikely that laws will change given that it is the elected officials who are benefitting from campaign finances.

The world is suffering from the effects of the Green Revolution, and people are at the mercy of massive corporations for food. It seems like we are stuck in this system, and there are few ways to eat ethically. Many of the solutions that I propose are based on government action, and they seem unlikely to work in a system that is historically unresponsive to environmental concerns. However, I am not sure what other ways there are to institute sweeping regulations on industries. Pressuring states to shift their policies first seems more realistic than pressuring the federal government. Regardless, it is up to us to begin making changes and to speak out about the injustices of the food industry for the safety of ourselves and others.

Word Count: 2173

Question: To what extent has organic farming been implemented outside the U.S.?

Diagrams:

Benefits of organic agriculture

The rise of pesticide use globally

Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia has been lauded for its organic and humane practices.

Works Cited:

Mason, Melanie D. 2013. “Effects Of Industrialized Agriculture On Drinking Water Supply.” The Health Education Monograph Series 30, no. 2: 53-56.

Chait, Jennifer. 2019. “Largest Organic Retailers in North America.” Updated November 20, 2019. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/organic-retailers-in-north-america-2011-2538129.

#environment #environmentalism #documentary #pesticides #fertilizer #soil #organic #sustainability

[gretamclaughlin]

Saving Ecosystems to Save Ourselves

I left off speaking about the decrease in biodiversity worldwide and efforts to reverse this trend, specifically the species and ecosystem approaches. The most recent content surrounds aquatic biodiversity loss as well as modern agriculture and issues with food security, which often relate to decreases in biodiversity. Industrialized farming methods to feed a growing population often harm the environment, and we must search for new ways to feed billions of people. As in many cases, human activity is damaging the earth, and we exploit resources in an unsustainable manner, affecting ourselves and other organisms.

Humans are degrading valuable aquatic habitats, which then harms marine and freshwater species. As humans continue to create coastal developments, pollute, and emit greenhouse gases, oceans’ conditions worsen. For example, through coral bleaching, the number of warm-water coral reefs, which are centers of biodiversity, is decreasing rapidly. Increases in ocean acidification, temperature, and overall pollution affect the ocean’s services and food webs. Perhaps most significantly, human activity is killing phytoplankton. This organism is not only an important food source for many species, but it also produces a significant percentage of the oxygen on earth and absorbs CO2, thus mitigating the effects of emissions. In addition, with growing food insecurity, some people are pointing to phytoplankton as an alternative food source (Moore-Ede 2017). Therefore, reducing the phytoplankton population might be even more detrimental to future generations than it was first thought to be; we are actively destroying our food. Although we may not see the impact of our actions at first, harming organisms like phytoplankton has major effects on ocean ecosystems, the biosphere, and our ability to live on earth in the future. It is essential to emphasize the consequences for humans if we destroy oceans to gain more support for action against climate degradation. This human-centered approach may cause more people to back environmental initiatives.

The film Albatross highlights the consequences of human activity regarding waste. As a result of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, many birds have ingested a lethal amount of plastic. The visuals are heartbreaking, and the filmmaker does an excellent job appealing to emotions and pointing out how devastating human actions are. Many parts appear dystopian. Watching films like these make viewers reflect on their role in such tragedies.

Overfishing is a significant issue, and humans are depleting the world’s fisheries through unsustainable exploitation. The rise of industrial fishing has dually increased the number of fish caught and the use of harmful equipment. For example, trawlers destroy habitats on the ocean floor, and nets kill a significant number of bycatch, sea turtles, and dolphins. I believe it is important to use these “cute” organisms to promote saving the oceans (species approach). More people are attracted to saving sea turtles and dolphins than just an ordinary fish. Therefore, if we encourage them to work to save their preferred organisms, the effects of legislation and grassroots efforts can also help less known/less liked organisms, thus helping entire ecosystems. Those trying to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge used this tactic to emphasize the effect of drilling on polar bears to gain more support against exploiting the refuge.

In a previous blog post, I spoke about the rise of industrial fishing in Senegal, specifically the impact of foreign fishing boats. They depleted Senegal’s resources and escalated food insecurity. To make matters worse, most of the fish are being turned into fishmeal, so the Senegalese cannot even eat the fish taken from them. Efforts to expel foreign entities from their waters have not been very effective, and the Senegalese government is taking more aggressive measures, such as the implementation of highly trained combative forces, to curb this issue. Regardless, it will take a long time before fish populations return to previous levels.

The aquatic biodiversity situation is disheartening because international laws and treaties can only do so much. The high seas are largely unregulated, and treaties mostly rely on pure faith that other governments will do the right thing. Any strategies, like sanctions, to enforce these policies are unlikely to be employed when it comes to environmental laws. It makes me wonder if there is any hope for saving the world’s ecosystems. After all, it is a global effort to preserve biodiversity, and many nations frankly do not care enough to make real change.

Food insecurity is increasing, especially in developing nations, and environmental degradation intensifies the issue. As a result, many impoverished people cannot access food, which affects their health. People suffer from brain damage and illnesses due to malnutrition. The U.S. faces issues with food deserts, and the poor cannot access affordable, healthy food. People experience “overnutrition,” leading to obesity, diabetes, and other related illnesses. In the area surrounding Rose Hill, there are few grocery stores that stock inexpensive and fresh fruits and vegetables, and you are more likely to find a fast food restaurant than a healthy eatery. If you travel to the Upper West Side, you will find Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and farmers markets galore because the area is wealthier. It is unfair because everyone should be afforded a healthy lifestyle. In the U.S. and globally, there is an issue of food justice, and people cannot access basic necessities because of the money they have.

As a result of the Green Revolution, food production has increased over the last century, which has been integral in sustaining the growing global population. Despite higher crop yields, the expansion of industrialized agriculture has hidden costs from environmental and health consequences. This “revolution” ushered in a period of dependence on genetically modified foods, chemicals, and technology, and it has resulted in high water usage and high outputs of emissions from energy usage, cultivation, and animal husbandry. As prices are driven down through government subsidies and technological advancements, more Americans eat meat than in the past. This has disastrous effects, and agriculture as a whole makes up a significant percentage of U.S. water use and emissions. Additionally, according to the Center for Health Journalism, the growth hormones and antibiotics prevalent in many American animal products have been linked to increasingly early puberty in girls (Rosenberg 2016). While many European countries have taken more precautionary approaches to food additives, the U.S. has decided to move forward with them (Germinal Organic 2018). This phenomenon brings about a complicated question: should we continue to modify food to feed the world? It seems like we have few other options to prevent mass hunger, despite potentially adverse health effects. At least, this is what companies tell us. In response to industrialized agriculture, there have been calls to lean on organic agriculture, which does not use synthetic pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, or genetically engineered seed varieties. Although industrialized agriculture may seem like a solution now, it appears that it will not be one long-term. We need to begin experimenting with other farming methods that do not degrade the environment to create a future for everyone on earth.

Immediate steps must be taken to prevent the widespread destruction of earth’s ecosystems. Although international treaties cannot be enforced on the same level as federal laws, they can be important in countries taking steps to prevent overfishing and aquatic degradation in general. Such policies cause nations to reflect on their actions and change how they view the environment. Citizens of participating countries also have standards to hold their government to, which is crucial for grassroots organizing. The expansion of marine protected areas through treaties, which have had significant benefits in promoting the growth of populations and biodiversity, is integral in creating focused approaches to preserving the ocean.

Regarding fishing, governments need to become more active in preventing exploitation, which will have future health and environmental benefits. Ending subsidies to commercial fishing companies will decrease exploitation. Governments can direct subsidies to sustainable fishing efforts or fishing subsidies can be removed as a whole. After all, I am unsure if there is truly sustainable fishing when it disrupts natural ecosystems. Governments also must intervene by setting fishing seasons, quotas for species, and standards for fishing equipment to prevent habitat loss and the deaths of organisms not meant to be caught. More people will have access to fishing by instituting more catch-share systems, and it will be less exploitative as well. Aquaculture also needs to be regulated, and fish farmers should reduce the amount of antibiotics and pesticides they use. People “voting with their wallets” will be important when it comes to this because it is difficult for the government to regulate foreign fish imports. Certainly, authorities should enforce these efforts, and governments should institute programs to train people to monitor fishing. After all, when Senegal introduced its restrictions, foreign boats ignored them because of the lack of law enforcement. Quasi-military forces and protocols might be necessary. If we do not save the environment, we do not save ourselves.

Governments must institute mandates and subsidies that promote sustainable farming practices. Many of these should lean on traditional methods, such as requiring farmers to plant polycultures, which will lessen the need for fertilizer and water and prevent all the crops from being wiped out by a single disease. Further efforts to prevent agrobiodiversity will also be important in diversifying and strengthening our food security. Additionally, promoting organic agriculture will benefit people’s health and the environment, and subsidizing this farming method will lower prices and enable people in poverty to access cleaner food. As mentioned in a previous blog post, the U.S. government’s current subsidizing of mainstream food has caused it to be more accessible than healthier options. This has created an unhealthy and overweight population. If grassroots organizations can gain support to reduce the prices of organic food, they will be more successful in petitioning federal and state governments to change how they use their money. People can also pressure companies to provide healthier options; if it seems like a good economic opportunity, corporations will listen to customers.

Soil conservation is also important, and organic fertilizers and standards for agroforestry, terracing, strip-cropping, and more will prevent soil erosion and maintain soil fertility. However, farmers are unlikely to implement these methods on their own because they can seem costly at first. Why would one reduce the crops they grow for the soil? There must be free, local programs run by local governments and grassroots organizations that educate farmers on the importance of soil fertility and sustainability efforts. These programs should highlight the long-term benefits of soil conservation efforts and how current farming practices will ultimately lead to economic loss.

Urban gardens, which grassroots organizations often implement, can help with food deserts and promote biophilia. In Newark, NJ, the Greater Newark Conservancy runs education programs on agriculture and provides inexpensive plots for people to grow food (Greater Newark Conservancy, n.d.). These programs get people outside and better their health in the process by providing organic food. In addition, connecting people with nature causes them to care more for the environment, and urban gardening programs will generate greater support for green causes, which helps further the goals of grassroots organizations in communities and in the government.

As I often speak about, Fordham must divest from Aramark, which uses unsustainable practices to get its food. This is something that the Climate Impact Initiative is actively working on. Most Aramark food is not fresh and must be stored in freezers for long periods, wasting energy. In addition, although Aramark claims to use local food, more stringent standards need to be placed to make more of the food come from closer by and support local, organic farms, which helps with the environmental cost of food transportation and cultivation. Fordham should also lean on its environmental history to expand its gardens and increase the number of fresh fruits and vegetables available. These can be sold to students, staff, and the community, and profits can be reinvested in the garden itself.

People must take personal responsibility for their consumption of foods and attempt to eat vegetarian more often or completely switch their diets to vegetarianism. Meat consumption is entirely unsustainable, and if more people stop eating meat, we can save animals’ lives and the environment. I recently became a vegetarian, and although it has been difficult, it gets easier with time. More than anything, I am angry that I did not begin eating like this earlier because I have always had the means to do so. This is another aspect of why we need to have healthier, fresh food available to impoverished people—they will be able to eat vegetarian too.

We must all take accountability for the consequences of our actions on earth’s ecosystems. Current agricultural and fishing practices have made eating completely unsustainable, and many of our activities often have a cascade effect on food webs. We must change how we obtain food now in order to save the human race’s ability to live in the future.

Word Count: 2147

Question: How can we institute full-cost pricing in agriculture while ensuring that those who are less well-off can afford healthy food?

Diagrams:

What it takes to make a quarter-pound hamburger

U.S. meat consumption per person in pounds

Much of New York City lacks access to healthy food

The disgusting state of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Works Cited:

Moore Ede, Piers. 2017. “Could Marine Phytoplankton Be The Future Of Human Nutrition?” Published April 20, 2017. https://www.spiritofchange.org/could-marine-phytoplankton-be-the-future-of-human-nutrition/.

Rosenberg, Martha. 2016. “Precocious puberty in girls is increasing and alarming.” Published June 20, 2016. https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/2016/06/22/precocious-puberty-girls-increasing-and-alarming.

Germinal Organic. 2018. “EU Versus US: A Closer Look at Food Standards.” Published February 20, 2018. http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-closer-look-at-food-standards/.

Greater Newark Conservancy. n.d. “Join Plot It Fresh.” Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.citybloom.org/programs/urban-agriculture/plot-it-fresh/registration.html.

#agriculture #food justice #environment #nyc #brooklyn #environmentalism #fordham

[gretamclaughlin]

The Path Forward: Preserving Biodiversity

Across the globe, humans are destroying the environment at an alarming rate, and more areas are degraded daily. Biodiversity is declining rapidly, and we may soon reach an ecological tipping point and collapse ecosystems. According to the Geo Beats video, humans have caused an over 50% loss in global wildlife, mostly due to habitat destruction and consumption. According to the textbook, the current extinction rate is 1000x the natural background extinction rate, and conditions are worsening. For these reasons, people have begun to focus on conservation, utilizing different methods that align with their environmental worldviews.

Some prefer the species approach, which focuses on saving specific species rather than entire ecosystems. People investigate the factors leading to the decline of a species and attempt to rectify the issues. This approach involves handling invasive species, which can destroy biodiversity and ecosystems. These organisms come to new habitats on cargo ships, packaging, and more, but some organisms are deliberately introduced. The wild boar was brought to the U.S. for hunting; however, it has become a threat to habitats and other organisms. According to the USDA, wild boars cause an estimated $2.5 billion in damage in the U.S. annually, and the population is increasing (ABC 7 Chicago 2020). Invasive species are difficult to control and detrimental to native species, often out-competing them. The species approach can be used to address invasive species by creating individual courses of action to remove them, which would have positive effects on the natural ecosystems.

Advocates for the species approach also focus on the poaching and illegal transport of exotic animals, some of which come into the U.S. This has led to populations of animals, like the white rhino, to decrease rapidly. This issue came to light with the Netflix docuseries Tiger King. Joe Exotic, the head of an exotic animal park in Oklahoma, held species like orangutans and tigers, and the animals lived in squalor and neglect. Unfortunately, many viewers only focused on the drama behind everything instead of the mistreatment of exotic animals. It is devastating to see how little people care about fellow organisms today, and perhaps the species approach can appeal to people’s emotions and attract them to the general environmental justice movement.

This view of preserving biodiversity speaks to current issues like overfishing, which often plays into social and political problems. The water surrounding Senegal, once rich with fish, is now depleted (BBC 2018). The people of Senegal and surrounding countries depend on these organisms for protein; however, European and Asian trawlers working on the coast continue to exploit their resources. Their boats often violate preservation laws. Hunger and poverty are worsening, and many Senegalese are hopeless for the future. Evidently, specifically focusing on preserving fish can benefit ecosystems and reduce political conflicts.

By preventing the loss of one species, we avoid the loss of others that depend on them and valuable ecosystem services. For example, if bees are wiped out, flowers cannot be pollinated, affecting agriculture and other organisms that depend on these plants. Additionally, these services support human economies and are important to people’s health and well-being through medicine and biophilia. Ecotourism is also lucrative, which would suffer as a result of a further decline in wildlife.

However, the species approach is problematic, and followers often go about preservation in an anthropogenic manner. The approach frequently focuses on species that are visually appealing and generally useful to people. I agree with this assessment because advocates often just care for a particular species rather than preserving ecosystems. They do not truly want to preserve the earth but only organisms that they like. Additionally, many people do not consider saving keystone species, which would cause significant damage and even collapse if they were not present. They instead focus on less important, but perhaps better liked, species. Furthermore, certain species-centered methods could devolve into mere entertainment, such as zoos, instead of actually working to protect organisms. However, in my opinion, at least people are caring about some degree of the environment, and we can take advantage of this interest to spur further action supporting environmental causes. A species approach can be a gateway to caring more about the environment as a whole. When I was in elementary school, I learned about how pandas were endangered. Although larger issues were occurring at the time, this knowledge inspired greater interest in me for all animals, and I believe it affected my later concern for the environment. The species approach can be used as a means to an end, but it is definitely not the most sound method for saving the environment.

The textbook also speaks about the ecosystem approach, which advocates for preserving biodiversity by saving large-scale ecosystems and biomes. This handles the more general issues first, which will then affect the smaller issues, like individual species. With this approach in mind, the textbook speaks about forests and certain threats to them. Forests provide habitats for about ⅔ of earth’s terrestrial species, and they reduce CO2 levels, moderate earth’s climate, purify water, and more. Unfortunately, human activities, such as logging, degrade these areas and their services. Implementing tree plantations has helped curb deforestation rates. However, these commercial forests, which are viewed as a more sustainable option, lack diversity and do not provide quality habitats. Additionally, disease can quickly wipe out monocultures. Clearly, human solutions cannot easily replace natural ecosystems. We must work to preserve nature before it is too late; everyone depends on the environment’s services.

Protecting natural areas, especially biodiversity hotspots, is key in saving ecosystems. The U.S. has a system of refuges, national parks, and more aimed at preserving the earth. However, these areas often lack the legal backing to truly be safeguarded. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is home to populations of caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, and hundreds more species, and indigenous people rely on them for food (The Wilderness Society, n.d.). However, the Trump Administration sought to lease the land to oil companies for drilling, which would completely degrade the climate. Only a few leases ended up selling; however, this opens up the area to further sales, and animals, plants, and people are at risk because of this decision. Greater legal protections need to be instituted to prevent decisions like these, and grassroots organizations should continue fighting to keep natural areas natural. With enough support, we can influence how the government handles its land.

The UN Convention on Biodiversity previously passed plans to combat declining biodiversity, including the Nagoya Protocol, the Cartagena Protocol, and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which created the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Unfortunately, according to the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5, little progress has occurred. Worldwide, none of the 20 targets have been fully achieved. A higher proportion of marine fish are overfished, wilderness areas continue to decline, and governments subsidize fossil fuels, fertilizers, and pesticides. The current policies in place are not enough to combat biodiversity, and international treaties have shown to be unsuccessful. We must rely more on our state governments to make changes in preserving biodiversity because we are likely to have a greater influence upon them than on the national level. Additionally, states have a history of being more responsive to environmental needs than the federal government.

Prompt solutions are necessary in order to combat declining biodiversity. Deforestation is a widespread issue requiring immediate attention, especially due to its prevalence. China’s payments for ecosystem services program rewards people who stop logging and reforest logged lands. In a heavily deforested country, this is a significant step to prevent further degradation and restore the land. Wangari Maathai’s initiative in Kenya, which developed into the Green Belt Movement, organized impoverished women to plant and protect trees. In a similar way to China’s method, people could make money while restoring the environment. Initiatives like these allow people to transfer their work from unsustainable fields into more sustainable ones while supporting themselves and their families. If more governments implement programs that incentivize sustainable solutions, the rate of deforestation will decrease. We should approach this issue from a state scale because it would likely have quicker results, and states may be more in tune with specific environmental problems. Regardless of the level of government, officials need to be shown the benefits of reforesting land instead of perpetually degrading it. Grassroots organizations are also important in this reforestation effort, and with proper funding, they can create tree-planting programs similar to those mentioned.

Deforestation is fueled by the use of wood in unsustainable manners, and a majority of the wood taken from forests ends up being wasted. Excessive packaging, improper recycling, junk mail, and more cause unnecessary numbers of trees to be chopped down. If we can implement greater regulations for packaging (such as allowing only recycled materials), waste will lessen. In addition, governments and grassroots organizations should implement more robust recycling programs. At Fordham, most people I talk to do not recycle, and they place everything together in the trash, not caring about their effect on the environment. Through the Climate Impact Initiative, we can implement free programs that explain to students proper recycling methods and their importance in decreasing our environmental impact. If we could work with certain professors to offer extra credit for attending this program, more people would be involved. In addition, dining establishments at Fordham use a copious amount of paper boxes and bags, none of which are recyclable once they have food or grease on them. I understand that COVID-19 complicates these issues, but many carry-out establishments normally use this amount of paper products. Furthermore, like many other colleges and universities, Fordham sends out a significant amount of mail to attract potential students. When I received college letters, I recycled all of them, and they were completely unnecessary and could have been sent in an email. It is on us to begin initiatives to reduce paper waste, and we need to call on our schools and governments to change the way they use and recycle paper. We also need to encourage our peers to be more aware of their impact on the earth and stop using paper plates, napkins, etc. Promoting further usage of non-tree-based paper, such as kenaf, can also help with this problem.

Implementing full-cost pricing on lumber, oil, and other resources can help reduce the environmental degradation resulting from extracting them. By adding the environmental impact to the prices of such resources, fewer people will purchase them and will instead lean on more sustainable options, such as renewable energy. As a result, the demand for these resources will decrease, so their extraction will also decrease, thus reducing degradation. To make up for this deficit of energy sources, the government should implement subsidies for renewable energy. Wind turbines, solar panels, and more provide sustainable solutions to the energy problem in the U.S. and do not interfere as much with ecosystems. Certainly, the government has been lackadaisical in the past when it comes to switching to cleaner energy, and pressure needs to come from the bottom up to achieve energy targets. If the people vote for candidates who will fight for renewable sources and consistently lobby officials to support favorable legislation, such policies will be more likely to pass. Joe Biden is working to increase renewable energy in the U.S., and although there has been pushback, I am hopeful that progress will be made.

Stricter laws on overfishing in the U.S. and abroad will prove to be integral in keeping waters stocked. These laws could limit the types and number of fish one can catch and limit the time of year to catch them. However, significant resources need to be allocated to enforce these laws through trained agents who can survey both the land and the sea. In addition, fish markets should also be monitored to ensure that illegal fish are not being sold. Imported fish, many of which come from Asia, need to also be checked to ensure they follow American guidelines. International treaties regarding fishing may be necessary in preventing the exploitation of the high seas and reducing conflicts. However, these treaties are difficult to enforce. Regardless, efforts should still be pursued in the chance that they do work.

Wildlife refuges need to expand to protect more land, both in the U.S. and worldwide. In addition, these areas need to have greater legal protection to prevent drilling and other forms of exploitation, which is what occurred with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Hopefully, the Biden administration will make moves to do so; however, grassroots organizations should still help alter public opinion and pressure those in power to implement greater protections on wilderness areas. Even in protected areas like the U.S. National Park System, humans are degrading the area with their activities. Therefore, limits on who can use paths, heavy fines for violations of rules, and limitations on camping and development within the parks can help curb these growing issues.

People need to invest in more native landscaping in their yards to improve sustainability and promote biodiversity. By growing native plants, one mimics the natural environment and creates habitats for species. These plants also require less water, fertilizers, and pesticides than lawns, and they can be integral in preventing soil erosion. If local, state, and federal governments issue tax credits to people planting native species in their yards as opposed to grass, more people would be incentivized to make the switch. It might be difficult to convince the government to do so right now, but as the condition of the environment worsens and consequences become more visible, perhaps more officials will understand this need. Grassroots organizations will also be integral in educating people about the importance of populating their land with native species and should also explain the economic benefits of doing so (less upkeep necessary). Although the typical, American Dream-style grassy lawn can be inviting, it is our responsibility to do what we can to preserve biodiversity.

At Fordham, we should petition the administration to make improvements in the vegetation on campus. Some of the trees and plants are non-native, and it seems that a lot of the landscaping is just placed randomly with no regard for ecosystems. Additionally, though appealing to some, the presence of vast grass space has a significant impact on the environment. If we can convince the Fordham administration to change how they view landscaping, more native plants (and plants in general) will be grown, and we can help renew the biodiversity that once existed in this area. In the future, the Rose Hill campus could maybe even act as a refuge for organisms who would not survive otherwise in New York City due to urbanization.

Worldwide, biodiversity is a growing issue, and despite the actions of some individuals, groups, and governments, overall, the earth’s species are continuing to decline. It is up to us to protect the resources that we currently have and restore those we have degraded. We should focus more on employing the ecosystem approach rather than the species approach to create more comprehensive solutions to the biodiversity problem. Although preserving ecosystems requires us to make changes in our own lives, we must do so in order to protect the environment for all living in it, ourselves included.

Word Count: 2544

Question: Have there been instances where the species approach preserves an entire ecosystem’s biodiversity?

Diagrams:

Backyard using native plants

Decline in the amount of fish caught in Saint Louis, Senegal

Before and after shots of the restoration of China’s Loess Plateau

Wild boars have infested almost every region of the U.S.

Works Cited:

ABC 7 Chicago. 2020. “‘Feral swine bomb’: American feral hog population is ballooning, USDA reports.” ABC, September 21, 2020. https://abc7chicago.com/feral-hogs-swine-super-pigs-damage-caused-by/6484138/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Department,in%20the%20U.S.%20each%20year.

BBC. 2018. “‘Fish are vanishing’ - Senegal’s devastated coastline.” BBC, November 1, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-46017359.

The Wilderness Society. n.d. “Oil Drilling: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” Accessed April 6, 2021. https://www.wilderness.org/wild-places/alaska/oil-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge.

#biodiversity #preservation #invasive species #ecosystem #environment #sustainability #environmentalism #fordham #nyc

[gretamclaughlin]

Reform and Restructuring for a Greener Future

Overpopulation and overconsumption are becoming direr environmental problems as time goes on, and steps must be taken immediately to curb these interrelated issues. Chris Jordan’s photography displays the sheer level of human consumption, and the problem is exacerbated by rapidly growing populations. Similar to the impossible hamster, human economies cannot keep growing forever, and at some point in the future, we will destroy ourselves. Earth’s resources are finite and need to be treated as such. Today, the human ecological footprint is expanding as we reach late-stage capitalism. There is widespread environmental degradation and changes in nature, communities, and economies, and people are calling for new systems to evaluate said issues.

Developing nations’ populations are increasing at astounding rates, and one must understand and handle poverty to deal with this issue and improve the environment for people across the world. Studies have shown that even an elementary level of education causes women to reproduce less, and they have greater opportunities to support themselves outside of a husband. Unfortunately, in many developing nations, women cannot obtain an education. Therefore, improving schooling is integral in population control. Furthermore, birth control and family planning resources need to become more accessible, so fewer women and couples are forced to have children and fewer unsafe abortions occur. This would also facilitate improvements in other areas of health like controlling the spread of HIV. If these nations can improve their social safety nets and implement greater public benefits like pensions, birth rates would also decrease because women would not have to rely on children to support them. Certainly, these methods would improve the well-being of people across the world, and it would also benefit the environment and the budgets of nations, as reducing poverty saves money. It is intriguing to view environmental issues in a wider social context, and I appreciate how the textbook mentions how certain issues affect several spheres, such as economics and healthcare.

Some advocate for the implementation of a steady-state economy to reduce overconsumption and exploitation, which would create permanent economic restrictions, like limits on income and wealth. However, this theory has its faults, and regulations may govern fertility rates and more. Between 1979 and 2015, China implemented the one-child policy and distributed benefits, many of which were basic human necessities, to those who followed the policy (BBC, n.d.). Although China’s birth rate fell significantly during this time, many view it as inhumane. Female babies were sometimes killed due to gender, and some women were forced to have abortions or be sterilized. In the U.S., instances of forced hysterectomies of migrants at ICE detention centers are examples of flagrant human rights violations and attempts to institute eugenics (Project South 2020). Past population and economic control attempts resemble Huxleyan societies in which only “the best” are allowed to survive. I view these tactics as violations of human rights, and they take policies that could be beneficial (like family planning) to the extreme. The implications of such approaches are heinous and dystopian.

Some favor degrowth to reduce overconsumption. The theory advocates for shifting societies’ values to ones that are no longer based on material wealth. In such degrowth societies, sustainable agriculture is emphasized, and having necessities is deemed as more important than amassing great wealth. In a plenitude economy, like the video shows, people view the earth in a less extractive manner and do not strive for endless growth; there are less wealth inequalities and environmental issues as a result. “The Good Life” parable depicts a man who earns enough money to support his family and is quite happy with his decisions, despite not being wealthy. In a previous post, I spoke about Aude, France and how there has been a revitalization of rural communities; these small villages are generally sustainable. People lead full lives, and they are not suffocated by many of the trials of modern life. I have always thought about living like this, and residing in New York City’s metropolitan area for my entire life has definitely affected me negatively. I am harmed by the constant pressure and competition, and I spend most of my days inside studying, so I can have a good career, so I can make money. This does not seem like a well-lived life, but there are few other options. I have always dreamed of moving to a sustainable commune because, in my mind, humans are not meant to live the way that they do now. We need to take down capitalist systems as a whole if we want to return to a more community-driven lifestyle.

Worldwide, urbanization is expanding, and people are leaving rural areas for cities and suburbs. Unfortunately, these regions are largely unsustainable, and widespread pollution and environmental degradation occur both within and outside the city to support it. Cities need to become more sustainable for both environmental and health reasons. Governments should implement mixed-use neighborhoods to reduce reliance on cars and foster community. In New Jersey, the Transit Village Initiative aims to develop areas around public transportation (State of New Jersey 2019). There are 33 transit villages today, and it has caused more people to use public transit and revitalized downtowns. Unfortunately, my town did not opt into the initiative, and local businesses are suffering, and few people use public transportation. In Singapore, the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 has created numerous 20-minute neighborhoods (Government of Singapore 2020). People can shop, eat, and visit the doctor within minutes, and cycling paths and high-speed transportation connect the city for longer commutes. In New York City, PlaNYC set out goals to improve mass transit. Transition Towns also provide an alternative to environmentally degrading living on a local level, and if the network is expanded more, the towns can have a significant impact. New communities need to avoid urban sprawl, and cluster developments keep natural features and improve human health.

At the Guggenheim Museum, a recent exhibition highlighted human communities, urbanization, and the revitalization of rural areas (Office for Metropolitan Architecture 2020). Spearheaded by Rem Koolhas, one section of the exhibit featured modern Chinese villages. People live in apartment complexes in rural areas, and they have quick access to food, schools, and more. Residents work on small, personal farms with relatively short workdays, and they enjoy a sense of community. Outside of cities, these people connect more with nature, satisfying biophilia.

Action needs to be taken immediately, but many governments are lackadaisical when it comes to pursuing green initiatives, especially when they would alter economic systems. The “American Dream” still captures many people, even ones being hurt the most by the capitalist system. Therefore, even though a top-down approach may work better, a bottom-up approach is more feasible, especially in countries like the U.S. Grassroots organizations and community groups should begin with local initiatives to both educate and alter people’s perceptions and shift the way communities are set up.

Within cities, smaller, more sustainable communities can be created. Eco-villages require residents to live in an ecologically friendly fashion, and they give people the tools to be greener in a system that makes it difficult. Although this is a small step, these eco-villages can have enormous impacts on those surrounding the communities as well, and they can inspire others to compost, reuse, and more. Establishing farmer’s markets within neighborhoods further promotes green living, and if people source more food locally, they do not pollute the earth through transportation. If organizations and the government can work with vendors to take food stamps at markets, more people will have access to healthier food, and less damage will be done to the environment. Programs to share goods, rather than buying them, are also important in creating sustainable communities. Book-sharing, toy-sharing, and tool-sharing are all examples of how goods can be lent to others, instead of people buying new ones for use for a short period of time. Certainly, community-based actions enable people to live in a greener manner, and they promote a sense of community that many are lacking in the modern world. If these groups can pressure local governments to revisit zoning laws to create more mixed-use neighborhoods, more widespread change can occur. People will rely less on cars and environmentally degrading transportation in general, thus living more sustainably.

Grassroots initiatives can offer greater access to birth control and provide sex education to fill in the government’s gaps. Providing contraceptive pills, condoms, and more and informing people on how to use them can have extensive effects. Offering these services in underserved communities will cause more people to make informed decisions about their sex lives and reproduction, reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies. In turn, this will decrease population growth and poverty and allow for women to gain greater autonomy in their lives. Certainly, a significant number of social issues are connected, and by addressing one of them, we can positively affect so many others. Of course, government intervention to help these organizations in their efforts would be ideal. Government funding to groups such as Planned Parenthood allows more people to gain access to vital resources. It also helps the government later on by reducing the number of people living in poverty who would require even more federal funding. However, the government has not shown to be the most effective when it comes to reproductive health, and often the burden falls on the people themselves. Perhaps presenting the issue through the lens of overall cost reduction would change how the government views the problem.

Additionally, we should pressure the government into implementing widespread policies on urban planning and infrastructure. This is likely the only way for the entire country to become more sustainable both now and in the future. For example, the government can allocate more funds to public transportation nationwide and in cities and states through mandates. Mandates would require areas to increase services and improve failing infrastructure, such as the constantly delayed New York City subway system. Amtrak, a current federal transportation service, is seen as a failure by many people, and the majority of the country remains disconnected. During the pandemic, service has been interrupted even more. If the government improves Amtrak and perhaps adds a nationwide high-speed rail service, fewer people will rely on cars and planes to travel domestically. Pollution will reduce, and the country will become more connected, which has significant benefits from an economic and community standpoint. Current Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg supports creating a high-speed rail system; however, it is an initiative that is often overlooked by many others in government for its price. Again, the burden might fall on grassroots groups to display to the government how upfront costs will pay off due to reduced environmental costs.

In an ideal world, we would dismantle capitalism and replace it with a system that is kinder to more people and the environment in general. It would effectively reduce wealth disparities and increase the standard of living of those currently living in poverty. For many reasons, I believe that a complete restructuring of many economic systems, including the U.S.’s, is the only way to reduce the threat of environmental degradation. We need to shift away from the greed and exploitation of capitalism and create opportunities for everyone. In a previous blog post, I spoke highly of sustainable business models. Although these are important first steps to take and can reduce environmental degradation by industries, they are not viable long-term. Sustainable businesses still seek to exploit in many ways, and many greenwash their initiatives. It is time we make an institutional change. Pressuring and lobbying the government and electing promising officials is one way to go about gradual shifts in the economic system, and these officials can implement policies that heavily regulate businesses and redistribute wealth. Widespread protest may be an important factor given that major corporations bankroll so many politicians. In this restructuring, we should not lean on steady-state eugenics initiatives to “improve” society, and we must focus on creating a fairer world for everyone.

The environment is degrading rapidly, and steps must be taken to address urbanization and extreme population growth. We are consuming the earth’s resources at a completely unsustainable rate, and we are residing in communities that do not support an environmentally friendly way of life. Institutional issues need to be rectified to save us from the impending doom that is climate change. In the meantime, we should all recognize our impacts on the environment and attempt to curb any damage that we do. It is up to everyone to create a healthier world.

Word Count: 2088

Question: How have mixed-use communities affected economic growth?

Diagrams:

Singapore’s plan provides numerous benefits to people’s well-being.

Key elements of mixed-use neighborhoods

Proposed agro-housing in Wuhan, China combines agriculture and urban amenities in a mixed-use development.

Works Cited:

BBC. n.d. “Managing population change.” Accessed March 28, 2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3grsg8/revision/1.

Project South. 2020. “ Lack of Medical Care, Unsafe Work Practices, and Absence of Adequate Protection Against COVID-19 for Detained Immigrants and Employees Alike at the Irwin County Detention Center .” https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/OIG-ICDC-Complaint-1.pdf.

State of New Jersey. 2019. “Transit Village Initiative Frequently Asked Questions.” https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/faq.shtm.

Government of Singapore. 2020. “Land Transport Master Plan 2040.” https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/our_work/land_transport_master_plan_2040.html.

Office for Metropolitan Architecture. 2020. “Countryside: The Future.” https://oma.eu/projects/countryside-the-future.

#environment #environmentalism #urban planning #singapore #capitalism #population control

[gretamclaughlin]

Practicum Reflection

At the climate practicum, I put in about six hours of work a week for Community Business Partnerships and Rams Against Aramark. For the former, I compile research on community organizations and sustainable businesses for future endeavors, and I work to advance volunteer opportunities. Currently, we are working with the Bronx River Alliance. At Rams Against Aramark, we have formed a coalition of other organizations on the Lincoln Center and Rose Hill campuses, mostly focusing on environmental clubs, and we are integrating them into our plan to divest from Aramark. I am specifically working on the social media arm of the committee to launch a campaign against the service.

I have found that this work significantly overlaps with the material in our class, specifically environmental history and philosophy. The readings on No Child Left Behind connect with Community Business Partnerships. The Bronx River Alliance is revitalizing the Bronx River and its surrounding area to create a healthier place for nearby residents, including children, to enjoy in an area lacking green space. Furthermore, the readings on environmental justice, specifically from the Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, connect to both of the committees I work on. Many Bronx residents do not have access to the same healthy environments as those living in wealthier places. The Bronx River Alliance is attempting to combat this issue by improving current spaces. By working to divest from Aramark, we are helping prevent further environmental degradation by the company, thus helping all organisms. Environmental history has guided these projects. For the Bronx River Alliance, we are attempting to return the river to its former glory, prior to intense industrialization and pollution. Additionally, we are leaning on Fordham’s environmental history to envision ways in which food can be sustainably provided, as it was when the school first opened. We are also using the administration’s sustainability plan, where it states that it is following Jesuit values, to hold it accountable. It is fulfilling to see how what we learn about in class can be applied to real projects.

#fordham #climate change #environmental studies #environmentalism #practicum #nyc #new york city

[gretamclaughlin]

The Unsustainability of the Current Capitalist System

Over the past few decades, through experiments such as Biosphere 2, scientists have found that earth’s resources are generally irreplaceable, even with technology. Therefore, people need to take responsibility for their role in environmental degradation and switch to new systems and ways of life to preserve the earth before it is too late. In the U.S. and worldwide, many people do not take action against climate change under the guise of supporting the economy. In other words, limits on development and resource usage in the name of the environment are viewed as hindrances on economic growth. However, the environment and the economy are not mutually exclusive. The economy depends on the land both directly (lumber) and indirectly (nutrient cycling), and it cannot exist without it. Unfortunately, many business and political leaders fail to realize this and continue to implement policies and perform practices that further degrade the natural world.

Currently, we are living in a system with unsustainable economic growth. The U.S.’s economy, along with many other countries’, is a high-throughput system. High-quality matter and energy resources are converted into an abundance of wastes, pollution, and low-quality heat, degrading the environment, and the human economy is seen as separate from nature, rather than a subset of it. Corporations care little about the consequences of their actions because they are not held accountable. Even more disheartening, consumers ignorantly purchase and stay in a “consumer bubble.” According to Ernest Partridge, “It appears that the American public is behaving ever more as a marketplace of consumers, and ever less as a polity—a community of citizens.” In my experience, I see people around me buying from fast fashion companies, including SHEIN. Clothing production creates massive amounts of waste, and shipping further degrades the environment. Not only that, many of these companies’ workers labor in slave-like conditions. Some people I have spoken to argue that they cannot afford other clothing and that there is “no ethical consumption under capitalism.” However, these people are just trying to hide the fact that they simply do not care. This year, I have purchased no retail clothing, and in the past couple of years, I can count on one hand the amount of retail I have purchased. Instead, I go to thrift shops where there is even more affordable, better quality clothing that does not damage the environment. People need to begin caring about other beings, and although it might be easier to continue living unsustainably as blind consumers, it is better for all of us to be more aware of our actions.

Encouraging people to care about the environment can sometimes take the form of valuing resources economically. After all, our economies are deeply entwined with the natural world, so if we put a price on natural services, perhaps more people will care. In the study “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital,” researchers valued the entire biosphere at an average of $33 trillion per year. The global gross national product total pales in comparison, averaging about $18 trillion per year. Many people only see value in goods, services, etc. if they hold some financial worth. Therefore, this method can give ecological services more weight in policy decisions and cause more people to care about degrading them. Certainly, financially valuing the environment can be controversial. How can we put a price tag on something so precious as pollination or culture? However, in order for progress to take place right now, we must turn to methods such as these to attract more people to support environmental policy.

Working under the capitalist system to improve the environment can have positive effects. The sustainable business model is becoming more popular to reduce environmental impacts of companies. The company Amana Katu presents an interesting case (Lacerda Fernandes et al. 2021). The Brazilian Amazon region has an abundance of fresh water; however, a large amount of the Brazilian population does not have access to quality drinking water. Therefore, Amana Katu partnered with NGOs, corporations, the government, and universities and leaned on the concept of a circular economy in order to create a sustainable business model and produce rainwater catchment systems. The business model touches upon the three aspects of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic), and it has been a successful venture, both for those running the company and the entire community. Certainly, this model can be applied to businesses whose product/service does not directly serve the community. If more companies strive to meet the triple bottom line and advance sustainable economic development, they can decrease or even eliminate the harm they do to the environment, without taking a hit economically. Making one’s business more sustainable is also favorable from a public relations standpoint, and as the earth warms up, more and more people are going to turn to businesses who actually care about their impacts on the world. Therefore, it is economically important to switch to a more sustainable business model in this aspect as well.

The ultimate solution for unrestrained and unsustainable economic growth across the world would be a shift to new economic systems. In Aude, France, alternative economies have risen in the form of small-scale organic farming and production (Gowan and Slocum 2014). The communities are sustainable, and people residing there “live relatively simply, finding primary fulfillment not in profits but in what they do: the ethical, communal, and aesthetic characteristics of production are ends in and of themselves.” This reality differs greatly from other areas of France and especially the U.S., and these communities are on quite a small scale. However, they can inspire us to live better and in a less materialistic manner. Their methods can even be instituted in our own communities to some degree to rely less on imports and other unsustainable means of food production and consumption. However, a change in many people’s morals would be necessary to facilitate more radical shifts such as a steady-state economy.

Environmental law can be used to regulate the economy and hold corporations accountable for environmental degradation. This sector of the law governs air and water quality, resource sustainability, and more. Correcting market failures falls under environmental law in some cases, and people must ensure that environmental issues are taken into account when considering economic expansion and development. Unfortunately, in the U.S., as well as other areas around the world, interest groups heavily influence the actions of officials. They may offer jobs after an individual leaves an agency, campaign donations, and more in order to receive favorable regulations. For example, the Trump administration’s EPA completely weakened chemical regulations in favor of chemical companies. These newly uncontrolled chemicals pose a threat to human health and nature as a whole, yet the EPA took the side of private interests instead. It is frustrating that we are supposed to live in a democracy, a government for the people, by the people, but we are all at the mercy of oligarchic overlords.

Humans must immediately take steps to prevent further unsustainable business practices and environmental degradation in general. Because many people do not care for the environment for moral reasons, the government must implement policies to curb these issues. In general, those in power should follow the precautionary principle. This means that when there is evidence that an action is harmful to human health or the environment, actions must be taken to prevent further damage, even if the issue or connection is not fully confirmed scientifically. This is controversial, and many individuals do not want their actions restricted “just in case.” However, we must follow this principle if we want to be proactive in slowing climate change. Time is running out, and if something seems like an issue, we should stop it before the problem grows. For example, with Freons, the government did not enforce regulations for a long time and only did when the ozone layer had already severely deteriorated. If only something had been done earlier.

Corporations must work to become more sustainable and follow the triple bottom line principle, balancing economic, environmental, and social needs of companies to reduce or eliminate their effects on the environment. However, it is unlikely that many businesses will move to becoming more sustainable on their own. After all, degrading the environment is easy and quite profitable. Therefore, the government needs to implement heavy regulations that require them to switch their practices. These regulations can include limiting the number of natural resources a company can take and introducing high taxes on emissions, which would pose an economic burden on businesses if they do not switch to better models. Germany’s economy became significantly more sustainable by imposing regulations early on and giving companies time to come up with their own solutions to the new regulations. Today, these businesses run on a much more ecologically friendly basis, and they have emerged as innovators in green technology and sustainable business.

This is a common idea throughout many of my blog posts, but it is integral that the U.S. government changes its recipients of subsidies. Currently, many nonrenewable energy companies receive significant subsidies, which lower their prices. However, if these subsidies are transferred to the renewable energy industry, more companies will participate in the production of clean energy, and more companies will be willing to purchase this inexpensive energy. Along with this, the government should introduce full-cost pricing, thus accounting for the environmental impacts of energy sources like coal. If this is implemented, nonrenewable energy prices will significantly increase, and this energy will become economically unsustainable, thus forcing certain energy producers to switch to cleaner methods. A feed-in tariff system like Germany’s could make the renewable energy industry more accessible and thus more successful. Furthermore, green fees on gasoline should be instituted to lessen people’s usage of gas-guzzling automobiles. This is an example of full-cost pricing, and a heavy tax would cover the environmental costs of extracting and using it. In addition, taxes would be reduced or removed on income, wealth, and more. Implementing these fees nationwide would be an incentive for many consumers to use less gas, purchase fuel-efficient, hybrid, and electric cars, and use public transportation, bike, and walk. 

Government policies establishing eco-labeling requirements could cause consumers to think more about their purchases and buy more sustainable options. Items would be marked according to their impact on the environment, including pollution, pesticide use, and more. If this became a standard, like with nutrition labels, more people would buy from ecologically-friendly companies. In addition, more businesses would switch to green means of production in order to better their image and increase sales. This is an initiative that could start on the local, then state, and finally national level in order to gain support.

As a whole, citizens need to hold the government accountable for its actions and its systems. The EPA must be reformed in order to serve people better. In a previous blog post, I spoke about the prevalence of Superfund sites in Newark, NJ. The EPA eventually became involved in the struggle, yet the agency did not do much at all. It stated that a site was too toxic to be cleaned by the standard methods, so it did not touch it. Meanwhile, marginalized people are risking their health living and working near the site daily. There is an outstanding lack of care by the EPA and many other federal agencies when it comes to human health and environmental degradation, and individuals must call out these groups when injustice occurs. Campaign finance laws also need to be reformed because they are the root of many government officials refusing to keep the best interest of the people in mind. Instead of caring about their lives, state actors listen to the corporate interests that bankrolled their campaigns, and limitations on funding must be implemented to prevent further corruption.

At Fordham University, it is our job as students to make this campus more sustainable since the administration is lackadaisical when it comes to environmental issues. Instituting a green fee in the tuition is a great first place to start in order to provide funding specifically for sustainability efforts. In addition, Fordham needs to divest its endowment from fossil fuels. No amount of solar panels or LEED-certified buildings can erase the fact that the school is actively contributing to the destruction of the planet, and the administration must be held accountable in this respect. Reinvesting in renewable energy is a better idea. Furthermore, the school must separate itself from Aramark. The corporation has a laundry list of human rights and environmental abuses, and it is getting paid the big bucks to serve us terrible food. As mentioned in a previous blog, I am working on the Rams Against Aramark committee to try to remove this corporation’s influence from our school.

In my eyes, it seems unlikely that a moral revolution will take place regarding the environment, at least before it is too late. Therefore, we must take other steps to regulate those who are destroying our planet, launching campaigns and slapping them with fines and maybe even jail sentences.

Word Count: 2179

Question: Do any countries currently have a steady-state economy? If so, how did they make the switch to it?

Diagrams:

2020 Congressional campaign contributions by oil and gas companies

A majority of the U.S. wants to switch to cleaner energy, but the government is not listening.

Sustainable businesses benefit the environment and the companies themselves.

The unsustainability of fast fashion

Works Cited:

Gowan, Teresa and Rachel Slocum. 2014. “Artisanal Production, Communal Provisioning, and Anticapitalist Politics in the Aude, France.” In Sustainable Lifestyles and the Quest for Plenitude: Case Studies of the New Economy. New Haven: Yale University Press. EBSCOhost.

Lacerda Fernandes, José Augusto, José Milton de Sousa-Filho, and Fernando Luiz Emerenciano Viana. 2021. “Sustainable Business Models in a Challenging Context: The Amana Katu Case.” Journal of Contemporary Administration 25, no. 3: 1-17. EBSCOhost.

#environmental studies #environmentalism #fast fashion #shein #fordham #nj #superfund #sustainable business #sustainability #campaign finance #corporations

[gretamclaughlin]

Intellectual Greening: Using Philosophy and Ethics for a Sustainable Future

The readings speak about various environmental worldviews and how they affect people’s relationships with nature, and they delve into the importance of environmental ethics and education. Human-centered and earth-centered worldviews contrast, and these differences account for how one interacts with the environment. For example, the human-centered worldview is anthropogenic, and people believe that the earth can be managed and exploited for human benefit. Contrastingly, earth-centered worldviews assert that human civilization requires reform rather than the earth itself; people are a part of nature instead of in charge of it, valuing all life. Understanding these perspectives is integral in comprehending the current debate over environmental policy and action. For example, some think that the earth is a controllable resource, and capitalism can solve its problems. In acknowledging this view, people can begin taking action that incorporates aspects of each perspective. Despite disagreements, understanding and consolidating different worldviews could lead to greater support of initiatives against climate degradation, which is essential now more than ever. 

The materials speak about environmental ethics and how humans may have duties towards other humans, living now and in the future. Leopold’s Land Ethic explores extending the land ethic beyond humans to entire ecosystems, effectively shifting people into mere members, instead of masters, of the earth. Therefore, economic interests would no longer dictate land use ethics. This idea also plays into environmental citizenship, meaning people acting responsibly towards the larger ecosystem. Using ethics to support preservation efforts can yield massive benefits, reducing environmental degradation and inspiring a more concerned human society. However, pushing said agenda is another issue and begs the question of just how feasible it is to rely on potential outcomes of environmental ethics.

Intragenerational justice, another philosophical theory, obliges people to reduce environmental damage for the sake of those living right now. This theory proves to be relevant because impoverished communities are forced to bear the brunt of environmental degradation. More industrialized countries cause the greatest environmental damage; however, the effects are often felt by marginalized groups instead. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health displays that Turkana pastoralists in Kenya disproportionately face the burden of climate change, and it has forced them to abandon their livelihoods (Waila et al. 2018, 570-571). Alternative courses of action have proven to be inadequate and unsustainable. Today, the Turkana people continue to face drought, health issues, food insecurity, identity loss, and conflict that can be traced back to climate change. Contrastingly, most people in the Western world face much less significant effects of climate change and have been able to carry on with their lives as normal even though they are the ones causing pain to so many others. Case studies like Newark, NJ from previous blog posts connect this idea to those living within our own country. Therefore, intragenerational justice is timely. By promoting that people have an ethical obligation to help those who are struggling as a result of others’ activities, perhaps they will finally take action. 

Intergenerational environmental justice signifies saving the earth for future generations and adjusting our actions for the sake of those who come after us. However, there are criticisms over whether or not following this perspective is just; this theory raises complicated questions regarding whether or not it is fair to take action for the sake of future generations, especially if it affects how people currently live. The video explained that ethical obligations require people to pay greater attention to their impacts on the environment. In addition, ethics creates a new angle to promote action, apart from “value-neutral” arguments from science and economics. Environmental ethics create another way to make people care about the earth. 

Environmentalists differ in how they view the importance of ethics and philosophy in the context of the climate crisis. Deep ecologists, like Leopold, believe that people’s thinking and values must be altered to engender real change. In other words, adjusting perspectives will lead to changes in policy and individual actions towards the environment. However, I am more inclined to support environmental pragmatism, and I believe that we will never be able to agree based on values regarding saving the planet. The debate over ethics and philosophy frustrates me, and the seemingly endless arguments over ethical angles are futile. In other words, I wonder why we are fighting over if it is ethically correct to preserve the planet instead of taking action. Philosophical debates can be interesting, but they are a bit unnecessary in a situation as dire as the climate crisis. We need to unify diverse interests across the world in order to create genuine change. There is never going to be a time when enough people agree on the same environmental morals to create large-scale change. It is much more practical that the environmentalist movement consolidates various aspects of society by appealing to their interests.

People have inherent connections to the earth, and we should emphasize this connection through environmental education. The hypothesis of biophilia supports these notions, and researchers have found that nature has significant benefits to people. This has led to the No Child Left Inside movement to improve environmental education and inspire children to go outdoors. These concepts are integral in saving the planet. By highlighting nature’s role in people’s well-beings and increasing exposure to the environment, we can spur sustainability efforts. Personal experience, which can be created through improved school curriculums and outdoor initiatives, can go a long way in how one treats the earth. Growing up, my family appreciated nature, and I often explored the environment through hiking, kayaking, and more. As a result, I value nature significantly more than many of my peers who did not have the same experiences, and I am working to preserve it. According to ENN, in China, greater environmental awareness has led to decreased pollution (University of Gothenburg 2019). The general public is gaining more knowledge on climate change, but education needs to become more comprehensive because we do not have much time to save the earth.

Environmental philosophy and ethics are integral in understanding how and why people hold their views. We can use this knowledge to attract more people to the environmentalist movement. We have the tools to be more sustainable, but we need to appeal to more people to utilize them, which can be done through calls to ethics.

In general, across the world, people need to oppose legislation that promotes a human-centered worldview and exploits earth’s precious resources. In the U.S., the government continues to enact policies that bankroll private interests operating on federal lands for mining, fossil fuel extraction, and more. Clearly, grassroots movements and environmentally friendly politicians need to work to prevent further exploitative legislation. In its place, the government should implement subsidies for green energy, preservation, and environmentally-friendly farming practices. Economically, the short-term effects of such a switch appear damaging; however, by appealing to ethical quandaries, perhaps some actions can be taken.

On another note, we need to pressure the government and its officials to change campaign finance laws. Loose laws and court rulings, such as Citizens United, have allowed wealthy benefactors to control U.S. politics, both in who wins elections and what policies are passed. This has allowed for the interests of coal and oil companies to prevail. Therefore, a complete reform of these laws, limiting hard money and soft money donations to politicians and political action committees, would reduce the value of corporate interests in American politics.

People with opposing worldviews need to work together in order to create lasting solutions to the planet’s most pressing issues. Human-centered worldviews are popular, and it is often easier to focus on the fact that humans will suffer from climate change rather than taking time to talk about economically worthless plants. By being open to reconciliation, environmentalists can involve more people and inspire different interests to collaborate, taking necessary action as soon as possible. For example, one can attract businesses and governments to invest in renewable energy for economic reasons. Producing solar power, wind turbines, and more and selling the energy produced by them can be extremely lucrative. In the end, the goal to increase clean energy is still met, regardless of people’s interests that led to meeting it. Similarly, one can convince the U.S. government to use clean energy as a mode of divesting from international sources, such as Saudi Arabia. Certainly, appealing to diverse interests when supporting and implementing environmental policies renders them more effective and comprehensive.

Promoting the ethical standpoint could be integral in dually solving environmental and social issues. Specifically, if advocates highlight how marginalized groups are affected more, perhaps more individuals will become conscious of the importance of saving the environment. This intragenerational view can be realized through the implementation of greener infrastructure and initiatives in marginalized communities, with architecture like green roofs as well as outdoor programs to educate and entertain underserved people. Currently, the Bronx River Alliance is working to clean up the Bronx River, which opens up the space for outdoor recreation and improves the community’s health and well-being as a whole. Additionally, although this is a remote possibility, promoting the ethical standpoint to society could create the need for companies to become more environmentally responsible. Hopefully, there will be a time when most people see businesses as morally reprehensible because of their crimes towards the environment. This may be a long way off, but it is everyone’s job to encourage this mindset in the entire population, which can be done through improved environmental education.

Environmental ethics and environmental issues need to be taught to the public; this can take shape in traditional schooling (shifting curriculums) and community outreach programs. The readings and personal research display that comprehensive environmental education yields results. People become more aware and connected to their surroundings, leading them to care for the environment much more. Improvements in education can be advocated for in federal, state, and local governments to create sweeping and lasting changes in children’s learning. Additionally, community groups can set up programs to encourage people of all ages to enjoy the outdoors.

As Fordham students, we can work with organizations at the university to petition the administration to require environmental classes in the core curriculum. It is the school’s job to produce well-rounded students upon their graduation. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, improvements in environmental literacy are integral in “caring for the whole person.” This would take a significant amount of work; however, it is ultimately up to us as students to fight for it. Interim solutions could include increased programs by clubs on campus promoting outdoor recreation and sustainability.

Growing up, my family valued the outdoors. I have fond memories of hiking through national parks, kayaking in rivers, and playing on beaches, and these experiences shaped me into an environmental citizen. By simply interacting with my surroundings, I gained a greater understanding of my impact on them, and I became a lifelong advocate for the environment. I cannot imagine a life without such a rich breadth of experiences in the outdoors. It is up to us to ensure that children and adults of all ages and backgrounds can access them, which will pay dividends in the environmental and social spheres.

Word Count: 1867

Question: What are some examples of how environmental philosophy has directly impacted governmental policy?

Diagrams:

Beacon of hope: National Park visits have largely increased in recent years (decline in 2020 can be attributed to COVID-19)

Federal land usage: Total coal leases, areas under lease, and lease sales yearly

Works Cited:

Mukulu Waila, Jacinta, Michael Wandanje Mahero, Shamilah Namusisi, Sarah J. Hoffman, Cheryl Robertson. 2017. “Outcomes of Climate Change in a Marginalized Population: An Ethnography on the Turkana Pastoralists in Kenya.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 52: 570-571. EBSCOhost.

University of Gothenburg. 2019. “Environmental Pollution in China Begins Decreasing.” Environmental News Network, September 16, 2019. https://www.enn.com/articles/59731-environmental-pollution-in-china-begins-decreasing. 

#environmental studies #environmentalism #environmental ethics #ethics #environment #fordham #coal #national park #national parks #the great outdoors

[gretamclaughlin]

Environmental History Leading Us to the Future

The materials largely focus on environmental history and its impact on policy, and people can lean on this field to improve the environment and limit the effects of climate change. The readings go over what environmental history is, and scholars of this subject study how humans and cultures have interacted with the environment over time, as well as how the environment has affected them. It is essentially the history of the universe, earth, human evolution, and interactions until the present. Big history is a type of environmental history, and it places cultural history in the context of the universe, beginning with the Big Bang and continuing into the present. Through this, one can notice patterns and answer larger questions regarding humans’ place in history and more. It is essential to understand this subject and recognize how to use it to improve the environment. People can learn about the history of issues, how they have been solved in the past, and why certain tactics failed (as explained in Jared Diamond’s Collapse). One can then apply this knowledge to current issues to solve them in a more efficient and effective manner, as well as lean on the principles of sustainability that have been evidenced in environmental history. 

The sources also speak about the Anthropocene and how it fits into environmental history. This era, whose beginning is disputed, continues today, and it covers the period of human impact on Earth’s geology and ecosystems, which is overwhelmingly negative. Human interaction has led to decreased biodiversity, greater pollution, species extinction, and increased CO2 emissions, thus affecting climate change. Many of these consequences have come from globalism, and connections throughout the world have caused environmental degradation through industrialization, unsustainable agricultural practices, and more. Further readings speak on how humans have exploited land throughout the U.S.’s environmental history, such as during the frontier era. Certainly, the human-focused view of the world that so many people hold is eventually going to destroy us, along with all other organisms on the planet. If one travels anywhere in the world, they will find that it has been touched by humans through direct contact, pollution, etc. When I was visiting Iceland a few years ago, I went on a hike off the beaten path. The land looked positively untouched by humans, and I remember thinking that this was probably the cleanest air I would ever breathe. However, looking out into the distance, I saw a melting glacier, a sign of the warming planet. Even in this remote area, humans, myself included, were destroying the environment.

I found it intriguing how these sources significantly focused on capitalism and how this system has engendered environmental issues. Capitalism has caused people to disregard the environmental impacts of their actions to amass greater wealth, and competition and a free market have led to extensive exploitation of the world’s resources. After all, capitalism caused the divide in preservation advocates. Conservationists, who valued preserving resources for economic reasons, opposed environmentalists, who did not attach economic value to these resources. The U.S.’s environmental history explains how corporations have worked to block important regulations and have even carried out schemes to make communities less sustainable. The National City Lines was a group of corporations that dismantled public transportation or made it more polluting; this continues to affect the environments of American cities. In Lewis H. Lapham’s article “Paying the Piper,” he explains that the biosphere’s “resources are finite and cannot accommodate the pursuit of infinite growth that is the capitalist dynamic blowing up the hot-air balloon of the global consumer economy” (Lapham 20). The brutal exploitation of the earth by companies as a result of the capitalist system will inevitably destroy us all. It is shocking how corporations have controlled America as a whole, especially the environment, leaving the people to pick up the pieces.

Furthermore, the materials center on how those living in poverty have been impacted by environmental degradation the most throughout history. While the wealthy can leave after they have damaged their community, those living in poverty must face the effects. Unfortunately, as referenced in previous blogs, in Newark, NJ, this is a reality, and those in the Ironbound live near Superfund sites (Mansnerus 1998). During the Vietnam War, the Diamond Alkali Company dumped Agent Orange in the Passaic River, and the site remains extremely toxic. Inhabitants of the area have become sick from the toxins, leading to asthma, cancer, and more and affecting children’s development. The federal government is doing little to clean the area up, and as more people move to the Ironbound, the situation becomes direr. Clearly, the wealthy can escape the effects of environmental degradation, but those in poverty are forced to deal with the impacts. As someone who lives about 20 minutes from Newark, I am one of those well-off people who can live a life free of these toxins. How is this fair? I do not hold any special qualities.

The sources speak about how environmental history has been used to improve the world. By learning the Bronx River’s history and what led to degradation, people have been able to spearhead efforts to clean it up, which has drastically improved communities surrounding the river. People can now get a taste of the natural wonder that was prevalent years prior, acting as an oasis inside of a bustling urban environment. Understanding where the land came from can inspire people to create greener communities that return some of the natural beauty and resources these areas previously offered. On Fordham’s Rose Hill campus, improvements can be made to make it more sustainable and natural, returning some of its original environmental glory. Unfortunately, in the past, the University has been lackadaisical when it comes to using environmental history for projects, despite the fact that its sustainability plan claims it is “keeping with the Jesuit traditions.” For example, when Fordham built CSC Halls in 2010, a small forest was destroyed. There is a blatant disregard for environmental integrity and an almost forced urbanization of the campus; the administration fails to realize the power of restoring the school to its greener past.

We need to lean on environmental history in order to reduce the human impact on the planet. This can be done by analyzing previous environmental policies, like PlaNYC, and working off of their successes and failures. The world as a whole needs to make improvements on mass transit through governmental policy and regulations, creating better systems and rendering them more sustainable. This would cause fewer people to use cars, reducing congestion, pollution, and emissions. Improvements in energy efficiency and a greater reliance on renewable energy also need to be made, as was done in New York City, which caused the city to cut its emissions by 13% between 2007 and 2011. Of course, this is easier said than done, as older cities have more difficulties retrofitting aged systems; however, it can be completed with the proper technology and resources. The U.S. must continue working on a smart grid as well to make renewable energy a better option for people across the nation, and similar tactics should be employed elsewhere. Certainly, government intervention is necessary in order to make this a reality, and public servants must be held accountable by their constituents.

In the U.S., we should lean on our environmental history, specifically that of indigenous peoples, in order to become more sustainable. Prior to European intervention, indigenous tribes lived in manners that generally had a low impact on the environment, and they did not use nature with the goal of exploiting its resources but rather to live as a part of it. Recent studies have noted the power of indigenous knowledge in land rehabilitation and sustainability. According to the Autonomous University of Barcelona, “Through traditional practices, indigenous peoples have contributed to managing, adapting and restoring...land, sometimes creating new types of highly biodiverse ecosystems” (De la Malla 2019). Similarly, the University of British Columbia found that biodiversity was the most prevalent on lands managed or co-managed by indigenous groups (Corpuz-Bosshart 2019). Certainly, indigenous people should be incorporated in sustainability efforts, and we should consider how they use land, both in the past and today.

Further policies must be enforced to regulate corporations to ensure that they do not further degrade the environment and influence politicians, which has shown to work in the U.S.’s environmental history, such as with the 1916 National Park Service Act. Taxes on emissions can mitigate some of these companies’ negative effects and raise money for further environmental programs. Additionally, subsidies need to shift to support the development and production of renewable energy in order to have it make up a larger proportion of the U.S.’s energy sources. Further development of sustainable infrastructure, green buildings, etc. can also be financed by the government. Through environmental history, improvements such as these have created safer communities and helped limit climate change. This is especially important to employ in impoverished communities, where people are more affected by the results of environmental degradation; more sustainable housing and access to cleaner food are good steps to take. Developed countries also need to provide resources for developing countries to become more sustainable because environmentalism is a group effort.

People need to participate in grassroots projects such as the Bronx River Alliance in order to improve their communities. By leaning on environmental history, one can learn how to repair the land around them and understand how humans can affect their environments or vice versa. I currently work for the Community Business Partnerships group for the practicum, and we are working with the Alliance to participate in and promote volunteer opportunities and events. The work they do to clean up the river has had extensive effects on the health and well-beings of those living nearby. People have it in their power to improve public health, morale, and reduce environmental issues as a whole by restoring their local communities to their more sustainable and natural pasts.

Furthermore, people should be exposed to the impact of their actions more, especially those living in developed countries. After all, people do not always understand the impact of their actions because they cannot see them (i.e. recycling is sent to China). For example, the Manufactured Landscapes documentary displayed the influence their lack of sustainability has caused. Through community education, people will hopefully be more willing to improve their individual actions and hold others accountable, including corporations, to help break out of this unsustainable society. 

Environmental history is a helpful tool that teaches us how to improve the world and reminds us of our place in the universe. The world was not created for humans, and we should not treat it as such. It is our job to mitigate the unfortunate consequences of our actions. Hopefully, people realize this before it is too late.

Word Count: 1810

Question: How has environmental history fit into wider social movements such as Communism?

Diagrams:

The effects of National City Lines can still be seen today in cities like Los Angeles.

Superfund sites affect much of the U.S. population, yet the government is slow at cleaning them up.

Work Cited: 

Mansnerus, Laura. 1998. “Newark’s Toxic Tomb; Six Acres Fouled by Dioxin, Agent Orange's Deadly Byproduct, Reside in the Shadow of an Awakening Downtown.” New York Times, November 8, 1998. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/08/nyregion/newark-s-toxic-tomb-six-acres-fouled-dioxin-agent-orange-s-deadly-byproduct.html. 

De la Malla, Joan. 2019. “Indigenous knowledge, key to a successful ecosystem restoration.” https://www.uab.cat/web/newsroom/news-detail/indigenous-knowledge-key-to-a-successful-ecosystem-restoration-1345668003610.html?noticiaid=1345783300762.

Corpuz-Bosshart. 2019. “UBC-led study highlights importance of collaborating with Indigenous communities to protect species.” https://news.ubc.ca/2019/07/31/biodiversity-highest-on-indigenous-managed-lands/.

#environmental studies #environmentalism #superfund #environmental history #history #nyc #sustainability #nj #fordham

[gretamclaughlin]

The Urgency of the Climate Crisis: Human Health and Degradation

The materials focus heavily on the human cost of environmental issues, putting a face on pollution, climate change, and environmental degradation in general, and they explain how these problems affect people now and will continue to worsen if intense progress is not made. This is an effective approach since it draws in people who may not usually care about environmental issues; the materials frame the problems as urgent and universal. For example, although regulations have somewhat ameliorated the situation, Freons have degraded the ozone layer, in turn reducing its ability to protect the planet from the sun’s harmful UV rays. This has a direct impact on humans by heightening the risk of skin cancer. Furthermore, this increased UV radiation destroys phytoplankton in the ocean, which are integral in reducing the amount of CO2 on earth.

Additionally, the readings speak about the human cost of pollution, which I found to be quite relevant given that I have lived in highly polluted areas all of my life. According to the textbook, a 2015 study found that 43% of the U.S. population lived in areas where air pollution reached dangerous levels during parts of the year, and more than 1.1 billion people live in urban areas where outdoor air is unhealthy to breathe. The City of New York reports that pollution causes 3,000 deaths yearly in the city (Kheirbek et al., n.d.). The air quality is horrendous, and we have the tools to fix it, yet innocent people continue to die due to particles getting lodged into the lungs and contributing to cancer, asthma, heart attacks, and strokes. It is frightening that so many people, including myself, are at risk, and the government is doing so little to help. Even if it is costly to reduce pollution, in the long run, governments would have to pay less in health care costs.

The textbook describes the worst-case scenarios of climate change, some of which are already occurring to a degree, devastating human populations. These scenarios include floods, wildfires, drying up rivers, collapsing ecosystems, heat waves, and an influx of climate refugees. The Six Degrees video even includes traditional social systems breaking down and the planet descending into chaos. Although these situations are serious possibilities, I do not think they should be used as a tactic to get people to care about climate change. Learning about how everything is going to fall apart, perhaps not even in too long, can cause people to feel completely hopeless, leading them not to take any action because they feel as if there is no chance of saving the earth. I believe it is better to emphasize our brighter future and how we can achieve it to inspire action among people, instead of scaring them into inactivity.

Climate issues affect marginalized groups more than those in higher economic positions. Impoverished people are more likely to be living in areas with higher pollution and are thus more impacted by environmental degradation than those who can afford to live further away. Many impoverished people of color flocked to North Richmond, CA in the San Francisco Bay Area for economic opportunity (Kay and Katz, 2012). However, the community is located near numerous oil refineries, chemical companies, Superfund sites, ports, and more. Individuals living there, particularly Black people, are at a much higher risk of dying from cancer, heart, disease, and strokes and are much more likely to go to the hospital than other residents of the county. On average, the POC in the area live about 10 years less than white people in other parts of the county. Certainly, this is an economic and racial issue, and already struggling communities are pushed even further down because of environmental degradation. Those living in developing countries also face a higher risk of indoor air pollution due to the usage of wood and other polluting heat inside, which can damage lungs. According to the 2014 UN IPCC Synthesis Report, the undermining of food security and lack of water will also hit marginalized groups even harder worldwide, and current issues with access to human essentials will be exacerbated in the near future. When people need to begin moving away from areas affected by climate change the most (flooding, wildfires, etc.), poorer populations will be left behind.

Impoverished people often do not have the means to fight climate change; they are simply forced to live within the system. There is a lack of government subsidies to support green architecture and environmentally friendly living in low-income neighborhoods. In many ways, living in an ecologically friendly manner remains a bit elitist. It is the job of the government to aid these communities in becoming greener. In the same sense, wealthier countries should assist developing nations in reducing carbon emissions by introducing renewable energy. These wealthier countries, such as the U.S., also need to work on their own environmental impact because they play such a huge role in the climate crisis.

Capitalism and those in power under the system continue to degrade the environment and aggravate current environmental issues, and these wealthy individuals have been successful in lobbying against federal action and have altered public opinion. The satirical “fuck you” ad is unfortunately not far from the current reality of many coal and oil companies, and these corporations simply do not care about the effects of their work on current and future generations. Many of these companies bankroll lobbying groups that influence political figures as well as public opinion. The clips of Newt Gingrich depict a politician shifting his rhetoric based on who is paying him and what will advance him personally. As the video regarding the Ethical Abhorrence of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign explains, companies contribute to the complete distrust of science and disregard the truth. The infamous Koch brothers were ardent supporters of the anti-climate change movement and poured billions of their own money, as well as a circle of supporters’ money, into lobbying and campaigns to protect their interests. As the ad from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity displays, these groups create a public image of being “clean” when there is no way coal or oil can ever truly be clean. It is sickening how a fight to save our planet has become politicized and controlled by those who just want to make a buck, and those in power value companies over their own constituents. The American people have been reduced to mere dollar signs. 

It is important that we use an economic angle to garner support to prevent climate change and environmental degradation. Certain capitalists fear how the economy will be affected by solutions to the climate crisis, such as carbon taxes. However, if nothing is done about these issues, any economy will completely fall apart. According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, many industries depend on natural resources such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries. Flooding will affect other sectors of the economy, and the coal and oil industries are dependent on resources that will dry up in the future. According to Thomas Vinod in his book Climate Change and Natural Disasters: Transforming Economies and Policies for a Sustainable Future, economic growth is calculated in a way that does not account for climate disasters, thus causing the switch to sustainable living appear more detrimental than doing nothing at all. He explains, “Climate change impacts are projected to erode food security, increase displacement of people, create new poverty pockets, and slow economic growth” (Vinod 2017, 9). Therefore, there needs to be a push for companies to switch to renewable energy production and create technology to control pollution to both save our planet and appease these individuals’ desire to make money. Although up-front costs can be expensive, in the long run, companies and governments will save money in this shift. It is unlikely that the U.S. and other major players will move away from capitalist systems in the coming years; however, if we can manipulate these systems in a manner that will prevent climate change, we can truly make the world a cleaner place.

Fordham’s board of trustees is filled with business heads, many of whom are interested only in the economic aspect of issues. Therefore, it comes at no surprise that the University has been lackadaisical in divesting its endowment from fossil fuels. Any environmental initiatives have been severely greenwashed and lack any significant impact. It is important that students keep pressuring the administration to divert capital to sustainability and invest in renewable energy. Although pulling out investments may not make the most sense economically right now, it may prove to be in the future if the usage of nonrenewable energy continues to fall, and renewable energy picks up in popularity. Not only that, but a growing demographic of prospective students want to attend a sustainable school, and Fordham needs to get its act together and actually pursue environmental initiatives if it wants to call itself green. From personal experience, I was hesitant about attending Fordham because I wanted to live on a more sustainable campus and support an environmentally-minded institution.

Regulations have proven to work in the U.S. The Clean Air Acts of 1970, 1977, and 1990 have allowed for air pollution to be controlled and reduced, thus mitigating the effects of industry, motor vehicles, and more. Key outdoor air pollutants have been reduced, and it has become a group effort of enforcement by states and major cities. Additionally, the EPA has established standards for more than 188 hazardous air pollutants and created the Toxic Release Inventory. This has reduced the amount of these substances in the air, thus reducing pollution. Efforts such as these need to continue to curb pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Some states have taken the first steps to reduce emissions; however, sweeping federal legislation would allow for the entire country to be held accountable. Unfortunately, the Trump administration brought about rollbacks on the EPA’s policies, including those regarding dangerous chemicals, in order to appease corporate interests. As a whole, climate legislation remains controversial, especially regarding the federalist system, so there is not a clear road to solving the climate crisis through regulations.

Implementing carbon and energy taxes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide revenue to finance more sustainable development. Hopefully, measures will reduce corporations’ impact on the environment and encourage them to switch to cleaner energy sources. According to Environmental Science & Pollution Research, in India, carbon taxes hastened investments in green technology, such as renewable energy, and effectively limited CO2 emissions (Bhat and Mishra 2020, 9). Additionally, taxes such as these will help consumers since their enactment will include lowering taxes on income, wages, and profits. This system has proven to work in almost 40 nations, and if the global leaders of emissions put them in place, emissions will dramatically reduce. Hopefully, Joe Biden’s administration will implement such policies on a national level and encourage other nations to do so to minimize climate change worldwide. 

Governments also need to invest in impoverished communities to make them more environmentally friendly and sustainable. Improvements in infrastructure to create greener communities may include building green roofs, adding solar panels, creating recycling centers, and improving insulation to increase energy efficiency. The expansion of government subsidies to organic food and other green industries would allow more people to live sustainably and not rely on processed (and environmentally degrading) food. Improved urban planning in existing communities can also help individuals living in them. For example, according to the textbook, the implementation of 20-minute neighborhoods in Portland, OR, has allowed more people to walk and bike to essential stores and services to reduce the usage of cars, buses, etc. Small steps such as these can have significant impacts when applied on a larger scale. 

Furthermore, less expensive and more efficient public transportation will help reduce the usage of personal vehicles to travel. In other words, if subways, trains, and buses emerge as quick and cheap ways to go from place to place, more people will utilize these resources rather than depending on their own car or a ride-sharing service. New York City’s flat-rate subway system can be beneficial when traveling; however, slow travel times and frequent delays can lead to reduced usage, something that has been amplified in the wake of COVID-19.

Governments also need to take steps to establish proactive measures for the effects of climate change because, as it stands currently, climate change is going to worsen rapidly in the coming years. Solutions include moving hazardous material away from coastal areas to reduce the damage that floods can do and engineering crops to require less water to survive. It is lamentable that we must take steps like this; however, this is the reality with inefficient and uncaring people in power. Disaster preparedness has also been found to facilitate economic growth. Vinod explains that New York’s policies following Hurricane Sandy compelled a sense of confidence among businesses and investors (Vinod 2017, 12). Preparedness can also help return an environment to a more natural state; at the Jersey Shore, towns have built up formerly demolished sand dunes to protect against stronger storms. In short, we must dually work on preventing climate change and saving ourselves when the climate inevitably worsens.

On a different note, although this sounds extreme, it is intriguing to think about how in an authoritarian regime, the government could quickly mitigate climate change. Policies would not have to pass through system after system and be approved by hundreds of people, only to face the courts if people disapproved of it after its passage. Regulations could quickly be put into place to limit environmental degradation and establish a more sustainable world. It is interesting to think about how other forms of government that differ from our own could handle disasters.

Overall, reducing environmental degradation is a global effort, and wealthier countries need to aid developing countries to make them greener. This includes funneling money into sustainable industries, financing environmentally-friendly infrastructure, and converting energy sources into renewable ones. The world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50% to 85% by 2050 to stabilize the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, and, as it stands right now, nations need to do a lot of work to get there. We need to understand how much we degrade the environment (carbon footprint), take responsibility for our actions, and then participate in initiatives to reduce our impacts. Honestly, the future looks pretty bleak for the climate crisis, and people all over the world must act now before it is too late.

Word Count: 2421

Question: Is it plausible that we will stop further climate change before it is too late? It seems as if so many steps have to be taken for climate change to only progress a bit less rapidly.

EPA Household Emissions Calculator:

My household carbon footprint from home energy, transportation, and waste is about 43,019 pounds. This is significantly lower than the national average of 87,714 pounds. However, it is still extremely high for a household of four people. I can definitely drive less and bike and walk around more, as well as plant more trees in order to reduce carbon emissions. My parents plan on purchasing a hybrid car in the future, which will also lower my household’s carbon footprint. Perhaps I can convince my parents to install solar panels to increase our usage of renewable energy.

Diagrams:

In NYC, impoverished people die at higher rates than people living in wealthier neighborhoods, which is reflected worldwide.

Exposure to air pollution damages people’s lungs, similar to smoking.

Christmas trees are sometimes used to rebuild sand dunes.

Works Cited:

Bhat, Aaqib Ahmad and Prajna Paramita Mishra. 2020. “Evaluating the performance of carbon tax on green technology: evidence from India.” Environmental Science & Pollution Research 27, no. 2: 2226-2237. EBSCOhost.

Kay, Jane and Cheryl Katz. Scientific American. June 4, 2012. “Pollution, Poverty and People of Color: Living with Industry.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pollution-poverty-people-color-living-industry/.

Kheirbek, Iyad, Katherine Wheeler, Sarah Walters, Grant Pezeshki, and Daniel Kass. City of New York. n.d. “Air Pollution and the Health of New Yorkers: The Impact of Fine Particles and Ozone.” Accessed February 23, 2021. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/eode-air-quality-impact.pdf.

Vinod, Thomas. 2017. Climate Change and Natural Disasters: Transforming Economies and Policies for a Sustainable Future. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. EBSCOhost. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/eode-air-quality-impact.pdf.

#environmental studies #environmentalism #pollution #human

[gretamclaughlin]

Fueling the Modern World

The readings focus on nonrenewable and renewable energy sources, and they talk about the necessity to shift to new forms of energy production to prevent further climate change. Environmentally-degrading oil is the most widely used energy resource in the U.S. Fracking, another popular energy source, is also detrimental to the environment, costly, and limited. I enjoy how the textbook notes various issues with nonrenewable energy sources that are not restricted to the environment; this appeals to a diverse audience and provides a comprehensive view of the scope of the effects of degradation. In other words, environmental issues influence a range of other social and political issues, including foreign policy. Keith Crane explains this in his book Imported Oil and U.S. National Security, stating that a disruption in oil imports “would undermine U.S. national security, for example, by weakening U.S. global economic and political influence and the ability of the United States to pay for U.S. military forces” (Crane 2009, 19). The readings go on to present other sources of energy like oil and tar sands, which emit air pollutants and produce more CO2 than conventional crude oil production. Certainly, some new and seemingly promising energy solutions further damage the environment, and many methods of energy production have a high long-term cost. Although we can promote the view that these sources are detrimental to ecosystems as a whole, it may be more effective to focus on the human cost, which would attract a greater audience. Regardless of the angle one takes, it is integral that people look towards more ecologically friendly methods for sustainable and lasting solutions.

The textbook also covers natural gas and coal and explains how natural gas intensifies climate change and shifts people away from finding better energy because it is seen as clean. The description of coal highlights both the environmental and health issues caused by its mining and combustion. The health costs can be such an economic burden on countries that switching to cleaner energy can become the most viable option. Ben Ewald conducted a study in New South Wales, Australia on the health costs of SO2 emissions from burning coal (Ewald 2018, 227). Sulfate particles are classified as part of the particulate air pollution smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). He found that by reducing PM2.5 levels 16%, there would be 104 fewer deaths and 560 fewer years of life lost per year in NSW, valued at about $539 million (based upon the statistical value of life) (Ewald 2018, 228). Ewald argues that pollution fees need to correspond with the cost of health damage to reduce emissions. Of course, speaking about human life in terms of money can be problematic, and it raises the question of why people cannot just value life for itself. Regardless, this tactic can expand the number of people in support of environmental action, including those who are more economically-driven. The production of CO2 by the coal industry causes further issues. By highlighting both the environmental and health impact of coal, the readers can understand how they are directly affected.

I always believed that nuclear energy was the key to the future, but the readings changed this. Although there are benefits to nuclear power like a low environmental impact and low accident risk, there are numerous disadvantages, such as the difficulty of disposing fuel rods, high cost, and low net energy production. However, governments have invested significantly more money into nuclear power than renewable resources, despite having little success. It makes me wonder what the world would look like if nations had focused on funding more sustainable options. Climate change may not be as advanced as it is now, and the U.S. could have been a leader in reducing emissions. According to a study in Risk Analysis, “Climate change concern is associated with increased acceptance of nuclear power only when nuclear power is considered as the only viable way to cut CO2 emissions” (Vainio et al. 2017, 557). Certainly, other options exist today that produce more energy and are better for the environment; therefore, nuclear energy and financement of it should be phased out.

Despite the higher net energy of nonrenewable resources, it is necessary to switch to renewable resources to reduce the environmental and health impacts. The readings highlight how by turning to cleaner options, we can create business opportunities and provide jobs, which is important because people often lean on the economy to justify ruining the environment. Indeed, it is integral to promote the positive economic effects and opportunities of businesses and countries becoming greener in order to generate more support for climate action. Consolidating diverse interests will be essential in fighting environmental degradation.

The U.S. needs to implement a smart grid to connect wind farms and solar power plants throughout the country, subsidize energy efficiency initiatives, and make the switch to more renewable energy. Generally, human systems are unnaturally linear, and in order to decrease human impact on the environment, people need to switch the energy system to one that imitates those found in nature (biomimicry). For example, solar cells mimic leaves, with some newer technology even turning to the sun as leaves do. Other renewable energy includes wind energy, which is highly productive and could potentially fuel the entire country. Loyola University Chicago created a program in which they collect oil from Chicago restaurants and universities and convert it into biodiesel that operates university and other local vehicles (Loyola University Chicago, n.d.). Small projects such as this one increase in their value when their methods are employed on a larger scale.

Of course, governments need to establish comprehensive policies to reduce pollution and increase renewable energy use, such as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which improve vehicles’ fuel efficiencies. Standards are being used in Paris by establishing a low-emission zone where only certain vehicles can enter (Bernard et al.). This reduces air pollution and encourages people to purchase fuel-efficient and electric cars. Increasing CAFE standards in the coming years will further improve the energy efficiency of vehicles on the road.

We need to create legislation that forces communities to utilize renewable energy. California legislation requires the state to use renewable energy to produce half of its electric power by 2030. If this was imposed on a national level, we would see a sharp increase in wind, solar, and other renewable energy and a lower reliance on coal, oil, etc. Furthermore, the government needs to shift away from awarding subsidies and tax breaks to nonrenewable energy producers, and it should provide financial incentives for building and using renewable energy. Of course, these initiatives would be more logical if the U.S. government sped up the process of building a smart grid so widespread usage of clean energy would be more viable. Tax breaks and other economic incentives should also be used to encourage people to purchase more energy-efficient vehicles, including hybrid and electric cars. 

The government must also implement full-cost pricing when it comes to nonrenewable resources to reduce their usage. The International Monetary Fund approximates that if full-cost pricing were applied to burning coal, coal use would drop 55%, and CO2 emissions would drop 20%. It is necessary that pricing accurately reflects human and environmental cost; in the case of the NSW study, taxes were not high enough to make any companies take action. However, if done properly, this method can greatly reduce emissions from burning coal and producing other forms of nonrenewable energy. Promoting environmental education in schools and through community groups is integral in combating the narrative that nonrenewable energy is safe, which is purported by many corporations.

Unfortunately, impoverished people bear the brunt of climate change much more than those who are well-off, and many suffer as a result of wealthier people’s actions, such as corporations. While the rich can flee the effects of environmental degradation, marginalized people must face them directly. This makes comprehensive environmental policy even more necessary, and it can ameliorate other race and class issues, such as health. More immediate policy can include building parks in urban areas and cleaning up pre-existing places. Grassroots organizations can also spearhead efforts, and the Bronx River Alliance is revitalizing the Bronx River, and their work has a multitude of psychological and physical benefits to nearby residents. Growing up, I had the opportunity to explore nature through clean parks, playgrounds, and more in my neighborhood. Just 20 minutes down the road in a more impoverished neighborhood, children did not have access to the same opportunities and did not live in a healthy environment. Today, the memories I made in nature were formative and continue to affect my relationship with the world. It is unfair that so many young people are denied these opportunities, just because of how much money their parents have, and action must be taken to prevent further injustices.

Changing building standards to ensure green architecture would reduce energy waste, use solar energy to heat buildings, and more. Unfortunately, living in a sustainable manner is largely only accessible to wealthier people who have the means to live in buildings with top-of-the-line technology. Therefore, by making green living more accessible to everyone with government subsidies, less energy will be wasted and less emissions will be produced, leading to a cleaner world for everyone. On an individual level, we can all take action in our homes by ensuring that leaky heating is sealed, using LED bulbs, shutting off electronics when not in use, and transitioning to energy-efficient appliances. Switching to a cleaner and more energy-efficient world is critical in preventing further climate change. Acting sustainably can be a difficult road to take, especially given the capitalist system that we live in. I find myself purchasing from Amazon instead of shopping at brick-and-mortar stores, and I often eat meat in favor of vegetarian and vegan options. However, we must all be more conscious of our actions and their effects in order to have a cleaner future, or even a future at all.

Word Count: 1668

Question: If governments had focused their resources on renewable energy rather than nuclear energy, how would current emissions have been affected?

Diagrams:

Savings due to reduced air pollution in New South Wales, Australia

Potential phases for Paris’ implementation of its low-emission zones: cars receive stickers based on their fuel-efficiency

Sources of U.S. energy in 2019 - very unsustainable

Works Cited:

Crane, Keith. 2009. Imported Oil and U.S. National Security. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=c36b0d2f-45db-4a48-9f08-35b1ee8e70c8%40sdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=276729&db=e000xna. 

Ewald, Ben. 2018. “The value of health damage due to sulphur dioxide emissions from coal- fired electricity generation in NSW and implications for pollution licences.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 42, no. 3: 227-229. EBSCOhost. 

Vainio, Annukka, Riikka Paloniemi, and Vilja Varho. 2017. “Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power.” Risk Analysis: An International Journal 37, no. 3. 557-569. EBSCOhost. 

Bernard, Yoann, Joshua Miller, Sandra Wappelhorst, and Caleb Braun. 2020. “Impacts of the Paris low-emission zone and implications for other cities.” The Real Urban Emissions Initiative (March 2020): 5. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Paris-LEV-implications-03.12.2020.pdf. 

Loyola University Chicago. n.d.”Biodiesel Program.” https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/sustainability-new/pdfs/IES-biodiesel.pdf. 

#environmental studies #environmentalism #clean energy #renewable energy #wind energy #solar energy #nuclear energy #biodiesel #fossil fuels #pollution

[gretamclaughlin]

How Humans Are Destroying Themselves

The reading explains the importance of different aspects of ecosystems and how humans negatively impact them. For example, soil provides minerals, and its moisture dissolves nutrients for plant growth. In the ocean, phytoplankton and ultraplankton produce about half of the earth’s oxygen through photosynthesis. However, humans are destroying these ecosystems. For instance, humans have negatively impacted around 41% of the earth’s ocean regions. The inclusion of this information is especially relevant in helping people understand the importance of preservation. Humans heavily depend on nature, directly and indirectly. The continuous degradation of the earth for human benefit will destroy us, and if we want to save ourselves, we have to save the planet. I wish the textbook emphasized this point more because it will make more people care about climate issues since they will see how it affects them. In other words, framing these issues as a human problem to some people will allow them to see the need to preserve the earth, even if it is for selfish reasons.

The text further emphasizes the importance of biodiversity and how key factors contributing to it are being damaged or altered. The rise in temperatures in oceans and ocean acidification due to the increase of CO2 cause coral bleaching. In turn, this destroys services that are important to the survival of humans and other organisms. This temperature rise also directly kills numerous species, as evidenced on Palestine’s coastline. Researchers at the University of Vienna determined that for 95% of the species whose shells they found, they could not locate any living members (University of Vienna 2021). This information is relevant given the host of resources and services that biodiversity provides to all species, including humans. Resources include food, air and water purification, and renewal of topsoil, and biodiversity acts as an “ecological insurance policy.” Humans are actively destroying biodiversity and exploiting the environment for their own needs, and the effects are already far-reaching. This issue is urgent, and it is necessary to take action now before there are more losses, which would then spur other environmental issues. As mentioned previously, emphasizing the human aspect when handling these problems will likely prove to be important in gaining more of the public’s support for actions against climate change.  Unfortunately, in our world, many people see humans as the center of the universe; therefore, we must play into this when dealing with environmental issues.

Humans are also interfering with renewable resources, and they have used up a large number of fossil fuels in a short time. The burning of these fuels and the usage of chemicals have caused massive effects on the earth. Today, people release greenhouse gases faster than they can be removed through nutrient cycling, intensifying the greenhouse effect. This process warms the earth, resulting in a range of other issues. Excess nutrients can harm bodies of water through runoff containing fertilizer and engender eutrophication. According to a study in The New York Times, eutrophication will worsen in the coming years due to the increase in rainfall from climate change (Schlossberg 2017). I grew up in one of the most polluted areas in the U.S., but for a long time, I did not notice how climate degradation affected the world around me.  Algae-filled lakes were just an annoyance, and my mother telling me not to catch raindrops on my tongue due to acid rain was the norm. It was only after receiving some degree of environmental education that I was able to identify these issues and understand their causes and how to fix them, leading me to want to study the environment and facilitate change in my community. Clearly, people must be made aware of the immediate impacts of their unsustainability, effects they can see in their backyards, so they become more actively engaged in making their communities more environmentally friendly.

The text also focuses on energy usage and how humans use and waste a significant amount of unsustainable energy. Worldwide, 90% of the commercial energy consumed is provided by fossil fuels. In the U.S., 43% of the energy used is wasted due to low energy efficiency, creating unnecessary emissions. However, we have the tools to solve this energy problem, and advancements in technology have led to more reliable and efficient renewable energy sources, such as solar panels and wind farms. Preventing heat loss or reusing the heat given off by energy can increase efficiency.  It is disappointing to see how there is so much innovation and so many options for a greener future, yet the U.S. government is doing virtually nothing.  Oil and coal companies continue to have a strong hold on politicians, and they control the narrative in Washington, even if their actions are harming the officials’ constituents.  Furthermore, a large majority of Americans prefer alternative energy sources (solar, wind, etc.) over fossil fuels and coal, yet officials will not respond. As difficult as it may seem, we need to try to hold these politicians and corporations accountable through protests, elections, boycotting, and more.  Grassroots efforts can go a long way when we all begin to work together, and it seems like this might be the only path forward.

As someone who is government-minded, I view sweeping policy changes as necessary to fix many of these environmental issues. The example of the Chesapeake Bay that the textbook provides is relevant here. It displays how when communities and different levels of government work together, they can improve the environment. Comprehensive laws that halt development in certain areas and protect natural resources are a solid first step to prevent future loss. These can include regulations on industries to reduce pollution and requirements for energy efficiency in machinery and businesses. Fines, or even jail sentences, can be given to violators. Policies like these should be implemented gradually, such as over the course of a decade, in order to give businesses time to adjust to new regulations and make lasting changes.  Some corporations may even change their products to reduce waste and adjust to a changing world. Legislation regarding cleanup efforts and further usage of sustainable energy on a national level will reduce the nation’s impact on the environment. Environmental subsidies may be important for both companies and individuals to become more ecologically friendly, like providing subsidies for using electric cars and other electric machinery. Shifting subsidies away from nonrenwable energy and to clean energy companies will increase production and usage of clean energy. Additionally, regulations on dangerous products need to be established, such as fertilizer. This could be through the government prohibiting or limiting certain chemicals in goods and subsidizing companies creating alternatives.

On a more local level, Fordham University should use greater sustainable energy, further divesting from fossil fuels, and create more Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings. Divesting from Aramark and using locally-grown food would also lower the school’s environmental impact. Currently, I am working on the committee Rams Against Aramark through the practicum. We have gathered the support of a host of clubs across the Lincoln Center and Rose Hill campuses, and we have had multiple meetings with the administration to try to remove Aramark from the school.  A social media campaign is also in the works to gain wider support. It will be a long road, but it is up to us as students to facilitate change.

Furthermore, people need to use indications from the earth and its history in order to reestablish certain ecosystems. In Yellowstone National Park, by reintroducing wolves, a trophic cascade occurred, and these animals completely changed the ecosystem and landscape for the better. By helping ecosystems return to their original states through various governmental and non-governmental initiatives, people can help renew the earth and its ecosystems and biodiversity. Just as one bad action can have a significant impact on an ecosystem, one good action can as well.

Humans are damaging the earth at a frightening rate, and action needs to occur to control these consequences and prevent further ones. Time is running out, and the government and individuals need to step in before the entire biosphere collapses.

Word Count: 1348

Question: If a majority of the phytoplankton and ultraplankton are killed, is it possible that the Earth would run out of oxygen to support human life?

Close and far ecological impacts on coral reefs

The increase in gasoline saved by the usage of electric vehicles from 2010-2018

Works Cited:

Schlossberg, Tatiana. 2017. “Fertilizers, a Boon to Agriculture, Pose Growing Threat to U.S. Waterways.” New York Times, July 27, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/nitrogen-fertilizers-climate-change-pollution-waterways-global-warming.html#:~:text=Excess%20nitrogen%20from%20the%20fertilizers,which%20organisms%20can't%20survive.&text=For%20instance%2C%20the%20Chesapeake%20Bay,of%20hypoxia%2C%20regularly%20since%201950. 

University of Vienna. 2021. “Native biodiversity collapse in the Eastern Mediterranean.” University of Vienna, January 6, 2021. https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/presse/aktuelle-pressemeldungen/detailansicht/artikel/native-biodiversity-collapse-in-the-eastern-mediterranean/. 

#energy #renewable energy #carbon neutral #coral reefs #electric cars #fordham #environment #environmental studies #environmental science

[gretamclaughlin]

The Environmental Cost of Human Interaction

Overall, the readings cover how humans alter ecosystems and vice versa, a finding supported by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Unfortunately, the consequences of these interactions are generally negative. This has been exacerbated in the last 50 years, especially with humans perpetrating irreversible damage to biodiversity worldwide, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and more. In fact, human activities have degraded about 60% of services. This depiction of human effects on the environment is essential in displaying humans’ impact on the world. It emphasizes our responsibility to fix it, essentially explaining why studying the environment is so important. The 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity focuses on how dire environmental issues are, especially centering on preserving earth’s finite resources. Humans are exploiting the planet as if it does not have any limits, and it is already showing its impacts in widespread inequalities and draining natural capital. There is only a limited amount of time to save the Earth, and the texts make it clear how pressing the issue is, as well as how much needs to get done. 

The readings further explore how the transformation of the planet affects different groups. The poor often bear the brunt of these issues. Specifically, the poor often depend more heavily on natural services than other groups and are thus more vulnerable to shifts in their availability caused by human interaction. For example, pollution and environmental degradation can lead to malnutrition and respiratory diseases more in economically disadvantaged populations. In New Jersey, a bill was recently passed to reduce pollution in impoverished neighborhoods by limiting the number of incinerators, sewage plants, etc. Newark’s Ironbound, which contains an incinerator and potentially toxic land, will be aided by this measure. Mad Stano of The Greenlining Institute explained that the bill emphasizes that “if it’s not permissible in an affluent community, it shouldn’t be permissible elsewhere” (Maldonado 2020). As someone who lives a short drive away from this community, I see these issues with my own eyes. While I can enjoy a safe environment in my well-off community, those living less than 15 miles away cannot exist without being in danger. Unfortunately, poverty also causes environmental issues due in part to a larger number of children in lower-income households and the use of short-term solutions to survive rather than worrying about long-term effects. In Senegal, illegal logging is lucrative, but it has completely damaged the forests in the country. It is certainly a vicious cycle (Courtright 2018).

The affluent heavily harm the environment and are not faced with the effects of it. Developed countries account for 19% of the global population but consume almost 90% of utilized resources. Many economically advantaged people obtain resources without seeing the negative effects of their actions. The question arises regarding which group is to blame for the issues, and it is upsetting to me how the textbook seems to take a neutral stance. Blaming the poor for environmental issues is reductive because these individuals ultimately have few options for making money. If I needed to feed my family, I would not care about the long-term effects of overfishing, for instance, only that I needed to get food on the table. This position also fails to consider how the wealthy are responsible for the poor’s condition under capitalism. The class commentary the readings provide is especially relevant given the growing class inequalities in much of the world. By having such large extremes in economic states, both groups negatively impact the environment and suffer because of these issues. 

One of the most important solutions to these problems is taking individual responsibility for our environmental impacts. Whether this begins with recycling or a grassroots campaign, we all need to take charge of our communities, such as in Chattanooga. Instead of driving a car to school, we should consider walking or biking. Instead of turning on the lights, we should use sunlight. Simple steps such as these can go a long way in the long run. Furthermore, people need to lean on the three principles of sustainability that have allowed the Earth to survive for so long. These are solar energy, biodiversity, and chemical cycling, and we need to seek solutions that are reminiscent of these points. This includes using renewable energy rather than non-renewable resources like coal. Government policy on all levels is integral in implementing measures such as these, and people need to both elect promising politicians and hold those in power accountable to promote green legislation. Changing to clean energy can include granting subsidies to those who produce it and creating a more connected electric system. Measures such as this enable humans to live in a more sustainable fashion, preventing environmental degradation. Furthermore, we need to limit the usage of open-access renewable resources, which, if used too much, can create an ecological deficit. In order to achieve this solution, policies would need to be put into place to prevent people from exploiting these resources. This could take the form of increasing preservation efforts on federal land, setting strict standards for resource usage, and slapping fines on companies who disobey them. However, one must also consider the effects of these laws on the poor since many people rely on these open-access resources for income. Therefore, additional policy needs to be implemented in developing countries to create opportunities to amass wealth from renewable energy and other environmentally friendly initiatives. Economic growth and helping the Earth are not mutually exclusive, but proper laws need to be enacted to ensure that both simultaneously occur. As a whole, the usage of technology to help the environment needs to be explored much more. Although advancements have sometimes been used to destroy the planet, such as with the expansion of production, they can also rebuild the Earth and create more sustainable living options.

Increased pressure needs to be placed on developed countries to limit their environmental impacts and aid developing nations. According to the 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, affluent countries need to control their exploitation of the environment and use their financial resources and tools to help more impoverished states reduce their impacts. This same text explains that this is not a selfless act since environmental issues harm everyone; helping others also helps you. 

Certainly, these solutions depend on political policy, and government intervention is necessary in order to create a more sustainable world. While environmental issues may seem irrelevant to some, they are damaging all species on the planet, humans included. We have a limited amount of time to prevent more irreversible damage, and the time to act is now.

Word Count: 1092

Question: Do we have the time to compromise on environmental issues?

My environmental impact at school: Personal Earth Overshoot Day is August 3, 1.7 Earths

My environmental impact at home: Personal Earth Overshoot Day is June 5, 2.3 Earths

I am surprised by how large my impact is because I always try my best to be environmentally friendly. It is interesting to see how when I live at school and walk and take public transportation more and eat less meat, I impact the environment much less.

Ecological footprint at school

Ecological footprint at home

A long way to go: the amount of renewable energy compared to non-renewable used in the world in 2018

The increase of renewable energy globally based on technology and in total

The Amazon rainforest’s deforestation

Works Cited:

Courtright, James. 2018. “Illegal logging and poverty fuel local tensions in southern Senegal.” Equal Times, June 5, 2018. https://www.equaltimes.org/illegal-logging-and-poverty-fuel?lang=en#.YBn81ndKiu5.

Maldonado, Samantha. 2020. “How a long-stalled ‘holy grail’ environmental justice bill found its moment in New Jersey.” Politico, August 27, 2020. https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/08/27/new-jersey-legislature-sends-groundbreaking-environmental-justice-bill-to-governors-desk-1313030.

#nature #deforestation #climate change #environment #environmental studies

[gretamclaughlin]

About Me

My name is Greta McLaughlin, and I am an Environmental Studies student at Fordham University. Creating solutions for the most pressing issues of our time feels like my purpose in life, and it is fulfilling to see how my actions can positively affect the community around me. I especially enjoy studying policy and the government’s role in creating more sustainable societies. I also am interested in urban planning. If we can alter existing and future communities, we can create greener living areas for everyone. The connections between environmental degradation and poverty are a main issue of mine, and I would like my work in the future to focus on this.

Growing up, I was fortunate enough to have parents who believed in the importance of nature. The urban sprawl of northern New Jersey could be suffocating, but my family always made sure we got outdoors. Instead of watching television, my brother and I played outside or raced on bikes down the street. Every summer, we stayed at my friends’ house in the Shenandoah Valley, where we hiked, swam, and more, enjoying the environment and all of its gifts. I would wake up to the sounds of cows mooing and go to sleep hearing the crickets singing. Our family vacations consisted of trips to national parks, and I have been fortunate enough to experience the country through the natural world.

As I began to learn more about environmental issues, I realized how all of this could slip away and how so few people have experienced nature in the way that I did. My interest in government further pushed me towards environmental studies, and I realized how I could consolidate my interests and make lasting change.

#environmental studies #environmentalism #shenandoah #nature #sustainability #the great outdoors