Forum

As you probably know, there is a protest happening this thursday in D.C. against the XL pipeline. A few students from my environment class are going and will be live tweeting from the protest. Follow them on Twitter @WUinDC !! Or on instagram: #websteru !

While it is very idealistic and would be difficult to implement, in this article "Just Garbage" Peter Wentz discusses his system of "LULU" points. LULU stands for Locally Undesirable Land Uses, and LULU-labeled sites include landfills, prisons, toxic dumps, power plants, and other operations considered "undesirable." To avoid low-income communities bearing the brunt of undesirable and hazardous operations like landfills and toxic dumps, Wentz suggest that a system of points be awarded to communities based on income level, existing LULU locations, resources available, and other factors outlined in the paper. When needing to site new LULU locations, the communities with more or less points would be first on the list to receive the sites. This would help to distribute the burden of environmental hazards among all communities, avoiding the NIMBY syndrome, and also encouraging more research and stricter policy to prevent the generation of toxic wastes (such as nuclear waste, chemical waste water) by communities with more exisiting political power. The system would not completely alleviate environmental discrimination nor is it completely probable in the current political landscape; but it is an interesting idea in terms of how we might conceive of a system that would place equal environmental burdens across communities, no matter income level or race, in the future.
Link:
https://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Env_Ethics_Sp_2012/Wenz_Just_Garbage.pdf

I don't know about any of you but I had a completely different view of that picture of the man looking out into the wilderness. In class, it was said that the picture was seen as the white man dominating what stood before him, yet I see something else. I believe it is more about the unknown. The man is looking out toward this vast sea of unknown. He wishes to discover more than conquer. More so, the man is wearing clothes that you may have found in the city or other more civilized places. With his back to us, I imagine he is leaving the civilized world that he had once known to venture off into that which is uncertain. His future is ahead of him in that unknown land and he is leaving the civilized world behind him. In essence, he seeks knowledge not destruction. But, that's just my view. Any thoughts?

I thought it was awe more than anything else. I also kind of thought the whole "he's a man wanting to conquer Mother Nature" thing seemed stretched, if only because if I were a painter in that time period, I'd paint a guy instead of a woman, too--pants and a suit just seem cleaner and less distracting from the mountains behind than would be a dress.

"Now that doesn’t mean we have to stop thinking, and simply accept everything that the voice of authority lays in front of us."

As I've stated before, I find myself settling to be neutral about the use and consumption of GMO's. Although not many harmful facts/diagnosis have come to surface as a conclusion of using GMO's I do believe that we as Americans tend to not worry too much and trust what's being told to us. This particular quote exemplifies that being that the "voice of authority" that is over GMO's find no hard in the usage, we as American settle for the "good enough" aspect of things instead of thinking of other possible alternatives. But, I agree, this doesn't mean that we have to stop thinking and accept whats happening regardless of if it had already been in effect before or after we were born. As a class, I believe that we've agreed that we are all entitled to an opinion as well as our rights and we have the right to choose or seek different alternatives.

Just something I found interesting from one of the articles,

"Jon Foley at the Institute on the Environment points out, quite rightly, that it’s meat consumption, not population, that’s driving global food demand. So we could, instead, reduce meat consumption. That’s a noble goal. Unfortunately, meat consumption has roughly quadrupled in the last 50 years, primarily driven by increasing wealth in the developing world, with no sign of stopping. I welcome any practical plan to reduce meat consumption worldwide, but until then, we have to find a way to keep boosting food production."

I had never really thought of it as people just eating more. I always thought it had something to do with the population growing.

Meat consumption has vastly increased in developing and wealthy countries. However, some of the fastest growing countries in the world are third world countries that really do not consume the amount of meat that we do in a country like the United States.

I also don't believe in overpopulation though. Consider this: every single person on the planet can fit in the state of Texas with a population density parallel to that of New York's. Obviously, this is not realistic, but it just goes to show how big this planet really is. I don't believe in overpopulation, but I do believe that the population is poorly distributed, and that we do an even poorer job of managing the Earth's resources.

This is a cool website regarding GMOs. It may be a little bias, but the facts are there. Pay closer attention to the "GMOs Are Not New" section.

https://factsaboutgmos.org