At the risk of veering off on a tangent about human rights in South America (after all, this is a blog about the environment), I decided to follow up my last post with an additional one on the disturbing phenomena that seems to be immerging in the region; this time in Argentina.
To refresh your memory (or for those too lazy to scroll down), I recently reported on the plight of the poor citizens in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil who are being walled in, somewhat against there will. According to a spokesperson from the Rio government, this is a necessary measure to stop individuals from entering the Amazon rainforest in an effort to clear land for home building or to illegally harvest trees for trade on the black market. While saving the environment is a noble cause to undertake, I would argue that garnishing the human rights of the citizenry to do so is not a fair trade. 
While debate on this issue simmers, Brazil’s neighbor to the far south, Argentina, is facing a similar yet far more grave situation. A similar plan spearheaded by Gustavo Posse, mayor of San Isidro, a wealthy region of the capital Buenos Aires, is causing massive amounts of controversy due to the fact that he is way more shameless in the fact that the goal of the project is to separate the rich and the poor regions with a physical barrier. Additionally, unlike in Brazil, outraged citizens have taken to the streets in protest and have gone as far as to physically damage and graffiti the wall, which is now being guarded by the armed forces of the state. The wall has been dubbed “The Wall of Discord” and is being compared to the Berlin wall for its class driven, discriminatory connotations.
The official story from state government officials on the matter is that the reason behind the decision to erect this wall is to, like Brazil, halt the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Luckily, the people of Argentina are less willing to swallow that farce and are helping to shed some light on this unfortunate situation. The mayor of San Isidro has also been quoted as saying that the wall is necessary to for the protection of the citizens and will result in decreased crime because criminals from San Fernando, the poor region of Buenos Aires, will not be able to get in to San Isidro. If that isn’t blatant discrimination than I don’t know what is. Posse is generalizing the people of an entire area as vagrants and criminals when that is certainly not the case and frankly, the people of San Fernando are right for not lying down and taking it.
My main criticism of the Argentinean government, who has vehemently spoke out against the actions being taken in the capital, is that they have failed to protect the rights of the citizens and have allowed the state, which is inherently under the jurisdiction of the national government, to act against its judgment. What type of political system would allow individual entities under the all-encompassing to just act with out any uniformity or checks? (cough, cough) While the Argentinean government has pledged to halt further construction of the wall, it’s the principle of the matter. But then again, everything is always about the principle. I just don’t get how the mayor thought he could pull something so egregious and get away with it. But then again, they managed to do it in Brazil so anything is possible.
And it Spreads... Where do the Walls End?
Environmental Nazism: How to effectively mask human rights violations with environmental concerns
While the notion of returning to 1940’s Nazi Germany would be a horrendous idea to entertain, the government of Rio de Janeiro seems to be taking a page from Hitler’s play book with the enactment of the state’s latest environmental protection legislation. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is a huge concern and a major contributor to the global warming problem. However, walling in the slums of the area to prevent the poor and destitute citizens from sprawling into the rainforest and cutting down trees for personal consumption or sale seems like a less than subtle way to recreate a class based version of the Warsaw ghettos or the Japanese internment camps that still mar the history of our society. Whether or not this type of action is a necessary evil for the protection of the environment, erecting walls throughout a city to separate different classes of people violates these individual’s human rights and beckons us to question the true motives of the Brazilian government which seem to be cloaked by environmental interests.
The majority of Rio de Janeiro’s population lives in extreme poverty which, in turn, has a unique yet distinct effect on the preservation of the adjacent Amazon rainforest. The favelas that plaster the hillsides of Rio de Janeiro house continue to house the masses, however, space is not unlimited. As the impoverished population continues to grow, the slums are forced to sprawl out into the rainforest that it borders, clearing its trees and shrinking its size more and more each year. Additionally, one source of income for some in the slums are the trees themselves. Logging in the Amazon rainforest is not permitted, however, the forest produces valuable wood resources that some are willing to obtain illegally for a price. Poorer citizens are willing to enter the forest and harvest trees to sell illegally as one of the few means they have of making money. These two reasons among others are contributing to the loss of 60 million acres of rainforest each year.
The situation is becoming increasingly dire for the environment as global warming becomes more and more of an issue; however, the solution that the government of Rio de Janeiro has developed will ultimately hurt the poor population of the city as well as the environment. The state government has already begun to erect over seven miles of concrete walls that stand at about 10 feet high around 11 different slums in the region. According to Icaro Moreno, president of Rio de Janeiro’s state public works department, the only objective of this project is to protect the rainforest.
However, the situation has generated mass amounts of controversy being that the walls are only being erected around the slums of the region, which some would consider to be a class driven policy play from the government of Rio de Janeiro. The ulterior motive for walling off the slums from the wealthy areas of the city would be to segregate the two groups and increase the aesthetic look of the rich Rio coastline. Obviously, there is no way this reason could justify the essential boxing in of millions of poor individuals living in the slums, so the environmental protection twist is necessary to carry out this project. However, lack of political power is what is really allowing this ill-conceived plan to be carried out along with the disenfranchisement of the poor in Rio de Janeiro. The real problem in this situation is poverty rather than the destruction of the natural environment. Clearly, if the poverty problem were addressed in Rio de Janeiro then the rainforest would not be in jeopardy the way it is now. The government of Rio de Janeiro is more concerned with its image than it is with the welfare of its citizens. While it is necessary to protect the environment, we shouldn’t do it at the expense of human rights. There are other options to curb deforestation that don’t involve walls around people such as investing in programs sponsored by the UN to treat the deforestation problem under the carbon trading system already established to slow global warming. But as long as Brazil is content with handling global issues with an isolationist and uncompassionate attitude, the walls will continue to stand.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Happy Feet... for the Environment
Best movie ever… Happy Feet! Ok, well maybe not quite, but it is one of my personal favorites. I mean who could resist with all of those cute penguins running around. But the fact that it is an animated children’s film does not detract from its relevance as a fairly accurate depiction of the plight of many species in habitats around the globe that are increasingly being encroached upon by humans. When the protagonist, Mumble the penguin, sets out to find the culprit responsible for the fish drought that had been decimating his clan of penguins and ultimately ends up being captured by humans and placed in wild life prison the zoo, I was compelled to consider how my actions affect the environment at large. This film raises many important questions about the relationship between human progress and animals in the natural environment which, depending upon how we as a society choose to address them, will determine the viability of many species.
Industry is a vital part of the economic system that we have grown accustomed to, however, 9 times out of 10 its existence jeopardizes the natural environment. A good example of this is the oil industry. Oil spills are a reality and a fairly regular occurrence. These events have devastating effects on the natural environment surrounding the oil rigs and miles in the distance. In the film there was no oil spill, however, the abandoned rigs and housing areas for people who worked on the rigs caused problems for the penguins. Not only did the construction affect the natural habitat and migration patterns for the penguins, but trash left behind by the crews polluted the area and even strangled one of them nearly to death. Humans entering environmentally sensitive areas for economic purposes may be a necessary evil for now, however, we must take additional steps to insure that the least amount of damage possible is incurred by the environment.
In our sometimes overzealous quest for knowledge we intrude upon the natural environment to study it. While this may seem like a noble quest, its enactment many times show no compassion for the animals it effects. Many studies involve animal testing in which animals are removed from their natural environment and caged so they may be monitored. However, we can all agree that this is devastating for the lives of the animals involved. The protagonist of the film, Mumble the penguin, is captured by humans while in pursuit of the ship carrying the oil rig workers that were seemingly responsible for the fish drought in his habitat. They examine him and place him in a zoo in a traumatizing manner that leaves Mumble disoriented, forlorn, and longing to return home. So much so in fact that he begins to have delusions. The main point here is not that we should stop studying animals, but rather we should avoid test tube studies and view them from the natural environment.
Additionally, the human disregard for the environment or the animals extends further in the way that we ignore environmental issues until it is nearly too late or it becomes fashionable to care. While an array of environmental issues exist, only a few immerge to the forefront as they become part of the popular media for one reason or another. Mumble the penguin only is able to help his penguin clan through his unique ability to dance. If Mumble had not been able to gain human interest through this ability, his clan would have certainly become extinct because no one was interested or aware of the effects of the oil drilling in the area. Why does it take a miraculous or out of the ordinary event for us to care about how we are destroying the natural environment? Although we can not negate all of the negative externalities of human activity, we should make ourselves at least more aware of the problems so that we may find more solutions.
The environment is an issue that more and more people are taking notice of and media outlets such as films are helping to spread awareness. However, if people don’t understand the message, is it really helping? Happy Feet is an animated children’s film, but it does outline many problems that the environment faces as human society continues to evolve. The true test of this type of environmentally aware media will be to see how much action it elicits from those that view it.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Progressing into a Bird-Less Era
Look! It’s a bird… No, a plane… Wait, it’s both?
Progressives and environmentalists alike cringe to hear stories of man and nature colliding in highly preventable accidents, such as the recent flight 1549 plane crash into the Hudson River which was apparently caused by a large bird striking the plane and taking out one or more of its engines. However, are problems like this resolvable for both humans and nature, or is it inevitable that human progress will always come out on top in the struggle for human consideration?
Well, if you believe that very little consideration for the birds at all to be a reasonable amount, then yes. Leading researchers are developing new technology to allow airplanes to withstand the force of even larger birds than they already can. According to reports, instead of sucking up birds of 4 to 5 pounds or smaller, researchers are trying to achieve propeller strengths that can obliterate flying objects (unidentified or otherwise) of up to 20 pounds. Watch out flying geese!
But wouldn’t it be way smarter for someone to figure out a way to keep objects out of the plane’s vortex all together as opposed to the steam roller approach in which anything in the plane’s path is destroyed? Well, that sounds reasonable enough, but I’m far from a scientist myself and I have very little power in persuading the great minds of the world to make that technology available in the future. So until then, mitigating the damages that these two parties can and do inflict upon each other must be considered.
Proposed alternatives to solve the problem include re-routing bird migration patterns, relocating bird habitats farther away from runways, utilizing natural predators of the birds such as falcons to catch and ward off the birds, and remodeling airport areas to include less water and foliage so that they attract fewer birds. All of these seem like fairly feasible ideas; however, none seem to take into consideration the plight of the birds. Climate change and habitat destruction coupled with increased accessibility to food, decrease in natural predator populations, and birds becoming increasingly “familiar” with humans and their civilizations are responsible for an explosive bird population boom over the last few decades. The bird population in North America has quadrupled since 1990 and, in turn, the number of bird-airplane collisions has increased from approximately 1500 to nearly 8000 during that same time period. Additionally, over the past few decades commercial airplanes have converted from four or six engines to two quieter engines per plane, making them less detectable by birds and more prone to crashing in the event of a collision.
All of these factors contributing to the increase in bird-airplane collisions have been the result of human activity. Yet no proposed solutions involve curtailing or modifying human activity. The major problem in this situation is not the fact that birds and planes are coming into contact more often. It is the fact that humans, the more advanced of the two species, have developed a blatant and unabashed disregard for the proliferation of other species. Countless innovations in human society have developed at the expense of nature, yet very little has been done to innovate solutions for the benefit of nature. Human activity and advancement seem to be spurred by selfish motives such as prestige or monetary compensation rather than a sense of obligation to protect the environment that we live in.
While it is obvious that humans will continue to evolve more sophisticated technology that may or may not endanger the natural environment, it is important that we consider the consequences of such advancements for the future of the environment and the humans that will inhabit it. Right now problems such as the bird-plane collision dilemma that effect both humans and the environment in a negative way are being examined. However, I guarantee if the birds were the only party being negatively impacted by the situation this problem would get very little attention if any.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Improving the Air for All: Tokyo, Japan
As we have seen from the industrial revolutions of Europe and North America, developing a nation has grave environmental costs, especially during the initial development stage. Along with an inherent population boom, comes the issue of controlling pollution and production so that the limited resources of the nation are not depleted or damaged. Tokyo, Japan is one city that not only has to deal with these same issues as it develops, but also faces geographical challenges and limitations that exacerbate theses issues. Although Tokyo is a developing city that must deal with the daunting environmental implications of industrializing as well as rapid population growth, the city has been able to implement some effective measures to improve the air quality and the overall quality of life for its inhabitants while developing the city in a way that will sustain its current population boom and populations to come.
Tokyo, Japan is one of the most densely populated areas in Japan with a total population of 12.79 million people or 5,847 persons per sq. kilometer as of 2007. These numbers suggest that Tokyo houses about 10% of Japan’s population on 0.6% of Japan’s total land area (Tokyo Metropolitan Government). Tokyo’s population has been increasing steadily since 1997 and has seen a great increase in immigrant population as well as natural population growth. The United Nations estimates that by the year 2015, Tokyo will remain the city in the world with the largest urban population at 27.2 million inhabitants, more than doubling its current population (The UN). Economically, Tokyo has been in a recovering stage since the mid 1990’s. After experiencing a burst in its economic bubble in the late 80’s, Tokyo has been working to recover economically by creating more jobs and cutting taxes for struggling workers. Although Tokyo, Japan is known for its automobile industry, it experienced a slight lull at the beginning of 2000, causing a major resurgence in recent years. But as the rise of automated assembly of cars came about, this still left many workers in Japan looking for jobs.
Because of Tokyo’s large population (and the population boom predicted for the future) and its need to expand economically to support this population, it is increasingly becoming one of the world’s largest air polluters. It is estimated that the Tokyo region of Japan alone emits 60 million tons of green house gases per year (Kubota). The city remains 5th on the list of biggest greenhouse gas emitters as it struggles to meet regulations set out by the Kyoto Protocol. The main causes for Tokyo’s inability to completely curb air pollution in the city include geography, increased industry, and increased use of the automobile.
One of the main components of Tokyo’s air pollution problem is its natural geography. Tokyo is situated on the mountainous island-nation of Japan. Although most people would assume that, since Tokyo is off the coast, the ocean breeze from the Pacific blows away some of the emissions and pollution, this is not the case. The high mountains on the island act as buffers and cause air pollution to become trapped in the basin area where the city lies. It is also is key to note that the mere fact that Tokyo is located on an island makes it more susceptible to air pollution due to the fact that all of the countries industry, resource extraction, and land use must be done in on a very finite amount of land. Although Tokyo has taken part in massive land reclamation efforts, we can see from the sheer number of office building and factories in the city that too much industry is taking place on a small amount of land.
It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of factories and office buildings in Tokyo that emit a large percentage of the world’s green house gasses and pollutants. These factories and other businesses are emitting large amounts of sulfur oxides into the air, the main cause of acid rain. Acid rain is a natural phenomenon where pollutants such as sulfur oxides get into the air and mix with rain water. When the rain water falls and comes into contact with plants and other natural resources it can seriously damage them as well as the natural water supply. This is a huge problem for the agricultural sector of Tokyo’s economy as well as for the health and safety of its inhabitants. The government has also recently faced multiple class action law suits against its citizens who have faced grave and irreversible health problems due to the amount of air pollution in the city. It is estimated the government has issued over $55.2 million in settlements for wrongful death and injury suits due to air pollution. Although Tokyo has tried to encourage limited emissions and less industry in the city, opponents argue that Tokyo cannot afford to limited its economic industries no matter what the environmental costs are because doing so would damage its economy to a point where it is no longer a contender in the global market.
Lastly, when discussing air pollution, it is inevitable that the role of automobile use be looked at. As the automobile becomes cheaper to buy for personal consumption, more and more people are compelled to buy it for not only transportation but for status symbols. It is estimated that total passenger car consumption in Japan reached 50 million units in 2000 (Associated Press). Apparently this many cars on the road cannot be good for the environment or the health of the citizenry. Shintaro Ishihara, the Governor of Tokyo, was quoted in a speech in 2002 stating that “over 20% of all lung cancer fatalities in Tokyo are attributed to particulate matter released from diesel cars” (Tokyo Metropolitan Government). In tests done by the Japanese government, only 47% of the automobile emission testing sites achieved acceptable environmental quality standards (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of Environment). The governments of Japan and Tokyo recognize the problems faced by not only automobile use, but also green house gas emissions from factories and other polluters.
Tokyo has, in recent years taken many measures to curb air pollution in the city, although some might argue that these efforts have not been very effective. In 2000 Tokyo began its wave of air pollution policy reforms with a completely amended version of the Pollution Control Ordinance introduced that year in late December. The city also passed the Municipal Environment Protection Ordinance of Tokyo that year. Both aimed to curb pollution from big business and an influx in car use in the city (Tsunoda). Governor Shintaro, Ishihara in 2002 that the government of Tokyo was working to accelerate measures already taken to curb air pollution. His statements were followed a few months later by regulation to limit emissions from diesel vehicles and a new program for small businesses where they could access government loans to help with the costs of complying with the new laws (Tokyo Metropolitan Government). The government of Tokyo has also agreed to implement a new cap and trade system in the city so that any violators of the new emissions regulations will be fined for any over emissions of green house gases.
Aside from policy efforts the government of Tokyo has taken other measures to reduce air pollution. The government has participated in purchasing carbon offsets, which are supposed to cancel the negative effects of pollution by planting greenery to absorb it. They have also built a highly efficient transit system to help reduce automobile usage in the city (Tsunoda). In 2002 the road system was expanded to alleviate some of the traffic congestion in the city, however, some might argue that expanding roads only encourages car use rather than getting more people to use public transportation, a more environmentally viable solution (Associated Press). The government has also spent money on the promotion of higher quality fuels in automobiles and the development of a 24 hour air pollution monitoring system that will track the city’s progress in reducing air pollution and pin point problem areas (Tokyo Metropolitan Government).
To supplement the efforts of limiting air pollution and jointly cope with the increasing population of the area, Tokyo has been the world leader in developing sustainable living and building plans. In a National Geographic documentary, the leading architects of Japan show their plans to develop the city upwards rather than sprawling into the limited space that they already have. This plan relates to air pollution because the new city development will decrease the need for cars and will and will limited future need for additional residential and commercial development. The main sustainability features of the plan include a bullet train linking the entire project together, a super elevator, and over 100 stories of residential and commercial development.
The successfulness of the government’s efforts is arguable at best. Although it has been stated that clear progress has been made in reducing air pollution and can be seen in the fact that the far mountains of Japan can be seen on a clear day from Tokyo, the statistics still show Japan as one of the major air polluters of the world. The government of Tokyo reports that its tests show that automobile emissions have decreased after the implementation of stricter regulations on diesel fueled cars. However, other resources point out that the amount of nitrogen oxides emitted has been steady over the last decade. These figures are clearly inconsistent and require further scrutiny if the real data is to be found, but I am willing to assume that the figures from the government are skewed due to personal bias. It has also been noted that Tokyo still accounts for over 5% of the nations green house gas emissions, even after all the regulations and reforms passed. However, all sources agree that the amount of particulate matter in Tokyo’s air has steadily decreased in the past decade, which accounts for the amount of clearness noted in the Tokyo skies.
The US and Japan both have similar outlooks on pollutions and it is my opinion that they are both very naïve to the reality of it. Tokyo’s government clearly believes that it is doing what it can to protect the environment just as the US does. But it is clear that one solution that neither has tried is to limit the amount of industry in the area. Neither is willing to take the economic hit. The economy is important but if 100 or 200 years down the line there is no environment or supply of natural resources to support life I think that people will begin to realize that the economy isn’t as important as they thought it was. Since the US has a large amount of land compared to the limited amount of land that an island-nation has, I think that planning and land use do not factor in the same way in these two areas. Tokyo is limited in land area which explains why it has so much industry concentrated into one area. The United States, however, doesn’t really have an excuse as to why it has so many dense population centers when that really isn’t necessary. I think if there is one lesson that the US can learn from the city of Tokyo, Japan, it is that if it continues to sprawl the way it has in areas such as Southern California it could face some of the very same environmental problems that Tokyo has in the future.
The air quality in densely populated urban areas has a tendency to be poor. However, the best way to limit the pollution that causes poor air quality without limiting industry is highly debatable. In Tokyo, Japan poor air quality and pollution due to industry and automobile usage is worsened by the area’s natural geography and limited land area. Because of this the government has made numerous efforts to try to curb air pollution for the health and safety of the environment and its inhabitants. These efforts, however, have had mixed results. It is important for a country to sustain itself economically and environmentally. The developing cities of the world, however, are having a tougher time find a good balance of both as natural resources and more scarce and environmental protections become more urgent.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Water: A Non-renewable Resource
Water is one of the few life sustaining resources that can be found all around us. However, the majority of it can not be utilized in its current state. Salty ocean water, contaminated water, and water in the atmosphere make up a large portion of the water supply, but none of it can be used for human consumption, leaving our ground level and underground water supplies the sole provider of clean water. The levels of clean water are being vastly depleted and many people have not grasped the urgency of water conservation. Although there are many programs being developed to solve this problem, we must still increase our efforts to conserve water for now and future generations.
Some of the new technologies being developed to increase or at least slow the decrease of our current water supply include desalinization, a technique used to remove salt from salt water, purifying, and water conservation efforts. These, when done correctly, will have a tremendous effect on the livelihood of the worlds water supply.
However, there are negative effects to these solution. Desalinization produces salt byproduct, called brine, that will ultimately end up in fresh water sources if it is not disposed of properly. Purification involves using chemicals to eliminate the contaminants in dirty water, however, the chemicals themselves could make the water harmful for drinking if they become too concentrated. Water conservation efforts only work when the majority of the population acts on them.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Obama Hearts the Environment
Probably not as much as I heart penguins, but we won’t hold that against him.
While the Bush administration single handedly set America’s environmentally conscious policy push back to the 20th century, the current administration led by commander-in-chief Barack Obama already in its first few weeks seems to be working to undo all of the missteps made by its predecessors and put America back on the path to successfully preserving the environment. However, with strong Republican opposition at every turn, one begins to wonder if Obama and company will have the political fortitude to withstand the barrage of attacks from the Republican Party that are seemingly inevitable, especially on controversial issues such as global warming policy and off shore drilling practices that set deep party divides.
To put it simply, I think he will.
Although the goals of the Obama administration may seem a bit ambitious, it’s pretty likely that they can be achieved with the same amount of ease that the Bush administration had in weaseling its inexplicable and border-line reckless actions past the American people. Granted, Obama doesn’t have an imaginary war to cloak his true motives, but I think that the American people can see that his only motivation is to get America back on track. And with the environment at the top of the nation’s priorities, it is clear that America will no longer stand for a President that refuses to invest in its proliferation.
With that being said, hopefully the damaging effects of such possible policies initiated by the Bush regime such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol can be rectified or circumvented all together. And while it is very possible to do so, the majority of the work that this administration faces will be in gaining universal support in a Congress where the Democrats favor regional politics over party concerns and the Republicans favor anything opposite the Democrats. However, I think that strong political pressure from the people will be the guiding force that enables Obama’s new policies to be implemented.
Thanks to the environmental calamity that has ensued over the past 8 years the slate is open for the new administration to make new policy that will erase the bad habits that America has sunk into and restate America’s environmental goals in a way that shows our commitment to making a successful transition into a new, environmentally conscious era. Obama has already pledged to reduce green house gas emissions, develop clean coal technologies, reduce oil drilling on and off shore, and increase protections for endangered species. All of which have the ability to stimulate the economy rather than cause a net increase to the deficit, which some critics claim will happen with increased investment in the environment. What America needs now is environment saving policy that will, simultaneously create new jobs and help drive us out of the recession; change that will make everyone happier.
See, the penguins are happier already.
*See article in USA Today Obama Veers From Bush Environmental Course by Traci Watson for more research.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Penguins in Madagascar!
OMG! The penguins of the hit movie "Madagascar" are getting their own show on Nick called... "The Penguins of Madagascar", what else?
Aren't they so cute...
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Plan: Integrating Our World with the Changing Environment
As humans continue to make the technological advancements necessary to progress into the future and cultivate a prosperous and productive society, the natural environment that supports and sustains such developments continues to suffer. As we have seen from the industrial revolutions of the past that were responsible for massive amounts of pollution to the green house gas pollution that is said to be the cause of our current global warming crisis, human progress has been in direct conflict with the proliferation of the natural environment for many years and yet the sole contributing factor for making environmentally sensitive policy and economic decisions as of late has been politics rather than principle. Our country is one of the leading nations in the areas of environmental protection policy and sustainable building and development, however, being that it is probably the largest polluter behind China in the world, it is hard to make the argument that everything that we are doing everything that we can to protect the environment. California alone breeds prime examples of the positive and negative effects of a policy driven society that must rely on individual actors to make decisions that will affect the environment and society as a whole. But as members of a global society, it is necessary that we take the environment that we share with the rest of the world into account as we continue to develop our country. While policy makers have certainly, over the past decade, taken greater notice to the detrimental effects of rapid urbanization and progress on the environment, improved policy must be made as well as enhanced implementation of such policy to deal with sustainability and environmental protection issues such as raw land use, transportation, species protection, and eliminating pollution so that we may better cope with the challenge of developing cities while protecting the environment.
Although we live on a very large planet, the earth has a limited amount of land that may be used for development. One of the challenges we currently face is the lack of available raw land and how to use what we have efficiently. Urban sprawl is a broad term used to describe the tendency of developers, planners, and other decision makers to allow new cities to develop in the outer lying regions of an urban area to deal with population growth. The problems that arises when new cities continue to sprout up further and further away from the urban center amount to the same problems that I will discuss further in this essay such as connecting these areas with a central transportation system, protecting the environment in these sensitive areas, and limiting the pollution created by building and automobile use. According to Fulton and Shigley, two of California’s leading urban planners, “for decades [California’s] planning infrastructure has revolved around the single question of how to consume more undeveloped land,” but is currently working to grow within rather than out (Fulton 5). While on the other hand, Chicago, another U.S. site, has been deemed a champion in sustainable development. Both regions, however, must continue to develop policy that will enable limited consumption of raw land.
In Southern California sprawl has been the number one answer to urban growth problems. Now that it is evident that California not only has a limited amount of raw land at its disposal, but has a wealth of natural resources that need to be protected, it is more important than ever that policy changes be made to reflect the need for cities to grow from within rather than spreading out. Growth management and control policies began to emerge during the 70’s in California; however, the push to implement smart growth techniques within the region is a new development and is still not required of builders and planners in the state (Fulton 189). Part of the problem is that builders and economist are concerned more with the dollar amounts than solving environmental problems and anything having to do with the future. For example, several agencies reported in the mid to late 90’s that sprawling development could result in future liability and harm to millions of acres of necessary farm land in Southern California. However, these reports and figures have been disputed by builders and developers who argue that these developments are a necessity to ensure that the state’s economy continues to sustain itself (Fulton 25). The conventional suburban style of development that has become customary in Southern California is only creating an environmental conundrum that, if not stopped, will push development into environmentally sensitive areas and ultimately cause more economic problems than the ones that are trying to be avoided.
Chicago is one city that can be lauded for its efforts in sustainable development and is one of the leaders in developing better policies to implement sustainable development practices in the region. According to architect Carmen Hallett, “the city of Chicago is aggressively exploring ways to invest in sustainability” (Hallett 1). Aside from its geometric and efficient layout, policy efforts by the City of Chicago to produce sustainable buildings include their green roof top initiative, bird safe building regulations, and other policies to encourage sustainable development (City of Chicago). Additionally, the implementation of smart growth techniques in buildings has become popular with Chicago planners and shows an acknowledgement of land use efficiency and new urbanist planning over sprawl.
With sprawl comes the fear of developing over land that is environmentally sensitive meaning that it is home to an endangered or protected species or it is of cultural or environmental significance. Policy that protects species and land marks is prominent in California even though it struggles to deal with the problem of sprawl. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the government protects endangered and threatened plants and animals (listed species) and the habitats upon which they depend” (EPA). Therefore, it is inevitable that we will work to protect species from developments encroaching on their habitats; however, we must continue to ensure that the best interests of the environment and the economy are jointly at the forefront.
Although criticisms can be made of it, the state of California’s environmental protection laws are better than most at protecting species and landmarks from development. The California Environmental Quality Act has made planners and developers legally accountable for, at the very least, investigating all of the environmental impact that proposed projects have on the surrounding environment. This at least makes decision makers aware of the effects of development. This law also enables others to file suit if either the planners or developers act irresponsibly or overlook something in the environmental impact review process. According to Fulton, “CEQA has achieved its goal of informing the public and generating public debate on the environmental consequences of building projects” (Fulton 174). However, debate may not be enough. These laws only compel builders and planners to be environmentally responsible and only require action when someone is caught red handed violating the law.
California is also known for its extensive conservation efforts. One example of this is the preservation efforts to save the habitat of the endangered El Segundo Blue Butterfly. This species is native to the area south of the Los Angeles International Airport which is highly sought after by developers, oil refiners, and the airport itself. California has done its part by establishing a detailed habitat preservation plan to protect and revitalize the existing population of blue butterfly. As we can see from the work done by the California Coastal Commission, the habitat enhancement plan for this area requires a complete overhaul of the vegetation and landscape of the area to better format it with the natural habitat of the butterfly. However, the debate surrounding the proper use for the land that this habitat is located on, beckons policy makers to consider ways to integrate the habitat with additional uses to increase land use efficiency and promote economic growth.
Another sustainability issue we must deal with that is deeply connected to the issues I have already discussed is pollution. Along with the problem of sprawl comes the pollution caused by sprawl. More sprawl means that more cars will be on the road traveling to the urban center which translates into increased air pollution and emissions. Additionally, these outer lying regions will produce further pollution during their development phases and in the event these areas are used for industrial purposes. Industrializing nations face this problem most frequently since they do not have the resources to worry about the pollution that their industry produces. However, it is important that we work jointly to facilitate economic growth among all nations that protects the environment.
In many developing nations limiting pollution and reducing emissions is not a top priority. The population growth in new urban areas is so overwhelming that many health and environmental problems rises as it continues to expand. In an article describing the environment of these burgeoning urban areas, they are described as cities that “suffer from a catalog of environmental ills. A World Health Organization (WHO)/United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study found that seven of the cities—Mexico City, Beijing, Cairo, Jakarta, Los Angeles, Sao Paulo and Moscow—had three or more pollutants that exceeded the WHO health protection guidelines. All 20 of the cities studied by WHO/UNEP had at least one major pollutant that exceeded established health limits” (Abhat 5). Pollution and emissions from cars and industry are not only harming the environment but also the health and safety of humans. The solution here is more regulation to require developing industry to lower emissions. Most surprising is that cities in developed nations such as Moscow and Los Angeles are on the same level, pollution wise, as major cities in developing nations. Efforts must be made on a global scale to change environmental policies that assist not only urban centers in developing nations but developed nations to curb pollution for the health and safety of the populations that inhabit them and the preservation of the natural environment.
Lastly, transportation is a major issue whose detriment is intensified by sprawl and can exacerbate the problem of pollution. When urban areas feature multiple smaller, outlying areas, such as the suburbs of Southern California, planners and developers must figure out ways to connect them to the central transportation network or risk being criticized for boosting the thriving car culture that permeates Southern California society and causes the intense air pollution that can be seen hovering over the Los Angeles County basis on a regular basis. Abroad, other nations face similar transportation issues as they develop and become more accustomed to the use of the automobile as a means of transportation. We must initiate policy at home that increases the use of public transportation and abroad that curbs the development of heavy reliance on the automobile so that we may decrease air pollution and emissions.
Public transportation is not highly popular or efficient in Southern California. The system lacks efficiency because the sprawling nature of the development does not allow public transit routes to access very many areas. Additionally, the popularity of the personal automobile is higher here than anywhere else in the nation. These things combined make efficient transportation policy nearly impossible to be developed. However, some things have been done here to turn the situation around. Susan Handy of the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California at Davis discusses this in her research on transportation policy and states that, “transportation investments and policies influence development patterns” (Handy, 3). Planning commissions in Southern California have noticed the need for investment in public transit and, in conjunction with government funded development projects, have increased the number of transit-oriented development projects in the region by setting certain requirements for developers interested in these projects and others not related to the government. This is a positive start in reforming transportation policies, however, actual changes to the laws must be made to further strengthen this movement.
In China transportation is a massive problem very similar to that which plagues Southern California. After the relatively recent introduction of the automobile to the mainstream Chinese consumer, the market and roads were inundated with affordable automobiles for many Chinese people. According to Wei-Shiuen Ng and Lee Schipper’s work on policy options for transportation in China, “this explosion in car ownership is unsustainable, as evidenced by the impacts of rising congestion, increased air pollution, increased oil consumption, and high rates of traffic fatalities” (Ng 1). However, China’s current transportation system is extremely efficient and accounts for over half of the urban trips made in China. China’s real problem lies within the policy made by its officials and the economy. The automobile industry is a key industry in China and most economists believe that a collapse in the automobile industry would result in a collapse in the Chinese economy. Be that as it may, one solution would be to increase the efficiency and lower the emissions of the cars they produce. Ng discusses policy solutions for China in his work and suggests that, “the fuel economy standards announced in October 2004 are a key regulation to aid energy security. These standards require the auto industry to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, which could include cleaner advanced vehicles or alternative-fuel vehicle technologies” (Ng 6). As long as we continue to improve public transit systems and lower the emissions produced by automobiles, sustainable transportation policy is to be anticipated.
The importance of preserving the natural environment is more urgent than most would believe it to be; and the process of planning cities with this in mind is very difficult. Such complex issues as raw land use, species preservation, pollution, and transportation present a daunting task for policy makers who are responsible for integrating solutions for these problems into regulations that facilitate economic growth. However, continued research and collaboration on these issues at home and abroad will produce great advancements in sustainable development and policy in the future.
Bibliography
Abhat, Divya, Shauna Dineen, Tamsyn Jones, Jim Motavalli, Rebecca Sanborn, and Kate Slomkowski. “Today’s “Mega-cities” are Overcrowded and Environmentally Stressed.” E Magazine. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2850&src=QHA123
California Coastal Commission. California Coastal Commission Staff Report and Recommendation Regarding the El Segundo Blue Butterfly. June 2007. http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2007/8/W18h-8-2007.pdf
City of Chicago. Department of Community Development. February 2009. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalEntityHomeAction.do?entityName=Planning+And+Development&entityNameEnumValue=32&Failed_Reason=Session+not+found&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalEntityHomeAction.do
El Segundo Blue Butterfly. The Butterfly Conservation Initiative. February 2009. http://www.butterflyrecovery.org/species_profiles/el_segundo_blue/
The Environmental Quality Act. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/
Fulton, William and Paul Shigley. Guide to California Planning. California: Solano Press Books. September 2005.
Hallett, Mark and Carmen. “Sustainability in the Big City: What Chicago can learn from Curitiba.” The American Institute of Architects. October 2008. http://www.soloso.aia.org/nacq_a_051013_outside_vidalhallet
Handy, Susan. “Smart Growth and The Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?” June 2002. http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/handy/MD_paper.pdf
“Industrialization.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. February 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrializing
“New Urbanism.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. February 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_growth
Ng, Wei-Shiuen and Lee Schipper. “China Motorization Trends: Policy Options in a World of Transport Challenges.” Growing in the Greenhouse: Policies and Measures for Sustainable Development while Protecting the Environment. December 2005. http://www.embarq.wri.org/documentupload/China%20Motorization%20Trends%20-%20Chapter%204%20of%20Full%20Report.pdf
“Smart Growth.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. February 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_growth
“Sustainable Development.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. February 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
“Urban Sprawl.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. February 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Sprawl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered Species Protection Program. February 2009. http://www.epa.gov/espp/
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Intellectualism at the Expense of the Environment?
The presence of free speech and freedom of intellectual pursuit in modern society along with the development of mass media technology has enabled any nutcase with the means and the motivation to distribute his or her ideas to the world. On the other hand, it has also allowed for meaningful intellectual discourse to occur between great minds that would otherwise never have the opportunity to connect. Whether you find Bjorn Lomborg to be an optimistic ray of light in the muddled mess of global warming theory or environmental enemy number one, his work as a public intellectual raises key arguments as to why society needs a little bit of both to continue to evoke thought and discussion amongst other intellectuals in the academic world. Through his highly publicized and controversial works, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: A Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, Lomborg has managed to keep the debate on global warming an issue by downplaying its effects and criticizing current efforts to minimize them. But with the validity of his research in question it becomes evident that when work is done outside of an intellectual’s area of expertise it is subject to intense scrutiny and will inherently mislead some portion of the population.
Lomborg’s most recent works have, in fact, defined what it means to be a new age public intellectual in the sense that they have “stirred the pot.” According to Stephen Mack’s blog, The New Democratic Review, stepping outside of one’s academic discipline to comment on socially relevant matters is what intellectuals do. Lomborg who has several degrees in political science, has effectively demonstrated his skill in journalism and scientific research to publish many works regarding the over embellishment of the problem of global warming by the media and the government. He has also aptly criticized of the work being done to curb global warming as excessive and inefficient. In his Washington Post article published last June, he states that “attempts to curb carbon emissions along the lines of the bill (referring to the Lieberman-Warner Climate change bill) now pending are a poor answer compared with other options,” in order to bring to light the other possible options America has in attempting to lessen the effects of global warming. However, in the same moment, Lomborg has clearly gained a left wing following that is using his work as evidence of global warming’s non-existence. According to many environmental blogs including Open Mind, which sites statistic fallacies in Lomborg’s work, many Lomborg supporters are misreading statistical analysis and coming to the conclusion that environment saving programs to reduce green house gases are fruitless.
Where do we as intellectuals draw the line between provocative research and writings that are the source of small amounts of mass hysteria that could be harmful (or helpful depending on how you view the situation) to society?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Going, going.... gone?
If your future travel plans include the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica, don't plan on it being there for too much longer. Just another tragic effect of global warming. Hopefully the penguins are alright = /
