Interesting development approach to handling natural "disasters"

Most of you have heard of LEED certified buildings: a stamp of approval on new development given by the Green Building Council based on a series of aspects that ensure that the building is absolutely energy efficient and reduces indoor air pollution. This certification is a manner of mitigating and reducing our carbon footprint in our already horrendously polluted earth. The article that I came across however, suggests that LEED certification should take it one step further and certify buildings as "climate resilient" as well. In order to avoid the devastating impacts of climate related disasters such as rising sea levels, drought, and intense hurricanes and storm surges, they want to cushion the blow by designing homes with heavily insulated walls and reflective green roofs (to name a few). The Green Building Council calls this "climate resilience" measures.

http://grist.org/cities/gimme-bomb-shelter-fema-pushes-for-baking-disaster-planning-into-green-building/

First of all, I do appreciate some aspects of this approach. It makes sense to reinforce and strengthen buildings (especially public buildings) because of the inevitability that, indeed our earth is changing and one must recognize as human beings we have come to rely quite a bit on our built environment. HOWEVER I am concerned about the focus of preparing for the inevitable rather than seek to mitigate and reduce the harmful causes of severe climate change. There is simply not enough effort and global participation among those with power and influence to halt and reverse climate change. Its an emergency, that should be treated as one. It is a classic mistake of western cultures to look towards building more, bigger and stronger to hide us and protect us from climate related occurrences rather than change our behavior.

Also (as this pertains very strongly to the class) I am concerned that money and development will be focused on those who can afford it. a building with Leed certification, at this point requires a lot of money. Most of the time, buildingswith Leed certification are in regions and neighborhoods that have the luxury of doing so. Yes, perhaps in Texas (as mentioned in the article) there have been an increasing number of heat storms so peoples' houses don't cool down as much during the evening. However in Haiti, Hurricane Gustav destroyed entire neighborhoods. I am almost certain that those living in Texas will have more resources to get this "climate resilient" stamp of approval rather than those living in areas that are extremely vulnerable to debilitating climate change effects and very poor infrastructure

Lessons learned from Love Canal: 40 years later

It's easy to get bogged down by news articles and studies that demonstrate how much injustice, inequality, and environmental degradation are burdening different populations in the world. One would think that after years and years of pollution and struggle that things would change: laws and regulations would have a greater impact and perhaps we would learn from mistakes made in the past. With all of this newly obtained knowledge I have about lead poisoning, food deserts, and dangerously polluted parks in lower income neighborhoods I have begun to feel a bit depressed. But all is not lost! I stumbled upon this article yesterday about a local government in New York taking a stand against potentially hazardous testing of waste water produced by hydraulic fracturing operations in Niagara falls. (For those who have no idea what hydraulic fracturing is, like me, it is the process of extracting natural gas or other forms of energy by using pressurized water or sand to break up underground shale). The article itself is: 

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Niagara-Falls-won-t-treat-drilling-wastewater-3385642.php but I can summarize it. Apparently the Niagara Falls Water Board has been toying with the idea of accepting, treating and testing out of town wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations because of declining profits. The wastewater however most always contains carcinogens and the community in Niagara falls was concerned that the water would be discharged into the streams and into their neighborhoods. So thanks to the concerned citizens, environmental and social justice groups, just two days ago the city council approved an ordinance that would prohibit the "storage, transfer, treatment or disposal of natural gas exploration and production wastes." But activist groups were not the only motivation behind the approval of this ordinance, in fact it was in part due to the same town's traumatic history of pollution and deception by the government in the 1970's. The site that is fighting dangerous wastewater treatment now is the same one that held Love Canal: the first official superfund site. 

The story of Love Canal is extensive and I have provided a link to an informational, somewhat dramatic documentary about the details however once again for the sake of brevity I shall paraphrase the event. In the late 1800's a company began construction on a canal just east of Niagara falls. The project was never finished due to a lack of funding so 20 years later the area was purchased by Hooker Chemical company and essentially used as a hazardous waste dump site for several years. In the 1950's it was covered with clay and soil and the town of Love Canal grew and flourished around it. Hooker's land was bought for 1 dollar and used as a playground for the local school (despite warnings that there could be exposure to dangerous chemicals). Residents of the town were unaware of the dangers of the area: basements were leaking black goo, children were suffering from medical conditions yet when certain families (most notably Lois Gibbs) asked to be relocated to a more safe area, they were refused. This sparked a wave of grassroots activism led by mostly concerned mothers that eventually led to national attention and the recognition by national government to address and clean up highly polluted areas.

The legitimacy and relevance of this story is so apparent now, when the same neighborhood is once again faced with the risk of exposure to chemicals. This time however, city council took the lead to protect the citizens (as is their job). Councilman Glenn Choolokian said, "I researched it and it just came to a point where money can't be everything... We can't be a test case. We've been through Love Canal. We don't want another Love Canal" Perhaps one can be optimistic about this quote and this story. History doesn't have to repeat itself. Government can be better, policy can be better and mistakes can be avoided. 

Senate to push for Keystone XL Pipeline

President Obama rejected the proposal to develop the Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport toxic dirty tar sands across our country from Canada to Texas due to the lack of necessary environmental and safety reviews. This project threatens our environment, waters supplies, agriculture and public health. This Week the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment sponsored by Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) that would force approval of the pipeline.

It would bypass our nation’s long-standing environmental review process and give Congress the unprecedented authority to hand out permits on massive projects.

You can read more and even use your own voice on this issue at the following link.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline.html

Global Environmental Justice

The Earth: we are all interconnected, and so are our problems. 

In thinking about Environmental Justice, we typically focus on issues in the United States and Mexico.  However, the issue surrounding Environmental Justice and development can be seen on a global scale.  The EPA defines Environmental Justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" (1).   But what if the regulations and policies don't exist or are not enforced?  How does this relate to development around the globe?  Development is often seen through economic eyes as a way to transition from developing to developed- being the shift towards Western society.    


Development can be examined through following a commodity that is consumed in Western countries.  If we think about a product commonly used in today's society, the likelihood that the product was made-from start to finish, including all the components or ingredients-in the United States is very low.  So how does this relate to the world? Those products, materials, and ingredients are produced, mined, manufactured, and shipped from and to places around the world.  This global trade is driven by the free market and competition.  But how does this relate to environmental justice, one might ask?  We can answer this question in many ways and from many angles, from the conditions of mining in low income countries and regions to the exploitation of land and labor in poor communities. 

Toxic Electronic Waste (Source: http://my.opera.com/sanshan/blog/2009/08/06/e-waste )

A good example that involves Environmental Justice and development is a 60 Minutes segment about the toxic electronic waste that is being exported out of the United States to a rural town in China.  This is exemplary of the global imbalance of power and poorly enforced regulations and policies.  The electronic waste is gathered by a "recycling" companies, claiming that the toxic television and computer screens, electronics, and phones are being disposed and recycled in the US.  These electronic parts contain high levels of chemical toxins and pollutants.  These pollutants and toxins seep into the groundwater in the area, and the workers who are tasked with taking apart the electronic waste in order to salvage and recycle some of the harmful chemicals are working without protection and using removal methods that are unsafe.  The workers and area these toxic items are being dumped is being taken advantage of by people with power and control. 


While the development of technology and globalization of trade allows for many new commodities and conveniences in Western countries, it also allows for shuffling of environmental problems out of the rich countries and into the poor countries.  This gives a whole new meaning to "Not In My Back Yard" because it demonstrates NIMBYism in action on a global scale.  


Read more about the toxic electronic waste site here: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4579229.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

1. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

Acceptable Risk, or Flawed Development?

As defined by Ulrich Beck, risk is a generalized condition of modernity. Risk is unavoidable. But our class status and privilege is, in part, framed by our ability to minimize risk. The question I'd like to raise is whether or not the disproportionate impacts (from environmental disasters) to low-income communities is truly miscalculated risk, or if basic methods of development need to be reformed.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was combination of engineering flaws in the dike system and the destruction of natural wetland buffers. This "natural disaster" was what many would call a result of manufactured risk: a byproduct of human activity rather than a natural process. A consequence of anthropological risk (or in my eyes, flawed development) led to contaminants in the flood waters and countless displaced families who continued to feel negative health effects even years later.

This is an example of misguided development: those low-income communities most drastically affected by the hurricane were already experiencing a "poverty of deprivation" and were displaced from means of subsistence to be developed. This concept can be applied to nearly every environmental health dilemma, from high rates of asthma to lack of healthy food availability. The 'development' flaw goes way beyond failed dike systems; it started with structural inequalities (like risk assessment issues and structural violence) and an inadequate social infrastructure to deal with the aftermath.

Families who are on the edge of subsistence are always more vulnerable in the face of a natural disaster, but this concept is exacerbated by further inequalities in development decisions. Being part of a "developed nation" certainly doesn't mean that economic development positively impacts the context of your life. Ultimately, risks are taken in determining what is acceptable for communities, and consequences are not felt by the decision makers themselves. A natural disaster exposes these inequities and calls for a more balanced form of social development that prioritizes factors other than growth.

Environmental Justice PolicyMaking Rollercoaster

As elections are approaching, I thought it would be a good idea to focus on a specific issue that has continually stunted the development of environmental health and safety: policymaking. Under President Clinton in 1994, he recognized that for nearly a decade minority and low-income populations were being taken advantage of as polluting industries were becoming increasingly common in this marginalized communities. As we learned in class, Clinton issued Executive Order 12898: Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations, in the hopes that federal agencies would implement Environmental Justice policies in their decision-making processes. However, under President George W. Bush, he failed to stress the importance of EJ and even "watered down the definition of Environmental Justice so much that it excluded minority and low-income populations."

Here is a report by the EPA Inspector General issued to address the current state of EJ and the importance of the EO: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2004/03/20040301-2004-p-00007.pdf

So we have seen the emergence of Environmental Justice, the stressed importance of "equality", and yet a downturn has occurred as our previous president downplayed the importance of safety and health of our environment. Enter President Obama. Since he was elected president,  the White House has made significant strides in resurrecting EJ and bringing it to the forefront of policymaking.

The Following is an exert from the article "Environmental Justice Advances into Federal Policymaking":
Highlights of a few of the agency initiatives that will help improve outreach, participation, and planning for environmental justice:

- The Department of Labor is translating educational materials and hazard alerts into Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese to ensure that minority workers have access to information to avoid environmental hazards on the job.

- Through its Pueblo Project in Los Alamos, NM, the Department of Energy will enable four tribal governments to run pollution monitoring programs and provide technical input on the National Nuclear Security Administration's decisions.

- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention part of the Department of Health and Human Service, is using Health Impact Assessments to evaluate the potential impacts its policy or projects might have on disadvantaged communities.

The EPA has a complete listing of all agencies' policies, strategic plans, and implementation reports: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/interagency/iwg-compendium.html

Complete Article "Environmental Justice Advances into Federal Policymaking" can be found here: http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11995

Learning from Local Knowledge

    When an Environmental Justice issue arises amongst a community, often times the members of that community feel like they do not have a strong enough voice to make a difference. At the same time, the experts and professionals who speak to these community members communicate through technical/statistical jargon that does not meet the concerns of those who are affected the most. Local passiveness can be a by-product of seemingly politically-oriented discussions that overshadow the importance of local knowledge, therefore communities have a difficult time expressing themselves with the knowledge that exists amongst themselves.  From a more global perspective, it is important to note that not all countries are at the same level of economic development and no set of rules can apply to all. That's why it's vital to include the perspectives of local knowledge systems.

    We might note that Western ideologies, although they may work for our society, may not work for a totally different system of political and economic ideologies. A simple example exists in the article "Learning from African Knowledge" in the form of a contest. The International Fund for Agricultural Development held an international contest of grassroot innovations in 70 countries in the hopes to illustrate to the experts out there who only listen to statistical data that place-based local knowledge should be strong considered when dealing with EJ issues.

    The winner of this contest, Auta Gravetas, is a farmer from Uganda who discovered that lantana camara leaves help to maintain the shelf-life of sweet potato slices, a stable food for those who do not have a lot of money. The author emphasizes the importance: "Neither lantana camara was indigenous nor had the knowledge been transferred by one generation to another over centuries. The way of knowing was traditional - by observing an odd phenomenon, discriminating, abstracting, hypothesising, testing and developing a robust rule or technology." This traditional knowledge that led to an agricultural award for Auta, exists as a proven low-cost solution to a common problem that traditional institutions could not solve, "the knowledge developed by an individual and/or by a community over a long period of time or in recent past at grassroot-level is something that we need to learn from." Auta and his award should be a good example of how local knowledge is just as important as statistical knowledge and should be strong considered as development is a "two way street."

For the complete article click: http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_learning-from-african-knowledge-and-innovations_1658361