Transcript The Environmental Crisis

THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CRISIS
Chapter 13
The Problem in Sociological
Perspective
•
•
Fifty years ago few people defined environmental issues as problems
In 1962 Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring is credited, in part, for turning public
attention to the environment
•
•
Carson’s work examined the use of pesticides in agriculture and how these chemicals
impacted wildlife. In her book she discusses the use of DDT, a highly toxic pesticide that
poisoned the soils, rivers, and lakes. This led to the eventual ban of the chemical in the
U.S. (although U.S. chemical companies still export it for use in other countries) and also
brought a general awareness to human impacts on the environment.
Today a majority of U.S. adults say they are concerned about the environment
•
Consider the attention the movement has received- from AL Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth,
to the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to the Nuclear Disaster in Japan….and
unfortunately there will be more to come….
The Scope of the Problem
•
Perceiving interconnections


Local events are part of a global problem.
The trash that we throw away every day fills landfills, the cars that we drive contribute to air
pollution, pesticides and chemical fertilizers applied to lawns and farms runoff into streams that
run into rivers that feed into lakes and oceans. Even though DDT and some other harmful
agricultural chemicals are banned in the U.S., many are still applied in other countries (where
they come back to us on the food we import). When we view the earth as one ecosystem we
realize that pollution both inside and outside our national borders affects us.
• Threatening the planet
•
Pollution is one of the biggest environmental problems we face. Pollution accumulates in the air,
water, and land and is harmful to living things
• Leaving a legacy of death


Depletion of resources and pollution is due to shortsighted self-interest
Now that these issues have come to our awareness we are up against a firmly entrenched
“system.” Reducing our consumption of resources and combating pollution requires a change in
our cultural practices.
Functionalism
• Industrialization- functions and dysfunctions

Humans are intelligent and highly adaptable.

•
We have figured out how to harness the power of nature by
building dams for electricity, burning fossil fuels for energy, and
by developing chemicals and genetically modified seeds to
grow an abundance of food (enough to feed 7 billion people).
Industrialization brought severe dysfunctional
consequences for the Earth’s ecosystem.


If our ecosystem fails, our society will collapse
This has happened in the past, and many believe it would be foolish
to believe it cannot happen again
Conflict Theory
•
The conflict theorists look at the struggle for power
• Efforts of environmentalists to eliminate what they see as dangers to public
welfare conflict with what other groups (some businesses) see as their
inherent right to make profits regardless of pollution.
•
The automobile industry is an excellent example – they lobby in Washington D.C.
so they do not have to make cars with better gas mileage. The point is really to
avoid any type of government regulation (such as by the EPA) as regulations are
seen as bad for business. The conflict theorists see this as a battle between industry
and the public. They would also point out that the politicians that are supposed to
represent us, the public, are often heavily influenced ($) by industry.
• Conflict theorists also focus on Environmental Injustice

Pollution is more likely to hurt minorities and the poor because factories
that pollute tend to be located in poor areas

Who wants a smelly, toxic, factory as a neighbor? The wealthy have the means to fight
polluters in their neighborhoods and the poor do not. Also factories are in need of
cheap labor, and poor neighborhoods supply this.
Research Findings: the objective
conditions
• Solid Waste
• The average American discards 4.5 pounds of trash A DAY
• Some things (like disposable diapers and tires) take centuries, or
longer, to decompose
• We like to think that we throw things “away” but 80% of our
solid waste doesn’t go away. It goes into the landfills, and
the landfills continue to pile up.
• Material in landfills can pollute underground water
supplies: even though there are regulations, the EPA has
identified 30,000 dump sites across the US that contain
hazardous material.
Research Findings: the objective
conditions
• Water Supply
• Only 1% of earth’s water is suitable for drinking
•
97% of the earth’s water is in the ocean, and the
remaining freshwater is frozen at the ice caps or
inaccessible underground
• We are depleting aquifers rapidly


In China deep aquifers are dropping rapidly and in the Middle East water
supply is reaching a critical level. For example, across north Africa and the
Middle East as many as 1 billion people will lack the water needed for
irrigation and drinking by 2025. What will these people do?
The Ogallala aquifer which lies below seven states in the Midwest is now
being pumped so rapidly that some experts fear it will be dry in a few
decades. Much of the corn, wheat and soy we consume is grown on farms that
rely on irrigation in the Midwest. What will happen to food prices as the
aquifer runs dry?
Research Findings: the objective
conditions
• Water Pollution


Many people in poor countries or large cities, such as Shanghai and Mexico City, have no choice but
to drink contaminated water. Infectious diseases like typhoid, and cholera are all caused by
waterborne microorganisms.
Water in the US is generally good by global standards, but water pollution is growing steadily
here


According to the Sierra Club rivers and streams across the US absorb 500 million pounds of toxic waste per year.
Much of this comes from agricultural fertilizers and poor management practices.
Acid rain is a another problem, as it pollutes freshwater sources (such as the great lakes) and
destroys plant and animal life. Acid rain is rain that is made acidic by air pollution (caused by
burning coal among other things). Acid rain is a global phenomenon because industry in one place
can affect countries or states a thousand miles away. For example, power plants in Britain
devastate forests and fish in Sweden and Norway, and mid-western smokestacks in the US have
harmed the environment in New York and New England.
Research Findings: the objective
conditions
• Air Pollution was once a major problem in the middle of the
20th century in the major cities, but has been reduced
considerably due to regulations such as the Clean Air Act in
1963. These types of regulations have helped in the
developed nations, but people in poor countries still rely on
wood, peat, coal, and other fuels that are considered
“dirtier,” thus the air quality is much lower.
• Waste incineration is also a major source of air problem.
• Plastics are not biodegradable, so burning is one way to get rid of them.
The problem is that they release PCB’s (a highly toxic chemical) into the
air that we breath, and the water that we drink.
Climate Change

Climate change is the result of too much carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane trapped in the earth’s atmosphere.



Heat from the sun is able to warm the earth, but these “greenhouse gases”
prevent some of the heat from radiating away from the planet.
The problem is that CO2 levels are rising due to industrialization and the
burning of fossil fuels. Making matters worse is that plant life (which absorb
CO2) is dwindling, and much of the rainforest is being burned which
releases even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
97% of global climate scientists agree that climate change is
happening. At this point few dispute the science because the tremendous
amount of evidence . The only “controversy” over climate change is in the
U.S popular media. Applying conflict theory helps us to understand this issue.
Consider who benefits if the public doubts that climate change is real? The
answer: those who want to see business (and profits) as usual (i.e. the oil
industry).
Climate Change

Likely consequences of climate change (some of which
are already occurring)









Climate boundaries will move
Oceans will rise
World’s shorelines will erode
Small island nations will be destroyed
Summers will be hotter
More forest fires, droughts, floods, and outbreaks of pests
More hurricanes
Outbreaks of disease
Many species of plants and animals will become extinct
Problems in the Least Industrialized Nations will be worse
Food Problems
Food production has become very efficient, but this has also resulted in a number
of problems. Recently a number of movies and books have shed much light on
this issue. Michael Pollen’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Eric Schlosser’s Supersize Me
and the film Food Inc. all highlight the problems with food production in the U.S

Disease-causing germs in food
The way meat animals are raised is particularly disturbing, and after getting a glimpse into
what is happening in factory farms and processing facilities there is little surprise that there are
disease causing germs
 Each year, about 75 million Americans get sick from contaminated food, 300,000
are hospitalized, and 5,000 die.

Chemical additives



Food flavorings and colorings
Food preservatives
While alone, and in very small quantities, these food may be deemed safe by the FDA,
when one takes into account the cumulative effects (eating these foods day after day,
several times a day) and synergistic effects (how these chemicals interact with one
another) there are clearly health risks.
Food Problems

Synergism and cumulative effects


The synergistic effects of food additives and
preservatives are not well known. We do not know what the
long term impacts of these chemicals are because many of
them have not been around long enough to know. Why are
food producers allowed to put chemicals into our food
when they do not know the synergistic and long term
effects?
Profits ahead of health

Food industry adulterates our food with harmful chemicals not
because it is necessary, but because it is profitable.

For example, it is profitable for them to bulk up chicken with contaminated
water (as described in the text) because the chicken will weigh more. Food
with artificial colors can look more appealing, and preservatives allow food
to stay “fresh” longer.
Food Problems
 Genetically
modified foods (GM or GMOs) are
foods derived from plants or animals in which genetic
materials have been transferred from one species to
another or in which genes have been manipulated in a
way that does not occur in nature.

Many consumers are wary of such foods, and they have
been banned in much of Europe. However in the U.S. food
producers are allowed to sell GM foods with no labeling
(unless it is organic- certified organic ensures no GM). That
means we eat GM foods without knowing it. What’s the
big deal, you may ask? Again, because these foods do not
occur naturally, we do not know what the long term effects
are on us, or the environment.
Here are some of the chemicals on or in the foods many of us eat. Fortunately you can avoid putting harmful chemicals
into your body and the environment by purchasing certified organic foods (although this can be expensive). Organic
foods are the fastest growing segment of the food market in the nation, and it’s easy to see why.
Buying local is also a great alternative- but this is no assurance that it’s organic. Ask.
Energy and Resources: two sides
• There are two sides to the environmental issue.
• Neither side will dispute that there has been
•
•
considerable environmental harm done to the planet.
However, they disagree on our ability to handle these
changes.
There are the “pessimistic” environmentalists and the
“optimistic” environmentalists.
The Pessimistic Environmentalists
• The pessimistic environmentalists claim that :






we are facing energy and resource shortages so vast they will shatter the
foundations of industrialized world
a freshwater shortage that is fast upon us
oil is finite and we are running out
minerals used in industry are in demand and these are limited, irreplaceable,
essential resources
climate change is serious
Most pessimistic environmentalists believe that we need to stop
debating the issues and act quickly.
Most people who consider themselves environmentalists would fall into
this category, although it is doubtful they would label themselves as
pessimists. “Realists” is likely the label they would assign to themselves.
The Optimistic Environmentalists
•
The optimistic environmentalists are often painted as proindustry and their perspective tends to be more economic than
environmental
•
•
The optimists say resources are not getting scarcer
Economist Julian Simon says that if resources were getting scarcer than we would see the price
of them going up and this is not what is happening. Lower prices, he says, indicate less scarcity.
•
The optimists point out that energy prices, such as on electricity and coal, have
declined, indicating a stable or even greater availability.
•
They believe that improved technology will save the day and will solve the problems
we create.
•
The optimistic environmentalists say that the pessimists have been predicting
doomsday for decades and it hasn’t happened yet. (However, remember that most
optimists are economists, and most economists thought the subprime mortgage crisis
would never happen!)
Reconciling the Positions
• Frameworks of interpretation
•
Many of us have values and perspectives that are already established when it comes to
most social issues. This will influence what side of an issue we are one, and it will also
influence how we interpret the “facts.” If we assume the environment is being destroyed than
we will interpret information through that particular framework. If we believe things are
improving than we will interpret information through that framework. We will look at new
information through the lens of our preexisting ideas. Of course it is easier to do this when
some evidence is inconclusive, or when the issue is complex.
• Objective data should eventually win. For example, as time passes, assuming
more evidence of climate change is brought forth, people will essentially be
unable to dispute it (this is currently what is happening)
• The pessimistic environmentalists worry that by then, it may be too late.
Our conclusions influence our choices about energy use and lifestyles
Social Policy: 3 approaches
• There are 3 ways we can address the environmental
problems we face. How we interpret environmental problems
will influence the way we address them. The steady state
and scaled back approaches are considered pessimistic,
while the expanding society approach is optimistic.
1. The steady-state society- we must stabilize industrial output at
current level and NOT increase it.




This will slow the rate at which we use up our natural resources.
The slowdown will give us time to develop alternatives before a crisis
develops.
To reach a steady state society will be painful for the developed world
as we will have to change our way of life.
This is considered a moderate approach.
Social Policy: 3 approaches
2. The scaled-back society- radically change our way of life and get by with less
• We not only need to stop production where it’s at, as the steady-state
•
•
•
supporters claim, but we need to scale back.
They say the rate at which we are polluting the world is beyond what the
earth can handle. As a result we need to sacrifice.
We need to lower our material standards. All of us- except the very poormust learn to get by with less.
Some say that we need a new economic model altogether. They believe it is
impossible to scale back within a capitalist system.
3. The expanding society- we can solve our problems and continue to increase our
standard of living.
•
•
We can come to international agreements and reduce our pollution and
develop alternative forms of energy.
This environmental approach is optimistic, and supports the current economic
system.
Social Policy
Regardless of whether or not one considers themselves an optimistic or
a pessimistic environmentalist, we must find ways to address the current
pollution problems. Here are some possible policies:
Pollution
•
Prevent misuse of toxic chemicals
•
International controls should be developed to protect people everywhere
from toxic chemicals. This means that these chemicals should not be allowed
to be manufactured or they should be highly regulated. If one country
bans the use of a chemical at home, than the companies that produce these
chemicals should not be allowed to export that chemical to be used
elsewhere (such as with DDT).
• Holding industry accountable
•
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is currently the organization in the
U.S. that works to ensure this happens.
Social Policy
Preventing food problems- we have the right to know
how our food is produced and demand that it be
produced humanely and safely.
State-of-the-art testing procedures can be used to detect banned
chemicals in food. There is no good reason for food producers
to add harmful chemicals to food to make them look better or
last longer.
 Legal penalties need to be directed against the managers and
directors of companies that violate such laws.
 We can work to change laws so they subsidize fruits, vegetables
and organic foods and NOT corporate farms that produce corn
and soy. This will ensure that healthy food is available to
everyone, regardless of income.



Preventing pollution through industrial wastes

We’ve figured out how to detoxify most industrial waste (although it is expensive
which prevents some industry from doing it) and we need to continue to fund research
in this area.
Hazardous waste sites- nuclear waste stays lethal for thousands of years

100 million pounds of radioactive waste has accumulated and is currently
being stored in temporary containers. No one wants nuclear waste stored in
their backyard. No one knows if these storage containers, which are stainless
steel lined with lead, will last long enough to contain the waste. This problem
has no solution.

The greenhouse effect and climate change

The rain forests
 We must reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and plant vast numbers of trees
 Industrialized nations need to purchase the rights to not develop the rain forests
 We can also make it illegal to import wood from the rainforests.
An overarching solution: Produce and consume less of what harms the environment
Energy
• There are two approaches to peak oil (petroleum shortages): alternative
forms of energy and conservation
•
Alternative forms of energy
•
•
•
•
•
Coal is plentiful in the U.S, but is is also a big polluter. Coal can be transformed into
liquids or gases- a plant in South Africa is already doing this. China is currently in the
process of developing such plants. Finding a way to do this without polluting the
environment is key. However, this would still contribute to the problem of climate change.
Synthetic fuels can be developed from garbage, sawdust, and other waste.
Wind and Solar produce almost no pollution.
Geothermal energy refers to harnessing energy beneath the earths crust, and is also
another potential source of energy.
Nuclear fusion is an option that involves combining atoms as opposed to splitting atoms.
The number of options is reassuring, however it will be expensive and require time to
develop these potential energy sources.
The Future of the Problem
• Energy
•
•
As populations grow and countries become more
industrialized, energy demands will increase.
It’s likely that we and the rest of industrialized world will
continue our wasteful ways
• Pollution
•
Pollution is a political issue and until the issue it taken
seriously it will be largely ignored. There must be political
unity both domestically and internationally. However, as we
have learned, concern for the environment is often at odds
with industry and it is industry that fuels the economy.
The Future of the Problem
•
•
•
•
The picture painted by the pessimists
We have built a society on the assumption that we
can continuously grow and that there is an unlimited
amount of natural resources. Because continual
growth is impossible to sustain and resources are
finite the withdrawal symptoms will bring enormous
pain
The picture painted by the optimists
Scientists will continue to make breakthroughs and
solve our problems
Who Is Right?
•
•
Is humanity at a crossroads, as the pessimists insist,
with our current course dooming us to destruction
unless we change our ways?
Or are the optimists right, with our current course
taking us to a delightful future?
What do you think?