Week 14: Pre-Post

The article on the Gulf oil spill was great. Comically written, albeit about a very grave topic. I particularly enjoyed one paragraph:


     "Put it in writing!" someone shouted out. By now the air conditioning had shut itself off and the coolers of Budweiser were running low. A shrimper named Matt O'Brien approached the mic. "We don't need to hear this anymore," he declared, hands on hips. It didn't matter what assurances they were offered because, he explained, "we just don't trust you guys!" And with that, such a loud cheer rose up from the floor you'd have thought the Oilers (the unfortunately named school football team) had scored a touchdown."


     It basically sums up the anger and frustration that the people feel, and how petty the efforts are to help the individuals who are affected. The caption under the photo also gives word to how the situation is really being handled, "Obama can't order the pelicans not to die." Its so true. All the bureaucracy really doesn't accomplish anything after a situation begins to get out of control, at the very most it can hope to compensate as best as possible for the situations repercussions. 






In the article by Olson, I really agreed with his statement, "First and foremost, we are called not to forget. Remember, keep informed, and in some way be involved with ecosystem, creatures, and people of the Gulf Coast community." While I may not be able to go to the regions affected and physically do something about it, I can promote and education and legislation about to prevent this from happening again as well as making the necessary restitution to the affected parties. 


Another point that he brings to the table (that is also mentioned in the Doster Pastoral Essay) is one I had not considered at all. This is not a "natural disaster." This is a disaster caused by humans. Just because something has an terrible effect on the environment, doesn't make it a natural disaster. This was completely preventable and and the fault lies in the lap of humanity and not "Mother Nature." 

Week 13: Pre-Post

I watched the video of Majora Carter from the TED conference. After seeing that she referenced Al Gore, and from previous blogs I am sure that my feelings on him are no secret, I wanted to see what this TED business was all about. I looked them up online, and while I don't have particularly fond feelings of all of the speakers that they have had, they seemed to have a good mission. This speaker was overall great. I think she had some valid points, which I will bring up later, but first I really need to address one issue. NOT EVERYTHING IS BECAUSE YOUR BLACK. Really? Seriously? You think that the reason you have environmental degregation in your area is because of race. That just shows a poor understanding of basic business and public policy. It has to do with socio-economic class, not race. I recognize that they can appear synonymous, but that does not mean that they are.

Ok, with that out of the way, moving on to what she actually talked about. "Greening The Ghetto" which is a sustainable urban redevelopment movement, recognizes the need for parks in the South Bronx area of NYC. Now, I think this is a great thing. Living in a concrete jungle can need some green to break up the grey monotony of life there, but I wasn't really sold on the idea that that is what tax dollars need to be going to. In a time of economic crisis, is that really where we need to be putting our resources when we are going billions in debt every minute? Personally, I feel like the answer is no. BUT, one great case that Carter points out is a case study on Bogata. The fact that their crime rates and littering levels drastically dropped after implementing a similar program, was very convincing. Case studies like that are much harder to refute than theory and thus can greatly affect my opinion of an idea. 

Another statement that was made during this presentation that I particularly agreed with was when Carter stated, "I do not expect individuals of corporations to do this because it is moral or right." She recognizes that there has to be payoffs for the company. I think that if a lobbyist, activist, or anyone else promoting ecological responsibility, understands this position, they have a much higher chance at success. This understanding drives you to find a way that being ecologically-minded is beneficial for a company, because in all reality they will not change anything simply to be eco-friendly.

The one flaw I found in Carter's reasoning was in the statement, "Economic degredation leads to environmental degredation, which leads to social degredation." I struggle to see a real correlation between environmental and social degredation. I understand how there can be sometimes, but in all reality, I think that one is much more likely to participate in eco-friendly initiatives based on their social standing and not the other way around.