Chicago Schools Pile up Lunch Waste
Chicago Public Schools throw out almost a quarter of a million lunch and breakfast trays made out of polystyrene foam, that's almost 1 million a week. The problem is that none of these trays are being recycled, and the school is polluting the earth with 5 million of these trays-a month. Well, the kids at Prosser Career Academy decided to do something about this. They realized the problem with sending all of these trays to the land fill, the fact that they will never disintegrate. That means that even as these kids continue to graduate and move on, their carton that held their nachos from a Thursday will still be sitting in a landfill. The Prosser students decided that their district needed to do something about their impact, but what they do is up for debate. There are also is more than one reason for getting rid of the tray. A group called No Foam Chicago asked the district to eliminate the trays for health reasons as well as the environment. Styrene, which is in the tray, can come out of the trays and into heated food. Districts in other states have also tried to address this problem by eliminating the trays once a week, and this helps save 820,000 from the landfill each time; while others found that their city was willing to pick up the trays and recycle them each time. These programs have not been instituted in Chicago, and the option of using reusable trays is too expensive, even though the school pays a fee of about 5 million dollars each year in waste management fees. Another option is to buy biodegradable trays, but this too is very expensive. The article never articulated what Prosser High school and other Chicago schools chose, but hopefully they are making a change to better impact the earth.
The fact that students initiated this realization shows that how impacted our generation is by pollution. We are trying to fix problems created by past generations. We're lucky that our school has trays and a recycling program that helps our school be more eco friendly. I didn't realize though, that our cafeteria doesn't really have a recycling plan. We have garbage bins and garbage bins to recycle cans- no plastic or paper of any kind. For the most part though, those cans go into the garbage with the rest of our lunch. I think that we should look into being more eco friendly within our own vicinities. Hopefully our own school can create a program that is too, entirely environmentally conscious.
Eng, Monica. "Chicago Schools Pile up Lunch Waste." Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune. 7 Feb. 2010. 8 Feb 2010. <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-met-school-lunch-waste-20100207,0,5604002.story>
Schaeffer, Eric. "Market-Based Air Pollution Laws Will Increase Air Pollution." Opposing Viewpoints: Pollution. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Green
Pollution is not improving:
Pollution is getting worse as we progress; it its a problem we all face, and it is a problem we are having a hard time conquering. Man-made goods are increasing in popularity and because of this, more chemicals are emitted in the air because of their production. "A study of six cities has found that air pollution, even in areas that meet Federal air quality standard, can shorten people's lives..."' The article states, and supports the fact that pollution is an endangerment to one's health. Much like the other article, this one uses health as a central thing that pollution affects. One of the articles talked of Bush's Clear Skies Act, and how as good of intentions that it did have, has only made pollution worse as it invades some of the good that the Clean Air Act bill did. It weakens many areas that were improved, for instance, the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. By doing so, it actually creates more environmental havoc by increasing the amount of emissions which once again degrades air quality further-and endangers the public's health. The EPA estimates that particles from pollution plants cause 20,000 premature deaths yearly. The public should be much more concerned than they are about their own health. Alternative power sources must be found as well because the amount of pollution being brought about is unacceptable. According to this article, what the Bush administration has done is undermine any type of progress that was available-and released more pollution than ever. Loopholes is how companies manage to get around the "laws" of air pollution, if you could call them that anymore. The public needs to take their own initiative and fix this problem. In addition, the article drives home the point of time. Our environment does not have that much time anymore. Each second that pollution is being put out, is another 2 seconds taken off our lives. Each second passing is more irreparable damage being put into the earth. While this article is very one sided, it does put out this one point-that no matter whether pollution is increasing or decreasing, it is still being put out into the environment and that needs to stop. We need to cut back our pollution and altogether try to repair what we have done to the earth.
Pollution is getting worse as we progress; it its a problem we all face, and it is a problem we are having a hard time conquering. Man-made goods are increasing in popularity and because of this, more chemicals are emitted in the air because of their production. "A study of six cities has found that air pollution, even in areas that meet Federal air quality standard, can shorten people's lives..."' The article states, and supports the fact that pollution is an endangerment to one's health. Much like the other article, this one uses health as a central thing that pollution affects. One of the articles talked of Bush's Clear Skies Act, and how as good of intentions that it did have, has only made pollution worse as it invades some of the good that the Clean Air Act bill did. It weakens many areas that were improved, for instance, the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. By doing so, it actually creates more environmental havoc by increasing the amount of emissions which once again degrades air quality further-and endangers the public's health. The EPA estimates that particles from pollution plants cause 20,000 premature deaths yearly. The public should be much more concerned than they are about their own health. Alternative power sources must be found as well because the amount of pollution being brought about is unacceptable. According to this article, what the Bush administration has done is undermine any type of progress that was available-and released more pollution than ever. Loopholes is how companies manage to get around the "laws" of air pollution, if you could call them that anymore. The public needs to take their own initiative and fix this problem. In addition, the article drives home the point of time. Our environment does not have that much time anymore. Each second that pollution is being put out, is another 2 seconds taken off our lives. Each second passing is more irreparable damage being put into the earth. While this article is very one sided, it does put out this one point-that no matter whether pollution is increasing or decreasing, it is still being put out into the environment and that needs to stop. We need to cut back our pollution and altogether try to repair what we have done to the earth.
Asarco
Asarco is an American Smelting and Refining Company.
This company paid the government $1.79 billion fore polluting over 19 states. One company, 19 states. What I don't understand is why the government allowed this to happen in the first place, and I certainly wonder how many other companies are out there doing the very same thing. One of the many environment misconducts that this company did was burning hazardous waste instead of proper disposition of it. I personally believe that it would be easier to dispose of it. Sure it would be expensive, but the bankruptcy that occurred in the end would have never happened had they disposed properly. Greed is definitely one of the underlying themes of pollution-as people like to make the most money and cut corners frequently when it comes to recycling. Although money does make the world go around, if you don't have a safe world to live in, what is the point of having money? Anyways, this burning ended up in the river, and it carried down stream which polluted soil and other waterways everywhere. Not only did this company burn illegally, it burned according to the wind's direction, and if it face Mexicon it burned more. This is because Mexico's air law are not as strict. They created chaos in more htatn 19 states, and they created chaos in another country-one that was not even theirs. As I said before, the money paid will help only a small portion of what was polluted, because the rest is just a large chain effect that brought about pollution where it should not have gone; even though this company literally paid their dues, it still does not fix the problem they created. The pollution they compiled and spilled across 19 states. This is what truly should be fixed and modified. The slap on the wrist and payment the company made did not fix anything. In fact, it almost puts out the message that pollution is okay-if you can get away with it, because then you just have to pay money and everything will be okay. Well, it is not okay because the effects that came from this single company will be lasting into several future generations. And just to think, that's only one company...what will happen to the environment as the other companies cut corners like Asarco. The future looks bleak from here as companies have no morals or ethics when it comes to the environment and the world they themselves live in. Asarco kind of represents how many Americans in society behave toward the environment, if they don't acknowledge it- it's not there. Well, hate to break it you America, it's there and you gotta care a lot more if anything is going to change.
Leslie Kaufman. 12 Dec. 2009. http://nytimes.com/asarco/relatedtopics-123=r_01=csc
This company paid the government $1.79 billion fore polluting over 19 states. One company, 19 states. What I don't understand is why the government allowed this to happen in the first place, and I certainly wonder how many other companies are out there doing the very same thing. One of the many environment misconducts that this company did was burning hazardous waste instead of proper disposition of it. I personally believe that it would be easier to dispose of it. Sure it would be expensive, but the bankruptcy that occurred in the end would have never happened had they disposed properly. Greed is definitely one of the underlying themes of pollution-as people like to make the most money and cut corners frequently when it comes to recycling. Although money does make the world go around, if you don't have a safe world to live in, what is the point of having money? Anyways, this burning ended up in the river, and it carried down stream which polluted soil and other waterways everywhere. Not only did this company burn illegally, it burned according to the wind's direction, and if it face Mexicon it burned more. This is because Mexico's air law are not as strict. They created chaos in more htatn 19 states, and they created chaos in another country-one that was not even theirs. As I said before, the money paid will help only a small portion of what was polluted, because the rest is just a large chain effect that brought about pollution where it should not have gone; even though this company literally paid their dues, it still does not fix the problem they created. The pollution they compiled and spilled across 19 states. This is what truly should be fixed and modified. The slap on the wrist and payment the company made did not fix anything. In fact, it almost puts out the message that pollution is okay-if you can get away with it, because then you just have to pay money and everything will be okay. Well, it is not okay because the effects that came from this single company will be lasting into several future generations. And just to think, that's only one company...what will happen to the environment as the other companies cut corners like Asarco. The future looks bleak from here as companies have no morals or ethics when it comes to the environment and the world they themselves live in. Asarco kind of represents how many Americans in society behave toward the environment, if they don't acknowledge it- it's not there. Well, hate to break it you America, it's there and you gotta care a lot more if anything is going to change.
Leslie Kaufman. 12 Dec. 2009. http://nytimes.com/asarco/relatedtopics-123=r_01=csc
Air Quality/ pollution Is improving
Fact or Fiction: America's air quality is improving and pollution is decreasing. This is definitely up for debate and I read two different views on the matter. One definitely had me convinced, which one will you side with?
Air quality is improving/ Pollution is decreasing:
America is reportedly experiencing trends of improvement in urban ozone quality, and toxic air particles have decreased in the past three years by 31%. This benefits Americans because these air particles can prove to be dangerous to one's health as well as cancerous. The article talked a lot about how the government and environmental group's claims are exaggerated and are not relevant to what is the true case. In fact, pollution has been decreasing as we keep progressing because of our advancements in technology have created more efficient ways to process and create energy. CNN reports too, that Americans are living longer lives because the air they breathe clearer. According to a new study, the drop in pollution across metropolitan "areas between 1980-2000 appears to have added nearly five-ten more months to people's lives." This was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Five more months is almost half a year, or even almost a year, longer with your friends and family and enjoy life. So evidently pollution causes more of an impact on humans than people initially thought, not just on their surroundings. Most of this change is brought about by the Clean Air act of 1970, which set air quality standards that the government regulates in an effort to have a better quality of life. The negative effects of pollution include: Increase in blood pressure, risk of heart attack; as well as other research has concluded that a nonsmoker living in a polluted city has about the same risk of dying of heart disease as a former smoker. There is a lot of research out there that presents the facts of increased mortality and worsened health to pollution.
According to this article, and newspaper, air quality is improving as our pollution control is getting more strict. We are on the right track for creating an environment that is more Eco friendly and less invasive to other life forms; as well as more healthy. The articles talk about data and interpret it as positively supporting the hypothesis of air quality improving. There are many convincing studies that were made, and I have to wonder about the authenticity of them. As always, the data that is presented in articles always supports the theories, but they never show any evidence that shows other possibilities. For instance, the articles highlighted 51 towns that had improved pollution numbers, in one state. The articles did not acknowledge any other towns that may have suffered with more pollution. It did not give us a wider view of how pollution affects the other towns nationwide. And it only gave one town in the country, which may have proved their point, but that may be their only core evidence. The article needed to provide more statistics to completely back up what they were saying and to block the many holes in their evidence that they left.
Bailey, Ronald. "U.S. Air Quality Has Improved Since the 1970s." Current Controversies: Pollution. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 9 Feb. 2010
Harding, Ann. "Drop in U.S. air pollution linked to longer lifespans."CNN. 21 January 2009. 7 February 2010.
Air quality is improving/ Pollution is decreasing:
America is reportedly experiencing trends of improvement in urban ozone quality, and toxic air particles have decreased in the past three years by 31%. This benefits Americans because these air particles can prove to be dangerous to one's health as well as cancerous. The article talked a lot about how the government and environmental group's claims are exaggerated and are not relevant to what is the true case. In fact, pollution has been decreasing as we keep progressing because of our advancements in technology have created more efficient ways to process and create energy. CNN reports too, that Americans are living longer lives because the air they breathe clearer. According to a new study, the drop in pollution across metropolitan "areas between 1980-2000 appears to have added nearly five-ten more months to people's lives." This was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Five more months is almost half a year, or even almost a year, longer with your friends and family and enjoy life. So evidently pollution causes more of an impact on humans than people initially thought, not just on their surroundings. Most of this change is brought about by the Clean Air act of 1970, which set air quality standards that the government regulates in an effort to have a better quality of life. The negative effects of pollution include: Increase in blood pressure, risk of heart attack; as well as other research has concluded that a nonsmoker living in a polluted city has about the same risk of dying of heart disease as a former smoker. There is a lot of research out there that presents the facts of increased mortality and worsened health to pollution.
According to this article, and newspaper, air quality is improving as our pollution control is getting more strict. We are on the right track for creating an environment that is more Eco friendly and less invasive to other life forms; as well as more healthy. The articles talk about data and interpret it as positively supporting the hypothesis of air quality improving. There are many convincing studies that were made, and I have to wonder about the authenticity of them. As always, the data that is presented in articles always supports the theories, but they never show any evidence that shows other possibilities. For instance, the articles highlighted 51 towns that had improved pollution numbers, in one state. The articles did not acknowledge any other towns that may have suffered with more pollution. It did not give us a wider view of how pollution affects the other towns nationwide. And it only gave one town in the country, which may have proved their point, but that may be their only core evidence. The article needed to provide more statistics to completely back up what they were saying and to block the many holes in their evidence that they left.
Bailey, Ronald. "U.S. Air Quality Has Improved Since the 1970s." Current Controversies: Pollution. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 9 Feb. 2010
Harding, Ann. "Drop in U.S. air pollution linked to longer lifespans."CNN. 21 January 2009. 7 February 2010.
How I'm Doing Now
The environment of our country has change a lot, as our views of the importance of being eco friendly change. I have not really narrowed down a certain topic or time in history that I would like to focus on for this project. As far as history goes, most of the things that occur or are created are due to a chain of events; all connected making the early 19th century events important as they pertain to amendments and bills created later. I find this topic rather interesting and am looking forward to pursuing it further, possibly looking further in depth into the topic of how our increasing population has been affecting our efforts in terms of being more proactive in the environment. I have also learned a lot about the efforts that single people put in to better our earth, and how one person really does make a difference. On the other hand, a lot of the general overviews that I have researched I already knew a lot about,and it did not really help me narrow down anything. Hopefully I will find more information in the future that can help me better. I definitely look forward to finding more material.
Jimmy Carter: State of the Union Address (1981)
In Jimmy Carter's State of the Union message he talked directly about the environmental situation, and based on what he said, the problems of the earth are about the same then as they are now, but now we have better ways of limiting the amount of damage we do-but it's still there and there's a lot that still needs to be fixed. I do think that during Jimmy Carter's era a lot got accomplished in terms of helping the environment and changing people's bad habits. He helped lead America in the right direction by Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This act helped to preserve the natural beauty that is Alaska. The Act added 97 million acres of new parks and refuges, tripled the national wilderness system, as well as added free-flowing rivers. And as he stated, "The Alaska Lands Act reaffirms our commitment to the environment and strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and allowing development of Alaska's oil, gas, mineral, and timber resources." This is what I don't like about this act. He contradicts himself when he says that he wants to preserve Alaska's beauty, but he still wants to pump oil, chop down lumber, and get minerals; all of which include invasive ways of retrieving-and that causes a lot of damage, not beauty. I think that creating acts to justify destruction of an environment and ecosystems is not the way to go. As much good as this act was, it still didn't address the other problems in the big picture such as the oil pumping and destruction of land.Another topic concerning the environment in Carter's Address is one of water conservation. This includes the government supporting programs that are only environmentally sound. Because the government is such a large and influential force, its support of these helpful programs really helped extend the message of the importance of a clean and healthy environment. I definitely think that the government's actions reflect what the majority of the people in America want, and it also changes people's opinions so that they start being proactive in what the government is doing. This means that Americans were and are ready for a positive change in how they treat their earth. This also demonstrates that I was mistaken. In one of my previous blogs I spoke of how our society was in a downward slant in terms of environmental improvement and awareness. On the contrary though, our conditions and attitudes have apparently improved tremendously sine the Carter administration-which is good news to me and the earth.
Here are some good points/snippets that Jimmy Carter talked of during his Address:
-Our children, and our children's children, are dependent upon our maintaining our commitment to preserving and enhancing the quality of our environment
- That we shall protect the habitat and the existence of our own species on this earth.
**This shows that the government is starting to truly realize that if we damage the earth, we will eventually negativly impact ourselves in many ways.
"Jimmy Carter: State of the Union message (1981)." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 1 Feb. 2010.
Global Warming
Global warming is the overall increase in the atmospheric temperature of the earth. It is believed that this was brought on by the green house affect; ie. the gases that accumulate and allow solar radiation to enter the atmosphere, and then become trapped. All of which cause more heat. The main green house gases are carbon dioxide, fossil fuels, and animal waste. These are caused by pollution. Global warming is a side affect of this, which we are to blame. This is one of the biggest problems to date with our pollution, and eventually it could lead to humans dying because of the extreme heat .Of course, that won't be for a while, but there is no telling especially at the rate humans are increasing their carbon footprint. This problem is going to be more prevalent in the future unless we decrease our waste and carbon output, which in turn will slow down our future death. This is more than an issue of being too hot as well, global warming can lead to excess flooding, the disappearance of countries because of the floods, and crops and wildlife would also be affected. All of which affect us because obviously, we live on land, and we eat crops and wildlife. We need to take immediate action to reduce pollution, and keep the future in mind. Because everything we are doing in the present is going to affect our future and whether it is healthy or not, and if we are going to have one.
"global warming." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 1 Feb. 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
