Superfunds. What are they?

By Heather Mattsongrosso

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a Superfund site is an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located and has the potential of affecting it's local ecosystems and inhabitants.  In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act was designed in efforts to clean up the sites that are a hazardous threat to the environment and it's people. 

A Superfund itself is in some way a "trust fund" collected from tax-payers, and that money is put towards the clean-up of those sites.  The authority responsible for finding these sites is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who before declaring the hazardous site as one in need of super-funding, will seek out the parties responsible for the waste.  Upon their refusal to clean up their own mess, the "super trust fund" will be implemented.

A short film by National Geographic titled "Do you live near a Superfund site?"  posted this past November, shows a handful of sites in a minute and a half affected by hazardous waste.  The time-lapse photographs in the film are accompanied by a piano piece that sounds like it could be featured in the opening credits of a horror film.  One could say that ironically we are living in our own horror film, seeing that one in six Americans live within three miles of a Superfund site.  With that being said, the film has much more of an impact because the sites that are featured stretch across the nation focusing on places like Gowanus Canal in New York, Tar Creek in Picher Oklahoma, and Silver Bow Creek/ Berkeley Pitt in Butte Montana.  

Featuring sites that pop up nation wide make it much more believable to the viewer that there are over 1700 Superfund sites, but unfortunately less that 350 of these sites have been cleaned up.  This film, although only containing a few short statements about Superfunds, leaves a chilling feeling for the viewer on the terrifying topic of essentially living in a toxic waste dump.  

In a recent article from National Geographic Magazine titled, "Wasteland," Paul Voosen opens up the topic of hazardous sites with stating how nobody talks of Superfund sites like they use to, however there are just under 50 million Americans who are living near one of them.  

In his piece, Voosen interviewed a retired accountant Jun Apostol, who back in the 70's willingly purchased a home for he and his family on an active landfill.  Apostol payed no mind to the landfill because the real estate agent claimed that the waste would soon be up-cycled into a park or a golf course.  Within a few years of their residency on the landfill, many of Apostol's neighbors complained of nausea from gas intrusion in their homes.  After the plummet of property values, the EPA came in and recognized the landfill as a Superfund site and raised $600 million for the recuperation of the area.  After the clean up, Apostol seemed to find that everything was straight again.  Voosen pointed out that during the interview, Apostol had his dog in a "Romney 2012" sweater. This may have been an inclination that he had more conservative values, and makes the reader take notice of different perspectives and what is important to different types of people.  

Apostol stated that "People have forgotten about it" referring to the site, and that house prices increased along with the resident's spirits.  Although Apostol's wife had developed cancer, he did not believe that the landfill had anything to do with her health.  Apostol then went on to say that he has no regrets making the choice to remain living on the landfill, simply because his commute to work was at a high level of convenience for him.  Voosen's reaction was to say that living on a landfill may not be ideal, but neither is bad traffic.  I believe that Voosen was being very sarcastic with this statement simply because it was blatantly clear that some people would put the health of their loved ones as well as themselves at risk in order to live a convenient lifestyle.

In an Environmental Health News article from Science America titled "Government Officials May Have Mishandled DDT Superfund Site," Brian Bienkowski covers the questionable delays by the EPA and state officials in Michigan regarding the cleanup of a Superfund site that is killing the neighborhood songbirds.  Bienkowski states that it has been a battle for years by the residents of St. Louis, Michigan to fix the aftermath of an old chemical plant that is poisoning the local birds with DDT, a chemical used as an insecticide.  

The birds that were tested at Michigan State University had "some of the highest levels of DDT every recorded in wild birds," and were being poisoned because they would eat the worm in the neighborhood soil that was contaminated with the insecticide.  

The residents of St. Louis find it hard to believe that the DDT could harm birds but not humans, but the EPA will not buy into it.  Bienkowski states, "EPA and state officials are not conducting any testing to determine how highly exposed the residents are, or whether they are experiencing any health effects." Here Bienkowski shows that the EPA although their motives are usually for the best interest of the people, they seem to totally disregard the people of St. Louis' concerns.  

Epidemiologist John Chevrier of McGill University claimed that from suggested research, fetuses and young children are at the highest risk of being affected by DDT, which most of the risk being focused on the development of the brain. For many people, we seem to understand things based on comparisons.  If something could harm a living creature, there is a chance that it could also harm a human.  

Chevrier explains how DDT kills insects is by entering their nervous systems, rapidly firing their neurons to the point of exhaustion and eventually killing them.  Chevrier then states "It's very plausible that it would attack human's nervous systems in the same way."  This comparison helps the reader understand that these chemicals that are used to kill "bothersome" pests such as insects could also be killing the person behind the spray bottle.  

Superfund sites are literally everywhere and are so important for people to be aware of where they are as well as the harm that they can pose on the people living around them.  However, we live in world where not everyone will open a newspaper or turn on the news to become educated on this topic.  Thankfully there are alternative aspects of the media that can educate or at least inform people about hazardous waste sites.  

In the cartoon sitcom, The Simpsons, the Town of Springfield's main source of power is the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, which is where the main character Homer works.  Around this power plant you'll find creatures affected by radioactivity, such as a three eyed fish named Blinky.  At the Springfield Toxic Waste Dump is where the radioactive waste is disposed of but their methods of dumping the waste is very unstructured, which is why you will see radioactive green liquid leaking from drums marked with radioactive seals scattered around the town.  Although this show is a comedy and brings humor to the topic of hazardous waste, it is still exposing a negative issue to people who otherwise may not be aware of it. 

It is scary knowing that Superfund sites are everywhere, and that one in six people live within three miles of one.  That is why it is so important for the media to portray the issue in all ways possible, in order to appeal to every type of person.

Heather Mattsongrosso -- Blog 5: Animals

By Heather Mattsongrosso

In this day in age we are constantly searching for better ways to reach equality amongst human beings, respecting the rights of everyone.  But sometimes people forget that our non-human friends and animals have rights too, and should be given the same respect that humans should be giving one another.

In the piece "Dwellings: Deify the Wolf", Linda Hogan writes about human being's connection to wolves.  She starts off by placing the reader in the setting of Ely, Minnesota where she and a group of others are on a search to see timber wolves.  All of the people had different reasons to why they wanted to find these wolves, but Hogan explains that she and many others believe that humans are the decedents of wolves and that we are much more connected to them than you would think.  Having this belief that us humans have blood connection to wolves, Hogan describes her trip as what seemed to be like diving into the archives of her ancestry.  "We are looking for the clue to a mystery, a relative inside our own blood, an animal so equal to us that it reflects back what we hate and love about ourselves." 

In finding these wolves, Hogan seems to believe that she will be able to interact on a physical as well as spiritual level.  Creating a sense of family between humans and wolves lets the reader form a deep connection with them.  This connection is deeper than one that would be made if the reader just simply respected animals in a humane way.  After the reader is spiritually connected with wolves, Hogan then begins to describe the struggles that these wolves face in order to survive alongside human beings.  She says: "The leading cause of death for wolves is contact with the human world.  Our presence means tragedy to them.  They are shot by hunters, trapped, poisoned, and hit by logging trucks as they travel the human roads." 

 After Hogan explained the connection that humans have to wolves, the reader is then exposed to the cruel reality that although we may be the descendants of these animals, we are now spending our time harming them.  Hogan then digs deeper and describes how humans are using the harm of wolves as well as the environment and other animals for their own personal benefit and disregarding the destruction that they are leaving behind.  Hogan says: "What a strange alchemy we have worked, turning earth around to destroy itself, using earth's own elements to wound it."  This is my favorite quote from the piece because it brings to light the unfortunate irony that human beings will harm the earth using the earth and its inhabitants.

Alice Walker also writes about human connection to animals in the piece "Am I Blue?"  She spends the piece comparing a neighboring horse to a human being, claiming that he had emotions like being able to feel loneliness.  Walker not only understands that animals can have human-like emotions but was fully capable of detecting when her neighbor Blue was lonely. She writes how human animals and non-human animals can communicate quite well, even though we do not speak the same language.  A little after feeling Blue's loneliness, Walker then notices that Blue has been accompanied by another horse, a female horse who he became very fond of, who diminished his feeling of loneliness.  This could be comparable to a human, how most people enjoy the company of others to various extents.  Unfortunately, after becoming pregnant, Blue's female companion was removed from his life, and Walker compares the situation to slavery. She describes the female horse as being "put with him" until he got her pregnant.   Once Blue and his partner completed the task made by their owners, she was taken away, similar to situations that slaves had dealt with.  It is sickening to be able to so closely compare the treatment of animals, who have emotions as strong as humans do to slavery.  Being able to make this comparison shows that many humans use animals for their own personal benefit, disregarding their livelihood of the animal.

In efforts to end the exploitation of animals, and fight for their rights, many groups have been formed to protest against the unfair treatment towards these nonhumans.  One event, taking a big leap for animal rights was the retirement of elephants at the Ringling Brothers and Barnum&Bailey circus.  Over the years there have been many opponents to elephants performing in the circus, being forced to do tricks and lugged around in cages across the country.  In a Washington Post article, "Ringling Brothers is finally freeing its elephant performers. It's not nearly enough," Natalie Prosin expresses her thoughts on the use of elephants in the circus. Prosin describes elephants as highly intelligent and that they possess traits very similar to those of human beings.  "Elephants are some of the most cognitively complex and social nonhuman animals that we know of: they are adept tool users, self-aware, and cooperative problem solvers…Elephants frequently display empathy; for instance, they have been observed feeding others who are unable to use their trunks to eat."  That being said, although it is inhumane to force any animal to perform for human entertainment, it is a shame to see such loving and intelligent animals be subject to that life.  Prosin states, "A circus environment cannot replicate the rich array of experiences and social life that the wild affords them." Although the retirement of these circus elephants was a giant leap, Prosin feels that it is not enough to simply relieve them of their duties, but they should be respected as humble beings.  She is part of The Nonhuman Rights Project, which in 2013 filed for a lawsuit to argue that nonhuman animals should be classified as "legal persons" rather than "legal things."  I believe that making strides like these to consider animals as equals rather than objects will help decrease and one day completely diminish unfairness and cruelty towards animals.

Consumption

By Heather Mattsongrosso

A huge topic in the eyes of many environmentalists is "consumption" and how we can reduce it.  There are some who consume more or less than others and then there are those who simply do not care.  Some have radical approaches, and some just do what they can.  

The film "No Impact Man" was about a project created by writer Collin Beavan, who made the decision to eliminate all of the consumptions that he and his family make for an entire year.  Collin, his wife Michelle, and their daughter Isabella transitioned from what Americans consider normal to completely depriving themselves from consuming materials, such as toilet paper and toxic cleaning products, transporting using cars and buses, using no electricity, and eating vegetarian as well as only locally grown produce.  Collin's motives for committing to a full year of no consumption was to see if it was truly possible to live a "no-impact" life.  The effort for no-impact actually created a giant impact on not only his family but as well as the general public.  While the film was presumed to show how the way every individual's consumption impacts the environment, the focus was more on how the project impacted his family as well as people as a whole.  I felt that the Beavan family was the perfect fit for this project because Collin and Michelle, although a couple, were at opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to the premise of this project.  While this was Collin's idea, his television and takeout loving wife was skeptical to the entire thing.  

There were also many skeptics on the outside looking in at this kooky family's 12-month plan to save the world.  Because the media was all over this project and Collin kept a blog, critics were able to keep up and vocalize their opinions on the project. Many critics claimed to "hate" the family, or at least Collin for coming up with the idea.  I felt that there were two reasons to why so many people hated the idea of the project.  First, the fact that the project would be the topic of Collin's next book led the public to believe that this was just a publicity stunt and his motives were insincere.  In a New York Times movie review of the film, "Portrait of a Marriage: Eco-Geeks Unplugged," A.O. Scott vocalizes that the film is merely just Collin trying to publicize that he is an eco-conscious American who will make sacrifices to be seen as a noble environmentalist. "It provides no new scientific insights or political arguments, and celebrates various behavioral changes without assessing their value or importance. 

Mr. Beavan's evangelical, self-congratulatory demeanor has the effect, especially early in the film, of playing to the unfortunate perception that what drives many environmentalists is, above all, the need to feel superior to their neighbors and fellow citizens." The discouragement of others brings me to the second reason why I believe many did not support Collins.  The project made people feel as if the only way to lessen their impact was to completely pull a 180 as the Beavan family did, and change their entire lifestyle.  This may leave a bad taste in the mouthes of most people and for that, they will resent even making small strides towards reducing consumption.

Ultimately, I felt that "No Impact Man" was less of an eco-documentary and more of a family-oriented project on how making complete lifestyle changes could affect the overall dynamic of a family.

Another environmentalist who is supportive of the elimination of unnecessary waste is recent NYU graduate, Laura Singer. Singer promotes living a sustainable lifestyle by not using any plastic waste.  The article, "23-year-old hasn't produced any trash in two years" shows how Singer was forced to make her own products like shampoo and beauty aids, since almost everything comes in a plastic container these days.  I felt that the article on Singer's lifestyle changes was much less intimidating than others, because it is made clear that rather than completely changing the way that she once lived, she simply just creates less trash.  Singer says, "You don't have to be a stereotype of anything to live a sustainable lifestyle.  My style is the same.  My taste is the same.  I enjoy the same things. I just don't make trash."  

I felt that the approach towards bringing attention to those who live sustainably was portrayed in a better way by the article on Laura Singer rather than the film "No Impact Man.” I thought this because the article was a less in-your-face way of saying that you can make minimal changes and still make a big impact.  You do not need to completely cut out everything that may or may not have negative affects on the environment to do something healthy for yourself and the planet.

Another piece based on production and consumption in the United States was a twenty minute video called "Story of Stuff.”  Within the first minute of this video, it was clear to me that this was going to be another educational video that could leave many of it's viewers disengaged.  The speaker in the video came off as if she were speaking to elementary aged students in front of a green screen, which was following along with stick figures and simple animations.  Although I do understand that there is something to be said about simplicity, this video seemed to lack any sort of hook to grab onto the viewer.  The speaker also made a, what I felt was very offensive comment about the military within the first three minutes of the video.  By the tone of her voice, anyone would be able to catch that the makers of this video were against funds being put into the United States Military. Everyone is entitled to voicing their opinion, but once you expose your beliefs, you are subject to losing a certain group of people.  This is why I personally was incapable of being engaged with the video and basically tuned it out within the first three minutes.

While trying to reduce consumption and live sustainably is beneficial to the environment, there are people that will be negatively affected by these efforts. In Morgan Spurlock's  "30 Days: Working in a Coal Mine," Suprlock spends the month in West Virginia joining the coal mining industry.  During this month Spurlock is not only exposed to these labor intensive and highly dangerous conditions, but works alongside the men who do this for a living and put their life on the line every day to make sure Americans have electricity.  Coal mining is so important to our country as Spurlock explains that fifty percent of our electricity comes from coal.  Although a very dangerous job, coal miners work these rigorous hours the same reason why all Americans get up and go to work in the morning, to provide for themselves and their families.  "30 Days: Working in a Coal Mine" puts things into perspective, providing a sort of "behind the scenes" look at a coal miner's life and the risks that they put themselves at such as black lung.  This piece forces people to question things like alternative energy. Although yes, it is beneficial for our planet, in eliminating energy created by coal, jobs are also eliminated for thousands of hard working Americans.  This just shows that there are pros and cons to everything.

Reducing consumption does not necessarily mean that you have to reduce the amount of granola bar wrappers you throw away or the amount of energy you use.  Upcycling could be considered another way to refurbish materials for other useful purposes. In a recent article: Upcycling, underground: Huge bike park opens former limestone mine, a Mega Underground BMX Park was opened in Louisville Kentucky.  This 320,00 square foot park lays about 100 feet beneath the Earth's surface.  The significance of this park is that it is an upcycled former limestone mine.  Utilizing mines for a parks are great ways to upcycle land and benefit a community.  Parks like this are at the forefront of bettering lives and putting a good use to things that we already have.

Ultimately, we are all capable of minimizing our consumption to certain extents.  It depends on a person's willingness and motives to how much they will "give up" in order to reduce consumption.  And if you do not chose to reduce how much you consume, you can always upcycle the materials that you have.

Fracking

By Heather Mattsongrosso

Fracking. What exactly is fracking? By definition hydraulic fracturing or fracking is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas.  Now to me, fracking by its definition seems like an awesome concept, releasing "natural" gas since everything "natural" has to be good for the environment, obvioulsy. Unfortunately this is not the case however, since these fluids being pumped into the Earth are jam packed with chemicals, toxins, and carcinigens that have negative effects on everything in their sight.  The dangers of fracking is a huge controversial concept, which is why there are so many activists who strongly vote against the process due to the harm that is presents.
The Fracking of Rachel Carson by Sandra Steingraber, was a piece that I believe was written in a very interesting way.  The style of this piece was a chronological listing of events from numbers one to fifty, relating to Rachel Carson's life and efforts to put an end to franking.  At the beginning of the piece, it seemed as if it was going to be a biographical timeline of Rachel Carson's life, focusing on her health during her years of battling cancer, while trying to juggle being in the constant public eye.  "Carson's private writings reveal how much physical anguish she endured.  Bone metastases. Radiation burns. Angina. Knowing this you can imagine her patience running out during the interminable photo shoots." Following reading this comment on Rachel's physical and mental state regarding her cancer, the reader may have thought that this piece was going to continue as a complete tribute to the Silent Spring author.  Further down Steingraber's list however, a smooth transition was made changing the focus from Carson's life to the drilling for profitable gasses, known as fracking.  This transition was made after Steingraber described one of Carson's most beloved places, Hawk Mountain, which stretched along the Appalachian flyway.  Along the Appalachia laid solidified silt, also known as Marcellus Shale which Steingraber simply called "the earth."  Steingraber describes the Marcellus Shale, according to the mining industry however as an "overburden" or "the material that lies between the surface and an area of economic interest."  I thought that this was a great way to shine light on the fact that these mining industries pay no mind to the beautiful simplicity of this sedimentary rock, but only see it as a profitable well of natural gas that they love getting their hands on and drilling into.

Steingraber is also the author of Raising Elija: Protecting Our Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis.  In her environmental parenting book, Steingraber dedicates an entire chapter to the definition and dangers of fracking.  In beginning the topic of fracking, Steingraber focuses the attention to her shale sidewalk.  Focusing on the sidewalk that almost everyone takes for granted, she reflects that the slab of slate under her feet has millenniums of history behind it, marking it as ancient sea floor that her children now use for hopscotch.  She elaborates on how this simple slate in which we use for our daily activities is taken for granted, although historically it has seen more than we could ever imagine.  "Connecting my front door to Main Street, three blocks away, this crooked sidewalk deserves the credit, I suddenly realized, for so much more than service as an art easel and a hopscotch court.  It has played a key role in many of my parenting success heretofore."  Saying something as simple as the sidewalk has played a "keel role" in her parenting as well as her life may seem ridiculous to some, but  it helps the reader come down to a less complicated mind set.  This writing style of connecting such a simple thing like a sidewalk to a bigger picture of life creates a sort of sentiment towards it, letting the reader become truly connected to it. 

After a full set of examples and reasons why the simple slate sidewalk plays such a big role in our every day lives, Steingraber continues to explain what lies beneath our beloved sidewalks, Marcellus Shale, which she describes as being the basement foundation of New York State.  Like I said before, this rock is not just a rock but basically a tap full of profitable gases.  "The Marcellus Shale holds the largest natural gas deposit in the United States…this subterranean landscape has become ground zero for a form of energy extraction called high-volume slickwater hydraulic fracturing."  This is why oil companies live to frack, and here comes the drilling…but with drilling for this money making natural gas comes negative side effects which Steingraber lists off as well.  I believe that Steingraber's book could captivate many people and make them listen, simply because she comes down to the level of compassion for her family.  In her book, she ultimately is trying to keep her children safe during this time of environmental hardships, pointing out harmful systems practiced on our earth.  

To expand on the harm that is brought by fracking, brings us to Josh Fox's documentary, Gasland.  The film starts off with the documentary-filmmaker going door to door and interviewing families in the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania.  Here is where the company Cabot Oil and Gas had been drilling wells to get to those precious gases underneath the Earth's surface.  Fox used what seemed to be his own camera and the recordings seemed to look like he just wanted footage and did not care about the quality. I felt that starting his film off this way set the mood for the entire film.  Using his own camera, his own voice, and creating a seemingly low-budget film let it be known that rather than creating a major motion picture expecting a huge profit, Fox just wanted to get the raw footage and information out and exposed.  I personally like this approach to documentary filmmaking because it just goes to show that you don't need flashing lights and makeup artists to create a moving film.

The protest film Dear Governor Cuomo took a different approach towards revealing the risks of hydraulic fracking.  The film featured several famous actors, actresses,musicians, and scientists, as well as countless anti-fracking activists.  It was based around an event taking place in Albany where activists gathered around music, readings, and performances in efforts to prevent Governor Cuomo from allowing fracking in New York State.  The event not only created a sense of comrodery and uniformity among protesters but it was a peaceful plea for Governor Cuomo's help in banning fracking.  I felt that this film was made very well and it was simply enjoyable to watch because it wasn't just a lesson on the dangers of franking, it was also an entertaining film with music and poetry that was informative to the viewer.

In a recent article, Cuomo's fracking ban has some New York towns contemplating secession, Caitlin Dickinson explains how although many New Yorkers as well as the Governor support the ban of fracking in the Empire State, there are people who disagree with this decision.  This group, known as the "Southern-tier"  believes that if the natural gas is there, and can make money, why not utilize it? "…the ban was seen not as a cause for celebration but rather as the final straw, dashing hopes that the rural region's resource-rich land might be the golden ticket to a revitalized economy."  In efforts to revolt against this decision those opposed to the ban wish to secede to Pennsylvania where fracking is legal, because they feel that it will bring in more profits.  According to the article, Republican supervisor of a small upstate New York town advocates the secession.  He supports this notion simply because of the unemployment and lack of income in his town of Conklin.  Finch states, "The Southern-tier is desolate.  We have no jobs and no income.  The richest resource we have is in the ground."  I could see how this could be a controversial issue because it is a decision between protecting the Earth and protecting the livelihood of the people who inhabit it.

Heather Mattsongrosso -- Blog 2: Environmental Foundations

By Heather Mattsongrosso

Enviornmentalists, often times are given a bad wrap for either being too pushy or too radical in trying to bestow their beliefs on others.  While yes, some environmentalists do go overboard in their efforts to protect the Earth,  it is important to understand that many of them are just doing all that they can to preserve the land that they love.

Writer Wendel Berry is a perfect example of an environmentalist who has built a simple life for himself and his family.  By living a simple lifestyle, Berry helps preserve the small bit of land that he and his family live on.  In an excerpt by Berry, "The Making of a Marginal Farm," the reader can clearly see that Berry truly loves the land that he lives on, almost worshiping it.  At the beginning of this piece, Berry tells the reader how he wished that he could move back to the land that he grew up on that was located across from the Kentucky River Valley.  After marrying, Berry and his wife did in fact return to the place where he was raised. Berry loved this spot so much, and he even stated that it was all that he needed.  While speaking about this land that was so near to his heart, Berry describes it as if it were human.  When he explains the effects that a developer had on the land, Berry describes the land as being "scarred" and "badly abused by developer's bulldozers."  Using words such as "scarred" and "abused" gives the land human-like characteristics, which makes the reader feel like there is harm being brought to a human rather than the land.  This writing style of personifying the Earth and giving it human characteristics is also used by environmentalist writer Bill McKibben.  In McKibben's "The End of Nature," he describes the human-inflicted destruction of the Earth as the equivalent to inflicting pain on a human, by a human.  He compares polluting the Earth to stabbing a man with toothpicks; how us as humans were once sure that the Earth was too big and too strong to be lessened by our pollution, just as a man's vital organs would not be damaged by being stabbed with toothpicks. This was a great comparison made by McKibben because it helps the reader understand that just because the initial effects of pollution were not disastrous all at once, does not mean that gradually pollution is wrecking the Earth. I believe that Berry and McKibben's writing styles of personifying the natural environment add a sentimental value towards the Earth, because they allow the reader to truly understand that harming the Earth is just as bad as harming any other living organism.

In the film "A Fierce Green Fire," directed by Mark Kitchell there was a different approach to portraying the harm that humans have on the Earth.  The film showed a series of stories, all about human inflicted harm made on the environment.  The story that I felt was very moving was the contamination of Love Canal.  The canal's contamination affected a great percentage of the residents and created problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and cases of cancer.  The Love Canal story included actual footage from the protests that were held, as well as an interview with Louis Gibbs, the woman who was at the forefront of the Love Canal protests.  I was moved by the footage from the Love Canal protests because of the mothers and fathers who fought for government funded relocation, so that their children could live in a clean sustainable environment. This aspect of the film was touching and could  move anyone who has people close to them that they wish to keep safe.  This primary footage also makes the severity of the issue much more believable to skeptics.  

One woman who made leaps towards creating a better environment, in regards to pollution and conservation was author of "Silent Spring," Rachel Carlson.  One of Carlson's greatest fights was against synthetic pesticides. In "Silent Spring," Carlson explained how pollution from chemicals and pesticides is not only from mass spraying, but from "small-scale exposures to which we are subjected day by day, year after year."  When expressing how harmful the chemicals found in products that just about anyone could get their hands on, Carlson took a witty and somewhat sarcastic approach.  "If a huge skull and crossbones were suspended above the insecticide department the customer might at least enter it with the respect normally accorded death-dealing materials.  But instead the display is homey and cheerful, and, with the pickles and olives across the aisle…"  The sarcastic writing style used by Carlson lets the reader know that she is shaking her head and possibly wondering, "How could we be so stupid?"  This approach could lead to the reader asking themselves that same question, and thinking twice before using synthetic chemicals.

Now unfortunately there are environmentalists out there who have a more violent approach towards fighting for the rights of the planet.  Throughout the years these radicals have done all they can to make it known that the Earth is entitled to just as much if not more rights as the human race.  Paul Watson, former member of Green Peace and active member of Sea Shepherd Conservancy has made it his mission  to protect the rights to sea creatures such as Sperm Whales.  Watson is considered by many to be an eco-terrorist which by definition is someone who acts on violence to ecology or environmental causes.  According to Watson, being an eco-terrorist can be considered a good thing because it instills fear in those who he is trying to protect the sea creatures from.  However I believe that acts of violence to prevent other acts of violence are simply counter productive and hypocritical.  You can watch Watson's full view on eco-terrorism in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6_IJtQaM2M

Heather Mattsongrosso -- Blog 1: Climate Change

By Heather Mattsongrosso

Climate change, in theory is a scary concept.  The increase of CO2 levels, as well as other harmful gases, rapidly causing disruptive impacts on our earth is a terrifying thought.  However, many people like myself have viewed the climate change/ global warming concept as a hoax, believing that radical environmentalists have made it all up.  Although I do recycle and I choose paper over plastic when given the option, I have been raised in a world where you shouldn't believe everything that you read, because radicals want you to adopt their personal ideologies as your own. Unfortunately, many people have been brought up this same way. Now, I say that this is unfortunate because after just skimming the very surface of the climate change concept, I have begun to realize that these "crazy environmentalists," who I have been taught to tread lightly around, may not be so crazy after all.

In the article "How to Talk about Climate Change So People Will Listen," Charles C. Mann talks about an almost apocalyptic type phenomenon that he and many environmentalists believe is in the Earth's distant future.  Now, when most people hear "distant future" they tend to disregard it, simply because it does not impact their lives at this very moment. Mann makes it very clear that people disregard the climate change concept. They do this because Earth's present population will not experience it's most detrimental impacts. Maybe our future generations will, or maybe they wont. Mann stresses, "Americans don't even save for their own retirement! How can we worry about such distant hypothetical beings?"  Now that statement alone is what generates fear within those who do not believe that the majority will make strides towards attempting to slow down the climate change.  We are in the midst of experiencing gradual changes to our environment due to climate change, but if the majority does not put in the effort to prevent these changes, the worst of the worst will come sooner than later.  

For years, since the Industrial Revolution we have been using fossil fuels to aid to our modern lifestyles, which makes our lives as humans easier. This feasible lifestyle however has dangerous affects on the planet that we live on.  In the article "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math,"  Bill McKibben tells us how meteorologists reported that Spring of 2012 was the warmest ever for our nation, being the largest temperature departure from average of any season recorded.  Sadly, McKibben states "we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in." We are living in this state of denial for many reasons, but conceptually climate change is an ideal that some have, and with other people's ideals comes those who distrust or disbelieve them.  Without knowing some of the affects that the climate change has already had on our planet, people will not be able to fully understand how serious the concept truly is.  McKibben lists off a few of the damaging affects it has made so far: "A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is at a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods."  Now, without having a complete understanding of the Earth's ecosystem, anyone would still be able to latch onto the fact that the damage made so far is only the beginning of an "unfathomable disaster."  

So what can we do? The obvious bit is for people to decrease their carbon footprint, but that is just a small step towards trying to alleviate the affects of global warming.  One thing that I found interesting and may be of help to our planet is the concept of "geo-engineering," which Mann touched upon in his article.  The performable process would involve spraying the stratosphere with sulfuric acid that would bounce sunlight back into space, which would help to reduce Earth's temperature.  This is assumed to be true using evidence dating back to 1991, from a vocalic eruption that took place in the Philippines.  The eruption made airborne sulfuric acid, which helped lower the Earth's average temperature that year by one degree (Mann).  Unfortunately, this seemingly affective process, that would help fight the Earth's climate change, would be associated with negative side-effects such as toxic rain that could potentially kill thousands of people.  Harvard professor David Keith however believes that the process of geo-engineering and the annual spraying of sulfuric acid could be less deadly that an unimpeded climate change.

Even though we should all make an effort to decrease our carbon emissions and to fight against the climate change, there are unfortunately some changes that are "irreversible."  In an article written by Chelsea Harvey from Business Insider: "These are the Impacts of Climate Change We Will Never Be Able to Fix," a few irreversible effects are listed that Harvey claims will "stick around forever."  One of these effects is the amount of carbon dioxide that is polluting our air.  Although forestation will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, it will not completely get rid of it.  Harvey states, "Scientists have estimated that up to 80% of carbon dioxide that goes into air is absorbed back out within a few centuries…But the other 20% could stick around in the atmosphere for millennia."  Now of course 80 percent is a significant deduction, but it is disheartening to know that there is no possible way to achieve an Earth that is free of carbon polluted air.  For myself, knowing that the "fresh air" that I believe to be pure is actually polluted with C02 is disparaging, but what is worse is that Earth's global temperatures can never truly be reduced.  This has been and will continue to be the cause of rising sea levels due to ice-melts.  Harvey states, "The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which both contain massive amounts of ice, are two spots scientists are especially worried about because of their potential to cause large amounts of sea-level rise."  As a native Long Islander, sea-level rises are a scary thought, especially after living through Hurricane Sandy and experiencing the affects it had and is still having on our community.  Films such as "Earth 2100" would have been seen as completely ridiculous to me if I had watched it before Sandy had hit.  Now however, the concept of literally losing cities like Manhattan, due to sea-level rising isn't to far fetched.  

To stand up against the Earth's climate change , many groups have been formed in order to bring people of the same ideologies together and fight for a healthier planet.  The Campaign Against Climate Change (CACC) a UK based organization has made huge leaps in order to unify people and campaign huge global issues such as fracking and supporting renewable energy.  You can learn more and join the campaign at http://www.campaigncc.org/.