Everything
is Environmental
By Peter
Schwartzman
I am often asked what I teach. Curious looks often accompany my response.
Environmental Studies isnÕt a household name so lots of people donÕt know much
about it; actually, I didnÕt learn about it until my early twenties. Having studied
and taught the subject now for fifteen years, I have come to realize it is one
of those special topics that relates to almost everything. That is, almost all
the activities we engage in and the problems that we face have connections to
the environment. Because of this, the environment is a very powerful lens to
understand the world and our civilization. LetÕs look at a few examples that
illustrate how inextricably connected the environment is to other, seemingly
unrelated, topics.
Pet cats. Pets
are wonderful and many of us enjoy them. However, stray and improperly managed
animals can wreak havoc on our environment. Too many pet owners donÕt take the
precautions needed to spade their pets (which leads to many unwanted animals) and
others let their pets go outside without sufficient constraints. Cats that get
outside are a particular problem.
Stray cats
or those let outside temporarily can do an immense amount of damage to the
environment. In 1998, it was estimated that 30-60 million stray cats lived in
the United States. When cats are allowed to traipse through neighborhoods they
instinctively kill song birds and their chicks. According to the National
Audubon Society, approximately 100 million birds a year get killed by cats. Since
song birds are having enough trouble reproducing as it is (with the prevalence
of industrial chemicals and the steady reduction in habitat), it is important
that people do what they can to minimize this problem.
War. War
is a terrible thing for many reasons. Obviously, the killing of innocent people
(who by the way typically make up the greatest number of casualties in war) is
tragic. But war is a great environmental crime against humanity as well. First,
it requires a tremendous amount of resources. And second, it often leaves the
surrounding environment unfit for human or biological survival as well.
Thus far,
the Iraq war has cost over $400 billion. This is an astounding figure.
According to the National Priorities Project, this money could have been spent
to pay for any of the following: (1) 57 million kids attending Head Start for a
year; (2) health insurance for 262 million children (according to a 2005 study
by the State Health Access Data Assistance Center and the Urban Institute, over
8 million American children are now uninsured); (3) salaries and benefits for
nearly 8 million teachers; (4) building costs for ~4 million new housing units;
or, (5) the four year tuition expenses for 21 million college students
(considering that there are only 17 million students currently in college, this
would mean that all would go for free!). Perhaps more amazing though, $400 billion could provide basic
needs in the areas of health, education, water, sanitation, food production, and
roads for all the worldÕs poor for
three years (Sachs, 2005). Environmentally,
think of all the benefits that would accrue if the worldÕs poor werenÕt forced
(by necessity) to work in destructive industries such as charcoal production,
gemstone mining, sweatshops, etc. Misallocated and misspent money is an
environmental issue when so many environmental problems face humanity; how
often have you heard that we canÕt do X or Y because it is too ÒexpensiveÓ?
Clearly, allocating and spending so much money for
bombs, destruction, and death has got to be one of the most foolish and
wasteful things humans do. For insight into the sheer lunacy of war, consider what
one of our founding fathers wrote about it, way back in 1795, ÒOf all the enemies to public liberty war is,
perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of
every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and
taxesÉknown instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
É No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfareÓ
(James Madison in Political Observations). I strongly believe Madison was on to something here.
War is also
incredibly destructive on our planet. Even the work up to war can be immensely
damaging. The worldÕs powerful nations have tested at least 2,000 nuclear bombs
since the beginning of the Cold War (with the U.S. responsible for over half of
these). How much radioactive material (which was emitted by these tests) has
been ingested by the worldÕs people? WeÕll never know. Yet, recent estimates on
the impact of one nuclear accident gone awry (Chernobyl in 1986) suggest that
more than a quarter million people will ultimately die because of it. One of
the greatest problems of war is that it detrimentally affects people (and other
living things) for generations to come. How many U.S. soldiers are now sick
from the use of depleted uranium during the last two conflicts in the Middle
East? Some estimates say that more than a few hundred thousand suffer because
of it (Hastings, 2006). Imagine how many innocent KuwaitiÕs, IraqiÕs and others
downwind of the bombings have also suffered. Nuclear munitions leave nuclear
waste in the soils, air and the waterways. It is very disturbing to me that an
intelligent species would knowingly dig up a highly dangerous material (such as
nuclear fuel) and willingly deposit it on other members of its own species.
Advertising. Our culture has become saturated with messages from
advertisers. Nearly everywhere we go, we are force-fed slogans, ditties, and
images telling us how happy we will be if we consume something some company is
peddling. Have you noticed how often these images include natural backgrounds?
The classic examples of advertising which exploits our inclination to desire
natural landscapes and environments are commercials for jeeps and other SUVs. Apparently,
many of us are more likely to buy something if we connect it with something
environmentally pleasing. (Advertisers donÕt spend billions of dollars each
year for nothing.) Unfortunately though, it is the purchase (and use) of these
promoted products that spells disaster for our environment.
Most
products being advertised in our media are detrimental to our environment,
especially when contrasted with available alternatives. Fast food is much more
harmful to our bodies than fresh, non-processed, locally-grown food. Advertised
foods for kids are so packed with salt and sugar yet we wonder why many of them
are becoming diabetics. Men are bombarded with more razor commercials than one
could imagine. It turns out that the tried and true flat blade (or straight)
razor outperforms electric and throwaway versions and lasts for decades (rather
than weeks or months); it took propaganda from the ÒthrowawayÓ razor industry
to convince men to move away from their simple, non-electric instrument in the
first place. Alcohol and tobacco commercials are alleged to have contributed to
underage smoking and drinking. How many lives have been shortened due to these
two vices? How many acres of land are used to grow tobacco, a crop with no benefit
to humanity? WouldnÕt it be environmentally responsible to shift these wasted
acres back to more natural settings? With all this evidence in hand, canÕt it
be reasonably argued that ÒinnocentÓ advertising is polluting our minds (and
bodies) and propelling us to live in ways that are irresponsible and
unsustainable? If so, what are we going to do about it?
The
Internet. One of the most important
resources to environmentalists is the information and connectivity that comes
by way of the Internet. While it is certainly true that the Internet contains
its share of garbage, it is also true that the Internet provides the most
efficient and expedient means to obtain and share relevant and useful
information. Additionally, its relatively low entry cost literally gives
millions of Americans access to information that would otherwise be
unavailable. However, all is not well with the Internet.
Efforts are
underway to undermine access to the Internet and to limit what one can obtain
from it. Many countries in the world severally restrict access to news and
information websites. I hope that in the United States we would recognize these
restrictions as limitations of our freedoms—particularly those connected
with individual speech and the press. WeÕve already observed that information
once available to us before 9/11 is now limited afterwards on the basis of
ÒsecurityÓ concerns. Environmental toxicologist Sandra Steingraber found this
out recently while researching an explosion (and subsequent fire) that occurred
at a PVC plant in Illiopolis, IL. (Given that this plant is located about 100
miles from Galesburg—as the crow flies—I wonder how many readers
didnÕt even know this happened. For more, read her article, now located on the
web at: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/153/) The
information that Dr. Steingraber was after (such as what chemicals were located
at the facility and in what quantities) should be readily available to all
citizens (i.e., on the Internet), especially in the immediate aftermath of such
a disaster; the fact that it wasnÕt (and isnÕt) indicates that our democracy is
in serious trouble. I hope that we recognize that open access to the Internet
is a prerequisite for a free society. People need to be able to access and share
information with each other and with the larger community. Our environmental
health and safety depend on it.
Childhood
behavior. How often have you heard
someone say something to the effect that, Òkids are out of control these days.Ó
Some of these comments are obviously prompted by a lack of memory of the way
children have always been. However, considering how many of our children are
taking medication to ÒfixÓ this or that ailment (be it a learning disability, a
hyperactivity disorder, or, an anger management problem), there must exist a
larger problem in our society, right? Often these ÒproblemsÓ are attributed to
genetics or bad parenting, two things, oddly enough, that we deem curable with
a pill or punishment. Yet, when one looks at the research, one canÕt help but
notice that environmental factors have been found to play a central role a
childÕs inability to concentrate or his/her display of hyper and even violent
behavior.
We
shouldnÕt be surprised that our children are Òacting up.Ó Given that we fill so
many of them with high fructose sugars and processed foods (which metabolize
extra quickly), we should expect our children to exhibit hyperactive
tendencies. (To punish them after we feed them this garbage is an additional crime.) Our environments are so
loaded with neurologically-impacting chemicals, it shouldnÕt come as a shock at
all that our children are unable to focus or Òcompute.Ó Thankfully we have
reduced lead concentrations in childrenÕs blood substantially since the 1980Õs,
however, levels we still observe are way too high; again, this is no surprise
given that lead stays around for so long. Yet, despite all the knowledge that
we have gained in the area of childrenÕs response to diet and pollutants,
rarely are children given a thorough examination when they exhibit signs of
difficulty learning or behaving; and even rarer are efforts made to alter diets
or reduce exposure to suspected neurotoxins. The medical profession seems much
more willing to provide children licit drugs to remedy their ailments; a response
that makes the pharmaceutical firms very happy indeed. So next time a kid you
know gets diagnosed with some Òdisability,Ó at least wonder whether it might be
his/her diet or environment that may to blame.
While you
may not be ready to agree that Òeverything is environmental,Ó hopefully you
have a better idea of how such a concept can be constructed. I attribute the
lack of familiarity with this concept to the utter dearth of environmental
education historically in this country (and elsewhere) and the
profit-centeredness of our news media. The ÒstoriesÓ which I have presented are
ones that are available to us (via the Internet and specialized journals and
books) but they arenÕt found on a regular basis in the mainstream. So, as long
as we keep the Internet ÒfreeÓ and we make an effort to seek out the
environmental side/spin to news, we should be able to deal with the problems we
face in a more honest and informed manner.
Works
Cited
Hastings, D. (2006) ÒIs an Armament Sickening
U.S. Soldiers?Ó Associated Press. Aug. 12.
Sachs,
J.D. (2005) ÒCan Extreme Poverty be Eliminated.Ó Scientific American.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is associate professor
and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a
climatologist with publications in the area of climate change and human
population growth. An avid Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder and
maintainer of a website dedicated to peace and empowerment (www.onehuman.org), natural spaces (www.blackthornhill.org), and clean air and
energy (www.chicagocleanpower.org).
06/28/07