Thursday, October 18, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Irony of accolades
Irony of accolades
In 2006, the city of Syracuse was named as the seventeenth greenest – or most environmentally friendly – city by National Geographic. National Geographic produces an annual list which assesses cities across the country on environmental proficiency. The magazine chose cities that “are providing energy-efficient, least polluting and healthy living spaces - those cities whose green achievements set the standard for others” (The Green Guide). National Geographic rates each city on eleven environmental criteria ranging from air quality to energy proficiency. Syracuse made the list because of “Good air, smoking bans and commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.” The ultimate irony of this accolade is that about five miles away is Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the country.
Onondaga Lake was settled by the Iroquois Confederacy in the early 1800’s, however when the Industrial Revolution hit Syracuse, the lake’s western shore became a center for industrialization and factories (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Sewage disposal and industrial discharges augmented pollution and left the waters of Onondaga Lake hopelessly contaminated. Soon enough, the lake was so impure that people stopped using the lake for swimming and fishing and the lake was converted into a dumping ground of industrial waste.
In 1994, Onondaga Lake was added to the Superfund list, a program by the Environmental Protection Agency which was created to clean up extremely polluted areas. Superfund sites are all over and according to the Christian Science Monitor, not much has been done to clean them.
An article by the Christian Science Monitor divulges into the topic of Superfund effectiveness which I believe merits certain attention in order to interpret the logistics of the program as well as the efficiency of Superfund.
Superfund, an extremely effective program in theory, cannot possibly work to clean up polluted areas if more time is spent arguing about who should clean up rather than the actual clean-up. According to the article, “much (in some cases, most) of the cost of Superfund goes for lawyers, consultants, private investigators, and administrative overhead rather than for actual cleanup.” ( Knickerbocker) Because cost is a major factor in the clean-up of those sites, money has overshadowed the original intent of the program. Superfund is meant to clean up waste to make the area healthier and safer for the people and animals around it however because this does not come without a cost, businesses responsible for the pollution are not interested in clean-up because the money would be coming out of their pockets.
Instead, locals of the area are suffering from the burden of living near a contaminated site because of environmentally–caused diseases like asthma and they are forced to deal with the discharge of the Lake’s effluent. “During large storms or periods when snow melts rapidly, CSOs (excretions into rivers) occur, leading to the discharge of excess raw sewage into many of the lake’s tributaries. CSOs diminished water quality by increasing bacteria levels and introducing not only trash and grit but also organic material that depletes dissolved oxygen concentration” (Landers 70).
The people living near Superfund sites are left to deal with the consequences of years of pollution which they did not commit. Companies that are responsible for the pollution should pay for their actions because what they have done, specifically with dumping into water supplies possibly endangered the lives of the people living around them. Instead local taxpayers bear more of the burden, as a Superfund sites receive less compensation from industries.
Part of the Superfund program is the idea of “polluter pays” basically saying that if you made the mess, you should clean it up. If this held true, then dirty sites all over the country, including Onondaga Lake would be cleaned up however if the Superfund program does not enforce this, it turns the entire program and everything it stands for into farce. Empty threats to companies and empty promises to the people do not provoke change. If Superfund wants these sites cleaned, there needs to be some reinforcement of the ‘polluter pays’ policy.
In 2004, Aerospace giant Honeywell Inc. agreed to spend $451 million to clean up contaminated sediments in Onondaga Lake. Honeywell became the party responsible for the contamination after buying Allied-Signal in 1999. Onondaga County is also currently spending $500 million on a 15-year project to curb discharges of untreated sewage into the lake. The state has spent some $125 million since 1995 to improve water quality at the lake - the federal government has spent more than $100 million on the effort (CorpWatch).
State regulators required Honeywell Inc. to pay for the cleanup after the company tried to implement a more limited cleanup that would cost the company only $237 million, about half of the initial cost. Companies like Honeywell are trying to cut corners on cleanup by choosing a less expensive and as a result, less thorough cleaning of the polluted site (Urbina).
Efforts are being done to clean up Onondaga Lake however only after corporate companies or tax payers are roped into paying for it. If Superfund wants to continue being effective, the EPA needs to come up with a strict list of criteria about who is responsible for the cleanup. Onondaga Lake is one place where there has been some progress but there are other sites are that need assistance but are not receiving any. Onondaga Lake is notoriously known for being overly polluted with industrial waste while other areas might not have the same ostentatious circumstances. This makes me speculate about whether a contaminated body needs to hold the title of ‘the most polluted lake in America for there to be a response.
Works Cited
Knickerbocker, Brad. “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag.” Christian Science Monitor (14 November 2003) 4 October 2007.
Landers, Jay. “New Life for Onondaga Lake.” Civil Engineering. May 2006: 64-86. H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, New York. 4 October 2007. <http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com />
Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2007. Onondaga Lake Partnership. 4 October 2007.
The Green Guide. 7 April 2006. National Geographic. 4 October 2007. <http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/113/top10cities>
Urbina, Ian. “Lake cleanup to be ordered in Syracuse.” New York Times (29 November 2004) 10 October 2007.
“US: Honeywell Agrees to $451 Million Lake Cleanup” CorpWatch. (13 October 2006) 4 October 2007. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14162
In 2006, the city of Syracuse was named as the seventeenth greenest – or most environmentally friendly – city by National Geographic. National Geographic produces an annual list which assesses cities across the country on environmental proficiency. The magazine chose cities that “are providing energy-efficient, least polluting and healthy living spaces - those cities whose green achievements set the standard for others” (The Green Guide). National Geographic rates each city on eleven environmental criteria ranging from air quality to energy proficiency. Syracuse made the list because of “Good air, smoking bans and commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.” The ultimate irony of this accolade is that about five miles away is Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the country.
Onondaga Lake was settled by the Iroquois Confederacy in the early 1800’s, however when the Industrial Revolution hit Syracuse, the lake’s western shore became a center for industrialization and factories (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Sewage disposal and industrial discharges augmented pollution and left the waters of Onondaga Lake hopelessly contaminated. Soon enough, the lake was so impure that people stopped using the lake for swimming and fishing and the lake was converted into a dumping ground of industrial waste.
In 1994, Onondaga Lake was added to the Superfund list, a program by the Environmental Protection Agency which was created to clean up extremely polluted areas. Superfund sites are all over and according to the Christian Science Monitor, not much has been done to clean them.
An article by the Christian Science Monitor divulges into the topic of Superfund effectiveness which I believe merits certain attention in order to interpret the logistics of the program as well as the efficiency of Superfund.
Superfund, an extremely effective program in theory, cannot possibly work to clean up polluted areas if more time is spent arguing about who should clean up rather than the actual clean-up. According to the article, “much (in some cases, most) of the cost of Superfund goes for lawyers, consultants, private investigators, and administrative overhead rather than for actual cleanup.” ( Knickerbocker) Because cost is a major factor in the clean-up of those sites, money has overshadowed the original intent of the program. Superfund is meant to clean up waste to make the area healthier and safer for the people and animals around it however because this does not come without a cost, businesses responsible for the pollution are not interested in clean-up because the money would be coming out of their pockets.
Instead, locals of the area are suffering from the burden of living near a contaminated site because of environmentally–caused diseases like asthma and they are forced to deal with the discharge of the Lake’s effluent. “During large storms or periods when snow melts rapidly, CSOs (excretions into rivers) occur, leading to the discharge of excess raw sewage into many of the lake’s tributaries. CSOs diminished water quality by increasing bacteria levels and introducing not only trash and grit but also organic material that depletes dissolved oxygen concentration” (Landers 70).
The people living near Superfund sites are left to deal with the consequences of years of pollution which they did not commit. Companies that are responsible for the pollution should pay for their actions because what they have done, specifically with dumping into water supplies possibly endangered the lives of the people living around them. Instead local taxpayers bear more of the burden, as a Superfund sites receive less compensation from industries.
Part of the Superfund program is the idea of “polluter pays” basically saying that if you made the mess, you should clean it up. If this held true, then dirty sites all over the country, including Onondaga Lake would be cleaned up however if the Superfund program does not enforce this, it turns the entire program and everything it stands for into farce. Empty threats to companies and empty promises to the people do not provoke change. If Superfund wants these sites cleaned, there needs to be some reinforcement of the ‘polluter pays’ policy.
In 2004, Aerospace giant Honeywell Inc. agreed to spend $451 million to clean up contaminated sediments in Onondaga Lake. Honeywell became the party responsible for the contamination after buying Allied-Signal in 1999. Onondaga County is also currently spending $500 million on a 15-year project to curb discharges of untreated sewage into the lake. The state has spent some $125 million since 1995 to improve water quality at the lake - the federal government has spent more than $100 million on the effort (CorpWatch).
State regulators required Honeywell Inc. to pay for the cleanup after the company tried to implement a more limited cleanup that would cost the company only $237 million, about half of the initial cost. Companies like Honeywell are trying to cut corners on cleanup by choosing a less expensive and as a result, less thorough cleaning of the polluted site (Urbina).
Efforts are being done to clean up Onondaga Lake however only after corporate companies or tax payers are roped into paying for it. If Superfund wants to continue being effective, the EPA needs to come up with a strict list of criteria about who is responsible for the cleanup. Onondaga Lake is one place where there has been some progress but there are other sites are that need assistance but are not receiving any. Onondaga Lake is notoriously known for being overly polluted with industrial waste while other areas might not have the same ostentatious circumstances. This makes me speculate about whether a contaminated body needs to hold the title of ‘the most polluted lake in America for there to be a response.
Works Cited
Knickerbocker, Brad. “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag.” Christian Science Monitor (14 November 2003) 4 October 2007.
Landers, Jay. “New Life for Onondaga Lake.” Civil Engineering. May 2006: 64-86. H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, New York. 4 October 2007. <http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com />
Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2007. Onondaga Lake Partnership. 4 October 2007.
The Green Guide. 7 April 2006. National Geographic. 4 October 2007. <http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/113/top10cities>
Urbina, Ian. “Lake cleanup to be ordered in Syracuse.” New York Times (29 November 2004) 10 October 2007.
“US: Honeywell Agrees to $451 Million Lake Cleanup” CorpWatch. (13 October 2006) 4 October 2007. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14162
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Superfund
The Superfund concept is an awesome idea however if it is not enforced then the idea cannot evolve into action. Making the polluters pay for their actions teaches them responsibility. However, sites that have been polluted by bankrupt or now non-existent companies now remain dirty or are cleaned at the expense of the tax payers. The ultimate irony in this situation is that the people who are being hurt by the pollution (through environmentally-caused diseases, asthma etc.) are paying to clean it up. Critics say that Superfund enforcers are too strict by requiring that any company involved should pay for the damages however if they don't pay, people that have no involvement with the pollution whatsoever have to pay, which seems like an injustice to them. Superfund is an important program and definitely needs to continue to ensure that all sites deemed unsafe are cleaned however the issue that needs to be resolved is how to pay for it. In my opinion, we should go back to 1st grade politics - if you made the mess, you clean it up.
The link that I will use is http://www.epa.gov/superfund/, the official Environmental Protection website devoted to Superfunds.
The link that I will use is http://www.epa.gov/superfund/, the official Environmental Protection website devoted to Superfunds.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Anti-War Protest
I've been to many anti-war protests. In my very conservative town, it was a way for all the rebel high schoolers to 'stick it to the man.' Last night, I attended the Anti-War protest lecture which followed the march that took place earlier that day. The same feel was there except instead of high school kids, it was a bunch of aging hippies that still wear their Birkenstocks and flowers in their hair proudly. What shocked me the most was how there were hardly any students at the meeting whatsoever. Colleges have a reputation of breeding liberals and campuses are normally very liberal and vocal about issues that affect them. Besides me, Pierson and Alyssa, there probably were only a dozen or so other college kids there. The lack of enthusiasm by the general student body was surprising and certainly the rally, at least the lecture could have used the addition of the younger kids. Generations working together could produce change but the aging hipsters that were clapping and screaming held their own in terms of really wanting change.
There was this one woman who was sitting two pews in front of me. She had grey (almost silver) hair pulled back in a braid that looked as though it has been in for sixty years. She wore glasses and hunched over or leaned on who I could only guess was her daughter from their striking resemblance. She clapped. She screamed. She truly wanted change and probably has wanted change for every war that she has lived through. My guess is that during each war, she was at every peace protest trying to show that war isn't the answer. I could see her at a rally during the Vietnam war, during the Gulf War, during every other war, wearing the same anti-war t-shirt and her hair in that braid. Her daughter (once again speculating that the woman next to her was her daughter), probably in her thirties, looked like she's been to her fair share of rallies and probably will follow in the footsteps of the grey-haired woman because even though she is only one person, she can help change.
There was this one woman who was sitting two pews in front of me. She had grey (almost silver) hair pulled back in a braid that looked as though it has been in for sixty years. She wore glasses and hunched over or leaned on who I could only guess was her daughter from their striking resemblance. She clapped. She screamed. She truly wanted change and probably has wanted change for every war that she has lived through. My guess is that during each war, she was at every peace protest trying to show that war isn't the answer. I could see her at a rally during the Vietnam war, during the Gulf War, during every other war, wearing the same anti-war t-shirt and her hair in that braid. Her daughter (once again speculating that the woman next to her was her daughter), probably in her thirties, looked like she's been to her fair share of rallies and probably will follow in the footsteps of the grey-haired woman because even though she is only one person, she can help change.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
War as Art
War is hardly ever seen as art. However documentation, especially in the form of photography, takes the concrete definition of war and manipulates it in the eye of the artist, in this case the photographer. The Binh Danh exhibit takes photographs from the Vietnam war and makes them into art. By placing the photographs on a different canvas, the artist manipulated war into expression. Danh may have many reasons as to why he took the pictures and put them on leaves and grass but the effect that the canvas has made the exhibit. It seemed like putting the pictures on leaves placed war in its natural habitat. War, especially in Vietnam took place in nature, with nature, and therefore putting the documentation on nature seemed like a natural progression. He took two completely different topics, nature and war, and married them in a cohesive manner. His technique of fusing art and documentation is extremely powerful, especially in the action shots.
A major difference between Sontag's article about art and Danh's exhibit is that Sontag looks at war art with a more critical eye. She said that "photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered." Danh took the photos and made art. Sontag looks at the photographs and wrote about how the pictures will dictate memories. Sontag says that however the pictures were taken is how they should be seen...living in 'real time.' The pictures show the truth about the situation without any sort of manipulation. It is just the picture, just the truth. Danh took the picture and put it on a different background which took away from the pure picture.
A major difference between Sontag's article about art and Danh's exhibit is that Sontag looks at war art with a more critical eye. She said that "photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered." Danh took the photos and made art. Sontag looks at the photographs and wrote about how the pictures will dictate memories. Sontag says that however the pictures were taken is how they should be seen...living in 'real time.' The pictures show the truth about the situation without any sort of manipulation. It is just the picture, just the truth. Danh took the picture and put it on a different background which took away from the pure picture.
Monday, September 3, 2007
what is art?
What is art? Well, it is quite a vague question with millions of answers depending on who you ask. To me, art is simply the display of self in different media although many could argue that this definition is too broad. But, this is my definition which I have discovered rather recently when I first found true art for the first time. In high school, I took a British Literature class and in that class we took a ten-day trip to Ireland, England and Wales. While in England, my friend wanted to go the National Gallery so we all begrudgingly went with him. As he was frolicking around mid-eighteenth century portraits, the rest of us were following him kind of like a husband following around his wife through Macy’s annual sale. We walked into another room and there it was: Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring. I stood in front of that painting for the rest of the time that we were in the museum. The innocence in her eyes, the realism of her facial expressions, the detail of the pearl, it seemed as though the girl in the painting was looking at me and I sort of saw myself in her. Our eyes looked the same so it kind of freaked me out. When I looked at her face, it felt as though I could see into her soul (as cliché as that sounds.) Her eyes seemed like a gateway to Vermeer’s time. I imagined that my eyes were hers and that I was watching Vermeer paint. It was a complete outer body experience. Although I don’t know if the painting was intended to be more than just a portrait, I saw myself in it, exactly my definition.
One focus of Duve’s article was the idea of intention, meaning the reason as to why the artist made whatever they made. Anything can be art as long as the artist thought of some meaning behind it. Anyone can draw a line on a piece of paper but it is not art unless there is some meaning behind the line. Art is art as long as it is “always constant in its aim,” so anything can be art as long as it matches what it was intended to be. (Duve pg. 8) Whether art takes the form of a sculpture, film, painting, performance etc. if it successfully portrays the message that the artist wanted to it portray, it can be considered art.
One focus of Duve’s article was the idea of intention, meaning the reason as to why the artist made whatever they made. Anything can be art as long as the artist thought of some meaning behind it. Anyone can draw a line on a piece of paper but it is not art unless there is some meaning behind the line. Art is art as long as it is “always constant in its aim,” so anything can be art as long as it matches what it was intended to be. (Duve pg. 8) Whether art takes the form of a sculpture, film, painting, performance etc. if it successfully portrays the message that the artist wanted to it portray, it can be considered art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)