So when I was a little kid I would have to drive all over the place for hockey games and tournaments. One of the rinks I would have to play at was in Hastings, Minnesota and there was a refinery plant on the way that I would always drive by. My dad always joked and said that they shot the movie "Mad Max" there. I believed him when I was a little kid because it looked just like the industrialized city from the movie with huge smoke stacks that emit a lot of smoke into the atmosphere. At the time I didn't really think much about the gases that are being emitted by the factory into the atmosphere. After learning a lot more about our environment in my class at college I began thinking about this factory that I grew up driving by since I was a little kid.
Fossil fuels account for about 85 percent of the energy used in the United States. When I read that stat I was shocked at first but I thought about it a little more and I could only think of a hand full of ways energy is produced for every day use. The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for powering companies resources, office buildings, homes, and automobiles. The amount of carbon dioxide that is put into the atmosphere is basically split into two parts, factories and automobiles. Our societies reliance on this fuel source is a problem already but it seems it may only get worse. Without the introduction and innovation of new types of energy sources we are going to be sunk! I thought about the video that I saw in class about killing the electric car. I thought this was a great idea to conserve energy as well as cut down on the green house gas emissions.
There are many effects that oil refineries have on the environment from water to air and soil. I have been looking at the air pollutants and some of the main concerns that stem from the burning of fossil fuels. The EPA has slowly been addressing the concerns by announcing,it was seeking comment on additional options for reducing emissions of air toxic pollutants from petroleum refineries based on information received since a 2007 proposal (Pollution Engineering, 2008). Included in the proposal were options for controlling air toxics emissions from storage tanks located at petroleum refineries and revisions to the maximum achievable control technology work practice standards for cooling towers (Pollution Engineering, 2008). I was glad to read about the improvement on old standards that are in effect. As we have learned from the past with new information available it is necessary many times to change previous standards because they have been proven to be harmful for the environment. Many like to argue that they don't account for the warming of temperatures around the world but I think that everyone could agree that they are certainly not helping improve the situation.
Global warming is a result from the emissions of green house gases into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the main gas behind global warming as well as other gases such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere unless the plants and trees can convert it back into oxygen through photosynthesis. With all the deforestation this is becoming a far bigger problem than most people think. Full halt on the deforestation of the Amazon could result in a 2 to 5 percent reduction in global carbon emissions (Brown, p. 240). In recent years much has been done to slow down the restrictions and hide the adverse effects on these gases have not only on our environment but on us as well. the number who believe the "seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated" has risen from 41 percent to 48 percent (Dolliver, 2010, p.20). There are essentially two parts to this argument, the green house gases are heating up our climate and the earth is naturally heating up. I think its really hard to prove for sure but why couldn't it be a combination of both. Either way it is happening much more rapidly than it has in the past and can be proven from data that has been collected over the past 150 years. "Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase" (Mastrandrea, 2005; Schneider, 2005).
This is a huge problem when you think about the polar ice caps. With all this extra heat generated, even though it seems small in terms of temperature, it can have a enormous effect on the ecosystem. Heating up that fast will cause the sea levels to rise and many of the coastal areas and islands could be under water very quickly. That means that scenic places that are great for vacationing could cease to exist in the next 100 years if this increase continues to happen.
Restrictions on emissions must be put into effect to help preserve the environment we still have. With out the control we are all in for trouble. There are alternative ways to use energy without emitting harmful gases into the atmosphere. They are more expensive but with more time and investments we can reduce these costs as well as reduce the carbon foot print we have to heavily put on our planet. Wind, solar power, and various devices have already been used to reduce emissions for a much cleaner production of energy.


References
Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.

(2008). EPA Raises Air Toxics Bar for Petroleum Refineries. Pollution Engineering, 40(12), 15. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Dolliver, M. (2010). Worries About Pollution (and Warming) Have Eased. MediaWeek, 20(12), 20. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Brown, M. (2010). Limiting Corrupt Incentives in a Global REDD Regime. Ecology Law Quarterly, 37(1), 237-267. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Wall-E AMV - Light Up The Sky

Wall-E is a Disney/Pixar movie that came out in 2008 and is set in the future. The target audience for this film is children because it is a cartoon with little violence. Although this film is a cartoon directed towards children the ideas behind it are valid for society today. The general concept is about a robot who is the last of many robots that were in charge of cleaning up planet earth. The earth was so polluted from all of the trash humans had accumulated they had to leave earth on a spaceship and live in space until the robots, or Wall-E's could clean it up and establish another livable ecosystem. The time humans had to spend in space turned out to be longer than anticipated and they all but forgot about the planet they once used to inhabit.
The first thing that I noticed was that the earth was completely empty and trashed. It didn't even look like earth. Children are probably too young to notice what really happened to the planet but the parents that bring their children must have noticed the message being portrayed by the film. For me there was a definite "shock value" right away just seeing the demolished landscape that was once thriving with energy and life. Also I think that this film was set up as a warning for what may happen if we don't change our ways but there was a feeling of hope because of one little robot, Wall-E.
The film's setting is in two parts earth and on a spaceship up in space. At first I thought that the earth was full of huge sky scrapers but when I took a closer look I realized that the sky scrapers I thought I saw were just giant towers of trash compacted by the robots. Wall-E was the closest thing to a human living there. Although he was a robot Disney/Pixar did a good job of illustrating his emotions. You could see that he had feelings and wanted to be as human as he could.
Because it is a film there are many pictorial elements that come into play that explain the situation and the severity. For example, in the clip above you can notice news paper articles on the ground depicting the world in crisis as well as all the Buy n Large company logos on everything.
The BnL corporation correlates well with large multi-national companies that we read about every day. While I was watching this film I looked very carefully at the signs and statements created by Buy n Large. Everything I saw was reassuring that they were making the world a better place for everyone and don't worry because "WE", BnL will protect you. As the film progressed I kept going back to the idea that they wanted everyone took look the other way. After looking at all the article from class I remembered the large companies such as GE that are always fighting to prove that they are making a difference and improving the world. Because of clever advertisements I think that many consumers believe that companies such is are doing good and turn the other cheek to negative stories about their environmental impact. This might be one of the reasons why the earth ended up un-inhabitable in the movie, society didn't question the impact large corporations have on the environment or the carbon foot print they leave behind.
The fact that there are no people in the first part of the movie makes a big statement about how scary this future is. I can't even imagine not being able to just go swimming in the lake by my house but with the privatization of water that might just be the reality. To me the film said that we screwed up beyond repair. With that said it reminded me of the diminishing water tables already being depleted and over extracted. Also the people that are in the movie are fat and lazy. They depend solely on the work of robots for simple tasks that I would never even consider not doing myself. The people in the future got around the space ship in hover chairs with television screens in front of them and if they happen to fall out of their chair they didn't even have to get back in the chair themselves, a robot would come and do it for them. This is not the world that I want to be a part of. I am all for making life a little bit easier but there has to be a point where I would loose respect for myself if I became useless. Thats what the people of the future were, useless. They became the robots. There was no interaction outside their own personal bubble. I was wondering how there was a human race still because there was no interpersonal communication. One man and a woman met just by accident because of Wall-E but what does the other 99% of the population do?
This film is significant in that it portrays a future not so out of the picture. Although it is a bit far fetched I could potentially see this happening in the near future if we keep diminishing our resources and keep infecting the very planet that sustains us.
I felt that the movie generates a sense of fear but it is accompanied by hope. Wall-E represents one person trying to make a difference. It has to start with one and as you see from the film he generates followers. Another robot, EVE, helps him get the plant to the spaceship and the captain fights back against the people that gave up. Those were the same people that promised safety and a solution to the worlds problems.
It's our job as the consumers to know what we are supporting by making our purchases. With out analyzing the positive and negative effects we are really living irrationally. We cannot be consumed by the glory of innovation. What is the point of innovation if we destroy the very world we inhabit. Many companies advertise how much easier life will be with the use of their products, but how easy will life be if we cannot sustain a livable ecosystem. I'm not saying that I don't impact the environment because I do. It's funny that watching a Disney movie really did make me think about the choices "we" as society make or don't make and the potential harmful impact that may occur from making these decisions.

Arsenic and Old Studies: Pressure is on to ban a hazardous but profitable feed additive

This article from an online environmental magazine briefly raises the question about feed additives used by large poultry contractors such as Tyson Foods and the potential harm to communities with these large poultry factories. The author, Sheila Pell addresses the issues presented from seven families in Prairie Grove, Arkansas. It's a small town of about 2,500 people and yet they have a higher than expected number of people diagnosed with different forms of cancer, many of whom are children. The feed additive used is "roxarsone" an arsenic-based drug fed to an estimated 70% of U.S. chickens. Not much information is known about the effects of this organic arsenic drug on humans. This by-products is produced from chicken waste and most of the waste is used in fertilizers and feed for cows. Although not much is know about the organic arsenic; inorganic arsenic in drinking water has been linked to diseases such as liver, kidney, lung, bladder, and skin cancer. Basically not many studies have been done to figure out the potential dangers that may affect us, "society" from the use of this kind of drug additive. People getting sick argue that they are affected yet the large corporations argue that their drug feed is not the cause for concern based on the regulations set by the EPA and FDA.

The title of the article caught my attention because it strongly related to a movie I saw about the manufacturing of chickens for food and profit. Especially when the feed additive referenced is an arsenic drug. When I saw that I thought immediately about rat poison. That scared me as a reader to think that something that I am probably purchasing for my own consumption has potentially been poisoned. Based on the information from documentary I watched I wasn't surprised to see that a major food corporation, such as Tyson Foods was involved in this issue.

Much of the emphasis in this article centers around people contracting diseases living in a small town that hugs a monstrous poultry factory. Even though many questions are raised from interviews and studies about the effects of this "feed" I felt there wasn't a solution. It was as if it was one experts word against another with contradicting arguments. The author also mentions the use of 20 other drugs still used today to increase growth and profit. I would have liked to have more information regarding some of these other drugs. Are they harmful? Where can they be found? Do the Pros out weigh the Con's?

Something else that caught my eye was the use of pictures to illustrate not problems within the production of the chickens. The images used as "symbolic packages" do a good job in grabbing attention but they don't really relate to the issue being argued directly. Now if some pictures of children in hospitals were put in the article I think it would do a better job persuading readers and connect with the authors argument. Though the amplitude of this article may be small but I feel that the meaningfulness of it is relevant as we are most likely eating the products from these factories. The social economical issues can be see from both sides arguing. Expert opinions from doctors, representatives from the EPA, and other departments in the health industry are frequently referenced to support claims made by the author. Interesting enough many of the experts used as a point of reference to counter act the claims made against the corporations are those who may be influence by the large corporations. The FDA "has some serious limitations imposed by law," says Sheila Pell, "in addition to its own culture of inaction." The FDA is under funded and understaffed making it even more difficult to tackle the problem at hand.

Reference to interviews and comments made by "elite people", government officials or people who occupy a central place in the news media discourse to mention (Galtung and Ruge) were used throughout the article to support different claims. Also testimony from people of the town. Beth Green ask, "What in the world is going on?" Dr. David Bourne of the arkansas Department of Health called the five cases of testicular cancer diagnosed within five years "higher than expected and therefore troublesome." to emphasize the fact that this isn't normal and there must be a problem.

I would say that this article is relatively unbias and objectively written. In saying that it is almost though the article was written with a negative attitude. At the end she lists the results from the trial of Prairie Grove vs. Alpharma, Beth Green was the only one of 10 plaintiffs to make it to trial and it took the jury just 21 seconds to rule in favor of Alpharma drug company. I took it as a "who cares attitude because there's nothing we can do about it." even though for the most part she stayed relatively neutral.