Your detailed and thorough post due by Wednesday@MIDNIGHT for full credit (A). Partial credit (C) can be earned by posting late, which is better than a ZERO.
Remember, weekly blogging is worth 1/3 of your entire semester grade.
Be sure to communicate with Dr. W as needed - rob.williams@madriver.com.
Read and blog MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS: INTRODUCTION, Chapters 7-9.
1) THESIS: IYOW, post a single sentence that captures the thesis for EACH CHAPTER of our reading.
2) EVIDENCE: Post and number THREE specific observations from EACH CHAPTER of our reading(s) that supports your thesis.
Use 2-3 sentences for each observation, and combine direct quotations from the text (AUTHOR's LAST NAME, 27), with IYOW analysis.
3) QUESTION: Include in your post a SINGLE SPECIFIC question you'd ask the class based on our readings.
(I’m presenting Ch. 7)
ReplyDeleteCh. 8: This chapter discusses comparative risk assessment and 4 ways to help reduce environmental damage.
1. Comparative risk assessment means ranking environmental issues from most to least concerning. However, there are a million issues with this system and we ask who is making these lists, what makes one issue more important over another, does that mean that we only need to work on issues at the top of the list, etc. “Don’t we have a sense that an ill person should be able to obtain some professional help? Do we think any less of the Earth than of our own bodies? (O’Brien, 120).
2. The first two ideas discussed are: “Require all businesses and government agencies to consistently and publicly explore, on paper, and in understandable language, their options for causing the least possible environmental damage” (O’Brien, 122) and “Provide citizens with easy access to all information relevant to effects on their environment and their health” (O’Brien, 122). These options are about understanding and the power of knowledge. Often times it is difficult to make people and companies change habits because it is what they know.
3. The last two ideas are: “Provide for citizen-suit enforcement of all environmental laws” (O’Brien, 124) and “Encouraging schools and universities to involve students in solving community and state environmental problems” (O’Brien, 125). These two ideas are about citizen involvement. Without individuals, companies and farms are not likely to uphold regulations. Involvement of young people is what makes change as we have seen throughout history--we just need the resources to get moving.
Ch. 9: This chapter takes a deep dive into alternatives assessment.
1. “When evaluating alternatives, we do assess risks, but we assess the risks of a wide range of options. And we assess benefits of these same options” (O’Brien, 129). One of risk assessments many faults is that you are limited and are not able to think about things holistically and systematically.
2. When looking into alternatives assessment, questions arise as we think about all the factors. “Some of these questions will relate to social, democratic, economic, and political issues. In contrast, a risk assessment tends to focus narrowly on biological questions (e.g., toxicity, disease, morality) (O’Brien, 135).
3. “Citizens are more likely to challenge special interests that intend to threaten the environment and for the public health for no justifiable reason when good alternatives are laid out in front of them” (O’Brien, 138). An example of this would be the banning of plastic straws in some cities. This has been pushed by citizens in the last few years with the sea turtle carrying the movement. So many people are getting on board with it and support the movement because there are so many alternative straw options today that aren’t plastic.
Question: How can we simultaneously convince people and governments to change their habits for the better of the planet?
Chapter 7
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risks assessments include many hidden interests and often do not take into account certain communities.
1. “Most know that risk assessments are conglomerations of political interests, selective assumptions, and selective data, and most admit that the risk assessments do not consider cumulative impacts.” (102). Scientists and many other stakeholders hope to lessen risks to our health and environment thought these assessments. However, many scientists are working for the government or companies. The goal of risk assessments is rarely not without outside interests being interjected in.
2. “Risk assessment allows an agency to avoid political trouble.” (106). Government agencies hire out using tax dollars to do risk assessments usually to stick to the status quo or not get in trouble. They often times would prefer not to do these risk assessments because of the potential to spark a need for action and change.
3. “Most scientists admit that many risks assessments are based on selective information, arbitrary assumptions, and enormous uncertainties rather than on pure science.” (108). The chapter also talks about how these risks cannot show cumulative impacts as well as the risks on the most sensitive communities.
Chapter 8
Thesis: comparative risk assessments are important regarding environmental assessments however are also incredibly harmful when determining how to rank and who is ranking.
1. Comparative risk assessments create an unfair choice between major risks, especially environmental ones. How can we ask a question of which environmental issues are low priority of action. However, there are so many environmental issues that we are facing and limited government spending to act.
2. There are also questionable assumptions that come out of comparative risk assessments. “Many serious environmental problems are caused by corporations that are allowed by law to use water, soil, and the bodies of humans and wildlife as free dispositions for their waste. There are alternatives to these risks.
3. Who does the rankings environmental issues is also an issue of comparative assessments. Many of the fears is that those who profit from environmental degradation may have a say in the ranking of the importance of these issues. Another fear is that there will not be representation of marginalized communities in these ranking systems.
Chapter 9
Thesis: Opening ourselves to alternatives assessment we usually find a way less harmful option to our risk assessment.
1. “Instead of allowing ourselves to be limited to one or two options that are terrible, we can insist on public consideration of a range of alternatives that seem good for different reasons.” (129). We often focus way too much on risk assessment which is just thinking of how bad is this action going to be. Instead we can look to see if there are alternatives to our harmful actions.
2. When we look at other alternatives we are more likely to ask more questions. “Because the differing benefits of the various alternatives remind us of divergent consideration, it's likely that we will ask a broader range of questions about the alternatives.” (135).
3. Once we begin looking at alternatives to the hazardous activity we begin to see how strange and harmful the risk was to begin with as well as when they are not the least risk possible. When faced with an alternative people will tend to choose the less hazardous option or continue looking for even less harmful action.
Question: How do we make sure comparative risks include marginalized communities opinions on ranking risks?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChapter 7
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessment is used by post for self interest.
1.“Risk assessments often help agencies avoid conflict, change or protection of the public interest” (O’Brien, 101). Risk assessments are frequently used as a way to get out of trouble or save face for those who are making questionable decisions. Many people know the misuse of risk assessment but support it anyways, as they may be benefiting from it.
2. “Some employees of government agencies know that certain activities are causing harm and would like to require less harmful alternatives” (O’Brien, 105). Individuals whose work is known to be harmful get tired of the constant risk assessments and want real change to come, while others use risk assessment findings as a way to justify the work they do.
3. “Social change is harder than preparing another risk assessment” (O’Brien, 111). This was a powerful statement to end the chapter with. It is a clean wrap up to the idea that the chapter was trying to get across. It is a real challenge to get society to alter behaviors they already partake in even if we know it is harmful to the population.
Chapter 8
Thesis: Prioritizing risk assessments leads to an incorrect perception that there are some issues that are of more importance.
1. “It is simply disingenuous to claim that environmental problems somehow magically exist and that society can not address them” (O’Brien, 116). If the issues exist, society has clearly been actively behaving in ways that cause environmental problems. So in turn, the energy that is spent harming the environment could be reallocated to changing those behaviors to be non-harmful or even beneficial.
2. “Who is selected to rank whatever environmental problems have been identified” (O’Brien, 118)? Whoever is granted the privilege of making this decision is likely to be personally invest or affected by the outcome so therefore will rank priority as they see fonts for their personal benefit. Leaving more urgent, not to say more important issues left for later or ignored.
3. “None of them involve ignoring any form of environmental degradation” (O’Brien, 126). Of all the ideas that are offered by O’Brien not one suggests that we ignore an environmental issue. They do suggest that we offer viab;le options for these issues to be addressed.
Chapter 9
Thesis: Use of rbGH can be harmful to cows and humans alike, why are we conducting risk assessments when alternatives assessments provide many solutions?
“Alternatives assessment can make social change seem both desirable and possible” (O’Brien, 136). In the case of rbHG offering the alternative of rotational grazing is one that was presented in a way that farmers and the public alike could see the benefit of and it wouldnt change the consumer's experience much at all.
“Those who work to have our society live within the limits of nature on Earth are too easily defeated by risk assessment” (O’Brien, 138). Those who are working to keep the cows and humans safe and within the feasible parameters of our Earth are often shut down by risk assessments results before they can move into why the alternatives assessments are viable.
3. “Citizens are more likely to challenge special interests that intend to threaten the environment and public health for justifiable reasons when good alternatives are laid out in front of them” (O’Brien, 138). Meaning that in order to get the public to make educated choices when consuming we need to insist that alternatives assessments be conducted in addition to or even better in lieu of risk assessments so that the public can see the reality of a situation and make the right choices.
Question: How to we convince the public that risk assessments are worth educating themselves on for their health and the environment?
Chapter 7: “Business loves risk assessment, government agencies use it, and many scientists cooperate with it” (101)
ReplyDelete1. Business loves risk assessment because reducing “risk” and damage by writing optimistic assessment is far more convenient than reducing real-world damages by ceasing hazardous activities and adopting more environmentally appropriate practices.
2. Government agencies use risk assessment because, by focusing the public’s attention on the details of a risk assessment, the agencies divert their attention away from whether the activity should even be happening in the first place.
3. Risk assessments gives some scientists and health professionals the sense that they are encouraging rational decisions by providing scientific info. Giving this information also gives them a salary.
Chapter 8: Because we have caused so many environmental issues, we need to realize that in order to mitigate these, we need to lay out all of the alternatives.
1. “A better way to approach our multitude of environmental problems would be to rank the most effective ways to give society the incentives and ability to prevent and solve all environmental problems” (113). This is when the idea of alternatives really starts being grappled with in this book. If we can rank different scenarios while getting the public on board, many risks woud be avoided entirely.
2. “It is simply disingenuous to claim that environmental problems somehow magically exist and that society cannot address them all” (116). As the book so eloquently states, we do not “have” environmental problem, we “caused” environmental problems. This is an essential distinction to make.
3. One way to create an arrangement that would help would be to require all businesses and agencies to consistently and publicly explore, on paper, and in understandable language, their options for causing the least possible amount of environmental damage. This makes for a more transparent and accessible society, as well as a healthier environment.
Chapter 9: The case study of using rbGH in cows is a good one when it comes to evaluating the downfalls of risk assessment.
1. “Alternatives assessment means looking at the pros and cons of a broad range of options” (130). Compared to risk assessment, this seems like the common sense choice for the government, public, and environment.
2. rbGH is a genetically engineered growth hormone for cows to produce more milk for longer. A risk assessment HAS been done for this hormone and has shown a significant degree of risk for all involved, but the claim is that “there is no other way.” Alternatives assessment could prove this wrong very quickly.
3. “Citizens are more likely to challenge special interests that intend to threaten the environment and the public health for no justifiable reason when good alternatives are laid out in front of them” (138). We cannot expect people with busy lives to sit down and read huge risk assessment documents and understand or even care. We have to make the options easy for them to find, read, and make opinions on.
Question: How can we get, or even force, everyone to get on board with seeking out the best alternatives?
Chapter 7
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessment exists because it protects those who gain profit from its protection.
“I contend that the common reality underlying these divided stances with respect to risk assessment is that most risk assessments protect and justify business as usual rather than serve the environment and the public health” (O’Brien 102). Risk assessment allows for companies and industry to keep doing the harm they are doing to the planet instead of coming up with new and sustainable strategies. This is because risk assessment is used to justify the practices with falsified number, protecting industry in the eyes of the law.
“Through risk assessment, an industry gets significant legal protection for activities that result in contamination communities, workers, wildlife, and the environment with toxic chemicals” (O’Brien 102). Risk assessment are the empty numbers that provide proof that “insignificant harm” is being done. As we learned from earlier chapters, these numbers are mostly estimates and don;t consider the full context of what actually happens in the real world. Using these assessments to justify damage done by industry is an unsustainable practice.
“Most scientists admit that many risk assessments are based on selective information, arbitrary assumptions, and enormous uncertainties rather than on pure science” (O’Brien 108). Scientists admit the faults of risk assessment but ultimately they exist within a system in which they are exploited and oftentimes don’t have a choice. Scientists get jobs from risk assessment, it allows them to distance themselves from the actual harm being done to the environment and people.
Chapter 8
Thesis: Comparing risk assessments for environmental issues can be helpful in some ways but this method can also be counter productive because it is based on questionable assumptions.
“If humans cause problems by particular behaviors, they can avoid causing them by not behaving in those ways” (O’Brien 115). What is being said here, is that instead of continuing our damaging behavior, we have alternative options. If we look for other ways to perform certain practices that cause less harm, it is possible to solve these problems.
“There is no objective way to draw boundaries around a specific ecological or human-health problem for the purpose of establishing relative risk” (O’Brien 117). The concept of comparative risk assessment poses many issues because of the fact that you are comparing hazardous actions. The end result will inevitably cause harm to the environment and since the ecosystem is a system one action will have effects on other things.
“By focusing on environmental problems rather than on problematic behaviors, problematic people, or problematic social arrangements, the comparative-risk-assessment group can pretend that the problems just “happened” and that no identifiable individuals or businesses caused them” (O’Brien 121). Essentially, comparative-risk-assessment is a great excuse to continue business as usual. What would actually reduce harm would be to get industry, the government, and citizens to be more thoughtful and behave more carefully in regards to their environmental actions.
Question: How can we change the paradigm of relying on risk assessment to actually changing our behaviors and actions to be less harmful?
(Presenting Chapter 9)
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XGNt7zitZb5GWKHKXxyIPaf8joVZgIjtc-aErYmXKks/edit?usp=sharing
DeleteChapter 7: Risk assessments have a variety of positives and negatives, though they predominantly benefit companies looking to get away with hazardous behaviour.
ReplyDelete“Risk assessment is the basis of all permits and registrations for hazardous activities and products.”(pg.103 O’Brien) Risk assessments are synonymous with shady corporate behaviour, you can’t have one without the other. This rules were designed for companies to be able to produced desired results.
“By focusing the public’s attention on the details of a risk assessment, agencies divert public debates from consideration of whether the assessed activity should even be taking place.”(pg.107 O’Brien) By focusing attention towards the specifics within their safety measures they are able to avoid public attention on the ethics of what they are attempting to accomplish.
“Risk assessment gives some scientists and health professionals the sense that they are encouraging rational decisions by providing accurate scientific information.”(pg.109 O’Brien) Risk assessments employ many scientists and give them a sense of making change through scientific information even though these hazardous activities.
Chapter 8: Ranking the priority of risk assessments can be difficult as various people have different ideas of what's crucial.
“Do we describe one problem as groundwater contamination and anoth- er as air pollution and a third as indoor air pollution, or do we instead lump all three as consequences of toxics use and then rank that as the problem?”(pg.118 O’Brien) Defining environmental issues can prove to be difficult, especially when dealing with incidents that fall under multiple categories.
“If a comparative-risk-assessment group ranks one particular environ- mental problem as being low priority, someone is sure to disagree, and that person will continue to fight for social attention to that environmental problem.”(pg.120 O’Brien) Ranking these issues can result in social outcry and lawsuit. Comparative risk assessments practically declare that one issue is less urgent or important than another.
“Require all businesses and government agencies to consistently and pub- licly explore, on paper, and in understandable language, their options for causing the least possible environmental damage.”(pg.122 O’Brien) This could be a step towards holding businesses more accountable for their actions and their repercussions.
Chapter 9: Companies will manipulate stories and people's attention to steer conversation away from the actions that will produce the most risk.
“In each of the above cases, those who wanted to undertake a hazardous activity would strive to prevent the assessment of reasonable alternatives.”(pg.138 O’Brien) Companies would actively try to suppress the ideas of alternative assessments to further their agenda for their actions.
“But we can also ask questions about alternatives to the risks of giving cows mastitis and feeding humans excess growth hormones.”(pg.131 O’Brien) Shortcuts made on the business ends can adversely affect the consumer.
“Average “high yield” cows in the United States produce about 16,000 pounds of milk a year, while “superior genotypes” produce 26,700 pounds of milk per cow per year.”(pg.130 O’Brien) Playing god in a way companies are able to control their products or “cows” outputs to exponentially increase profits. They do this without considering the consequences on their animals or their byproducts.
Question: How can we spread awareness of the risk assessment corporate control phenomenon
THESIS: The risk assessment system stays the same because of how much it benefits those in power.
ReplyDelete1. O’Brien starts off the chapter by reiterating the flaws of who is creating and contributing to risk assessments. “Most know that risk assessments are conglomerations of political interests, selective assumptions, and selective data, and most admit that the risk assessments do not consider cumulative impacts” (O’Brien 102). This is important because it shows some of the players that play a part in deciding the outcome of a risk assessment.
2. O’Brien brings up a shocking fact about the legitimacy of risk assessments, and the loopholes that those conducting them can go through. “When few studies are available for a risk assessment, and when none of these studies “prove” harm, a business is able to say “No risk assessment of our activities has shown harm”” (O’Brien 103). This shows how illegitimate and untrustworthy risk assessments are in regards to public safety.
3. Again, it is all about who benefits from the broken system. “Generally it is not a lack of scientific information about “risks” that prevents our society from moving toward more appropriate relationships with the environment. It is entrenched political and economic power…” (O’Brien 111). This goes to show that we have the means to make actual assessments on safety, but people in power are interested only in personal profits.
THESIS: Comparative Risk Assessment is limiting because it ranks problems rather than solving them.
1. O’Brien opens chapter 8 by stating: “ Prioritizing environmental problems using risk assessment implies that some are unimportant and can be ignored” (113). This speaks to the importance of focusing on ranking solutions and preventatives measures rather than problems. This is easier said than done, but is a better narrative because it frames the importance of solution-based thinking.
2. There are major benefits to moving away from comparative risk assessment. “If we have a goal of preventing and solving environmental problems rather than choosing which ones to ignore, we will not ask which types of environmental degradation are worst” (O’Brien 120). Instead, we will ask questions on how to solve and prevent the problems, and no issues will get pushed under the rug. Focusing on solutions encourages positive behavior, and is more effective in enacting real, positive change.
3. O’Brien gives four alternatives to comparative risk assessment. The last alternative is to encourage students and schools to help solve problems. “There is no larger source of unbounded energy, idealism, and creativity than students, and yet we have consistently failed to give our students practice at being active citizens” (O’Brien 125). This is true about students and their excitement for solving problems. Students are a valuable resource for new ideas and energy in solving problems.
THESIS: Alternatives assessment is a better alternative to risk assessment because it considers more than just one factor, and aims to benefit the public rather than just the people in power.
ReplyDelete1. Alternatives assessment focuses not just on risk assessment, but also on benefits assessment and what is better for the highest number of people. “When evaluating alternatives, we do assess risks, but we assess the risks of a wide range of options. And we assess benefits of those same options” (O’Brien 130). This leaves room for much more evaluation and possible solutions, and also leaves room for the public to weigh in.
2. Risk assessment leaves no room for public opinion. It is oppressive by nature. “Alternatives assessment threatens the status quo. Alternatives assessment can make social change seem both desirable and possible” (O’Brien 136). Alternatives assessment has space for change, participation, and is much more flexible.
3. “Those that work to have our society live within the limits of nature on Earth are too easily defeated by risk assessment” (O’Brien 138). This is a very powerful quote that speaks to the oppressiveness of risk assessment. In the current system, there is no space to argue with risk assessment. Alternatives assessment does not need to be argued with after the fact, because it has already taken into consideration all of the options before implementation.
QUESTION: How do we market alternatives assessment to decision makers?
Ch 7
ReplyDeleteThesis: The various sectors who use risk management do so, “for mostly self-interested reasons, not public-interest reasons” (O’Brien, 101).
1.Without risk assessment businesses would not be able to receive permits and registrations for activities and products. Risk assessments then however lets businesses get, “significant legal protection” (O’Brien, 102), in the case of degrading and/or polluting the environment.
2. Sometimes governments use risk assessment as a cover for activities or plans thats, “allow hazardous activities that harm people and the environment” (O’Brien, 106).
3. Additionally, risk assessment, “gives specialists power to an agency”, (O’brien, 107), in the way that alternative assessment does not.
Ch 8- Presenting
Ch 9
Thesis: Alternative assessment includes risk management, while also including benefit assessment.
1. Through the use of benefit assessment it is easier to see the, “various alternatives [that] remind us of divergent consequences” (O’Brien, 135).
2. Public approval is one reason behind the lack of transparency between risk assessments and the public. This especially occurs when risk assessment is used to “ok” a project that could potentially be hazardous.
3. Finally, it is worth noting that anyone attempting to carry out a hazardous activity through a lenient risk assessment program, “would strive to prevent the assessment of reasonable alternatives” (O’Brien, 138).
Question: How do we make alternative assessments more mainstream and normal?
ReplyDeletechapter 7 - “who loves, uses, or cooperates with risk assessments?”
thesis: The tight grip that businesses and capitalism-based ideals hold around the necks of those involved in the risk assessment process has created a puppet show that gets more embarrassing the more you watch.
“By focusing the public’s attention on the details of a risk assessment, agencies divert public debates from consideration of whether the assessed activity should even be taking place” (O’Brien, 107). In a way, not allowing the general public to easily learn about and be an active participant in something they can individually and collectively benefit so greatly from is irresponsible and greedy. It’s become clear that for many folks involved in decision-making processes, being a money hungry, lazy corporate puppet is more lucrative than making a real difference- an idea O’Brien touches on in this chapter as well.
If you’ve ever wanted to read a sentence describing what’s wrong with the general outlook and attitude of our governments and corporations today, check this one out:“Life is generally much easier for a government agency if it can avoid requiring the rich and powerful to change” (O’Brien, 108). Despite ease or discomfort in the process, governments should be focused on doing what’s right for their citizens- not what makes them look the best on paper.
“Social change is harder than preparing another risk assessment” (O’Brien, 111). While this is the reality now, does it necessarily have to be? The human population on this planet far outnumbers the risk-assessor population on this planet. Therefore, why do we let ourselves be pushed around so much by the pressures of society in general, but more specifically surrounding sustainable purchasing and diets?
QUESTION:
How can we de-program our society to stop accepting the type of manipulative, harmful behavior exhibited by risk-assessors and those involved in our government?
chapter 8 - “unnecessary societal triage: comparative risk assessment”
ReplyDeletethesis: Claiming responsibility for the climate crisis (that humans have acted as a catalyst for) and doing everything we can to mitigate future impacts is the only realistic thing to do for the future of our planet at this point.
“When we, as a society, as ourselves the comparative-risk-assessment question “Which environmental problems are of highest priority for our action?” we are asking a “Sophie’s choice” question, because that question in essence also asks, “Which environmental problems are of low priority for action?” (O’Brien, 113). By trying to play God and decide who is more important than who else,- for example, who deserves to be drinking clean water more than someone else, you open the doors to a lot of dangerous categorizing and harmful attitudes that can impact someone’s entire life.
“If humans are causing environmental problems by certain behaviors, they are certainly capable of behaving in ways that do not cause those environmental problems or in ways that greatly minimize them. It is simply disingenuous to claim that environmental problems somehow magically exist and that society cannot address them all” (O’Brien, 116). Humans flock towards convenience, and avoiding blame for things we don’t fully understand but still have an impact on is one of our specialities. Rather than learn more about issues and act on them, many folks would rather stand idly by and watch while someone else takes care of it. On the other hand, there are those who want to change and who know they need to- less of a problem but equally as frustrating.
“Every kind of environmental degradation matters to someone” (O’Brien, 120). Working to make time to care about and combat every single environmental issue would be insane and nearly impossible. Partnering with people and organizations that are experts in different fields can help broaden networks and spread each respective message more broadly.
QUESTION:
How can we be sure every issue (social/environmental/etc.) is getting the attention it needs and deserves?
chapter 9 - “alternatives assessment: the case of bovine growth hormone and rotational grazing”
ReplyDeletethesis: Educating yourself and challenging corporations and corrupt governments is one of the best and only ways to make progress in the world of risk assessment.
“Alternatives assessment means looking at the pros and cons of a broad range of options” (O’Brien, 129). A logical option is not always the route taken by individuals in charge of making decisions that will impact large groups of people- an unfortunate reality. However, alternatives assessments ensure that at least a few logical options will (hopefully) be on the table.
“Instead of allowing ourselves to be limited to one or two options that are terrible, we can insist on public consideration of a range of alternatives that seem good for different reasons. We can evaluate these alternatives and choose the one that seems best” (O’Brien, 129). The key term in this phrase for me is ‘public consideration’. I think one of the biggest issues I have with risk assessments in general is the lack of transparency and the lack of an opportunity for the public to get involved, even if they’re not an advanced risk assessor or policymakers. Getting the public involved in matters that concern them is always a beneficial way to get people more excited about their environments and encourage them to actually care about the issues and working to make a difference.
“Citizens are more likely to challenge special interests that intend to threaten the environment and public health for no justifiable reason when good alternatives are laid out in front of them” (O’Brien, 138). As I mentioned before, it seems that humans care most about convenience and will do anything to reach the most convenient solution to any issue they’re met with. If someone has a solid, sustainable plan, clearly explained and ready to get rolling, people will most likely not have problems with it.
QUESTION: How can we effectively work to get the public more involved in decision-making processes?
Well blogged, team ENP!
ReplyDeleteAll posts below this line= C/LATE.
Dr. Rob
Chapter 7: This chapter discusses how businesses and government agencies love risk assessment because of job increase and convenient abilities to increase productive – keep moving forward.
ReplyDelete1. Throughout this chapter, and Ariel’s detailed presentation, I am able to understand that risk assessments are a way to integrate more money into businesses, “It must be that risk assessments generally serve private interests,” (O’Brien, 101). This statement shows that the ones requesting the risk assessments are the ones whose interest is primarily money. An example would be, environmentalists trying to cooperate with corporations or the overpowering government.
2. “Most risk assessments are prepared simply to help determine the extent of commercial activities and where those activities will take place, not to calculate whether the activities are necessary or appropriate” (O’Brien, 103). This shows that businesses are not interested in environmental conservation or sustainability, they are primarily interested in their own benefits. Money is a huge driver for these behaviors – I believe that the government created certain risk assessments and laws just to save a small amount of money for unnecessary things, like their paychecks.
3. “Some government risk assessments are required by laws, such as ‘cost-benefit’ laws” (O’Brien, 105). I’m curious to know why these types of laws are needed and who benefits from them. It seems like the government is very much on board with money saving strategies, when it should be focused on environmental and economic reform.
Chapter 8: This chapter discusses the better ways to approach risk assessment when thinking about environmental decisions.
1. “A better way to approach our multitude of environmental problems would be to rank the most effective ways to give society the incentives and ability to prevent and solve all environmental problems” (O’Brien, 113). This makes the most sense when thinking about how we can decrease environmental degradation. If scientists come together to create and establish these lists, they could be turned into governmental laws and produce environmental change.
2. “If we are contributing greatly to global warming by burning fossil fuels, we could move away from burning so many fossil fuels by practicing energy conservation, producing fewer unnecessary products, and relying more on solar energy” (O’Brien, 115). I believe that this is the primary answer to how environmental reform begins. We need a community and government that establishes laws and regulations towards conserving energy on a national to global scale.
3. “It would be just as logical to rank which behaviors are causing the greatest environmental problems, or which social arrangements allow encourage people to cause environmental problems” (O’Brien, 121). Ranking which behaviors cause the most environmental damage would show the public just how impactful their everyday life is to the planet. I bet they would see how much carbon dioxide is produced just from driving their car to work or how much methane is put into the air from buying a conventional steak at the grocery store.
Chapter 9: This chapter is the beginning of the explanation of alternative assessments and why they are beneficial.
ReplyDelete1. “When evaluating alternatives, we do assess risks, but we assess the risks of a wide range of options” (O’Brien, 129). Alternatives are something that the government and businesses all around the country need to incorporate into their processes. To be able to make change, we must first start with less harmful alternatives to the risks we take every day and then proceed from there to create environmental reform.
2. “We could, for instance, compare reliance on rbGH with an alternative technology for increasing dairy farm profits: rotational grazing” (O’Brien, 131). Rotational grazing is a very important step in the right direction of a healthier planet and a healthier economic system. This process basically moves around livestock to different places so that there is a balance in what is eaten and pooped out – cow manure is a very good soil nutrient (organic matter).
3. “Those who work to have our society live within the limits of nature on Earth are too easily defeated by risk assessment” (O’Brien, 138). I believe that O’Brien is stating that scientists are pushed around with risk assessment. Scientists cooperate with risk assessments, but do not stand up for the facts (maybe because of fear of failure).
Question: How can we integrate something like rotational grazing as a necessary component for environmental reform?
7: Thesis. Risk assessment has other motives behind it then just making our world a safer place.
ReplyDeleteRisk assessment by its very nature is complicated and hard to understand unless you know it well and spend time going through it. This is intentional as to make it so the general public will not understand it.
Corporations are able to use Risk assessment to market themselves as taking all the necessary steps to protect people without doing anything. It is simply saying that they have considered the risks not that they have actually done much if anything to mitigate them.
It also includes what is considered to be an acceptable risk in the given situation. This means that a chemical can be toxic but still ok to dumb or use because the risk in “Minimal”.
8: Thesis. Risk assessment can be counter productive in the attempts it makes to help the environment.
As mentioned with the chemicals what risk assessment considered negligible is often not in truth. This is because they are able to test small amounts in controlled environments not what is actually happening to the environment.
This also leads into biomagnification and all the problems that arise from it. While small amounts of chemicals in tiny fish will do nothing other fish will eat them and get more. The birds will eat those fish ad will have even more in their system.
This can also apply to things affecting land use and the like. While fertilizer might not cause any big problems on its own it does result in increased farming and erosion. We can’t look at just the effects of the one thing but also what systems it helps and hinders.
9: Thesis. Alternatives assessment is a less harmful way to go about things we just need to get people to start using and accepting it.
The basic principle is taking into account not just the effects of doing something but what other options we could take instead to get similar results. For example, rather than using so much fertilizer we could use crop rotation.
The first step in getting people to use this new system is simply educating people that it is an option. I am a strong believer that education is a solution to many of the problems we are facing in this day and age.
It is much less complicated of a system to implement as well so once people know about it and how it works they will start wanting to use it just to help save time and resources. I think that this is an important way to do things as people won’t want to use something that is harder or more costly for them.
Question: Where in the education system should Alternative assessment be introduced?
Chapter Seven
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessments are beneficial to groups with hidden agendas unconcerned with the impacts of their actions on marginalized communities.
1)To some extent, risk assessment is a fancy way of saying proposal plans.“Most risk assessments are prepared simply to help determine the extent of commercial activities and where those activities will take place, not to challenge whether the activities are necessary or appropriate.”(103, O’Brien). Not addressing the legitimate necessity of an activity, fails to allow alternative solutions.
2)Human and environmental health are simply outweighed by business objectives. “A pesticide that has a highly toxic or dangerous effects may not be considered as having “unreasonable adverse effects if it brings great economic benefits to the chemical company that makes it or to the agribusiness farms that use it”(103, O’Brien).
3) “Generally it is not lack of scientific information about “risks” that prevents our society from moving toward more appropriate relationships with the environment. It is entrenched political and economic power: business wants to continue doing what it is doing. It is also lack of public discussion about alternative ways of behaving”(111,O’Brien). This lack of public discussion is rooted in lack of public knowledge. Businesses are allowed to blatantly lie to the public and no one is held responsible.
Why is human life considered more expendable than a fictitious factor of human existence(money)?
Chapter Eight
Thesis: Approaching solutions for environmental problems is still reliant on who is valuing what aspects of the environment.
1) We understand the available options for solving environmental problems.“If for instance major soil erosion is caused by clear cutting of forests in a particular region, we could undertake forestry in that region without clear cutting. If we contribute are contributing greatly to global warming by burning fossil fuels, we could move away from burning so many fossil fuels by practicing energy conservation, producing fewer unnecessary products, and relying more on solar energy”(115, O’Brien). These options have been in front of us for sometime now, however political interests profit off of skewing public scientific belief.
2) The risks against business outweigh the threats to the environment, where businesses extract their resources from. ”Many serious environmental problems are caused by corporations that are allowed by law to use water, air, soil, and the bodies of humans and wildlife as free depositories for their waste”(115, O’Brien). The creation of these environmental issues can even spark new business ventures, speeding up these devastating cycles.
3) Changing human behavior is much more difficult than changing allowable levels of pollution or contaminants. “If all environmental problems can be addressed in some manner by changing the behaviors that are causing the problems, then ranking environmental problems for priority attention is less useful than determining which social arrangements and processes will lead most effectively to change in the behavior of those who are causing the problems”(116, O'Brien). Risk assessment fails to determine any sort of social arrangements and processes that inhibit effective change and real results.
Chapter nine.
ReplyDeleteThesis: simple transitions in animal agriculture could be made to ensure sustainability in agriculture, however the scale of the practice is inherently unsustainable.
1) The scale of dairy farming forces farmers and ranchers to rely on CAFOs.“In addition, by moving from pasture to pasture the cows spread all over all or most of their own manure on the pasture during much of the year. In CAFO feeding systems, the manurer becomes concentrated in one spot and must be spread mechanically by the dairy farmers”. Decreasing the amount of cows on farms would allow for cows to graze in open spaces, benefiting both them and the environment.
2) People are capable of being somewhat rational. “Consumers however are much more likely to participate, if the debate considers farmers satisfaction, the common sense of rotational dairy farms and the possibility of avoiding drinking pharmaceutical drugs”. All of these considerations are thrown out as soon as the mention of potential increasing dairy costs comes up.
3) Acting on the concept of human rationality was an ancient practice predating lobbying groups, political machines, and corporate greed.“Citizens are more likely to challenge special interest that intend to threaten the environment and public health for no justifiable reason when good alternatives are laid out in front of them”. This concept of rationality posed a threat to corporate objectives, and has been met with corporate funded case studies, and blatantly lying to the public. Creating this divide allows for more needed time for publicly debating the practicality of rationalization.
Why are corporations provided with the rights of citizens, but are not held to the same accountability as individuals?
CHAPTER 7
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessment is modified by most to serve to their own self interest.
-“Most know that risk assessments are conglomerations of political interests, selective assumptions, and selective data, and most admit that the risk assessments do not consider cumulative impacts” (102). These assessments should be available to the public- transparency on the process of analysis should be of public concern.
- Risk assessment is the basis of all permits and registrations for hazardous activities and products.”(103) Any activity which is considered potentially dangerous can “prove” themselves to be safe for humans and the environment. This is a tool for obstructing the customers right to full disclosure.
-“Social change is harder than preparing another risk assessment” (111) A shift in the values of a community is needed to pressure government bodies and pressure the market to find benefit in increasing transparency and doing good work.
CHAPTER 8
Thesis: Comparing risk assessments for environmentally damaging activities can be counterproductive because the risks are not being eliminated.
-prioritizing environmental problems using risk assessment implies that some are unimportant and can be ignored” (113). There will always be perpetuation of burdens by the continuity of harmful activity- it is the choice of the company which community/communities hold said burden.
-“ It is simply disingenuous to claim that environmental problems somehow magically exist and that society cannot address them all” (116) The community is capable of behaving in ways that do not cause those environmental problems or in ways that greatly minimize them, yet an individual cannot completely diverge on their own.
-“By focusing on environmental problems rather than on problematic behaviors, problematic people, or problematic social arrangements, the comparative-risk-assessment group can pretend that the problems just “happened” and that no identifiable individuals or businesses caused them” (O’Brien 121). We know that all environmental issues are anthropogenically originated and/or anthropogenically exacerbated. If we know that decisions made by people are causing these changes, why are we not holding individuals or groups accountable?
CHAPTER 9
Thesis: Alternative assessment includes risk management, while also including benefit assessment.
-: “Instead of allowing ourselves to be limited to one or two options that are terrible, we can insist on public consideration of a range of alternatives that seem good for different reasons.” (129). A combination of risk and alternative assessment might be the type of shift that many are comfortable with.
-“But we can also ask questions about alternatives to the risks of giving cows mastitis and feeding humans excess growth hormones.”(pg.131) Shortcuts made on the business ends can adversely affect the consumer.
-“Citizens are more likely to challenge special interests that intend to threaten the environment and public health for no justifiable reason when good alternatives are laid out in front of them” (138). When people understand the alternatives, they are much less likely to feel pressure to accept any risks outlined within a risk assessment.
Should we monitor goals of a business as they enact changes? Perhaps keep a record of intent behind business practice changes?