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 10-12.
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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChapter 11
ReplyDeleteThesis: Being transparent with risk and alternatives assessment will allow the public to advocate and demand for themselves and the world that they want to live in.
1. “Alternatives assessment can be installed as a sensible three-step public process for making decisions about all behaviors that affect the environment.” (147). The steps are range of alternatives, discuss the benefits of each alternative, and discuss all adverse effects. These all will open our perception of whether or not we need to do this harmful activity.
2. NEPA must legally present and discuss all alternatives publicly. This seems ethical and commons sense but many profitters of the risky behaviors protest. “The specter of fundamental change can be threatening to those who profit from particular ecosystem or natural resources, such as water, air or oil.” (148)
3. “When citizens see that there are reasonable, feasible alternatives to destroying the world, some of them will exert political pressure to implement at least some of those alternatives.” (168). Public information and transparency will allow citizens to see what's being done to their health and planet without their consent. This will allow public advocacy and action that will allow for actual systemic change.
Chapter 12
Thesis: we should not allow harmful activities to take place until we have considered all risks and alternatives and deemed that there is no alternative and that it would benefit the world and us more than anything else.
1. The two major strategies that citizen groups advocating for alternatives assessment will use either no or yes strategies. The no strategy blocks certain actions from taking place by not allowing a harmful activity to take place unless there is a better alternative. The yes strategy does not allow a risk assessment because it means that it is inherently hazardous. Instead they demand alternatives.
2. Greenpeace is an organization that opposes risk assessments and promotes the concept of the precautionary principle. This would not allow there to be any hazardous activity or materials taking place until after there is a study that proves that it is safe and that it is the best alternative. Currently our system allows for there to be hazardous activities until proven so unsafe that it far exceeds any benefit, while manipulating the findings.
3. Ecological risk assessment determines how much of a human activity our natural world can “assimilate” to. “The organization Greenpeace, a leader worldwide in opposing risk assessment, has attacked the ‘assimilative capacity’ assumption of risk assessment, namely that risk assessors can know how much of a given harmful activity can be withstood (assimilated) by the environment.” (172) We have no idea how much the environment can handle based on how many outside factors there are.
questions:
How can we make risk and alternatives assessment more transparent so that the public can understand the risks as well as advocate for themselves?
How can we implement the precautionary principle in the United States?
Chapter 10: This chapter discusses the fact that there is more to life than saving a small amount of money from being involved in an activity that causes environmental degradation.
ReplyDelete1. Throughout this chapter I am very interested in why people have been conditioned to a cost-benefit analysis lifestyle. “Cost-benefit analysis considers only pros and cons that can supposedly be reduced to money. Alternatives assessment includes additional pros and cons that matter to people and the environment” (O’Brien, 139). Saving money is great, but a lot of the time big businesses go to extremes when trying to save money and end up changing the world in the process. An example would be the corn syrup epidemic – it’s much cheaper than real can sugar and corporations used that to their advantage.
2. “Cost-benefit analyses are used in social decision making in our society when the decision making is based on, or at least considers, what money might be gained and lost as a consequence of particular actions or regulations” (O’Brien, 139). I believe that this is a sequence that corporations use often when thinking about financial decisions. What is going to save us the most money while continuing to make the public satisfied?
3. I liked how O’Brien used the example of how cost-benefit analysis is based on a system train of thought. “Cost-benefit analysis clarifies choices among alternatives by evaluating consequences in a systematic manner” (O’Brien, 143). Businesses make their decisions based on their profits, and a lot of the time it is unethical and causes a great deal of harm to the environment and the public.
Chapter 11: This chapter dives into how alternative assessment is not new and the importance of implementing it into life today, as well as the NEPA.
1. “Alternative assessment is not a new process. Industrialized societies have occasionally established and implemented processes for doing it, and have learned to do it in a number of settings” (O’Brien, 147). Reading this book, I had a feeling that alternative assessment has been around for a long time. That being said, it just shows how so many businesses have avoided alternative assessments.
2. “The NEPA regulations were prepared in 1978, and only one regulation (regulation 1502.22, which required agencies to consider the worst impacts that could reasonably happen) has been slightly altered since that time” (O’Brien, 147). This is probably one of the worst regulations to be “slightly” altered.
3. “The NEPA requirement to consider “all reasonable alternatives” may sound like common sense. However, it is heartily resisted by those who wish to continue business as usual” (O’Brien, 148). I believe that common sense is something that is not “common” anymore. Unfortunately, businesses do not like change and love loopholes to the cheapest option, so they won’t stop being greedy.
Chapter 12: This chapter discusses the global environmental impacts from risk assessment and the efforts some organizations have made to improve it.
ReplyDelete1. “Risk assessment of bad options is the main decision-making process in our society at the moment” (O’Brien, 171). The fact that risk assessment is based on negative activities/risks, shows that risk assessment is not a positive way of making decisions. Alternative assessment is the direction businesses should go to protect the health of the planet and its people.
2. I liked how there was a specific word in this book to describe the perspective of a clean production of materials. “Clean production employs manufacturing, transport, disposal, and use activities that drastically reduce or eliminate use of toxic chemicals (and subsequent release of toxic chemicals into the environment” (O’Brien, 173). The way our world can reduce the harmful substances that are contaminating our everyday lives is by implementing clean production into our society.
3. “Greenpeace has served as leading international non-governmental organization calling for an end to industrial and consumer use of chlorine” (O’Brien, 174). Greenpeace is one of the organizations that is slowly saving environmental degradation by moving consumers away from the use of chlorine. Chlorine is one of the most toxic chemicals in our society that we are exposed to way too often (it’s specifically bad for the brain and lungs).
Question:
How can we implement alternative assessment into education prior to the undergraduate level?
Chapter 10
ReplyDeleteThesis: The difference between cost benefit analysis and alternatives assessments is that cost benefits analysis only considers the positives and negatives in regards to finances while alternatives include the consideration of humans and the environment.
“Cost-benefit analyses are used in social decision making in our society when the decision making is based on, or at least considers, what money might be gained and lost as a consequence of particular actions or regulations” (O’Brien 139). Cost-benefit analysis solely focus on the way money will be affected in a certain situation. Because we exist in a world with complex systems which overlap and connect, only focusing on the cost or benefits is only considering a small margin of what else could be affected.
“The failure of cost-benefit analysis to include non-monetary considerations is the main basis for rejecting monetary cost-benefit analysis as a sufficient basis for any environmental, public, or private decision making” (O’Brien 141). Cost benefit analysis doesn’t consider the plethora of other elements that could be affected. If you only care about money, then it is perfectly viable, however, by just focusing on the monetary gain, other elements could then be affected which might end up costing in the long run.
“The consequences (i.e., the pros and cons, or the costs and benefits) of alternatives assessments, however, can include issues of democracy, aesthetics, spiritual values, ethnic values, uncertainty,, sense of community, and personal feeling as well as monetary consequences” (O’Brien 143). Alternatives assessments are the better option when compared to cost-benefit analysis because they include the fundamentals of cost-benefit analysis while also considering how other aspects may be affected by the outcome. Financial gain is important to the economy but it is not the only factor of life. Some people treat it as if it is.
Chapter 11
Thesis: Alternatives assessment is not a new idea or concept, however, getting people to consider it and implement it is the real challenge.
“The specter of fundamental change can be threatening to those who profit from particular ecosystem or natural resources, such as water, air or oil” (O’Brien 148). According to NEPA all alternatives must be available to the public. People who benefit from such ecosystems or natural resources for profit purposes often are against this because it threatens their gains.
“The main reason it is not commonplace is that alternatives assessment challenges the status quo, in which business as usual continues practices that damage the environment” (O’Brien 167). Alternatives assessments challenge the way things are. They are difficult because they force you to consider how what you do affects so many other things. It forces you to think outside of money, industry, and business which are easy to focus on, and instead change your focus to the well being of the environment which is a much larger task to tackle.
“Initially, the university did not want to discuss alternative mountain ranges where astronomy facilities might be built” (O’Brien 168). The University of Arizona wanted to build a series of telescopes on mountains that were home to the Mount Graham red squirrel which could ultimately cause their extinction. There were multiple other mountain ranges that could be used for telescopes but they decided to spend their time lobbying to get what they wanted because it would be the most convenient for them.
Chapter 12
DeleteThesis: Because alternatives assessments challenge the status quo, it can be difficult to convince people that its is a viable, and necessary solution. This chapter discusses how to get people to understand alternatives assessments as necessary.
“The “No” strategy answers the question “How much damage shall we allow through X activity?” with “None; don’t do that activity” (O’Brien 171). I liked this quote because it simply explains what alternatives assessment actually is. Instead of asking how much damage can be allowed, how about considering not doing that damaging activity. However, this poses issues when people in opposition are not supplied with a better alternative.
“The concept of clean production, according to Greenpeace, also necessarily questions the need for production at all in certain cases: “In the first place, a Clean Production Approach questions the very need for the product or looks at how else that need could be satisfied or reduced” (O’Brien 173). This alternatives assessment really exemplifies what we should be doing to help the environment because it questions our very need of consumption. We create things we don’t need to fuel an economy that damages our environment. A “Clean Production Approach” is only possible if we really consider what we are producing and why.
In Washington, there is a Nuclear Reservation that pollutes the land and rivers home to the Umatilla Tribe. They made an agreement with the reservation that since their land would be used they would have permission to fish and hunt on their land. The water is so polluted that it cannot support vegetation or wildlife which is essential to these tribes survival. “The Umatilla Tribes are showing that conventional risk assessments of Hanford wastes do not address the tribes activities and culture” (O’Brien 179). By proposing alternatives in collaboration with the Energy entity, they hope to rebuild what was lost, fostering a relationship of communication and fairness.
Question: By making proper alternatives assessment mainstream in government and society, what sorts of changes will we see? How can we get policies that will inforce alternatives assessments?
THESIS: Not everything is about money, and therefor, not everything can be thought about in terms of money.
ReplyDelete1. O’Brien brings up the role that cost-benefit analyses play in human decision making. She seeks to prove the point that there is more to life than money, and that we consider much more than just money when we make decisions. “Cost-benefit analyses are used in social decision making in our society when the decision making is based on. or at least considers, what money might be gained and lost as a consequence of particular actions or regulations” (O’Brien 139).
2. O’Brien furthers her point about cost-benefit analysis by stating: The commonest deficiency of cost-benefit analysis is that not all benefits and costs of actions can be reduced to money” (O’Brien 140). This is to say that impact can not be measured monetarily. Of course money plays a role, but there is a lot that must be considered in risk assessment that has nothing to do with money, and is overlooked.
3. “In 2050, will any children have the chance to feel the power of a wild steelhead in a wild river, or to watch a mule deer bound along a pine-studded hillside?” (O’Brien 142). This is an example of something that a dollar amount cannot be attached to. This is what cost-benefit analysis fails to take into consideration, and what alternatives assessment is able to account for.
THESIS: Alternatives Assessment is not a new idea, it just is not commonly used.
ReplyDelete1. This chapter focuses on the fact that alternatives assessment is not a new concept. “The specter of fundamental change can be threatening to those who profit from particular ecosystems or natural resources, such as water, air, or oil” (O’Brien 148). This is to say that the reason alternatives assessment is not implemented isn’t because it is brand new, but because it threatens business as usual and exploitive profits.
2. Promoting alternatives is a slippery slope. “Public reporting of the existence of alternatives is a powerful process. It can be extremely threatening to the status quo” (O’Brien 163). Profiteers want to continue profiting, and any wave within the system is a threat. Therefor, it can be dangerous for the public to come forward and challenge the status quo. This could be why environmental hazards are often placed in oppressed communities.
3. It is hardly ever the case that things that seem to make the most sense are favored by people in power. “Alternatives assessment may be a common-sense approach to decision making, but it is not commonplace” (O’Brien 167). This is why the problem is not in the lack of knowledge, but in the lack of implementation.
THESIS: Pushing for alternatives assessment is a crucial part in changing the system.
1. Though risk assessment is commonplace, it does not have to be cooperated with with no pushback. “Risk assessment of bad options is the main decision-making process in our society at the moment. Unfortunately, too many citizen groups think they have to cooperate with it, but they don’t have to” (O’Brien 172). If citizens are aware of their rights, then there is a possibility of saying a simple no to hazards, but typically there needs to be more. It is important that citizens demand alternatives so that this kind of resistance becomes commonplace.
2. “Risk assessments that focus primarily on the toxicity of a few of the ingredients of a few of the ingredients in pesticide formulations do not reveal all the advantages of farming without pesticides” (O”Brien 184). This is an example of how risk assessment fails to take alternatives into consideration. Of course it is possible to test the toxicity of pesticides and compare, but what about farming without? Or farming with alternative pest control?
3. We should not be choosing the best of the worse. “Choosing the “least onerous path available” requires analysis of alternatives” (O’Brien 190). We should be weighing in all of the options rather than sticking with business as usual. Also, just because something is “the best option available” does not mean that it is safe.
QUESTIONS: How can we educate the public about their rights and mobilize people to act?
Chapter 10: As O’Brien says, there is more to life than money, so we have to stop devoting our efforts to the esteemed cost-benefit analysis that centers on monetary value and focus more on alternatives that are more responsible.
ReplyDelete1. “The commonest deficiency of cost-benefit analysis is that not all benefits and costs of actions can be reduced to money” (140). Humans tend to put the economy first over the environment, but as we have seen in our three sector model, the environment encompasses society which then encompasses the economy. We need to stop making the economy and money the main priority.
2. “The failure of cost-benefit analysis to include non-monetary considerations is the main basis for rejecting monetary cost-benefit analysis as a sufficient basis for any environmental, public, or private decision making” (141). Because non-monetary considerations aren’t taken in cost-benefit analyses, alternatives assessment is the better choice.
3. Both cost-benefit analysis and alternatives assessment are political. Cost-benefit is considered the more “objective” option while alternatives assessments are seen as messy. This creates a harmful stigma around the concept of alternatives.
Chapter 11: Alternatives assessment, while not a commonplace method, is not a new concept and already has the foundations to be implemented.
1. Regardless of what most people think, alternatives assessment in not a new process. This method of assessing has been curated over many years and has been used in many case studies. The idea of providing alternatives seems like common sense to me, which it has been for other people, but challenging this makes people claim that alternatives assessment is too new and radical.
2. The three step plan: consider a range of reasonable alternative options, discuss the potential adverse environmental, public-health, and social benefits of each alternative, and discuss the potential adverse environmental, public-health, and social impacts of each alternative.
3. The challenge is making alternative assessment commonplace because alternatives assessment challenges the status quo. Risk assessment has just become so justifiably easy, and people don’t want to invest time, effort, money, and trust into something that seems so tedious and burdening.
Chapter 12: Pushing for alternatives assessment also seems very new and foreign, but organizations have been doing so for years now.
1. Activists choose the “no” strategy by just saying that something needs to stop. The “yes” strategists focus on getting alternatives on the table which is a method that is much more effective than just demanding that something stop.
2. Native Americans have a history of opposing risk assessments. This has been very apparent with nuclear waste. Native Americans recognize the perils that come along with the use of nuclear energy and weapons and often don’t believe that the outcomes are worth the externalities and want alternatives to be the conversation.
3. When Greenpeace opposes an action, they call for an end to it but give alternatives with that demand. Organizations like this one have already spent years pushing alternatives assessment; we just need to strengthen their momentum.
Question: How can we make alternatives assessment seem less ‘messy’?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletechapter 10 - “Alternatives Assessment vs. Cost-Benefit Analysis: There Is More to Life than Money”
ReplyDeletethesis: The short-term monetary gains that may come from risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses do not compare with the environmental and human harm that often comes out of pursuing potential damaging behaviors assessed by them.
1. “In the “marketplace,” goods can be replaced or substituted. Who, however, will be able to bring back clean land and clean groundwater on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in central Washington at any time during the next few hundred years? Who will be able to buy a cooler climate two generations from now?” (O’Brien, 142). The economy, money, taxes, stocks, etc… they’re all totally useless without planetary health and wellness. Without that, we can’t survive and everything we’ve built and spent our precious money on doesn’t matter either. The disconnect between those working so hard to “build a better future” but failing to support environmental, climate, and social justice efforts are missing the entire point.
2. “Those who reap the monetary benefits are not necessarily those who pay the monetary costs…‘Cost,’ like ‘risk’ is defined politically by those who have the power to define the numbers” (O’Brien, 142).
3. “Governmental, business, and corporate decision makers must take responsibility for their decisions that affect the public and the public’s environment. They must be prevented from hiding behind “dollar” numbers, just as they must be prevented from hiding behind “risk” numbers” (O’Brien, 145). Making risk assessment and alternative assessment more transparent and accessible to the public is an important first step for businesses and organizations in the venture towards taking responsibility.
QUESTION: How can we make risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses less corrupt and meaningless?
chapter 11 - “We Already Know How to do Alternatives Assessment”
ReplyDeletethesis: The framework is set for us to successfully implement positive alternatives assessments into our policy creation and decision making, however those in power do not see the benefit of doing so as it would be detrimental to their livelihood.
1. “When we decided to place a human on the moon, we did it. Likewise, we can set equally clear goals to restore the environment, significantly reduce toxics use, increase roadless habitat, or reverse population growth. Once goals are set and policies are developed that provide incentives to meet the goals, creative people will develop and implement alternatives” (O’Brien 167). The issue is not that we don’t know how to get what we need to get done, done- it’s that the pressing issues (e.x., environmental, social, etc.) are not being pushed to the front. These issues negatively impacting quality of life for most people are too far down on the to do list of those in power that we’ll have to keep doing things ourselves.
2. “Alternatives assessment makes clear that there are alternatives to treating the Earth and its inhabitants as endless sources of materials and bottomless waste receptacles” (O’Brien, 169). We currently live on this planet as if we have another to go to- which is untrue. Without a huge wakeup call and serious rework of how we think about, act towards, and discuss Earth and our responsibility for environmental stewardship during our time here.
3. “First, we have to get those alternatives on the table” (O’Brien, 169). In order to do this, the table has to be diversified and revolutionized. For far too long, decisions have been made by people who will be unaffected by their outcome. Involve community members, representatives, anyone who wants to be involved. Make alternatives assessments accessible and easy to understand for folks, so they feel comfortable bringing their concerns to the table.
QUESTION: How can we weed out the rich folk who don’t care during decision-making in order to take better care of our planet and each other?
chapter 12 - “We Know How to Push For Alternatives Assessments”
ReplyDeletethesis: Despite a myriad of bad options presenting themselves, alternatives assessments allow decision makers to approach processes more objectively and without hesitation regarding where their loyalty should lie.
1. “Risk assessments of bad options is the main decision-making process in our society at the moment” (O’Brien, 171). We are in need of a paradigm shift in order to kickstart the support and adoption of alternatives assessment > risk assessment in broader policy creation.
2. “Greenpeace opposes risk assessment of dangerous options, and works to bring alternatives to the table” (O’Brien, 174). Organizations like Greenpeace provide a bridge between politicians and citizens unlike campaigns or statehouses. Bringing passionate people together for a common cause has the power to encourage explosive change.
3. “The existence of viable alternatives to business as usual generally raises a wide range of issues (e.g., social, value, economic, ecological, and cultural issues) that are not raised by risk assessments of a narrow range of options. This is the fundamental power of alternatives” (O’Brien 186). Learning to grow and develop in and through discomfort together as a society is the best way to handle social, environmental, economic, and cultural issues. Without the ability to think about the broad picture and all factors that may need to be taken into account, we miss out on a huge aspect of human existence and decision-making.
QUESTION: If we know how to, and we have before, how can we effectively continue the push for alternatives assessments in all decision-making?
Fine blogging here, ENV DEC team!
ReplyDeleteAll posts below this line = C/Late.
Dr. Rob
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15dK_f0LADeBxe0WBJGdCq94ft-M_57ANQZLjlsIsH-U/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteChapter 10
Thesis: Most decisions are made based off of what is the best option financially.
1.“If only one option...is analyzed in a cost-benefit analysis, that is not a form of alternatives assessment (O’Brien,140). Cost benefit analysis is often mistaken to be an alternatives assessment while it is not inherintly so. Although, when a cost benefit analysis is used to identify the cost benefits of the alternatives.
2. “...not all benefits can be reduced to money” (O’Brien,140). The assumption that cost benefits are always related to money is a misunderstanding. Sometimes the ‘cost’ is a lack of health or integrity within work. We need to consider if it is the dollar benefit we care more about or if it is the benefit of healthy happy people that trumps all. Neither one is better than the other, but both need to be taken into account during cost-benefit analysis.
3. “They must be prevented from hiding behind the ‘dollar’ numbers, just as they must be prevented from hiding behind ‘risk’ numbers” (O’Brien,145). Those who are making big decisions that affect large amounts of people must be held accountable for their choices and own up to who they are hurting and helping with their choices, because if they don’t, we are allowing those making decisions to be self benefitting without outing themselves for doing such.
Chapter 11
PRESENTATION
Chapter 12
Thesis: We do not have to accept risk assessment as the main decision making process.
1.”Greenpeace opposes risk assessment of dangerous options, and works to bring alternatives to the table” (O’Brien,174). Their opposition to the inclusion of dangerous risks to risk assessments is an important role as we see company after company trying to take advantage of the easily abused risk assessment strategy. They also offer an inspiring history to those interested.
2. “The Umatilla Tribes are showing that the conventional risk assessments of Hanford wastes do not address the tribes’ activities and culture” (O’Brien,179). The tribe stood up to the waste company by breaking down what it is that the company's risk assessment unjustifiably disregarded during their risk assessment. The strong thing that the Tribe does, is include examples of alternatives that have worked in the past. To show that alternatives assessment is not only an option, but THE option.
3. “Choosing the ‘least onerous path available’ requires analysis of alternatives” (O’Brien,190). Companies that claim they are making the best choice for all and have not yet taken alternatives assessment into consideration are liars and missing out on incredible opportunity to make a choice that more people are happy with and leave more people benefiting from the choice.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mGRtHgaG7RBdWA-UhZZOERvyOgs6g3dGzSp9dZro26Q/edit?usp=sharing
DeleteCh. 10: Cost-benefit analysis and alternatives assessment are compared in this chapter.
ReplyDelete1. “Cost-benefit analysis considers only pros and cons that can supposedly be reduced to money. Alternatives assessment includes additional pros and cons that matter to people and the environment” (O’Brien, 139). Using this statement, it could be stated fairly easily that cost-benefit analysis is inferior to alternatives assessments which are able to take in many more perspectives and considerations.
2. “The failure of cost-benefit analysis to include non-monetary considerations is the main basis for rejecting monetary cost-benefit analysis as a sufficient basis for any environmental, public, or private decision making” (O’Brien, 141). This point is interesting to make as it can be argued that nearly all environmental decision making made will have a monetary value to it in terms of vital ecosystems, monetary loss from cleanup projects, etc.
3. “Alternatives assessment “forces decision makers to “make explicit their value judgements and tradeoffs, thereby preventing them from abdicating responsibility for their decisions”” (O’Brien, 145). For the decision maker, this may make things more challenging for them. However, when practicing critical decision making, it is imperative that choices made are clear to all those affected and that for better or worse, the decision maker cannot hide behind a shadow if things go wrong.
Ch. 11: Alternatives assessment is not a new concept, it just needs to be pushed for and implemented on a large scale.
1. 3-step process for decision making that will impact the environment: 1) consider a range of alternatives, 2) discuss possible environmental, public-health, and social impact benefits of the alternatives, 3) discuss possible environmental, public-health, and social impact downsides of the alternatives.
2. Making it more accessible: “The public needs to be able to assess the advantages and the disadvantages of a wide range of alternative policies and technologies, and to participate in decisions about those alternatives” (O’Brien, 152).
3. Alternatives assessment makes clear that there are alternatives to treating the Earth and its inhabitants as endless sources of materials and bottomless waste receptacles” (O’Brien, 169). Industrial facilities and corporate farms claim that they could behave better--which means they choose not to and value the environment and humans as unimportant compared to profit.
Ch. 12: Alternatives assessments need to be pushed for.
ReplyDelete1. When citizens “resist risk assessment, citizen groups employ two major strategies: saying “No” to unnecessary bad options or to risk assessment itself and advocating for “Yes” to better alternatives” (O’Brien, 171). “No” is used in an attempt to stop plans entirely, while “Yes” looks to alternatives to mitigate damages.
2. Greenpeace has attacked risk assessment namely through questioning how risk assessors “know how much of a given harmful activity can be withstood (assimilated) by the environment” (O’Brien, 172). Risk assessments often lack real merit as their scientific findings are often flimsy and data is long and confusing. The Earth is a complex system-- complex systems within more complex systems-- and thus all risks cannot be truthfully assessed and evaluated.
3. Ecological risk assessment “is used to estimate how much of particular human activities an ecosystem can “assimilate ``'' (O’Brien, 181). Ecological alternatives assessment actually considers how much humans can adapt in order to live within the needs of an ecosystem.
Question: What are the easiest ways to boost accountability and proper ecological assessments?
Ch 10
ReplyDeleteThesis: Cost-benefit analysis covers up, “the political nature of analysis with monetary numbers” (O’Brien, 145), and so alternative assessment is a better method based on the components of both assessment types.
1. Proper analysis is difficult while using cost-benefit analysis, especially in regards to the environment because not everything can be measured monetarily.
2. Using cost-benefit analysis for environmental protections does not take into account that the fact that: not all public goods are available in the marketplace, other public goods, “are prevention of loss or harm” (O’Brien, 141), and many life elements do not have a price point.
3. Whereas alternative assessment holds decision makers accountable by forcing them to, “assume responsibility for choosing among various explicit political and value tradeoffs” (O’Brien, 145).
Ch 11
Thesis: The alternative assessment strategy currently exists and thrives all over the world; in the United States we must look at our own laws under the lens of alternative assessment in order to rectify the environmental harm occurring under the use of risk assessments.
1.The decision making process for alternative assessment is made up of three steps: considering the range of reasonable alternatives discussing the potential “environmental, public health, and social benefits of each alternative” (O’Brien, 146), discussing adverse impacts of each alternative.
2. Within NEPA there is a regulation addressing the need of alternative assessment when it comes to environmental decision making. Although NEPA does not force agencies to side in favor of the environment, it does require them to discuss alternatives.
3. Alternative assessments, “make it clear” (O’Brien, 169), to agencies and corporations that there are alternative actions exist, ones that are not harmful to people or the environment; when alternatives are highlighted a companies motives become evident.
Ch 12
Thesis: It is our job as United States citizens to push for the dominant use of Alternative assessment instead of risk assessment.
1. The Hyundai Electronics semiconductor factory discussion which occured in 1995 is a perfect example of citizens stepping in to advocate for alternative assessment instead of risk assessment. Though Hyundai originally rejected the, “Citizens for Public Accountability, (O’Brien, 188), proposal, the community was supported in the end when, “it [the rejection] was defeated in the city council” (O’Brien, 188).
2. A citizens group was also able to protest the Montana Supreme court in regards to preserving the Blackfoot river through alternative assessment measures.
3. The likelihood that crucial details will be neglected under quantitative risk assessment is high, as compared to alternative assessment which is guaranteed to consider the public and the environment through the, “fundamental questions raised by the various alternative” (O’Brien, 172).
10: Thesis. Cost benefit analysis can only look at things in terms of monetary value while alternatives assessment includes other things that matter to people and the environment.
ReplyDeleteNot everything can be put in terms of monetary value meaning that it leaves out a lot of things to think that way. We are unable to put the value of things such as emotion into that context so we are forced to use cold logic rather than feeling.
Alternative Assessment takes into account as much as possible to figure out the best possible solution. It is a bit harder to compare things without a number value attached to it but that is probably due to how we as a westurn society sees the world.
While some ecosystem services we can tie a numerical value to, they are the exception not the rule. We are forced to look at them though purely a human context where we think of it as how they benefit us not just the world. I don’t necessarily think an anthropocentric worldview is the worst thing ever as we just need to understand that protecting the world at large is in our individual best interest.
11: Thesis. Alternatives assessment is nothing new to us, we just need to start using it.
Ideas often take a long time to be acted upon though his is not always the case. If we look at things such as the use of DDT or Ozone depletion we see that people can in fact come together to solve problems quickly.
Our goal should be making Alternatives assessment as accessible and talked about as possible. Once people know there are other options than what they are using they will take the best one.
Humans are naturally selfish creatures doing what is in our best interest at all times. We are also smart though so we can understand that helping others is good. Once it is clear that Alternatives assessment is both good for everyone in general and on a personal level it will be readily adopted.
12: Thesis. Alternatives Assessment allows for a more objective view then Risk Assessment.
Due to the more simple language of Alternatives assessment more people are able to comprehend it and build off it. Multiple viewpoints leads to more comprehensive and objective decisions.
When all the options are given not just the one currently in use people are able to look through them and find what fits best with the situation. Sometimes we might be able to find solutions that do everything better that was just not thought of before because we were stuck in our way of thinking.
The goals of Alternatives assessment are much less personal and more about helping everyone not just the decision maker. This slight step back from the problem lets people's personal desires take a seat while the issues that affect everyone are put to the foreground
Question:. Is communication or something else our largest issue at this moment?
Chapter 10.
ReplyDeleteThesis: Cost benefit analysis fails to address the positives and negatives outside the monetary field.
1)Arguments are continually being made against green energy technologies due to their perceived costlyness.“The cost of a newly developed environmentally protective technology may not be the cost of that technology, a few years from now. When a technology becomes more widely available, or when industry learns how to improve on the technology, the price can come down considerably”(143). Rejecting alternative technologies due to their initial cost halts the development for the improvement of societies, economies, and the overall biosphere.
2) The reason for environmental degradation is due to our initial failure of valuing the environment with specific monetary values. ”Considering and comparing monetary consequences with aesthetic or cultural consequences may not appear as systematic as comparing dollars to dollars, but it is more realistic than assuming that all significant consequences can be systematically translated into dollars. To speak of making decisions rationally, on the basis of money is to deny the reality that much that matters has no price tag”(144). This makes me think of the power that valuing ecosystems services could potentially have for arguing against these unnecessary business agendas.
3) There is a specific agenda in place when reducing the value of assessments to ones that are strictly monetary. “Although both objective cost benefit analysis and messier alternatives assessment, are political, cost benefit analysis covers up the political nature of analysis with monetary numbers(145). Seeing past these agendas is how we can make better environmental decisions.
Chapter 11,
Thesis: Creating new systems that favor environmental protection threaten those who profit from its destruction.
1)“The specter of fundamental change can be threatening to those who profit from particular ecosystems or natural resources, such as water, air or oil certain reasonable alternatives can threaten entrenched social and financial arrangements (148). Every social, and economic system in place continues to favor those who obtained their wealth first. This grandfathering in mentality is why we see the current levels of degradation we see today.
2) Once the issue gains public momentum, the issues integrated within the aforementioned issues also come to light. “The multiple environmental impacts of livestock grazing on Native public grasslands in the western United States are receiving more and more some more public, and scientific scrutiny. Among the concerns or degradation of streams, loss of nesting cover for ground nesting birds damage to rare plants and denuding of soil(149).
3) Public transparency in alternatives assessment is a key component to its success. “The requirement to take a hard look at available alternatives has meant that exemptions to biological opinion finding species in jeopardy have been rare, humans can generally find alternatives to purposely causing a species to go extinct. The public needs to be able to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a wide range of alternative policies and technologies and to participate in decisions about those alternatives(169).
Chapter 12.
ReplyDeleteThesis: Due to the extensive body of knowledge that comprises sciences, approaching environmental impacts of one activity still leaves uncertainty.
1) Even our best scientific models are not capable of factoring all contributing factors. “The traditional permissive approach does not represent a sound scientific approach to the protection of the environment. The existing body of scientific literature makes it clear that even the most sophisticated environmental impact assessment models contain substantial inherent uncertainty, due to the overwhelming diversity and complexity of biological species ecosystems and chemical compounds entering the environment”(171). This supports the fact that acting solely on permissive methods does not justly provide environmental protection.
2) Permissive polluting throughout history has made it difficult for us to adjust our behaviors and improve the status quo. “Dumpsites of persistent hazardous materials make it extremely difficult to avoid decision making based on risk assessment, the responsive citizen groups cannot feasibly clean it to pristine conditions, because realistically the site will be contaminated for long, long periods of time, the situation necessarily involves asking how much pollution, will we allow to remain, risk assessment is used to provide an answer”(178). In the absence of alternatives assessment, risk assessment is there to alleviate guilt and legal responsibility.
3) Without alternative solutions we are limited in improving our overall systems.“The soil scientists predicted that all top soil would be lost from the conventional farm and another 50 years, exposing less fertile sub soil, while the organic farm would continue to maintain its topsoil this study showed that the one soil of the conventional farm could not assimilate the effects of pesticide based farming, while the soil of organic farm remained healthy and did not erode. Risk assessment that focused primarily on the toxicity of a few of the ingredients and pesticide formulations do not reveal all the advantages of farming without pesticides” (184). Our capability of bettering our systems is not addressed through risk management, only our ability to remain above or at superficial standards.
Why does basing action off of scientific inquiry have to be examined as an intimidating measure?
ReplyDeleteChapter 10
Thesis: As environmental impacts (which have gone through a form of risk assessment) become more apparent over time, some organizations find an opportunity to create more ethical business models
-The failure of cost-benefit analysis to include non-monetary considerations is the main basis for rejecting monetary cost-benefit analysis as a sufficient basis for any environmental, public, or private decision making” (141). Our tools used for decision making are outdated and problematic.
-“Cost,’ like ‘risk’ is defined politically by those who have the power to define the numbers” (142). The common use of the word “cost” is highly limited to monetary decrease, or a decrease in future assets.
-‘“In 2050, will any children have the chance to feel the power of a wild steelhead in a wild river, or to watch a mule deer bound along a pine-studded hillside?” (142). People worry more about their future generations ability to experience nature, rather than worrying about the wellbeing of nature for its own sake.
Chapter 11
Thesis: Alternatives assessment is not a new concept and already has foundations to be taken serious as a tool for decision making.
-The decision making process for alternative assessment is made up of these steps: considering the range of reasonable alternatives, and then discussing the potential “environmental, public health, and social benefits of each alternative” (146)
-“The public needs to be able to assess the advantages and the disadvantages of a wide range of alternative policies and technologies, and to participate in decisions about those alternatives” (152). Communities have unique needs and those needs must always be listened to and evaluated during decision making.
-Alternatives assessment makes clear that there are alternatives to treating the Earth and its inhabitants as endless sources of materials and bottomless waste receptacles” (169). By expressing the existence of choices to citizens, we instill hope within them rather than feed into a pessimistic mindset.
Chapter 12 : Presented on this
Is the inability to update policies as information accumulates a fault of society's values? Or a fault of power inequity?