Environmental Justice in the Capital Region

 

    Environmental justice, as defined by the EPA, is the  fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This is a rock solid definition in my opinion that states the best textbook style explanation. Off hand, some people might look at this term, environmental Justice, and might think that it could be about a purely environmental issue that doesn't have to deal with people. However, environmental justice more so deals with the people that are affected from environmental issues. This is when these issues are caused deliberately by other people or organizations to other people or communities that are of a different race or economic standing. 

  The Capital region  includes Albany, Columbia, Fulton, Greene, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, and Washington county. This large area is home to about 1.2 million people. This area is very diverse in people and culture. Here is a table that I included of the different races that are represented in the Capital district.

Ethnically white people make up the majority of the population in the region. And all other ethnicities are the minority. When it comes to environmental justice, there are protective legislation and firms that enforce it, however, these has also been many accounts of injustice due to environmental decisions that the local government or other organizations put emplace. One example of this injustice would be the Dunn Landfill. The landfill opened in 2015 and it held debris from construction and demolition, including bricks, wood, insulation, and plastics. A lot of the material held is toxic to people if breathed in. The location of this landfill is directly by a water tower and near a public high  school in Rensselaer. Residents also complain about the stench from the landfill, and local residents allege that children are suffering from illnesses resulting from the landfill. In Rensselaer where the landfill was placed, has a lower income population. This made t easier for the construction companies to achieve paper work to put this land fill there even though there were concerns pf it contaminating the nearby water tower or being a potential hazard to the kids at the nearby high school. 

"The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature"

 

    In William Cronon's "The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature", he talks about how over time our definition of wilderness has completely changed. I his essay, he mentions how going back about 250 years in European history that the wilderness used to have a very bad connotation to it. Back then it wasn't seen as a beauty a it is today. It was seen more as a place to avoid. Often called a wasteland, Wilderness became an area that was seen as ugly and worthless. In his essay Cronon states, "Its connotations were anything but positive, and the emotion one was most likely to feel in its presence was “bewilderment” or terror. (2)". Cronon explains in his article that our society has the wrong perception of wilderness by reminding us of how historically this wasn't the case. To my understanding of the reading, Cronon believes that there is nothing natural abut how we perceive wilderness because we have seen it as a waste and then now we see it as a place of sanctuary yet Wilderness itself hasn't changed. In a quote from the text, He talks about the only way to preserve nature. 

"The tautology gives us no way out: if wild nature is the only thing worth saving, and if our mere presence destroys it, then the sole solution to our own unnaturalness, the only way to protect sacred wilderness from profane humanity, would seem to be suicide. It is not a proposition that seems likely to produce very positive or practical results."

When reading this, I thought that it was very much on the extreme end. However, to raise an objection to this, it may seem like the only way to 100% restore wilderness and the natural world. It may seem like the only way to accomplish this. Cronon continues by saying that the Deep ecologists say that the whole demise of nature started with the agricultural revolution where humans fist began to cultivate and domesticate wilderness. On the objection side, I would agree with this because once we started to figure out that we could exploit nature, we did and at an execrated rate.  I think that Cronon would respond to this saying how absurd this proposition is. He stated, "The absurdity of this proposition flows from the underlying dualism it expresses. Not only does it ascribe greater power to humanity that we in fact possess—physical and biological nature will surely survive in some form or another long after we ourselves have gone the way of all flesh—but in the end it offers us little more than a self-defeating counsel of despair.".

Humans Role in Nature

 

    Nature can be defined as "The natural, physical, material world or universe". In this definition, nature is being described as more of a physical element that is natural to the world. However, I see nature as not only the physical environment but also the living element as well. This includes all of the biotic factors that can make up an environment. This relationship is better known as an ecosystem, where both the living and non-loving components have a relationship with one another so that it creates a working system. In previous class discussions, we tried to argue the distinction between what is wildness and what is nature. To me, I see that all wildness is nature but not all nature is wildness. Meaning that a walk in a park can be considered nature but it is not wild. Whereas a wolf in the Boreal forest is wildness as well as being nature. As we Humans are living, we are too incorporated into Nature.

    When it comes to our role in nature, I believe the answer to this question has changed overtime. In recent time, we have grown more and more independent from nature and have come to a more synthetic and materialistic lifestyle. Starting from the Industrial Revolution, humans have turned to this type of living with the invention of plastics and superstores. In this age, the role of humans in nature was truly for exploitation. There was no tur role because nature was seen as something to turn into something better for the benefit of humans.

Industrial Revolution Farming

 

    Going back pre-industrial era, our role as humans is different. During this time nature was seen more as a part of life. No better example of this then with the native tribes of the Americas. These were people who were very intoned with their surroundings. The rest of the world was as well but on a much lower level. In this time, the role of humans was more of a friend or "roommate". We were to protect what we had but also benefited greatly from it. This was, in my opinion, the greatest time period for human and nature interactions. 

Pre-Industrial Farming

    

    Now, jumping forward to today, we have been moving toward this way of life again but all the while implementing modern technology. By using more clean and sustainable technologies, we can do the same things in terms of power and fuel, but with a more environmentally friendly way. We know now as humans that the environment and nature is extremely important for the planet's health. So for our role in todays time, it is to be a great steward to nature and to conserve, protect and research it. 

Modern Farming

Wildness

 

    When we hear the term "Wildness", we tend to think of the word wild and associate it with others like savage or feral. However, the actual definition from the Cambridge English Dictionary states, "wildness noun [U] (NATURAL) (of plants or animals) the quality of living or growing independently of people, in natural conditions and with natural characteristics". This definition gives it a literal meaning. Something that is wild or the wildness of something is untamed and immersed in nature. The word wild has been around for some time and many renown writers and philosophers have tacked this word and the root meaning of it. Writers like Henry David Thoreau dive into this thought. In his essay titled "Walking", Thoreau explains the truth of the word wild. He writes, " wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolute Freedom and Wildness, as contrasted with a freedom and culture merely civil,—to regard man as an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of Nature, rather than a member of society". In this quote, Thoreau talks about how wildness is the freedom of life whereas in contrast society is not. 

      This comes to the question of whether "wildness" is either a good or bad thing. From all of the readings and based on prior knowledge, I believe that wildness is a good thing. Wildness is the free spirited lifestyle that most of us try to strive for. To experience the true wildness of nature is something of a dream in todays world. With Humans taking over the Earth, it is becoming more and more rare to see true wildness. This is why I see it was a good thing. Some might see wildness as a bad thing because thought our modern infrastructure and development, many of the things we know and love today like this blog post wouldn't be possible. Although this is true, it is important to have a healthy balance. Do not totally dismiss wildness as a bad thing but rather something to incorporate into your life. Take a saunter through the woods and reflect on the freedom it beholds.

Thinking and Doing

     Environmental Ethics, in my opinion, has been becoming more of a meaningful idea that has changed and is changing the world.  Environmental ethics is defined as, "the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its non-human contents". That was taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. From reading this definition, it was easier for me to relate this to the meaningful worldly changes that are occurring. I think that these ethical ideas do have a meaningful difference in the world. Especially in the last few decades, there has been a lot of environmental activism. These upbringings are mostly because of the research done in regards to Climate Change. Climate change has been an increasingly alarming problem that is a direct and indirect result of human causes. Many different organizations such as the Nature Conservancy and the World Resource Institute all promote good environmental ethics and morals. This problem has also made a sense of togetherness for the world in the regard of environmental ethics too. There is a new global responsibility to help lean towards a more sustainable and an eco-friendly place. Most countries around the world now have environmental policy and government agencies instated to achieve this goal. I mentioned how this has been more prevalent in recent decades. I say this because going back to the Industrial Revolution in America, roughly 1800 - 1890, many environmental ethics that we see and hear today were absent. Dumping factory waste into rivers was a common practice and without government regulation, it became a rampant problem. From this knowledge, I believe that environmental ethics does have a meaningful change for the world but only has become popular in recent years.