I really enjoyed the semester- really- but it was also illuminating. I can't see myself spending my life slogging through obtuse environmental statutes (that seem to miss the point half the time) and dealing with the fact that for most people, money is more important. I'm too much of a tree hugger. I really have more interest in how day-to-day people can make a difference; how I can, as an individual live my life to make less of an impact. (I have a long way to go). I struggle with the idea of working for some industrial company and helping them either a) find loopholes to skirt their air permits or b) spend my time finding ways for a company to decrease their emissions/recycle their products, only to have those suggestions shelved because they're inconvenient or cost money.
I want to stress that the program I enrolled in in NO WAY promoted these things-but they illustrated quite clearly that these were the challenges that I would have to deal with. This program, actually, I thought was quite progressive as it stressed the idea of pollution prevention and looking at the "big picture"- instead of simply trying to meet the regulations, let's try to improve them and not just shift pollution from one state (air, water, land) to another.
In the long run I can't see a solution. I can't see how we can continue to live in a modern world without destroying the planet. And I can't see myself being happy beating my head against a wall.
I still plan to do what I can as an individual, reduce my impact and educate my family and friends on what they can do to make a difference. I still plan to support those damn tree huggers financially. But I came to a conclusion as an undergrad that I was not an immoral person for choosing not to go into medicine-for not doing something amazing- and I have to allow myself to come to that conclusion again.
So what do I do now?
I guess we'll see.
5 comments:
You're very sneaky... what are you implying?!
Did I ever show you this article I wrote in Iraq?
http://carbondate.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
I just wanted to edit that first comment and ended up deleting it. Oops.
I caught that when you first wrote it. Very thought-provoking both then and now.
The thing that really did me in was the lecture we spent analyzing why a company would or wouldn't install new technologies that would have an up-front cost and decreased pollution. How fast (as in months, not years) can you make back you investment? Short vs. long-term liability- and one of the very common issues was: do we expect to still be in business in 10-25-50 years? No? Okay-hide the liability (which is common-most companies are oversold as they do not account for their potential environmental liabilities) and let the suckers who buy us out deal with it.
Of all the pros and cons, pollution prevention is rarely seen as an end in itself. True, some progressive companies do, but largely it's promoted by showing the financial benefits. When are we going to stop thinking, " we'll cut our emissions if we can make money off it or just break even" and start thinking "we can't afford to keep doing this". When is the cost to the Earth going to count for more than just PR?
/rant
Businesses act out of civic interest when government action forces them to. That's what the lassez faire types don't get. Or maybe they do, but they're being dishonest about it. Businesses act out of profit motive. It's incumbent upon the government to force them to stop causing cancer in children through legislation -- that's the function of the government, and that's why the lassez faire types hate government so much: it impedes their unchallenged march toward higher profits.
In other words, they're greedy, selfish bastards who need to be reined in, and any attempt to try to get them to do good absent the profit motive will be met with laughter. It's just who they are.
Post a Comment