Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Jacobs Lecture
In the Mary Jane Jacobs lecture, Mary began the lecture by talking about art and its relation to space. She expressed her pleasure for large art pieces, saying that space is a large contributor to art experiences. She spoke about how this concept obviously meant there is a need for larger art galleries, because the gallery itself has a lot to do with the experience the art viewer has. Jacobs quotes Dewey who said “in order to understand aesthetic, you must start with the raw”. In order to do this, there must be an appropriate setting for the art piece. For Jacobs, this place was Charleston, South Carolina. This all compares very well to something Miwon Kwan said, “These artists eschew the constricting limitations not only of artistic conventions but of the traditional institutional spaces of their production, such as studios, museums and galleries.” (106-7).
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Essay #3
I will be talking about how Valery's ankle is a manipulation of images and clips. I will talk about how kashmere decides to focus on just the violence, and ignores all the other lessons hockey has for Canadian society.
QUESTIONS:
1) Can we make an argument about one of the projects as our paper topic?
2) Can we use exampls of other documentaries to make our point?
Sources:
1) Conversation Pieces, by Grant H. Kester
2) Image Manipulations: Then and Now, by Ronald E. Sutton
3) Mirrors Without Memories: Truth, History, and the New Documentary, by Linda Williams
4) The Use of Archival Footage In Documentary Rhetoric, by Amanda Michelle Grue
5) Documentary: Artifice in the Service of Truth, by Robert Sklar
QUESTIONS:
1) Can we make an argument about one of the projects as our paper topic?
2) Can we use exampls of other documentaries to make our point?
Sources:
1) Conversation Pieces, by Grant H. Kester
2) Image Manipulations: Then and Now, by Ronald E. Sutton
3) Mirrors Without Memories: Truth, History, and the New Documentary, by Linda Williams
4) The Use of Archival Footage In Documentary Rhetoric, by Amanda Michelle Grue
5) Documentary: Artifice in the Service of Truth, by Robert Sklar
Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
"Video and Resistance: Against Documentary"
The article "Video and Resistance: Against Documentary" critiques documentary and how they inaccurately portray history. The article starts by discussing photography and how it shows bias even though they aren’t supposed to. This idea talked about by Susan Sontag is very relevant to what is talked about in this article. The author of this article talks about how when documentary films came onto the scene, they took these pictures and used them to support their cause. The idea of the article is that someone can take pictures and alter them, or put them in a specific context in order to support a message. The main theme is bias, and how photography and documentary’s are prime in accomplishing bias. This ultimately has an affect on its viewers because they see these pictures and clips in the context that the creator wants. This subsequently leads to a possible misperception of reality by the viewer.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Superfund AND Onondaga Lake
Max Levitt
October 5, 2007
Institutions Must Pay
In America, the industrial rise has created a serious problem: hazardous waste. The arousal of new industries, such as chemical and petroleum industries, have led to these hazardous wastes being thrown away into such settings as lakes and rivers. Watching these wastes pile up due to such institutions, such as plants, mines, military bases and many others has caused the governments to set up a program called Superfund. One of the major problems with this program is that it costs a lot of money and the fund has been bankrupt for four going on five years, which means petroleum and chemical industries are no longer paying these taxes. This causes the taxes to lie squarely on the shoulders of the individual taxpayer. While many sites have been cleaned (886 sites to be exact), there are still many areas of priority to be cleaned (1203 sites), which is very difficult considering Superfund’s absence of money. While many people are outraged by this and believe the right thing to do is tax the polluters, others argue that if that happened everyone who had something to do with the pollution, would need to be taxed, and be a “nightmare.” This inability to pinpoint who is responsible for paying the taxes in order to fund Superfund causes the question of how to pay for the cleanup of these sites, because getting rid of Superfund is not an option.
Syracuse, New York is arguably home to the most polluted lake in the United States. “Nearly 100 years of contamination and several decades of municipal wastewater discharges have left their mark on the water body” (Landers 64). Due to this contamination, Lake Onondaga has been deemed unsafe to swim in, as well as unsafe to fish in, due to its unhealthy waters. This raises some concern, considering Superfund has no funds to clean these sites, and the lake is clearly in dire need of quick help, since swimming and fishing have already been forbidden. However, the recent emergence of Honeywell International Inc. has brought confidence to Syracuse that this lake will be clean in the future. Honeywell, who 1999 merged with Allied Signal, has recently become “the party held legally responsible for addressing that contamination caused by the operations of AlliedSignal” (Landers 66). Finally “on July 1. 2005, the EPA and New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation finalized a record of decision setting forth the methods to be used in remediating contamination sediments along the bottom of Onondaga Lake” (Landers 66). While there is obviously much to do, this decision has made a clean Lake Onondaga seem more possible every day. This success shows support for the idea with Superfund that the government should be obligated to continue the Superfund’s taxing of the petroleum and chemical industries to pay for this cleanup. After all, it is the industries who caused this pollution in the first place.
In 1995, the government ended its “taxes on the oil and chemical industries” (Knickerbocker 1). As a result of this cease in taxes for the “polluters,” “the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost” (Knickerbocker 1). Making these individuals pay for the cleanup of these Superfund sites when they had nothing to do with the site being polluted, is not only unfair, it sets a bad example for these industries causing pollution. By charging polluters for cleanup costs and by taxing the industries that are polluting these sites, Superfund would not only ensure there will be enough funding for the cleanups, but would also encourage industries to get rid of their wastes more responsibly. This is clear motivation for the government to take action and reemploy their tax of these industries. It is obviously the correct decision in order to clean these areas. As American Oil Tycoon H. L. Hunt said “each is responsible for his own actions”. This applies perfectly to this situation, because the oil industries truly need to take responsibility for their actions and fix it. They need to realize that they are tarnishing these sites, and it is affecting people such as the Onondaga tribe.
The Onondaga tribe has recently been in talks with the state of New York over gaining more influence in what happens with the cleanup of Onondaga Lake. They claim that this land belongs to them, and they therefore should be in charge of how the lake is cleaned. This supports the idea of responsibility. The Onondaga people feel that they should have the responsibility to decide how the lake is cleaned, because the lake belongs to them. In the same context, the Honeywell Inc. needs to take responsibility for their waste that they dumped in the lake. This emphasis on responsibility should provoke the government to realize that they should implement taxes on the petroleum and chemical industries in order to fund the cleanups of these sites.
Onondaga Lake is a perfect example demonstrating why industries should be held responsible for cleaning these “sites of interest.” Since Honeywell International Inc. was forced into cleaning the lake, there has been plans announced showing signs that this lake will be clean in the future. For example there has been plans for “an advanced water treatment plant will be constructed to treat water collected in dredging and handling sediments” (Landers 66-67). Promising signs such as this water treatment plan have caused “both private and public interests are looking toward the future of a clean Onondaga Lake” (Williamson & Hessler 14). They have even begun plans for “expanding existing recreational uses such as hiking, biking, fishing and boating” (Williamson & Hessler 14).
Some people have argued that these taxes on the institutions is a “legal nightmare and should be done away with” (Knickerbocker 2). Jerry Taylor, for example, is the director of natural resources and says “typically, the EPA tires to hunt down one or two deep-pocket corporations that cans somehow be linked to the site and then hits them with the full cost of cleanup. Those companies then go about finding any party that might conceivably have had anything to do with the site and then sue that party under the joint and several liabilities standard to pay the bill” (Knickerbocker 2). While this argument is not completely invalid, it still does not provide a solution to this major pollution problem. Opposing this school of thought are a small contingency of Senate Democrats who believe in the idea discussed by Jilie Wolk, and environmental health advocate for PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), that “unfortunately the president and congress have continually failed to reinstate Superfund’s ‘polluter pays’ fees, leaving regular taxpayers to foot the bill. At the same time that taxpayers are paying more and polluters are paying less, the number of Superfund sites getting cleaned up [each year] has dropped by more than half “ (Knickerbocker 2).
I believe that the point made by Wolk along with the clear evidence exemplified by Honeywell International Inc. and Lake Onondaga show that forcing these institutions, who are responsible for the contamination of these polluted areas, to pay for the cleanup is clearly the most productive way no matter how many legal problems it causes. This issue of pollution is too serious for America to be disregarded because of a couple lawsuits. The government needs to implement Superfund’s “polluter pays” fees if we are going to defeat the pollution problem in this country.
Works Cited
Landers, Jay. “New Life for Onondaga Lake.” Civil Engineering (American Society of
Civil Engineers) 76.5 (2006): 64-71,86. Applied Science & Technology. H.W.
Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007
Williamson, Karen. “Return To Glory: The resurgence of Onondaga Lake.” New York
State Conservationists 61.1 (2006): 7-14. Wilson Omnifile Full Text, Mega
Edition. W.H. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007.
Knickerbocker, Brad. “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag.” The Christian
Science Monitor. (14 Nov 2003). 1 Oct 2007.
October 5, 2007
Institutions Must Pay
In America, the industrial rise has created a serious problem: hazardous waste. The arousal of new industries, such as chemical and petroleum industries, have led to these hazardous wastes being thrown away into such settings as lakes and rivers. Watching these wastes pile up due to such institutions, such as plants, mines, military bases and many others has caused the governments to set up a program called Superfund. One of the major problems with this program is that it costs a lot of money and the fund has been bankrupt for four going on five years, which means petroleum and chemical industries are no longer paying these taxes. This causes the taxes to lie squarely on the shoulders of the individual taxpayer. While many sites have been cleaned (886 sites to be exact), there are still many areas of priority to be cleaned (1203 sites), which is very difficult considering Superfund’s absence of money. While many people are outraged by this and believe the right thing to do is tax the polluters, others argue that if that happened everyone who had something to do with the pollution, would need to be taxed, and be a “nightmare.” This inability to pinpoint who is responsible for paying the taxes in order to fund Superfund causes the question of how to pay for the cleanup of these sites, because getting rid of Superfund is not an option.
Syracuse, New York is arguably home to the most polluted lake in the United States. “Nearly 100 years of contamination and several decades of municipal wastewater discharges have left their mark on the water body” (Landers 64). Due to this contamination, Lake Onondaga has been deemed unsafe to swim in, as well as unsafe to fish in, due to its unhealthy waters. This raises some concern, considering Superfund has no funds to clean these sites, and the lake is clearly in dire need of quick help, since swimming and fishing have already been forbidden. However, the recent emergence of Honeywell International Inc. has brought confidence to Syracuse that this lake will be clean in the future. Honeywell, who 1999 merged with Allied Signal, has recently become “the party held legally responsible for addressing that contamination caused by the operations of AlliedSignal” (Landers 66). Finally “on July 1. 2005, the EPA and New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation finalized a record of decision setting forth the methods to be used in remediating contamination sediments along the bottom of Onondaga Lake” (Landers 66). While there is obviously much to do, this decision has made a clean Lake Onondaga seem more possible every day. This success shows support for the idea with Superfund that the government should be obligated to continue the Superfund’s taxing of the petroleum and chemical industries to pay for this cleanup. After all, it is the industries who caused this pollution in the first place.
In 1995, the government ended its “taxes on the oil and chemical industries” (Knickerbocker 1). As a result of this cease in taxes for the “polluters,” “the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost” (Knickerbocker 1). Making these individuals pay for the cleanup of these Superfund sites when they had nothing to do with the site being polluted, is not only unfair, it sets a bad example for these industries causing pollution. By charging polluters for cleanup costs and by taxing the industries that are polluting these sites, Superfund would not only ensure there will be enough funding for the cleanups, but would also encourage industries to get rid of their wastes more responsibly. This is clear motivation for the government to take action and reemploy their tax of these industries. It is obviously the correct decision in order to clean these areas. As American Oil Tycoon H. L. Hunt said “each is responsible for his own actions”. This applies perfectly to this situation, because the oil industries truly need to take responsibility for their actions and fix it. They need to realize that they are tarnishing these sites, and it is affecting people such as the Onondaga tribe.
The Onondaga tribe has recently been in talks with the state of New York over gaining more influence in what happens with the cleanup of Onondaga Lake. They claim that this land belongs to them, and they therefore should be in charge of how the lake is cleaned. This supports the idea of responsibility. The Onondaga people feel that they should have the responsibility to decide how the lake is cleaned, because the lake belongs to them. In the same context, the Honeywell Inc. needs to take responsibility for their waste that they dumped in the lake. This emphasis on responsibility should provoke the government to realize that they should implement taxes on the petroleum and chemical industries in order to fund the cleanups of these sites.
Onondaga Lake is a perfect example demonstrating why industries should be held responsible for cleaning these “sites of interest.” Since Honeywell International Inc. was forced into cleaning the lake, there has been plans announced showing signs that this lake will be clean in the future. For example there has been plans for “an advanced water treatment plant will be constructed to treat water collected in dredging and handling sediments” (Landers 66-67). Promising signs such as this water treatment plan have caused “both private and public interests are looking toward the future of a clean Onondaga Lake” (Williamson & Hessler 14). They have even begun plans for “expanding existing recreational uses such as hiking, biking, fishing and boating” (Williamson & Hessler 14).
Some people have argued that these taxes on the institutions is a “legal nightmare and should be done away with” (Knickerbocker 2). Jerry Taylor, for example, is the director of natural resources and says “typically, the EPA tires to hunt down one or two deep-pocket corporations that cans somehow be linked to the site and then hits them with the full cost of cleanup. Those companies then go about finding any party that might conceivably have had anything to do with the site and then sue that party under the joint and several liabilities standard to pay the bill” (Knickerbocker 2). While this argument is not completely invalid, it still does not provide a solution to this major pollution problem. Opposing this school of thought are a small contingency of Senate Democrats who believe in the idea discussed by Jilie Wolk, and environmental health advocate for PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), that “unfortunately the president and congress have continually failed to reinstate Superfund’s ‘polluter pays’ fees, leaving regular taxpayers to foot the bill. At the same time that taxpayers are paying more and polluters are paying less, the number of Superfund sites getting cleaned up [each year] has dropped by more than half “ (Knickerbocker 2).
I believe that the point made by Wolk along with the clear evidence exemplified by Honeywell International Inc. and Lake Onondaga show that forcing these institutions, who are responsible for the contamination of these polluted areas, to pay for the cleanup is clearly the most productive way no matter how many legal problems it causes. This issue of pollution is too serious for America to be disregarded because of a couple lawsuits. The government needs to implement Superfund’s “polluter pays” fees if we are going to defeat the pollution problem in this country.
Works Cited
Landers, Jay. “New Life for Onondaga Lake.” Civil Engineering (American Society of
Civil Engineers) 76.5 (2006): 64-71,86. Applied Science & Technology. H.W.
Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007
Williamson, Karen. “Return To Glory: The resurgence of Onondaga Lake.” New York
State Conservationists 61.1 (2006): 7-14. Wilson Omnifile Full Text, Mega
Edition. W.H. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007.
Knickerbocker, Brad. “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag.” The Christian
Science Monitor. (14 Nov 2003). 1 Oct 2007.
Superfund AND Onondaga Lake
Max Levitt
October 5, 2007
Institutions Must Pay
In America, the industrial rise has created a serious problem: hazardous waste. The arousal of new industries, such as chemical and petroleum industries, have led to these hazardous wastes being thrown away into such settings as lakes and rivers. Watching these wastes pile up due to such institutions, such as plants, mines, military bases and many others has caused the governments to set up a program called Superfund. One of the major problems with this program is that it costs a lot of money and the fund has been bankrupt for four going on five years, which means petroleum and chemical industries are no longer paying these taxes. This causes the taxes to lie squarely on the shoulders of the individual taxpayer. While many sites have been cleaned (886 sites to be exact), there are still many areas of priority to be cleaned (1203 sites), which is very difficult considering Superfund’s absence of money. While many people are outraged by this and believe the right thing to do is tax the polluters, others argue that if that happened everyone who had something to do with the pollution, would need to be taxed, and be a “nightmare.” This inability to pinpoint who is responsible for paying the taxes in order to fund Superfund causes the question of how to pay for the cleanup of these sites, because getting rid of Superfund is not an option.
Syracuse, New York is arguably home to the most polluted lake in the United States. “Nearly 100 years of contamination and several decades of municipal wastewater discharges have left their mark on the water body” (Landers 64). Due to this contamination, Lake Onondaga has been deemed unsafe to swim in, as well as unsafe to fish in, due to its unhealthy waters. This raises some concern, considering Superfund has no funds to clean these sites, and the lake is clearly in dire need of quick help, since swimming and fishing have already been forbidden. However, the recent emergence of Honeywell International Inc. has brought confidence to Syracuse that this lake will be clean in the future. Honeywell, who 1999 merged with Allied Signal, has recently become “the party held legally responsible for addressing that contamination caused by the operations of AlliedSignal” (Landers 66). Finally “on July 1. 2005, the EPA and New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation finalized a record of decision setting forth the methods to be used in remediating contamination sediments along the bottom of Onondaga Lake” (Landers 66). While there is obviously much to do, this decision has made a clean Lake Onondaga seem more possible every day. This success shows support for the idea with Superfund that the government should be obligated to continue the Superfund’s taxing of the petroleum and chemical industries to pay for this cleanup. After all, it is the industries who caused this pollution in the first place.
In 1995, the government ended its “taxes on the oil and chemical industries” (Knickerbocker 1). As a result of this cease in taxes for the “polluters,” “the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost” (Knickerbocker 1). Making these individuals pay for the cleanup of these Superfund sites when they had nothing to do with the site being polluted, is not only unfair, it sets a bad example for these industries causing pollution. By charging polluters for cleanup costs and by taxing the industries that are polluting these sites, Superfund would not only ensure there will be enough funding for the cleanups, but would also encourage industries to get rid of their wastes more responsibly. This is clear motivation for the government to take action and reemploy their tax of these industries. It is obviously the correct decision in order to clean these areas. As American Oil Tycoon H. L. Hunt said “each is responsible for his own actions”. This applies perfectly to this situation, because the oil industries truly need to take responsibility for their actions and fix it. They need to realize that they are tarnishing these sites, and it is affecting people such as the Onondaga tribe.
The Onondaga tribe has recently been in talks with the state of New York over gaining more influence in what happens with the cleanup of Onondaga Lake. They claim that this land belongs to them, and they therefore should be in charge of how the lake is cleaned. This supports the idea of responsibility. The Onondaga people feel that they should have the responsibility to decide how the lake is cleaned, because the lake belongs to them. In the same context, the Honeywell Inc. needs to take responsibility for their waste that they dumped in the lake. This emphasis on responsibility should provoke the government to realize that they should implement taxes on the petroleum and chemical industries in order to fund the cleanups of these sites.
Onondaga Lake is a perfect example demonstrating why industries should be held responsible for cleaning these “sites of interest.” Since Honeywell International Inc. was forced into cleaning the lake, there has been plans announced showing signs that this lake will be clean in the future. For example there has been plans for “an advanced water treatment plant will be constructed to treat water collected in dredging and handling sediments” (Landers 66-67). Promising signs such as this water treatment plan have caused “both private and public interests are looking toward the future of a clean Onondaga Lake” (Williamson & Hessler 14). They have even begun plans for “expanding existing recreational uses such as hiking, biking, fishing and boating” (Williamson & Hessler 14).
Some people have argued that these taxes on the institutions is a “legal nightmare and should be done away with” (Knickerbocker 2). Jerry Taylor, for example, is the director of natural resources and says “typically, the EPA tires to hunt down one or two deep-pocket corporations that cans somehow be linked to the site and then hits them with the full cost of cleanup. Those companies then go about finding any party that might conceivably have had anything to do with the site and then sue that party under the joint and several liabilities standard to pay the bill” (Knickerbocker 2). While this argument is not completely invalid, it still does not provide a solution to this major pollution problem. Opposing this school of thought are a small contingency of Senate Democrats who believe in the idea discussed by Jilie Wolk, and environmental health advocate for PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), that “unfortunately the president and congress have continually failed to reinstate Superfund’s ‘polluter pays’ fees, leaving regular taxpayers to foot the bill. At the same time that taxpayers are paying more and polluters are paying less, the number of Superfund sites getting cleaned up [each year] has dropped by more than half “ (Knickerbocker 2).
I believe that the point made by Wolk along with the clear evidence exemplified by Honeywell International Inc. and Lake Onondaga show that forcing these institutions, who are responsible for the contamination of these polluted areas, to pay for the cleanup is clearly the most productive way no matter how many legal problems it causes. This issue of pollution is too serious for America to be disregarded because of a couple lawsuits. The government needs to implement Superfund’s “polluter pays” fees if we are going to defeat the pollution problem in this country.
Works Cited
1) Landers, Jay. “New Life for Onondaga Lake.” Civil Engineering (American Society of
Civil Engineers) 76.5 (2006): 64-71,86. Applied Science & Technology. H.W.
Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007
2) Williamson, Karen. “Return To Glory: The resurgence of Onondaga Lake.” New York
State Conservationists 61.1 (2006): 7-14. Wilson Omnifile Full Text, Mega
Edition. W.H. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007.
3) Knickerbocker, Brad. “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag.” The Christian
Science Monitor. (14 Nov 2003). 1 Oct 2007.
October 5, 2007
Institutions Must Pay
In America, the industrial rise has created a serious problem: hazardous waste. The arousal of new industries, such as chemical and petroleum industries, have led to these hazardous wastes being thrown away into such settings as lakes and rivers. Watching these wastes pile up due to such institutions, such as plants, mines, military bases and many others has caused the governments to set up a program called Superfund. One of the major problems with this program is that it costs a lot of money and the fund has been bankrupt for four going on five years, which means petroleum and chemical industries are no longer paying these taxes. This causes the taxes to lie squarely on the shoulders of the individual taxpayer. While many sites have been cleaned (886 sites to be exact), there are still many areas of priority to be cleaned (1203 sites), which is very difficult considering Superfund’s absence of money. While many people are outraged by this and believe the right thing to do is tax the polluters, others argue that if that happened everyone who had something to do with the pollution, would need to be taxed, and be a “nightmare.” This inability to pinpoint who is responsible for paying the taxes in order to fund Superfund causes the question of how to pay for the cleanup of these sites, because getting rid of Superfund is not an option.
Syracuse, New York is arguably home to the most polluted lake in the United States. “Nearly 100 years of contamination and several decades of municipal wastewater discharges have left their mark on the water body” (Landers 64). Due to this contamination, Lake Onondaga has been deemed unsafe to swim in, as well as unsafe to fish in, due to its unhealthy waters. This raises some concern, considering Superfund has no funds to clean these sites, and the lake is clearly in dire need of quick help, since swimming and fishing have already been forbidden. However, the recent emergence of Honeywell International Inc. has brought confidence to Syracuse that this lake will be clean in the future. Honeywell, who 1999 merged with Allied Signal, has recently become “the party held legally responsible for addressing that contamination caused by the operations of AlliedSignal” (Landers 66). Finally “on July 1. 2005, the EPA and New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation finalized a record of decision setting forth the methods to be used in remediating contamination sediments along the bottom of Onondaga Lake” (Landers 66). While there is obviously much to do, this decision has made a clean Lake Onondaga seem more possible every day. This success shows support for the idea with Superfund that the government should be obligated to continue the Superfund’s taxing of the petroleum and chemical industries to pay for this cleanup. After all, it is the industries who caused this pollution in the first place.
In 1995, the government ended its “taxes on the oil and chemical industries” (Knickerbocker 1). As a result of this cease in taxes for the “polluters,” “the portion funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent of the total cost” (Knickerbocker 1). Making these individuals pay for the cleanup of these Superfund sites when they had nothing to do with the site being polluted, is not only unfair, it sets a bad example for these industries causing pollution. By charging polluters for cleanup costs and by taxing the industries that are polluting these sites, Superfund would not only ensure there will be enough funding for the cleanups, but would also encourage industries to get rid of their wastes more responsibly. This is clear motivation for the government to take action and reemploy their tax of these industries. It is obviously the correct decision in order to clean these areas. As American Oil Tycoon H. L. Hunt said “each is responsible for his own actions”. This applies perfectly to this situation, because the oil industries truly need to take responsibility for their actions and fix it. They need to realize that they are tarnishing these sites, and it is affecting people such as the Onondaga tribe.
The Onondaga tribe has recently been in talks with the state of New York over gaining more influence in what happens with the cleanup of Onondaga Lake. They claim that this land belongs to them, and they therefore should be in charge of how the lake is cleaned. This supports the idea of responsibility. The Onondaga people feel that they should have the responsibility to decide how the lake is cleaned, because the lake belongs to them. In the same context, the Honeywell Inc. needs to take responsibility for their waste that they dumped in the lake. This emphasis on responsibility should provoke the government to realize that they should implement taxes on the petroleum and chemical industries in order to fund the cleanups of these sites.
Onondaga Lake is a perfect example demonstrating why industries should be held responsible for cleaning these “sites of interest.” Since Honeywell International Inc. was forced into cleaning the lake, there has been plans announced showing signs that this lake will be clean in the future. For example there has been plans for “an advanced water treatment plant will be constructed to treat water collected in dredging and handling sediments” (Landers 66-67). Promising signs such as this water treatment plan have caused “both private and public interests are looking toward the future of a clean Onondaga Lake” (Williamson & Hessler 14). They have even begun plans for “expanding existing recreational uses such as hiking, biking, fishing and boating” (Williamson & Hessler 14).
Some people have argued that these taxes on the institutions is a “legal nightmare and should be done away with” (Knickerbocker 2). Jerry Taylor, for example, is the director of natural resources and says “typically, the EPA tires to hunt down one or two deep-pocket corporations that cans somehow be linked to the site and then hits them with the full cost of cleanup. Those companies then go about finding any party that might conceivably have had anything to do with the site and then sue that party under the joint and several liabilities standard to pay the bill” (Knickerbocker 2). While this argument is not completely invalid, it still does not provide a solution to this major pollution problem. Opposing this school of thought are a small contingency of Senate Democrats who believe in the idea discussed by Jilie Wolk, and environmental health advocate for PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), that “unfortunately the president and congress have continually failed to reinstate Superfund’s ‘polluter pays’ fees, leaving regular taxpayers to foot the bill. At the same time that taxpayers are paying more and polluters are paying less, the number of Superfund sites getting cleaned up [each year] has dropped by more than half “ (Knickerbocker 2).
I believe that the point made by Wolk along with the clear evidence exemplified by Honeywell International Inc. and Lake Onondaga show that forcing these institutions, who are responsible for the contamination of these polluted areas, to pay for the cleanup is clearly the most productive way no matter how many legal problems it causes. This issue of pollution is too serious for America to be disregarded because of a couple lawsuits. The government needs to implement Superfund’s “polluter pays” fees if we are going to defeat the pollution problem in this country.
Works Cited
1) Landers, Jay. “New Life for Onondaga Lake.” Civil Engineering (American Society of
Civil Engineers) 76.5 (2006): 64-71,86. Applied Science & Technology. H.W.
Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007
2) Williamson, Karen. “Return To Glory: The resurgence of Onondaga Lake.” New York
State Conservationists 61.1 (2006): 7-14. Wilson Omnifile Full Text, Mega
Edition. W.H. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 1 Oct. 2007.
3) Knickerbocker, Brad. “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag.” The Christian
Science Monitor. (14 Nov 2003). 1 Oct 2007.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Onandaga Lake AND Pollution
CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THE POLLUTION IN ONONDAGA LAKE :
http://www.ourlake.org/html/onondaga_lake1.html
http://www.ourlake.org/html/onondaga_lake1.html
SUPERFUND
In America, Industry has created a serious problem, hazardous waste. Watching these wastes pile up due to such institutions such as plants, mines, military bases and many others has caused the governments to set up a program called Superfund. The problem with this program, is that costs a lot of money and is currently bankrupt. While many sites have been cleaned (886 sites to be exact), there are still many areas of priority to be cleaned (1203 to be exact), which is very difficult considering their lack of money. Another contributor to the downfall of superfund is that the oil and chemical industries that were causing this waste are no longer paying taxes for superfund, instead it is not on the shoulders of the individual taxpayers. While many people are outraged by this and believe the right thing to do is tax the polluters, others argue that if that happened everyone who had something to do with the pollution would need to be taxed, which they call a “nightmare”. This inability to pinpoint who is responsible to pay for superfund, causes the question of how to pay for this, because getting rid of it is not an option.
In America, Industry has created a serious problem, hazardous waste. Watching these wastes pile up due to such institutions such as plants, mines, military bases and many others has caused the governments to set up a program called Superfund. The problem with this program, is that costs a lot of money and is currently bankrupt. While many sites have been cleaned (886 sites to be exact), there are still many areas of priority to be cleaned (1203 to be exact), which is very difficult considering their lack of money. Another contributor to the downfall of superfund is that the oil and chemical industries that were causing this waste are no longer paying taxes for superfund, instead it is not on the shoulders of the individual taxpayers. While many people are outraged by this and believe the right thing to do is tax the polluters, others argue that if that happened everyone who had something to do with the pollution would need to be taxed, which they call a “nightmare”. This inability to pinpoint who is responsible to pay for superfund, causes the question of how to pay for this, because getting rid of it is not an option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)