28 March 2006

Arctic Contamination.

First off, I want to send my sister a huge congratulations for her acceptance into Oxford university! Rena, you make me proud to be your sister. More importantly, you've dispelled some of the rumours about 'Surrey girls', and for that feat, you deserve a medal. She/we are stil waiting to hear back from Cambridge before she makes any decisions. I will update you on this issue as it develops.

Right. Well, the past few weeks sans paid work have been a lovely respite. I beat Super Mario Bros. 2 for NES, which was a labour of love. Those 20 hours were well spent. I also squeaked out a bit of work and got several assignments. For some wacky reason, my grades this term have been rather good despite the lack of energy/planning that has gone into them. Sweet.

I have an essay due next week on any topic relating to Canadian Aboriginals and the Environment. I've chosen to focus on the impact of Environmental Contaminants on the health of the Inuit in the Canadian Arctic. I actually wanted to write about the implications of Climate Change on the traditional lifestyles of the Inuit, but given the nature of C.C., there is very little empirical material to work with. I guess I sort of took the 'easier' route, but when faced with a 20 page essay and less than a week to do it, wouldn't you?

Anyway, I think what's particularly interesting about the impacts of Environmental Contaminants on the Inuit (and perhaps I'm alone on this) is that these toxic pollutants which have accumulated are *not* in any way the product of careless behaviour of the Indigenous communities who inhabit these Northern areas. They are almost exclusively created in areas of temperate and tropical climates and are transported long-distance via air currents.

In simple terms, these pollutants are generated by people who are fortunate to reap the benefits of the activities that produce these toxins (industrial activity) with the majority of the environmental consequences affecting people 5,000 kms away. This is just another example of how Indigenous people/people of colour are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. When I was in New Zealand, I read an interesting study about how the most disadvantaged people in a society tend to suffer the highest health impacts stemming from environmnetal issues, as they are often marginialized onto undesirable and thus cheap lands, which are often near landfills, heavy industry etc. I had never really considered this until then, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about these findings since. It's yet another example of how pervasive systemic discrimination is in the Western world....

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

ok...i really want that belt. just imagine the possibilities.

Krista said...

Wow, Richie. That's some belt... I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to buy it now. Thanks for feeding the addiction.

Anonymous said...

Tax is evil, however.

Central government could monitor the levels of pollution created by each state. Yearly, a cash value would be assigned to that, and each state would then have to contribute to a central agency. How the states raised the cash would be up to them.

The forenamed central agency would then use the cash to make various payments. These would go back to the states most affected by the pollution, possibly weighted towards rural and poor areas.

As the charges would be based on a yearly average, States that had reduced their output would be liable for lower payments the following year.

Grants could also be paid directly from this central body to companies, though i'm sceptical about that. They'd be paid out for projects or modernisations that would give an x-value of reduction. They'd paid out only after that x-value had been reached.

The kitty could also be used to guarantee loans for community projects. For example, projects that reduced local household pollution, or generally improved the local environment. One completion, and assuming the projects had been properly managed and achieved their goals, the loans would be paid off - by this amazing central agency. In areas of high unemployment, there could even be a case for city municipalities sponsoring the projects in return for reduced pollution payments. I'm sure this would be open to abuse though, as is usually the way.

See, much better idea than putting up giant domes or blasting nuclear waste into the sun :)