PMU199 Course Blog

          There are numerous problems associated with landfill sites. The biggest problem associated with landfill sites is regarded as the conflict between nimby (Not in My Back Yard) and pimby (Please in My Back Yard). Also, it can be seen that many environmental problems are contributed to landfills. The emissions to the atmosphere and to the water environment are the major problem. This includes noise, dust, odour, and landfill gas from opening. Furthermore, the emissions to the water environment contribute to the contamination of water surface, including ditches, streams, rivers, and so on. The other problem is considered as landfill space shortage which applies to many areas worldwide. It is caused by public enmity arising from public perception of landfills and environmental problems, and a landfill shortage crisis will soon appear within the next decade if further reduction of waste is not promoted.

           Throughout the research, I found out that Province of New Brunswick has been successful in managing the waste. First of all, it has made a significant waste reduction and diversion by achieving a 39% rate of diversion from 1988 to 1998. Moreover, over 1 billion containers have been diverted from landscapes and landfills ever since the Beverage Container Act was introduced in 1992. Lastly, over 2.5 million tires have been diverted from landfill, forming jobs and valuable products since the Tire Stewardship Program launched in 1996. As a result, tires are gathered and processed by the Tire Recycling Atlantic Canada Corporation, in which it cuts and breaks up the rubber from the tires to produce new rubber products.

          In 2004, of the over 25 million tonnes of non-hazardous waste that was disposed in Canada, approximately 24% was diverted from landfill sites. 

          I think that there has to be a remarkable difference on these days compared to 2004, because the larger amount of waste can eventually damage and harm the environment and the earth overall. Therefore, everyone around the world should take a share of responsibility and have an attitude to at least reduce certain amount of waste that each one of us produces. My opinion can be proved by the fact that at least 60 per cent of the countries that submitted national reports to the United Nations in advance of the 1992 Earth Summit said that solid waste disposal was among their biggest environmental concerns. Since the waste disposal is considered to be huge concern, the government of Canada is bound to promote an action against increasing amount of waste so that it can create a peaceful environment.

I just saw on the news that there was a huge fire somewhere on the highway (I wasn’t really paying attention) and that there were hugeeeee clouds of smoke moving over residential neighbourhoods.  I’m just curious, do those huge clouds of black smoke cause any serious damage to the atmosphere? I know it’s bad for our health but I was wondering if it was bad for the earths health as well 🙁

Seeing tragedy in Japan, what did you guys think of this disaster? I found an interesting article from today’s newspaper and I just wanted to share this with you guys! The article points out that establishing nuclear power plants are on hold within some of the countries due to the disaster in Japan. Nuclear power is one of the alternatives available for alleviating the risk of global climate change. However, it is widely known that nuclear plant explosion have negative health effects. Once humans are exposed to the radiation, it will eventually increase the rate of birth defects as well as cancer. In my opinion, it is the man who destroys humanity since we’re the ones who started to create nuclear power plant for our own convenience. Before mankind would destroy itself, realistic solutions must be provided in order to protect the earth from further destruction.

I chose two companies  and analyzed them to explain why it is considered either “good” or “bad”.

–Starbucks Corporation: This Company is considered as “good”, because Starbucks has three goals to be achieved by 2015. First off, Starbucks plans for 100% ethical sourcing by 2015. It is currently at 75%. Starbucks means to be responsibly grown, ethically traded coffee to help create a better future for farmers and their communities. Second of all, their goal is that 100% of its coffee cups will become reusable or recyclable by 2015. Also, 100% of stores will be able to recycle its paper products. Starbucks offers a 10% discount to people who bring in their own reusable mug for their coffee these days. They have also reduced the size of paper napkins and store garbage bags; have reduced their water consumption as well. Last but not least, Starbucks is also committed to sponsoring 1 million community service hours a year by 2015. This includes helping rebuild New Orleans, providing earthquake relief assistance in China and activities in Mexico, Spain, Thailand, UK, as well as Ireland. Even though Starbucks Corporation is not perfect, one can perceive that Starbucks coffee has been growing socially responsible.

–Veet Corporation: This Company is considered “bad”, because of the fact that they did not manufacture animal-tested products and brands that are owned by companies that have not yet adopted a permanent “no animal testing” policy. One should encourage Veet Corporation to announce a permanent ban. Furthermore, they have not eliminated animal testing from all its cosmetics product lines. They also make products that are required by law to be tested on animals. However, they are not attempted to be socially responsible. Therefore, Veet is regarded as “bad” Company since it conducts animal tests (of personal-care and household products) that are not required by law.

*Question: Do you think that investing in socially responsible companies will contribute to a better environment?

-I think that investing in socially responsible companies will contribute to a better environment. The reason is because the companies can promote better good for the society and the environment. By doing so, the companies will seek to maximize both financial return and social good. Moreover, the companies should favor corporate practices that promote environmental stewardship, consumer protection, human rights, and diversity.

Hey guys! I just wanted to let you all know about a cool event happening on campus next week!

Check out the event’s facebook page to find out more and RSVP!  You can also check out the event’s website here.

Since a lot of people have been blogging about sustainability lately, hopefully checking out The Sustainable Energy Fair and talking to some of the presenters might help us get more info!

Since people posted blog posts about the impact of media, I wanted to talk about the Korean popular variety show, “Infinity challenge” and how the comedy TV show made Korea viewers to take actions toward the global warming.

 On December 18, 2010, the tv show broadcasted 228th episode, “The Butterfly Effect Special.” The episode started with 2 groups of members going vocations to Maldives and the North Pole, and one member staying in his house. The members who got opportunity to go to Maldives and the North Pole, they were very excited. However, their destination was a specialized container home. The container home was divided into two layers, first floor representing Maldives, and second floor representing the North Pole. The first floor was very hot like Maldives and second floor was very cold like the North Pole. 

In the beginning, the members were not notified about the building structure, and enjoyed the time in the floors they were assigned. Since, the first floor was very hot, the members put air conditioner on. It melted the ice on the second floor, the North Pole and eventually, the melted water went into the first floor, Maldives. The members did not understand the situation, and kept the air conditioner on. By the time, when they realized that they should stop using the air conditioner, a lot of the ice was already melted and the first floor was filled with water.

But, this was not the end of the episode. The one member who was left in his house also had influence on the specialized container house. The energy consumption of the member such as leaving the light on, taking a car instead of walking and etc. melted the ice in the North Pole. The behaviour of this member was very ordinary and it warned a lot of viewers.

After the TV show, many viewers commented on the variety show website that they learned the seriousness of global warming and they should take actions for it.

Later, there was news saying that the episode was supported by government as public environment campaign. I think media such as music and visual art (advertisement) have a big influence on people. And I think this episode was a great idea to approach in a very unique way and warned people about global warming.

I’m curious, lots of companies pursue the “sustainability plans”, lots of people live the “sustainable lifestyle”, but seriously, what is “sustainability”?

Soon in our class, I will be presenting a presentation on “sustainability” with my classmates Tony and Michelle, and in the presentation we discuss the issue of what is sustainability.

It’s like one of those terms that have all sorts of definitions, for example in my geography class, it is as if the whole course is pursuing for the definition of the term “city” and what it really is. It’s true, some terms cannot be loosely defined, some terms cannot be defined by just by what the Oxford American Dictionary tells us.

Let’s see, the Oxford American Dictionary tells us that sustainability is the derivative form of “sustainable”, which means “able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.” Well that seems simple enough right? But there are a lot of questions that can be raised by this definition: First, what is the “certain rate”? Is this rate constantly altering as the world changes? How do we “maintain” whatever it is we are maintaining? And how do we even maintain it to a “certain rate”?

A professor at MIT defined the term as “the possibility that human and other forms of life on earth will flourish forever.” Now this definition is much more detailed, and it feels more accurate in the sense that we know the purpose behind the “sustaining.”
At the Earth Summit in the year 2002,  which promoted the concept of “sustainable development”, an African delegate defined “sustainable development” as “Enough – for all – forever.”

Basically, the term most to the term “sustainability” or “sustainable development” is “survival.” And not just survival of the human race, but also all other lifeforms, because we are all dependent on one another.

To me, I believe that “sustainability” is the ability for life on earth to survive forever, and I agree the most with a definition provided by the Brundtland Commission: “Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

But that’s our problem, it seems like our “needs” have no end…

So tell me, what’s your definition of “sustainability”?