Waiting for the Snow to Fall Analysis Section

I have been feeling for a while now, but trying to ignore, that ski resorts are kind of hypocritical. People go to them to enjoy the great out doors, but a ski resort by nature is destructive to the environment. The land has to be developed to even have a ski resort. Although some ski resorts use alternative cleaner energies, many do not. People don't want to have to work for that awesome run when they could much more easily ride the ski lift. We live in this society where people want things for free, and at first it can seem like some strategies make things come easier, and they do for a little while, but eventually you do have to pay up. Sometimes it's hard to see, but there is always some sort of price.

Whenever I read about sacred sites needing to be protected I completely agreed, but I feel like people need to see more places as sacred than the ones that for some reason have become known as sacred. Just as we value all people we must value all life and all forms. Every life form is sacred, not just the San Francisco Peaks. I mean that would be a lot more complicated to enforce in our current society, but it is a view that more people need to take on.

It is super lame that all of the organizations that are supposed to protect the environment do the opposite. I guess that's what happens in a capitalist society, or maybe its a conspiracy... or both... who knows. The only way to beat it is from the people though. People have to stand up for what they believe in and have confidence in themselves. Thats why things don't change, because people don't believe in themselves enough to think they could ever make a difference so they go on leading their stereotypical lives. Its also kind of creepy how people can feel alright with themselves when they make a huge selfish effort that destroys another people's values and culture...

Good luck world!

Final Proposal

The people of Nepal who are some of the least responsible for global warming are going to be directly effected by the consequences. Many of the glaciers in Nepal are expected to be gone within the next sixty years. Currently the glaciers are retreating at three to six feet every year. The glaciers provide water for irrigation and agriculture. With increased amounts of snow melt, the top soil is becoming eroded, making for less fertile land and flooding. In the mountains, as the glaciers melt, glacial lakes increase in volume and can exceed the capacity of their natural dams resulting in glacial lake outburst floods. These floods can wipe out entire mountain villages.

If the Nepalese want to survive climate change, they need to take immediate action throughout the entire country; unfortunately, the government has undergone some very recent major violent change, leaving it less stable than desirable. This is a country that was ruled by a monarchy for most of its history. Now, it operates as a multi-party republic, and the government hosted its first elections in 2008. Although this may appear to be progressive, the process was a violent and chaotic. The change began by the murder of The King and most of the royal family by one of the princes who then killed himself. Following the deaths the country split into many view points but the most powerful were the Maoists (who acquired their power mainly through indoctrination and violence) and the traditionalists who believed in the monarchy.

If the world doesn't want Nepal to be destroyed, it must first understand what the climate will do to the region. We must then understand what action needs to be taken in the country, as well as globally. Finally, we must understand what action can realistically be taken based on the stability and power of the Nepalese Government.

References:
New Nepal: The Fault Lines by Nishchal Nath Pandey
Darkening Peaks: Glacier Retreat, Science, and Society
Journeyman Pictures videos from You Tube
Plan to do more research using databases such as EBSCO

Waiting For The Snow to Fall Intro

So this weekend my Environmental Ed class went down to the South Fork of the American River for a pretty fabulous trip. On our first day there we explored "Pioneer Town" and heard one of the guides there talking about the history associated with the Gold Rush. I never really understood the process of gold mining before this weekend, but now that I have a better understanding I don't understand the things people go through to get their hands on certain... things. I don't understand how we prioritize and put value to objects or services. Gold basically forms in tiny open spaces between granite and quartz... so its almost like this cruddy but shiny substance. The whole process can be pretty degrading to the landscape as well as people's health. One of the ways of separating gold from other material involved using mercury. People value gold, which can literally make them sick, more than preserving a landscape that in the end could provide health to the people who take care of it...

How does this relate to a ski resort in Arizona? In terms of value. First of all it doesn't even sound like this place could naturally sustain a business in the first place. Since the environment doesn't produce enough snow to actually run a resort, the business wants to use reclaimed water to make snow. This water has chemicals in it from the process, which then will seep into the environment, potentially (and most likely) effecting people's long term heath. Not just the Native People's health, but possibly even tourist's and costumer's health....

Why are people so stupid?! ahhhh

Once again we see people putting more value on something that doesn't make any sense than on their own health.

And of course the health (physical, mental, spiritual) are much more immediate and eminent to the people who are Native to the land. I think things happened kind of similarly to those indigenous to the land around the American River.

People need to get their priorities strait. Stop doing things that don't make any sense, and start thinking about things that do make sense. Spraying poo water on a sacred mountain to make it snow where it doesn't snow doesn't make sense. Digging for something shiny that makes you sick doesn't make sense either.

Working with the land and natural patterns to create healthy and respectful human beings, things like permaculture, that makes sense.

Get real world. Please. Thanks.



Oh, I noticed an ordering in a sentence that made me think: "Leading the way is the Save the Peaks Coalition, along with the Sierra Club, Flagstaff Activists Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, as well as numerous Native American tribes opposed to the expansion plan." It kind of bothered me for a second that the Native American tribes were last in that sentence, but then I realized the order was probably written in terms of impact each group had, which is really sad. The people who are being effected the most have the least power in fighting, which makes them last in the sentence. I want them to be able to be first in that sentence, but the reason they are not is why we have this whole conflict in the first place. Yea, kind of redundant. Thats how my brain works, lots of circles.
aiight. im done. peace.

Final Ideas

So I've been thinking about my final paper, and at first I wanted to do the Zapatista Movement because I saw a souvenir Zapatista doll that my friend bought for her dad in a gift shop in Chiapas... or Oaxaca I can't remember.

But then after reading about climate change and glaciers melting I started thinking about Nepal because I'm going there, and I found a book about melting glaciers in mountains and it said that Nepal is going to be especially vulnerable to this situation because of the lack of organization in their government. I knew a little bit about the monarchy being overthrown... and then I asked Zanto what I should do and she said the maoist party in nepal.... so I researched and Maoism and Nepal in our library and found this book called New Nepal: The Fault Lines, and its all about the unstable structure of the Nepalese government, and so far it seems really interesting. So I think I want to do that as my project. Shaky Nepalese Gov't? Political Instability in Nepal? I don't know exactly how to word it because I am still learning about it.

It relates to our coursework in how it was inspired. It was inspired by the article about Tajikistan. It has to do with why unequal effects of global warming are especially unequal. The people of Nepal will be hit especially hard by global warming if the government isn't able to stabilize and start working toward important goals of human rights as well as begin implementing strategies for global warming adaptation.

It relates to social sustainability in the area of people deciding for themselves. The government has undergone these monumental changes because the people want representation. Under the caste system many nepali people were under represented and when the maoists came, they pledged a system that would bring greater equality; however, the maoists strategies are violent and the system is dated. Mao was a corrupt leader. Maoism and communism to me ring two very different bells and strategies. The old government, the monarchy is not a system that can keep up with the new ideas of the world. The monarchy and maoism were the main forces in Nepal. This is about where I've gotten up to in my research so far.

But this problem addresses social sustainability in the area of communication and listening to the people. The people's voices are lost between the two powerful forces.

So far, I've looked at a book called Darkening Peaks: glacier retreat, science, and society; New Nepal: The Fault Lines; and a lot a lot a lot of youtube videos. 

Really interesting stuff. really complicated issues.

Thoughts on Social Sustainability

So what is social sustainability? I think a big part of it is letting the people speak for themselves. This means really good listening, and communication. I think social sustainability has a lot to do with truth. So what does truth mean? I think truth has to do with meaning what you say as best as you understand it. Which comes back to communication, but it has to do with trying one's best at understanding a complex situation. Actually, in math (sorry I used to be a math nerd), the truest solution is the one in its simplest form, which is actually really interesting to think about in terms of social sustainability.....

There are some simple concepts that are socially sustainable: Fairness (equality) is one of them. How to make something equal, well that becomes pretty complex, when one takes into consideration existing societal structures, complex natural cycles, etc. Unequal effects of global warming is not fair. Rich people eating while poor people starve is not fair.

Social sustainability has to promote a healthy environment because without a healthy environment, we are dead.

Social sustainability has to be adaptable to change. Basically it should follow the principles of permaculture :)

Social Sustainability = Sustainability = Life (that equation can be switched around because people aren't the most important in my view... I'ld rather the people go and the earth stay rather than the earth go and the people stay, personally, but I'm going on a tangent)

Death of Environmentalism

I think the problem with systems is that they often don't leave room for adaptation. Actually, we always kind of deal with this issue: the tradition vs. the youth. The healthiest forms of... i don't know what to even call it... but the healthiest things... leave room for new ideas. Like how the constitution is a living breathing document... I don't know how great an example that was but what I am trying to say is that its not sooo bad that environmentalism might be dead.

The article spoke about how we always try to make the environment into something separate from humans, and it is completely part of us. We are part of the environment the environment is part of us. People slowly are beginning to realize this. And since it an important step to improving the environment, if traditional environmentalism can't get on board with that, it won't continue being beneficial, it will actually probably be more harmful. In fact, at times the article talked about things where it seemed like the environmentalist party was trying to harm themselves.

Environmentalism isn't even necessarily a great word for the cause because it makes its seem like the environment is a separate issue. So maybe its time for a new name that is more suiting to the problem. An idiot proof name that doesn't allow people to think its a separate thing.

Communication is a huge issue. Words have a lot of baggage tied to them, and the baggage isn't necessarily the definition. We need to learn to communicate what we truly mean, which is hard to do sometimes. 

Global Warming Effects Those Who Contribute to it the Least

This article was definitely powerful to read. Especially when I read about how Tajikistan's "people emit less than 1 tonne of carbon dioxide per head, compared to nearly 20 tons by citizens of North America." Yet they are carrying the the brunt of the burden of Global Warming. Tajikistan is a country with an agriculturally based economy, and the 2-4 degree temperature rise effects these kinds of people the most severely. In the united states we have a lot of the technology to at least temporarily cope with these kinds of problems, but in agronomic nations it's not easy to have access to these technologies for financial reasons and especially when the weather is disrupting your source of income. Its just not fair that these people have to pay the consequences for our mistakes/ignorance/insensitivity half way across the world.
The weather is really important. I remember a conversation I had with someone when I went to Mexico who was telling me how these pathetic guys were going to try to pick me up by talking about the weather, and how stupid that was because the weather is always "beautiful." Of course this person meant it in a different way.... and I still think that's a dumb way to pick someone up....... hmmm it depends on how you're talking about it....
The weather is important to talk about because it affects people's survival. In an industrial and developed context we undermine it because we are so detached from our sources of life. And now that we have affected it so drastically we need to be thinking about it all the time because its affecting us.
We have to start adapting. We need a sense of urgency. We don't have that sense, at least it doesn't seem so among the people I mostly know. I think apathy and self insignificance is the new international pandemic.
I really liked some of the ideas the article mentioned. I love passive solar thermal control. I feel like it was using a lot of principles of permaculture. Permaculture is great because its all about being self sufficient and using principles of nature for growth.
I didn't completely understand the parts about money being put into global warming because I don't know how much government money is put into other things. I would like something to compare it with.
The part about the glaciers melting reminded me of time I spent trying to do some volunteer work in a town near Cuzco. I was supposed to be installing clean burning stoves in rural communities and helping to make water filters. Then I found out from one of the volunteers that the glacier supplying water to the community was expected to melt in 5 years. Definitely made my work seem futile, but people need to think about the big picture as well as the little picture.
I wish we could all just start over, but thats kind of impossible, we have to find a solution that goes with what we have and move on towards different ways from there.
Good luck world!

Interesting Chart Ma Mama Showed Me

View more statistics at http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

"Its the Inequality, Stupid" haha I love it!

 

Privilege

Yes, completely, white people, especially white males have privileges that others do not, but I thought this was explained much better in the environmental racism chapter (I believe chapter 3) than in this article. The article stated that there are often many more contributing factors than race to the white privilege and I feel like "From The Ground Up" really hit on them. There is still segregation in our country, which usually keeps not white people suppressed financially. In our capitalist society, no money usually equals SOL.

I do think the article made some good points for a short article I was just expecting it to seem a little more profound...

And although I know that the points brought up were the most common situation around the United States, I found myself questioning a lot of points. I grew up in Queens, NY, which I believe may actually be the most diverse place in the world. I went to elementary school being one of the only white people. In middle school I was one of three white girls in a mainly latin american student body. My kindergarden teacher was black... after that I had mostly white teachers.

Once I was told by a "good" friend that I had only gotten an A in a class because I was white. I was really offended because I worked really hard in that class... but maybe she was right on a much deeper level than she realized.

I guess this article was a little hard to read because I don't want to be that subconsciously racist white person, but I guess I kind of will be until I start taking real action to help mitigate the negative effects on others from my privilege.

But we have to think about how white privilege works. The united states is mostly white people. As far as I know (and I could just be being completely ignorant), white being the main race is not caused by underlying racism. There is going to be a minority of people no matter where one goes.

So the attitude of the culture needs to change towards minorities. Minorities should be embraced and respected into the culture they are entering, and not just because they are a minority... and they shouldn't have to represent their race either. They should be embraced because they are a human being.

I don't think the bandage issue raised in the article was so terrible. Less people equals less demand. Yes flesh bandages should come in every color, but one also has to be realistic.... right.... ugh I don't know.

I think white privilege is more a cultural attitude problem than it is a factual problem, if that statement makes any sense. The fact is, yes there is affirmative action, but there was slavery and there is still racism, so why shouldn't there be an effort to balance out the injustices toward black people? And why should they be looked down upon for being helped out when most of their race has been put at an extreme disadvantage and white people have always had a power advantage? (Maybe my comment above wasn't quite true because people's attitudes effect facts of society...)

I think that in a predominantly white country, mathematically it is more probable to find a white person in any position, and I don't think that should be a bad thing... Of course, white people have gone over their fair share of probability in power positions for the number of people belonging to other races in our country, but when we talk about privilege if there were more black people in charge than whites, that would show that black people were superior in someway to have been able to outnumber the power positions in a predominantly white society.

I think once again this points to a flawed power system. People in power need to get off their high horses and realize they did not earn their privilege and that they need to make an effort to make things more racially fair. People also need to be more racially aware. A lot of black people don't act the same as white people. I think it would be stupid to assume that, but a lot of white people don't act like a lot of other white people. So, people need to accept each other for their differences and try really hard not to pass negative or delegitimizing judgements on people. We need to work together so that everyone gets what everyone needs, and it has to come from the people. If its not in the people's hearts it will never come true. There will still be institutionalized racism until people try to come together to make things truly just.

Food Security

I think I'm probably just dumb, but I thought food security would be about making sure that food supply was safe. I didn't realize that it would revolve more around making sure that everyone has enough food. I do understand how food banks in a way promote the continuation of social injustice because basically the rich get the good food and the poor get whatever is available for donation or cheaper. I think it is better than the poor starving, but there is an undertone (that once noticed becomes much louder) of the greedy champagne glass going on here.

I like the idea of communities becoming more self sufficient and trying to grow more of their own food in their homes. It would be great it there could be more community gardens and a local food initiative; however, I do understand that if a family is having trouble with its income, that they will probably also have trouble with taking time to grow their own food.

I've heard somewhere that people now spend more time working for their food than they did when they were living off the land. And what do we get for it? GM foods, corn fed cows, chickens raised in the dark... yea I watched food inc :). But we are working harder (or at least longer) to eat potentially worse food.... and often food that we can cook quickly so we don't have to work even longer for it.

Yes we are working for other "privileges" like housing and schooling and medical technology and transportation, but it seems like their are other ways than our exclusionary society to achieve those goals

In our intro to sustainability class we read about the Papa New Guinea Islanders and their bottom up approach. It worked really well for them because they all grew their own food, sometimes helping one another out, and they lived very democratically. Every decision that was made completely together. There were some people who had more influence just by the nature of their personality, but no one lived more extravagantly than anyone else. There were no rich people taking all the good food and leaving the rest to those who made less money than them.

We need stronger communities. People need to work together. Our exclusive society isn't going to get us very far. It will come back to bite us in the butt no doubt about it.

Also people need to stop popping out so many freaking babies. Unless everyone wants to eat hormone cows and GM corn we have to decrease the demand for food. The world cannot naturally support all the people who are coming to it, and it will become a very freaky GM hormone injected place if people keep shoving their mini-me's into the world. If every woman had 1 baby the population would 1/2. If every woman had 2 babies the population would stay the same. But probably no one is going to do that, so you have to think about all the babies other ladies and families are having. If you have 1 baby and adopt a kid you might be being neutral... but if you just adopt you're helping a little more, I think.

Carsonists and the Distribution of the Champagne Glass in the Name of Sustainability

Carsonists! I love it! Not only is it a great combination of words, but the polivands have hit on something incredibly symbolic. A car can mean a lot of things to different of people, but owning a car is a sign of wealth because it takes a lot of money to own a car. First, there is the initial cost of the car, then gas, oil, and (as I have been learning a lot recently) there is the never ending light that pops up on your dashboard telling you to check your engine, which costs money. Usually the fancier your car, the more money you have. If you have more than one car, that's a multiple $ sign. A truly poor person is going to have a lot of trouble owning a car.

The champagne glass distribution is a great visual. It makes sense with the richest on top because with money comes power. It makes the rich look very greedy and like they are hording as much as possible and letting the rest trickle or slowly ooze down to the less fortunate in the world. The diagram shows how unstable this structure is, having a poor base is not a good idea when trying to hold up such a heavy rich top. If a gust of wind comes there will be nothing to stop the structure from falling over. Also the support could break from all the weight. This is an incredibly precarious structure.  
                      
Under a capitalist structure a society is motivated by money. Money is the priority. Money becomes what rules the world. Not human rights, not environmental equity. Money. Although these may still be important to people, they have to come at least second if money is the motivating factor. If it doesn't make money, it is out of the picture. The world becomes divided into money, and lets think about this. Money is a physical representation of an idea people made up to put worth to something to trade. The world becomes something to trade.

Socialism revolves around the people. People are the priority. I think that is great for people, but then the world becomes divided into people. So basically people take over the world, which does have the potential to hurt the environment... eventually hurting the people.

An environmentalist structure would theoretically work because people are part of the environment. If the priority was everything in the world.... people would be ok. Right?

Burning cars, that symbolize money, represents a demand for a more encompassing system, not just one that allows people to compete for money and buy cars at the cost of others and the planet.

So sustainability. I thought it was my number one value, but it really depends on what context the word is used. If we are talking about sustaining a the world how it is.... hmmm well I don't really want to be a part of that because the world how it is kind of sucks. Well, it is pretty corrupt at least. And it wouldn't be very sustainable because the current structure is about to topple over. It's not really a champagne glass hmmm. It doesn't have a bottom. I've maybe seen some disposable one's like that... like the taster kind or something. It's a greedy oozy pool of maple syrup with a little hole in the middle maybe. Its not gonna last that for sure. Its gonna run out of the sweet stuff at some point. Or its gonna freeze and shatter from the bottom. But either way it won't last.


Here's to a refreshing cocktail!

Buttonwillow

These cases are definitely starting on some level to muddle together. Time and time again we see courts passing cases that just don't seem legal, people in positions of power (and often with an agenda) playing deaf to residents' concerns.

The author's tone did not give us much false hope for a success story this time. I was pretty sure that the waste facility would have its way this time. Although the Buttonwillow community faced similar obstacles to the other stories, some things did seem different this time. It was hard to distinguish if it was how Padres and the community tackled the case, or if the odds were just completely against them.

I feel like the cases in Chester and Kettleman had a stronger community bond and drive than Buttonwillow did. This may have been because those communities were dominantly one race, and Buttonwillow was more divided and it was primarily the Mexican community fighting back with little to know help from the white and black community (at least that was the impression the book gave me).

I feel like the other communities had more momentum. It seemed like there were a lot of pauses with the Buttonwillow community. I'm not positive that the lack of momentum came more from the people or the circumstances they were put under. I feel like that didn't happen as much in Chester and Kettleman. I could just be remembering wrong though...

I would like to know more about language controversy in the US for immigrant workers and citizens. Although I do think it is fair that someone should be able to understand a document that contains information that could directly effect them, I would like to better understand what is expected in terms of English ability to become a citizen.

I think the language controversy goes way deeper than this case. It goes to immigration laws and how people feel about that, and then it goes down to why people from places like... Mexico want to come here and what role our government plays in their government. I think what Montoya says at the end of the chapter sums up the situation really well: "in Mexico they do what the do outside of the law. And in the U.S. they want to make the laws legitimate what they do. In other words, they want to make tings appear legal."

Its going to take a real change in perception and awareness and people willing to think a little harder to end all this insane corruption and deeply rooted racism.

Good luck world <3

Logistics of Racism

"Racial neutrality." Lets think about this concept. Racial neutrality would be a pretty hard thing to accomplish in such a diverse and complex world. There would have to be very conscious considerations and efforts taken to make something racially neutral. In fact it is probably impossible, but there are ways to attempt to make a system seem more fair.

I thought this quote was great: "Although most of these criteria appear neutral on their face, as we have explained, many actually have profound racial implications." So there are actually political consulting firms like the Cerrell Associates of LA that write reports, one called Political Difficulties Facing Waste-to-Energy Conversion Plant Citing (I can never get over how unassuming they make these names sound), that describes the kind of community that would offer "the least potential of generating public opposition." Some of the supposedly race neutral criteria for these communities (land distribution for instance) end linking back to slavery.... thats not racist at all!

There haven't been persistent or genuine enough measures taken to mitigate segregative effects of slavery and racism. Racism is still there. Its really really there, it didn't go anywhere. We have just found ways to lie to ourselves and set up political and economic systems where we can hide and make a face value attempt to say that something isn't racist... when it is. It has just been veiled.... as "lifestyle" and "market dynamics." I do have to admit that little section kind of went over my head, and I think its because the ideas themselves don't actually make any sense. They are incredibly superficial and ignorant to a much deeper social and cultural context.

None of this racist system really makes any sense. Institutionalization. We have come up with so many ways to turn a blind eye to racism. Even if we were blind wouldn't really disappear because the effects of racism already produced inequalities that could potentially be race neutral. "State permitting laws remain neutral, or blind, toward these inequalities; they therefore perpetuate, and indeed exacerbate, distributional inequalities."

Chester Residents Concerned for Quality of Life. Chapter 2: The Political Economy of Env Racism

Wow. What a struggle these people have gone through and continue to fight. I can't believe (well, I can) how corrupt our legal system is. The whole dialogue between Jerome Balter and the justice was really fascinating, especially the justice's quote: "Mr. Balter, around here I am the law."

The judges seemed to feel really comfortable and open about corruptly interpreting the law. It doesn't make sense how "the maximum capacity of a covered facility located in the eastern zone could be no greater than 10,765 tons per year" (which is no small amount, and keep in mind this number is not for a whole region but for a single facility, which could be one of many, in a region), and although Thermal Pure's permit allowed them to produce nearly ten times the legal amount, the most powerful legal system in PA didn't seem to see a problem.

I also have to point out here that I think it is really funny that a medical waste company, a really disgusting sounding facility, hides behind an unassuming name like Thermal Pure. Medical waste sterilization would not be my first guess when trying to figure out the function of a company called Thermal Pure. I might have better luck if they called it something like Guts and Garbage... or... I don't know I guess I'm not very good at this and that's why I don't get hired to name medical waste companies.

It seems as if there were so many highly illegal plots and actions taken against these people. The openly corrupt decisions made by the so called "justices," the bribes, the lies and ignoring. These people could not rely on the help of the law because the people in charge of the law were against them. Its kind of interesting that so much illegal action can be taken before someone might take action to enforce it to stop. Its funny how your not guilty unless your proven guilty, which most of the time I'm all about, but when a system refuses to charge guilty action that has been proven guilty, things don't work out so great.

When I think about how I said in the beginning that I couldn't believe how corrupt our legal system was, I was lying. I'm actually really subconsciously aware about it... if that statement makes any sense. If I'm aware of it why don't I do anything about it? I'm pretty sure its because at the moment I don't feel I have the ability to do anything about it, at least nothing obvious jumps out at me. So it takes a back burner, and I think thats how a lot of people feel. Or they just can't believe that their own government would consciously not care about them.

We have a really flawed system. We might need to start over or something. Think back to the old days when people lived in harmony with their surroundings for millions more years than our unsustainable "civilized" (or as Ishmael would put it "taker") lifestyle has been around. I love that CRCQL joined forces with college students and formed C4. Social change has to be in the youth to be continued. I hope more youth are able to learn about some issues that actually matter. Unfortunately a lot of the time our education system seems to prevent anything ground breaking from happening through young people. I'm gonna start a school. Really though. Its gonna be cool. A high school. actually a league of high schools. but really, its my business plan for entrepreneurship :D empower youth and shake some earth. yea! ciao!

Chapter 1: A History of the Environmental Justice Movement

It was interesting to learn that there is not just one single environmental movement, but that there are several different kinds each with specific discrepancies. 

It makes sense that the environmental justice movement would be related to the civil rights movements, the toxics movement (which I was completely unaware of), and the native american's struggles. I did find it a little odd that they put the native americans as fourth for leading up to the environmental justice movements. It seems to me that their struggles came before the civil rights movement and the toxics issues. I almost felt like there could have been a bit of subconscious racism or discrimination on culture going on in the priority list.

Academia was not something I would have put in the list off the top of my head, but it makes complete sense that it contributed to the movement. Being knowledgeable can help to back up any cause. Educating people makes it harder for them to justify continuing a harmful practice that they may have been ignorant about before.

I was a little surprised to here about the first wave environmentalists in organizations such as the Sierra Club being so opposed to helping the degradation of poor people's environment. I would think that an environmental group would be concerned about all environments, not just environments that rich white people like to spend their time in.

"We see the Environmental Justice Movement as separate from and as transcending the environmental movement - as a movement based on environmental issues but situated within the movements for social justice." Part of me likes this quote but part of me has a small problem with it. This quote reminds me of the book we read in my ecopsychology class, "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. "Ishmael" makes the point that humans now view themselves as separate and superior from nature. Because of this, they have upset the natural balance and are the reason for the destruction of the planet. When they put the Environmental Justice Movement inside the movement for social justice, to me it seems that they are placing the environment as second to people, as just a benefit for people. To me the health of the whole planet (which includes people) is more important than the health of just the people. I know that this isn't necessarily what they were getting at, but that is a thought subtly seems to be apparent when I hear that statement. 

The quote also reminds me of Ishmael because the book says that the reason the social movements of the 60's didn't work was that people didn't understand they were following a cultural myth that led them to an incomplete conclusion. It seems like the environment was a major missing component. With the emergence of the environmental movement, it seems like people were becoming a missing component.

I think that since people are most concerned with their own well being it makes sense that the environmental justice movement would come from social justice. People's health depends on their environment. I am glad that people are becoming more aware that their own health depends on the health of their surroundings.

Preface and Intro p. 1-18

The story of Kettleman City seems to reflect the mentality of many corporations and government motives today. It is a sad reality, but one that people need to become more aware of if we want to do anything about it. Environmental racism and injustice is a fairly new term to me. I think I have been subconsciously aware of it for a while now but never tried to articulate it in my mind. I have always known that big bad corporations target people who have nothing. In story of stuff they talk about how companies destroy peoples natural resources and force them to work in factories. Kettleman city is a similar concept, but with a slightly different take. Different people's are not effected equally by environmental degradation. In the future things will equal out because all ecosystems are connected, but we have to think about the immediate future as well. Unfortunately many people making these decisions are able to avoid immediately being effected by environmental consequences, and are not as concerned how they effect others.