Valery's Ankle
by Brett Kashmere
Telling Time: Essays of a visionary filmmaker, Canadian Journal of Film Studies
Kings of the : a history of World Hocke, in by by Richmond Hill
The Russians Remember, by Malcom Gray in Maclean's Journal
Hockey Twilight in Canada, Our Tarnished Past, in Saturday Night Journal
Questions?
What are we to learn from completing this essay?
If we find that information is becoming scarce may we change our essay topic.
What is the nature of this essay/ what is the essay about?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Mary Jane Jacob Lecture
The lecture that Mary Jane Jacobs gave was based upon one location, Charleston, South Carolina. The majority of the works that she mentioned were based in Charleston. Jacob's showed that Kwon's quote, "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”. Mary Jane Jacobs talked about how larger spaces were needed for art projects. She started by mentioning the Camoflauge House as one of these art projects. She soon began talking about Charleston and the projects she did there. You could tell from the way that she spoke about Charleston that she truly enjoyed the place and the work that she has done there. This included the house that was formerly a plantation that the artists refurbished and created rugs that had the names of those that had worked the soil (under slavery). Mary Jane Jacobs did not let the constrictions of a museum to keep her from showing art, even if the art was a house, as it was for the house in Charleston. These large art projects that she helped to show were art that questioned how people viewed the past. They made people think "about the past. This was what Mary Jane Jacobs wanted after she stated "Asks big questions about important concepts" in the beginning of her lecture. She certainly achieved that goal.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Paying for Onondaga Lake the Superfund way
Zack Owens
Oct 14th, 2007
Onondaga Lake Essay
Paying for Onondaga Lake the Superfund way
Technological advancements have made our lives easier, whether it’s vehicles to travel far distances in a short amount of time, or air conditioning to keep our homes cool and comfortable in the summer heat. Technology does have its downsides. Including emmissions from said vehicles, as well as the coolants released by air conditioners. The inadvertant pollution of our environment by technology led to government regulations, laws and cleanup plans for polluted areas. Superfund was one of these plans. It was created to cleanup hazardous waste sites and while it has done what it is supposed, the article “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag” commentates on the issues that Superfund faces, most importantly funding Superfund. Funding is an issue because pollution hasn’t been forced into the public eye, and hasn’t become an issue for politicians to do something about.
In 1980 the government initiated Superfund to combat the polluted areas in the US. However Superfund is almost bankrupt. The EPA announced that 40 waste sites had been cleaned up during the fiscal year. The total sites cleaned since Superfund began is up to 886, but 1203 sites still remain. According to the US Public Interest Group, 1 out of 4 Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site (Knickerbocker). Superfund’s basis for payment of the cleanup was to make the polluter pay. One problem is that orphan sites have begun popping up. These sites do not have a company responsible for the pollution to pay for the cleanup. Superfund paid for these sites out of its budget. Payment for the cleanup is the biggest problem with Superfund right now. Anyone and everyone who was ever associated with the polluted site can be made to pay for cleanup. This causes legal battles to ensue and money that should be put towards cleanup is used in litigation. Critics of Superfund use this as an example to show that Superfund isn’t doing what it was made to do. Using taxes to pay for Superfund seems like a good idea as cleanup of pollution is very important. Everyone is at fault with pollution as the author says “And if one considers consumers to be ultimately responsible for the products associated with hazardous waste, then it may be that the ‘polluter pays’ in the end” (Knickerbocker). The responsibility to clean up pollution is everyones responsibility.
Superfund was government legislation that has been attempting to cleanup hazardous waste sites throughout the US including Onondaga Lake. The cleanup of Onondaga Lake has been ongoing for awhile, and has slowly cleaned the lake. Being on the Superfund national priority list in the 1990’s helped shut down the factories that were polluting the lake, “The active pollution of the lake stopped when the factories shut down, but work continues on those sites to prevent any more leakage” (Stevenson). Onondaga Lake still faces many hurdles before becoming clean enough to fish or swim in.
One of these problems is one that faces not only Onondaga Lake but also the entire Superfund program. Who is going to pay for Onondaga Lake’s cleanup. Superfund’s plan was to make the polluter pay, but many of these polluters like to propose their own cleanup plan as well as how much they will give. Honeywell International is being required to pay 488 million dollars for aid in the plan to fix the pollution in Onondaga Lake. Honeywell International has proposed only 237 million dollars. The Onondaga Nation who believe they have the biggest need in the cleanup of Onondaga Lake believe that about 2.33 billion dollars would be needed to truly clean up the lake. An Onondaga nation lawyer said, “The nation is deeply concerned that the Department of Environmental Conservation’s preferred alternative for the cleanup of the bottom of the lake is not adequate and will leave substantial amounts of dangerous toxins throughout the lake bottom” (Urbina). Even with Superfund how clean the site gets is up to how much money they can get.
Another big problem is that the money that Superfund has been getting back from companies has been steadily decreasing, “the amount of money Superfund is getting back from other companies in reimbursements for cleanups has steadily declined. The amount of money the agency recovered from those companies has fallen by half in the past six fiscal years, compared with the previous six years” (Sapien). Onondaga Lake is a sad example of this problem. Honeywell is only proposing half what Superfund wants from them, and even then according to Onondaga nation, it will not be enough to truly clean the lake “Capping is not allowed on the Hudson and should be avoided on the Onondaga Lake because it is a Band-Aid approach that will surely fail” (Urbina).
The best plan for cleaning the lake is the one prepared by the Onondaga nation, because the plan includes dredging the entire bottom of the lake and then putting a permanent cap over the bottom of the lake as well. This would effectively clean the pollution in Onondaga Lake. Unfortunately the state’s plan is most likely to be put into effect because of funding issues. This occurs throughout the US where Superfund is attempting to cleanup pollution. Even though Onondaga Lake was placed on the Superfund high priority list in the 1990’s, it still hasn’t been completely cleaned up.
Superfund’s funding issue can only be solved through a more reliable way of raising money, whether through taxes directly to Superfund’s budget, government funding, or fund raisers. This issue isn’t lost on Washington after this, “Resources for the Future a Wahington-based environmental think tank, proposes this explanation: It’s all about declining funding. In a 2001 book written for Congress on the subject, it says EPA managers have been cautious about listing larger more expensive toxic waste sites to avoid ‘breaking the bank… Sites that need cleanup are not being addressed because of funding concerns.’ The group’s book recommends a budget increase, which never came” (Sapien). The government has not been up to the task in keeping Superfund funded. Due to this Onondaga Lake and other sites throughout the US are not being cleaned up correctly or not cleaned up at all.
Superfund was created because of the environmental health issues at Love Canal, New York (Sapien). This prompted action by the government to attempt to fix the polluted area. The reason why the government put Superfund into action is because of the pressure the public put on the government. Now that Superfund’s funding is no longer there, something has to be done to fix it. With more funding, polluted areas would be cleaned up on time, and they would stay clean because the solutions would not be stop-gap procedures. Funding is the most important need for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. For this to happen the government needs to be pushed by the public. The public needs to emphasize that the cleanup of waste sites are something that needs to be done. With this pressure, funding would be provided and Superfund would be able to run the best cleanup plan presented, including for Onondaga Lake.
Oct 14th, 2007
Onondaga Lake Essay
Paying for Onondaga Lake the Superfund way
Technological advancements have made our lives easier, whether it’s vehicles to travel far distances in a short amount of time, or air conditioning to keep our homes cool and comfortable in the summer heat. Technology does have its downsides. Including emmissions from said vehicles, as well as the coolants released by air conditioners. The inadvertant pollution of our environment by technology led to government regulations, laws and cleanup plans for polluted areas. Superfund was one of these plans. It was created to cleanup hazardous waste sites and while it has done what it is supposed, the article “Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag” commentates on the issues that Superfund faces, most importantly funding Superfund. Funding is an issue because pollution hasn’t been forced into the public eye, and hasn’t become an issue for politicians to do something about.
In 1980 the government initiated Superfund to combat the polluted areas in the US. However Superfund is almost bankrupt. The EPA announced that 40 waste sites had been cleaned up during the fiscal year. The total sites cleaned since Superfund began is up to 886, but 1203 sites still remain. According to the US Public Interest Group, 1 out of 4 Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site (Knickerbocker). Superfund’s basis for payment of the cleanup was to make the polluter pay. One problem is that orphan sites have begun popping up. These sites do not have a company responsible for the pollution to pay for the cleanup. Superfund paid for these sites out of its budget. Payment for the cleanup is the biggest problem with Superfund right now. Anyone and everyone who was ever associated with the polluted site can be made to pay for cleanup. This causes legal battles to ensue and money that should be put towards cleanup is used in litigation. Critics of Superfund use this as an example to show that Superfund isn’t doing what it was made to do. Using taxes to pay for Superfund seems like a good idea as cleanup of pollution is very important. Everyone is at fault with pollution as the author says “And if one considers consumers to be ultimately responsible for the products associated with hazardous waste, then it may be that the ‘polluter pays’ in the end” (Knickerbocker). The responsibility to clean up pollution is everyones responsibility.
Superfund was government legislation that has been attempting to cleanup hazardous waste sites throughout the US including Onondaga Lake. The cleanup of Onondaga Lake has been ongoing for awhile, and has slowly cleaned the lake. Being on the Superfund national priority list in the 1990’s helped shut down the factories that were polluting the lake, “The active pollution of the lake stopped when the factories shut down, but work continues on those sites to prevent any more leakage” (Stevenson). Onondaga Lake still faces many hurdles before becoming clean enough to fish or swim in.
One of these problems is one that faces not only Onondaga Lake but also the entire Superfund program. Who is going to pay for Onondaga Lake’s cleanup. Superfund’s plan was to make the polluter pay, but many of these polluters like to propose their own cleanup plan as well as how much they will give. Honeywell International is being required to pay 488 million dollars for aid in the plan to fix the pollution in Onondaga Lake. Honeywell International has proposed only 237 million dollars. The Onondaga Nation who believe they have the biggest need in the cleanup of Onondaga Lake believe that about 2.33 billion dollars would be needed to truly clean up the lake. An Onondaga nation lawyer said, “The nation is deeply concerned that the Department of Environmental Conservation’s preferred alternative for the cleanup of the bottom of the lake is not adequate and will leave substantial amounts of dangerous toxins throughout the lake bottom” (Urbina). Even with Superfund how clean the site gets is up to how much money they can get.
Another big problem is that the money that Superfund has been getting back from companies has been steadily decreasing, “the amount of money Superfund is getting back from other companies in reimbursements for cleanups has steadily declined. The amount of money the agency recovered from those companies has fallen by half in the past six fiscal years, compared with the previous six years” (Sapien). Onondaga Lake is a sad example of this problem. Honeywell is only proposing half what Superfund wants from them, and even then according to Onondaga nation, it will not be enough to truly clean the lake “Capping is not allowed on the Hudson and should be avoided on the Onondaga Lake because it is a Band-Aid approach that will surely fail” (Urbina).
The best plan for cleaning the lake is the one prepared by the Onondaga nation, because the plan includes dredging the entire bottom of the lake and then putting a permanent cap over the bottom of the lake as well. This would effectively clean the pollution in Onondaga Lake. Unfortunately the state’s plan is most likely to be put into effect because of funding issues. This occurs throughout the US where Superfund is attempting to cleanup pollution. Even though Onondaga Lake was placed on the Superfund high priority list in the 1990’s, it still hasn’t been completely cleaned up.
Superfund’s funding issue can only be solved through a more reliable way of raising money, whether through taxes directly to Superfund’s budget, government funding, or fund raisers. This issue isn’t lost on Washington after this, “Resources for the Future a Wahington-based environmental think tank, proposes this explanation: It’s all about declining funding. In a 2001 book written for Congress on the subject, it says EPA managers have been cautious about listing larger more expensive toxic waste sites to avoid ‘breaking the bank… Sites that need cleanup are not being addressed because of funding concerns.’ The group’s book recommends a budget increase, which never came” (Sapien). The government has not been up to the task in keeping Superfund funded. Due to this Onondaga Lake and other sites throughout the US are not being cleaned up correctly or not cleaned up at all.
Superfund was created because of the environmental health issues at Love Canal, New York (Sapien). This prompted action by the government to attempt to fix the polluted area. The reason why the government put Superfund into action is because of the pressure the public put on the government. Now that Superfund’s funding is no longer there, something has to be done to fix it. With more funding, polluted areas would be cleaned up on time, and they would stay clean because the solutions would not be stop-gap procedures. Funding is the most important need for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. For this to happen the government needs to be pushed by the public. The public needs to emphasize that the cleanup of waste sites are something that needs to be done. With this pressure, funding would be provided and Superfund would be able to run the best cleanup plan presented, including for Onondaga Lake.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Superfund Synopsis
As our nation has industrialized, the price of it has been hazardous waste polluting our environment. The government started a federal program dubbed Superfund in 1980, to combat the threat to human life. However the fund used to clean up hazardous waste sites is almost bankrupt. The EPA announced that 40 waste sites had been cleaned up during the fiscal year. The total sites cleaned since Superfund began is up to 886, but there are still 1203 sites left. According to the US Public Interest Group, 1 out of 4 Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund Site(Knickerbocker para. 5). Superfund’s basis for payment of the cleanup was to make the polluter pay. Orphan sites have popped up however where no one could be made to pay. These sites were paid for by excise taxes. This is the major issue now with Superfund how to pay for it. With anyone and everyone who was ever associated with the site responsible companies linked to the site by the EPA go after someone else who was a part of the pollution, and legal battles ensue. The critics say that this is the incorrect way to go about payment as much of the money goes to payment of lawyers and the like. The author states that “Eliminating Superfund is by all means politically infeasible, so the main question remains: how to pay for it.” (Knickerbocker para. 16). Eliminating Superfund is a possibility if another environmental bill that would viably replace Superfund were enacted. I do agree though that right now the question to focus on is how to pay for Superfund. Using taxes on both companies and consumers seems to be a solid idea, as some of the pollution can be attributed to the companies and consumers, as the writer states “And if one considers consumers to be ultimately responsible for the products associated with hazardous waste, then it may be that the ‘polluter pays’ in the end.” (Knickerbocker para. 21). The consumers are partly responsible but they aren’t completely responsible. The responsibility of cleaning up the pollution lies with everyone.
Knickerbocker, Brad. Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag. Nov. 14 2003. Oct 2 2007.
This is the link that I believe will aid me in writing my essay
Knickerbocker, Brad. Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag. Nov. 14 2003. Oct 2 2007.
This is the link that I believe will aid me in writing my essay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)