Author: Arin Spanner

by

In California, an Unsatisfying Settlement in Pesticide-Spray Discrimination Case

Buford, T. (2015, August 11). In California, an Unsatisfying Settlement in Pesticide-Spray Discrimination Case. Retrieved August 22, 2015, from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/california-unsatisfying-settlement-pesticide-spraying-n406001

In 1999, Garcia and other concerned citizens in the agricultural community of Ventura Country filed Angelita C. against the Department of Pesticide Regulation. The complainants believed that the pesticide methyl bromide was too dangerous, citing its connection to a variety of illnesses. They claimed that the DPR was wrong to re-license the chemical, and that it was being sprayed more heavily near low-income minority communities. The EPA settled with the DPR in 2011, with the DPR agreeing to monitor methyl bromide levels in the community. However in 2005, the United States agreed to phase out methyl bromide by 2015, as part of an agreement between UN Members called the Montreal Protocol. The substitute pesticides have been perhaps even more
harmful, and the one in current use is a probable carcinogen.

This relates to environmental science because of the conflict between safety and economic necessity. Both the parents and the DPR have viable arguments. It is definitely wrong for any group of people to be threatened by unsafe pesticide levels, but simultaneously, it may not be possible for farms to safely spray pesticides. Residents certainly don’t want the farm to switch locations, seeing as how it employees 12% of the county. Is living with serious health problems the price of living in a low income community? I don’t think it is. The government must find a way to reduce health risks to acceptable levels. Whether through regulation or incentives, it’s unacceptable that an entire community will be plagued by health problems simply because of their tax bracket.

by

California Law Increases Housing Costs

Cogdill, D., & Lapsley, R. (2015, August 21). California law increases housing costs. Retrieved August 22, 2015, from http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/21/california-law-housing-costs/

California environmental regulation is raising home prices and stifling new construction. Senate Bill 32 will significantly reduce California’s greenhouse emissions, but will increase the cost of housing production by $58,000 dollars per home, and reduce new housing projects. Housing costs are already disproportionately consuming the average Californian’s income, and new housing must be drastically increased to keep up with a growing population. California is only one percent of the global pollution problem, and reducing emissions won’t change anything.

This article relates to environmental science by showing the modern regulation conflict. Some, such as the pro-business individuals who wrote this article, argue that a decrease in pollution isn’t worth the increase in cost. They say it decreases profits, making businesses less economically viable on a national scale. Others argue that regulation is needed in order to protect the environment. Environmental Science seeks to find a balance between these two viewpoints, and find a sustainable rate of pollution. The truth is, air pollution is a tragedy of the commons. No one owns the air, so no one has an interest to protect it. Unless a worldwide agreement to reduce pollution is agreed to, businesses that don’t pollute are at an economic disadvantage.