CofC Day of Service

On Saturday, February 23rd, I volunteered with the College of Charleston’s Second Annual Day of Service sponsored by the Center for Civic Engagement and the Sustainability Literacy Institute (SLI). The day of service focused on the 2018-2019 QEP focus, “Social Justice and Fair Distribution”, and placed volunteers with various organizations in the Charleston area.

The day started off with a workshop on sustainability and social justice. In the workshop, staff from the SLI educated volunteers on the triple bottom line and urged us to look for connections to the three pillars throughout our volunteer experience. I chose to volunteer with Habitat for Humanity’s Charleston chapter. I and the other volunteers worked on constructing the wall frames for what will someday be a lower-income family’s home.

Habitat for Humanity’s mission hits all three aspects of the triple bottom line. When building homes, Habitat uses repurposed materials to save costs as well as reducing waste. Habitat for Humanity also operates thrift stores called ReStores which are a point of intervention in the linear economy, they are donation-based and staffed by volunteers. These stores sell scrap building materials, furniture, etc that can all be repurposed or reused by buyers. Restores are also a means for potential Habitat homeowners to earn the “sweat equity” needed to pay off their homes.

Sweat equity is a concept that ensures homeowners invest back into their community through service at the ReStore or by helping to build others’ homes. I found this concept very interesting, especially with the theme of fair distribution. Volunteers with Habitat are able to donate their hours to pay for the sweat equity of homeowners who may have other obligations such as working multiple jobs or caring for their families. I would like to see what could happen  with the concept of sweat equity in other areas such as schoolwork. While I know that students can’t do work for each other, there are opportunities that some students miss out on due to work or other excluding factors. It would be interesting to see if there was a way to donate opportunities or time to others who weren’t able to gain the same experiences.

“The Devil We Know” Documentary Review

The documentary film, “The Devil We Know”, directed by Stephanie Soechtig exposes the serious dangers of chemicals used by DuPont to manufacture Teflon kitchenware. . One such chemical is PFOA which has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, and other illnesses. By purposely dumping dangerous compounds into drinking water and willingly exposing workers to PFOA also known as C-8, DuPont has created one of the biggest environmental cover-ups to date. DuPont continues to deny that C-8 and PFOA are harmful despite files showing potential dangers as far back as 1982 and entire communities that have been ravaged by cancer and other ailments.

The Devil We Know focuses on the blue collar community of Parkersburg, WV which has borne the brunt of damages from DuPont. Manufacturing is the backbone of Parkersburg. Common products include teflon cookware, waterproof jackets, and microwave popcorn bags, all of which require C-8. Citizens of Parkersburg who worked directly with the chemicals, including pregnant women, were the first to feel the effects of C-8. Extremely high rates of cancer and birth defects were present in the population and children’s teeth began to turn black. One resident, Bucky Bailey, was born with a birth defect that required him to undergo over 30 surgeries as a child and permanently altered his genetic code. Pollution from the factories and from DuPont ran downstream to other communities in the Ohio River Valley and potentially to the entire United States.

The film begins with footage taken by a Parkersburg farmer, Wilbur Tennant, of dead livestock and dogs on portions of land which he sold to Dupont. Tennant was told by DuPont that the land would be used for “non-hazardous” waste. However, when his cattle began suffering birth defects such as white, blind eyes and dying prematurely, he started to believe otherwise. The footage features Tennant belligerently expressing his view that something incredibly wrong was occuring on his land. Tennant was one of the first in his community to be suspicious of DuPont’s motives and to recognize signs that all was not well with the water. He attempted to get help from city officials, doctors, veterinarians, lawyers, and journalists, who all turned him away. DuPont owned the majority of Parkersburg and Tennant realized that he would have to seek help elsewhere. DuPont’s control over the towns it operated in is a theme that runs throughout the documentary.

The key point of the film is the investigation into DuPont which features interviews from those involved in the case as well as taped depositions from DuPont executives and lawyers. DuPont’s files made it clear that the company was aware of the dangers of C-8 and PFOA and continued to manufacture it regardless. When their rival chemical company, 3M, discontinued production of C-8 due to the clear dangers it posed, DuPont upped production. Despite links to ailments and the fact that C-8 has been found in the drinking water of 27 states, DuPont has not been seriously damaged by lawsuits, yet. Attorney Rob Bilott is a prominent feature in the documentary. His fight against DuPont began in 1999, when he took Tennant’s case against DuPont. He later represented 70,000 who had been drinking water directly laced with PFOA for years and helped to organize one of the largest epidemiological studies of chemicals in the history of the United States. Part of the film tracks Bilott’s cases against DuPont and shows the mountains of incriminating data freely given by DuPont. 2

The documentary does not go into much detail on the effects on consumers besides mentioning that C-8 is found in the blood of 99% of the world’s population. As many as 110 million Americans are potentially drinking water that has been contaminated with PFAS chemicals, including an estimated 24,904 people in South Carolina. PFOAs have been found in the blood of animals from Alaskan polar bears to albatrosses on Sand Island in the Midway Atoll. The dangers posed by PFOAs and other chemicals are serious and do not appear to be solved anytime soon.

 

Link: https://www.netflix.com/search?q=the%20devil%20we&jbv=80997719&jbp=0&jbr=0

 

“BP: Plastic ban ‘could have unintended consequences'” Talking Points

Title: “BP: ‘Plastic Ban Could Have Unintended Consequences’”

Author: Matt McGrath

Source: BBC News

Citation: McGrath, Matt. “BP: Plastic Ban ‘Could Have Unintended Consequences.’”BBC News, BBC, 15 Feb. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47255249.

Who: British Petroleum (BP) is one of the world’s top producers of fossil fuels. The company has a very problematic record when it comes to the health and safety of employees, the public, and the environment. BP is responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the largest oil spill to date, as well as the Texas City, TX refinery explosion of 2006.

What: BP’s 2019 Energy Outlook Report which suggests that plastic bans could have a negative environmental effect and that fossil fuel demand will remain high over the next two decades.

When: The annual report was published February 14, 2019.

Where: The report deals with the impacts of plastic bans across the globe.

Why:  As a producer of fossil fuels which are the main ingredient in plastic products, BP has a vested interest in maintaining fossil fuel dependence. The article cites a report that state alternative bags are not much better than plastic ones in terms of environmental impact. BP’s report did not account for widespread implementation of recycling and re-use, which could mitigate the problem.

How: BP claims that plastic bans could lead to increased energy use and emissions for the manufacture and transport of alternatives. The report also claims that despite a projected rise in renewable energy, fossil fuel use will increase over the next twenty years.

Impacts: The results of this report could be detrimental to plastic bans in cities and countries across the globe. Recently, there has been a lot of momentum for such bans, but if reports such as this continue to be published, they could be set aside. By discounting the move towards renewable energy, BP’s report could also aid arguments against finding sources outside of fossil fuels. On the positive side, decreases in bans could increase recycling and reuse efforts.

Relevance: Economically, BP stands to gain from this report. Since fossil fuels are key in the production of plastics, toting the downsides of plastic bans allows BP and other fossil fuel companies to continue to profit from the plastic industry. The report may also lead to a change in investments for renewable energy, either decreasing them due to cynicism or an increase to countridict BP’s projections. The harmful environmental impacts from plastic bags and fossil fuels are well known; however, the carbon footprint of alternatives isn’t as well known. If BP and other fossil fuel companies continue to push against environmental initiatives like plastic bans and renewable energy, climate change will only get worse. Reports such as this one can fuel arguments between groups that are very motivated to stop climate change and climate skeptics, increasing social unrest.

Additional Sources: 

Heriot-Watt University. “Ban on Plastics Could Increase Damage to Planet.” About Us. Heriot-Watt University, 30 Nov. 2018. Web. 16 Feb. 2019. https://www.hw.ac.uk/about/news/2018/a-plastic-ban-could-increase-damage-to.htm

Edgington, Tom. “Plastic or Paper: Which Bag Is Greener?” BBC News. BBC, 28 Jan. 2019. Web. 16 Feb. 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47027792