Complex Numbers

Smells Like New Jersey

Entry #5 for the October round of "Journalistic Intentions"  [18+]:

One reason for environmental justice

I have this conceit, had it for a very long time now, that I can write something about anything. This started when I was quite young, when used to find random quotes in printed material (pre-internet, even pre-home computers) to expand upon in paper journals that have, to my vast relief, since been lost. In a way, this blog has turned into an extension of that; I guess I really haven't changed much, except now I make fewer fart jokes.

This prompt, though? This one stretches my abilities. I can't think of one reason for environmental justice.

No, I can think of way more than one.

For starters, there's a reason corresponding to every person living unwillingly in an environmentally-compromised location. Not just the people, either, but the wildlife and even the vegetation.

But I got to thinking: what would environmental justice actually look like? There's eight billion of us on the planet, and we all produce waste. I get the impression that some of the bigger producers of waste are the ones least affected by it, but without doing actual research, I can't be sure about that. Either way, though, it's clear that the bulk of the burden falls on people who are already disadvantaged in other ways.

"Justice" implies that, ideally, we should all feel the same burden. Thing is, then that would suck for everyone equally. And rich people would never stand for it; you have to remember the Golden Rule: "Those who have the gold make the rules."

I had a friend who was like, "Why don't we just shoot the waste into the sun?" Leaving aside for the moment the incredible expense of doing so, in order to do it, you'd have to cancel the load's angular velocity, as it starts out with the same value as that of the planet (give or take a few angular seconds/second, depending on where it's launched from and when). To do that you'd need reaction mass. Where would we get the reaction mass? Why, from the waste itself, of course. Which would mean, basically, burning it all before it even got to the accursed daystar. Along with the space barge carrying it.

But never mind that; it's just that I'm still laughing at the concept. No, in reality, it has to go somewhere on the Earth. And the further you move it from population centers, the more expensive it is to deal with. And then you have to employ people to take care of it—transport it, then bury or burn it—which would mean people traveling to and living near the waste disposal site, which puts the burden on them. We're not advanced enough to automate the whole schlemiel.

Producing less waste would be good, but you're never going to get it to zero. Basic thermodynamics.

So, what can we do? Hell if I know. Yes, being a civil engineer, this sort of thing is in my wheelhouse, but all that means for me is that I'm maybe more aware of the economies involved. And hell, right now I'm more focused on immediate quandaries. Like, it's getting cold at night now, which means I want to fix myself a nice hot mug of tea. The quandary is: why the hell does my tea kettle have the "Max Fill" line on the outside? It's utterly useless to me there, as the kettle is opaque.

I used to have a tea kettle where that line was an actual dimple in the metal, so you could, if you looked at it from the right angle, see it on the inside and then stop the faucet when the water reached that line. That tea kettle burned (NOT MY FAULT) and it became part of America's waste disposal problem a few years ago. But even then, could I ever be sure that, as I held the thing under the faucet, it was level enough so that the water surface at the line was correct? Even a slight tilt could result in more or less water than the desired maximum volume.

Point is, I can't even address this inequity, let alone the larger one concerning waste disposal.

So I'll just leave you with the video that came with this prompt. Maybe you can think of something where I didn't.