Today’s firefighter has evolved from the tragedy of September 11th. New training has been added to firefighter curriculum's to prepare for acts of terrorism and environmental emergencies. Training sessions include how to request for state, coast guard and red cross involvement. Even with all the precautions, training, and protocols many people are effected by these types of events. Long lasting ecological disasters can effect generations to come. Fire fighters today, are dying of cancer linked to the chemicals and particulates in the air around ground zero. Ten years after the terrorist strike on America people are still physically suffering its aftermath. The state of the environment that you live in can directly effect you physical health. War has a devastating toll on the environment, and the aftermath of the devastation can effect non-combatants and future generations, even after the war is over, but steps can be taken to preserve the environment and, therefore the people that live in it. Spoils of War and War and the Environment are two articles directed to the destruction of the environment and its effect on the health and safety of animal and human population surrounding the environments in question. While these authors have two different approaches to the same problem, it will take a combination of both ideas to sufficiently avoid human casualty and disease from the destruction of the environment by modern warfare.
Spoils of War published in Nature, August 25, 2011 makes a comparison between war and the ecological impact on the environment. War and the Environment published in Learn Peace makes a similar comparison using different events in history to strengthen his argument. The author of Spoils of War suggest that Ecology is an approach that can manage the environmental impact created by war while the author of War and the Environment suggests that the only way to eliminate these environmental problems is to manage the the use of weapons with significant ecological impact.
The author of Spoils of War writes “By studying warfare's effects on the environment, and the environment's effects on war, these researchers hope to short circuit the cycles of violence leading to natural-resource crises leading to violence.” The author's reasons consist mostly of environmental benefits resulting from postwar reconstruction of habitats and environments compromised by warfare. For example, the author lists the demilitarized zone extending along the border of North and South Korea as a new ecosystem for endangered wildlife, the establishment of peace parks during post warfare reconstruction and development, and the restoration of clean water and locally grown food to reconstruct environmental devastation. These arguments fail to describe the time required to restore habitats to their original state. It may take years to reintroduce wildlife and vegetation that previously inhabited the areas in question. During these years the impoverished environment may take the lives of other wildlife and mankind. For example, the hunger that results in the destruction of agricultural land or livestock. The contamination of drinking water is another major issue during warfare. The restoration of clean drinking water does nothing to repair the ecological and humanitarian despair created by the diseases resulting from it. Contaminated water could cause diseases and infection from bacteria or other unintentional pollutants. Anyone that drinks the water is now sick. Anyone that eats livestock that drinks the contaminated water could become sick. Disease could spread rapidly from contaminated water sources. New ecosystems for endangered wildlife do nothing for previous wildlife removed from the area as a direct result of the warfare, or the result of the destruction of its habitat. Limits to restoration may include longer time periods due to the introduction of man made chemical, biological or radiological contaminants introduced as strategies during the war campaign. The author also makes the assumption that in the economic and humanitarian aftermath of warfare, nations will retain the resources needed to come to the aid of the environment within enough time conserve and build upon what is left. The immediate concern for any remaining forces would likely be to aid the civilian population with food, water, health care and a stable form of government to prevent further conflict. Thus, the author of Spoils of War suggests many exceptional ideas about how to compensate for the devastation of the environment in the aftermath of war. Unfortunately, new knowledge and studies of post war ecology dictate that the prevention of these disasters is impertinent to the survival healthy ecosystems and a safe environment.
The author of War and the Environment focuses more on contemporary war devices and their own environmental impact. Specifically, the author writes of unexploded ordinances, nuclear weapons testing programs and munitions dumps. The introduction of landmines has had effects lasting far longer than they were intended. Years after landmines were employed in the campaign, bomb teams still scour war torn countries looking for unexploded mines. These devices have killed civilians and stripped agricultural areas of their practical use do to the risks of triggering unexploded devices once buried underground. Many mines covered with soil from years ago still have the capability to explode. Munitions dumps release dangerous toxins into the immediate environment through the process of decay. Severe contamination of surrounding areas infects wildlife, water and people that drink the water or eat contaminated animals. Nuclear testing has spread radiological byproducts throughout the globe and “...harm[s the] earth, plants that grow in it, and subsistent livestock and wildlife” (War). Generations of inhabitants in Japan were effected by genetic defect from the use of the 2 nuclear bombs during world war II. The author's aim is to remove the use of weapons that are excessively dangerous to the environment and therefore, the long term restoration of human life. Limitations of this argument include the effectiveness of these devices against enemy soldiers. Efficient use of soldiers and equipment is essential to the safety of the men and women of the armed forces. With knowledge of the impact of this equipment on the environment however, research could be conducted to redesign these products to be ecologically safe. The author references a current treaty to ban land mines and research on safe disposal of nuclear waste and weapon stockpiles. Further ecologically conscious steps can be taken to lessen both environmental and human casualties of warfare.
Ideas from both Spoils of War and War and the Environment need to be used in wars of the future in order to lessen the ecological impact. Introduction of the practices mentioned in Spoils of War will help rebuild postwar environments and environmentally conscious warfare strategies in War and the Environment will help ease the burden of war on the environment. This will directly effect the lives of non-combatants and families living in these environments for years to come. As time continues and science matures, safer environmental policies must be researched and implemented during warfare to protect the health of the occupants of these areas. Our health is immediately effected by the way we breath, the water we drink and the food that we eat and these resources need to be kept safe.
Thomas Simon
No comments:
Post a Comment