Pierson Trimarchi
7 October 2007

Fund Superfund!

Superfund, though well intentioned, has ironically run out of funds. Today, the government run program designed to clean up areas polluted by industrialization is placing the burden on the taxpayers. Superfund's original philosophy was to make the polluter pay, but that is leaving many sites unattended. Also, finding out who is responsible for the pollution is a time and money consuming process that is bringing little progress. Now, since Congress has not renewed the funds, taxpayers are no longer paying for 18 percent of the program, but a staggering 53 percent (Knickerbocker). This is also due to the fact that Superfund can no longer tax chemical and oil companies because most of the pollution today is not a result of their doing. Although Superfund will undoubtedly continue into the future, a more efficient way to collect the money it requires from those responsible for pollution should be found.

The Superfund cleanup process is complex. It begins with determining which sites require attention by citizens, state agencies, or EPA Regional offices. The EPA is then notified and enters the site into the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), EPA's computerized inventory of potential hazardous substance release sites. The EPA then evaluates whether or not immediate action needs to take place, ranks the site by placing it on a National Priorities List, and orders appropriate plans for the remediation of the site (Superfund | US EPA).

The Superfund program is responsible for cleaning the nation’s most polluted toxic sites. Since the beginning of the program, more than 45,000 hazardous sites have been identified with 1,500 of them classified as Superfund sites (Take Action - U.S. PIRG). One of the sites requiring serious attention is right here in Central New York. Onondaga Lake has been one of the most polluted lakes in the United States since the Industrial Revolution. During the late 19th and early 20th century, as industrialization grew, so did the amount of pollution being dumped into Onondaga Lake. By 1940, the lake was considered unsafe for recreational swimming, and by 1970, fishing was no longer allowed on the lake (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Without the money required to seriously alter this pattern of pollution in the mucky lake, Superfund’s efforts will be futile.

In 1884, the Solvay Process Company placed a factory on the western shore of Onondaga Lake. The disposal of the factory’s cooling water severely effected the chemical and physical properties of the lake. These discharges “increased water temperatures, upset the natural process of stratification that typically occurs in lakes, and served to increase phosphorus levels in the lake” (Landers 64). For every 2.2 pounds of product that the Solvay Process Company produced, 2.2 pounds of calcium chloride and 1.1 pounds of sodium chloride were created (Landers 64). These ionic wastes have since built up and now extend about 2,000 feet into the lake and 4,000 feet along the shoreline (Landers 65). In 1979, the company, now known as Linden Chemicals, started generating new wastes, equally or more hazardous than before. These wastes included: mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chlorinated benzenes; all of which are toxic, or carcinogenic to humans and fish (Landers 65). Shouldn’t the release of such harmful wastes into a lake surrounded by a well populated city be considered neglectful, or even criminal?

With such chemical companies clearly responsible for pollution, why is Superfund no longer forcing them to shoulder most of the blame and pay for the remediation? The unfortunate wording of the law calls for “joint and several liability,” meaning that all polluters, no matter how remote their involvement, can be held accountable for the complete cost of repair (Knickerbocker). Thus, the EPA tends to spend most of its money on lawyers, consultants, private investigators, and administrative overheads to search for and investigate companies that may or may not be liable for the pollution. By doing so, none of the money is going towards the actual cleanup of severely polluted sites like Onondaga Lake.

In 1995, the “polluter pays” fees expired. Since then, “appropriations for critical cleanup actions have declined by 32%, creating persistent funding shortfalls that threaten the cleanup capabilities of the Superfund program. Since 2003, funding shortfalls have ranged from $100 to $300 million per year” (Take Action - U.S. PIRG). Superfund’s progress has been slowed due to this lack of funding. In fact, since 2003

the Bush EPA has cleaned an average of 40 sites per year, compared to an average of 87 sites per year in the late 1990s. In addition, the number of sites not receiving any cleanup money continues to rise, contributing to a general cleanup slowdown that increases total cleanup costs and unnecessarily threatens human health.

Take Action - U.S. PIRG

One possible solution until more funding can be given is for the EPA to only take action against the companies most responsible for the pollution and have them pay for the majority of the remediation. This would call for the elimination of joint and several liability. By doing so, money will not be wasted while trying to hunt down all of those who may be only remotely responsible for the pollution of the lake. That way, the “polluter pays” ideology will be reinstated, but not with the money and time consuming method used prior to 1995. Superfund also has the authority to make companies who are responsible for the pollution of the lake clean it up themselves, thus reducing some of the cost of the burdensome cleanup process. By cost effectively finding the companies most responsible, Superfund will be able to use the majority of its dwindling funds to actually clean up sites and develop even more cost efficient cleanup methods.

new site

Superfund

Superfund, although well intentioned, has ironically run out of funds. Today, the government run program designed to clean up areas polluted by industrialization is placing the burden on the taxpayers. Superfund's original philosophy was to make the polluter pay, but that is leaving many sites unattended. Also, finding out who is responsible for the pollution is a time and money consuming process that is bringing little progress. Now, since Congress has not renewed the funds, taxpayers are no longer paying for 18% of the program, but a staggering 53%. This is also due to the fact that Superfund can no longer tax chemical and oil companies because most of the pollution today is not a result of their doing. Although Superfund will undoubtedly continue into the future, a new source for the money it requires must be found.

Superfund information

Anti-War Lecture

Last night, I attended the 7:30 anti-war lecture at Hendricks Chapel. Since I did not attend the march that preceded it, I had no idea what these organizations were about. I have been to a few different protests and anti-war rallies before, however, so I didn't think anything would be too surprising. Upon entering, however, I was greeted by a caricature of Uncle Sam holding up anti-war signs, a blind congressman holding bags of money, and an injured veteran sitting in a wheelchair in uniform.
As I entered the chapel and sat down, the crowd, was entertained by two women playing acoustic guitars performing anti-war music. This gave me a completely different impression of what was to come than what actually did. I was worried what I had gotten myself into, thinking that this would be followed by hippie upon hippie boring me with cliches like "make love, not war." However, when Dahlia Wasfi, Jim Massey, and Scott Ritter began their speeches, I was very much relieved to discover that this would not be the case.
Dahlia Wasfi, who lived in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule, and Jim Massey, a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, talked mostly about the Petreaus report. They pointed out that Iraq was better off before our occupation, and the fact that the report does not mention US occupation.
What really interested me, however, was Scott Ritter's speech. Scott Ritter, a pro-soldier, anti-war activist, as well as a veteran, was involved in the shooting of innocent Iraqi's. At the time, the order was to shoot first and ask questions later. The fact that even troops in Iraq are against the war really says something. Being a veteran, and speaking out against the war, Scott has been able to sway the thoughts of many people on the issue.
During his speech, Mr. Ritter discussed his plan for what Americans should do to help fix the situation. Although the following six points are easier said than done, the plan that he discusses sounds like the only solution for remedying the quagmire America has gotten itself into. The six point plan consists of: 1. withdrawing the troops, 2. turning over responsibility to Iraq, 3. paying for the damage we have caused, 4. recognizing the war court, and turning over all who are responsible for starting the war, 5. giving back profits corporations have made, and 6. voting out of office every congressman who supported the war. Despite some of this being pie in the sky thinking, it seemed to be the only way to effectively alleviate the situation.
The night concluded with some Q&A with the audience. Overall, I felt that the event was well done, and a good experience.

Photosynthesizing War

The Binh Danh exhibit at the Light Work gallery was very haunting. Had Danh printed the pictures on a more formal medium, their impact would have decreased severely. Something about the faces of the victims of war trapped in leaves and grass brings the effects of war home. It brings the observer directly into the setting, despite the years that have passed. It serves as a testimony about the Viet Nam war in this way, by also showing that the jungle itself still holds the effects of this war. This theme of remembering the dead and the atrocities of war also reflects our current times and the war we face today.
I thought that this exhibit was very successful, by making use of the leaves and grass. By doing so, Danh seemed to take the emphasis off of the picture itself, and more onto the medium. This brought about a new sensation while viewing the exhibit. Sontag claims that "photographs are a way of imprisoning reality" and that "one can't possess reality, one can possess (and be possessed by) images." These photographs of the soldiers, whose souls' are forever "imprisoned" in the jungles in which they fought, eerily possess us and make us aware of the effects of war.

After struggling to understand de Duve's thoughts on art, I have adopted the idea that art is everything that people deem art. One of my most memorable experiences I have had with an art work happened very recently. Over the summer, I visited Mass MoCA (Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art) with my dad. Their entire first floor was an exhibit by Spencer Finch, called "What time is it on the sun?" Clearly by the title, all of his art works centered around perspective. Although I found all of his works interesting, one really struck me as the epitome of his exhibit. Finch had taken large pieces of paper, and painted a little colorful blob in the corner, or off to the side on each piece. The blobs somewhat resembled butterflies. He painted them after looking at pictures of butterflies, but only viewing them in his peripherals. So if the viewer were to stare at the center of the paper, rather than at the blob itself, he or she would see the butterfly like blob in their peripherals as he saw the actual picture. It is hard to explain without actually showing an example, but the concept of perception was strong in this exhibit. It made me think about how all art can be perceived differently, and should be viewed in more than one way before forming an opinion about it. This butterfly piece was successful in making the viewer realize the different views one could take on each piece of "art."

de Duve's numerous points of view on art, varying from a Martian's, to your own, seem to stress one important fact; art has no one definition. Art means something different to each individual, because each person brings to the table their own personal experiences, and professional views. Personally, I believe art is something that should make one think, and perhaps draw on their own experiences and ultimately create a new emotional experience, or realization. Even that probably isn't sufficient. Art is always changing, and thus the definition of art should never be a constant. As art changes, and the people who view, and create art, changes, and society, and experiences within the society change, so should the definition of art.