In-Class Timed Essay

Prompt: According to Hertsgaard, what is China doing to help reduce the air pollution caused by burning coal? What steps does Hertsgaard feel they should be taking instead?

According to Hertsgaard, China is not doing enough to reduce the air pollution caused by burning coal. Hertsgaard argues that China needs to take on a less economic and more environmental focus on the issue of air pollution in order to truly improve it.

Hertsgaard claims that the Chinese people have taken on an attitude of resigned acceptance of the air pollution issue. Since the Chinese economy was not faring well, “the biggest complaint [of the people] was being miserably poor” and they were willing “to put up with a great deal of…environmental unpleasantness” if it mean they could escape some poverty by getting jobs (158). Since the attitude of the people in China can be summarized in the phrase “my body has gotten used to this air,” the people really see no urgency in dealing with the issue of air pollution, not realizing its detrimental effects (165). For this reason, the majority of the Chinese people have not done much of anything to deal with the pollution.

Even those individuals who are “aware of the health effects of pollution” are not doing much to resolve the issue, still deciding “to take their chances if it meant more money in their pockets” (179). On a larger scale, the government too is focused on economic development, considering it “the most important goal for China…more important than the environment” (160). With this attitude, neither the individuals nor the government is doing much at all to reduce air pollution from coal.

That is not to say that nothing at all is being done in China to reduce air pollution. For instance, “the government had moved all [of Beijing’s] heavy industry out of the downtown area,” but this still did not reduce air pollution by much (164). This is essentially half-solving the issue, not truly tackling it head on. Another example is in Chongqing, where “75 percent of city households relied on natural gas,” an alternative to coal, “but current reserves would be exhausted in ten years” (173). This is only a temporary fix, a band-aid for the issue of air pollution. It is still not enough. Government clean-up programs have also been initiated, such as the one in Shenyang, “but the city’s TSP levels” still remained incredibly high (177). Again, China is not really getting to the problem of air pollution as it should.

The environmentalists in China argue that education and “raising public consciousness” are the two keys to ameliorating the pollution issue in China. Although educating the public and raising its awareness of environmental issues may sound like a good idea in theory, it may not work in practice because of the deep entrenched belief of the Chinese people that economic development is more significant than environmental issues. This is still not enough; air pollution will still not be reduced much.

Hertsgaard presents several alternatives to what is being done in China. One of these is to use the chemical process of washing before burning coal (182). China is still not doing this enough, so Hertsgaard advocates that it can be done more. Another alternative would be “to simply use less coal in the first place,” but this is easier said than done because of the focus on economic problems rather than environmental ones. Supply-side alternatives and an expansion of natural gas exploration are also two other alternatives that Hertsgaard presents.

Hertsgaard is getting at the notion that in order to reduce air pollution, China needs to take a less economic and more environmental stance on the issue, a difficult but possible goal. One example would be building three plants that don’t have harmful emissions instead of building four that do (182). This simplistic example just goes to show that even a small change in the mindset of the Chinese people can produce a relatively large difference in the environment. So, Hertsgaard is not saying to focus solely on the environment; he is advocating that even a small shift from an economic perspective to an environmental one can and will make a big difference.

My Thoughts: This was one of the last in-class essays I wrote for this particular English Honors course. I feel that I have combined all the skills I learned for taking such in-class tests and written a successful essay here in the time allotted. I feel that I was able to provide great evidence to back up my points, and I have gotten better at incorporating this evidence directly into my essay by transitioning in and out of quotes. I also feel that throughout this course, I have become a better writer in terms of writing without proofreading. Since timed tests don't allow time for proofreading because I spend most of the time writing, I have to learn to write more succinctly, and I feel that I have accomplished that in this essay.

Out-of-Class Essay

Assignment Overview: Update one specific aspect of Mark Hertsgaard's research.

The Deadly Chelyabinsk: An Updated Research Study on the Russian Region

After I read Chapter 4, “The Nuclear Lighthouse,” in Mark Hertsgaard’s book Earth Odyssey, I came home and asked my mom about Chelyabinsk, a highly dangerous, toxic region in Russia to see if she knew anything about this extremely polluted area. My mom looked surprised and asked, “Didn’t you know your dad was born there?” I had no idea, I thought to myself. The thing my mom told me next was even more fascinating; my grandfather on my dad’s side was the mayor of Chelyabinsk-70 in the late 1960s. After reading about such a polluted area and realizing the roots that I have there, I started thinking about what life would be like living there. In the 1990s, according to Hertsgaard, Chelyabinsk was a dangerous region full of nuclear waste. Today, it seems that the situation in Chelyabinsk is barely improving – if at all. Despite this stagnancy in Chelyabinsk, the city has a thriving business center full of American firms. I believe that Chelyabinsk really is getting no better despite its business prospects, and we may soon lose this region if we do not take action.

Environmentally, the situation in Chelyabinsk is not much different from what it was ten to fifteen years ago. Hertsgaard argues that Chelyabinsk was “the most polluted spot on earth” in the 1990s because of its high levels of nuclear waste (Earth Odyssey 125). Nuclear waste poses such a problem for Chelyabinsk because of three nuclear disasters that took place there at the Mayak complex, “the heart of the Soviet nuclear production apparatus” (Earth Odyssey 125). The third disaster in 1967 occurred because people were dumping nuclear waste into Lake Karachay, one of the lakes in the Chelyabinsk region, not realizing the potential consequences of doing so. Even though “a cyclone swept across the drought-exposed shores of Lake Karachay,” in 1967, it seems that people still have not learned the devastating consequences of careless behavior (Earth Odyssey 126). In fact, “Mayak still dumps some 20,000 cubic meters of liquid radioactive waste into the lake every year,” making Lake Karachay more and more toxic year by year (Zarakhovich). Since humans continue dumping into Lake Karachay knowing the possible consequences, the situation there is not getting better; it is simply getting worse.

In addition to exposure to radioactivity that the citizens of Chelyabinsk experience every time they breathe, many of them are still not taking measures to prevent this radiation exposure. People in Chelyabinsk continue selling and buying fish from Lake Karachay despite the fact that these fish are highly dangerous to consume. Although the Chelyabinsk government banned the sale of these radioactive fish in 1999, “the ban was lifted two years later, after further tests showed the fish were clean” (Zarakhovich). Since Mayak is still dumping nuclear waste into Lake Karachay, there is no chance that these fish are safe to eat, and the people in Chelyabinsk who are educated on what is going on in terms of nuclear waste issues know that. Those who do not know it are still under the influence of government propaganda just as they were in the 1990s because “Soviet authorities succeed[ed] in sowing long-lasting confusion about the accident’s true scope and consequences” (Earth Odyssey 130). In fact, even when I was researching the situation in Chelyabinsk, I found it extremely difficult to locate any statistics from the Russian on the nuclear waste threat in Chelyabinsk, most likely because these statistics are censored by the Russian government there. The information, however, is available to those who have the resources to access it, so change is possible.

Although the people who reside in Chelyabinsk can avoid eating radioactive fish and drinking radioactive water, they cannot avoid breathing radioactive air. In fact, two scientists who visited Muslyumova, a city in the Chelyabinsk region, in October 2005 claimed that “local people are breathing highly radioactive air,” which is “responsible for most of their exposure” (Return to Chelyabinsk). Even though they know the danger that breathing this air entails, the workers at Mayak are still not being careful with radioactive waste, harming not only those around them but also themselves. Because of this, “the radiation around Muslyumova’s residents is chronic” (Kaltofen 2). The situation in the Chelyabinsk region is not getting better; in Muslyumova, it is just getting worse.

Despite the tremendous health risks present in the region, Chelyabinsk has opened itself to the prospect of American business. In fact, the American Business Center, which is made up of firms like Pepsi Cola, Microsoft, Wrangler, and Hewlett Packard, opened in Chelyabinsk in the 21^st century. In the 1990s, Chelyabinsk had been “a closed city” and region, but it opened for business because of rapid globalization in the 21^st century (Barry). The research says that “there are still places within the oblast [of Chelyabinsk], though not in the city, where you can receive dangerous doses of radiation from carelessly dumped nuclear waste” (Barry). Although the small city of Chelyabinsk itself appears to be safe for health standards, the region is completely unsafe. Therefore, the American businessmen are safe enough in the city but cannot go outside of the city’s confines to explore the region itself. However, Chelyabinsk is considered by these businessmen “a good region in which to do business” (Barry). The question here is how can Chelyabinsk be such a good place to do business if employees must stay entirely in the confines of the city, careful not to drink the city’s water but “safe” to breathe the city’s air? The reasons that Chelyabinsk is such a profitable place to do business are “excellent manufacturing capacity, natural resources, and good educational institutions” (Barry). In addition, one of the most important assets Chelyabinsk has as a location for business is its “pent-up demand for foreign goods,” which exists because Chelyabinsk was for so long a closed region with a closed economy (Barry). Despite its environmental dangers, Chelyabinsk remains home to the prosperous American Business Center to this day.

Do the benefits of doing business in Chelyabinsk outweigh the costs? According to the businessmen who work there, they do. I, however, think otherwise. Although the businessmen working in Chelyabinsk may be earning great profits, they are sacrificing their own freedom to explore. They must stay within the border of the small city so as not to risk radiation exposure by exploring the region around it. Although Chelyabinsk holds many business opportunities, I believe it needs to be cleaned up environmentally in order for it to really open its doors to international business and the international people who come with that business. Once the environmental mess in Chelyabinsk is cleaned up, it will become an even more profitable place to do business.

Despite the American business spirit in Chelyabinsk, there is not much being done to the clean up the environmental mess that nuclear waste has made there. In my opinion, there is not much hope for Chelyabinsk unless the people there start doing something to save their hometown. They have taken on an attitude of resigned acceptance when they should be taking on an attitude of action. For instance, when Hertsgaard visited Chelyabinsk, his driver Valodya told him, “We know not to expect things in Chelyabinsk” as if he had given up on any progress that could be made in the region (Earth Odyssey 155). Today, the attitude remains much the same as people there are selling and buying contaminated fish not realizing that even this seemingly insignificant thing contributes to their deteriorating health. Another group of people in Chelyabinsk “talk about changing course, but rarely do so” (Earth Odyssey 289). In fact, the owners of the Mayak complex that dumps waste into Lake Karachay have “pledged to stop the practice by 2011,” but they are once again making promises for the future, not for the present. In order for change to happen in Chelyabinsk, people have to act today. Hertsgaard claims “the more time that passes without taking action…the harder it will be to change course,” and this holds true for Chelyabinsk today (Earth Odyssey 12). Putting off problems until 2011 is not a solution for the situation in Chelyabinsk; the people must act now in order to change the outcome because the environmental situation has not gotten significantly better there despite some changes to the city itself.

Unfortunately, the environmental situation in Chelyabinsk has not gotten much better over the past two decades despite the development of a business sector in the main city. My father, who was born in Chelyabinsk, suffers with lung problems to this day, most likely as a result of his exposure to radiation as a child raised there. Fortunately, according to my father, his family was well-off enough of having the choice to stay or go, and they chose to stay; however, they moved to Moscow shortly after in search of more business opportunities (Tyuterev). I, for one, would not want to live in Chelyabinsk, my family’s home town, if I had the choice. Perhaps a short visit there would be a great idea because the exposure to radiation would short and the trip worthwhile. Since I’m considering a career in business, I would not agree to be sent to Chelyabinsk with a company until the situation there had improved significantly. Unless people act quickly, the situation may not improve. As Hertsgaard writes, “Meanwhile, the clock ticks” (Earth Odyssey 289).

My Thoughts: This was my last assignment in my Honors course. Since Chelyabinsk has such strong personal resonance with me, I put a lot of effort into the research work I did for this particular project, and I think that shows in my essay! Since I have learned to be a better researcher, I have also learned to be a better writer by incorporating that research into the points I make in my essay. I feel that I did a good job with the introduction and conclusion (essay parts I always had trouble with in high school) by really coming full circle to finish off my paper. Now, introductions and conclusions are not as scary as they appeared. This is a totally different writing style from my in-class essays. In the in-class essays, I can only really lay out my evidence and my thoughts about that evidence. Here, I can really use my resources in order to argue the points I want to make. It is for this reason that I enjoy out-of-class assignments a lot more than in-class essays: there is a lot more room to make my personal opinion clear and evident. I feel that my writing has come a long way in this class, thanks to Dr. Scott Lankford who perfected the Top Ten Tips packet - a lifesaver for all writers!

Works Cited

Barry, Doug. "Once a Closed City with Secrets to Hide, Chelyabinsk Opens for Business." Business America Aug.-Sept. 1998. Infotrac. Foothill College. 20 Mar. 2007 .

Hertsgaard, Mark. Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future. New York City: Broadway Books, 1998.

Hertsgaard, Mark. "Return to Chelyabinsk." The Nation 13 Nov. 2006. 18 Mar. 2007 .

Kaltofen, Marco, and Sergey Pashenko. Nongovernmental Monitoring and Technical Assessment of Past, Present, and Future Techa River Radiation. 2006. 22 Mar. 2007 .

Tyuterev, Aleksandr I. Telephone interview. 13 Mar. 2007.

Zarakhovich, Yuri. "Poisoned Waters: the Lakes of the Chelyabinsk Region are Swirling with Nuclear Waste. So Why are People Still Eating the Fish? a Case Study in Russian Dysfunction." Time International 19 May 2003. Infotrac. Foothill College. 18 Mar. 2007 .