"Japan Tsunami Debris Forecast Discussed by Scientists"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/japan-tsunami-debris_n_1305916.html

            This article about the long-term effects of the tsunami in Japan shows the inherently global nature of all environmental problems. Although the tsunami (which resulted from an earthquake) occurred almost a year ago, it continues to impact the environment, and its effects have had a farther geographic reach as more time has passed. The three to four million ton “soup” of debris that the tsunami created consists of varied waste containing everything from “lumber, fishing boats, and refrigerators” to cars and parts of demolished homes. The article indicates that of the three to four million tons that reached the ocean, one or two million tons is still floating in the Pacific, one to five percent of which may begin to pollute North America’s West coast.

            Though technology can help predicate what the effects of this sea-faring debris may be, the fact that the tons have greatly dispersed over thousands of miles of the Pacific defies tracking technology. The specious means by which North Americans in places such as Canada and Oregon have been attributing this newly found pollution on their coasts to Asia, therefore, lies in indicators such as labels bearing Japanese or Chinese characters.

            This article brings to light two issues: the problem of ‘placing blame’ for pollution and the implications of the nature of our environment as ‘global.’ If the debris, fishing buoys, and ‘Japanese’ paper and plastic products washing up on North America’s western coast are in fact a result of the migration of ocean pollution caused by the March 2011 Japanese tsunami, then the latter issue is at hand. It would imply and underscore the importance of caring about how countries across the globe handle the environmental impact of natural disasters. It would lead to seeing our environment always in a globally integrated light, and perhaps better consciousness about environmental practices we formally saw as not relevant to us.

            On the other hand, if the debris cannot be attributed to the tsunami, what does this say about our continent’s “blaming” of pollution on other countries? The video attached to this article includes a Canadian man talking about the pollution, and he presents an alternate cause apart from the cause that the article promotes: what if the debris is coming off of transatlantic ships bearing goods? Wouldn’t this indicate that it is a shared problem because of the mutual interaction and participation of free trade? In my opinion, the article takes a pretty neutral tone, and I do not mean to imply that it condemns the Japanese in any way. Rather, I think the article presents an opportunity to think about the interplay between natural disasters, the environment, and the agency of the people and states involved. Do you think this article is controversial? Objective? What do you make of rhetorical use of the images and videos showing the aftermath of the tsunami and subsequent pollution in Japan and its coast?