ES101 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

BLUE VINYL VIDEO

Name: ______

Answer the following questions and turn in one week from today in lecture. Be certain to base your arguments on evidence where appropriate.

  1. This movie promotes a life cycle analysis or “cradle to grave” or “life cycle” analysis of products that we use. In other words, the environmental impact of a product should be considered for the entire process of making, using, and discarding a product. PVC in its final form is fairly non-toxic unless it catches on fire, but it has many negative impacts throughout its life cycle. Go to then to PVC Facts + Info, then to Vinyl + PVC lifecycle. Read about the lifecycle of PVC by clicking on the drawings on the right. Do you think all products that we use should be analyzed in this way? Why or why not? Have you ever thought about where the things you use come from before?

  1. Lake Charles, Louisiana is the “Vinyl Capital of the World.” What socioeconomic group do you think lives in Lake Charles? What socioeconomic group do you think works in the factories? How did you come to this conclusion based on what you know about environmental justice?
  1. According to the movie, the Vinyl Institute was formed to “protect and promote vinyl.” Go to and read more about vinyl. What products with vinyl have you been in contact with today? List these below.

  1. There were many experts in the movie, from The Vinyl Institute, Greenpeace, National Institutes of Health, etc. Which experts gave “good” evidence that strengthened their claims? Describe the claim and the evidence presented. Which experts did not convince you and why? How could these experts have strengthened their argument? What kind of biases may exist in these informational sources?
  1. Is it ethical to keep information about the health risks of products from the consumer? Do you think this practice is common or rare today? What leads you to believe this?

  1. When it comes to terrorism, the US currently has a “zero tolerance” policy, despite the fact that none to very few Americansdie each year from terrorism not related to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other foreign countries. With environmental hazards, we accept more risk, i.e. we allow some amount of deaths due to environmental toxins. Do you think we should approach both problems (terrorism and environmental hazards) with zero tolerance? Why or why not? Is it ethical to approach them in different ways? How many Americans die each year of terrorism compared to environmental quality problems? Support your argument.

  1. One of the solutions put forth by this movie is the “consumer revolution.” In other words, we as consumers can change what types of materials are manufactured through what products we choose to buy. Would you buy a house made with vinyl siding? Why or why not?