LSP Environmental Studies Community Event Reports

The event that I attended on Monday, September 15th was Jim Marston’s lecture on “Solving Global Warming, Improving our economy”, sponsored by NYU law school and Environmental Law Society. The lecture was held at Vanderbilt Hall, Greenburg Lounge, from 6:00pm to 7:00pm. The speaker, Jim Marston is a former student at NYU School of Law and is currently a regional director of Environmental Defense Fund in Austin, Texas. In his lecture, Jim Marston alerted students to the seriousness of global warming, yet at the same time ensured possible ways of solving it. His lecture was overall activist in supporting Cap-and-Trade bill and explaining its role and effectiveness to both our environment and U.S. economy.

At the beginning of his lecture, Mr. Marston strongly stressed the importance of taking early actions in solving global warming. The later we face the problem, the greater cost we have to pay. The skeptics desperately tried to avoid confronting the issue first by saying, “it is not problematic”, and then later saying, “it is not human caused”. But as we all have looked at in class, global warming is a serious issue world-widely, and human activities certainly contributed to its result. Then the skeptics’ final argument is, “it is too costly”. Yet Jim Marston confuted their claim by saying that even with our current technology, without any innovations, we can reduce global warming effect by 40% by 2050. And the economic cost of doing it will be only pennies a day for all Americans. After the lecture, I went to the website of the Environmental Defense Fund, www.edf.org. There, it is explained more in detail. Yet the main point of the articles in the website is simply this: our actions to solve global warming will never hurt our economy.

Then he spent most of the second half of his lecture in explaining what Cap-and-Trade is and how it applies to solving global warming. To briefly explain what Cap-and-Trade is, it is the policy that stopped acid rain; Cap-and-Trade has a history of successfully stopping acid rain by cutting emissions of sulfur dioxide in 2002. Jim’s argument is that the same mechanism can be applied to cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, which is the most dreadful contributor of global warming. “Cap” limits the amount of carbon dioxide that each firm emits, and “Trade” gives incentives for companies that reduce CO2 emission by allowing them to sell margin of their allowances—the amount of carbon dioxide emission that is permitted to firms to emit—to companies which are not able to cut their emission amount. Mr. Marston believes that this policy would become a key solution to global warming because it will derive companies to CO2 emission significantly. Moreover, since companies can make profit from this, it would rather revitalize U.S. market economy.

Attending Mr. Jim’s lecture and hearing Law School students asking questions, I felt as if I was in the middle of the hottest debate on America’s current environmental, economic, and political issue. It is certainly one of the most critical issues that America deals with nowadays, and I could feel that just by listening Mr. Marston’s lecture and watching people debating. I didn’t realize how hard people try to stop global warming until then. Including Jim Marston, many people in the hall seemed so passionate in solving global warming by finding the most effective and least costly way. Certainly, solving global warming is “doable”, yet seemed more complex than I expected because its action affects web of different interests groups, firms and government institutions over vast areas of environmental, economic, and political issues. Because it is perplex, it seemed hard for people to make consensus.

However, hearing Jim Marston’s argument for Cap-and-Trade, I thought there is a hope for this nation to solve global warming without hurting the economy. Today, global warming is a serious environmental problem, and people can no longer ignore it simply by covering their eyes as if they do not see anything problematic. The situation will never be the same. As time passes, it will either get better or worse. That means, we have to take an action as early as possible to reduce the cost of cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. To me, Cap-and-Trade is indeed a clever scheme because it reduces both the cost and amount of carbon dioxide emissions by encouraging companies’ market competitions. If companies are clever enough, they would innovate their systems to cut CO2 emissions and make profits by selling their allowances. With Cap-and-Trade, companies will lose their excuses of facing it after all.

Mr. Marston’s lecture encouraged me to re-examine the issues of global warming. Before I attended the lecture, I thought that the issue of solving global warming is mere text book knowledge, and it is only real and urgent to some radical environmentalists; at least, it wasn’t urgent to me at all. Now it became more real to me. It’s quite a shameful to say this, but before I heard this lecture, I might have been one of the most extravagant electricity users in the nation. I never turn off lights when I’m out! But after hearing Jim Marston’s lecture, my daily usage of electricity has changed completely. I also started to seek ways to participate in reducing electricity so help those people who earnestly endeavoring to solve global warming. I believe that individual’s small participations will certainly make changes. So I decided to encourage people around me to pay attention to it and be aware of its seriousness.

I attended this event because I had to—of course I had some interests in it, that’s why I went to, but not as much as now I do. Yet after I attended it, this event became more meaningful than a mere class exercise to me; it opened my eyes to see what’s going on in our environment. I was simply amazed how one-hour-long short event has changed my perspectives and thoughts on global warming and environmental issues. I didn’t get a chance to meet Mr. Marston in person, but if I get to see him in different time, I would definitely say thank you to him for wakening me up on the issues of global warming.

Website to Environmental Defense Fund : www.edf.org
Youtube video on Cap-and-Trade policy, CNN :http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=eKtmvnCFFjs

Classmates, I pasted my review of Michael Reynolds insightful documentary "Garbage Warriors" here. Please let me know your thoughts.

Daniel

Daniel Bloch Jeydel
September 27, 2008
Environmental Studies
Professor Leah Schwartz

Review of Community Event: Garbage Warriors

On September 26, 2008 the documentary “Garbage Warrior” (2007) was shown at NYU Wagner’s Urban Planning Institute. The International Public Service Association and the Urban Planning Student Association sponsored this screening. The screening was casual with about twenty graduate students in a conference room snacking on grapes and popcorn. The tone of the event was intellectual with students critiquing the proposals of the piece and jovial as the film delivered, at times, many very funny comments on the coming together of American architecture with the present and future conditions of the environment.
“Garbage Warriors” focuses on the convictions of an environmentally progressive architect, Michael Reynolds, and his thirty-year journey to try to promote sustainable housing in New Mexico and around the world. The documentary chronicles the challenges that Reynolds has encountered for the design of his EarthShips, which are self-sufficient houses that do not need to be on electrical, sewage or water grids, and his efforts to popularize such a daring approach in the context of building and house construction. The film focuses on Reynolds’ steadfast belief that contemporary architecture is antediluvian and is not “directing us in a way that is sustainable.” Reynolds maintains the belief that the planet is running out of water, oil and energies and designs his structures in preparation of a near-apocalypse whereby everyone will need to be self-reliant in order to survive.
While his assessments for the future may be bleak, his designs certainly are inspiring. An EarthShip relies upon the warmth that can be stored by thermal mass and circulated throughout the space. As opposed to modern insulation techniques, Reynolds and his team use garbage (ranging from tires to mayonnaise jars) to firmly pack land that is able to retain heat year round. To add aesthetics to his projects, his ingenuity extends to his recycling of plastic bottles to make faux stained glass that often line the domes of his projects. While his structures are very unusual in terms of their designs, picture hippies living with the Jetsons, the Ships are able to function off the grid with very little costs. These Ships come included with irrigation so that one can cultivate gardens and raise animals all while using energies from the sun and wind to power the house into the 21st century.
The film takes a turn from happy adventures to serious problems as it chronicles a period that was very challenging for Reynolds. New Mexico sought to regulate the construction of EarthShips, and in doing so, to effectively shut Reynolds’ operation down. The state argued that some of the projects were unsafe, despite waivers being signed by residents that they accepted the dangers of “experimental housing”; while Reynolds believed that the utility companies that were against his endeavors, as it would put them out of business, propelled the blocks. While the truth probably lies in the middle, an important message from the movie is that it shows that environmentalists really have to be warriors to gain authority and to change a world that is so convinced in its established ways. Reynolds, raised as a Baptist, admires Noah who had the foresight to build an ark in the dessert, despite the fact that everyone in his community thought he was crazy. Needless to say, Noah war right to build that ark, and Reynolds is very sure that he is correct to fight for environmentally neutral houses around the world, regardless of their legality.
This was a new experience for me as I was placed in a room with architects, engineers and urban planners that were my senior by almost ten years. At the conclusion of the film, we all came back together and spoke about the legal problems that Reynolds encountered in New Mexico. I felt comfortable expressing my anger that Reynolds, whose projects are full of challenges in themselves, also had to fight against the government which should encourage ingenuity and not seek to suppress it. We also spoke about the practicality of having the EarthShips in New York City. While it makes sense now, I was surprised that these Ships would have a great deal of trouble in the island of Manhattan. For instance, I learned that the rainwater that the houses collect would not be drinkable in New York as the rain pulls down the smog and particulate matter that hovers over cities. In addition, the solar panels that the EarthShips rely on are in an exact ratio per Ship. Thus, the biggest issue for designing an EarthShip in NYC would be the issue of stacking the houses on top of one another and to have enough power from perhaps just 40 sq ft to energize several stories. Indeed, there are many challenges for bringing these designs to the city that never occurred to me.
Another focal point of the movie was that when Reynolds was prohibited to work in the United States, he left American and sought to aide the victims of the tsunami in the Bay of Bengal in 2004. In India, his designs were encouraged and adored by the hundreds of locals that built their own EarthShips by using local garbage and infusing them with Indian design. These houses allowed for drinking water, irrigation and shelter for large families without the disturbances of government regulation that, according to Reynolds, stymies progress. It is striking that a developing country would be able to embrace such progressive techniques, whereas in America, many cannot grasp the potentially dire circumstances that the world may be under in the near future. As a group, we reiterated our belief that all options must be put on the table for the sake of having comfortable and reasonably sustainable living situations for the sake of posterity and longevity. In a certain sense, this approach was very inspiring for all of us as we recognized the fact that those in the room do have the potential to improve architectural standards around the world.
The event certainly added value to the community as it enabled us, in a very casual setting, to study ingenuity and to appreciate the struggle that it takes in the 21st century to bring about needed change. The Wagner School film screenings are part of a series that focuses on environmentalism and urban planning and is certainly something that I highly recommend for those that want to think differently about the panoply of directions that we can pursue in what will be a decisive era for the environment.

Images:

Hoping to continue learning about the global water concern outside of the classroom, I attended a lecture at the NYU Kimmel Center at 6:20pm on Thursday, October 16th. Fred Pearce, the author of When the Rivers Run Dry: Water – The defining Crisis of he Twenty-First Century, was the speaker for the lecture and he gave a honest and direct address that began with topics in his book and expanded on to his other experiences and ideas. The event was held in a small room with chairs placed in a few rows for people to sit in, which contributed to an informal and relaxed atmosphere. There were about forty or so people in attendance and of that forty, it appeared that most were NYU students from a specific class related to the topic of the lecture. I sat in between two other attendees and, like myself, they were avidly taking notes on the multitude of information Pearce presented. The technological equipment in the room suffered some mishaps so Pearce had no choice but to give the lecture sans the guidance of his prepared PowerPoint presentation, which seemed like it was no sweat off his back since he knows the subject matter inside out. The lecture began with an academic and educational tone but by the end of it, Pearce transitioned into an activist tone that called for change around the world.

Before Pearce dove into the details and facts within his book, he began his lecture by saying, “I go and see first, and then I write. I write with heart and do not flinch at the moral questions that arise form the issues I research.” This quote immediately focused all of my attention on him and everything that he was about to discuss. Giving us a little background on his book, he said that it started out as journalistic footnotes when he continued to notice items in the media about different rivers around the world that are drying up. With a little motivation and research, he soon realized that these anecdotes about rivers drying up were not just local issues because, when combined, they signified a global change in rivers. Pearce then moved on to clarify that the amount of water we use in a day for bathing or around the house is not what is causing a human “footprint” on the world’s water resources, it is the amount of water we use to feed ourselves that is source of the water issue. To give us a better idea of how much water we use to grow and make certain foods he explained that to grow enough feed for enough cows to make a ¼ lb hamburger requires 3,000 gallons of water or 40 gallons of water to make enough bread for one sandwich or 65 gallons to make one glass of wine. Then he put himself up on the chopping board and told us that he had done the math and figured that he requires 100 gallons x his own bodyweight in water to feed and clothe himself every month. As he moved on from statistics, he introduced the simple fact that the human “water footprint” deserves to be a serious issue for western consumers because it is damaging the ability for drier countries to feed themselves. This led the lecture to the “virtual water” trade, which is the trade in “thirsty crops” (rice, wheat). The United States, the largest exporter of “virtual water,” exports 30 cubic-miles of “virtual water” for beef each year. Most countries in Europe, Japan, Egypt, Algeria and Jordan must import large amounts of “virtual water” because those countries cannot grow their own crops. If the “virtual water” trade did not exist, those countries would have wars over water. Moving on to look at the future, Pearce explained that although the Green Revolution was successful in making efficient use of land to grow more crops, its success is on borrowed time because it is highly inefficient with its use of water and the water supply will not last. So he posed the question, “What will we do?” He offers a few different possible solutions. For communities near a coastline, desalinization has become a feasible option but it does not help agriculture or poor countries. Building more damns is an option for poor countries but that also comes with environmental problems and the fact that a quarter of the world population now lives near river basins where all the water is already allocated; communities that can pay for water, get it and therefore, damns could become a source of conflict. Pearce is confident that, no matter what, there are two things that must happen: we must improve at catching rain where it falls and there must be a massive revolution in the way that we use water. We must eliminate the large amounts of water that is lost due to leaks in water systems in cities, we must refine ways to reduce water losses from evaporation in reservoirs and we must recycle wastewater. Pearce believes in the need for a “Blue Revolution” that changes the way that all people view and use water. More specifically, he believes that farmers, who are used to an abundance of water at their disposal to use to flood their crops, must stop wasting water with inefficient farming methods and need to utilize alternative ways to irrigate crops. He ends his lecture with the fact that a simple change in our attitude is the main fundamental change that is necessary and that working towards solving the water crisis is possible. We have the technology; we just need to take action. “We could manage without oil if we had to, but we cannot manage without water,” Pearce concludes with heart and resolve.

This was not the first lecture I have attended, but it was the first one with that sort of a close environment and small audience. It was also a new experience for me because of the activist tone of a primarily educational lecture. I tend to shy away from rallies, gatherings and speeches that prompt action or change so this lecture employed a nice bridge between looking at a subject academically and with a distinct call for change. Although I had a little background information on the topic of the global water crisis, I learned many new facts about places around the world that are suffering and coping with the demand for water. The Palestinians that live in the West Bank live in grave demand for more water because the Israelis will not allow them to sink more pumps into the ground to retrieve water that the Israelis want to keep for their own communities. The Israeli compounds in the West Bank look Western with swimming pools and sprinkler systems while Palestinian farmers do not have enough water for their crops. The conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians have deep roots and go far beyond the dispute over water, but maybe a more equal distribution of water resources in that area between the two groups could help lead to a more peaceful existence for those in the West Bank. Another place with the need for water resulting in dire consequences is Uzbekistan in Central Asia but Americans do not hear much about it because they have been our ally in “The War on Terror.” Uzbekistan was converted into a country that consists of large cotton fields and cotton is a crop that requires enormous amounts of water to grow. The Aral Sea, which the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya used to flow into before the Soviet Union diverted them for irrigation purposes, began to dry up and now you must walk 60 miles to see any sea. This lead to a climate change in the surrounding areas and huge dust storms began to take place. The leftover salt made its way into the environment and caused many people to develop anemia. In Bangladesh, they began to pump underground water to give people and it ended up killing them because of high levels of arsenic in the water. The largest network of irrigation canals, located in India and built by the British, now has many dry canals. In the past 10 years, more than 20 million Indian farmers are drilling to get water and although this is effective, the water is now hundreds of meters below ground instead of it being just a few meters below. Learning about all of these places around that world that are suffering because of water shortages in so many different ways has significantly increased my interest in the global water crisis. The lecture discussed important and grave issues that are ongoing and also what will happen in the future if nothing is done to aid our drying rivers. This shows the great value it has to our community because it outlines an issue and offers multiple solutions and some so simple that every person can use them to help the future of the global community. The lecture was based off of the book that Pearce had written and although the lecture was articulate and informative, I think that promoting more people to read the book will help reach larger audiences that can take the information and help to start working towards the changes necessary to support our world.
The brief description of the event is what initially caught my interest and prompted me to attend this lecture but I was skeptical about whether or not it would be an engaging experience. I am happy to say that Fred Pearce is an excellent public speaker and he made it a captivating and enjoyable experience and I am glad that I chose his lecture for my community event. Lasting only a little over an hour, the lecture was a valuable way to spend a short amount of time learning from a man with firsthand knowledge on a serious issue that affects all people.

Photo of the Aral Sea in 1989 and in 2003:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/aral_sea_1989_2003.jpg

Photo of a dried up part of the Rio Grande River:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/elp/swww/v8n1/Dry%20Rio%20Grande%20&%20bridge%201.jpg

On October 29, 2008, I attended an event where Peter Young, an animal rights’ activist, told the story about his trial and imprisonment for his activism. This event was hosted in Vanderbilt Hall at N.Y.U. School of Law and was sponsored by the Environmental Law Society. It was an educational event for the general public, to raise awareness about the terrible acts committed against animals. Peter Young related all the details of his discovery of slaughterhouses in his hometown when he was young, the actions he took after this discovery, and the unjust repercussions he suffered for carrying out these actions. He was imprisoned for standing up for himself and his beliefs.
Before Young started his story, he presented a couple of slides showing the aftermaths of different animals that had been tortured and mutilated. These were extremely disturbing images. The two that stuck out the most was a monkey with several wires stuck into its brain, and a cat lying on a table with its stomach bleeding and its intestines spilling out. When Young flipped through these slides, everyone reacted with expressions and sounds of shock, disgust, and hurt. Many people gasped, including me. These images automatically made me feel angry at whoever was responsible for the torture of these animals.
Young began with his discovery of the chicken slaughterhouse in Seattle in 1997. His friend had been walking on the street when he stumbled across one, and he told Young. Young and his friend then both planned to break into this slaughterhouse. They saw chickens being grabbed and hung by their feet on a conveyor built, then slit at the throat. Young gathered a group of people, who were also activists, and broke into that slaughterhouse. They did not vandalize that slaughterhouse, rather, they removed and discarded all the tools in it that were used to kill the animals. Young and his friend also found other slaughterhouses. He stated that they could even smell rats, dogs, and rabbits from the outside of these slaughterhouses. From that day on, Young and his friends felt that they had an obligation to find out where the trucks that dropped off these animals to the slaughterhouses had come from. Young and his friend followed these trucks in their car to downtown Seattle, where they discovered several fur farms. Young and his group released at least 8,000 minks and foxes from these fur farms.
However, in 1998, when Young and his friend were in Young’s car, they were pulled over by the police. The police received a search warrant and searched their car. They found evidence that showed Young and his friend were responsible for the release of those minks. Following the search, Young was charged with four counts of extortion and two counts of animal rights enterprise terrorism. Young fled, though, and was in hiding for seven years. Young stated that the government considered him a federal fugitive. However, in 2005, Young was found and arrested. He was sent to two years of federal prison. After he had served his two years, he was released.
Young ended his story with the emotions he felt after being released from prison. He said that while he was in prison, he did the math on how many mink he had saved, and how of those minks he released had been recaptured. He saved at least 8,000 minks. The way he looked at the whole situation was: for every mink he saved, he served ten hours of prison for it. He felt honored to “have given so little to get so much.” By “so much,” he meant that he received the feeling of happiness and pride for having saved so many minks. He looked at his rescue mission as something that he would never take back. Young stressed that when he saw five or six chickens packed into small cages in filth and darkness and pigs that could not even turn around in their metal crates, he knew that he wanted to act quickly. Young told us that there are numerous labs and slaughterhouses in the nation, even in NYC, that are all in secrecy. The people working in these places know that what they are doing is wrong, hence their decision to keep these places in secrecy.
Young concluded on a personal note. He stated that he is disappointed by the lack of human care for animal rights. He said that even though people know that animals are being tortured and tested inhumanely daily, no one does anything about it. People may write essays and letters concerning this topic, but that does not compare to actually going out and lobbying. The difference between fighting on paper and fighting in reality is that when one investigate in person, he or she actually sees what he is fighting for. He advises activists to not just know what they are fighting for, but to see it first-hand. What he had seen in the past motivated all his efforts. In his conclusion, he also told us that we should consider turning vegan, as he has been vegan for fourteen years. At least by doing so, we would not be the reason for the mass-slaughtering of animals.
The part I liked best was the ways in which Peter advised people to become active about animal rights. He said that if you are dedicated to what you are fighting for, you need to win in mass numbers. He encouraged people to encourage others to show a sense of concern and care. He said that although it is cliché, “one person can make a difference.” It only takes one person to record what goes on in a lab or slaughterhouse and expose it to the media. He finally said, “don’t just get upset when you see photos, get angry and do something.”
Overall, I enjoyed listening to Peter Young’s story since I am also an animal-lover. I learned the elaborate details on a story about a young man who actively fought for animal rights, something is passionate about. What Young did amazed me; I never even realized just how possible it was for one person to free so many minks. I am now interested in participating in a one-day project that helps or allows people to interact with animals. I know this event definitely touched the audience, since it touched me. I am sure at least one person in the audience must have also felt inspired to engage in some kind of beneficial act towards animals after attending this event. Attending this event was a worthwhile experience.

Sha Ni
October 31st 2008
Environmental Studies
C.E #2
Animal Protection
I went to a speech of Peter Young on Wednesday, October 29th. It is about Peter’s experience resisting injustice. The speech was held in Vanderbilt Hall in NYU School of Law from 7:00 pm to 8:45 pm in room 216. Peter Young is the animal rights activist and he is the first person accused as Animal Enterprise Terrorism. The NYU Student Animal Legal Defense Fund, NYU Environmental Law Society, Students for Education on Animal Liberation, and the Pace Law School Student Animal Legal Defense Fund sponsored this speech. This is more like an activist.
First of all, Peter Young showed a few pictures about animal experiments. Those pictures were terrible; doing those experiment hurt cats, monkeys. Peter declared that those experiments are the broken of law, and those are so cruel for animals. Then Peter told that at the beginning he thought it was so abstract when people talking about animal experiment. However, when first seeing the birds’ killing in his neighborhood, he was shocked. This blew his mind; Peter started to care about animal and animal abuse in Washington. Once he was in the library, Peter found a laboratory that priced every animal and visited there. Out of his surprise, he saw that 50 dogs in the building. He asked us what if seeing this situation, what is our response? Are we just tell them that is wrong and tell them do not do that again? He regards this animal experiment as a virtue problem.
Then Peter devotes himself into defending animal experiments affairs. He became an activism that tries to educate people not to abuse animals. Peter regarded his work as a very significant role in animal protection affairs. He asked us a question: “ If someone came to ask you a better life, what you are going to do?” Also, by seeing the terrible pictures that were shown at the beginning, Peter suggests that we should not only know it, but also see it. He appeals us to see the truth of animal abuse so that we may realize how serious it is clearly. Also, Peter shows that there are many animal experiments in New York City, and teaches us the way to define whether there is an animal experiment or not. If we look at the top of the building, at the top window, if window has gap, which means one, or two have no windows, that means there is a laboratory. Since being released from prison last year, Peter Young has raised awareness of the Green Scare – legal action by the United States government against radical environmentalist and animal rights activism by using the banner of anti-terrorism measures Even though Peter was arrested, he never feels shameful for his poisoning, he still obligates himself search online in order to check which place may have animal abuse. In Peter’s opinion, we are all animals, all of us should have a better, and it is so precious if everyone cares about animals, he emphasizes the power of one person has.
Nowadays, animal abuse becomes as a very serious problems. This kind of question impressed me a lot. We are all animals and we are all friends in the world. Animals need protecting Animals are natural resources but people have wasted all through our history. Animals have been killed by using their fur and feathers, using as food, using for sport, and simply because they were in the way. Thousands of kinds of animals have dead out from the earth forever. Hundreds more are on the danger list today. Many animals are about to die out. In the future, there is less and less diversities of animals appear all around the world.
The reason why should people care about animals is because we need animals, and also because once they are gone, there will never be any more. The ecological system will be destroyed; human beings will be threatened by the disappearing of animals. Animals are more than just beautiful or interesting. Animals are not only just a source of food., but also every animal has its own place and plays a significant role in the balance of nature. Any kinds of destroying of animals may emerge many problems. For example, when farmers killed large numbers of hawks, rats and mice destroyed the farmers’ stores of corn and grain. The reason why is because hawks eat rats and mice, with no hawks to keep down their numbers, the rats and mice multiplied quickly. The food chain requires us to protect the balance animals, which means, we need to protect them likes protecting our own lives.
Another vivid example that reflects the importance of animal protection: In February 2003, there was a very serious virus called SARS, which means Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. This virus spread across China, several provinces were infected. The cause of this virus is the overkilling of a kind of animal that has virus inside.
Also, there are many medical treatments and procedures have been developed from experiments on animals. Especially for medical testing. Since animals have so many features that are common with humans, they are used to test the safety and effectiveness of newly developed drugs when they want to have testing on small groups of patients. Medical teams practice new operating techniques such as transplants on animals. Without animal testing, many procedures or new drugs would be extremely unsafe.
But, animal testing is not virtual. Many people are concerned that animals are suffering unnecessarily and cruelly. A further point often raised against animal testing is that it is cruel. They do not believe that every new drug needs to be tested on animals, especially with the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models. They also are worried that many animal tests are ineffective, pointing out that any drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing. They particularly feel that animal testing should not be used for non-essential products such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced and more humane methods used.
Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. We need to make sure that the millions of animals who are used for testing new products are treated with the minimum of suffering. Although some animal testing may be unavoidable at present, treating our fellow creatures as mercifully as possible will demonstrate our humanity.
Luckily, some people are working to help save the animals. Some groups raise money to let people know about the problem. And they try to get the governments to pass laws protecting animals in danger. Quite a few countries have passed laws. These laws forbid the killing of any animal the danger list. Slowly, the number of some animals in danger is growing.

On December 3 the Wagner Environmental Policy and Action (WEPA) group sponsored an intimate roundtable event at the Wagner School in the Puck building. The event entitled “Careers in the Environment” was a discussion moderated by Jeremy Friedman who is the head of the NYU Sustainability task-force program. Friedman, a recent graduate himself, interviewed four alums all of whom have different careers but are united by an NYU diploma and an interest in the environment. About 25 students ranging from undergraduate to graduate attended the event. The tone was very didactic with all of the students eager to learn more about the transition from the classroom to the work place and to think of clever options for a relatively new field.
The four speakers ranged in age and occupation. Meredith Bergmann, who is a partner at a media solutions company, advises film and television companies on how to operate more sustainability. Les Judd, the founder of Green Boroughs, spoke at length about his various jobs and his most recent work for Green Boroughs which he hopes will develop into a database that ranks the “green-ness” of NYC based companies. Joshua Klainberg, the youngest of the panel, discussed his work for the New York League of Conservation Voters and his endeavors to “educate, evaluate and endorse” candidates in state-elections and to lobby for environmental reform. Finally, Samantha Macbride addressed the students about her work as the Deputy Director for Recycling at the Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling for the NYC Department of Sanitation. Indeed, Wagner went all out for this event by having such notable alums speak to the students in such a comfortable setting as a large conference room.
(The Moderator, Jeremy Friedman)
The job that interested me most was Ms. Bergmann’s who gave examples about the struggles to produce movies and television shows sustainably within a hectic city and with important bottom-lines. For Ms. Bergmann, there are short-term and long-term projects that she has worked on, most recently for NBC/Universal. While advising Saturday Night Live she proposed a switch to biodegradable paints, LED lighting and foods to be served that were made locally as to reduce the transportation emissions. For the long-term, she explained to us that SNL builds its stages in New Jersey and then brings them into the city. She is working on ways to recycle SNL’s sets and to find a place closer to the studios in order to make SNL greener. She urged us to follow our passions and to remember that there is absolutely anything that can be related to the environment as long as you use a bit of imagination and think about what you learned while studying at NYU.
The panelists asked each other questions about their jobs and then the students were permitted to ask the panelists anything. This interaction was helpful so that we could direct the panelists towards the areas that we had particular questions about. When asked about the longevity and safety of environmental work within a corporate or public world, the panelists all agreed that environmental jobs are quite safe, especially compared to jobs on Wall Street. Given that environmentalism as a career path is quite new, all of the panelists concurred that the industry is only beginning to grow and is nowhere near maturity. This optimism was very encouraging. In addition, the panelists also agreed that because environmental jobs are so often uncharted, one has the option to be an entrepreneur and to create his or her own profession with the environment in mind. Indeed the moderator, who helped to create the task force for NYU’s sustainability while he was still a student, was able to create a project for academic credit into an occupation that in his words has already “reduced electricity consumption by 10,000 times my life’s consumption.”
New York City was certainly suggested as an ideal starting point for urban environmentalism, but Ms. Macbride proposed that students also consider jobs in Washington. According to Macbride, years of environmental reforms have recently been revoked by the present administration. She urged us all to lobby for increased federal laws and mandates for the environment in order to keep the ball rolling towards sustainability at home and eventually abroad by example.
While I was not surprised to hear of such success from fellow Violets, I was reassured to know that there are still opportunities to improve the environment and to run a profitable and healthy business. This was my second Wagner sponsored event. The first, a screening and discussion of “Garbage Warriors” was enjoyable but this event was practical. Apparently this event happens every year (this years had the highest attendance yet) and helped to demystify the confounding job world while also giving something for students to aim for. While I may not be able to fit environmental studies into my schedule next year, some of the panelists studied business at NYU and were able to parlay their knowledge into sustainable development. I really have no criticisms of the event. With the exception of booking a larger room, everything about it was great. They even provided some snacks!
This event offered a light at the end of the tunnel and introduced me to the environmental job world of the 21st century. I was very impressed that each panelist offered their business card and suggested that we call them anytime for basic questions and to apply for interviews to numerous different organizations. It would be interesting to have an event like this for students who studied Environmental Studies or other science courses at LSP/GSP who have since graduated and to have them come back and speak to us in a similar format. It is so important, especially in the midst of exams, to have encouragement that there is opportunity to be had and that with an NYU sciences focus there are particularly compelling and beneficial options in the years ahead.

(Samantha MacBride (MPA '96)

On December 3 the Wagner Environmental Policy and Action (WEPA) group sponsored an intimate roundtable event at the Wagner School in the Puck building. The event entitled “Careers in the Environment” was a discussion moderated by Jeremy Friedman who is the head of the NYU Sustainability task-force program. Friedman, a recent graduate himself, interviewed four alums all of whom have different careers but are united by an NYU diploma and an interest in the environment. About 25 students ranging from undergraduate to graduate attended the event. The tone was very didactic with all of the students eager to learn more about the transition from the classroom to the work place and to think of clever options for a relatively new field.
The four speakers ranged in age and occupation. Meredith Bergmann, who is a partner at a media solutions company, advises film and television companies on how to operate more sustainability. Les Judd, the founder of Green Boroughs, spoke at length about his various jobs and his most recent work for Green Boroughs which he hopes will develop into a database that ranks the “green-ness” of NYC based companies. Joshua Klainberg, the youngest of the panel, discussed his work for the New York League of Conservation Voters and his endeavors to “educate, evaluate and endorse” candidates in state-elections and to lobby for environmental reform. Finally, Samantha Macbride addressed the students about her work as the Deputy Director for Recycling at the Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling for the NYC Department of Sanitation. Indeed, Wagner went all out for this event by having such notable alums speak to the students in such a comfortable setting as a large conference room.
(The Moderator, Jeremy Friedman)
The job that interested me most was Ms. Bergmann’s who gave examples about the struggles to produce movies and television shows sustainably within a hectic city and with important bottom-lines. For Ms. Bergmann, there are short-term and long-term projects that she has worked on, most recently for NBC/Universal. While advising Saturday Night Live she proposed a switch to biodegradable paints, LED lighting and foods to be served that were made locally as to reduce the transportation emissions. For the long-term, she explained to us that SNL builds its stages in New Jersey and then brings them into the city. She is working on ways to recycle SNL’s sets and to find a place closer to the studios in order to make SNL greener. She urged us to follow our passions and to remember that there is absolutely anything that can be related to the environment as long as you use a bit of imagination and think about what you learned while studying at NYU.
The panelists asked each other questions about their jobs and then the students were permitted to ask the panelists anything. This interaction was helpful so that we could direct the panelists towards the areas that we had particular questions about. When asked about the longevity and safety of environmental work within a corporate or public world, the panelists all agreed that environmental jobs are quite safe, especially compared to jobs on Wall Street. Given that environmentalism as a career path is quite new, all of the panelists concurred that the industry is only beginning to grow and is nowhere near maturity. This optimism was very encouraging. In addition, the panelists also agreed that because environmental jobs are so often uncharted, one has the option to be an entrepreneur and to create his or her own profession with the environment in mind. Indeed the moderator, who helped to create the task force for NYU’s sustainability while he was still a student, was able to create a project for academic credit into an occupation that in his words has already “reduced electricity consumption by 10,000 times my life’s consumption.”
New York City was certainly suggested as an ideal starting point for urban environmentalism, but Ms. Macbride proposed that students also consider jobs in Washington. According to Macbride, years of environmental reforms have recently been revoked by the present administration. She urged us all to lobby for increased federal laws and mandates for the environment in order to keep the ball rolling towards sustainability at home and eventually abroad by example.
While I was not surprised to hear of such success from fellow Violets, I was reassured to know that there are still opportunities to improve the environment and to run a profitable and healthy business. This was my second Wagner sponsored event. The first, a screening and discussion of “Garbage Warriors” was enjoyable but this event was practical. Apparently this event happens every year (this years had the highest attendance yet) and helped to demystify the confounding job world while also giving something for students to aim for. While I may not be able to fit environmental studies into my schedule next year, some of the panelists studied business at NYU and were able to parlay their knowledge into sustainable development. I really have no criticisms of the event. With the exception of booking a larger room, everything about it was great. They even provided some snacks!
This event offered a light at the end of the tunnel and introduced me to the environmental job world of the 21st century. I was very impressed that each panelist offered their business card and suggested that we call them anytime for basic questions and to apply for interviews to numerous different organizations. It would be interesting to have an event like this for students who studied Environmental Studies or other science courses at LSP/GSP who have since graduated and to have them come back and speak to us in a similar format. It is so important, especially in the midst of exams, to have encouragement that there is opportunity to be had and that with an NYU sciences focus there are particularly compelling and beneficial options in the years ahead.

(Samantha MacBride (MPA '96)

The event attended was a book reading/ discussion at Bluestockings, the radical bookstore and vegan café on Allen St. (between Stanton and Rivington), at 8 o’clock on Wednesday, December fourth. About forty or fifty people attended this event, the topic of which was acclaimed activist Van Jones’s new book, entitled The Green Collar Economy, How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems. Mr. Jones flew from Harvard University to speak at Bluestockings, apparently at the request of the owner of Bluestockings, who was a good friend of his.
Given the nature of the bookstore, the crowd attracted to the discussion was very much on the liberal side of the political spectrum, which helped contribute to the persuasive, passionate activist-like tone of the event. Jones’s focus on the current environmental/political state, as well as important theories within his book was received very well, and the audience seemed full of thoughtful discussion at the end of the hour and a half long speech.

Jones began by addressing the current economic crisis, and explained that with the ever-expanding force of globalization also come global problems. Wrenching economic changes are approaching, and require planning. On an optimistic note, Jones said, “Sometimes a breakdown can open the door for a breakthrough.” He acknowledged the fact that the floor had essentially been torn out from under our feet, but also pointed out that in many ways, i.e. technology and decreasing social oppression, the ceiling had also been torn away. “Will we fall or fly,” he asked, “now that the floor and ceiling have been torn away?”
The speaker then addressed the fallacies that he felt brought us here, and refused to place all the blame on the administration of the last eight years. Instead, he explained, we had to realize that the current economy’s problems could be traced back to at least thirty years ago. He pointed out also that the right wing movement of the nineties had a lot to do with our situation at present. The first of the three fallacies in economic policy over the last thirty years that he listed was that the US economy could survive solely off of consumption, which, he exclaimed, is not sustainable. The second was that Americans could survive on credit, rather than smart savings. That debt-ravaged economy, Jones pointed out, just crashed. The final fallacy, which he emphasized the most, was that America could survive based on environmental destruction, and not ecological restoration.
Jones then critiqued the current economy and its corrupt attempts at “going green” against the parameters of his ideal “green economy”. He pointed out that it has always been assumed “green living” was only for an elite group of people who could afford to spend extra money on environmentally friendly lifestyles. Jones contrarily stated that because of its sustainability, the “green economy” will be “the only part of the economy that will survive in light of this catastrophe”. Jones then called out “dirty greens”, or powerful administrators in green businesses who have become corrupt, as well as the process of political green-washing, whereby parties feign concern about the environment, while emissions continue to go up. Again, on a more positive note Jones assured us that, “We are now having the right conversation.” The environment has become a moral, political, and economic problem, as evidenced by the fact that President-elect Obama plans on putting 150 billion dollars towards solving environmental issues and creating 5 million green jobs by 2012.
On this note, Jones began to merge the environmental and economic crises by explaining the endless amount of new jobs available in a green economy. “We want eco-equity, not eco-apartheid,” he explained. He then asked how we could make sure this movement will be effective. The answer offered: cities. Poor, less energy-efficient homes must be improved first. “Everything for the environment can be a job…nothing can be done without labor,” declared Jones. In discussing a new green economy and its many elements, he warned his audience about corporate corruption and an eco-fascist economy.
The speaker then began a description of his ideal “Green Collar Economy”, which, he explained, addresses pathways to progressive living. There will be a place for the impoverished in this new economy, Jones assured us. He passionately declared that we must get off the path from resource wars and clean up. No longer can we dismiss this issue, he said. “We must all respect and honor the Earth.”
The speaker then brought up a green energy grid, called in his book the National Smart Energy Grid, which would connect clean energy power centers to population centers. Not only could energy be brought to people, but people could also add to the energy available by installing solar panels or wind turbines on their property.
Interestingly, after passionately supporting the idea of a green energy grid, Jones declared that it would be “necessary, but radically insufficient”. He explained that if all we do is change our source of energy, we will have the same problems, but solar powered, and we will essentially cook the planet. We mustn’t only treat symptoms of this problem, he implored, but must breakdown and rebuild to be green everything we can in our society.

Attending a discussion of this sort outside of school was a new, and fascinating experience for me. The venue was small enough that the mood was very intimate, rather than a lecture hall that elicits an impersonal feeling. I feel that this added to the impact Dr. Jones’s speech had on the audience. It is especially important when talking about such a vast issue that it doesn’t seem overwhelmingly large and out of our hands. From listening passively to the audience’s chatter after the speech I gathered that I wasn’t alone in my feeling of empowerment with regard to this issue.
Besides specific details about the Green Collar Economy (which I am learning more of from the copy of the book I purchased) I was left with something that I feel is infinitely more valuable, and that is the confidence that we simply will change our way of living. We must. As much as learning about environmental issues in class drives home the fact that we have to change, and have to do it now, the amount of information can get a little overwhelming, and disheartening. This discussion, I feel, was an excellent supplement to class, seeing as it was more personal, and because it wasn’t an academic environment, I suppose Jones could take some creative license in his delivery of the information. I therefore left feeling significant, and in a way powerful, for it is we, after all, who will be making the change happen.
I think the event had great value to the community, and I hope that Mr. Jones remains in New York for a while to speak at other venues of this type. I would say that he should increase the size of his audience to better reach the community, but I feel that speaking to a larger audience would in a way dilute his message. I would hope that his audiences stay this size and just become more frequent. The event definitely had a positive impact on everyone involved, and seemed very successful in informing and inspiring people to take action against the destruction of our planet.

Overall I was very happy with my experience at this event and found it extremely worthwhile. Seeing as Bluestockings has events almost every night, I will definitely pay more attention to their events calendar in the future, in hopes that there will be other discussions about the environment soon. I also plan to finish Mr. Jones’s book over Winter Break, so as to fully understand his arguments.

Wind Turbines on a Wind Farm

Uses of Solar Panels

By Melissa Aragon
For this report, I traveled about two thousand miles less than my first, and attended a lecture in the Environmental Studies building on campus. For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure, this building is located right next to a copy center. It’s an unmarked building whose lobby consists of a two by 3 foot area, a few stairs that wrap around the corner, and two elevators, that upon stepping in them seem about as reliable as the mineshaft they call an elevator at 10 Washington place. Running a little early, I pondered being safe and taking the stairs up, and possibly avoid yet another elevator disaster, which would have been my third of the week. Bad luck was following me, but I was adventurous. I pushed the “Up” button, the door opened, and I took a deep breath and stepped in and started my ascent.
I walked out of the elevator, thanked God that I made it and walked into the fat hallway they called the conference room, which was about 3 tables laid side-by-side, with a projected screen in the front, and a buffet in the back. As I always say, when there’s a lecture, vegetarian wraps and chocolate chip cookies better be involved. And they were. I would take the leap to say that this is the first time I have been to an event that offers only vegetarian selections. I happily yet awkwardly munched on my vegetable and cheese wrap while others around me were also ‘preparing’ themselves for the lecture. There were three other students in attendance, as well as what seemed like many of this professor’s colleagues, who happened to have offices along one side of the conference room as they traded out the hard chairs around the table with their own rolling and swiveling chairs.
After a man sitting a few people to my right introduced Professor Holland, he suggested we go around the table and introduce ourselves. There were about twenty people in attendance including myself and three other GSP students.
After our brief rendition of “Getting to Know You,” Professor Holland began what he had come there to do. We all sat quietly and attentively as we listened to this charismatic and well spoken professor first detail myths about global warming and its link to sea levels rising as well as the research he had done in Antarctica and Greenland.
His main ‘beef’ was with the media’s limited knowledge of the way in which climate change and global warming affect the rise of sea level. He is 90% convinced that warming is increasing due to green house gasses, but that only one third of ocean expansion should be blamed on heating.
An example he talked about, with the masses not fully aware of what is going on was when he talked about the Hockey Stick Controversy. While the sea level has risen 30 cm in the last 100 years, he still argues that this can not be seen as a trend but rather just a fact. From this fact, however, a government funded research group predicted that there is a potential for sea levels to quickly rise an average of 0.4 to 0.8 meters in the near future. When questioned about where these predictions came from, the researchers said they did not believe this prediction was correct, nor that a prediction can be made about the amount of rise sea level will have.
When asked why, in fact, they did make quantitative predictions about this topic; their response was that the government made them produce numbers, as it was some sort of policy.
He kept reiterating how with the science and technology now we can clearly make predictions as to what the Air temperature and air pressure will be 50 years from now, and there is worst case scenario and a best case which are included in these predictions, but predicting this cannot lead to the prediction of how high sea levels will rise as a result. There are too many variables that computer models cannot take into account, Holland states. It seems that the scientific community is split as to how global warming will affect the earth, and if we can ever predict and plan for the rise of the sea levels.
One way that Professor Holland investigated the water temperature during his research in Greenland was to drop a submarine probe into a hole of ice. This needed to be done from 500 meters above the drop site to ensure that it would work. The data gathered from this probe helped Holland and his team come to the conclusion that the Greenland shelf had a three degree C rise within the last six months, and that there was a deep quadratic dependence on temperature.
He went on some more, discussing his research in Antarctica, and what he found there, only went along with his discoveries in Greenland, and he ended his lecture with the final statement on his slide: “When and How much- not predictable. End of Story.”
This was an interesting lecture in the fact that I feel like I walked out of it knowing less about global warming and its effects. His lecture in one form or another said that the things you, as well as many other people read in articles of Time and Newsweek, and other publications that predict the rising of sea level in 2050 or any given date don’t know what they’re talking about. He debunked much of what society holds true and trusts as reliable fact.