LSP Environmental Studies Community Event Reports

Event
Dr. Naomi Oreskes’ lecture: “The Denial of Global Warming” took place on
on Monday, Febraury 4th, 2008 at 6pm in the Silver Center’s Jurow Lecture Hall, and was sponsored by NYU’s Sustainability Task Force. Oreskes’ lecture was part of the Sustainability Task Force’s “Education for Sustainability Lecture Series” and appeared as the third of four speakers throughout the academic year.

Dr. Naomi Oreskes
Dr. Naomi Oreskes is an accomplished historian and scientist and a published author, whose research regarding global warming was utilized in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dr. Oreskes is currently a professor at UCSD, and was previously a professor at NYU.


NYU’s Sustainability Task Force
The Sustainability Task Force is a university advisory body comprised of faculty, students, and staff, who are striving to improve NYU’s environmental footprint. In addition to bringing awareness to students on campus through a lecture series, the Sustainability Task Force also aims to instigate changes around campus in order to lessen NYU’s energy and resource consumption.

Global Warming Awareness
Dr. Oreskes began her lecture by discussing the current beliefs about Global Warming. Over the past two years there has been an increase of the awareness of the American public about Global Warming. However, whilst the general consensus of the American public acknowledges the presence of Global Warming, it is still widely believed that there is disagreement and unrest amongst Scientists on the issue.

Global Warming: Fact, Fiction, and Political Mythology
Here, Oreskes shifted her focus to politics, displaying a recent document that encouraged Republican politicians to utilize the phrase ‘climate change’ in lieu of ‘Global Warming.’ This devisive choice of words, was stated to be used by public figures in order to make it a less ‘scary’ topic to the public. The document also urged politicians to emphasize the lack of ‘consensus’ within the scientific community about the topic of Global Warming. By doing this, Oreskes argued, politicians have been deliberately confusing the public on a matter that has been common knowledge within the scientific community for decades.


The History Of Global Warming Awareness
From here, Oreskes then systematically discredited the argument of the supposed lack of ‘consensus’ by chronologically exploring the scientific research in regards to Global Warming. Beginning in the 1930’s, Oreskes discussed the work past scientific figures such as G.S Callendor, Suess and Revelle, and Charles David Keeling, who all played their part in researching and developing ‘global warming’. From the IPCC’s reports in 1995 and 2001, to the Charney report of 1979, Oreskes emphasized how the scientific community is, and has been for quite some time, in agreement on the issue of Global Warming. Historically, the issue has called the attention of not only the scientific community, but also politicians, who enstated acts such as Senator Wirth’s ‘National Energy Policy Act of 1988,’ in order bolster the effort to conserve energy and reduce emissions

Why is there still the denial of global warming?
Oreskes then shifted her focus to explore the opposers of global warming, and discussed the establishment of foundations such as the Marshall Institute, which relentlessly attempts to discredit the ‘theories’ of Global Warming. These institutions, Oreskes claimed, were never set up to be based on fact or Scientific research, but as a forum to argue seemingly sound theories. Touching on historically proven theories such as the roles of CCF’s in the ozone depletion, and tobacco smoke and its link to cancer, Oreskes explained how some scientists utilize their prestige in order to relay their political ideologies. These scientists, such as the ones hired by tobacco companies to disprove its connection to lung cancer, are motivated not by money, but instead an ardent political ideology that adamantly disapproved of Government interference. By confusing the general public, these scientists hoped to delay Government interference in favor of a more ‘laissez-faire’ approach.

The Truth About Global Warming
Oreskes’ conclusion explained the reasons for the years of stagnancy that ensued following the discovery of Global Warming. The presence of Global Warming has not been debatable for about twenty years, but the public still believes that there is debate in the scientific community. Whilst, as a global community, we are becoming more aware, we must strive to be more well-informed on issues such as Global Warming. We must remain critical of politicians, scientists, and the motives that drive them; and seek to find the truth.

My Reflections
I had never been to an academic lecture, aside from those during class, and so the whole experience was new for me. I am aware of the political and environmental issues involved in global warming; however, Dr. Oreskes approach to the subject shed new light on the topic. Instead of attempting to prove the existence of Global Warming, Oreskes focused on what caused the confusion about its validity. Instead of focusing on the basic concepts of Global Warming, Oreskes provided another dimension that is not commonly mentioned in the media. In particular, Oreskes’ lecture was interesting to me because I had never thought that Global Warming had been used as a political platform, and had read articles attempting to disprove global warming, naively believing them to be scientifically sound and with the purpose to inform the public. By doing this, I think that Oreskes managed to put a fresh spin on the topic, and did well in educating her audience about the evolution of the ‘Global Warming’ theory. In particular, I had no idea that Scientists had been researching the topic for so long, nor that it had been an accepted theory for as long as it had. Dr. Oreskes spoke with ease, and her presentation was witty, and represented her fluent knowledge of the topic. Whilst Jurow Hall provided an academic environment for the lecture, Oreskes’ maintained a level of informality that held her audience’s attention. Coming out of this lecture, not only did I feel like my understanding of Global Warming had been enriched, but I also am more aware to question the underlying motivation that drive politicians, scientists, and the media. I think that Dr. Oreskes succeeded in presenting another side to the Global Warming debate; and that it aided my understanding of the topic. Furthermore, I also think that the lecture was beneficial for the community as it provided information for the audience to utilize when reading about Global Warming. Instead of merely providing information, I think that Dr. Oreskes provided the audience with tools to help them become more educated and critical thinkers. By doing this, Dr. Oreskes achieved her goal, as she actively decreased the statistics she presented in her talk. Instead of being a statistic and believing that scientists are still 'debating' Global Warming, I think that Dr. Oreskes successfully disproved this widely-believed fallacy.
I think that this lecture was definitley relevant, interesting, and beneficial as a supplement to Environmental Studies. However, despite Dr. Oreskes' wit, I think that the lecture was too formal for me to attend otherwise, and I do not think that I would attend another lecture as such unless I was extremely interested in the subject. I think that the lecture could have been improved by other visual aids such as movie/ documentary excerpts relevant to her topic to bring the subject matter more to life.

Further Reading and Additional Information:
Dr. Oreskes’ Publications
“Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consesus on Climate Change” is available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Plate Tectonics: An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth (2003)
The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science (1999)
Perspectives on Geophysics, Special Issue of Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Oreskes’ work is also featured in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

NYU’s Sustainability Task Force:
http://www.nyu.edu/sustainability/
http://www.nyu.edu/sustainability/campus.projects/task.force.html

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:

Dan Bravato
Environmental Studies Open House

www.environment.as.nyu.edu

I attended the Environmental Studies program open house on Wednesday October 8th at 285 Mercer Street on the 9th floor. This address is the home of NYU’s Environmental Studies Program. The program was hosted by Christoper Schlottmann, the program coordinator, and was an open academic event for anyone interested in potentially coming into this field/major. I spoke with Dale Jamieson who is a member of the core faculty. Professor Jamieson teaches environment studies, philosophy, and law. He specializes in ethics and the environment and climate change. I spoke mostly about climate change and the 2008 presidential election with Professor Jamieson. He gave me insight into how the two perspective presidents feel about climate change in the United States and across the globe. The event was not a set up debate or conversation it was more of a chance to mingle and converse with the professors and other perspective students.
The event began with everyone enjoying some pizza and talking amongst themselves. Then Professor Jamieson started by introducing himself and then everyone in the room introduced themselves. This gave insight as to who was a professor, their specialty, and who the students were. After listening to everybody’s introductions I knew that I was interested in what Professor Jamieson had to say about climate change. I approached him and asked him if he could speak to me about climate change in comparison to the 2008 presidential election. He said that both candidates were educated and were interested in putting plans in to action to help it. He also mentioned that McCain was a supporter of the 1st ever bill on climate change but over the course of time Obama has begun to support it much more strongly than McCain. He said that McCain had somewhat backed off the subject and has moved on to other things. Professor Jamieson then went on to talk about how former US Presidents such as George W. Bush made promises in the realm of climate change but never followed through. More specifically Bush claimed he would work on the clean air act yet he never did anything with it. Jamieson continued to talk about current times and our candidates by alerting me that Palin, the GOP vice-presidential candidate, was a skeptic of climate change. He spoke more about how she has voted against it and has done nothing to better understand climate change. I then asked him about more specific issues such as global warming and the greenhouse effect. Professor Jamieson told me that climate change is the major problem and if nothing is done about it, that it will merely enhance all of the other problems. He went on to mention that climate change is a very pivotal issue and something must be done by our future President. After speaking with Professor Jamieson it seemed that I had the most knowledgeable source on climate change in the room. I then spoke briefly with some of the other people in the room but not on the subject of climate change and the 2008 election.

Professor Jamieson

I had never been to an event such as the Environmental Studies Program open house before. I have never been too interested in science, any field, for the majority of my life. I only took science classes when they were required throughout high school and the beginning of college. However, the more I learn about environmental studies, the more I believe everyone should be educated on the subject. It is a science that is going on right now that no one has an answer to. Anyone can study the elements, animals, biology and so on, but environmental studies are an unsolved problem that is effecting our generation. I think this event was a good way to get people to be more interested in environmental science, however it was on such a tiny scale. I think they need a very large event that gives students a chance to speak one on one with some of the top people in the environmental studies field. This was a good start, but there were only about 25 people at this event. I think there needs to be an event advertised to the whole university on a much larger scale. Our environmental problems are very vast and are a major problem for future generations, therefore those future generations need to be educated and aware of the problems, in order to potentially solve them. This event was so interesting to me because of how it was compared to a major issue that is going on right now, the election. It puts our environment into perspective and who is doing what to fix it right now. I also enjoyed that we as students were able to walk right up to any professor and initiate a conversation based on what we wanted to learn, rather than what the professor had to tell us based on curriculum. The ability for students to learn what they want to learn is crucial in figuring out what one is actually interested in. All and all, I think this event was a good start. However, it needs to be broadened and needs to reach the entire university. I think this also needs to be at every university, this is a problem that will affect our generation and future generations, therefore we need to be educated on it in order to fix it.
I enjoyed this experience because it forced me to do something that I would have never done otherwise. I ended up enjoying my experience and was educated on climate change and how to vote for a new president if that is one of my pivotal issues. I liked that I would never have had this experience if it was not for this assignment. It was a great experience to speak with Professor Jamieson and the other professors in the program. In the end, I think this was a very good experience and I look forward to my next current event.

Jeffrey Biel
Current Event 1
Enviro Studies

On Wednesday, October 8, 2008, I attended the Environmental Studies Program open house event at 295 Mercer at 5:00 PM. This event was held for prospective majors, as well as, anyone who might have an interest in pursuing a career in the field of Environmental Studies. When I first arrived at the open house, many of the professors from the program were walking around and introducing themselves to the guests. At first, the event was very informal which led to tremendous conversation between the guests and faculty. The core faculty from the program, Professors Dale Jamieson, Anne Rademacher and Tyler Volk, were all open to any questions and conversations that arose. After brief introductions, the professors allowed for a question and answer portion and then another opportunity to talk to any of the professors individually.

Although all the professors who attended were extremely interesting and knowledgeable, Professor Dale Jamieson proved to be the most conversant. Professor Jamieson is teaching Ethics and in the Environment this semester, but after learning that his specialty is the study of climate-change, I became particularly intrigued. We began to discuss climate-change and global warming and how each presidential candidate intends to deal with the issues. I believe that because of the economic turmoil, the war in Iraq, and the race and gender issues that have existed during this election period, many people have stopped being concerned with where the candidates stand on environmental issues, even though it is an enormous issue.

When asked which candidate would support the environment more, Professor Jamieson noted that either candidate would be better than the last eight years under George W. Bush. Between Obama and McCain, Obama appears to have a better plan to help the environment and reduce global warming, but as Professor Jamieson warned, it is unclear what a candidate will do once in the white house. Professor Jamieson reminded us that it was George Bush who ran for president supporting the Clear Air Act and then immediately renounced it once in office. Professor Jamieson also told us of the confusion that exists throughout the environmental studies field concerning where exactly Senator McCain stands on the environment. After looking at the websites of both candidates, Senator Obama has over nine pages dedicated to climate-change and the environment, while Senator McCain has one paragraph outlining his plan. Senator McCain’s lack of information on how he hopes to help the environment is particularly startling because of his past support for bettering the environment. Senator McCain was always a strong advocate for environmental needs as evident when he introduced the first ever climate-change legislation to congress in 2003 (although it was voted down by congress on two separate occasions).

Professor Jamieson also discussed the views of the vice presidential candidates. Joe Biden appears to support Obama’s views on the importance of reducing greenhouse gases and using government spending to improve the environment, while Sarah Palin is a known climate skeptic and could potentially hurt the McCain campaign as a result. Clearly the issue of the environment has not been on the forefront during this election, but any plans to help the environment, regardless of size or structure, would be an improvement from the Bush administration.

The professors and faculty of the program also discussed potential job opportunities that one could get with an Environmental Studies degree. Initially I thought that all Environmental Studies majors would have to continue to pursue a graduate degree in the field. Graduate programs are necessary if one hopes to pursue a career in an environmentally related field, such as biology, climate-change or programs in environmental policies. Although most undergraduates do continue to graduate school, it is not entirely necessary. I was even more surprised to learn that an Environmental Studies undergraduate degree can be used towards becoming a physician. Most pre-med majors I know will receive an undergraduate degree in biology or chemistry, but that is not completely necessary. Another career choice with an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies could be environmental law. As Professor Jamieson discussed, there is an enormous demand right now for lawyers that have a concentration in Environmental Studies.

Overall, I definitely enjoyed attending the Environmental Studies open house. Initially, I though that the open house was going to be boring and monotonous because I do not intend on majoring in Environmental Studies, but it actually turned into great discussion of topics that affect everyone, regardless of major. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation with the professors, I would have liked the program to be a little more structured. Many people were having extremely interesting conversations throughout the room and it was impossible to hear everyone’s individual conversations. Attending the open house was definitely beneficial and it opened my eyes to many new views and ideas concerning both the environment and the field of Environmental Studies.

The speech I went to was about how we as a global community are overusing water. Most of the available water is being used for crops. The speaker was Fred Pearce who authored the book "When the Rivers Run Dry" which is about the global water crisis. One of his main points was that in order to keep supplying the world with food we must change our habits.

calitreview.com/images/int_pearce.jpg

The biggest thing is going to be catching more of the available water. The easiest way to do this is to catch the rain water that falls on the roofs of houses. Also we must accept that people are going to have to start drinking sewage water that has been cleaned. The world is set up to allow for about 1,500 gallons per year through food, clothing, and personal consumption. Based on what he uses the average person in the US used 2,000. 500 more gallons than that is available. At the current rate by 2025 grain production will go down by one loaf of bread per week for every person on the planet, in the US this will not be a big deal but for people in other parts of the world this may be the only grains they get.

He said we need to have a blue revolution. Much like the green revolution that yielded more crops on the same amount of land we need to find a way to grow the same amount of crops with less water. Although the high yield crops feed the world they use more water than the supposed inefficient crops they replaced. So in order to keep feeding the world we must create more water efficient crops. One way he suggested was drip irrigation instead of the popular flooding irrigation used in many parts of the world. It is a big problem but unaddressed it could lead to harmful consequences as unlike the oil crisis we can not survive without water.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2145/1572659781_20e970ecfd.jpg

Sidra Farooqi
Community Event 1
Environmental Studies

On Tuesday, September 30th I attended a lecture on “Equitable Solutions of the Climate and Carbon Problem”, held in the Welcome Center on Gould Plaza. The event was a formal academic lecture and was open to the public, although for whatever reason, the majority of the audience was comprised of what appeared to be faculty and not students. The speaker for the event was Stephen W. Pacala, a professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton University, and Director of the Princeton Environmental Institute, which is Princeton University’s center for environmental education and research.

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/pei/index.html
Overall, the event was academic and informative; Dr. Pacala lectured on climate change and various methods to combat it and reduce carbon emissions, although he was frequently interrupted by an unidentified scientist in the front row who could not resist the urge to repeatedly jump up and correct Dr. Pacala on excruciatingly minor details, such as the particular month of the year when a survey was released, or the pronunciation of a fellow scientist’s surname. Despite these obnoxious interruptions, Dr. Pacala managed to deliver a lecture which I was pleasantly surprised to find was both educational and amusing – he made dull (or what I consider dull, I’m sure others find them highly exciting) topics interesting and related examples to our everyday lives.

Dr. Pacala began by listing the four excuses government officials, politicians, and the public have used in the past to justify lack of action to combat climate change – the first excuse is that climate change doesn’t exist, the second is that there is no technology available to prevent it, the third is that it is too expensive to combat climate change, and the fourth excuse is that there is no point in taking serious action until the biggest global carbon emitters are on board. He then went through the four excuses, explaining why each was unjustified.

First, he explained why there is ample reason to believe that global warming is a real threat and that climate change will negatively affect us; much of what Dr. Pacala spoke about was similar to what we learned in class, as he discussed greenhouse gases, and the rise in average temperature over the past few centuries, and why it was not a typical cyclical pattern, as many cynics believe. Then he explained how it is possible to use technology, such as solar panels, wind power, and solar electricity to fight global warming. Dr. Pacala did not deny that sometimes these technologies can be expensive; instead, he stressed that despite costs, they are necessary. He explained that because climate change becomes more threatening every year, the cost to prevent it grows more expensive every year – and so, it is best to act as soon as possible.

The last excuse he addressed was that no action should be taken until everyone, especially the largest carbon emitters, is on board; this excuse has been used recently by several government officials, including, I’m shocked to say, our very own President. Dr. Pacala explained that while it is true that nations such as China are larger emitters, it does not mean immediate action should not be taken. He explained that since nations such as China and India are developing countries, it is not fair to hinder their possible economic growth and thus endanger their people by forcing them to contribute money they may not be able to. His overall point was that radical decarbonization of emissions in wealthy nations is mandatory in the next half century, to both the planets’ well-being and the well-being of humanity.

His other main point was that conservation is simply not enough – if it were the only method used, and humans had a limit on their carbon emissions per capita, it would greatly hinder our lifestyle, because we would be forced to travel less and engage in minimal activities. Dr. Pacala also stated that he believed there is little difference between the energy policies of presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain, although Obama’s policies are slightly more environmentally beneficial. Also, McCain’s vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, is certainly not opposed to on-shore drilling, although Dr. Pacala pointed out that the oil in Alaska will last us a mere ten years. Therefore, serious government legislation is needed to outline a plan in the near future to combat climate change, in addition to research and development of alternative fuels.

Photo of a melting glacier: http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/meltingglaciers.jpg

Possible solutions: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t175/jcwinni/TARGET-GLOBAL-WARMING-3.jpg

While this was my first time attending an environmental lecture outside of class, it was not very different from the lectures I attend on a weekly basis; the professor lectured about the topic and gave us an opportunity to ask questions and respond to his statements. Although I initially
expected that the event would be tedious, Dr. Pacala managed to be both informative and entertaining, as he was knowledgeable and passionate about his subject. I was surprised by how much I learned and the information I still remember, although I didn’t write it all in my notes. What I found most interesting is that unlike many people who are highly concerned about the environment, Dr. Pacala didn’t lecture us on our personal behavior – not once did he talk about trading in our SUV’s for hybrids, or reducing our carbon footprints with far less travel. In fact, he stated that he dislikes environmental extremists who discourage humans from living very active lives, and insisted that while it is important to conserve, the time has come for us to turn our focus to the research and creation of new technologies.

What I learned about most is the new emerging technology of wind and solar power; although I’ve seen dozens of commercials depicting wind turbines and wind power plants, and have heard about the benefits of solar energy, Dr. Pacala detailed how wind and solar power is harnessed into energy and how it can be used as an alternative to other fuels which increase carbon emissions. Also, while I was previously familiar with consequences of climate change such as drought and the warming of the planet, I learned that the rise in sea level due to melting glaciers is now causing instable ocean circulation, leading to a rising intensity in tropical hurricanes. While I think the event was highly informative and successful, I think it would have been of greater value to the community had Dr. Pacala been able to lecture to a broader audience. The limited seating prevented more people from attending and I saw many people simply leave after being denied seats, although others stood in the back to attend the event.

Overall, I benefitted from the lecture and based on the fact that many stayed afterwards to ask questions and speak to Dr. Pacala, most of the audience did as well. Although I’m not an Environmental Studies major and don’t have a passion for science, I found myself genuinely interested. I’m involved in the Earth Matters club at NYU and while I regularly go to club meetings, I never attended any of the lectures or debates because I assumed they would be boring, but this event has given me a different perspective.

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

The event that I attended was the Environmental Studies open house. The open house was hosted by the environmental studies program and was lead by Christopher Schlottmann, the event coordinator for the program. This open house took place on October 8 at five O’clock inside 295 Mercer Street. The event had an academic tone to it. Most of the faculty and students who attended the event were focused on talking about the future of students in environmental studies and what their careers may be after graduating from the program.

The open house began with every person who attended introducing themselves to the group. There was an even assortment of professors, environmental students, prospective transfer students, and just people interested in environmental studies in general. Something interesting that I noticed about the faculty that attended the event was that a good number of them were teachers in other programs that used their expertise to teach an environmental class. For example, Shafer Smith, a math teacher who taught calculus 1 last year, taught a class that used math to understand climate. The professors were more than happy to answer any questions that students had for them; even one of the teachers who helped run the program, Professor Dale Jamieson, sat down and answered all the questions Dan, Jeff and I had for him even though we were only there on assignment for a class.

The experience I got from going to the open house was new and familiar at the same time. It was familiar because I have been to many open houses for all sorts of programs and events; however, I had never been to one where I discussed the topic of environmental science. I found the information I obtained from attending this event to be, not only interesting, but extremely relevant and important to our class and to our current society. While sitting down with Professor Jamieson, Dan, Jeff, and I asked him two major questions that we were interested in.

With the presidential election just around the corner, the first question we asked was, “in [his] opinion which of the two major presidential candidates would be a better selection from an environmental standpoint.” According to the professor, he said both nominees would probably be environmentally sound presidents, however, Jamieson claimed that voting for Senator Obama would be a much safer choice. He explained that Barack Obama would be a better president from an environmental standpoint, not because he had better policies on environmental issues, but because John McCain and Sarah Palin seem to be losing focus of these issues. Professor Jamieson said that recently McCain seems to be less supportive of many environmental issues he once stood for and Palin has recently questioned her belief that global warming is a serious issue, or if it even exists at all. I found this discussion extremely enlightening; with all the environmental problems that we have been discussing in class, like our planet’s issue with global warming, I will have to consider many more factors when deciding on which candidate to vote for. However, Professor Jamieson warned us that we should not put too much weight on either nominee’s environmental plans because there is no guarantee either one will follow through with what they say. He explained that the current president, George W. Bush, was a strong proponent for the Clean Air Act during his campaign, however, once he got into office he quickly shied away from it.

The other question we decided to ask Dale Jamieson was, “of all the different environmental problems facing our world today, such as global warming, climate change, over population, over production of agriculture, etc. what is the one issue [he] sees as the biggest problem facing the world today?” He stated that the issue he feared most was climate change because it was somewhat of an umbrella for all the issues facing our environment currently and in the future. Professor Jamieson said that many of the issues we have talked about in class are made worse by climate change. For example, he told us that although we are having agricultural problems now, this issue will be much worse when climate change around agricultural land causes that land not to be farmable; farmers will have to somehow move their farms to more suitable farmland, something that seems practically impossible to do at the moment. He went on to say the fundamental problem behind climate change is how people treat their environment. We all have to pitch in and do our part in order to sustain the world we live in. I found this incredibly interesting because it made me realize that everything I do has an affect on our world and that maybe I should start becoming more involved with helping take care of our environment.

The event I attended, although it may have seemed useless to the community and environment, actually had somewhat of an indirect impact on them. It was able to answer students’ questions about the program and the field of study in general, making some of them even more enthusiastic about the subject. These enthusiastic students may now have the drive to help solve or at least lessen some of the many problems facing the earth today. Overall, I feel the event was successful in explaining the environmental program and creating a community within its members. The only suggestion I would give to make the event even better would be to give more of an explanation about some of the courses each teacher taught; I was only able to find out about what kind of classes were offered through the program by going up to different teachers and asking them what they taught and what it was about.

Although I did not think I would enjoy attending an environmental open house, I am actually glad I went to it. Especially after talking to professor Jamieson, I realized just how important peoples’ effect on the environment truly is. This event has even intrigued me to possible take another environmental class in the future.

On Thursday, September 25th at 6:20 PM, I attended a 2-hour academic lecture that was part of the Climate and Water series at New York University’s Puck Building, with Daniel Hillel as the guest speaker. As the Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, Hillel proved that he was a valid speaker on preserving water resources throughout the world. He stimulated the audience after introducing his lecture as one that involves “perceptions of our environment,” by explaining that in his perspective, we are all droplets of water. The audience members laughed nervously and shifted in their seats, unsure of what to expect from this fragile, elderly man who hinted at his ability to turn on his x-ray vision. I realized that Hillel’s interpretation of water was drastically different than all of our opinions, as he proceeded to analyze the fundamental concepts of the free flowing substance in a scientific matter.

The main focus of this lecture was the use of water throughout various areas of the world, specifically the Middle East. Tracing the origins of this essential substance to the Fertile Crescent, Hillel reiterated the fact that water stems from the Bible and Koran. Also, other ancient texts by the Sumerians and Babylonians indicated that it was one of the most divine symbols of life, as human bodies are composed of 65% water. He threw out more fascinating statistics to catch our attention, attributing water to be responsible for 75% of our brains, 83% of our blood, 22% of our bones, 83% of our kidneys, and 76% of our muscles. Furthermore, Hillel explained some plans that were currently being carried out by governments in the Middle East in order to distribute water to their citizens. His smooth transitions from speaking about ancient to modern times ultimately showed us that he was one of the most qualified scholars on this topic.

Since the beginning of time, people in the rainfed region of the Fertile Crescent worshipped Bael, the god of rain. Mother Earth was also depicted as a goddess, fructifying crops and carrying water from her own essence to her people. Her natural cycle was considered a sexual mating of the sky and earth gods coming together to form one being. On the other hand, people of the pastoral domain worshipped animal gods, mainly because the humans relied on them for food and guidance. Hillel stated that “the Middle East was a transitional zone between maritime and desert climates.” People from both the rainfed and pastoral regions realized that their rapid attempts at agriculture triggered desertification of their precious land through the forms of sheet, rill, and gully erosion. Reversing the harmful effects of erosion required the use of terraces in their uneven land. However, these hillside lands were hard to maintain and completely void of soil with dry rocks. Another method that they used incorporated the divergence of water from streams by allowing water to spread to earthen dikes, as it was a type of runoff management.

Terracing

The three major river valleys in the ancient Middle Eastern region were the Indus, Southern Mesopotamia, and Nile. Later, the Southern Mesopotamia River split into what is known today as the Euphrates and Tigris. Hillel mentioned several problems with these wild rivers, due to instances of river flooding and sedimentation that led to water logging and salination. The Nile seemed to be one of the most consistent rivers, overflooding Egyptian land each year and irrigating the land naturally. As the water subsided, it drained the land and prevented water logging from occurring while infusing silt to fertilize the arid region. Thus, the Egyptian civilization rose to its prime and remained a stable society for 5000 to 6000 years. Since the climate has changed a bit over the course of a couple thousand of years, the Egyptians had to install a high dam to create an artificial, perennial irrigation system to sustain its population of 80 million people.

Presently, the Middle East is having trouble with water distribution, as Turkey has taken control of a significant portion of the supply in the region. The nation is in the process of creating thirteen hydroelectric irrigation systems in the upper basins of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, along with the Ataturk Dam that is being constructed on the Euphrates. However, Turkey’s water extraction techniques in the upstream area will affect countries like Iraq and Syria, as they surround the downstream region. Iraq’s water supply from the Euphrates is expected to decrease by 80%, while Syria’s groundwater resources will limit its agricultural industry.

Ataturk Dam in Turkey

Attending this lecture was a completely new experience for me, as I usually participate in events that incorporate a more hands-on approach to the topic. Daniel Hillel’s vast amount of knowledge encouraged me to do some more research of water supply on the Internet. I recently read an article in The Economist about China’s struggle concerning the acquisition of clean drinking water for the nation’s citizens. Water is something that Americans take for granted, but we must all reconsider our positions in this world by conserving our resources. Hillel also mentioned that the two most important considerations of our generation today concerning water are the economic means and the rapid human population growth. I related his lecture to our second lab assignment, where we had to analyze population graphs. Numbers on a piece of paper are insignificant, but hearing him speak about this heavy topic opened up my eyes to what we need to change in order to sustain our world.

After listening to Hillel analyze the importance of water, I realized that everything that we are learning in this class is extremely applicable in all of our everyday lives. Reading about water in a book may be dry at times, but Hillel truly glorified the concept of water conservation and distribution, ultimately crafting a more lively experience for the NYU students in his audience. There were a lot of questions for him at the end about the future of our generation, both in the United States and in the Middle East. Solutions are hard to form, but he mentioned desalinization on a small-scale since it is an expensive process that requires time and effort.

I believe that this community event was beneficial to members of the NYU community, as I saw faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduate students come together to listen to something that will impact all of our lives sooner than we all think. Before coming to NYU, I knew that there would be a few lectures, but I assumed that they were mostly related to politics or economics. This lecture that was part of the Climate and Water series seemed like an integral part of the project, as water is the main component of the Earth that we inhabit today. I was pleasantly surprised that there were about fifty people in the audience! I look forward to attending more lectures with speakers who focus on specific regions of the world.

Hillel stated that he wanted us to understand different people’s perspectives of water throughout the entire world. While we may easily drink and access tap water, people of developing nations may treasure a few droplets for their farms. He achieved his goal in educating the general public about this substantial matter, as I saw a massive group of people huddled around him after he answered a few questions. For future reference, NYU should promote these events through flyers and emails because I was not aware of this event before I visited the Environmental Studies Blackboard.

Overall, I enjoyed the lecture thoroughly because of Hillel’s focus on the Middle East. Also, his lecturing style was admirable because he traced the Middle East’s history from the beginning of time to the modern era. The transformation of our world today is mind-blowing, and we must all reconsider the way we see water, a limited resource in our expanding society.

Robb LoCurto
Leah Schwartz
Environmental Studies
10/15/08
Community Event…The Bronx Zoo

Going to the Bronx Zoo was not only an extremely exciting event for me to partake in, but it also fulfilled something that I needed to do for school. It was the perfect trip to just enjoy the surroundings, all of the animals and the company. One of the first exhibits that we saw had the gorillas, and it was shocking to see them interact with one another, and with the people watching. It said on one of the plaques giving information about the gorillas that they share just over 97% of the same DNA as us humans. That to me was incredible to read and almost didn't believe it, until I saw the way they acted. It was surreal how human-like they were, the way they looked at each other, the way they looked at us, the way they horsed around with each other, it was truly a sight to see. However, one of the exhibits that we stopped at towards the end of the trip was the polar bear exhibit. This was an eye opening time for me as I saw one lonely polar bear, laying limp, looking dehydrated and rundown. Its coat was browning, it looked lethargic and the display was horrific as there was barely any water for the bear to swim in as polar bears do. Obviously this polar bear is not being affected in the same way as most polar bears are at the polar ice caps, but to see this polar bear the way it was made me realize how threatening global warming is to polar bears at both ends of the spectrum of the earth.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/299130795_72d8e07cf8.jpg?v=0 

Scientists and anyone with half of a brain now know that CFC's is one of the main causes of the ongoing problem known as global warming. The Ozone layer is being depleted right in front of our eyes and only few people among the midst of the entire world's population seem to want to do anything about it. Polar bears are dying off by the masses simply due to the temperature increasing a few degrees. The more ice that melts, the more the polar bears need to swim from one destination to another and polar bears simply aren't designed to swim for long periods of time. The harsh truth is that many polar bears are drowning because they have nowhere to go. Ice that was once in a spot that they remembered is gone by the time they return and they are left stranded to find land and quick before their bodies give out on them, leading to their eventual demise. What the CFC's ultimately do is they travel up into the sky and pierce through the levels of atmospheres, creating large, gaping, growing holes that allows ultraviolet rays to pass through down to the earth's surface easier than it ever has before. Polar bears aren't the only species that are directly affected by this newfound occurrence, humans too are in danger. It may not be immediate, but the horizon is closer than many people think, that by the time our children have children, or even when we have children, these generations are going to have quite a mess on their hands. Rapidly growing rates of skin cancer will begin to occur as the ultraviolet rays will have nothing preventing them from searing down straight from the sun, with no layer to prevent damage to the human body. We are already seeing effects of global warming in Australia, as skin cancer rates have spiked in the past few years.
I hadn't really thought about global warming too much before I saw this poor polar bear lying out by his lonesome. Of course I knew what was touched upon in class and just general knowledge of how the climate is changing (from An Inconvenient Truth and things of that nature), but it never really hit me that the world we live in is changing very quickly, and not for the better. I think it is very important that not only as a nation, but the world take a good, hard look at what they take for granted every day…the very air we breathe is in jeopardy and to go one step further, ourselves and our future families are in jeopardy as well unless we take action. Now I'm not sitting here saying that I'm going to go out and be the number one advocator of stopping global warming, that's just ridiculous to think. But what I will do is make more of a conscious effort to be more eco-friendly and if everyone does that simple task, just be more aware of what they do, I believe eventually we could aid in leveling global warming off to normal climates around the world and especially at the polar ice caps.
All in all the trip to the zoo was a fun, eventful day and I'm glad that I had the opportunity to partake in such an event. Yes, the polar bear exhibit put a damper on my day, but on the bright side it gave me something to write about for this event blog. The thing that I will take most out of the day at the Bronx Zoo is definitely the gorilla exhibit. Just seeing how they reacted to the way people were reacting to them was really a sight to see, and it proved that we really do share 97% of the same DNA because it was almost scary how human-like their behavior was. The babies would wrestle each other, then stop and realize that people were staring at them and watching their every move. They would run up to the glass and start pounding on it as if they knew that they were entertaining us, and they probably did know. I don't know how much I directly learned from this experience, but it absolutely opened my eyes to what I need to learn more about to help maintain the prosperity of the earth, humans and polar bears alike.

http://fc64.deviantart.com/fs31/f/2008/229/2/e/Melting_Ice_by_jimmy_tm.jpg

http://buddydon.blogspot.com/Polar_Bear_Bronx_Zoo.jpg

http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0060-0808-0119-2429_Sad_Baby_Holding_a_Melting_Ice_Cream_Cone_clipart_image.jpg

For my community event trip, I attended the opening of the American Museum of Natural History’s new exhibition, “Climate Change: The Threat to Life and a New Energy Future.” The even took place on Saturday, October 18th. In accordance with the museum’s mission, the exhibition was aimed at educating the general public about climate change and its affects. Entry to the exhibition cost $18.00 for student admission.
Similar to the overall feel of the AMNH, The Climate Change exhibition is like a textbook come to life. Upon entry, the visitor is immersed into a colorful yet somber space. An educational journey through all aspects of climate change is guided by a series of glowing, interactive stations. The visitor is greeted with an introduction to the history of fossil fuels; the history of coal is accompanied by a glowing red line that traces the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the year 1660. The line jumps from the knees to far above the head around the year 1950. This luminescent timeline accurately forebodes what’s to come for the exhibition’s visitor: the ominous depiction of an Earth in crisis, suffocated by greenhouse gasses, rising temperature, and looming disaster.
If the goal of the exhibition was the inspire people to change their ways, it was certainly effective for me. Although much of the scientific information was not new to me, the format it was presented in made me think even more critically about the Earth’s climate crisis. One way that the exhibition was effective at inspiring critical thinking regarding the climate crisis was allowing visitors to interact with the information. For instance, one of the first things you could do was examine a board listing things people can do to reduce their impact on climate change, such as riding their bike and using less paper. After you saw something that you could plausibly do, you pushed a button, adding a number to the LCD display of how many other people had pledged to do the same thing. This was particularly encouraging and clever on the part of the museum because the interactive format provoked many children to shout out things they could do – eat more vegetables, unplug their cable boxes. The child-friendly atmosphere of the exhibit was great because I got to see the Earth’s future generations learning about how their actions really do impact the world they live in.
One of the most interesting parts of the exhibition was the section devoted to draughts. Out of all the effects of climate change, the museum really stressed how draughts pose an immediate threat to humanity. Upon entering the drought section, the lighting became warm. Images of burning trees and starving people lined the walls. The exhibition chronicled how because of draught, the threat of wildfires is increased, as well as the spread of disease and destruction of ecosystems. What made draught so scary was that there are no easy solutions. We could recycle water, harvest water from sand, and produce draught resistant seeds. The exhibition stressed that although these “solutions” exist, they are incredibly expensive, and will not benefit the major population to be affected by drought: the poor.
The journey ends with the future of energy. Comprehensive information is provided about solar, hydropower, nuclear, geothermal, and wind energies. However, the main thesis of the exhibition seemed to be that while these alternative, cleaner energies to exist, humans still have to do their part in reducing consumption and making the Earth a cleaner, cooler place. The exhibition was informative and fun, I would definitely recommend it to anyone looking to learn more about climate change.

http://community.webshots.com/album/568151383Cakcgq

Jessica Donovan

On November 18, I attended a lecture on the Ice Sheets and Climate Change at 285 Mercer Street, at 12:30 pm. David Holland, who works for the Center for Atmosphere-Ocean Science at Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences here at NYU, was the presenter. This event was educational but also activist, because Holland was really stressing the threats of ice sheets melting due to climate change. About twenty five people attended; most were professors at NYU in the science departments or other adults working in similar studies. I was among the four or five students there.

Holland started the lecture with a power point presentation. He focused on a time scale of one hundred years, looking forward to what our world will look like then. Holland stated that most major land developments are on coastlines, and change in sea level will greatly disturb or destroy many cities in the world. The ice sheets Holland focuses on as the main concern are found in Greenland and Antarctica.
Holland, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has observed the world has warmed particularly in the polar regions. The key statement released from the IPCC is that most of the warming of the past fifty years is very likely (90%) due to increases of greenhouse gases.
One of the main problems of controlling sea level change, according to Holland, is that we cannot predict it. There is not tool that tells us how sea levels will change over the next hundred years. However, there are computer models that make predictions about what U.S. coastlines will look like in the next century. In the last century alone, sea level has risen one foot and is continuing to accelerate.
Sea levels change because of heat or water added to oceans, expanding and rising water levels. The melting of ice sheets is the main contributor to sea level change. The world’s two largest ice sheets are found in Greenland and Antarctica. Ilulissat Icefjord in Greenland is one of the fastest moving glaciers today. Ilulissat means “among the icebergs,” but today the name is beginning to lose its meaning. The rate of collapse has been rapidly increasing since 1997.

Holland has been to Greenland to observe and study the melting glaciers. There, Holland studied the current rates of the melting of the glaciers and the impact it has on Greenland and the world. During his presentation he showed us a clip from the Lehrer Newshour in which he made an appearance, reporting from Greenland. Holland a crew of other scientists measured the ocean temperatures with probes dropped from helicopters into the water from thousands of feet above. The ocean temperatures showed a drastic increase since 1997. Holland had access to temperatures from 1997 and previous years due to the temperatures recorded by fishermen. Greenland fishermen kept thermometers on their fishing nets over the past decades. These recorded temperatures are evidence that the ocean temperatures around Greenland have steadily been increasing since 1997. Holland could not predict if these temperatures would ever go down, but he suggested it is only going to worsen.
Ilulissat’s fishing industry is beginning to fail due to the change in the ice streams and temperatures, which are affecting marine wildlife. The recent temperature change in the waters surrounding Greenland is because of winds and currents that have shifted warm water to the coasts. The Coriolis Effect is responsible for diverting the majority of the warm water away from Greenland, but still some warm water reaches the coasts and begins to melt the ice sheets.
Although Holland focused his presentation mainly on Greenland, he also mentioned the glaciers that are in danger in Antarctica as well. The Pine Island Glacier expands most of the continent and is changing rapidly. If the entire ice sheet which covers Antarctica melts, the world is in for a catastrophe. Alaskan glaciers are also on their way out, too. The melting of these glaciers will at .7 meters to the sea level.
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/poles/arctic/ilulissat.jpe" alt="Ilulissat" />

Holland blames the media for misguiding the public about the glaciers receding. Using the metaphor of Chicken Little, he claims the media is seeing, hearing, and assuming things they don’t know. Chicken Little thought the sky was falling; the media thinks the world’s only problem is global warming and climate change. He showed us various covers of magazines, such as Time, National Geographic, and Newsweek with false cover titles. Holland says that these magazines and other forms of the media are not concentrating on the important issues of today. Instead of drawing attention to the melting glaciers, global warming and carbon dioxide emissions are the main focus. But glaciers and ice sheets melting, Holland stresses, will have so much more impact on the world if the sea level continues to rise inch by inch.
The rising of sea level is a threat to many megacities in the world which are located on coastlines, New York City included. If the glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica melt into the ocean, sea level will rise by at least several meters and islands and coastal cities will be flooded.
The IPCC released a statement saying that anthropenic forces are likely responsible for the circulation changes that are associated with the melting of the ice sheets. Holland agrees with this and emphasized we act now to save what is left of the ice sheets rather than later. Without any proactive efforts, the ice sheets will melt away along with many global cities.

This event really opened up my eyes. I had no idea that the state of glaciers is so severe. I now know that if the glaciers disappear, a significant portion of our Earth will too. I understand that the ice sheets need to be protected and stopping global warming will help, but there is nothing I can do, as one individual, to help. Saving the ice sheets and protecting the Earth is a project everyone needs to do together.
Holland’s lecture gave valuable information to the audience, but unfortunately there were not enough people there to watch. If Holland’s presentation reached more people, there would be a better understanding of this environmental crisis. However, the presentation did move everyone there, including myself. Holland gave a convincing argument and really knows his stuff. To improve this event and spread the knowledge, Holland should continue to show his presentation to larger groups. To broaden its impact, more people need to see his compelling presentation. If more of the public were given this information, there would be less ignorance and more people willing to make a change.

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod_e/image/0603/iceberg_nasa.jpg" alt="Antarctica's icesheets receding" />

Overall, I liked Holland’s lecture. His incorporation of a powerpoint slideshow made it easier to follow. He was very successful in capturing the viewers’ attention. I learned about something I would not ordinary learn about, in such depth. I would definitely go to see him speak again.

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.

Sidra Farooqi

On Wednesday, November 19th, at 7:30 P.M, I attended a lecture called Biodiesel & New York. The event took place at Kimmel Center and was open to all NYU students and faculty. It was hosted by the Earth Matters Club at NYU, and Solar One, a non-profit organization in New York City which seeks to educate people on issues of environmental sustainability and alternate energy, specifically solar power. The event was a formal academic lecture, during which five speakers, including legislative representatives, and representatives from Solar One, CUNY Sustainable Energy Center, and Tri-state Biodiesel, informed the audience about biodiesel fuel and how it fits into New York’s long term energy plan.

http://solar1.org

During the event, five panelists, who represented commercial, legislative, and scientific perspectives, discussed biodiesel and its use in New York. All were very knowledgeable about the subject, although several reiterated the same points over and over. Also, several were representatives from biodiesel groups, so naturally, they only gave the positive benefits and neglected to mention the negative consequences – the event was definitely biased in favor of biodiesel fuel.
The first speaker was Brent Baker, who is the Chief Executive Officer, President, and founder of Tri-State Biodiesel LLC, which is based here in New York, and specializes in biodiesel marketing, production, and waste collection. Baker is an environmental advocate and educator, and also the director of several non-profit organizations. He explained that biodiesel is a renewable fuel that is derived from plant oils and animal fats, including cooking oil. It is blended with petroleum based diesel for transportation and heating purposes, in a chemical process called transesterification.

The second speaker was Luis Torres, who is the Associate Director for Community and Public Affairs at the Bronx Community College’s Center for Sustainable Energy. He explained that used of biodiesel fuel is being considered at the City University of New York (CUNY), and that some campus’s, such as CUNY Staten Island, are using cooking oil to create biodiesel fuel, for use on campus. Another speaker, Samantha Swanson, represented Councilman James Gennaro, who serves as the Chair of the New York City Council’s Environmental Protection Committee. Gennaro wants to pass a bill requiring all suppliers of heating oil to supply at least 5-20% of biodiesel fuel. He spoke about how there is an enormous market for heating oil in the Northeast, where winters are cold. Biodiesel fuel helps run furnaces and makes them run more efficiently, plus it is better for the environment and air quality.

http://www.tristatebiodiesel.com/

The following speaker was Daniel Falcone, who is the owner of a total Fuel Services Corp., a wholesale and retail distributor of diesel and biodiesel blended products. Mr. Falcone is an advocate for alternative fuel markets, and is also a member of the New York State Environmental Business Association. The first thing he pointed out is the biodiesel is not corn ethanol, although the two are often confused by the public. Biodiesel is made from soy or cottonseed oil, or waste animals fats, and not from corn. It is 90% less toxic than purely petroleum diesel, and also has 55% less particulate matter – particulate matter is known to cause cancer and lung disease.

The next speaker, John Nettleton, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of City and Regional Planning and Executive Director of the Cornell Urban Scholars Program, elaborated on the topic of lung disease and cancer. He explained that New York City has one of the highest incidences of lung disease in the country, and a high rate of premature death as a result of petro-diesel exhaust; this is particularly an important issue in lower-income areas of the Bronx. The asthma rates in some New York neighborhoods are five times as high as the rest of the U.S! He stated that biodiesel fuel will result in carbon emission reductions, reduces greenhouse gases, is less toxic, and readily biodegradable. He mentioned that it is now being used by government fleets, military nautical fleets, individually owned vehicles, and consumers of heating oil. Mr. Nettleton also emphasized that while boilers can’t currently use 100% biodiesel fuel, they can use petroleum-biodiesel blends, which cuts down on particulate matter and carbon emissions. While biodiesel fuel will certainly not eliminate American reliance on foreign oil, it is better for public health and the environment.
The final speaker was a representative for Hon. James Gennaro, who represents New York City Council’s 24th District in Queens. She spoke of the economic benefits of biodiesel fuel – it is a homegrown fuel source, it can lead to economic development, it will create jobs in New York State, and provides opportunities for regional production, which can boost the local economy. She also emphasized Biodiesel fuel does not necessarily increase food prices, which is a common misconception. Currently, Gennaro is trying to pass a bill, called the Casey Bill, which will increase use of biodiesel fuel in New York. She also mentioned that they tried to put a state mandate into place that would require all New York City taxi cabs to be diesel hybrids, but that was blocked twice, and that they were close to getting Mayor Bloomberg sign the Casey Bill the first time, but then Time Magazine came out with an issue that stated biodiesel fuel raises food prices.

This was a familiar experience for me, because I’m an active member of the Earth Matters Club, which is an NYU organization that helped to host the event. Over the course of the past semester, I’ve attended multiple events, from academic lectures to public park clean-ups. However, this was the first event I attended which concerned biodiesel fuel, a subject I knew little about. I finally learned exactly what biodiesel fuel is, how it is derived from organic feedstocks like plant oils and animal fats, and how it can be used to make the world, specifically New York, more environmentally sustainable.
The event was definitely of value to the community, because not many people know the issues concerning biodiesel fuel, yet the climate change crisis affects us all. The event achieved its aims of informing people about biodiesel fuel and how it should be used in New York. Overall, it had a positive impact on the environment, despite the myriad of unnecessary flyers and handouts being passed around. However, I think it would have been more beneficial had the lecture been open to a broader audience – this issue affects all of New York City, not just professors and students at one university. Most likely, the professors and other adults who made up the majority of the audience already have more knowledge about the subject than most New Yorkers do.
I also think the whole event would have been more beneficial had it been a debate rather than a lecture, or that the lecture should have included both sides. For almost two hours, I listened to scientists, policy-makers, and business owners lecture about the various benefits of biodiesel fuel. On my way out the door, I was handed a flyer by a member of an anti-biodiesel fuel group. As I read the flyer, I realized it listed all the con arguments of biodiesel fuel, none of which were brought up during the lecture. Some of the arguments included were that biodiesel fuel will increase heating oil costs by 15-30 cents a gallon, require more pesticides because it relies on soybean farming, and cost millions of dollars, at the taxpayer’s expense. Most alarming was that 91 percent of the soybean acreage planted in the U.S last year was genetically engineered to tolerate herbicides, which has boosted the application of a powerful weed killer called glysphosate, which has been linked to cancer, miscarriages, premature births, and is the third most common cause of pesticide illness in farm workers. Also, the entire event was obviously very biased, as many of the speakers were directly involved in the biodiesel industry. When one of the speakers mentioned that the Time Magazine issue stopped the bill from being passed, I thought that was pretty suspicious, because Time Magazine wouldn’t publish something not rooted in facts and research, and the speaker obviously had a political agenda. Because of this, I am still undecided as to whether or not biodiesel is a good idea.
Overall, this was definitely a worthwhile event. I was surprised that I actually enjoyed the lecture, as I expected it would be dry and dull, since biodiesel fuel didn’t sound like a particularly exciting topic. I was expecting to hear scientists lecturing about the science of biodiesel fuel for two hours, but several of the speakers were actually policymakers and business owners. I’m considering pursuing a career in public policy and law, so I found it interesting to hear what policy makers had to say about biodiesel and New York City’s energy plans for the future.

By: Amanda Sakuma

Last Saturday morning, I did what every other college student living in New York City does – I went to a “Winter Survival Lesson” tutorial offered by park rangers at Prospect Park in Brooklyn. Excited to learn how to “survive the frigid cold weather” and “identify animal tracks,” my friend Craig Cannon and I prepared for a rigorous course on how to master the great out doors while living in one of the most populous cities in the U.S. With Craig and a strong cup of coffee in tow, I made my way off the comfortable island of Manhattan and on to the unmarked territory of Brooklyn.

Apparently climate concerns are subconsciously making their way to the core of everyday New Yorkers. On the train ride to Brooklyn, squished in between an alcohol ad and a preview for the next action packed prime-time television drama, was a posting on climate change. It displayed four people pondering deeply about the effects of climate change as well as their implications. It sends a positive message to stare at while sitting in a crowded subway car, taking special care to avoid eye contact with the people sitting next to you. Stand clear of closing doors please.

Once at Prospect Park, Craig and I proceeded to walk the entire perimeter in search of the meeting place before arriving to our destination. Once there, park officials stared at us blankly when asked about the winter survival lessons – either they were shocked that anyone would be interested in the lessons, or they genuinely had no idea what was going on. Eventually, we were united with Park Ranger Melissa and her seven dwarfs. I found out later that were actually a small version of humans called children, kids for short. Sightings of such a rare breed of human are somewhat uncommon in Manhattan. I considered myself lucky to be in their presence.

For the tour, Craig toted a swanky camera that appeared to have weighed more than a small child (not unlike the ones accompanying us on the tour). Striking up conversation with Melissa as she guided the tour, he was able to learn a great deal about the park ranger. Marissa was a recent graduate student who was using her environmental biology and urban design degrees to enrich the community at the local parks. It was refreshing to hear that a degree in the sciences can take people further than the laboratory and research field. The exciting career field of park rangers had never occurred to me.

I, for one, was too busy marveling at the specimen of children before me to do too much chatting with Melissa. Apparently there exist small children in all boroughs of New York. Fascinating. All bundled appropriately in oversized hats and scarves, the young children made their way through the tour with astounding attention spans and an eagerness to learn. “My favorite bird is a blue bird,” cried out one of my colleagues. He was then able to point one out in the trees after Melissa had guided his attention. I couldn’t help but glance at the field notes that he was tracking on the trip and admire his attention to detail. Any plant or animal that he could name was neatly listed in columns on his notebook in the most impeccable handwriting I had ever seen. He was starting to make me wonder if the group were in fact children and not really short, yet intelligent adults.
I had never been to Prospect Park before, nor had I been on such a tour before. I’m glad that Craig’s 500-pound zoom lens digital camera was there to document my every step or else I would have forgotten everything about it entirely. I’m not sure if the children were too distracting, or if the information shared by Marissa was genuinely uninteresting, but I did not get much out of the adventure. My book of notes that I toted around only contains quotes from the kids that I thought were entertaining (my favorite being the dialogue on city birds vs. silly birds outlined in Craig’s blog entry. Check it out, it’s funny). I also have a life like drawing of a squirrel from when we were instructed to sketch the wildlife around us.

What I did take away from the event was what the children offered me. I am genuinely impressed with how attentive the kids were. They already had a firm grasp on the concepts of hibernation and migration, and they were more than willing to actively participate in the event. While admiring a flock of Canadian Geese, a personal wildlife favorite of Craig Cannon, the young girl wearing the Spiderman jacket interjected into Marissa’s speech saying, “Geese! They’re heading south because it’s cold in Canada.” Marissa, taken aback by Spiderwoman’s comment, was quick to congratulate her on her intellect. Inside, I wanted to give her a big high five. However, the hawk-like glares from their chaperones deterred me from doing so.

By the end, Craig seemed sincerely upset that we never in fact learned how to “identify animal tracks” in the “frigid cold temperatures.” Apparently the course was not meant to outline human’s capacity towards winter survival, but rather animals’ survival skills. I admit, I was disappointed as well that I may never know how to survive the frigid cold temperatures, the experience was worthwhile. What I did learn was a great deal on the importance of environmental education for young people. The event displayed the children’s knowledge and interest in nature. There are plenty of other things they could have been doing on a Saturday morning, like watching cartoons on TV, but instead, they were outside and learning about the environment. It gave me a heightened appreciation of the city parks in New York and the resources that they offer. Kids are able to grow up in a large city and still have a sense and appreciation towards nature. I hope events like this happen more often to offer children more opportunities to become involved and invested in the environment of their community. If so, I will once again shamelessly attend.