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

On Wednesday, October 1, I attended a lecture about environmental law run by the New York University Environmental Studies department, in the department’s headquarters on Mercer Street. The lecture was given by Katrina Wyman, a professor at NYU Law School. The lecture centered on discussion of environmental law and its purpose and benefits. It also served as an information session about law school, providing useful information for those who have an interest in eventually going to law school. The format was fairly informal, as Dr. Wyman lectured about the basics of environmental law, and about one third of the time was devoted to answering questions.
Dr. Wyman began by introducing herself as an associate professor of law at NYU’s School of Law, which is ranked in the top 10 nationally among law schools. She stated that NYU has a strong environmental law program, which many schools do not have. Dr. Wyman’s background is in law, and she became involved in the environmental aspects of law only after becoming a professor. First, we discussed law school and law as a profession, as many of the attendees were interested. Although this didn’t relate to the environment directly, we soon learned that law was a very important means in affecting positive change in the environment.
A person entering the field of environmental law will most likely be employed in one of a few places. They may work for a government organization, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or for a non-government organization such as the Sierra Club. Both of these would be very involved in politics. Working for the government, an environmental lawyer would be involved in drafting new legislation, perhaps working with Congressmen on environmental issues. Environmental lawyers were involved in drafting the numerous building codes, statutes, and regulations that all companies in the United States must abide by. Working for an NGO, lawyers would be involved in lobbying Congress to enact laws more eco-friendly, and encouraging techniques that conserve our resources and contribute to the sustainability of our natural resources. They could also be employed as counsel for a private sector company, in the event that an environmental lawyer is needed. This is actually fairly common, as any new building or land acquisition is likely to require the advice of someone with knowledge of the environment. Though Dr. Wyman stressed that there were many ways to be a lawyer and never actually go to court, she did provide examples where an environmental lawyer may become involved in litigation. One party may deem another’s building plans or waste management techniques harmful to the environment, and a lawsuit could ensue.
I don’t go to too many lectures but this felt like a familiar experience but the tone was informal. While the subject was law, which is a field I may work in one day, it was also very relevant to environmental studies. I thought it was helpful to the community because it educated younger individuals on the path to which they could one day become leaders in environmental reform.
Lawyers in general are often ridiculed as representing everything that is wrong with our society: the greed, dishonesty, etc. But environmental law is one field in which a lot of good can be done. There is always politics involved, as Dr. Wyman said, but there is much that can be done in the way of conservation and sustainability, and lawyers play an important role. Even private companies employ lawyers with specific environmental expertise, because the environment must be taken into account very often. Even when designing commercial parking lots, for instance, the law and the environment must be taken into account, as local statues might stipulate that there must be a certain amount of foliage per square foot of parking lot. This convergence of disciplines is something I find very fascinating.
At the lecture, we briefly brushed on the subject of international environmental law. However, as I walked out, I began to wonder if that wasn’t the most important aspect of environmental law and had been largely overlooked at the lecture. After all, our current relationship with nature could be called Global Environmental Citizenship. Humans are finally beginning to realize that our fate is intertwined with our ecosystems, and our actions have great consequences on the environment. Experts in the field of international environmental law were undoubtedly involved in the success of the Montreal Protocol, which helped reduce CFC emissions that were damaging the ozone layer. They were also involved in the failure of the Kyoto Accords, which failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. International law and diplomacy will be needed to convince the entire world, including the United States, to agree to a plan that will help preserve our environment.
This lecture was very useful to anyone considering a career in law, or interested in the environment. I enjoyed it because it was particularly relevant to me. I want to do something to help the preservation of the environment and our natural resources, and I’m interested in law. I believe it was a wholly worthwhile event and I am glad I attended.

--Nick Carey

Sha Ni
Sep 16th 2008
Environmental Studies
C.E #1
Improving Our Environment and Economy
On Monday September 15th, there was a speech called “Solving Global Warming, Improving Our Economy” at 6:00 pm in the Vanderbilt Hall, Greenberg Lounge. The speaker who is from University of Texas at Austin dedicates himself to solving global warming through industrial productions. His lecture shows that how to solve global warming through economy. It is an appeal and education for the general public.
In the speech, it presents that industry has technical limit. We have 80 percent productions which is technical production, but there are only 60 percent productions actually need using technology. Therefore, this causes the waste of energy. There are so many gases which cause global warming is produced by hi-tech, such as the burning of fossil fuel and the gasoline etc. So how to solve global warming is to make small difference between “use” and “actually use”; it means we should reduce the waste of energy.
Then how solving global warming relates to improving our economy? There is an example provided: the rising price of Carbon Tax. Since the Carbon Tax cost too much and it is rising, the use is declining. Therefore, as the use decreases, the more money we can save. In the 40 percent of productions we use are the productions of technology; however, there are only 25 percent of productions we need are the productions of technology. In this speech, it appeals that everyone should save the energy; don’t use hi-tech. Here is the speech’s purpose: not only solving the global warming through reduction of use of energy, but also improving our economy through saving money. Here is a smart method to save energy: an idea called “Drive less, pay less insurance”. It calculates that driving costs 12 cents per mile, if people drive less, they can save their money. This idea uses economic way smartly to save gases in order to reduce the pollution from cars. In New York, it is very difficult to park, it encourages people to walk more or take subway. This way also reduces the pollution and saving the cost of driving which is more expensive than taking subway. There is also a method to solve the problem that the electricity costs too much; some local governments try to give benefits back if reducing the amount of use. All these methods declare the opinion of the speaker: solving global warming by reducing the waste of use and technical productions; it improves our economy that decreases our cost as well. “If we can solve the global warming smartly, we can solve any problems”.
In my opinion, the world we live in is becoming more and more intolerable because of environmental destruction. Bird flu and SARS are two typical examples that environmental destruction may threaten our life. Besides, forest destruction, water and air pollution result in decrease of planting land and unpleasant weather. This lecture main focuses on the waste of energy. I am impressed by the very smart way that using the economic idea to achieve the “both benefits” between environment and economy. Nowadays, people always believe the contradiction between environment and economy. Many of us believe that only by sacrificing environment, we can achieve the development in economy; or only by ceasing the development in economy, we can solve the environmental problems. This lecture totally changes this idea. Environment and economy can be balanced. “Solving Global Warming, Improving Our Economy”, this idea becomes more and more popular all over the world.
As we know, the Olympic game was held in Beijing, China in 2008. China is well-known as its very serious pollution, especially the huge amount of gases which cause the global warming more seriously. Chinese government realized that the Olympic game which would bring more people and activities here must cause the pollution more seriously. Therefore, the government implements a new idea called “Odd and Even”. It means that if your car number is odd, you should drive on Monday, Wednesday and Friday only; if your car number is even, you should drive on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday only. The government will pay back some of your road tax as benefit. It encourages people to walk more and take shuttle or subway. Improving the environment and solving the global warming; at the same time, people save their money by the reduction of drive cost and get benefit from the decreasing of tax as well. This implement presents that the balance between the environment and economy. In response to the implement, the quality of weather becomes better obviously and it is the best quality in the past 10 yeas. Moreover, most importantly, this method decreases the amount of SOx, NOx and COx which are the main harmful gases cause the global warming.
Here is another example. In China, when you go shopping in supermarket or shops, you will have to pay for bags if you want some. This method reduces people’s request by using economic way. It efficiently decreases the pollution of “white trash” which is usually burned. The reduction of “white trash” prevents from producing noxious gases. Both two examples show that China, as a seriously polluted country, is trying to improve its environment; most importantly, these two examples show that “Solving Global warming, Improving Our Economy”, this idea is meaningful for both environment and economy. It is the best way to keep balance between improvement of environment and development of economy.
In modern society, we tend to become more and more aware of our living environment or physical environment, because our environment is not clean as before. So many people now choose their house as to its environment but not its location and expenses to afford it. As we all know, the environment pollution is more and more serious during these years, especially the global warming which is threatening us most. What we could do is to make great efforts in protecting environment gradually. As the government has taken measure in pollution, common people, we also try to protect it and make it remain clean. We have already started to reduce our waste of energy. Although we have managed to protect the environment to a certain extent, such as some methods are presented in this lecture to get the “both benefits” between environment and economy”, it is still a very long way to go.

Jess Donovan
Environmental Studies
Community Event 1

On October 1, I attended a lecture on Environmental Law at 285 Mercer Street at six o’clock. It was hosted by an NYU law professor, Katrina Wyman. This event’s purpose was to inform NYU undergrads about all aspects of environmental law. There was about twenty students there. Many were already in the Environmental Studies program. The majority were juniors or seniors, with a few sophomores and freshman. This was a relaxed, informative lecture with a question and answer session at the end.

Professor Wyman first gave us background information on environmental law before she answered questions. I learned about what environmental lawyers actually do. Environmental lawyers work for four main purposes. First, environmental lawyers support or petition against the development of land. If an area is under debate to be developed, environmental law is involved. Second, environmental lawyers can work in the Senate, Department of Justice, or other government agencies to regulate laws concerning nature and the environment. Working for the government is the “do good” aspect of environmental law. Government agencies use environmental law to protect the environment (whereas lawyers working for private firms may be working against existing regulations and actually damaging the environment). An example would be amending the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act. Environmental lawyers also work for environmental defense and work for NGOs, non-government organizations. An example of a NGO is Earth Justice. Lastly, a main component of environmental law is drafting policies on political environmental issues.
In addition to working for NGOs and the government, environmental lawyers can also work in private law firms and private companies or manufacturers. Lawyers that work for private law firms are hired to help large companies comply with the land use laws and minimize environmental impacts. For example, lawyers may work for a company to make sure its factories do not exceed the legal limit of chemical emissions. In private companies and manufacturers, lawyers are permanently on staff to help that specific company to abide by environmental laws and regulations. A lawyer working for a private company may also lobby government policies for the benefit of the company.
Next Wyman gave background information about law school. Law is conforming to the existing system. Law school, I learned, is not specialized. For example, a law student isn’t studying environmental law at law school – everyone graduates with the same law degree, then law grads can get a job concerning environmental issues. Lawyers who attain positions in agencies or practices where environmental law is the focus then name themselves environmental lawyers.
As for law schools, Wyman said that there are two well known schools for environmental law – Lewis and Clark College and Pace University. However, Wyman said that NYU offers an equally respectable law school, and a degree from NYU law looks much better than a degree from Lewis and Clark or Pace. NYU has four professors dedicated to environmental law and is listed among the top ten law schools in the country.
Wyman also suggested taking time off between undergrad and law school. Finding an internship or working in a law firm as a paralegal, and gaining experience, will help you decide if you want to commit to law school. Working around environmental lawyers is important to decide if it is what you want to do – before you make the time and monetary commitment to law school. Wyman is a strong advocate of gaining experience and saving money before committing to law school.
A common misconception about environmental lawyers is that they are not commonly litigating in court. Even though they have a degree in law, this type of lawyer does not spend much time practicing law in a courtroom. Instead, environmental lawyers spend more of their time drafting documents, policies, or regulations and negotiating with other companies. Therefore, environmental law students do not necessarily need to be argumentative and loud. Environmental law is a different kind of law that is “document intensive” and does not require much litigation. Important characteristics for an environmental law student to have, according to Wyman, are hardworking, highly motivated, and meticulous. A law student must also be willing to give up a lot of time to studying.
Becoming an environmental lawyer is an attainable goal after a lot of work, but Wyman said that getting a high position is very difficult. A successful career doesn’t come easily. Wyman said becoming a partner is as difficult as becoming a law professor.

I found this lecture extremely relevant because I am interested in both environmental studies and law. I knew nothing before about the specifics of environmental law, but now I have a general idea. I learned what sets environmental lawyers apart from the rest – they very rarely appear to litigate in courtrooms. Now that I have some information from Professor Wyman, I can start considering it as an option for my future. I think the other participants would agree that it was a helpful question and answer session. Wyman answered everyone’s questions and gave us helpful advice, such as finding a job as a paralegal to try out the work environment before spending thousands and thousands of dollars on law school.
I think if more students attended this event it would be even better because more participants would bring more questions and insight into the discussion. However, Wyman held a successful, educational lecture and answered all the questions with concise, honest answers. Her honesty was most important – telling us that realistically, law school is an extremely big time commitment for a student and his time has to be entirely dedicated to it for a successful outcome.
Since I am interested in possibly one day pursuing a major in environmental science or going to law school, Wyman’s information session was very helpful. She also welcomed everyone to approach her with any further questions. This event was an overall success and I enjoyed hearing what Wyman had to say. It was a worthwhile use of my time and I’m glad I picked it for my first community event.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/entries/New%20York%20University%20Law%20School%20NYU%20Law%20School%20Above%20the%20Law.JPG

http://communities.justicetalking.org/Themes/Default/Images/Affiliates/EarthJustice_logo.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.

by: Katherine Snedden
On October 15th, I attended the lecture, “Saving Lives: Changing Horizons in Humanitarian Response” at 5 Washington Place. At the reception, which began at 6:30, I found myself surprised at the mix of people at the event. There were a few who looked to be students, but most were older folks- the sort that could actually donate to an organization like Oxfam. Others were participants or employees in other humanitarian organizations, who I assumed was interested in looking at Oxfam’s methods to improve their own. After our fill of cheese and grapes, we went down around 7:30 for the power-point presentation by Dr. Miriam Aschkenasy, a bubbly and talkative woman who was obviously very passionate about Oxfam and her field work in numerous countries around the world. The lecture in particular focused on Moyale, Ethiopia and the efforts to not only aid, but prevent, disasters such as famine and drought.
The lecture was in the format of power-point and began stating the overall purpose of Oxfam and their plans for the future of humanitarian aid. Oxfam is well-known for their aid in helping people with water and sanitation, decreasing the prevalence of disease and other disasters. However, Oxfam is now interested in the possibilities of evidence based programming to incorporate into emergency response. What this essentially means is that in order to prevent famine, drought, or disease, data must be collected from individuals living in the community. Over time, Oxfam will actually be able to predict when disaster will occur and help prevent it. Though this method is incredibly time-consuming and still in the pilot stage, graphs from over the past couple of years revealed that aid was more effective when Oxfam was able to track Moyale so closely. Oxfam employees would go from village to village and ask questions to the few women responsible for giving data. Only women were asked to be data collectors because in that culture women do most of the work, including retrieving water, taking care of the household, and keeping track of food. So they would ask the women like on a scale of one to ten how much cleaner or dirtier the water was. The trick to this system is also to be respectful of the African culture. For example, one cannot simply ask about food because it would be rude, so the Oxfam people would have to figure out other ways to find out food supply without offending the villagers. After all the data was collected, it was put into a graph to show, for example, the number of meals per day a family ate over the months. From the graph, it was clear that after January there was a sharp drop in the number of meals eaten, so Oxfam was immediately able to respond and give aid as soon as possible. After the lecture, there was a Q&A session in which members from the audience asked questions. One was “how do you keep the women honest?”, which I found to be a very good question. The response was the villages were so far apart that it would be impossible for the women to get together and come up with a certain answer that would work to their advantage. If even one village was lying, the other villages’ data would point it out.
Not having much knowledge on humanitarian organizations, I truly enjoyed the Oxfam lecture and would absolutely like to learn more about the organization. I liked the idea of evidence based programming and I have a lot of respect for the people involved who painstakingly collect data and travel hours upon hours to help these communities. Now that I’ve had a brief introduction to humanitarian work, I’d like to know more about it and how I can get involved. This event has great value to the community in that it looks outside of the NYU bubble I live in to bring light to global issues and the different possibilities to mitigate them. I wouldn’t say the people at Oxfam are doing a service to the environment, but rather the people living in it. The lecture definitely achieved its aims because I came away feeling more knowledgeable about Oxfam and its future plans for delivering aid to countries all over the world, including the United States. To improve the event, I would have liked more background information about what Oxfam has done in the past. Most people there already knew about the organization, but I, being clueless, did not and would have liked a little more context. Other than that, I would say the only way to broaden its impact would be to get more people involved. Oxfam relies on donations and volunteers for support.
Overall, I found the event to be worth my time and in the future I would consider going to more Oxfam events. I already plan to do my own research and look further into what the organization accomplishes. I chose this event because it looked like it could be educational and would relate to our studies on human population and food. I was impressed with the presenter and the lecture as a whole, as it made me want to learn more.

Link:
http://www.oxfam.org/

On Thursday, September 25, Dr. Daniel Hillel spoke to a group of students at the Puck Building as part of NYU Wagner’s “Climate and Water” series. Dr. Hillel is an award-winning and world-renowned hydrologist, and has assisted the governments of many Middle Eastern countries in the innovation and sustainability of their water management. Dr. Hillel is the author of over twenty books on soil and water, and over two-hundred and fifty scientific research papers and reports, many published in popular scientific magazines. Ultimately what Dr. Hillel is looking to do is trace the roots of soil usage in agriculture to develop the most effective farming techniques that will help conserve water and overturn aridity.

I must admit that I was a bit intimidated heading into this lecture. Not only had I not been to the Puck building since the very first day of NYU as a freshman, but the room was full of graduate students who were required to attend the event. Interestingly enough, this lecture came a couple days before we had a class lecture on “Soils,” so I figured it would be beneficial to have some knowledge under my belt.

The audience was greeted by Dr. Hillel with the following words, “When I look at all of you, I see packets of water.” This quip segued into a discussion of just how important water is to humans. Over sixty-five percent of our bodies are made up of water, including around seventy-five percent of our brains. In fact, as Dr. Hillel pointed out, there is so much water compared to land on this planet, that it should be called “Water” and not “Earth.” Further, at the time of birth we are made up of about ninety percent of water by mass. Dr. Hillel continued with a couple more examples to emphasize just how important water is to both human and plant survival.

The struggle, however, is in the uneven distribution of water throughout the world; humid regions of the Earth have an excess of water, and the arid regions have a shortage, sometimes to the point where maintaining life is scarcely possible.

How is life able to exist when such little water is available for farming, bathing, and even just drinking? Dr. Hillel took this notion of uneven distribution, with a main focus on agriculture, and applied it to various domains in the Middle East, including the semi-arid Pastoral Domain, the rain-fed Desert Domain, the Coastal Domain, and the Riverine Domain, where humans and plants need to use different methods to obtain water in order to survive. The Middle East can be considered a sandwiched zone, as it lies between maritime and desert climates, causing only a small fraction of the region to receive sufficient amounts of water from precipitation.

In the Desert Domain, especially the vast Sahara, farming must be done in wadis, or small clusters of vegetation, that are easy to maintain. Water in this domain must be collected in the runoff from the infrequent amounts of rainfall. Recently, alluvial fans and qanat systems have been implemented to tap into the ground water that lies below this domain. In the Pastoral Domains, civilization has so badly desertified the landscape that the soil has become denudated and badly eroded.

So if water is so difficult to obtain in most of these Domains, where then is the population of the Middle East settling? Irrigation, which began in the Middle East, took place in the Riverine Domains that populated the banks of the Indus, Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile Rivers, and made life possible in the mostly-arid Middle East. These rivers allowed for irrigation through various systems, from the Ancient Sumerian “shadouf” system, to the bulky Archimedes’ Screw, to present-day machine-powered pumps. But irrigation does not come without hazards; flooding of the rivers and over-irrigation ultimately result in long-term waterlogging and salinization due to the rising water table. Problems like these are adverse to the idea of irrigation, since, even today, irrigation can not be sustained in arid regions. For example, the population that sprouted up around the Indus River Valley saw its land destroyed by the flooding of the Indus River.

The pulsation of the Nile also naturally drained the land and leeched the soil of the surrounding valley. Today, the population of Egypt is about thirty times greater than its population of 2.5 million in 1805. This called for the building of the Aswan High Dam, because the flooding of the Nile needed to be held back to both protect the population and allow farmers to get more than one crop per year. Now, Egypt is subject to waterlogging. When I first learned about the Nile in sixth grade, I never remember being taught all the problems that the Nile caused for the people that were living in the area. I was taught that the Tigris, Euphrates, and the Nile made life possible, but that was many, many years ago. Today, with the growing populations, it is tough to imagine that something that so naturally replenished the soil like the flooding of the Nile was tampered with to help support a population that is growing too fast.

Each year, 16 billion cubic meters of water are evaporated by the Aswan High Dam, which furthers the growing controversy over water allocation in the Middle East. Ethiopia, which is located upstream of the Nile, is not given any of the Nile’s water by Egypt, even though the damming of the Nile in Egypt leads to a surplus of water. Though water shortages are not a new piece of knowledge to me, I had never assumed that there would be countries purposely hoarding water from other countries that are quite obviously in need. This part of the lecture really made me think about just how corrupt some governments can be, not just over things like territory and oil, but even over something so necessary as water?

So not all water shortages are natural, but the intervention of humans on the natural flow of water causes many problems around the world. Take, for example, the Aral Sea, which at one point was the fourth largest sea in the world. This sea shrank due to artificial irrigation of cotton in the areas surrounding it. This stripped the soil and devastated the land, making it susceptible to degradation. A similar situation happened in Southern Australia, where the woodlands were cut down to make grazing land for sheep. This land is now exposed to briny rainwater carried from the sea spray on the coast. But salinization in irrigation can be combated, if there were a much closer attention to the drainage of salt from soil.

What enhanced this entire experience were the slides Dr. Hillel showed to emphasize his points. Many of the pictures, which I have searched to find online and was unsuccessful, gave a great visual representation of what Dr. Hillel was saying. Various maps and diagrams helped to represent many of the themes being discussed, for example, while Dr. Hillel was discussing the impacts of desertification, there was a diagram of the process of desertification projected on the screen, which gave a general overview of the process he was referring to. Though Dr. Hillel did not often refer directly to these diagrams and pictures, they still served as a means of facilitation between general and deeper knowledge. Another memorable slide was a real picture of the Murray Darling Basin in Australia. As Dr. Hillel was explaining the effects of salinization, we actually got to see just what a salt encrusted basin looked like, and it really made his point much stronger.

I found Dr. Hillel to be highly informed and entertaining, making what could have been a dry lecture about the history of agriculture in the Middle East and the importance of water enjoyable. Though much of what Dr. Hillel told us about was a review of a sixth grade geography class, his insight and expertise on the subject allowed for a much deeper exploration of the topic. “Soil is the giver of all life,” was the line Dr. Hillel left us off with, an appropriate ending that really tied everything he said together. Many people underestimate the importance of soil, because, from my own personal experience, soil is nothing more than something my Mom puts into a flower pot to grow a plant in our living room. But in reality, soil is substance through which sustainable life is possible. I would definitely return to another Dr. Hillel lecture, because he is just so engaging and enthusiastic about his subject of expertise, and this enthusiasm is incredibly infectious. This event, in my opinion, was very beneficial to my overall understanding of soil and water.

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

I attended the second lecture of a series called, Climate Change & Water. The lecture, entitled, “When the Rivers Run Dry”, was held in Kimmel at 6:20pm on Thursday, October 16th, and the speaker was Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry: Water—The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-First Century. Pearce explained to the audience that his research is the result of extensive traveling and first-hand accounts of the effects of the water crisis. The tone of the lecture was academic, yet persuasive, in that Pearce spoke in an informative fashion, while still expressing a deep passion and concern for the issue at hand. The audience was made up mostly of eager students, with a few faculty members and older people. Whether or not he intended this, he seemed to appeal to an audience and a generation that would make the most difference in finding a solution to this enormous problem.
Pearce began by stating that the main problem with water consumption is not what we use in the house to clean and bathe, but rather what we use to feed ourselves. For example, it takes anywhere from 280 to 650 gallons of water to grow 1 pound of rice. On another level, the amount of water necessary to feel animals that we eat and rely on to produce other food products is overwhelming. A couple of poignant statistics Pearce shared was that it takes 3,000 gallons of water to feed enough cows to make a quarter pound hamburger, and that it takes 1,000 gallons of water to feed enough cows to produce one quart of milk. Considering the emphasis on these foods in American society, this proved to be eye opening. The production of cotton for clothing is another serious culprit Pearce commented on, and shared the fact that it takes 100 bathtubs full of water to produce enough cotton for one t-shirt. He concluded this section with the fact that the average (meat-eating) person uses 100 times his/her own body weight in water for one day’s requirements. (Vegetarians use about half of that.)
Moving on, Pearce emphasized the drying up of rivers as a result of extensive draining. He used the Nile and the Indus rivers as examples, and mentioned that the Nile no longer reaches the Mediterranean Sea. Uzbekistan is the first example Pearce used as a location that faces climate change as a direct consequence of water loss. As a result of the draining of the Aral Sea, the seasons have become more extreme, but more importantly, massive amounts of salt have led to widespread anemia in the surrounding area.
The speaker moved on to discus the sources of our water, reporting that only ten percent of the earth’s water is fresh, and only one third of that is usable. A percentage of this water is groundwater; the problem with it, however, is that 90 percent of groundwater is not replaced once it is “mined”. He addressed the fact that renewable water does exist, but the percentage of it that is usable is hardly significant. Pearce then described a series of “local crises” involving less rainfall and the depletion of resources facilitated by rivers. An intimidating statistic is that every generation takes four times more river water than the last. An immediate solution to these local crises is the “virtual water trade”. Without it, places like the Middle East and China would essentially become dead zones. A problem with the virtual water trade is that food prices shoot up when major virtual water exporters, like Australia, suffer droughts.
Pearce identified the route of the modern water crisis as the Green Revolution. The “super crops” now used have a yield twice as large, yet require three times more water than their natural predecessors. As a result, over 200 million farmers in the past decade have been forced to drill for groundwater. In their areas, the water tables have fell drastically.
The final topic discussed in the lecture was the social implications of this crisis, including some potential solutions. Unless we solve this problem soon, Pearce explained, we will see wars fought over water. Desalinization is one solution often discussed but seeing as it requires very large amounts of money and energy, it is unrealistic for many countries. Some potential solutions are the universal adoption of “drip irrigation”—which reduces water needs by eighty percent, the collection of rain, the recycling of wastewater, and the adoption of water-efficient plumbing in new houses. Pearce said that the reform that is absolutely paramount is that of attitude. We must realize, he stressed, that solving this crisis requires the effort of everyone. He left us with a comparison of water to oil. Water, he said, is the new oil of the twenty-first century. It is the precious resource of the world, and faces depletion. Unlike oil, which we could live without if we absolutely needed to, we could not survive a single day without water.
This was the first lecture on a specific environmental issue that I have ever been to. I expected it to be a much more official event, yet I was pleasantly surprised by the comfortably small size and informality of the lecture. In a way I think it helped to bring the issue home and personalize the effects that water depletion will have on all of us. Most of the factual information presented in the lecture I was already familiar with, excluding the statistics Pearce presented in the first section. Although I had already understood the exorbitant amount of water we use, I never put all the numbers together to determine exactly how much water I use. I think I may start a water log, which Pearce mentioned he did as well, after attending this lecture and being forced to think about my personal water using habits. The water crisis is something I have been mindful of for a long time, which contributed to my decision to take Environmental Studies, but I do feel that this lecture made me more concerned with my own use of water, rather than the problem as a whole. I would consider the lecture to be a success in that the audience seemed very engaged, and that personally it made me think about the issue from a new perspective. The only improvement I would make would be on the computer in the room, since Pearce had prepared a PowerPoint presentation, but couldn’t seem to get the computer to work. I would also like to see this series of lectures expanded, for the water crisis is an issue of the utmost importance.
I very much liked attending this lecture because, again, it forced me to consider the issue of water usage in a new, more productive light. For that reason, I found it extremely worthwhile and will probably attend “‘No Agua, No Vida’: The Colorado River—A Photo Exhibit”, which is the next event of the series, on November 11th.

A diagram of groundwater level changes in US.
http://academic.emporia.edu/schulmem/hydro/TERM%20PROJECTS/Musgrove/files/waterdrop.gif

A photo of the drying of the Aral Sea.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/aral_sea_1989_2003.jpg

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

(Samantha MacBride (MPA '96)

On November 3rd, 2008 at 5:00PM , I attended a 1-hour academic lecture hosted by New York University’s Coles Science Center at the Avery Fisher Center in Bobst titled, "Tonnage and Toxicity: Visible and Invisible Solid Waste Problems in the United States.” Samantha MacBride, the deputy director of the city’s Department of Sanitation was the guest speaker for the night, introducing her extremely informative PowerPoint with a bright green background to catch our attention. She blended the words “tonnage” and “toxicity” into her first slide, and then followed it with a shadow to show us that the two concepts are sometimes hidden from our view in real life. This quirky joke made the audience, composed of mostly undergraduate students, stir with excitement in anticipation for this event.

Most of the lecture was focused on non-hazardous industrial waste, which is defined as substance that is not ignitable, corrosive, reactive, nor toxic. Samantha introduced the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which grants the United States Environmental Protection Agency the power to oversee all aspects of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Essentially, it is a cradle-to-grave tracking of waste, starting from the creation and ending with the disposal. As a nation, we produce approximately 4.5 pounds of municipal solid waste per day, which is an extremely shocking statistic. She also threw out a few numbers that allowed us to rethink our direct relationships to waste, stating that 97% of non-hazardous waste is disposed on-site. In terms of surface impoundment, 3% of non-hazardous waste is transported to landfills and incinerators that receive municipal solid waste. Unfortunately, we cannot break down and clearly define the components of toxic waste, as it is a fusion of various chemicals. Within the past few years, researchers in Pennsylvania have created a rough list of dangerous forms of toxic waste in order to warn the public about its potentially devastating effects on humans and the precious environment.

Graph - Waste Generated Per Year (thousands of tons)

Samantha MacBride crafted the second part of her lecture carefully, directing her lecture towards environmental activist movements. Curbside recycling of municipal solid waste still dominates the field known as American Environmentalism. In fact, in the United States only, over one million people work in this industry, racking up $37 billion in the payroll per year. According to the National Resources Defense Council, recycling seems to be the easiest way to save our planet, due to its appealing nature and accessibility. Since it does not require specific skills, the general public may participate in recycling cardboard, plastic, and other wasteful goods used by the average consumer. In 1982, there was a Bottle Bill act, also known as New York’s Returnable Container Act, which required people to pay a 5 cent deposit on plastic bottles and cans. Though it has served as the foundation of the recycling movement in New York, activists have been pushing for a “Bigger Better Bottle Bill,” which will raise the refundable deposit to 10 cents per bottle. Currently, only eleven states have bottle bills, projecting an image that Americans are not concerned about the well-being of our environment, especially if a simple task like recycling is not taken seriously.

Advertisement presented by the National Resources Defense Council

Initiated in 1978, place-based activism concerns risks from pollution, as it has radically changed how facilities handle chemical and municipal waste. The EPA’s Toxics Release inventory is frequently used by community activists to protest against the harmful destruction of various ecosystems. Furthermore, the EPA conducted a Resource Conservation Challenge, which was the first federal reduction initiative aimed at reducing hazardous waste. It is a completely voluntary program focused on regulating coal ash, construction byproducts, and demolition debris. However, regulation of surface impoundments does not exist at any level, which may be harmful to human health in the long-run.

Public announcement pertaining to the EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge

In this lecture, Samantha argued that regulation is a signal of design failure, as business leaders must alter their perceptions of the world in order to solve this deeply rooted problem. The rebound effect is also hindering the environment, which is the idea that reduced energy consumption caused by improved technological efficiency leads to using more energy. Essentially, technology warps our image of how we are handling our limited amount of energy derived mostly from fossil fuels. She also brought up an intriguing point, indicating that producers respond to diminishing demand through innovation, diversification, artificially generating demand, introducing new global markets, incorporating planned obsolescence, and creating more waste in the process of it all. Since non-hazardous waste is invisible, companies do not consider it a major problem in the near future, but we must take responsibility for our actions, rather than forcing these burdens upon the upcoming generations.

Learning about tonnage and toxicity from a firsthand source enabled me to conceptualize the urgency of proper waste disposal. If only one-fifth of the United States have bottle bills, we can conclude that recycling is not a nationwide phenomenon. This lecture was a fairly new experience for me, mainly because average consumers are not aware of invisible waste, yet we contribute to the massive amount on a daily basis. Samantha MacBride made a major point that dismissed small-scale environmental movements, as it takes a significant amount of group effort to start a revolution. With dozens of initiatives, it is difficult for our society, as a whole, to tackle tough issues involving the treatment of chemical and municipal waste.

This academic lecture resembled a public service announcement, as Samantha encouraged people to become more active in their local communities. I learned a significant amount about how the EPA proposes solutions, but hardly receives enough funding to carry them out. I was slightly disappointed by Samantha’s one suggestion to solving this waste crisis, which was to “storm the factories.” Human effort is limited, and revolutions cannot be only physical, as factory owners may easily figure out a way to prevent these riots from occurring. Targeting local companies does not seem like a feasible idea, as the problem lies in the way our society functions and our skewed ideologies.

I would like to find out more information about toxic waste, seeing as it is an underrated issue in our world today. In fact, there has been too much emphasis on global warming, thus directly all of our attention to alternative energy sources. If we decide to incorporate nuclear technology to generate energy for various populations, we must also think of the byproducts coming from these powerhouses. Part of the crisis lies in apathetic people who do not consider small initiatives, such as recycling, worthy of their time.

This event definitely added value to the community, though the audience was generally composed of NYU Environmental Studies students. Proper treatment of tonnage and toxicity is something that should concern all citizens of any given community, and Samantha MacBride did an excellent job of conveying her enticing points. By encouraging her audience members to be part of a greater cause, Samantha represented the voice of a new generation. The young adults of this age will, arguably, become the most environmentally conscious one in the history of the world. I would definitely say that the event achieved its goal of spreading the word of invisible waste, something that is swept underneath the carpet in order to suppress controversy within our society. In the future, NYU should post flyers around Kimmel and Bobst to inform the students about these environmental events, as I only found out about this through the Environmental Studies Blackboard.

Overall, I enjoyed listening to Samantha MacBride speak about toxic waste that is present in all of our lives, though we are sometimes unaware of it. Her lecturing style was rapid, but all of her information appealed to us, as she provided us with websites to explore at a later date. Our society is changing at an unprecedented pace, so we must insist on taking the environment seriously if we want to make an impact on future generations.

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.

Chelsea Ruplin Professor Schwartz
Environmental Studies December 9, 2008

After stressing about time running out before I could get to a community event, I was relieved in last Wednesday’s class when I learned of all the various opportunities that were still available. As I was too paranoid to procrastinate one more day, I attended the discussion on career paths that benefit the environment that evening, Wednesday December 3rd. The discussion panel was hosted by New York University’s Wagner school and was held in the Puck building on Lafayette. The discussion was led by four individuals who formerly attended the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and now hold jobs whose purposes are to increase environmental awareness and/or improve environmental conditions. The speakers and their respective jobs were: Meredith Bergmann, who assists a NYC film and television company make environmentally-sound decisions, Les Judd, who actually founded his own company called Green Boroughs, Samantha MacBride, who is an administrative official for the state of NY that lobbies for improved waste management methods, and finally Joshua Kleinberg, who works for the NY League of Conservation voters. The discussion between these four accomplished environmental advocates was conducted in a relatively laid back manner. In addition, the audience was comprised mainly of students, which I also liked because as the speakers were also former students, it provoked participation, as no one seemed to be intimidated by anyone in the room.

However, one thing I noticed was the fervor that each panelist possessed toward his or her field. As they shared their work-related and environmental experiences, it was clear that some of them, respectfully of course, disagreed with each other. The most heated and intriguing part of the discussion occurred when Samantha MacBride advocated taking environmental concerns straight to the nation’s capital. As she felt this was the most effective way of making environmental progress, Joshua Kleinberg quickly countered her statement by claiming that it was more realistic to accomplish change on a smaller scale, like a local level. Although neither of the two panelists was wrong, as the statement is based on opinion, I have to agree more with Joshua Kleinberg’s approach. It always seems as though changes are only made in Washington D.C. if the issue gets serious national attention, which can be very difficult to achieve. Therefore, if a concerned group of college students or even a sector of a notable company wants to make a relatively immediate change, it does seem as though starting off with local legislators would be a more effective and fruitful approach. Then if an amendment is made and passed by a local or state government, perhaps it will have more of a chance of being incorporated into the national law spectrum at some point.

Overall, this experience was new to me. Despite the fact that I have attended discussion panels in the past, I have never attended one in relation to environmentally conscious careers. The speakers who interested and inspired me most were Meredith Bergmann and Les Judd. As Bergmann discussed her efforts in making entertainment companies more eco-friendly, my interest was sparked because I realized that was a very effective approach towards making people aware of environmentally friendly behaviors. As large production companies are widely known and constantly in the media, their utilization of “green” methods of operation, such as improved waste disposal (which is one area that Bergmann focuses on), could be very influential as they have the means of becoming widely advertised. My interest also piqued when listening to Les Judd’s description of his company’s mission. After listening to him talk about the break down of his website and its purpose, which is to inform people how “green” certain companies really are, I actually went online at home and checked certain things out for myself. On greenboroughs.com there is a very informative homepage that gives background on Judd himself and the company’s goals and tasks and there are also links that lead to pages on “Green Business Marketing”, “Corporate Green Events”, “Sustainable Living in NYC”, and “Walking Tours”, which I particularly thought was awesome! I am a big fan of guided walking tours, as I think it is a fun way to become enlightened that is more interactive and hands on than simply sitting through a lecture or something of that nature. According to greenborough.com the mission of the walking tour is to show people how “green” businesses operate, how the owners went about making the change, and what the products of “green” companies physically are like. This is a great way to educate, for it allows people to experience something for themselves as opposed to simply taking a person’s word for something.

In conclusion, this discussion panel was definitely informative. As the world is in a state of environmental crisis, actions need to be made towards improving human habits and the condition of the globe. Although this discussion only reached a small handful of people within the NYC community, the knowledge that we acquired from this meeting can be passed on by word of mouth. It is better to start somewhere as opposed to nowhere at all. In addition the same concept that Joshua Kleinberg was trying to relay can be applied to this situation. As it is sometimes easier to start making changes locally as opposed to nationally, the same concept can be applied when trying to spread awareness. It is easier to gather a conference room full of people than a stadium full. However, once some are educated, they can take what they know and spread that information to others. In addition, environmental action is on the rise as NYU and NYC as a whole seem to be making steps towards becoming more “green” and environmentally friendly in their operations.

http://nyc.indymedia.org/images/2006/08/74665.jpg

Link to picture of Samantha MacBride, employee of the NYC Department of Sanitation

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/green-boroughs-nyc-sustainability-course.php

Link to picture of a green boroughs add for classes on sustainable living