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

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

Daniel

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

Review of Community Event: Garbage Warriors

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

Images:

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.

On Wednesday, September 24th, I attended a forum on solar energy held in the Kimmel Center. The forum was hosted by NYLCVEF, or the New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. NYLCVEF is presenting a series of three such forums called ‘Powering the Future.’ They will all address different forms of alternative energy that could be utilized by New York in the near future. The two forums to come will be addressing wind power and nuclear power.
The forum opened with remarks and a quick presentation on the basics of solar energy. Then we were introduced to the panel. There were six panel members. Paul DeCotis is the deputy secretary for energy in the office of governor David Paterson. Jody Durst is the co-president of the Durst Organization, a real estate company that has been working on “building green.” The director of the air and energy program of the natural resources defense council, Ashok Gupta, was another panel member. Then there was the CEO of altPOWER (a renewable energy developing firm), Anthony Pereira, and Randolph Price, the vice president of environment, health, and safety of ConEdison, the electric service source in New York City as well as some areas nearby. Last but not least there was Gil Quiniones, the executive vice president of the New York Power Authority. The forum mostly consisted of the host, Matthew Sollars, who is a politics and government reporter for Crain’s New York Business, addressing the panel with questions that would address different aspects of solar energy.
All renewable energy is expensive, and solar energy is no exception. Creating the means to access solar energy are not cheap. Installing solar panels would be an investment, and it is not one the government can fund alone. Taxpayers would need to be willing to invest as well. Solar energy, like most renewable energy, is expensive now, but we must put the money into it to be able to reap the benefits. According t o Paul DeCotis, the government has considered its possibilities, such as incentive packages for those who are interested in using renewable energy but find the price to be a bit steep. Another option is regulation action, forcing the people of New York to cut down on the amount of electricity and energy we currently use. Mandates on utilizing a certain amount of renewable energy by a certain date is another suggestion. But there are issues with all of these options. Even incentive packages cannot cover the costs of installing solar panels, and many families simply can’t afford to invest so much money where they won’t see any benefits for some time. Regulation action is hard to enforce, especially when New Yorkers have not been living with any form of energy restraints thus far. Mandates on utilizing specific amounts of renewable energy are the most likely, when applied to an entire city. New York is currently hoping to add one thousand megawatts of solar energy into the New York power grid by 2015, but currently there are not enough funds to create the sources to provide solar energy. Other forms of alternative energy are more affordable and more practical with the funds we have. Many of our funds are currently being directed towards utilizing wind power, and that is part of the reason we have not invested as much in solar power. The money that was directed towards photovoltaic power ran out, as there was more interest than had been anticipated. The ideal situation for a city like New York would be to use as much of every kind of alternative energy as possible. The government is trying to encourage alternative energy, and they are hoping that using it will become trend, similar to the way organic food has become popular. The money is earmarked for where it can do the most good, and currently, solar energy doesn’t seem to be the most productive way to spend it. Attending a forum such as this one was a new experience for me. I have never attended a panel on the environment before, nor did I know very much about solar energy before I attended this event. I was aware that it was an effective form of renewable energy, but beyond that I didn’t have much information on it. The panel was a lot more interesting than I thought it would be, especially because it was not focused on just the environmental aspect of using solar energy, but also the way it could affect the city and how the government plays a very important role. It is easy to think that everyone should just be ‘green,’ and take advantage of things such as renewable energy, but it is not always as simple as that. The impression I got from most of the panel was that they would all like to make solar energy a part of our everyday lives; however, it will take more than just hoping for that to happen. The people in this city need to feel invested in this cause for them to invest more of their tax money to create the sources of solar energy. It was also interesting to view New York in comparison to New Jersey, or other more rural areas. Part of the reason that alternative energy is so difficult here is because the city is such a dense place. Installing solar panels on the roof of a building would barely provide enough energy for one or two apartments, let alone an entire building. Looking at renewable energy from several different angles made it a much more educational experience, because it reminds me that it is not simply about the environment, but also about what we can manage.
I did enjoy this event, and I feel pretty knowledgeable about solar energy now. I am interested in seeing what happens in the next couple of years in New York, and whether we can succeed in adding solar energy to the power grid here. I think it could be a great way to start making New York a little bit more green.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Mafate_Marla_solar_panel_dsc00633.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Gleisdorf.Solarbaum.jpg

On Monday, September 15th, I attended a lecture on global warming from Jim Marston, the Attorney General in the Environmental Division of Texas, in the NYU School of Law. This event was hosted in the Greenberg Lounge at Vanderbilt Hall from 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m. It was sponsored by the Environmental Law Society. It was an educational event aimed mainly for NYU graduate law students. Jim Marston is a senior attorney and the Executive Director of Environmental Health Funds in Texas. He sets the environmental policy in Texas by working on issues such air pollution, water quality, and energy. He also works with policy lawmakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and electric power plants, which was the main topic of his lecture on September 15th.
The lecture was very informative and interesting. Throughout the lecture, Jim Marston made a lot of jokes, most of them relating to the topic. Everyone who attended seemed to enjoy the lecture. His lecture addressed the ways in which we can solve global warming. He first began his lecture by explaining the somewhat new policy, enacted in 2006, Cap and Trade. He asked if we knew exactly what it was and what it guidelines were, but surprisingly, quite a number of us did not. Basically, Cap and Trade is a policy aimed towards reducing greenhouse gases (particularly from big firms, companies, and plants) and carbon dioxide in the most manageable way in terms of the economy. Marston stated that the “cap” part, which allows companies to buy a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases it emits into the atmosphere, is mandatory. This is one way of limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that companies emit. As for the “trade” part of the policy, compan
ies that would not be able to get these permits easily and for a cheap price can purchase them from the other companies, the ones that can purchase these permits easily. This is perfect for the companies that already have more than enough permits to emit their carbon dioxide, because they can make a profit by selling it to other companies in desperate need of permits. Marston stated that this “trade” part is optional. He also stated that both presidential candidates are in favor of Cap and Trade. This policy requires every plant to make a reduction.
Marston then continued his lecture with the different opinions and types of analysis from economists, environmentalists, and government officials. Apparently, the law says we need to make reductions, specifically reductions of eighty percent. We also need to get the industry making money and figure out how to make reductions. Some economists argue for carbon taxes, taxes on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. However, these carbon taxes would raise prices. Initally, economists said that we would not be able to solve global warming. They thought that it would cost too much to solve global warming, and that people would need to drive in different cars. However, the government stated that the solution would make a minor impact on the economy. Economists’ main fears are that the amount of needed to solve global warming would hurt our economy drastically. Marston proved in his lecture that this view is wrong.
Marston addressed this assertion by first stating that “small steps make a difference.” A little difference does matter and it will affect the atmosphere. He stated that a study showed that fourty pecent of reductions we need by 2050 can be done with our existing technology and also save us money. He stated that when Americans are given a choice, we could easily reach an eighty percent reduction in driving by simply biking, walking, or taking the train to work or school. He suggested that we should tie a campaign about obesity and health to environmental issues. Afterall, most of the environmental issues lead to diseases and health problems for humans. Marston stressed the importance of the need to go from high technology to clean technology. Marston’s argument showed that economists should not ways of solving global warming.
After Marston’s lecture was a Question and Answer session. One woman asked what is so great about Cap and Trade because she was skeptical since in the past there was much more regulation and energy efficiency. Marston answered that the main advantage is certainty. Cap is a guarentee, a “no matter what.” Cap gives credit to big companies and by 2020, there will be an increase in reductions of greenhouse gases from our current four percent to a twenty percent. Marston admitted that the downside is that it does not always work especially since we are not in the future yet. However, the more that people do in an early time, the more that gets done. Also, cap and trade would definitely work for the electricity sector. If this ever failed, there is always the alternative and back-up plan of carbon taxes. The next question of debate after this was from a man who pointed out that China and India have not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. Marston answered, “Well, they
create their own problems.“ China and India’s failure to comply with the Protocol should not encourage failure in our own compliance.
Marston ended his lecture by stating that rich, industrial nations cause the problems, along with consumers. We cannot solve global warming by consumer regulation alone, but we cannot solve global warming without consumer regulation, as well. Our government has tried to educate people to reduce air pollution for about 30 or more years, but trying to tell people to help in reducing these problems for altruistic reasons and for future generations has been a failure. Marston stated the sad fact that we need an incentive just to get people to care about our environment. One possible way is by rewarding people for fuel efficiency. In conclusion, for the present moment, our best solutions to global warming are the Cap and Trade Policy and consumer regulation along with rewards for consumers. Marston stated that we can solve other problems simultaneously if we tackle global warming smartly.
I liked this event because it was so informative. I did not even know there were attorneys for environmental law before hearing about this event. I do think becoming an attorney for environmental law is something I would like to do in the future. Listening to Jim Marston speak showed me how passionate he was over the issue. He was very adamant about taking action in solving global warming. I can see myself doing something to better the environment, as well. I felt like he was a perfect example of people trying to make the world better. The event definitely informed me, as well as everyone who attended. I found it extremely worthwhile, because now I can add to my list my possible careers. The one thing I found very beneficial was learning about cap and trade. After attending this lecture, I realized that Cap and Trade is an important topic in today’s politics and I did not even know about it. So, not only did I gain knowledge of the way economists have thought, but I also learned one aspect of today's
debate and politics.

The event that I attended on Wednesday, October 22 was the "Energy, Environment and the Election" at Vanderbilt Hall of NYU Law School, sponsored by NYU Wagner Environmental Department and Environmental Law Society. Three speakers who discussed energy and environment issues related to the election were Josh Klainberg, a current deputy director of New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV), Richard Farren, a member of NYLCV and Republican delegate, and Dan Abbasi, a senior director of MissionPoint Capital Partners. The panel started around 6:20 P.M, and most attendees were students at law school, faculties, journalists, and some students from this course!
In the panel, the speakers discussed two candidates’ campaigns dealing with energy and environmental crisis especially climate change and resource independency. Josh Klainberg pointed out that the energy and environmental issues now had become one of the key concerns of voters. It seemed that people hope to see some fundamental changes in government policies that would resolve ever increasing prices of oil and gas. Two main challenging energy issues are oil supply independence and trade balance with countries like Venezuela that the U.S. purely import resources from.
Richard Farren, a supporter of the former president candidate Mr. McCain, stated that historically the U.S. economy was built on cheap energies. But we are not even able to grasp the idea of cheap energy in this time period anymore. Therefore we need a broad based search for substitution energy. Mr. Ferren believed that McCain was the one who would be capable of finding substitutions and resolve energy crisis. Farren mentioned very briefly about using a nuclear power as a possible replacement of oil energy but didn’t say much further.
Dan Abassi explained Mr. Obama’s campaign on energy and environment in three different categories: to build clean energy economy, to achieve oil independency, and to resolve climate change. Mr. Obama, now as the new president elect has been advocating for accumulation of renewable technology and clean air policy since 1995. In his presidential campaign, he proposed that he would spend $ 300 million on clean air policy to upgrade national air quality. Abassi also stated that in last month’s presidential debate, Mr. Obama chose building a new, clean energy economy as a number one priority of his administration along with issues of economic recovery. Abassi spoke with confidence that Mr. Obama and his campaign have more detailed, rigid, and stable planed policies and strategies to deal with energy independence, climate change and clean air development. Lastly, he pointed out that even looking at the records of past few years, it is certain that Mr. Obama has been an active participator in solving energy and environmental problems and ready to give out a profound and systemic solution.

Few days before I attended the event, I watched the second presidential debate between Senator Barack Obama and John McCain over the issues of energy and environmental crisis. Two candidate’s heated debate inspired me to learn more about the issues of climate change and resource independency. I also became curious about what the experts would say about their arguments. So I decided to attend this event, “Energy, environment and the election. It was a great and meaningful experience for me to learn about the most concerned current energy and environmental problems and their interactions with politics. I learned why there are rising debates over the issues of oil dependency and climate change and how the new president-elect and his policies must deal with them. These problems of energy and environmental crisis, which now all Americans acknowledge as a rising threat to the U.S economy, requires fundamental changes in behaviors of society as a whole.
At this moment, our new president-elect seems to recognize this need of policy changes well enough. Dan Abassi spoke in the panel that Mr. Obama believes that the cost of inaction is twenty times greater than the cost of action. This is why Mr. Obama prioritized matters of energy independency and climate change over other public concerns. One article from New York Times quoted Mr. Obama after the election. “My suggestion to all of you is to enjoy the holiday season and rest up because I think it’s going to be a very, very busy 2009”. Mr. Obama’s concern about solving climate change and reducing greenhouse gases already excite many environmentalists in and out of the United States with a hope of seeing real changes in government actions.

Every time I watch Mr. Obama’s speech, I feel that he knows how to present himself credible. He has charisma that appeals people and persuade people. Through his speech he has shown people that he knows what he’s talking about ‘what he’s talking about’! As Josh Klainberg mentioned at the end of the panel, I also believe that both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain had will to resolve energy and environmental crisis, but what matters more is not the willingness but the ability. And if someone asks me who would be a better dealer with energy/environmental problems, I would say it is Mr. Barack Obama. What I noticed in the panel was that Abassi gave more tangible and detailed strategies and policies of Obama Campaign than Farren did. Mr. Ferron seemed to speak more general ideas about concerns of energy and environmental crisis rather than specific methods of how to solve them. From my observation in the panel at least, it seemed that Obama campaign has more things to say about energy and environment. The ideas and strategies of Obama campaign were more organized and realistic—realistic in that it is actually helpful and effective.
I remember the night of the Election Day. People were having parties celebrating Mr. Obama’s victory and shouting on the streets. Although our new president-elect faces many hardships including economic crisis, I look forward to seeing his great leadership as well as successful changes in energy and environmental issues.

[Videos]

Energy, Environment and the Election Panel Video

Mr. Barack Obama’s speech on energy and environment

CCN news clip on the president elect’s first year plan on energy/environment
*in case it doesn't link to the video site go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2rfetK8vSY

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

(Samantha MacBride (MPA '96)

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

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

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

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

Wind Turbines on a Wind Farm

Uses of Solar Panels

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

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.