LSP Environmental Studies Community Event Reports

I attended the “Go Green Contest” held by Chase Bank on Facebook on Saturday 09/13/08 at 4:45 pm. The event was intended to teach college students about environmental preservation, the current bleak state of our environment, and what people can do to preserve the environment now and improve it for the future. There were a number of different “tones” for this event, including academic, activist, educational (aimed at current college students), and promotional, for both environment conservation and Chase Bank services.
Chase offers a $40,000 prize for the school that gets the most points by completing various actions on their “Go Green Contest” Facebook application, which you have to download to compete in. The participant receives a certain amount of points for completing certain tasks on the application, such as receiving 25 points for watching a short video advertisement about “Chase Mobile Checking”, 50 points for finding local Chase bank branches in your area, one point for every Facebook friend you invite to the contest, 15 points for every Facebook friend that accepts your invite to the contest, etc. I received 160 points after competing in the contest for about 10 minutes, but I have no idea how I received those 160 points. I watched the video (25 points), found four Chase branches in the area on a map ( 4 x 25 = 100 points), downloaded a special offer from Chase regarding “Chase College Checking” (50 points), viewed a Chase “College Checking Promotion” (50 points), read information about preserving the environment, and completed other tasks for points. Therefore I should have had at least 225 points, not 160. In total, I spent about 20 minutes in the Contest, and I saw that 596 people from NYU (mostly students) had participated in the contest before I did. However, because the new Facebook layout became permanent today, I clicked on something else and was unable to get back to the contest’s webpage because the new Facebook layout is much more confusing than the old one.
Competing in this contest was definitely a new experience for me. I have competed in countless other contests in my life, but I have never competed in a contest about preserving and improving the environment; let alone one that was sponsored by a large banking company. I have never actually competed in an online contest before, because I am worried about spam, hackers, viruses, and other possible negative side effects that could result from doing so; but because this contest was on Facebook which is a secure web site, and because Professor Schwartz had already participated in the contest and encouraged her students to do so as well, I decided to compete in the contest.
The vast majority of the things I learned from competing in this contest were “old material” for me, since I already had previous knowledge of many of Chase’s environment-friendly strategies from high school, NYU, magazines, television, and other media outlets. I already knew about reusing plastic water bottles, picking up litter and putting it in the trash, and turning the lights off when leaving a room or if they’re not needed. However, I had never heard of turning the car engine off when the car was idle, such as at a traffic light, even if it is only for a minute. I think that would be more dangerous than anything, because you can’t time lights perfectly unless you drive by that particular traffic light on a frequent basis. Once the color changes, if the car engine isn’t turned on already, it will take at least a second or two to start, which might be a second or two to long before an impatient or reckless driver behind you “rear-ends” your vehicle. Of course, I have heard of turning the car’s engine off when it is going to be idle for a while, such as parking it for a few minutes, hours, or overnight; but I had never heard of turning the engine off for such a short period of time.
This event did not enhance my interest in preserving and improving the environment, since NYU has so many activities and promotions about saving the environment that I see on a frequent basis. Moreover, Chase’s contest was only a ploy to lure college students in to see their banking service advertisements placed throughout the contest and hopefully become a member of Chase Banking services, or upgrade their current Chase membership to include more/new features. Therefore, the contest wasn’t solely devoted to helping the environment. However, I think the event did have a positive impact on the environment by making contestants more knowledgeable and aware of environmental preservation activities and strategies, even if its motives were not completely pure.
I don’t know if the contest achieved its aims, as it is unclear what Chase’s goals were for creating this contest. I believe Chase’s goal was to obtain more College students to enroll with their bank by strategically placing their advertisements in a worthwhile educational activity about environmental preservation. I would assume they have a goal of enrolling a certain number of college students in their “Chase College Checking Services” through this event, but I have no idea or way of knowing what that number is.
I believe this contest could have been improved if Chase included more information about how to preserve and improve the environment, including lesser known and more innovative facts and strategies, as well as listing outside organizations and sources that could be viewed or contacted to learn more about the current environmental state and what can be done to change it. Although I am not a big fan of using important global issues as an advertising strategy, I feel Chase did an excellent job of creating, organizing, and advertising themselves while spreading necessary information about how to preserve our currently depleted environmental state, even if that information was common knowledge for most college students.
Overall, I feel indifferent to participating in this contest. I think competing in an event that shares knowledge about a very important issue is a worthwhile cause, but I already knew most of the information that was being shared, and the information I didn’t know was much more insignificant compared to the information I already knew. If there had been much more information about preserving and improving our environment, I believe that participating in this contest could have been a much better use of my time.

I attended the Environmental Studies book release party on Wednesday September 17, 2008, which took place in the Kimball Hall Lounge from 5:30-7:30 pm. The two authors who were discussing their newly published books were Dale Jamieson, the academic director of and a professor in the Environmental Studies Program in NYU’s College of Arts and Sciences; and Tyler Volk, the Science Director of Environmental Studies and an Associate Professor of Biology in NYU’s College of Arts and Sciences.
This book release party should have been called “Schmooze with the authors and get free wine and cheese,” because that’s what it really was. There was a small bar with non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages, a small table with appetizers and au-devours, such as assorted gourmet cheeses and meats, as well as various fruits and raw vegetables. There was also a table on the opposite side of the room where copies of the two books were laid out for people to sample and hopefully buy, made obvious by the fact that two NYU Bookstore employees were sitting at the ready with a portable credit card machine. As far as I know, the party didn’t have an official sponsor, but it could have been sponsored by the Environmental Studies department. Many of the people at the party were current or former professors in the Environmental Studies Program, and the rest of the party guests were either friends of the two authors, or NYU students or employees who noticed the free food and booze while passing by. I would estimate that during the half hour I attended the party, which was from 5:30-6 pm, there were 10-30 guests in attendance at any given time, with more people coming during the latter part of that half hour. I only saw one person buy a book, and it was because he was a friend of Dale Jamieson’s and was obviously looking to brown-nose him; as was evident during his lengthy conversation about what an amazing author and scientist Jamieson was, and how he told him he thought that “…both Obama and McCain should each read it before their upcoming debate...”
Dale Jamieson’s book is titled Ethics and the Environment: /An Introduction, and focuses on how the environment fits into living an ethical lifestyle; Jamieson brings up issues such as political philosophy, human morality, the value of nature, and other environmental and ethical issues. The book was published by Cambridge University Press, and sells at $29.99 for a paperback and $90.00 for a hardcover edition.
As a person, Jamieson seemed to be very upbeat and gregarious, obviously loving the attention he was getting from the party guests, but also very enthusiastic about his book and the issues, ideas, and opinions that he brought up in it. Tyler Volk on the other hand, was much more reserved and soft-spoken; but he too became very passionate when asked about the issues, processes, and resolutions that he presented in his book, CO2 Rising/ The World’s Greatest Environmental Challenge.
In CO2 Rising/ The World’s Greatest Environmental Challenge, Volk talks about how the rising levels of CO2 are changing the Earth’s natural processes and cycles, especially by altering its natural cooling process, leading to global warming. During a portion of his book, Volk actually takes the point of view of a carbon atom, and he follows it through one of the possible journeys a carbon atom could take: He follows a carbon atom into a leaf of barley and then into an alcohol molecule in a glass of beer. The carbon atom then enters the human bloodstream through digestion of the beer, and then is released back into the air. Volk believes that his readers will become educated about the carbon cycle on a global level and the disturbances that human activity creates for it, thus allowing them to make educated decisions if/when confronted with problems such as, which energy processes will best power civilizations in the future? What is a sustainable amount of energy use for different people in different parts of the world? What is the proper amount of global equity in per capita emissions?
This event was definitely a new experience for me. I’ve been to some business parties before because of my parent’s occupations that were somewhat similar to this event; but I had never attended a book opening, or attended an event with a bunch of academic socialites by myself. I already had previous knowledge about environmental sustainability and about rising levels of CO2, but by listening (and eavesdropping) on the authors, as well as reading the summaries and parts of each of their books, I learned more about the specific issues and problems that are creating these global concerns: Such as when the impact of population is combined with the impact of technology, the effect on the environment is multiplied, (Dale Jamieson, Ethics and the Environment: /An Introduction.)
After attending this event, my interest in environmental sustainability and global warming was not enhanced because I have heard so much about these issues in class, from NYU, television, and other media outlets. In my opinion, this event did not have value to any community because it was a private event meant to promote the books of two authors; it had no relevance to any community improvement, unless someone who attended the event took the knowledge that they gained from learning about the topics in the two books and used that knowledge to improve their respective communities. Obviously, this event was intended to have a positive impact on the environment by educating people on the current problems in it, and what we can do to correct them. However, there was no immediate positive impact on the environment that can be attributed directly to this event.
Once more, the book signing was a promotional event whose purpose was to advertise the books of these two authors, and I believe it did just that. The only way I would improve this event would have been to advertise it more so that a larger number of people could have found out about it and attended. If I hadn’t seen this event under the “Events Listing” on blackboard for our class, I would not have known about it. I checked my e-mail on the day of this event, and on the left side of the “NYUHome” page where events for that day within the university are listed, this was not mentioned; so either it was a very poor job of advertising by these two authors and NYU, or the book signing was meant to be a smaller gathering and only for people who were truly interested in Environmental Science.
Overall, I was indifferent to my experience at the book signing. I felt that it was interesting to see how professors, high-ranking university employees, and well-to-do New Yorkers interact; as well as being able to get free, high quality food while doing an assignment. Nonetheless, the atmosphere at the book signing was somewhat bland, and if someone who wasn’t interested in Environmental Science came to the event, they would have left immediately because there was no one to greet them and educate them about what the event was or what it was about.

Amanda Sakuma

I had managed to pick up a spare in the last round, but with only two pins down and one frame left, prospects were not looking good. My opponent was already ahead and she could plow down the field with a wicked curve that came out of nowhere. Sadly, that opponent was a 6 year-old girl who stood no taller than my waist. She was absolutely schooling me in pumpkin bowling. I watched as she lobbed the stemless pumpkin down the lane at the rows of butternut squash serving as pins. Each “pin” keeled over in defeat. It was no surprise when the little girl won the prize of a mini painted pumpkin for conquering the match. Her parents offered me warm, thankful smiles as a consolation. As if I had lost on purpose.

Instead of living in up at school in New York City, I was spending my first Saturday of October in farm country. After taking a 5-hour flight to my hometown of Burlington, Washington for a completely unrelated event, I found myself at the Festival of Family Farms. An annual event of the community, the festival was originated by Washington State University’s Department of Agriculture. Composed of 12 local farms in the area, the event was established to educate the community on understanding where their food comes from. Now a non-profit organization, the Festival of Family Farms combines learning with fun family oriented activities under the slogan of “Acres of Fun for Everyone!”

My family’s berry farm (yes, berry farm) was one of those featured in the festival. My parents had bribed me to attend with prospects of free food. So, with a steamy, hot and fresh corn on the cob in hand, I sat squished in between two little kids on a trailer of hay bails for a tractor-ride tour of the farm that I had worked on all summer. My mom, the tour guide of the hour, sat at the head of the trailer with what looked like a mini karaoke machine that projected her voice over the roar of the engine.

I munched on my snack with kernels lodged in my teeth as my mom explained the progression of how our food is grown and harvested. Though I had worked on “the farm” since I could remember, it was almost embarrassing how little I knew about it. I did not know that our plants were propagated, or reproduced, through a process called plant tissue culture. This process essentially replicates plants without ever having a seed. It still sounds crazy to me.

After the tour, I headed towards the information tent to get out of the cold and to grab more free food samples. Tables were set up along the perimeter of the tent, some offering tutorials on pruning; others were giving free samples of caramel apples. The table that drew in the largest crowd was the one dedicated entirely to information on organic food. “Charlie the Organic Guy” was already in a deep conversation with some young families by the time I had joined. The question of the day asked by many parents was why buy local organic food instead of what is available at the grocery stores?

Charlie had an interesting response. He told the crowd that though conventional produce at grocery stores offered lower prices, customers are unable to know where it came from, how it was grown, and what pesticides were used. An advocate of buying fresh local produce, Charlie explained the importance of knowing that what you buy is fresh and suitable for consumption. He had an interesting point that though there are organic certifications on food, they are only applied to how they are grown. According to Charlie, there are no government regulations concerning the transportation of organic produce. The verdict, he said, was to buy fresh and local whenever available. His talk made me appreciate the Union Square market that came in front of my dorm 4 times a week.

Overall, to me, the event seemed to be a success. This was the first year of the festival that I was able to be a bystander rather than the hired help. Washington is notoriously dreary during this time of year, and this day was no different. The gentle drizzle was a testament to the family’s dedication and stability against the weather. I was told later that the festival of all 12 farms drew in roughly 15,000-20,000 visitors throughout the two-day event.

I am an advocate of the festival and what it stands for. My rural community is expanding faster than ever, but it still seems as though community members still believe in farmland preservation. Kids were able to physically see where their food came from, and how it was harvested and brought to their table. Parents were able to learn about the difference between organic and non-organic products to determine what they want to offer their family. It really was “Acres of Fun for Everyone!”

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, November 3, 2008 NYU doctoral candidate Samantha MacBride gave a presentation called “Tonnage and Toxicity: Visible and Invisible Solid Waste Problems in the Contemporary United States” as part of the Coles Science Salon Series. Ms. MacBride received her BA in Biology from Johns Hopkins University, and discussed both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.

The presentation began with a discussion and outline of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, which is a law that governs the municipal and industrial disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. One of the aims of RCRA is to reduce the total amount of generated waste in the United States, but the United States continues to load landfills at a rate of 250 billion tons per year. This is around 4.5 pounds of waste per person in the United States per day!

Ms. MacBride did a great job of breaking down the different kinds of waste. The different between non-hazardous waste and hazardous waste depends on the EPA standards. To be considered “hazardous,” waste must be ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. The term “industrial” refers to waste that is generated from industry, manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. Municipal solid wastes, which are more commonly described as “garbage” is the waste created from homes, schools, and businesses.

A lot of the problem, according to Ms. MacBride comes from the lack of government regulation to help the environment; the EPA’s regulations only go so far in the United States. As it stands, Pennsylvania is the only state in the United States that monitors the disposal of non-hazardous industrial waste. The handling of municipal solid wastes, however, is a more than 37 billion dollar industry in the United States. Recycling and sanitation removal is not mandated nationally in the United States, and though many states have come forward to enforce advanced recycling incentives and regulations, there is still more than can be done.

One such incentive is the Bottle Bill, which has passed in only eleven states in the US, which promotes recycling by offering $.05 for each returned recyclable container, such as glass and plastic bottles and aluminum cans. A proposed Bigger Better Bottle Bill, which would raise the incentive to $.10 per return and expand to incorporate water bottle returns, has been vehemently shot down by government, even though the legislation has proven successful in the eleven states, and it does not cut into company profits. At my house, my Dad is absolutely adamant about foraging through the house for any stray cans or bottles to return to the machines that crush them up at the grocery store. Every couple of weeks, my Dad drags my brother and I to Stop and Shop with three or four large garbage bags full of cans and bottles to deposit. Recycling by listening to a machine smash glass and crush aluminum is actually fun, and is a great way to get people of all ages excited to recycle.

I agree with Ms. MacBride, who said “people understand recycling – it is the most widely practiced environmental activity in the United States” when referring to the positive progression of curbside recycling. It is important for people to know that recycling is good, and that by not recycling they are damaging the environment; there is not necessarily a reason that the general public should be completely informed about the process of recycling, and just knowing that they are helping the environment should be enough of an incentive to recycle. Of course, with things like the Bottle Bill, there is further incentive as recycling becomes more and more necessary to help the environment. Recycling is something small that everybody in the United States can do individually to collectively have a larger impact on the environment. Further, if the general population sorts out their recycling, this decreases the need for any kind of sortation on an assembly line.

But we, the general population, pay to recycle through taxes, and even our own time sorting through different recyclable materials. So with this in mind, Ms. MacBride continued on to discuss consumer sovereignty. We, as consumers, have the power to influence the producers. If enough people decide they want to go “green,” and influence the markets by buying green products, then the producers will follow suit and produce more green products. The same can be said for the environment. If enough people exhibit a willingness to recycle, then the government or big corporations could be more inclined to facilitate the recycling process, either by expanding the availability of knowledge about the degradation of the environment or by making recycling easier and more widespread, or even lowering the cost of waste removal.

You see, waste removal charges make it increasingly unattractive to recycle or dispose of waste properly. These prices mean that people need more money, which means people will need to work more, which means they will have less time, which means they will need to buy more convenience foods to in order to juxtapose time and the basic human necessity to eat. Most of these convenience foods are not packaged with the environment in mind, nor are they the best to dispose of. The plastic coating that is placed over frozen foods is not recyclable, nor are most of the plastic trays that hold the food. So while these foods are convenient for consumers, they are not necessarily convenient for the environment. As a consumer, this teaches me that it is increasingly important to look at packaging to find out what can be recycled and what is harmful to the environment.

Ms. MacBride linked everyone in attendance to a great, informative online video about the consumptive habits of the United States called “The Story of Stuff,” which is narrated by environmentalist Annie Leonard. This video addresses the destruction of the environment, the build-up of waste, and even the national happiness of the United States. One really interesting point brought up in the video is that for every one full garbage can placed on a curb, there are 70 garbage cans of waste that are filled with the leftover materials needed to make the garbage in the one can on the curb. Though this was just a supplemental thought, I went home and watched the 20-minute video, and found it entertaining and engaging, and I think anybody can benefit from just taking a little while out of their day to watch it.

This is the “invisible” solid waste problem that is facing the United States. Being invisible, the large amounts of non-hazardous industrial waste are created behind factory gates without the knowledge of the consumer. The average consumer generally does not care how something is made, as long as it is made and works properly, which is why there is no warning on the box of an iPod that warns “This product alone generated # tons of waste to make.” And before this lecture, I can honestly say that I was in the same mindset. Looking around my dorm room as I type this, I cannot help but wonder to myself just how much waste I myself have inadvertently created just by consuming.

And this is what Ms. MacBride is emphasizing. We need to be conscious consumers when it comes to the environment if we have any hope of overturning the build-up of wastes. It is the common attitude of the general public that their individual efforts will not have a larger effect. But in reality, there is never too little you can do to help the environment.

As far as production value, I enjoyed the PowerPoint presentation, because it was very comprehensive and contained great visuals. Ms. MacBride also timed her clicking to new slides very accurately and the presentation flowed seamlessly. However, I was not engaged because Ms. MacBride simply read straight from her doctoral paper. There was very little eye-contact with the audience, and she read at a speed that made it difficult to take notes or copy things from the PowerPoint. But she proved to be very well-informed in the 20-minute question and answer session, where she tackled every question that came at her with passion and a wealth of knowledge. One woman asked if the problem facing the environment was structural, to which Ms. MacBride said that the fault can be placed on any entity, be it the public or the government. There is so much more we can all do to help the environment, so the blame should not be placed on any one single group, but we all need to play our part. And this is the thought Ms. MacBride left us with.

On Wednesday, December 3, 2008 in the NYU Wagner Building in the Mulberry Conference Room from 6:30-8:00pm there was a discussion of sustainability in the environment and the increasing awareness and therefore demand for jobs in the Environment sector. Four very qualified people: one a public relations and advertiser for environmental issues in the entertainment business in New York, a lobbyist for the New York League of Conservation Voters, an entrepreneur and founder of an environment awareness company of Green Boroughs and a bureaucrat of New York State was there to discuss and help and promote students of NYU to pursue increasingly demanding jobs in the Environmental Awareness field. Many topics were brought up in this discussion about the rapidly growing business sector of helping the environment. Topics that were brought up in the discussion were issues such as "Green washing" where companies would misuse and manipulate the label as being environmentally friendly when they are in actuality not or not all the time abiding by what is considered beneficial to the environment. Governmental policies and politics were also brought up particularly about the near dismantlement of the EPA after the Reagan years and the future hope for its revival that seems bright for environmental awareness. All of the speakers also offered advice or students who are interested in getting in the field of promoting environmental awareness.
The room was packed with people, there weren't even enough chairs for all the people who came. The meeting, although all the speakers and attendants seemed to be very concerned about the environment, had an array of all sorts of opinions and ideas about growing environmental concerns. It had a diversity of people in the environmental awareness career which I felt kind of sparked a bit of what could almost be considered as tension among the speakers. All four speakers were extremely passionate in the field that they specialized in the umbrella of environmental careers. For instance I vividly recall when the lady who worked for the environment sector of New York State Department, Samatha McBride, encouraged and stated to all the listeners in the room to go to Washington if they want to make results in the environment because, she says, it is the only way really to make a difference, if she was young again, she would pack her bags and head to Washington, she was quickly retorted by Joshua, the lobbyist and Deputy Director of the New York League of Conservation Voters. Almost before she finished, he tells her that he strongly disagreed with what she says saying, " Don't pack your bags for Washington- that is not the only way....we need you back home as well.." He explains that the National government cannot do some of the things that only the state is allowed to do regarding the environment, the the change will be immensely more immediate at a more local level. Hearing all sorts of opinions and approaches to the growing concern of environmental awareness was overwhelming and at the same time inspiring. In the meeting, one very apparent idea was passed about the room: that there is always more than one way to do things, with everything. One thing, such as the discussion that we had in lab that day earlier before about the billion dollars solution to solve all our environmental problems, will not and cannot make a difference. It was also stressed that the protection of our precious environment is a collective effort, and it takes all or most to make a difference when initiated by a few who when even they have different conceptions and ideas to solutions, promote the same cause.
The Green Businesses were also consistently brought up. Greenopia.org was also a topic that was discussed by Les Judd, the founder of a green company: Green Boroughs, a company that promotes green/eco friendly causes. He talks about the different green businesses on the website and their colored leaf system that rates how "green" or environmentally friendly the self proclaimed "green companies" actually are. He explains that this website is a great way of advertising and promoting environmental awareness and action. On the topic of "green-washing" he says the best way to know and identify these sorts of manipulative advertisement is to ask. To ask the companies why they consider themselves environmentally friendly and what they are doing to promote the protection of it. After hearing him say this, I recalled the class discussion in lab earlier that day about Starbucks and the fair-trade products. In our discussion in lab, Professor Schwartz, almost amusingly, refers to her friend who whenever she passes by a Starbucks, goes in and looks for the Fair-trade coffee, that isn't always there- which is supposed to be a identifying trademark of Starbucks.
This meeting was definitely very resourceful and beneficial for the environmental cause, however it seemed to only have been targeted toward people who already had their attention on environmental issues. If this meeting was larger, had a greater number of speakers and publicized more strategically it would reach a greater number of people who are not aware of environment protection. I feel these people, people who are ignorant of our increasingly dire situation of a perishing Earth that is rapidly being used up by harmful human activity, are the people that these speakers need to reach the most. That way the word will spread faster to the larger masses. Everyone today knows about the economic crisis that the United States is currently in. Apparently the United States and much of the world is currently experiencing a recession that will last roughly until 2011 before the market forces pick up again. Most of us know this because the word is widespread and apparent and broadcasted on all the news stations, papers, talk shows and bank accounts, all of us collectively hopeful of a better future because we know that it is only a matter of time. However, we fail to realize that the environment is not like the economy, for the environment will not pick up once we have exacerbated all that we can of it. In order to persuade and make a change, the panel of speakers nod as Joshua, the deputy director of the New York League of Conservation voters states in his concluding words of advice, " Start where they are, not where you are." Wise words that can be applied to anything, but in this case especially to the rapidly accumulating crisis of our only environment, our only home.

( A political oriented way of promoting and making a difference in the environment, this group of activists aim to elect government officials that will benefit the environment)

(Greentopia.org, consider it a emerging internet encyclopedia promoting all things green such as companies, bands, merchandise and community activity)

( an obvious example of greenwashing.. )

ALL IMAGES FOUND ON GOOGLE IMAGE

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

On Wednesday evening, December 3rd, I attended a panel discussion on environmental careers at the Puck Building, sponsored by NYU’s Wagner school. The four panelists were all former students of the Wagner school and currently have careers in the environment. The speakers included Meredith Bergmann, Les Judd, Joshua Klainberg, and Samantha MacBride. Each talked about their experiences in different careers in or around New York City that helped to conserve the environment. Meredith Bergmann works as a partner for a firm that deals with film and television productions, and helps them make more environment-friendly decisions. Joshua Klainberg works for the New York League of Conservation Voters, a political action organization that works to make environmental issues the priority of elected officials, both local and national. Les Judd is the founder of a business called Green Boroughs, whose mission is to “promote green business and sustainable living in the five boroughs of New York through educational, marketing, and networking services.” Samantha MacBride works for the NYC Department of Sanitation, and works on public policy regarding waste management and recycling. All of these careers help to improve our environment, often from the perspective of politics and public policy.
The moderator of the discussion also had a career in the environment, working as a coordinator for the Wagner school’s programs. He had only graduated NYU two years ago and took the position after graduating. According to him, his position existed in 40 schools across the country when he was a freshman, and today there are several hundred such positions. This exponential growth of such programs at the university level is a testament to the growth of the green movement in our country.
Approximately 30 students were in attendance at the discussion, which was conducted in an informal environment. This was effective, as it allowed for a good deal of interaction with the audience. The panelists each talked about their careers, then had some interaction with each other about the similarities and differences or their work, which was interesting. They then opened the floor for questions from the audience. Addressing a group of mainly Wagner students, who would soon be entering the market for jobs in the environment field, there was a degree of optimism. Since the green movement is currently growing, jobs will be opening up for thousands of young workers. Also, one panelist encouraged people to stay local rather than going to Washington D.C., stressing that most problems can be better addressed at local levels rather than on a national level.
Ms. Bergmann’s career was quite interesting, as she discussed how she worked with film studios to make environment friendly productions. It was encouraging and a little bit surprising to hear that large studios, such as NBC/Universal, were willing to take part in the green movement. She talked about how she advised studios on environment friendly construction, as well as disposal of waste. To her, there was nothing more satisfying than taking unusable waste products and finding something do to with them. Also interesting was the career of Mr. Klainberg, whose organization analyzes politicians’ environmental records and stances, and makes endorsements based on these. His office analyzes the positions of politicians on many issues, ranging from nuclear power to construction.
Overall, the event was worthwhile, because it educated me on the wide variety of careers that one can work in to effect positive change on the world. It seems as if the country is beginning to see the need for environment friendly decision making with respect to everything in our daily lives, and it seems as if this movement is still growing fast. While NYU and New York City is probably at the forefront of this transition, it seems as if the future is encouraging.

On December 4th at 1:45, I attended the World Wide Green Revolution Lunch, which was an informational gathering so that people could learn about the “cradle to cradle” idea, and about increasing sustainability and eco-efficiency. It was held in one of the NYU Law School buildings. Hauser Global Law School Program and NYU’s Deutsches Haus sponsored the event. The lunch was presented by Elisa Maria Lotz, who worked on the book Gemacht für die Zukunft...., which translates to Made for the Future… She is currently one of NYU’s Visiting Doctoral Researchers, which are doctoral candidates that are enrolled in another school and spend a year researching at the NYU Law School. She is from Humboldt University in Berlin. The tone of the event was informal and relaxed, and there were about fifteen people who attended. Attendees sat around a conference table and were encouraged to and ask questions. There was a powerpoint presentation, and footage of the event was being filmed and sent to Frankfurt, Germany through a webcam. There were similar informational meetings taking place all over the world in China, Chile, and Germany.
At the beginning of the lunch, Elisa introduced us to the idea of eco-efficiency that is presented in the book that she worked on. She took two books—one paperback book and one copy of Gemacht für die Zukunft.... She put the books together in a tray and poured water over them, as if they were left out in the rain, tore at the pages, and spilled coffee over them. The paperback book was completely useless and destroyed, but the other book was still in perfect condition. She explained that this was because her book is not made out of paper; instead it is made out of plastics. It is completely waterproof, and it is the first of its kind in the German market. Elisa explained that even though books are made out of paper, they are not harmless to the environment when they are decomposing. There is ink and other chemicals used in creating books that are harmful to the environment during decomposition. The plastic book will remain a book forever, and it won’t biodegrade and harm the environment.
She explained that the old way of producing things was called “cradle to grave,” and it is when products are made for one purpose only, without the consideration of the side effects of the product to the environment or its complete life cycle. For example, a paperback book is made with consideration only to the actual book, without thinking about its effects on the environment after it becomes trash. This practice results in a lot of waste and a loss of resources. She then talked about the new “cradle to cradle” idea, which was developed by Michael Braungart and William McDonough. In a “cradle to cradle” system, industry and production follows the way nature works. Industry should try to preserve the environment rather than harm it. It uses materials that are organic and completely reusable. Elisa said that often, when things are recycled, they are “downcycled,” which means that they are made into a product of lesser value or quality. The “cradle to cradle” concept allows for “upcycling,” which is when the recycled parts are used for quality products of equal value. It considers the whole life cycle of product, so it is made of nontoxic materials that won’t harm the environment.
To explain the concept, she used the example of a cherry tree. She said that for the tree, there is no concept of waste. Everything is organic. The leaves fall to the ground, where they decompose and help the earth, and carbon dioxide is produced. Everything is used as food for another cycle. In the presentation, Elisa also talked about several German companies that had started to use the “cradle to cradle” idea in their products. For example, the furniture company Herman Miller has created a chair that is almost completely recyclable; the chair can be sent back to the factory and its parts can be reused. She also described tee shirts and textiles that can be thrown into a garden and biodegrade in just 100 days. She also talked about her favorite product, the children’s toy PlayMais, which are little pieces of non-modified corn with food coloring. The pieces stick together with water, are completely biodegradable, and they are also edible.
This was a new experience for me, because I had never heard of the “cradle to cradle” concept before. I have obviously heard of the green movement, but I had never given much thought to how exactly we can make products environmentally friendly, and this informational lunch showed how certain companies are starting to make products that are friendly to the environment and can be remade into other quality products. I also learned a little about the economic aspects of “cradle to cradle” and how it is often easier for smaller companies to get involved than large corporations. I had always been interested in the idea of the “green revolution” but the luncheon made me more interested in how it can actually be carried out. The event was valuable to the community and had a positive effect because it explained a concept that many people may not be familiar with, and it also showcased some products that are currently on the market and fit into the “cradle to cradle” idea. I think that the luncheon achieved its aims, because the people seemed generally interested in finding out more about the products, the process of making them, and why they were less harmful to the environment. In order to broaden the impact of the event, I would have made it more available to the wider public. It was advertised on several NYU calendars, but maybe if it had been more publicized around campus it would have had a larger audience. However, in the case of this luncheon, the smaller group of people was nice because it was more relaxed and informal and people had plenty of opportunity to ask questions and share their ideas.

The environmentally friendly PlayMais toy:

The Book:

Cheng Yu
Community Event

I went to a lunch held at Furman Hall on Dec, 4th. It was a meeting where the speaker, Maria Lotz, talked about innovating products. When I got there, all the food was set up on the table. The speaker welcomed each visitor with a kind smile. When every one sat down in comfort and started to talk, the speaker suddenly informed us about something that gave us a jump. She pointed at a webcam which was pointing at us, and said it was directly connected to Germany. That meant, people from headquarter were looking at us right at that moment. After some loose jokes we finally got into the mood of receiving the speech.
Maria started the speech with an interesting experiment. She pulled out two books and set a bow full of water in front them. She put both books in it and started to rip one of them. In the end, that book became nothing but a pile of garbage. However, the other one stayed intact, and with a little wipe it was as new as before. According to her explanation, the book was the first book in German that was made up of plastic. This unique characteristic makes it waterproof as well as fun to read. She went on explaining how this product will not lose its quality even when being recycled for several times. Maria defined that as down recycling, and told us many recycles, such as recycling of paper, are down recycling. The reason for that is because when being recycled once, the paper can no longer be used as paper. This is also called cradle to grave. However, plastic is different; they can remain their original state after the process. This, she called, is cradle to cradle. It was being inspired by cherry blossom which produces no waste even when all the petals fall to the ground.
With that being done, she Maria went further with the idea of cradle to cradle. She said it was the idea of designing something with its side effects and whole life cycle in mind. It has to make sure that the product can enter a cycle of eternity; can be used again and again without degrading. She generalized it into 4Rs; reduce, reuse, recycle, and regulate. Product designed according to the cradle to cradle theory use materials that are non toxic as well as recyclable in biological cycles.
After an overview of the differences between cradle to grave and cradle to cradle, she started to talk about all the new products that were being made using this idea. The first example was a chair, “Mirra”, made by Herman Miller; 96% of it was made up of cradle to cradle materials. However, the company was aware that most consumers don't care about eco-friendly product, so they did not include this element as part of the promotion. The second product was Rohner Textiles, which produces textile that rot in 100 days if being thrown into soil. Tetra packs invented plastics for packaging that can be separate from the card board once being used. The plastic can be recycled, and therefore, it changes a non cradle to cradle product to one. She mentioned many other renovating companies until she got to the most important one, Loick Biowerstoffe. This company produces things such as forks and spoons that can rot in soil, as well as children’s toys made from corn and water. After the summery of the companies, she ended her presentation.
Many people asked questions about the new products. The main ones addressed the doubts of whether these products will be widely used. The expensive prices are definitely a problem. If most people can not afford it, the products will not help the environment. People also questioned about the infrastructure of these products. Will they be recycled properly? How will the companies retrieve the products after being used? Many of the questions Maria could not answer because companies need to keep much information a secret.
The meeting was very interesting. The speaker was able to create a very comfortable atmosphere for everyone. The experiment was able to get people into the presentation mood immediately. In addition, I could see that all the innovating products really got people excited. During this short meeting, I learned many interesting innovations people around the world are inventing. Their main purpose was to incorporate eco friendly materials. I also learned that most items aren’t recycled the way I used to believe. I didn't realize the quality of the paper reduces as it is being recycled again and again until it becomes a total waste. People should, therefore, be worried about the amount of goods we are producing each day. I also realized how hard it is to push these products out onto the market. Their prices scare many middle and lower class consumers away.
In my opinion, I think the speech was interesting to hear. However, it’s hard to relate to it because it did not raise a lot of awareness. It’s sad, but most people are selfish. They only want to get eco friendly products when they have nothing to lose, or when they realize how their lives will be damaged if they don't use it. The speech didn't address a lot of problems cradle to grave products create in the world. I think she should first create this sense of urgency, and then go into cradle to cradle products. In addition, many visitors went there to learn about these new ideas, in order to go into that field themselves. However, most of them were students and people who were already well informed. Therefore, I think, though the speech was rather effective it should be able to reach the ears of many others who are not that well informed.