To my friends: I know, my blog got all formal 'n' stuff. I apologize to anyone who's disappointed, which means you, Eli Moss, the only person who reads this anymore now that I'm not in Denmark. Hi Eli!
So, what do we do at Goucher, and what don't we do?
Well, I see the school taking some steps towards environmentalism, all of which are admirable. Our dining services do a good job, and we have a very efficient heating and cooling plant. However, we miss the boat on some fairly obvious measures. I somewhat accepted reliance on paper as a fact of life in college until I went to Denmark for a semester. All my classes either encouraged or required that we hand in papers via e-mail, which were returned with comments via "track changes." No paper involved. So, why don't we all do that? Well, professors here have reasons that are understandable, but I'm not sure if they're sufficient. Most of them fall back on "I don't want to stare at a screen all day," or a lack of desire to learn a new piece of technology.
In order to get any kind of environmental initiative pushed through, it has to start with student action on a large scale. The school rarely actively opposes initiatives except on the grounds of funding, and even then they don't push back very hard or for very long if the suggestion is unambiguously the right thing to do. So, in truth, all we have to do is ask. Only a few years ago, SGA made double-sided printing standard on environmental grounds; it's just a question of how much we want it. Of course, the difference between reduced-paper and paperless is significant; nobody really opposed double-sided except for a few professors who were sticklers for proper academic format, and even then they didn't really care that much. Students and professors will oppose a paperless classroom much more.
That said, there are certain things that absolutely should be digital. The course syllabus should always be online, as should reading handouts. Even if a few people decide to print it on their own, we're still saving tons of paper. I'm using very specific examples, but the point is that in nearly all cases, the thing that we could be doing better is raising more of a fuss. The school only very occasionally makes a move on their own without student demand.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Response #6: IPCC
Unsurprisingly, the 2007 IPCC report and its summary were brought up quite frequently at Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen, giving me another opportunity to discuss my visit. (Hey everyone, did I mention that spent last semester in Copenhagen? I thought some people may not have picked up on that yet).
The report took several years to put together from hundreds of pieces of scientific and sociological literature, and by the time COP15 rolled around only two years later, some of the data was said to be out-of-date by climatologists. In fact, further research done in 2007 and 2008 pointed at climate change occurring even more rapidly and dangerously than that predicted by the IPCC. This seems to be a recurring trend. Perhaps due to fossil fuel lobbies, greed, naivete or some other factor, but we seem to think that climate change is not as big of a deal, only to find later that we should have taken action a long time ago.
On page 15 of the report summary, there is a table of how various sectors could improve in the area of environmental sustainability. In almost every category, after a series of specific suggestions, is the idea "incorporate climate change concerns into design and daily practices" or something to that effect. This points at an important goal of environmentalism. A Department of the Environment is important, and many countries have one in some form or another. However, the goal of any environmental bureau should be its own obsolescence (credit to Ailish Hopper-Meisner for teaching me that concept). A government cannot have a Department of Energy build new coal plants and a Department of the Environment create conservation areas and claim to be meeting everyone's needs. Environmental concerns will not be met as long as they are considered separate from other concerns. They must be integrated into every aspect of society. The IPCC does a good job of showing the magnitude of the problem and pointing out that it cannot be solved by disjointed efforts.
The report took several years to put together from hundreds of pieces of scientific and sociological literature, and by the time COP15 rolled around only two years later, some of the data was said to be out-of-date by climatologists. In fact, further research done in 2007 and 2008 pointed at climate change occurring even more rapidly and dangerously than that predicted by the IPCC. This seems to be a recurring trend. Perhaps due to fossil fuel lobbies, greed, naivete or some other factor, but we seem to think that climate change is not as big of a deal, only to find later that we should have taken action a long time ago.
On page 15 of the report summary, there is a table of how various sectors could improve in the area of environmental sustainability. In almost every category, after a series of specific suggestions, is the idea "incorporate climate change concerns into design and daily practices" or something to that effect. This points at an important goal of environmentalism. A Department of the Environment is important, and many countries have one in some form or another. However, the goal of any environmental bureau should be its own obsolescence (credit to Ailish Hopper-Meisner for teaching me that concept). A government cannot have a Department of Energy build new coal plants and a Department of the Environment create conservation areas and claim to be meeting everyone's needs. Environmental concerns will not be met as long as they are considered separate from other concerns. They must be integrated into every aspect of society. The IPCC does a good job of showing the magnitude of the problem and pointing out that it cannot be solved by disjointed efforts.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Response #5: Multi-faceted
In chapter 6, Speth focuses on the multitude of socioeconomic factors that go into calculating environmental impact. I appreciate his willingness to depart from the "old model" (that is, IPAT) and recognize the many other factors involved.
Matt brought up a great point in class a few weeks ago about the unfairness of using population as a factor with such prominence. Environmentalists are more or less in agreement that more people leads to a greater environmental impact, but the population factor is not of equal bearing with affluence, technology, or any of the seven other factors Speth lists. To paraphrase Matt's point, one average American child will consume more resources in his lifetime than fifty average children in the developing world. Therefore, limiting population, especially in the developing world, is a band-aid solution at best and a dishonest and unjust non-solution at worst.
The third factor, technology, I feel is also misapplied. Speth does a good job of clearing things up. It is not inherently the development of new technology that is the problem, but our unwillingness to change the definition of "progress." It has been pointed out by many environmental leaders (including many at Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen) that we have all the technology we need to solve nearly every environmental problem we are facing. We can create a sustainable electric grid worldwide, produce the things we need in a nearly waste-free way (see: Cradle to Cradle), and keep CO2 down to safe levels. Our problem is not that we need more technology. Our problem is that we have not committed to the applicaiton of technology. For example, once we have started building the number of wind turbines we really should have in the US, then we can always upgrade or switch to new methods when more efficient wind turbines become available. In the meantime, we ought to get started; the tendency is to say "the technology is not ready yet" when in fact, it has been ready for anywhere from 10-50 years, depending on which aspect of climate change we're talking about.
What does this say about us? Well, to repeat a point I've made at least three times in previous posts, we're always looking for excuses to be passive, when this is a problem that requires us to be active.
Matt brought up a great point in class a few weeks ago about the unfairness of using population as a factor with such prominence. Environmentalists are more or less in agreement that more people leads to a greater environmental impact, but the population factor is not of equal bearing with affluence, technology, or any of the seven other factors Speth lists. To paraphrase Matt's point, one average American child will consume more resources in his lifetime than fifty average children in the developing world. Therefore, limiting population, especially in the developing world, is a band-aid solution at best and a dishonest and unjust non-solution at worst.
The third factor, technology, I feel is also misapplied. Speth does a good job of clearing things up. It is not inherently the development of new technology that is the problem, but our unwillingness to change the definition of "progress." It has been pointed out by many environmental leaders (including many at Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen) that we have all the technology we need to solve nearly every environmental problem we are facing. We can create a sustainable electric grid worldwide, produce the things we need in a nearly waste-free way (see: Cradle to Cradle), and keep CO2 down to safe levels. Our problem is not that we need more technology. Our problem is that we have not committed to the applicaiton of technology. For example, once we have started building the number of wind turbines we really should have in the US, then we can always upgrade or switch to new methods when more efficient wind turbines become available. In the meantime, we ought to get started; the tendency is to say "the technology is not ready yet" when in fact, it has been ready for anywhere from 10-50 years, depending on which aspect of climate change we're talking about.
What does this say about us? Well, to repeat a point I've made at least three times in previous posts, we're always looking for excuses to be passive, when this is a problem that requires us to be active.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)