350 Teach-In

The climate change Teach-In last Thursday presented a spectacular array of panelists; Bard professors of different disciplines, local politicians and activists, and even a student. The Multipurpose Room was full of people happily munching on slices of Pizza and brownies that had “350” written on them in powdered sugar. Although each member of the panel could probably have talked for hours, each struggled with a three minute and fifty second time limit.

Ebon Goldstein kicked off with a discussion of the costs of climate change. “We only need 1-3% of the GDP to address this,” he said. “It’s far less than what we spend on the military.” And then he came up with the memorable phrase, “We can do this. This isn’t about economics or technology. It’s a question of whether we have the political will.” Then physics professor Gidon Eshel shared some science with us, including graphs that correlated temperatures in Antartica with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Environmental and Urban Studies professor Jennifer Berky had a few words to say about the impact of sprawl. “60% of vehicle miles traveled are generated by sprawl,” she said. The way we build our infrastructure and communities, has a huge impact on the way we live and the emissions were produce. However, planning a better infrastructure can be politically complex, because local, county, state, and federal governments all have influence.

Next, Tom Mansfield from the Duchess County Legislative Board stepped up to the plate. “Its much easier to attack Global Warming from the use side than the produce side,” he said. “We could save a billion dollars in Duchess County from energy efficiency alone!” In other words, we don’t have to sit around and wait for them to install the windmills. We can buy energy-efficient applicances, insulate our buildings, turn off our computers, eliminate waste, and make a direct personal contribution to global warming that way.

Mr. Mansfield then went on to mention the "Green Jobs, Green New York," bill that New York State Senate passed on September 11th, 2009. This bill would provide funds to homeowners to retrofit their homes for energy efficiency. No sooner is the program born though, than it is under attack. In November they might vote to slash away the budget for Green Jobs. Mr. Mansfield strongly urged the audience to write to their senators in support of the bill so it can keep its money.

The charming Felicia Keesing was next in line, come from Bard's biology department to answer the question, "What effect will climate change have on the spread of infectious diseases?" "The scientific method is very clear about how we can answer this question," Professor Keesing told the audience. "First we need a good sample size, like maybe six earths." Six earths, shining green-and-blue, appeared on the Multipurpose Room's massive screen. Professor Keesing grinned at the room, then said, "Three of the earths can be a control group. The other three earths get global warming." She pressed a button, and three of the six earth images lit up with a sinister red glow. "Now we collect very detailed data from all six and compare them." She stopped and sighed dramatically. "Unfortunately, this experiment was canceled due to budgetary considerations." A large red X appeared across the scene, vetoing the experiment. "So we have other methods to study the effect of global warming on infectious diseases."

These methods including building computerized models, synthesizing the results of disparate studies, and even studying the changes in disease as you travel up a mountain (so as to view the same organisms at different temperatures.) “These studies overwhelmingly show that climate change increases disease,” Felicia Keesing wrapped up. “However, some people still say the results are inconclusive, because we cannot do that experiment with the six earths.” Politicians, particularly those that oppose action on climate change, like to make a big deal of scientific “uncertainty.” I appreciated Professor Keesing’s humorous presentation because it demonstrated the true nature of scientific "uncertainty."

Barbara Lukas, our beloved psych faculty member, was the next to take the microphone. Speaking in her calm, cool voice, she said, “They asked me to talk about the psychology of global warming. But I didn’t want to come here and talk about how we are all bad people. So, I’ve really thought about it, and I’ve come up with three images I think will help us understand the problem. Please take these images home with you. The first image is a bottle of ibuprofen. The second is a gently sloping road. The third image is a rolled-up lawn, the kind they use in landscaping.”

She then continued, “Intestinal bleeding from overuse of ibuprofen is a more common problem in this country than HIV. Did you know that?” She looked over the audience with a gentle, knowing smile. “Now that you know that, are you any less likely to take an ibuprofen when you need it?” I knew for certain I wasn’t going to give up MY ibuprofen, and the rest of the audience seemed to agree. Professor Lukas continued, “Now the lesson we draw from that is, ‘Information is necessary but not sufficient.’ For people to take action, they need information, but they also need some kind of personal motivation.”

She continued, “In my hometown, we had these roads with sharp right angles. There were lots of accidents. The way they solved the problem, was not by telling people to be better drivers, but by rebuilding the roads so that they gently sloped into a turn, and you could see the other drivers coming. If you want to fix a problem, scolding people is not the answer. You need to build the world in a way which makes it easy for people to do the right thing." I saw where she was going with that right away. I’m sure many people would sell their cars and use public transportation, if the transportation was convenient and easy to use. But we’re embedded in an infrastructure that makes cars the only convenient option.

Then came the last image, of the rolled-up lawn. “We hear a lot of talk about grassroots change. But when the lawn is rolled up, the grass roots cannot reach the soil and grow. So I would say that we need someone to unroll the lawn. Grassroots change is important, but we also need top-down change.” I struggled a bit with the complexity of this metaphor. What I think she meant was we need both social movements AND governmental policy that enables them.

Melissa Everett, a local activist who runs a Green Talent Pipeline, spoke next. “In these days we get an overwhelming onslaught of information,” she said. “We hear the world is ending, and what are we supposed to do about it? Change to fluorescent light bulbs and wait for the next generation to solve the problem. This doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

She then went to talk on enthusiastically about the “tremendous range of exciting and creative work,” there is available to someone who really wants to make a difference. Innovative solutions she mentioned ranged from “smart irrigation” to “recycling-based industries.” She also put in a word for the Sustainable Hudson Valley organization. SHV is currently working on a“10% challenge,” trying to achieve a 10% emissions reduction by 2010. This way we will be on track for 80% emissions reduction by 2050. They want a minimum of 10% of the people in Hudson Valley to get involved in the climate change campaigns. That way, they will build a leadership base for the transition into a clean energy economy.

Hannah Mitchell, a Bard student from the Environmental Collective, was next to speak to the audience. She had worked for GreenPeace and the Youth Environmental Movement and felt strongly about climate change issues. In high school, she started a club called “Going Green,” that made the high school start recycling, and helped get a Green Building Code passed in her town. “Don’t believe that my generation is apathetic,” she told the audience. She went on to say, “Global warming should not be a polarizing issue. It affects the whole world. My hometown will go underwater if it continues.”

She then gave us the formula she had invented for defeating apathy. “First, people need a personal connection to the issue. Then, they need an outlet for action. Together, these two things will defeat indifference."

She concluded by saying, “We have to tell Congress what we need and value,” and encouraged us to attend a rally in Poughkeepsie. I was impressed by Hannah’s rhetorical style and elegance. Although the youngest panel member, she seemed to be the most gifted at public speaking.

Robert McKeon, from the Town Council of Red Hook, spoke next. “I’m going to talk about an issue which is very near and dear to my heart: farmland protection,” he said. Mr. McKeon began his involvement in politics because he hated watching farms being paved over. Since then, he’s striven to protect farms in various way. He spoke with pride about our 1.5 mile apples. “At Bard you can eat apples that come from only a mile and a half away, when most people eat products that have traveled an average of 1500 miles!” he told us. He talked about a Green Jobs and Clean Energy initiative, where municipalities will finance weatherization and solar installations on homes. “Real change happens locally, so get involved locally,” he concluded.

Then they opened up to the audience for questions. I said, “This is a question for any panel member who cares to answer. Mr. Goldstein said this was about lack of political will. What do you think is the core reason for this lack of political will?”

Tom Mansfield was the first to speak up. “The answer is very simple. Money! The political system is controlled by people who benefit from the status quo, and its very difficult to break that gridlock. This is a hugely emotional issue, not one that is being rationally debated. It all comes down to: people are making money from the current state of affairs, and they’re not going to give it up without a fight.”

Felicia Keesing chimed in with an answer of her own. “Those of you who’ve taken math or computer science courses probably remember the Prisoner’s Dilemma. This is a scenario from game theory, where the one person who defects can gain an awful lot. In global politics, the USA has been the defecting prisoner for a long time now. It has been gaining economic strength and political clout from its refusal to address climate change, from letting down its neighbours. We need to join the global support network. The coal and oil interests are putting lots of dollars into the fight against the bill, so the grassroots should make their voices louder.”

“Also, I would say, if you want to help: take a science class! That way you can learn to fix the problem with technology, and offer a concrete alternative to replace the system we have. There’s a man named J. Craig Venter, a molecular biologist who does genome sequencing, who is try to make artificial organisms that will convert CO2 into energy. They will take in CO2 and spit out octane! The technological solution is shockingly close.”

One audience member raised her hand and scolded the panel organizers for only allowing each person 3 minutes and fifty seconds to speak, overlooking of course the fact that you can hardly expect Bard students to listen to more during midterms. She then shared her opinion, “We need to scare people…. although without depressing them. We need to time our guilt effectively."

This sparked a thought from Barbara Lukas. She mentioned ads which feature cute polar bears dying, and said “These do work psychologically.” But then she continued, “When you scare people , you need to have a solution available immediately. Perhaps not donating money but…. maybe you could put the polar bear above the recycling bin. We need to make things convenient. It may be difficult for the young generation to understand, but adults like convenience. They like doing what they are used to doing. And people need images of what they can do tomorrow, rather than abstract ethical ideas.”

Then a student asked the panel, “I used to hear a lot of encouragement to join politics if we wanted to do something about this. Nowadays its more like ‘join an NGO’ and I hardly ever hear ‘become a politician.’ Why do you think that is?”

The politician McKeon naturally responded with a “Please get involved in politics!” Tom Mansfield chipped in with, “What we desperately need in politics, is smarter people. I hope that’s not being too frank. People often accuse me of being too frank to be a good politician. But seriously, having well-educated people around really helps. And politics is suffering from a real brain drain. Being a politician can be pretty demoralizing, what with the media hurling insults at you. And our current system is designed to further the gridlock. This can only be swept through with social movements. It happened with abolition, it happened with suffrage, and it will happen again. These issues are taking hold in people’s souls.”

Talks concluded, audience and panel members gathered for a GIANT GROUP PHOTO in front of the 350 banner. A professional photographer snapped several shots to send to Washington. Photos of 350 events are being taken all over the world, to send to political leaders and convince them there is a real need for action. The visuals which show how many people are involved in this movement should be very compelling. And it was fun to awkwardly squeeze into the front of the Multipurpose Room with a hundred other people.

Photos taken, people milled around chatting, and someone unfurled a giant roll of paper. We dipped our feet in green paint and walked all over the paper, "To show Washington what kind of footprint we want to have: a GREEN one!" I smiled in sarcastic amusement when I imagined a politician unrolling our big awkward painty art project on his desk. Some people were reluctant to take off their shoes and get their feet gross. But there was a bucket of water with a lady sitting behind it, and she enthusiastically offered to wash and massage the feet of anyone who got their feet painty. Of course I was very excited to leave the footprint and took off my shoes right away, but my boyfriend was sort of grossed out by the whole concept. Finally he said, "I'm only leaving the footprint if you give me a big kiss." You see how you sometimes have to be very persuasive to get people to join your cause. ;-)

Challenge: Write to Washington! Tell them to make our country's footprint green!

(More than) 350 Thermoses Saving the World From Paper Cups

In a science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein, the main character puts on cheap flimsy clothes each morning, then shoves his clothes down the waste-disposal chute each evening. At first I found this idea kind of repulsive and decadent. “How can this guy afford to waste 365 suits of clothes a year?” I thought. But everyone in his civilization did the same. And when you think about it, it’s not so different from our habit of throwing away paper cups at every meal.

That’s why Kline Cafeteria is doing a Disposable-Free Week! The Environmental Collective set up a table by the entrance of the cafeteria. They asked people to sign a pledge never to use paper cups in Kline again. In return for the pledge, people were given free thermoses with the logo of Bard’s catering company on them. They could also help themselves to eco-friendly lightbulbs, cloth napkins, and stickers with the 350 logo. The EC tablers also encouraged Kline diners to attend a 350 Teach-In on Climate Change.

The thermoses were very popular. People lined up in large numbers to sign the pledge and receive their free prize. It was a triumph for disposable-free activism.
Nevertheless, there were a few bumps along the way. “I think the majority of people supported our effort,” said Kira, an Environmental Collective member. “The problem is, the minority which didn’t support the effort could be very vocal at times.” You see, paper products students were accustomed to using disappeared from the shelves of Kline during the week.

One charming young gentleman dramatically proclaimed that since he had no paper cup, he would throw his regular cup in the trash instead. But another guy remarked good-naturedly that Disposable-Free Week was helping him lose weight. He was in the habit of taking away paper cups of sugary cereal at the end of every meal, and now that habit was no longer practical.

The week was somewhat stressful for the Chartwells staff. One girl asked the Kline staffperson for a paper cup, and argued with him when he refused. But then another student asked for a paper cup and the staffperson caved in (maybe he didn’t have the energy for another debate.) The girl who had initially been denied a paper cup started screaming about unfair treatment.

As a result of this scene, paper cups were on the shelves during a brief period of Disposable-Free week. However, most of the time, the paper plates and dishes were not available. The Environmental Collective has high hopes for the possibility of phasing out paperware entirely.

The problem is, if people can’t take paper dishes out of the building, there will be problems with regular dishes being stolen. As every Bard student knows, Kline has many entrances and exits, so it is quite easy to carry ceramic plates and mugs out of the building. Sometimes people come to Kline five minutes before class and really need to grab something to go. Pressed for time, they take dishes and forget to return them. Obviously Chartwells Catering cannot afford to buy a new set of cutlery and tableware every week, so stolen dishes are a huge concern.

“We need to change people’s mindsets,” said Natalie from the Environmental Collective. Almost everyone at Bard College feels comfortable stealing from the cafeteria. Ethical students who would never dream of shoplifting, for example, see no problem stealing a free meal for a friend who is visiting them. And people help themselves to dishes as if they were public property.

The student handbook threatens dire fines and penalties for students who take Kline dishes out of the building. But the policy is pretty much unenforced. The issue is made even murkier by the “Kline dish return bins” which are in the trash area of some dorms. Although these bins are an effective way of getting the dishes back to Kline, they send mixed messages about proper behavior.

There’s a painting hanging in my parent’s living room that shows an old-fashioned scene from Holland. Everyone is merrily dancing about, and one portly gentleman prancing about in mustard-yellow breeches, has a spoon tucked into the ribbon tied around his hat. I remember asking as a child, “Why does he have a spoon in his hat? He looks ridiculous.”

My mom gravely told me, “In the olden days, not everyone had a spoon. Having spoons was a sign of wealth and prestige. So of course he wanted to display it. Also, if he wants to buy some soup, this spoon is nice and handy.” I have no idea whether this answer was true, or just something she said to shut me up. But it gives me an idea. Why doesn’t every student carry around their own personal set of tableware? Why stop at mugs? I’m not saying we need to wear hats with spoon, fork, and knife tucked into the brim (although it would be pretty cool if we did.) I’m just saying sometimes it’s fun to think outside the box.

Some people decorate their thermos mugs with stickers. Other thermos mugs have slogans of causes they support, or names of places they’ve been. A thermos can be a form of personal artistic expression— much like clothing can be. People get attached to thermoses the same way they get attached to favorite sweaters. When I read about the cheap disposable clothing in Heinlein’s sci-fi future, I wondered how people would express themselves through such clothing. Why, such clothing would be as impersonal and as devoid of sentimental value as Kleenex!

Speaking of Kleenex. In the books I read when I was a little girl, people would always sentimentally wave their hankerchiefs to say goodbye. If a girl liked a boy she would secretly slip him her hankerchief and he would wear it next to his heart while he jousted. In the book Little Women, the Beth character embroiders hankerchiefs with the word, “Mommy,” and her mother cries and says “I will treasure these hankerchiefs always.” And what do we have now? We have Kleenex. Who cares about Kleenex?

This culture of disposable consumer goods does more than hurt the environment. It deprives us of the chance to form emotional attachments to objects. When we switched from hankerchiefs to Kleenex, maybe we gained in hygiene, but we certainly lost an important part of our culture.

Perhaps the switch from paper cups to thermoses can be a cultural gain. Thermos-decorating can become the new art. Thermoses with provocative slogans can become starting points for conversations! I read a poem once where a boy sends a girl three roses. If she wants to marry him, she’s supposed to wear all three in the bosom of her gown. If she likes him a lot, she’s supposed to wear two, if she likes him a little, she’s supposed to wear one, and if she doesn’t like him at all she’s supposed to leave the roses at home. The flowers become a kind of secret language.

Well, we don’t wear roses in our bosoms so much anymore, but maybe stickers on thermoses could be a new kind of secret language. “Honey, if you love me, put these stickers on your tea thermos. When I see you in Kline at breakfast, I’ll be able to tell in a glance how much you feel for me.”

In a culture where everything can be thrown away, where’s the creativity? Where’s the self-expression? Where’s the ROMANCE?

Challenge: Attend a 350 event on Saturday, October 24th! It’s the International Day of 350 Action! Bard students should be informed that vehicles are leaving at 11:00 from the Kline parking lot, to attend a 350 March on the bridge.

Who will build 350 Eco-friendly Skyscrapers?

So nowadays, it takes a lot more than a can of green paint to turn a house "green." I used to think green architecture meant "hobbit house" like the low-impact woodland home on this link: http://www.simondale.net/house/ Check the website out, it's a charming story. Mom camped out with the toddlers, while dad and grandad built the family homestead. I remember when I was a kid, my friends and I would build "houses" out of fallen branches we found; this seems like the durable adult version of that. And the house seems really beautiful and sturdy; and it looks organic, like it grew naturally out of the hillside.

Another spin on green architecture is this guy in Texas who makes recycled houses out of thrown-away materials! http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090907/news/909069957?Title=Home-recycled-home. He makes roofs out of old license plates, windows out of old see-through platters. His

original intention was to provide low-cost housing for the poor. But his homes are so wacky and wonderful that yuppies will pay high prices to live in them-- a little unforeseen consequence there.

So if I want a "green" home, do I dig it out of the hillside? Do I build it out of recycled materials? Or...... do I rent a room in a Bob Fox skyscraper in Manhattan?

For those of you that think skyscrapers are the antithesis of green, think again. Bob Fox is a renowned green architect who designs corporate headquarters in New York. He uses the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System to ensure his skyscrapers are as eco-friendly as possible. "A LEED rating is basically the 'nutrition facts' for a building,' " Bob Fox explained in a talk he gave to Bard students last Thursday.

Most of his presentation focused on the Bank of America skyscraper he is building just now. The building has a high-tech air-conditioning system designed to save energy. If I haven't gotten my story garbled, it uses electricity during non-peak hours to make GIANT ICE CUBES in its core. Then the ice melts and flows through the "cooling" towers, giving people energy-efficient air-conditioning. It also has its own energy-saving cogeneration plant. The cement in the building has garbage mixed into it, which oddly enough makes the cement stronger (now I call that recycling.) They're going to plant a lovely roof-garden and have a tree/park area around the border of the building.

He really thought through every detail, right down to the waterless urinals with the biodegradable chem cartridges to eliminate odor. But there are other things you wouldn't expect, like the historic theater which has been restored and made part of the building. I've noticed that "preservation of cultural heritage" gets lumped in with environmentalism a lot of the time. Whether that connection is logical or not, its a fun twist to have a bank with theater performances on the first floor.

Also to get his LEED points he had to ensure the employees would be getting a lot of sunshine. Apparently they did a study once which showed kids who took tests in sunny rooms got 16% higher scores than kids in windowless rooms. So a big selling point for the building is the "higher productivity" that will apparently result from the sunny rooms, big windows, and fresh air. (Their advanced ventilation system filters out the majority of the pollutants from the street.)

"Forty million dollars is what it costs to put in these eco-friendly features," said Bob Fox. "But a 10% productivity increase means a 100 million dollar savings for the company in just the space of one year." Bob Fox is confident that people working in his pleasant buildings will be at least 10% more productive. "People say it feels better, working there," said Bob Fox. People even have knobs to personalize the temperature of their cubicles. My definition of "green" is broadening all the time-- apparently to be a green office space, you need to have a HAPPY work environment.

And even if the productivity increase doesn't come through, the building is still saving the company $3 million each year in its energy bills. Buildings are responsible for 43% of our carbon emissions, while transportation accoutns for 32% and industry creates a mere 25%. So why do we always pick on industry? It looks like green architecture might be the most important frontier of the War on Global Warming. Bob Fox mentioned some interesting global warming stats I hadn't heard before, such as the likelihood of 20% of Bangladesh disappearing under the water.

Take a guess at what you think the MOST important eco-friendly feature of the building is. The water system? The electric system? The roof garden? No! What matters most is the building's LOCATION-- smack-dab in the middle of one of the world's best public transportation systems. Most people, when they think "Green" probably imagine a little hut surrounded by friendly clusters of goats and pigs. But if you're pounding thirty miles of highway in your car to get to that hut, it isn't green at all. Richard Register wrote a book called "EcoCities," saying the best thing we could do for the environment is start living in really tall buildings close together. That way, the elevator replaces the car as the primary mode of transportation.

Admittedly, this Richard Register fellow is a little eccentric. He thinks we need to wage a "War on Cars." He put an old car in his front yard, removed the tires, chopped off the roof, filled it with soil and planted a vegetable garden in it. Then he put a license plate on it which said, "OBSOLETE." Then he put up a sign next to the vegetable car, explaining it was a monument for the first person to ever die in an automobile accident. Or to put it in his (slightly more loaded) language, "A monument to the opening battle of the Car Wars."

I know you're snickering at poor Richard right now, but when you think about it, the automobile casualties in a year probably equal if not exceed the people killed in 9/11. So why are we waging a "War on Terror," rather than building up public transportation infrastructure? That would save more lives. Even if we go with buses rather than trains or trolleys, that still means fewer vehicles on the road or more trained drivers.

(Example of a "vegetable car")

Of course, maybe the most effective way to avoid cars is to design our lives so that everything we need is within walking distance. That is why Bob Fox is also a fan of "mixed-use" buildings. This means working, shopping, and living space all in the same building. If these different elements of life are all in the same area, that means less commuting. Not only that, but the building can be very energy-efficient, because the amount of electricity it uses stays more or less constant during the 24 hour cycle.

Some of the more flashy "eco-features" Bob Fox decided not to include. They thought about putting a windmill on top of the building, but they got dubious when they measured wind-speeds. Even that far up in the air of Manhattan, there's still not enough wind blowing to make the wind-mill cost effective. The same with solar cells. Even though they sound cool, they didn't make financial sense for this particular skyscraper.

Another nifty feature that got vetoed was the "bio-digester," an unbelievably cool gadget. You throw in your food scraps, and the suite of bugs and bacteria living in the biodigestor convert them into high-quality compost. Not only that, but the bugs produce methane in the process of digesting the food scraps. This methane is then used to make electricity! Now isn't that awesome! (When I heard that, I gaped and thought, 'I can power my TV off of bug farts?') Bob Fox wanted to put one of these in his building, but it was too big and there wasn't room. Now Laurie is wondering if we could have a bio-digestor at Bard; we certainly have enough food scraps from Kline. It sounds so wild, but apparently it works.

Another part of eco-friendly design is looking where construction wastes go. Their study on construction wastes revealed that most of it was wood. This was confusing because they were building steel and glass buildings! So where's the wood coming from? Turns out they use wooden palettes to wheel the construction materials onto the site. So they forced the construction workers to reuse the wooden palettes instead of tossing them out. At first the firm was unhappy at being forced to change their ways, but they brightened up when they realized the reuse was saving them money.

At this point in the story Bob Fox turns around, fixing us all in an intense stare. "NOTHING MAKES SOMEBODY GREENER THAN SAVING MONEY." Which is so true-- recycling, reuse, conservation, looking for ways to eliminate waste, are all cost-saving measures. This is why the rhetoric of the "expense" of saving the environment makes increasingly less and less sense.

Another project Bob Fox's firm worked on was remodeling the 33rd floor of the Empire State building. The firm asked him to create a space with the best LEED rating that would be possible in Empire State. They made bigger windows, increased the ceiling height, and added an efficient underfloor heating/cooling systems. They also put in reflectors so natural daylight could brighten more of the building. However the possibilities were more limited because they had to cope with what was already there. It is tough sometimes for the green architects to remodel these old buidlings.

Mr. Fox's sales pitch was very smooth. By the end of his talk I was wishing wistfully that I was a multimillionaire CEO so I could afford one of his products. :-P Ha ha. Firms like his are really on the cutting edge; membership in green architecture associations has been increasing exponentially lately, and "green" buildings have higher value in the real estate market. Bob Fox's work also fits into something called PlaNY--- the "Greater, Greener buildings for New York" plan. This PlanNYC is part of New York City Mayor Bloomberg's promise to bring CO2 emissions down 30% by 2030. Already 100,000 trees have been planted for PlanNYC-- so even though the plan is far from completed, its far from a pipe dream either. Eventually the plan will plant a million trees.

Challenge: Look around your home or dwelling space and find a way to make it more "green." Anything from putting a potted plant in the window, to installing insulation, to designating a special recycling area for your plastic bottles. A potted plant doesn't need to cost more than 350 cents.

Three Flipty (Pancakes)

Last Sunday, the usually sleepy kitchen of Village C dorm was a blaze of activity. Creamy bowls of batter blossomed on the table. The music of the sizzling griddle was punctuated by the percussion of chopping apples. The land flowed not with milk and honey, but with apple cider and maple syrup. At least ten people were cooking, and dozens more were eating. I hopefully sidled towards the table of bounty, snagging my own personal load of melt-in-the-mouth apple pancakes. Every time a new load slid off the griddle onto the plate, it was hailed by a triumphal cry. "That's 75 pancakes so far! Only 275 to go!"

"Are you really going to make 350 pancakes?" I asked a cook in dazed awe. "Yup," she said cheerfully, then adding with a modest blush, "Of course they're only small ones.” And the spatulas flipped away like mad. Murmurs of "Why 350?" went through the room. As the pancake count mounted, an assertive young gentleman emerged from the kitchen's fragrant fumes and took his "soapbox" in the common room. "Many of you may be wondering why 350 pancakes," he said. "This is part of a national campaign to raise awareness for a 350 ppm carbon dioxide commitment. Right now we're at 389 ppm, so there's still a long way to go. All over the United States, people are organizing events featuring the number 350, so at least the number will be in people's minds. So they'll be aware of the problem and our goal."

As a publicity event I would call Sunday's pancake breakfast a spectacular success. It can be difficult to get people to show up for lectures and such, but offer them a warm and delicious alternative to Kline cafeteria food and they're all over the place!!! Even the photo you see here of the pancake-eaters in formation before the 350 banner only represents about half the number of people who came.

So I started thinking, "Here's a nice segment of environmentally-minded Bard students. Time to do some research." So I started asking people, "Do you think Obama will succeed in passing climate change legislation?"

Rachel burst out laughing and nearly dropped her pancake. "In magical wonderland, it would happen, but in reality.... people are stupid." she said. There was a chorus of groans of agreement.

I wandered the room in search of greater optimism. What does the lady who is frantically slicing apples think? She sighed and pondered long over her answer. "I hope so.... but I don't know," she said. "There's too much fear out there. People are afraid of losing things that matter to them.

"Obama has so much facing him at once," another student answered me. "With health care and everything else that's on his plate, will he be able to tackle the environment too?"

"Well," I asked my friend Josh, the jovial history major, "Do you think Obama can do it?"

Josh chortled. "Yes, and maybe after he gets done with that miracle, he will punch God."

Tom has a different take entirely. "Yes he will pass it," he told me. "By now, even the Republicans have accepted the fact that climate change exists."

But there's a difference between scientific consensus and political will. Repeating my question again to another group, I heard, "I don't know. I would like to say yes, but with everything else that's going on.... ..Obama's momentum since coming into office has slowed."

Well here I had a range of opinions. But before I hauled myself and my pancake-laden stomach away, I wanted a word with Ashfaque Kabir. Ash was an econ major with an interest in student government, so I thought he could give me a good thoughtful answer. Problem was, he had been on griddle duty and I feared to approach him for danger of being hit by a flying pancake.

But luckily he came out just then to deposit a new plateful and I pounced on him. "Ash," I asked, "Do you think Obama will succeed in passing climate change legislation?"

Ash pursed his lips. "I'm sceptical, but I hope so. However, there's the economy to consider. In a recession, will industry really want to take on extra costs?"

That seemed to be the clincher. People are losing jobs, people are afraid, people don't want more change. All of which spells bad news for the environment.

To get some really professional opinion on this issue, I went to a lecture by Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Cleetus was the professional economist on a UCS team working on, "Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy." The question they posed themselves was, "Without counting on any lucky breaks, can the USA mobilize to halt global warming at two degrees above normal?" Of course, in order to answer this question, the team had to make many assumptions; including assumptions about what level of international cooperation could be expected.

"This blueprint focuses on the USA's economy," said Dr. Rachel Cleetus. "On the international stage, there's been quite a bit of that 'You go first! No, you go first!' attitude slowing down negotiations. What people don't realize is, science says EVERYBODY has to go first."

She did a fast summary of global conditions analyzed by USC climate scientists. "Current carbon levels in the atmosphere are unique-- major coastal cities should worry about flooding--" that sort of thing. And then she launched into her economic blueprint. According to her, we need,

-- Cap and Trade Program
-- National Renewable Electricity Standard (a requirement for utilities to generate a minimum percentage of electricity from renewable sources.)
-- Energy Efficiency Standard for appliances and buildings.
-- Reduce vehicle miles travelled (perhaps through SmartGrowth plans)
-- Energy Efficiency programs for agriculture and industry...
-- And about ten other things, which scrolled down the screen faster than my rapidly cramping pen hand could record.

She looked at us and said proudly, "All these programs in combination would cut energy use by third. This helps us not only with global warming, but with many other things as well."

For starters, if people are using energy-efficient appliances and well-insulated homes, it saves them a substantial amount of money on their electricity bill. Businesses also could benefit from government-enforced efficiency standards. If you waste less energy, everyone saves money. So WHY WHY WHY is everyone convinced that fighting global warming is too costly?

I raised my hand and asked the nice economist, "If we can SAVE money by following your blueprint, why do we hear all these debates about the environment VS. the economy? Why do people think it's a choice between fixing one and fixing the other?"

Her answer was somewhat long and involuted, but it boiled down to this: People never consider the costliness of the status quo. Right now, we're spending a lot of money on the energy we waste. But we're used to doing that, so it doesn't bother us. But although habitual costs fade into the back of your mind, you notice any new costs right away. And putting the energy-efficient infrastructure in place is going to mean short-term costs for long-term gain.

"The classic example of market failure," she said, "Is tenant housing. If you would insulate the apartment, you would save so much money on the cost of heating the house. But the landlord doesn't want to do it, because those aren't his electricity bills. And the tenants won't pay for it, because they're only staying in their terrible apartment building for only a few months before moving on to something better." She thinks the government has a role in regulating this kind of market failure.

Since hearing all this from Dr. Cleetus, I've been turning the problem over and over in my mind. I think I have a humorous analogy which accurately represents the situation.

Suppose all the USA ate at one restaurant that charged by the plateful. However, all the plates in this restaurant are full of holes. For some reason the government cannot find the money to fix the holes in the plates. And there are so many plates, there is no doubt patching or replacing them all would require substantial investment.

However the problem with the holey plates is that food keeps dropping out the bottom of them. This is making the world a messier place, clearly. Shocked by the disgusting mess, the environmentalists have started running awareness campaigns about the need for a "clean economy." But the most obvious downside for the American consumer is that instead of buying one plate of food at each meal, they need to buy two or three platefuls of food. Because most of the food is leaking and dribbling out of the first plate, leaving them hungry.
However, the big restaurant has many powerful lobbyists in Washington. And when activists begin saying, "We need to have laws against these holey plates," there is a great uproar. The restaurant groans and moans and says it will put them out of business to fix that many plates. Think of all the poor waitresses who will go jobless! What will it do to the economy!

Although maybe we can't tell from a simple number like the GDP, there is more to a good economy than simply producing more. We also have to consider how we are using what we produce. Are we using it well or are we wasting it? We are less sensitive to electricity waste than we are to food waste because it less obvious. If someone was dropping their food all over the place we would laugh at them and call them stupid. Whereas, if we buy an energy-hogging, poorly designed appliance it's not like we can SEE all that precious electricity trickling away. It just vanishes invisibly, manifesting itself only as a hidden number on next month's utilities bill.

The trouble is, it has become far too easy to scare people with the word "Economy." Most Americans including me do not understand how the economy works. I have a chilling suspicion that even people with ten degrees in this subject do not really understand what's going on. And yet the economy can have a devastating impact on our lives, if managed improperly. It's so frightening that our jobs and lives depend on this great big thing we can neither control nor understand.

And so, people can take advantage of this fear very easily. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an agenda can run around saying, "If you do not do WHAT I WANT the Big Bad Economy will EAT you!" (And grind its bones to make your bread.....) And because nobody actually knows what is going on, Tom, Dick, and Harry can find people to believe them, no problem.

What's the moral then? Be careful what you believe? Once economists did a study about how people make the decision to purchase green products. There were these eco-friendly socks made with organic cotton by workers in good conditions. Then there were some ordinary socks. The economists doing the study tried selling both kinds of socks at the same price. They did not sell many eco-friendly socks because people did not believe they were actually organic. Then they tried increasing the price of the eco-friendly socks by quite a bit. Then suddenly they sold a LOT MORE eco-friendly socks, because the high price convinced people the eco-friendly tag on the socks was not lying.

The funny part is that these particular eco-friendly socks actually cost less to produce. But because of the psychology, they had to sell them at a high price. Sad, eh? People instinctively believe that virtue comes at a tough price. If anyone tells you that doing the right thing is cheaper and easier, you just laugh at them. Because for some reason we all believe we have to suffer to save the planet.

It’s not so much a question of suffering as that of overcoming inertia. Dr. Cleetus's clean energy blueprint does not count on cutting-edge technologies being invented. The blueprint is based on technologies and policies that we already know about. Most of the things she's suggesting have already been implemented on a small scale. We know they work. We just need to use them. "JUST GET STARTED," says Dr. Cleetus.

It’s going to take a lot more than 350 pancakes to flip us into a better future. Maybe it’s our minds we need to flip. Maybe the greatest obstacle to saving the planet is our belief that we can only save it through self-sacrifice. Maybe it doesn't take self-sacrifice. Maybe all it takes is a willingness to look beyond the status quo and embrace what works.

Challenge: Question 350 of your own assumptions about the way the world works.