As an undergrad at Brown University and a veteran organizer with the Sierra Student Coalition, Nathan Wyeth has his ear to the ground on campus sustainability issues. In this occasional column for Grist, Wyeth will report on what's afoot at the campus grassroots level and how he and his fellow students are making their voices heard.
As of today, 202 colleges and universities have pledged to move toward climate neutrality, or net-zero global warming emissions, with the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment. I've been part of a student group pushing Brown University to do the same.
But debate over the legitimacy of the "carbon offsets" that make climate neutrality possible is growing as fast as the number of companies, institutions, even countries that have committed to buying them. Are carbon offsets legit? And what does climate neutrality really mean?
For the past few months, I've been considering a phrase tossed out by my friend and fellow student organizer Billy Parish: climate positive. Consider it a step beyond climate neutral (which never had a very inspiring ring to it anyway) -- when institutions or individuals not only take responsibility for their own impact on the climate and our future but go beyond this to have a positive climate impact on the community around them.
The emPOWER Campaign at Brown works under the banner of the Campus Climate Challenge, and we're aiming for climate neutrality by 2008. But we're not just making demands -- students are at the center of creating the action plan.
When our campaign began, we started by trying to decide how much renewable energy Brown should commit to buying and then determining a year by which we should go climate neutral. But then we decided that if we were going to go climate neutral, it only made sense to do so now.
At its core, climate neutrality is, for us, a deeply moral message: If climate change is real, and if it is going to hurt people, then to continue to take part in causing it is wrong. Climate neutrality is how we want our school to take responsibility for its role in creating -- and now solving -- the climate crisis.
But knowing that offsets are fraught with questions and controversy, our Sunday evening meetings in the living room of the environmental co-op have been consumed with questions: Can we can guarantee that offsets bought from a company like TerraPass or NativeEnergy will deliver on their carbon-reduction promises? When is it OK to stop reducing on-campus emissions and turn to offsets? What university-related emissions should be included in a calculation of neutrality? Food? Paper? How about professor travel for research?
The official university committee tasked with creating a new energy policy for the school incorporated our goal of neutrality after much student pressure, and then struggled with the same questions.
The climate neutrality strategy now awaiting approval from Brown's Board of Trustees suggests setting an ambitious carbon-reduction target (the gold standard of 80 percent by 2050) and offsetting 100 percent of the remaining emissions -- with as much as possible done locally.
Initially, offsets will be purchased from a private company, but then we'll move toward student- and professor-initiated projects like weatherizing low-income housing in Providence, R.I., distributing CFLs for off-campus use, encouraging local public transit, and more. A committee of experts at the university would evaluate proposed projects and quantify the carbon reductions off campus that can be realistically expected to result. Money will then be reallocated from purchasing offsets to investing locally. To her credit, Brown University President Ruth Simmons is considering how these projects can spur economic development in Providence, creating "green collar" jobs.
This is a new model for how institutions can move toward climate neutrality -- by investing locally and avoiding the pitfalls of sketchy, anonymous offset schemes on the other side of the world. By being local, these offsets will not only be real and quantifiable, they'll be happening in front of the students at Brown and the citizens of Providence. They'll be showing people the solutions that can make our lives better, and will hopefully spur further action throughout the city.
Wish us luck that Brown University will move forward with this plan, becoming not only the largest university to offset 100 percent of its emissions as of 2008 but the very first to go climate positive.
Nathan Wyeth is an undergraduate student concentrating in Development Studies at Brown University. A Sierra Student Coalition organizer, he currently serves on the Sierra Club Board of Directors. He has led national grassroots campaigns to end the World Bank's investment in oil, gas, and mining, and protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Climate talks should not focus on China and India at Africa’s expense
How Waxman-Markey tackles climate change by saving forests
Waxman-Markey, meet House Ag Committee
Comments
View as Flat
Pangolin Posted 3:38 am
01 May 2007
It's nice that the rich kids get to play enviro...
When I do a little googling i find that the one-year cost of an education at Brown is given at $44,530. That's just $2K more than RI's median household income. Certainly more than the median income for RI's male workers of $37K.
Given that economic disparities are one of the leading forcing factors of climate change I would speculate that the biggest threat to the climate in Rhode Island is not the operations of Brown University but the students themselves.
Comparing this to the per capita annual income of an Indian citizen at $530 US gives us a fair estimate of a world median.
Now lets go over here on Gristmill titled "My Little World (and yours)" http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysba3n, where we get and idea of how much of a share of the world each of us gets. So 44,000 / 530 = 83. Assuming that income is proportional to climate impact the educational years of EACH BROWN STUDENT require the resources of 83 Indian citizens.
Except that's not really true. Because each Indian citizen requires an a minimal portion of their little section of the world to survive each Brown student actually uses the surplus resources of hundreds of Indian citizens. That's before any of them fly to the Virgin Islands for spring break.
If the good students of Brown want to change the climate in a positive way I would suggest they commit suicide. Since that's a little harsh maybe they could get sterilized. After all reducing the planets load by one Brown progeny could save the atmosphere the impact of a hundred Indians.
Of course none of the students at Brown are going to commit suicide, get a vasectomy or quit flying around the world in jets just to spare 100 citizens of Bangledesh a slow death. But maybe they could do a little math and realize that THEY are the exact center of the problem.
Until each of them manages to arrange for the burial of a few hundred tons of charcoal annually they really aren't even getting to zero. Your little carbon offset programs are just another greenwash.
Permalink
SpincycleSwirl Posted 3:55 am
01 May 2007
A Couple of Things
#1 many people who go to Brown don't pay full tuition. My undergrad university cost 35 thousand a year; I certainly didn't pay that much.
#2 - Your correlation of income to environmental impact within the US doesn't wash. Wealthy people in NY for example probably have a smaller footprint than middle income people in middle America because they drive less and have smaller homes.
#3 - Even if this kid is wealthy, and income was correlated to enviro impact, he couldn't help the life that he was born into (similarly neither could the Indian kid with a smaller footprint). He could be lining up another wall street job and buying a massive SUV. He's not. He's actively trying to make things better, and has done nothing to earn your scorn or derision simply, Pangolin, because you have a chip on your shoulder regarding socio-economic groups.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:12 am
01 May 2007
To Pangolin
You are obviously correct. In fact, murdering the entire human population - rich American and poor Indian - would easily solve our current problem of human-induced destruction!
I sense a lot of anger in your above post. Perhaps you could channel that anger into creating a positive solution to these problems, as students at Brown and other institutions are attempting to do.
It is worthy of noting that I agree with you that resource distribution and population dynamics play an important role in tackling these issues. Perhaps you could attempt to find a realistic solution to these two factors that doesn't involve violating human rights, and post it in a forum where it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:40 am
01 May 2007
No really. The rich have to cut consumption first.
Because they consume so much more. Look at what the kids at Brown did last summer...http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvm9nm
Andrew Krupansky '08
"I did some pretty interesting things this summer. First, I spent a month in china, working at an orphanage in Weifang (about halfway between Beijing and Shanghai) with 2 other brown students. Then I let off some steam in Hong Kong, went hiking through Thailand, traveled with friends around Spain (Barcelona, Mallorca, Malaga, Gibralter, Tarifa, Madrid), Morocco, and Portugal (Algarve, Lisbon). ... In total I visited four continents.... "- nope, that didn't cost the climate.
Damian Maldonado '08
"I went to California with my family in June. We went to Disneyland and Universal Studios. ..... Back home in Texas..." - 3 flights.
Christian Martell `10
" I spent a month studying abroad in Mexico" 2 flights.
Erin Brown '07
"I spent my summer teaching Literature, Math, and French with The Higher Achievement Program in Washington, D.C. "- Possibly train but I would bet on car travel. Kudos.
Matthew Soursourian '08
"I'd say I enjoyed the standard (read: generic) Brown student's summer: In June I traveled to Argentina and Uruguay with the Brown University Chorus"- How many people traveled 16K miles each? This is the standard?
Pratik Chougule '08
"I spent the summer working as a research assistant for former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President George W. Bush. He is writing his memoirs on his role in the war on terrorism. "- yeah those guys are helping the environment.
Jon Wang '10
"I spent the summer working on an organic farm and wilderness preserve called Hidden Villa, located in Los Altos Hills of California. "- Because plants don't grow in Rhode Island. 2 flights.
Nadia Maccabee '08
..."I spent the first week of the trip in Jerusalem." 2 flights.
Jeffrey Yoskowitz '07
"I spent the first part of my summer finishing up my semester abroad program in South Africa"- Our distance hero.
Kam Kudelko '07
"This summer I spent the month of June volunteering at the Buduburam Liberian Refugee Camp in Ghana."- The result of a resource war.
The list goes on and on usually involving multiple flights. While some of their activities are exemplery on the face the carbon dump it takes to get them there usually cancels any positive action.
As for the "what did you do" sneers. I've had lifelong health problems that limit my participation in the workplace. Still I've managed to rehab several houses reducing their energy requirements by 75%.
I was also part of the design/build team for a cohousing project which is a local example in how to reduce impact through sharing of community resources. My extended family occupies 3 of those houses. Mostly I eat local and drive as little as possible. I never fly.
If I had the $200K it costs to send Brown kids to 4 years of school and summer camp in Thailand I can assure you I would do much, much more.
Permalink
evanthomaspaul Posted 5:06 am
01 May 2007
Kudos and a resource
Kudos to you Nathan for pushing Brown to tackle the tough issues around climate change in your community. Here's a good resource for you in these endeavors - http://www.newrules.org/de/pioneers.html.
Evan
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 6:41 am
01 May 2007
Pangolin: Got any dirt on Nathan Wyeth?
There are pleanty of places to point fingers. Why Brown? Why attack the classmates of people who are actually doing something good? Are you trying to discredit the efforts of student environmental groups by making a reverse generalizaton correlating the actions of the students attending the same institution with the actions of said groups? Your fallacious logic is disgraceful.
What point are you actually trying to make by attacking the students of Brown? You sound bitter and defensive, and you embarrass yourself with your belligerence.
I commend you for your lifestyle choices, and your work, Pangolin. But I doubt you will find much satisfaction in such choices and actions while marinating in your own smugness. None of us are entirely without fault.
Permalink
KiraMarch Posted 7:00 am
01 May 2007
Another resource on offsets
For large, multi-year purchases of offsets, it makes a lot of sense to work closely with an offset supplier -- they can start or tailor a project to match your criteria. Supporting the research of professors and students is a great way to do that.
But for smaller purchases, projects from these suppliers passed through some pretty tough screens (there's a link on the page to more about what the screens were).
http://fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=270
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:59 am
01 May 2007
Hey, it's really not about Nathan.
For all I know Nathan bicyles everywhere, cooks all his own food from scratch and gets it all at the farmers market. I just wouldn't bet money on that.
I am pointing out that Nathan's effort in his community are somewhat akin to patching holes in a lifeboat with mosquito netting while his roomate are having a hole drilling contest with the latest 18v cordless. Oh, and it's not their boat; they have a yacht waiting to take them to safety while our little overloaded lifeboat takes on water.
If Nathan's classmates were engaged on a 4 year sail/train/bike trek around the world they would emit less CO2 in four years than the worst of those summer vacations. They might actually learn something more than thier helicopter do-good resume building teaches them also. I would applaud even 1 Brown student who took on such an action.
Students at Brown represent the educational and wealthy elite. Most of them have been groomed since pre-school to grow up to be CEO's and the political and finacial elites. They have the money to change things. They have superior access to the knowledge resources to change the planet for the better.
They just don't really give a sh*t. They jet-set around like bumble bees on cocaine.
I know people who have literally bet their lives on saving the environment. Actual activists I see every day are risking their kids lives by biking them to school each day rather than driving. They risk everything; the Brown kids risk almost nothing. It's a bit of a difference.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 10:13 am
01 May 2007
How Many of the 3% Go To Brown?
Very cute kids...worrying about "carbon offsets" while you wear your jeans and tee shirts at Brown and make organic rice.
You're so prole.
Oh, but wait -- you and your parents are part of the 3% that own 84% of the wealth...and while you're offsetting your dorm room, Dad is hard at work gobbling up real estate and burning down the forests just to prop up his Roth IRA.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Billhook Posted 11:29 am
01 May 2007
Option: multi-role sustainable forestry ?
Nathan -
I wonder if you've already got a thick enough skin to ignore the inverted snobbery
that is now almost as fashionable as inverted chauvinism ?
If not, I recommend you get one soon (it took me a number of years to do so).
With regard to the offsets issue, I put a longish response onto a post about it
(now about 20 down if you'd be interested)
- its about offsets discrediting the potentially vital tactic of Real Time Carbon Banking.
Given that you've no doubt seen through the "Carbon Neutral in 60 years" scam,
I wonder whether you may have considered a multi-role option for the University,
namely that of "Coppice & Standards Forestry for biomass energy, C sequestration & native ecology".
If this option would be of interest I'd be glad to discuss it further.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
jabadawg Posted 3:32 pm
01 May 2007
Judgements!
Don't hate because he was born in a situation! I know a student from Brown who devotes her life to improving our world. Just because people are born well off doesn't mean they should be crucified for it. While I may not know Nathan, this country needs people with his dedication and energy. If we are going to arrest climate change we need visionaries like him. I would encourage everyone to look inside themselves and consider what they have done to improve the world. And then, celebrate your accomplishments and those of others! In order to make this work we should celebrate each other, not tear each other down.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 11:53 pm
01 May 2007
Again, Pangolin
This is the reason people have hated environmentalists for the past 30 years: people like you use guilt instead of inspiration to get people to go green. I'm willing to bet your smugness and general animosity has already alienated people who might otherwise be convinced to change their lifestyles. What does your family make of your eco-obsession?
I understand your "patching holes in a lifeboat" metaphor. I often feel that my own mother undoes most of the positive impact that I have made with my personal lifestyle choices. However, my mother is an individual, and makes her own choices. I can't force her to change anything. And I don't attempt to convince her using guilt tactics and finger-pointing. Bitterness converts no one.
Permalink
kdavies Posted 12:52 am
02 May 2007
Give 'em a break!
Come on...do you expect everyone to reduce their carbon footprint to zero? Is YOURS?
We all do what we can. We move in the right direction one step at a time...yesterday I recycled everything I can and bought less of what can't be recycled. Today I also drive a hybrid. Tomorrow I might be able to buy only organic, locally grown food. Every step is a good step. No one can be expected to jump in with both feet, abandoning all travel, eschewing gas-powered vehicles, buying organic, etc, overnight.
I can't believe you're complaining (in one of the posts) that students travelled to help the poor in 3rd world countries. Do you expect us to swim there to lend a hand?
Kathy
Permalink
gard Posted 4:36 am
02 May 2007
Pangolin!?
Congratulations on never flying. It probably explains your insularity.
I will bet a dollar that the fellow from Brown impacts more people and changes more minds regarding the environment in his 4 years at Brown than you will in a lifetime.
Back under your bridge.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:47 am
02 May 2007
So rich kids get a free pass?
Is that the standard we will sell to the world? George Monbiot says it amounts to killing millions of people. He also points out that emissions reductions by the UK should exceed 90% in order to fairly meet goals. That should also happen well before 2050.
Give 'em a break! NO! I will not give them a break. They can afford to be carbon negative and they continue to pollute.
Come on...do you expect everyone to reduce their carbon footprint to zero? Is YOURS? Well no actually. I expect those that can afford it to get to zero first. I am impoverished due to health problems.
That's the point actually. The rich nations are asking poor nations to cut emissions while continueing to indulge in luxuries. Why should they? You first.
We all do what we can. We move in the right direction one step at a time...yesterday I recycled everything I can and bought less of what can't be recycled. Today I also drive a hybrid. Tomorrow I might be able to buy only organic, locally grown food. Every step is a good step. No one can be expected to jump in with both feet, abandoning all travel, eschewing gas-powered vehicles, buying organic, etc, overnight.
I thought I made it clear that I would encourage these kids to travel...by rail, bike and sail as we are asking the rest of the world to do. I DARE a single Brown student to travel the world for a full year by these means. Or they could try it "in 80 days."
You do realize that every bit of scrimping you will do for your entire life is zeroed out by just one of those summer vacations to four continents? Just asking?
I can't believe you're complaining (in one of the posts) that students travelled to help the poor in 3rd world countries. Do you expect us to swim there to lend a hand?- That wasn't a complaint. That was a nasty attack on a certain brand of do-goody tourism reminiscant of Bush's photo ops after Katrina. The point isn't to help the orphans but to build up the glory points on the way to the party.
On other criticisms: This is the reason people have hated environmentalists for the past 30 years: Exactly, people hate environmentalists for asking them to give up their tiny luxuries while the enviros jet-set around the world. Nobody hates Joel Salatin for making farming work agian. Even the loggers respected Julia Butterfly Hill for sitting in a tree for two years.
Build a straw bale house and invite contractors to a free barbeque during the construction and they will happily drop by and peek into all the corners. Go to the project they're working on and TELL them to build straw bale instead and they will tell you to f*#k-off. Guess which category of environmentalist the kids from Brown fall into.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:13 am
02 May 2007
enough with the stereotypes
My ivy league alumni co-worker went to college fully paid for by scholarships, works for a non-profit, is neutered, rides his bike to work, eats a vegan diet, lives in a one bedroom apartment, and donates most of his salary. Thus, his eco-footprint is probably far lower than most "middle-Americans". Our society, for better or worse, expects decision makers to go to the best schools, so I'd like to see more people who want to change the world go to top schools, so they can have the credibility and knowledge to take on the Roves of the world.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:01 am
02 May 2007
Pulling freight for the legacies....
My ivy league alumni co-worker went to college fully paid for by scholarships, works for a non-profit, is neutered, rides his bike to work, eats a vegan diet, lives in a one bedroom apartment, and donates most of his salary
I mean somebody has to do it. George W. Bush has two Ivy leage degrees. A fat lot of good that's done the rest of us. Ditto for the CEO's of a passel of major corporations polluting the world to death.
Ivy League schools put out a fierce propoganda campaign to present their graduates as bunch of poor Bill Clintons coming out of Hope Arkansas and it's pure B.S. The average Ivy league student comes from a family that has money and came from money. They went to the right pre-schools, prep schools, high schools, summer sessions and so on.
Are there smart people at the Ivies? You bet. The Ivy league schools skim the cream off the rest of the country for scholarship students. If you're giving somebody a free $45K a year education he damn well better be able to pull up the students around him.
So if the Ivy league schools are so smart how come they don't run carbon-zero operations? The technology is there, they have the money. Could it be that their corporate sponsors don't want to change their behavior either?
The planets ecology is getting hammered and the people from these schools have been making the big decisions that have resulted in the destruction we see. Doesn't that raise a hair of scepticism in you people?
Permalink
tboggia Posted 6:05 am
02 May 2007
Cheers from UC Santa Cruz
Hi Nathan!
You might never get this due to all of the bickering above, but I want to congratulate you on all that you are doing.
I go to UC Santa Cruz and we have had a similar offset program. Unfortunately, we are not buying RECs locally because they were too expensive. We are now working on energy efficiency and finding roofs for on-site renewables.
If environmental thought has any chance of prevailing, it must be through love and positive attitudes. At brown, you and your peers are doing both, keep on kicking ass.
Tommaso
Want to put flyiers on SUVs? go to: web.mac.com/taazie/iWeb/RACC/Public%20Action/0C6F22C5-6750-4DF5-ABDF-5769A69E9213_files/flyer.jpg
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 7:27 am
02 May 2007
Enough Bickering
That's enough of the bickering, indeed! As Pangolin (and this forum) demonstrates, there's way too much bickering on Grist forums lately over people/organizations that are actually taking steps to improve the world, however small. Why argue over little issues when, in the end, we want the same thing?
Infighting like this is a classic example of ways that groups divide and schism, fracture into extreme groupings, and eventually disintegrate. Discussion is one thing, but fighting and finger-pointing? And over people/organizations working for change? We are at our best when discussion yields cooperation and concrete change. Let's all grow up a little.
Does anyone have other examples of ways to improve a college/university's footprint?
I went to a small Mennonite college in Indiana: Goshen College. While we still have a long way to go, the our student environmental group, Ecopax, has done quite a bit for our college - and we based many of our ideas on what we observed from Brown. In my four years at GC we've managed to get a number of grants aimed at assessing and reforming the college's footprint, started a campus garden, jumpstarted a new recycling program and organized educational events for the community. And, the Brown website has been a fantastic resource for us.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 7:35 am
02 May 2007
And also
And recently, our president has signed the Presidents Climate Commitment, here. We also just built a new LEED certified education center at Merry Lea.
Permalink
Thujone Posted 1:49 am
03 May 2007
While we're all patting each other on the back...
...let me pat myself on the back. I just purchased one of those 1950s era rotating blade lawnmowers. I did this because gas mowers are toxin-belching chemical fart machines.
For anyone thinking about doing what I did, here are the pros and cons:
Pros:
-No more gross emissions. A good one costs more than a motorized lawnmower.
-Get a great workout.
-The mower actually cuts each blade of grass and seals it. A traditional mower simply whacks the crap out of the grass, literally slapping the blades in half. The non-motorized version is better for the health of the grass.
Cons:
-Takes about three times as long to mow. Hard work.
-People stare at you.
Back on topic: I think that what the good kids in the Ivy League are doing with regard to climate change work is great. These are many of our future leaders and they're establishing good habits now. I didn't go to the Ivy League. And the only thing I have against them is how they dress. I am strongly against sweater vests.
Peace Out.
Permalink
Thujone Posted 1:51 am
03 May 2007
oh
and I didn't mean to say that the fact that the manual mowers cost more is a "pro." It's a definite "con."
Permalink
sparky001 Posted 11:57 pm
07 May 2007
hmmmm
It seems to me that there are two different discussions going on here. The first, Pangolin's is correct (IMO), as far as it goes. Most of the students at a school like Brown are wealthy, from the top 10% (or less) of the US population. Getting their institution to reduce its energy use is all well and good, but it's not the same thing as changing one's personal lifestyle. I rather doubt that any of these students are going home and (a) not taking jets with the family (b) convincing the family to reduce consumption in a meaningful way, or perhaps most importantly, getting their fellow students who are not like-minded to think differently. Incidentally, I don't think it's wrong to feel some resentment towards the US uberclass: they have a great deal, and they've gone a long way towards screwing it up.
On the other hand, it's also true that it's unrealistic to expect drastic, immediate change from an entrenched elite. Cosmetic green efforts might be a problem but we do have to start somewhere (incidentally, I do think offsets might become a sort of American guilt-reliever). So the other folks are correct in pointing out that vitriol with nothing else isn't going to convert anyone.
Permalink
thewanderer Posted 1:57 am
08 May 2007
Good luck, Nathan!
Wow.
First, thanks to all the posters who wrote on-topic and constructive posts. :) It's good to hear support for this kind of initiative!
Second, I'm a Brown student and this thread is kind of frightening in the anger some posters are showing. Telling us to commit suicide? Come on, that's really not even funny.
Yes, I'll admit that a lot of the students here are wealthy, and travel a lot, and don't care about their carbon footprints. Do you think Brown is unique in that regard? There are also incredibly conscientious people here who do travel, but do it to volunteer with grassroots groups or teach children English. Shocking, isn't it?
Anyway, Nathan deserves credit, not insults--he stands by what he says, and he's spearheading a great effort. It's really immature to twist someone's attempt to change an institution for the better into attacks on Brown students. Yes, Brown is far behind in energy efficiency and carbon neutrality. But we're changing. So instead of making blind, hate-filled comments, maybe you could offer some actual, constructive criticism on what Nathan and the emPOWER campaign have started. If you still can't shake off your anger, maybe you can direct it towards the good ol' boys at Harvard, Yale and Princeton; I'm sure they'd make good targets too!
By the way, I'm not wealthy (I'm only here thanks to scholarships and half my tuition being paid by financial aid), I'm Chicana and I haven't been "groomed" by my family to be the CEO of anything. For God's sake, I wanted to work at McDonald's when I was little! So it's a little insulting for you to put me into the same category as some of the real "elite" students here.
Permalink
Totenlicht Posted 10:43 am
08 May 2007
Pangolin
I totally understand what you're saying, Pangolin. It is so true! but still, these guys are trying to do something about it. Maybe it's not much, but I don't think blaming solves the problem either.
On the other hand, "Teaching children english" ?? if that's the idea of helping, then I believe as well as Pangolin that the whole effort is null beginning with the transportation. True help is needed locally as well. Sorry, but teaching 3rd world country kids english is definitely not the kind of help they need urgently, what I'm trying to say here... If the intention is good but somewhat narrow (and requires flying there) the whole world would benefit more from you staying home.
We could all learn from both sides, extremist or not it's a way to reach a solution. So it's not about defending or attacking any side, it's about trying to take the best of each side and become aware of things. It IS a good step for these students but they (and all of us) can definitely do better and much much more, specially if we have the means and resources to do so.
Great discussion btw :)
Permalink
iceicebob22 Posted 3:34 am
09 May 2007
A Voice of Reason?
I am one of those rich kids everyone seems to be mad at. Well, I never flew a jet to school, but I did drive. In fact, while I was in college, my family had 6 cars for 4 people, a boat, and two houses. We considered ourselves somewhat environmental. I was even the President of my highschool recycling club! For the town I grew up in, that was green - that was being a hippy. I didn't know there was anything different. I didn't realize I should be looking for more. But in highschool, I started to realize that things in my town weren't quite right.
At Colgate University, I learned a lot more about the mainstream environmental movement as well as numerous social initiatives. The campus environmental group I was involved in pushed for some carbon reductions and had some success. My senior year, I started learning about environmental justice. I am now two years out of college. I have been vegetarian since my sophomore year of college. I switched to an all organic diet after graduating and am now buying as much in bulk and locally as I can right now. I am also growing some of my own food on my apartment porch.
Everything in my life has followed a similar progression toward becoming more environmentally and socially sustainable. Carbon neutrality (or Carbon positive) isn't the only issue out there. There are a host of interconnected issues that I am struggling with and working to improve on. I know I came from a sheltered background and now I am working to make changes in my life. I can't change where I came from and I don't think I should be blamed for it. It's a long process to bring about change, but every step is important.
I am now influencing my family to change as well - they are buying more organic and my dad even screened an Inconvenient Truth at his business office recently, as well as started an office recycling program. Those things were HUGE for him, and huge for me to see. To disparage people who are on a path of change is counterproductive. I didn't go from eating doritos to eating organic kale I grew on my porch overnight. It was a process and anybody on a path of positive change should be commended. We all start from different points. I am not at the end point yet, that's for sure. I am doubtful that there is an endpoint. But please, respect everyone's efforts to make the world a better place. Some may be misguided, but we are all learning and that is the important part. Do we want to save the world if it will be a world full of anger, hatred, and spite? No thanks.
One final note to consider before passing judgement on people's origins: It's not where I came from, but who I stand with. I will never apologize for how I was born, or how I was brought up. Somebody needs to create change in every segment of society and I commend Nathan and his fellow Brown students for doing so at their University. I am also working to do so in my own way - I hope you will do the same.
Permalink
iceicebob22 Posted 3:59 am
09 May 2007
Addendum
Oh yes, I just donated my car to NPR and am only traveling by bike. I have a non-profit job and am living off of ~ $700 / month, with no financial assistance from my parents. I bought everything for my apartment used or got it for free. I am composting and have reduced my household waste stream to almost nil. I have chosen to stand with people working for environmental, social, and economic change but my background allows me to understand that we are all at different points of awareness. I do not disparage people for not thinking the same way I do, but try to share some of my learnings with them and often receive the same in kind. If they change, great, if not, that's great too. Why are you worried about the world ending from climate change or something else? Worry about being happy first, then you might have something to lose (but not really). Cheers!
Permalink
ewendt Posted 4:09 am
09 May 2007
High Impact Approaches
One of the great things about Nathan's approach is the high impact and multiplier effect of this type of work. By influencing large institutions, and teaching others how to do the same, an individual can achieve perhaps far greater successes than by working alone.
I absolutely agree that it's important to reduce your personal environmental footprint. But I am happy to see those who have access to current and future leaders travel and experience the complexities of the global challenges we face. I am hopeful that this will result in much more thoughtful political leaders, business people, educators, and parents who will be able to continue to improve our sustainability efforts.
As an Ivy league graduate, I'd like to reiterate the importance of questioning assumptions. There are many of us who do not come from elite backgrounds, and many more who strive to make the world a better place.
We can each work on what we love and do best. My own approach is to work with decision makers to improve the sustainability of their choices and actions. I am grateful, though, for those who are campus organizers; who build green homes; who invest in renewable power; and who shift policy. I hope that we can support a diversity of efforts, since it's going to take everything we've got.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:34 am
09 May 2007
No impact approaches....
don't help. Greenhouse gas emissions from the US are still rising. The evidence is clear that the developing world doesn't want to do anything about climate change as long as we refuse to take the lead.
In today's Guardian
"Flights reach record levels despite warnings over climate change."
Earlier in the Guardian.."Binge-flying culture is just beginning..."
Mind you it's not like any of this is having any effect. Like the "Atlantic's first named storm forms early"
And the people of this poor town in Kansas aren't going to wonder how much the extra force of that tornado had to do with Global Warming. Somebody please tell me that spring forest fires are normal in Georgia; it's not even fire season in California yet and we're in a dry year.
Now a lot of objections to my posts have gone along the lines of "don't be hating me 'cause I didn't know better" or "I'm Ivy league but I'm not rich." I don't thing those arguements are going to fly with the poor who will die first due to climate related impacts.
It's a class game and they are sure of it.So next time I'm hanging out with the monster-pickup driving guys at the taco truck I'll ask them which change they expect is fair. Ivy-league college kids not flying or them using smaller trucks to handle their construction gear.
Does anybody want to place bets on how that conversation will work out?
Permalink
Billhook Posted 8:36 am
09 May 2007
Harnessing accessible resources. for new goals.
Over the decades I've seen a good few rich kids trying to make some change in the society around them.
My neice (whose mother has relatively huge wealth) is right now pushing for a "Fossil Free Day" on midsummer's day in June - when people will, voluntarily, use a minimum of FFs just to experience the change.
Personally I think its got little chance either of getting much support or providing significant education to those who participate.
But, as a first effort, it is making an attempt, and the next attempt will be better, as long as she doesn't get pushed into apathy by being slagged off - as a mere rich kid do-gooder.
The critical issue to my mind is not the degree of wealth one happens to get born into,
but,
1/. the person's determination to step outside the conventional box to try to raise social & ecological justice, and
2/. their effectiveness in doing so with regard both to their application of intelligence and to their utilization of accessible resources.
In these terms my neice's efforts could go a lot further given more care and attention,
while Nathan's sound to be a long way down the road.
There is of course one role that only the children of the wealthy can play, and I think it may be a critically important one.
It is the role of the messenger who can bring the critical issues, and word of their solutions, to the dinner table of the CEOs mandated with awful decision-making power.
Scarcely anybody else can reach them in those circs.
So please, spare us, and the likes of Nathan & his partners, the class warfare stereotyping -
No two people, whether born wealthy or not, will make quite the same use of their opportunities to aid the common good,
but in one thing they are predictably alike -
they tend to respond well to informed encouragement.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
cnorton Posted 3:12 am
16 May 2007
Carbon Positive
Cheers from NM. I say we need to do it all - offset, change habits, and go after the bad guys. Working on reducing Brown's footprint is a great first step, perhaps the most important.
Forest Guardians (fguardians.org) where I am Associate Director, recently began a carbon offset program as part of a larger program that also pushes people to make lifestyle changes and actively monitors the activities of extraction industries on public lands to ensure environmental laws are being met (they often aren't in which case we litigate).
The tree planting piece has been controversial to say the least - particularly the idea of carbon nuetral. We want people to offset their foot print where they are unable to reduce it, but concentrate on reducing. It is hard to offer offset without giving people the sense that they then don't have to reduce their footprint.
We are thinking of changing from billing it as offsetting in order to become carbon nuetral to a broader restoration principal. Making it less of a calculation - x number of trees offsets your footprint - to be more of a narrative. Something like - reduce as much as you can, then invest in restoring forests. Not just the trees, but the whole ecosystem. Be part of the solution not just a cog in the machine.
There is no doubt the whole concept of carbon footprints is still evolving.
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:57 am
16 May 2007
Class stereotyping
I'll say it again: without the example of Brown and people like Nathan, many universities and colleges would likely not be making the practical changes that are now being made to campus energy use, etc. - my own alma mater included. Their actions are commendable, even ithe lifestyles of their classmates are not. Actions such as these encourage changes in lifestyles.
And I agree with sparky001 that there are two different discussions going on here: one is over the importance of students' green initiatives, and the other is over class stereotyping, intolerance, and guilt/envy. Those who want to continue acting like children, by all means: continue making fools of yourselves.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 7:19 am
16 May 2007
Note to Brown Univ. President Ruth Simmons
Dear Dr. Ruth: [uh, sorry]
"Green jobs" can come in many forms. One that has the greatest ripple effect is to have fossil fuels/nuclear project subsidies instead go to PV and Wind manufacturers who will open, preferably in existing floor space, factories for the production of residential PV and wind equipment--PV panels, wind turbines, inverters, and batteries, etc., etc., etc.
The first wave of product of each of these factories goes up on the very same roof where they were made, until the roof is filled, thus starting the repayment of embodied energy of the equipment, affecting foreign energy dependence, reducing Carbon emissions, and 'being the change'. The second wave of production goes to every local rooftop, corporate, small business, residential, repeating and greatly broadening the benefits above. Trucking, installers, and other support personnel will line up around the block for jobs. Many of these will be from the power companies, but will be a drop in the bucket.
Repeat the above steps simultaneously in every community.
Go to Stockholm to collect Nobel Peace Prize.
Sincerely,
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
colafication Posted 9:23 am
18 May 2007
sigh
This train of posts has been rather depressing. It seems everyone is so quick to anger that they forget the one thing everyone who participates in grist has in common: a love for the environment and a desire for change. I think anyone who inspires and works towards environmental poilcy change at any level should be commended, including both Nathan and Pangolin. Grist readers and participants should not be attacking each other, they should be working together to help everyone that's NOT involved in an environmentally concious community see the light.
There is a major issue that environmentalists of all shapes and sizes tend not to recognize: and that is economics. There's really no easy solution. The way our society and economy has developed, we (the global we - meaning both developed and devleoping countries) are so rooted in consumerism and environmental waste that the problem is too complex to solve with one blow. It affects all classes, nations and professions.
First, wealth as an indicator of environmental impact is also to be disputed. There is a controversial environmenmtal/economic principal call the Environmental Kuznets Curve. It basically says that yes, as wealth increases, as does pollution - to a point. As wealth increases past this point, the environmental impact actually goes down. There is lots of empirical evidence to back this up and it has yet to be officially disproven depending on which economist/environmentalist you talk to. I myself have plenty of issues with the idea, seeing as many have used it to defend unlimited growth and consumption. Incorporating the environment into economic calculations is a difficult task in itself, and the environment is more often than not not given appropriate value. BUT all I'm trying to get across is that wealth may not necessarily be the best indicator of one's environmental footprint, as there is scientific evidence to the contrary. So one can't assume that just because a person has the ability to fund a college education makes them a destroyer of the environment.
Anyway. Mass suicide is not an option. Equity is obviously a major issue in both class struggle AND environmentalism, and the right to live is the most basic human right to be defended.
You can't just shut down any one industry either and expect the world to magically be a better place. Try shutting down the airline industry, and you have massive job loss. Yes, we're talking the wealthy CEOs and tourism agents who would probably do just fine if only they could learn to live more modestly. But what about the thousands of employees who are mechanics or maintenance workers, or those who work the lines in factories which produce the many different parts that go into the construction of airplanes, airports, etc, etc... the number of people who would face unemployment grows exponentially when you start looking at all the small details, and those who would suffer most are the low-income, unskilled laborers who are living paycheck to paycheck.
So what about those people? Don't they deserve the right to work to support their families? Does the fact that millions of people are suffering around the globe deny others the right to live?
I met a girl from Brazil in one of my conservation courses at college who was angered by the American/Canadian campaign to stop deforestation in the Amazon, while we ourselves are still cutting down trees. "Those workers need the money from logging, they have no other way to make a living, they have no choice. Why can't Canadians just stop cutting down trees?"
Nevermind that the majority of British Columbians are employed in the forestry/logging industry in one form another. Nevermind that those thousands of people would also no longer have anyway of supporting themselves. The economy of BC is largely based around logging and tourism, but that enables BC to provide clean, hydro-electricity to the entire province as opposed to coal-powered electricity. Which is the lesser of two evils? Where do you draw the line? How do you make the change?
The problem is even worse in developing countries, there are so many people who find work in factories which pollute terribly or in unsafe agriculture who would otherwise have no way of supporting their families. Yet due to environmental conditions and living situations these people are most at risk to the adverse health effects of enviornmental pollution.
Is any of this fair? No. But there is no quickfix, no easy solution. To save the environment, we need a massive and drastic re-organization of society, the economy, and life as we know it. Altering the entire fabric of the global economy is no easy task, so we have to start small and educate.
Which brings me to my main point, and one of my deepest beliefs: education is key. So many citizens of the world, from all countries great and small, are continuing in their polluting life of consumerism, because they don't know what they are doing, they don't believe in global warming, or they don't know how to make a change. We can't make change without making everyone, everywhere, understand. Society can't change unless it wants to. We need to spread the word, explain the facts, inspire others to change themselves and their lifestyles. Education is necessary. And we cannot explain the facts without learning them first, we cannot employ new technologies without first discovering them. Research is also essential! For these reasons, we need universities, we need able and active students. Yes, not all students put their time, money and effort into making change, but most students are concerned with current issues even if they are not in a program that shows them what they can do about it. Unfortunately running a university also happens to be expensive. I didn't meet too many university students who weren't struggling to make ends meet. My dad (a postal employee) started working an extra day a week and extra hours everyday to help me pay my tuition. And I really hope to use my degree to make a difference, rather than have all that money and sacrifice go to waste. Personal change and sacrifice is necessary and what people like Pangolin are doing is amazing. But in order to actually change the way things work and stop the destruction and pollution, we need to spread the word to the rest of the world which hasn't a clue how to change or even that they need to change. People like Nathan should be commended for changing the way major institutions run and I hope I can also be an instigator of change. It is a complex problem and we need everyone (and I mean EVERYONE, from all walks of life and all areas of expertise) to be working together to find some sort of solution. Any efforts to make a change for the environment, large and small, are both necessary and monumental.
Permalink
cmartell Posted 9:56 am
01 Jul 2007
suicide is out of the question, but murder...hmmm
i stumbled across this particular post as I was looking for something else on the site and i cant help but feel angered by all the hatred expressed in these comments. That ca
to Pangolin, thanks for using me as an example. my name is christian martell and NO i did not take 2 flights anywhere last summer and the only reason i was even able to go to mexico is because Mexico is a 5 minute drive, 15 minute bike ride, 30 minute walk, from where I live. My hometown is Brownsville, TX, and my apartment complex is only a block away from what has come to be known as the most impoverished neighborhood in the country - Cameron Park.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the per capita income for cameron park was $4,103. About 58.1% of families and 61.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 66.4% of those under age 18 and 41.9% of those age 65 or over.
Obviously, Im not one those rich, 3% types. I earned a chance to attend a well-known university such as Brown because I worked hard for it and I dont regret my choice of enrolling. You may be tired of hearing comments such as these, but they have clearly had no impact on your mentality.
If it is "the poorest in the world" who will be affected first - then wait one moment - I need to say good bye to my family, friends, the impoverished Mexican children i tutored in high school, the Cameron Park families I taught to read and write - oh but most of all, I'd like to say good bye to you.
I may not know where you stand class-wise, but there is a kind of 'richness' that can be applied to the people I have helped in my life, and people such as Nathan and other peers of mine at Brown. I regret to inform you that from what I've read, your life is devoid of this kind of 'richness' and I can only wonder when it is your mind went 'bankrupt' and why so that I can start my own Web site to declare a "War" on that.
You pose a bigger threat to this world and everythig in it, with your negative paradigm. Nathan, and many like him, are catalyst for reform, while comments such as yours can only hurt and offend. Next time, you should try a nicer (and cleaner) approach to elicit change. Perhaps then will the flames you've been receiving end.
here are a few articles you should read:
http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper ...
http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper ...
http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper ...
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:21 pm
25 Sep 2007
Climate Change IS Class Warfare.
To all of you who have written about my "class envy," "class warfare," or "class stereotyping." You're right. I may be the only voice here on Gristmill expressing these ideas but they are not far from the hearts of millions around the world.
Nathan wrote his original article at the beginning of the summer. At that time weather changes had destroyed an entire town in the midwest and other extreme weather was destroying crops around the world. Now that summer is over.
The summer of 2007 saw the extent of Arctic see ice coverage shrink by a huge percentage below the previous minimum in 2005, Due to drought related wheat crop failures in Australia and Spain wheat is now $80 per bushel. Oil is now at about $80 per barrel. Both all time high figures.
Around the world impoverished people are faced with the dillema of being able to buy food or the fuel to cook the food but not both. Grain prices have risen due to the use of corn-based ethanol to fuel american cars. That corn is no longer available for tortillas.
Ask your pre-med students, malnutrition kills, undercooked food kills. Water not boiled due to fuel shortages kills people, as the cholera outbreak in Iraq is proving.
The emissions and fuel useage of the wealthy are literally starving the poor. World grain stocks are at the lowest reserve levels in decades while we use grain ethanol to fuel cars.
The students at Brown, as an average, represent the elite in terms of education and wealth in the US. I'm not convinced that they really grasp the problem or their part in it. One summer vacation by a jet-setting Brown student can represent several YEARS of emissions from a family at the worlds median income.
To have any moral authority; to talk to the rest of us at all about what we should reduce in our emissions budget, they have to cut their own emissions first and deeper. They also need to do it without so much public self-promotion.
Climate change is class warfare; and the poor are getting killed.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink