Ode to Etta and Facilities

As the finals season winds down and you start to go home (I'm sure most of you are home already- lucky you!), just a reminder to keep in your thoughts and thanks the people who work here to keep Georgetown running.

The Office of Facilities works really hard throughout the entire year to make sure our lives are relatively comfortable and constantly clean up after us- no easy task. They also work for most of break. So next time you see a Facilities staffer cleaning up or throwing something out, make sure you thank them, or even try having a conversation.

I recently ran into Etta, who worked in Harbin when I lived there. She works very hard to support her family, much of whom lives in Jamaica, and is an extremely kind woman. Though most of us have never said a word to these people, they are an integral part of Georgetown.

Have a great holiday season and safe travels,
(And be on the lookout for a new post about Copenhagen after the dust settles!)
Love,
Kristin Ng
President of EcoAction

Slowing down food, Slowing down money

Yesterday, EcoAction hosted a lecture by Woody Tasch, the Founder of the Slow Money Alliance. He has a long background in venture capital and philanthropy, having served as the Chairman of Investor's Circle for ten years before coming to Slow Money.

First and foremost, what is Slow Money? Many of you have probably heard of the slow food movement, which began in Italy (growing out of a protest against the construction of a McDonald's)--a movement aimed against the widespread fast food culture in which we exist. A movement designed to slow down that process so that we pay more attention to what we eat and, most importantly of all, from whom and from where it came. Slow Money works out of that same ethos, applying it to the financial system. The Slow Money Alliance (with the apt acronym SMALL--hearkening back to E. F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered") is positioning itself to revolutionize the financing of sustainable agriculture. As it stands, of the $500 billion given out by private foundations each year, only 1/100 of 1% goes to sustainable food enterprises (only $50 million--I'll do the math for you). The Slow Money Alliance is aiming at getting 1 million investors to donate 1% of their assets to what sounds like an Americanized version of microfinance. This would create a whole new stream of money devoted solely to changing the food system.

Woody Tasch's lecture was very interactive--he enjoyed quizzing the audience about the statistics he was about to throw at us, many of which were alarming. Take a moment to consider these:

• Out of every $1 spent on food, only 9 cents goes back to the farmer.
• 70% of all grains end up in cars and livestock.
• 70% of antiobiotics go to animals (mainly via factory farming), not humans.
• China built more roads in 2008 than it did in the past 50 years

The list could go on and on, but just these alone help show that we need to put our money where our mouth is and fix the actual systemic problems in the way the investment world works. To put this issue bluntly, Woody cited Nobel Laureate Joseph Stigilitz: "We aren't fixing the structual parts of the economy because we don't know what they are."

He brought up many good points throughout the talk (I would recommend checking out his recent book, "Inquiries into the Nature of Slow Money: Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility Mattered"--which is now in the bookstore-- or checking out the Slow Money principles). However, I want to quickly address one of them.

The 2nd statistic: Where does our food really end up? This is an important issue with which to grapple when one is going to defend organic farming. Critics will cite that the industrial system with pesticides and GMOs produces much more and that we could not possibly feed our population with organic farming. However, so much of the production, as is, is not going to feed our population. The corn that is heavily subsidized by the government is being fed to cows that can't digest it or transformed into the chemicals that you can't pronounce on the ingedient lists of processed foods. Imagine if all of that corn (grown organically) went from the farm to our plates.

Gearing up for the Holidays with GoodGuide

Yesterday, during my usual moseying around political and environmental blogs, I came across the Good Guide. I feel that I may have written about or mentioned this before, especially in my piece about Daniel Goleman's Ecological Intelligence. Nevertheless, as the holiday season approaches and purchases go up, I think it is a good time to start thinking more wisely about our consumer choices.

GoodGuide provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental, health, and social impacts of the products you buy, whether they be food, health & beauty items, toys, cleaners, or anything else. It is designed to be used as a phone application--any item with a bar code can be scanned and the ratings will immediately register. However, you can use it as a go-to website as well for when you create your holiday shopping list.


The site has a wealth of valuable information; however, as it is still growing, it faces some notable limitations. Many of the entries seem to be missing information, which will lead to a lower rating. Moreover, being a personal opponent of chemically derived sugar substitutes (e.g. sucralose, aspartame, etc.), I have issues with their nutrition grading.

Nevertheless, I think the site is definitely worth a browse or a more frequent visit. You can look at their methodology if you are curious about what factors go into the ratings; Good Guide does not shy away from important issues, from labor issues (how much a company pays its employees/the benefits they offer, child labor history, working conditions), history of ethical violations, philanthropic activities, quality and safety controls, energy use, pollution (water, land, air), and just about anything you would be curious to find out.

If you like it a lot, you can even apply (they are hiring), and they are looking for a User and Community Ninja. Pretty cool, huh?

The logo above was taken from GoodGuide's website, linked above.

Obama Has Decided to go to Copenhagen! - What does this mean for US?

On our last day of classes, President Obama will be making a speech at Copenhagen.

So what? What is the significance of Copenhagen? Heard different rumors about it? I'll try to answer some questions which I think are relevant...

And if I didn't get some of your questions? Come to EcoAction's Danishes for Copenhagen study break on Friday, December 11th from 11am - noon in ICC 203.



What is Copenhagen?
Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark. (Haha, sorry. Couldn't resist!)

I've heard a lot about some conference in Copenhagen that's supposed to be a big deal. What's up with that?
The United Nations is hosting the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. It's a meeting of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) members. It's also called the Earth Summit. It is a meeting where the world, essentially, can come to talk about the effects on climate change and to create actions to diminish these effects.

When is it being held?
It's to be held from December 7th through December 18th.

What does it have to do with COP 15?
Although Copenhagen starts with the letters "COP," it does not have to do with the city name. COP stands for Conference of the Parties. The meeting in Copenhagen is the 15th annual meeting.

What are its predecessors?
It was preceded by the famous Kyoto Protocol (COP 3 - 1997). This is probably one of the most famous Earth Summits because it created a legally binding agreement for signatories to reduce their emissions from 6-8% of 1990 levels between 2008-2012. It's been somewhat successful; responsible for a huge amount of decreased carbon emissions and, undoubtedly, the increase of clean energy throughout much of Europe. However, it was also notable for the huge failure of the United States to ratify this treaty. (Technically, the US signed it, but it was never sent to Senate for ratification, making their signature worthless.)
The other ones were located in Berlin (COP 1); Geneva (COP 2); Buenos Aires (COP 4); Bonn, Germany (COP 5); the Hague (COP 6); Marrakech, Morocco (COP 7); New Delhi (COP 8); Milan (COP 9); Buenos Aires (COP 10); Montreal (COP 11); Nairobi, Kenya (COP 12); Bali, Indonesia (COP 13); and Poznan, Poland (COP 14).

Why didn't the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
A lot of reasons, which can't really be pinpointed. There was the fear of being held responsible of our own action (gee... what a concept!) and how other countries would implement this. Additionally, there were some issues with the Kyoto Protocol that the Senate didn't really feel comfortable with, such as the iffy timetables. Also, they wanted to be sure that other countries, at the time China, would be held to as high a standard as the US.

So if it's an annual event, why is it such a big deal this year?
Because the US and China, who have recently been in somewhat serious talks regarding carbon emissions - something which has never happened before, are being pressured to take a stand on climate change. There's a huge hope that all the major countries in the world, the ones that actually contribute the most to carbon emissions (i.e. the US).
Additionally, in Bali (COP 13), the participating nations decided to finalize their next binding agreement in two years - for COP 15. It's important now especially because 2012 is rapidly approaching. (The time when Kyoto expires.)

What about the cap-and-trade agreement? Does this have any effect on it?
Yes and no. The agreements decided upon at these COP meetings are a total agreement. Therefore, if by some miracle the Senate passed the Kerry-Boxer bill, then it would be in concurrence with whatever is agreed upon at Copenhagen. It was the original hope of the administration that they would be done with cap-and-trade before Copenhagen, so the US could show up at COP 15 and not be so embarrassed about their state of affairs and have something to show for it - i.e. well, we basically screwed up Kyoto- but we have been able to rein ourselves in on our own. However, the current healthcare debate has pushed cap-and-trade to the side for now.

How does cap-and-trade even work?
Okay, not really directly related to Copenhagen, but I know there are people confused about it, especially with all the propaganda that's been floating around lately. Cap-and-trade is a policy plan which prices carbon emissions and puts them on the trading market. It is pretty simple.
So say there are 10 million units of carbon. Each company would get a certain amount and be able to sell their surplus in the open market. If a company was going to emit more carbon, it would have to buy more carbon. Ultimately, the hope would be that the supply of the carbon would decrease and therefore total carbon emissions would decrease.

Why is it so controversial?
The government's role is super important. The government must decide how many units of carbon emissions each company gets and then must buy back the carbon emission allowances from the open market, ultimately decreasing total emissions.
FROM A CONSERVATIVE POV
Conservative members claim 1) that this doesn't work and 2) that it will be expensive - and essentially a tax. To rebut that, I say that as anyone who has taken a basic economics class knows, it will work if implemented correctly. Furthermore, as someone who has worked at a brokerage firm, I can confidently say that carbon emissions are ALREADY trading on the open market, though more popular in other countries, and companies have been making buckets of money off of them. (Yes, I'm very much MSB.) Number 2, yes, it will be expensive. And I don't really think there's any way to get around that. You have to consider the alternatives (anyone who has taken basic economics or finance, again, knows these as opportunity costs). What's the cost of inaction? What's the cost of a Katrina 2.0? What's the cost of waiting a few more years with a couple million more people clamoring for the same limited resources in addition to the monstrous populations of both India and China who want to consume as much as Americans do?
FROM A LIBERAL POV
Liberal members claim that 1) it's not the best solution and 2) it doesn't go far enough. There have been other solutions floating around the blogosphere, such as a flat carbon tax, which would be straightforward and easy-to-understand, but difficult to pass. There was also another idea floating around called cap-and-dividend, which I think may have been mentioned on this blog but never really discussed. Cap-and-dividend essentially caps carbon emissions, much like in cap-and trade. So every company would get a certain amount of carbon credits, but essentially the public would own the carbon credits, versus the government like in cap-and-trade. Therefore, whenever a company buys carbon credits, the money would be distributed equally to the public (i.e. a dividend).
FROM MY POV
I believe that it's going to be vastly difficult for any Senate to pass any sort of act on climate control, especially with this economy. Mostly, people are fearful of the inconvenience it will cause to them. I say that it's in fact necessary for something to be done. I think that cap-and-trade will pass much easier than cap-and-dividend. Seeing where the Kerry-Boxer bill is and where Waxman-Markey was, that isn't saying much. I think we have to accept that cap-and-dividend is way too difficult for people to understand right now - and therefore won't be passed. (Though Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) wrote a cap-and-dividend bill earlier this year... which seems to currently be in limbo.) As an ex-science major (i.e. a believer in science) and someone who has studied carbon emissions and believes in global warming and a current finance major, I think the time is now to address these issues that will only hurt us more if left unaddressed.

How does that fit into Copenhagen?
Regardless on the agreement that's made in Copenhagen, a strong climate law will help the US reach its part of the agreement. It's expected that at COP 15, much like in Kyoto, the nations will agree on a specific cap on carbon emissions. Having a strong cap-and-trade agreement in place (or any policy limiting emissions for that matter), will only help the US reach the UN decided levels.

What are the implications for the US?
It depends a lot on what is agreed upon at Copenhagen, since they're essentially writing a bill. From what I've read, the world's nations are getting ready to really address these issues and to put a specific goal out there. Also from what I've read, the Obama team has been reluctant to agree to a specific goal, instead pushing for guidelines and suggestions. Though I think it's time for the Obama administration to wake up and to put its money where its mouth is (what happened to all the we're-going-to-save-the-world rhetoric we heard during campaigning??), the fact that Obama is going, and may be ready to commit, is a big deal. Though it is worrisome that he was hesitant to go in the first place - seeing as this is the biggest event regarding climate change all year.

How is it going to affect me?
If all goes well, i.e. if the US realizes that it can not continue to steamroll over the rest of the world and instead starts to act in accordance with other nations, we should see a lot of changes. There will be a new emphasis on clean energy. There will be an influx of green-collar jobs, a relatively new term to describe engineering and mechanic jobs related to building solar panels and wind panels, etc. We can look to countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden, all known to have low carbon emissions. But more importantly, in my opinion, we can look to a country like Germany, who has greatly lowered its carbon footprint in recent years yet still has one of the highest GDPs in the world, and is arguably in a better economic position than the US.

My final two-cents...
The time is now for Obama and the US to show the world that it's a leader. If you believe in global warming, this could be the most important meeting since Kyoto. If you don't believe in global warming, I suggest you take a basic chemistry class and then come talk to me.

We Never Talk About Global Warming Anymore

Yesterday was “Blog Action Day” for climate change topics, whatever that means…

So in the spirit of yesterday, let’s talk about student activism on climate change. Over my three-plus years in college, I’ve witnessed immense progress in how students view their impact on our world. When I came to Georgetown in 2006, global warming was still considered “global warming” for the mainstream folk. This was an age where we actually needed Al Gore to stand in front of a powerpoint in order to even begin considering how our personal, political, and economic choices impact our world. But like I said, that was sooo 2006.


Today, our campus – and I think all campuses – are alive with the spirit of sustainability, all driven by the presence of global warming. The beauty of this movement lies not in what EcoAction has become, but rather in how environmental sustainability has begun to leach into every aspect of life. The speakers that come here are environmental leaders; we have green architecture; we have an energy competition going on (admittedly, it’s woefully underpublicized); the SFS is switching Map of the Modern World to be based around geography more than political lines; the Sustainability Committee continues to make practical improvements to campus footprint; and every b-school student is trying to figure out exactly how to capitalize on all of this energy.

Over this time period, EcoAction has exploded. The organization takes on campaigns from all ranges of the environmentalist landscape, from sustainable food and park cleanups – central tenets for any tree-hugger – to carbon auditing and lobbying. I always expected this of EcoAction. I mean, it’s what we do. We’re an environmental group. But the broader things happening on campuses around the country are more exciting; the mainstream has finally gets it. And here’s where we’re at in terms of climate change activism on college campuses: the point at which it’s hardly anything you need to remind people about. But we still do, and we’re not stopping!

In line with not stopping reminding people about climate change, here’s a cheap, dirty plug for the raddest youth climate change summit this side of the Potomac. Virginia Power Shift is here! It’s happening at George Mason (so I guess it’s not exactly on this side of the Potomac, unless I don’t understand our local geography…) on Oct. 23-25, and Georgetown is sending a big group. Be there!

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Here is a blog post from Brad Pollina, who presented this at the EcoAction meeting last night:

The Great Pacific Garbage patch is a swirling mass of plastic debris located in the central North Pacific Ocean. Earth’s ocean currents carry plastic trash from all over the world to this area, known as the North Pacific Gyre. Current estimates of its extent range from the size of Texas to the size of the continental USA. Either way, it’s huge and it’s growing by the minute.

The debris field is composed of about 80 percent trash from land and 20 percent trash from cruiseships, oil rigs, cargo tankers and the like. To give some perspective, humans produce about 200 billion pounds of plastic each year, 20 billion pounds of which wind up in the oceans. Greenpeace estimates that 10 percent of the plastics produced each year ultimately wind up in the Great Pacific Garbate Patch. With that in mind, it becomes clear that a fair portion of plastic thrown away each year winds up in the garbage vortex, resulting in a debris field of about 3.5 million tons of plastic. In most areas, estimates put the depth of the plastic at about 90 feet.

And it doesn’t just sit there. Plastic waste doesn’t biodegrade- it only photodegrades- meaning it gets broken into smaller and smaller pieces without ever actually decomposing. This means once it’s in the ocean, it stays there forever.

Photodegraded plastic poses a constant threat to marine life and gets carried to shore by ocean currents, littering beaches with trash. One of the major problems is also the release and absorption toxins into the water.

Materials like polystyrene, which we know as styrafoam, release harmful chemicals into the water which become absorbed by other types of plastic debris. From there, animals often mistake the contaminated materials for food and thereby introduce these toxins into our food chain.

Estimates hold that 267 animal species worldwide are affected by the garbage patch’s debris and about 1 million die each year by consuming and getting caught up in the trash.

So what can we do?

Remember 80 percent of ocean trash comes from land. Moreover, single use plastics are filling our landfills and much of this waste is winding up in the ocean. That includes plastic water bottles, cutlery, food containers, and plastic bags.

On a personal level, reusing plastics and reducing your personal use will help halt the growth of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This means, for starts, using non-disposable food packaging, shopping with cloth bags, and drinking from reusable water bottles.

Next time you have the option to use something disposable, think twice and spread the word that it could wind up in the ocean.

Influencing policy at the local government level is also a high priority. The direct link between solid waste and the pacific garbage patch can’t be stressed enough, so local ordinance changes outlawing plastic bags, styrafoam, and other non-biodegradable materials represents a step in the right direction.

We need to encourage and pressure our local governments to enact plastic bag and polystyrene bans- it’s already happening around the country and the movement away from plastic disposables is gaining speed. Many towns have even started burning waste in clean energy facilities, which helps ensure these materials can’t wind up in the garbage patch.

On the national level, this issue is roughly where global warming was 10 years ago. It hasn’t received much international attention but what the Project Kaisei team has done is inspiring and should set the trend for handling this issue.

We need to contact our Congress people and the EPA to encourage them to devote funds to studying this. The more exposure we bring to this looming problem, the better. Not many people know about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch right now so we need to spread awareness if we expect to ever properly address it.

These images are from: http://knowmanythings.files.wordpress.com/ and http://bgviewsnetwork.com/

Georgetown: A "B" Student?

The Sustainable Endowments Institute just released the 2009 College Sustainability Report Card today. The good news is that Georgetown's score rose from last year, but the not-as-great news is that we still only have a "B" overall. (Last year, we had a B-). So, how did we get the grade?

The SEI ranks colleges on a number of different components based on survey questions sent out to the included universities. Georgetown's scores ranged from a D in Endowment Transparency (up from the F of last year, at least) to A's in Climate Change, Investment Priorities, and Shareholder Engagement.

We got a B in Administration, Food & Recycling, Green Building, and Student Involvement, and a C in Transportation.

So, what are we going to do to make this better, joining the ranks of Harvard, Yale, Penn, Stanford, and UNC-Chapel Hill? (We beat UNC in basketball--remember that, my fellow seniors? Why should we allow them a victory here?)

The good news is that some new and upcoming changes will probably boost our scores for next year. The advent of the beloved BigBellies and the soon-to-come reforms for residential recyclign will possibly give us some "extra credit" for recycling, and when the GUTS buses switch to biodiesel, our transportation grade will get a speeding ticket because of how fast it will move. (Yes, that was an awful joke, but we all have our moments.)

As for the rest of that energy boost (organic or renewable, depending on interpretation), a lot of it requires action from YOU.

Do you want to see more local and organic food served at Leo's?
Do you want to bring an eye-catching canvas bag instead of taking a plastic bag?
Do you want to save yourself money by using a reusable water bottle instead of buying bottled water?
Do you want to show that you care about your future, your health, and the future and health of those across the globe?

You are all A-quality students (You got into Georgetown, right?), so let's make this an A-quality school, too.

Image taken from SEI site.

Getting "Trash"ed at Homecoming: The Other Meaning

As Homecoming programming (i.e. tailgating) and general festivities get both students and alumni "trashed," they also trash the campus itself.

This past weekend, while I was talking with our campus Recycling Director, Bill DelVecchio, about the current and coming changes to recycling on campus, my dismay with the state of event management on campus was further increased.

During Homecoming, a time during which (one can easily infer) many beverage cans are produced, no recycling could be done because of contamination. Two loads (equivalent to TWO FULL TONS) of recycling had to get "trashed" because of this.

Although Homecoming is, by all means, a unique event, it also reflects a systemic problem in the way that events are run on campus. How many events provide bottled water for attendees? Overpackaged sandwiches from the Corp? Even still, how often do these events offer recycling facilities for the disposal of this waste? Not that often, for sure.

Systemic problems need to be addressed with systemic changes, and the paradigm with which we plan our events, both big and small, on campus needs to change. Zero-waste? Carbon-neutral? These are the types of events that we should be having. We, no doubt, have the resources and the brains to do it.

The photo above comes from the official Homecoming 2009 website.

Homecoming Sustainability Panel

This Saturday, I had the privilege of presenting on a Homecoming panel focused on sustainability efforts at Georgetown and in higher education in general. The discussion was specifically focused on Georgetown’s newfound dedication to sustainable construction and building operations.

The trend of universities becoming leaders in environmentally sustainable development has been a process largely driven by student demand over the past several years. Our campus is a wonderful example of this type of progress. Three years ago the average Hoya assumed the recycling bins were emptied into the trash stream, that ICC’s solar panels had fallen out of use, and that composting was something Roy Hibbert did with his back to the basket (…get it?). In the time since, sincere student dedication to environmental activism has led to improvements all over campus, not least evidenced by a sustainability committee focused on the issues long term. Today, students may be surprised to learn that 85% of our campus’ waste is either recycled or incinerated to produce electricity (a number that is sure to improve due to our new recycling bins); that each residence hall’s energy use can be tracked real time (data that’s being used in an inter-dorm energy saving competition this year); that our GUTS buses are being converted to use biodiesel; and that our electricity is being offset by investment in a large and growing percentage of Green-E certified renewable energy resources.

Perhaps the best evidence of Georgetown’s dedication to sustainable development – and the main focus of the panel – is the administration’s plan to seek LEED certification on all new building projects. The LEED program, which is run by the nonprofit US Green Building Council, judges buildings on their level of energy efficiency and general environmental friendliness. The new Rafik Hariri building will probably receive a LEED Silver certification for practices such as offsetting 129% of the building’s energy use, installing low-flow fixtures to save water, using sustainable construction materials, recycling construction waste, and utilizing smart control devices to turn off lights and heat when rooms are empty. Meanwhile, the science building is being designed to achieve LEED Gold status – quite impressive for an energy-hogging lab facility.

The pattern of investing into greater upfront construction and design costs to create more sustainable buildings is not unique to Georgetown. As the effects of global energy waste and environmental degradation have become mainstream knowledge, all aspects of development have grown to be more sustainable. Simply put, when long term costs are considered as present financial values it is usually less expensive to build green. This author is glad our university understands that relationship as our campus continues to grow.

Rate Decoupling

Here is a blog post from Carter Lavin, who presented this at the EcoAction meeting last night:

Currently utility profits and their energy sales are “coupled” so utilities make more money by selling more electricity. This incentivizes them to make and sell as much electricity as possible in the cheapest way possible. Because environmental costs are for the most part externalized by these utilities, they do not pay for the ecological damage they cause, they tend to use the cheapest and most energy dense fuel which in the United States is coal. This system is part of the reason for the general inefficiency of electricity use in the United States as the burden of action and financing falls upon individuals while the utilities have the reverse incentive.

Rate Decoupling is a policy which state and regional utility commissions can enact that provides utilities a guaranteed level of revenue in return for a certain quality of service to a specific region. This means that if a utility wants to generate a higher profit they need to reduce energy demand so they may reduce energy supplied and save on fuel and operating costs.



Right now utilities occasionally launch energy efficiency initiatives but they are on small scales and infrequent. In a rate decoupled system these types of programs would be bigger, better and more frequent.

To give you an idea of how much energy we could save through rate decoupling:

California implemented rate decoupling in the early 90s and utilities started energy efficiency programs that, along with state building and appliance energy efficiency programs saved 40 Billion kWh of electricity every year- roughly 2.8% of total American residential electricity usage in 2007 and roughly 20% of the amount of energy generated by California in 2007. If we did rate decoupling in every state and were about half as successful as they were, we would cut national energy use by 10%, and every individual and each utility would make money doing it.

It would also create many green collared jobs to help with all the retrofitting and energy audits that utilities would provide for free or at steeply discounted rates for their customers.

Currently Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington State are currently reviewing rate decoupling and similar new rate structures.

This is a policy problem that can be solved by advocating change to those who are in charge of policy. Once that change is made then it will be the utilities who are going to push us to adapt more energy efficient buildings and appliances. The people who are in charge of making this decision are the people who regulate the utilities. These are boards that are sometimes regional and sometimes within a specific state and they are typically called Public Utilities Commissions or Public Service Boards or Public Service Commissions and you can find a list of them on PublicUtilityhome.com. Contact them and say that you support rate decoupling in order to increase grid stability, improve energy efficiency, protect the environment, and create green collared jobs.

If you want to read a imaginative description of what would life in a rate decoupled world be like, I suggest reading the chapter in Thomas Friedman's book Hot, Flat and Crowded called “If it isn't boring, it isn't green.”

Image from Stateinnovation.org

Canvassing with the DC Project

Yesterday, Emily, Keely and I went over to Dupont Circle to meet up with The DC Project, a new non-profit organization. The DC Project aims to address social justice and climate change on a two-fold level.

They aim to create demand for green jobs by asking people to weatherize their homes. They also try to connect people with green job training so the demand is answered.

As of late, there's been a lot of emphasis on the new "green economy." Unfortunately, it's been a lot of marketing and less substance - it's been proven difficult to connect people who need jobs the most with the training that they need to work in green-collar jobs. This is what the DC Project tries to fix.

So the three of us went around DC going door-to-door to tell people about weatherization.

Weatherization is the process of making your home more energy efficient. The idea is that homeowners should insulate their homes so less heat escapes from the home - saving money and also requiring less heating and therefore reducing your carbon footprint.

Some examples of weatherization are: sealing gaps/holes, installing storm windows, sealing air ducts, and installing insulation.

We had a great time walking around and telling people about the DC Project and about weatherization. Overall people were really receptive- and we look forward to working with this group in the future.

Image from: http://www.capriverside.org/

Meeting Dr. Jane

If you want to know all of the details of what Jane Goodall said in her lecture, you can check it out on the Georgetown website. The audience absolutely adored her, and she spoke with wisdom, grace, compassion, inspiration,...(The list goes on.) Her messages of peace and conservation, of humility and compassion, were, in my opinion, in tune with the ethos of Georgetown University, something we should all remember.

However, you can watch her (Mr. H, peace dove, and all) at the link above. What you can't watch is the student reception.

A group of us from the EcoAction board were able to attend the student reception for the lecture. Also at the event were contingents from GW and American as well as students from the Center for the Environment and Lecture Fund.

Dr. Jane (as those around her seem to call her) befittingly requested that the receptions be vegetarian. Her work with animals has inspired a love and compassion for them, and the reception should follow suit. We were able to indulge in an array of hummus dips (regular, black bean, and one other) with toasted pita corners, a variety of fruits, vegetables, and cheeses, and much more. I know I ate too much afterward, but it was all healthful food, so I don't have to feel too guilty.

After lots of mingling among the students, Dr. Jane finally walked in. When she entered the room, a silence fell over the room. All noise stopped. Tripti accurately described her entrance as "regal." She had an air of serenity and wisdom in the way she carried herself and, as we soon found out, in the way she spoke with us.

It was a bit intimidating to speak with Jane Goodall (that's right, THE Jane Goodall) when she finally got to our group while doing rounds. However, she was very welcoming; in the moments of silence around her, one feels that she is contemplative and compassionate. We spoke with her about the connection of business and law to social responsibility and of her work with youth from across the globe. She emphasized her message of an inspirational environmentalism. When speaking with students, she would often encounter many who had become depressed or indifferent, feeling that their future had been compromised by those before them. However, she seeks to inspire today's youth to take action in their communities, finding the steps (whether big or small) that can benefit people, animals, and the environment. She encouraged us to stay positive, stay focused, and stay active.

I had not had the opportunity to buy her book at that point (I did so just before the lecture), but I was able to get her to sign the back of a Roots & Shoots flyer that I later pasted into the book.

I have not yet read her book, but I am looking forward to doing so soon; the lecture gives a taste of the stories in her book--of the hope for the future that she sees around her. The only surefire way to lose a fight is to give up.

Penn Gets Recycled Caps and Gowns...Can Georgetown?

U Penn recently signed a deal with Oak Hill, a company that produces 100% recycled caps and gowns here in the US.

That's right, just as you graduate to a new level of your life, plastic bottles will graduate into a new existence right along with you.

According to the Oak Hill website, if 100,000 students wore the GreenWeaver gowns at their graduation, approximately 2.3 million plastic bottles would be kept out of landfills (23 bottles per gown). This would mean that Georgetown would save about 35,000 plastic bottles at graduation.

Even better, according to Tree Hugger, Oak Hill plans to donate money to the campus environmental group for each gown purchased. Penn's done it as part of a new climate initiative. With the increasing responsiveness here on the Hilltop, is the climate right?

Not too Green in the Green Space: SAC Fair Review

Today was the day of the SAC Fair, that day at the start of the school year when every club goes into full-out recruitment mode and when suddenly freshman are the most popular folks on campus.

However, I would like to use this piece to express my dismay about the wastefulness exhibited throughout the Fair, a sad by-product of this fun annual event.

The wastefulness of the SAC Fair appears on a few different fronts.

1) Paper: If you get someone to sign up for your club, you do not need to give them five quartersheets, too. So much paper gets used and wasted during the recruitment efforts. Obviously, as we all do with free stuff, everyone takes whatever is given to them, but all of those quartersheets will end up in the trash (or hopefully, the recycling).

For our table, I printed out all of our sign-up sheets on old club flyers (if not just double-sided). I am a rarity in that I enjoy taking down old flyers, but I think that there is a lot of value in extending the lifespan of the materials that you use. If you can print on the backs of other sheets (and I have done so at SAC before, so it's possible), then you should---at the very least it saves money on paper!

2) Recycling: Bottles, cans, and pizza boxes dominated the trash cans throughout Copley Lawn and Red Square. Outdoor events on campus (not to vindicate those indoors entirely) tend to generate tremendous amounts of waste, and often the recycling containers are not as convenient as the trash cans (especially when extra trash cans are set up for the event).

Brainstorming the Solution:
If I remember correctly, Outdoor Education had worked on putting together a "how to run a green event" guide before, and this is something that I would like to see promoted and integrated into the system. The best way to make the change is to institutionalize the improvement.

Although priority number one for next year should be to (actually) have the logistics improved, I think it could also be fun to brainstorm creative ways to make use of the old pizza boxes et al. Maybe my EcoAction peers (alas, I will be gone next year) can build something at the table? Add some more life to the event while extending the life of the materials---why not?

Sustainability Website: It Exists!

Earlier this week, I posted a link talking about the Sustainability Action Committee, but now we have something even BETTER. That's right, my friends, we have Georgetown's very own SUSTAINABILITY website.

The site (which you should explore for yourself) highlights many factets of sustainabilty at Georgetown.

In the section about "What we're doing," you can learn about both recycling and emission from Georgetown. One of my personal favorite facts is that only about 15% of all waste from GU ends up at landfill because Waste Management has a relationship with an "Energy from Waste" facility, which produces a clean form of energy.

The website talks about the "Switch it Off" energy competition which has recently gone into effect in the residence halls and apartment complexes on campus. (You should have a sign on your door). It also gives links to faculty members doing research in environmental work.

Most importantly, for all of you out there, it highlights ways to get engaged (including a link to our very own website)!

So, go on the site, explore, learn, see fun photos. As they say, knowledge is power, and the first step toward reforming the way power (energy) works is to have the knowledge how!

DeGioia Praises Sustainability Efforts, Evades Transparency Question

In today's edition of The Voice (Full credit to the Voice for the photo above) were excerpts from their interview with President DeGioia on Tuesday. A few days ago, Vox Populi (The Voice's widely-read blog) asked readers for questions that they would like to see addressed. I noted the big fat "F" that Georgetown got for the category of "Endowment Transparency" in last year's Sustainability Endowment Institute Report Cards. Although we had an overall score of B- (not that bad), that F really hurts chances of advancement. So, what's behind that F?

Apparently, DeGioia evaded the question quickly. This part of the interview was especially interesting because you could tell that the pace got very quick (notice the indications of unfinished sentences/talking over each other). DeGioia refused to comment on the "F" ("I can't comment on that grade") although he said he thinks that "we deserve better." He also lauded University sustainability efforst, such as the new sustainability website (discussed in an earlier post), the "Switch it Off" competition, and their participation in the Ivy League Plus Sustainability Working Group.

What are your thoughts?

Ouch! Greenopia Gives Georgetown Lowest Environmental Rating

Greenopia, an organization that provides consumers with the information necessary to make eco-friendly decisions, released their own version of college rankings (after the US News & World Report, Forbes, Sierra, etc.). Georgetown was given only 1 out of 4 possible "leaves." Why did we rank so poorly?

Georgetown suffered because of bad environmental reporting. The survey said, "Simply put, Georgetown had some of the worst reporting we came across and this is unacceptable."

Georgetown was also criticized for lack of eco-friendly food options and alternative fuel vehicles.

Georgetown was called out for not signing on for the President's Climate Commitment, but we were commended for having a recycling rate of 37% (above average).

The summary of the report said that Georgetown is doing enough to count as "light green" but needs more aggressive action in some key areas. Agreed.

Welcome Class of 2013! Part Two (for those moving in today)

As I noted, my welcome to the class of 2013 was note quite over yesterday

We ended our list of easy steps to sustainability by talking about fueling your trip home, and now (after all of that arduous work packing) what better to discuss then how you fuel yourself?

6. Care for the WHOLE Person!
Organic farming uses less energy than conventional farming (and is better for the land), and local food requires less transportation and less pollution from produce-carrying trucks. Georgetown is in an ideal location to take advantage of the organic and local offerings of the city. And don't forget that a low-meat diet (rich in plant-based protein) is both good for you and for the planet.

Whole Foods Georgetown: 2323 Wisconsin Avenue NW (0.9 miles from the Hospital)
Trader Joe's West End: 1101 25th Street NW (1.2 miles from the Gates)

Farmer's Markets:
Dupont Circle: Sundays 9 am to 1 pm
Foggy Bottom: Wednesdays 2:30 to 7 pm
Glover Park/Burleith: Saturdays 9 am to 1 pm
Rose Park: Wednesdays 4 to 7 pm

And while we talk about shopping, don't forget to....

7. Think outside the bag!
Instead of getting plastic bags from Leo's, the Corp, CVS, or the grocery store, bring your own bag. The Corp and EcoAction sell reusable bags for shopping and Grab & Go. Plus, you'll get a discount at Vittles!

Think before taking a bag: if you can carry it or stick it in your pocket, then you probably don't need a bag! However, if you forget your bag or have too much to carry, make sure to reuse the bags when you get back to extend their lifespan.

While we talk about shopping...

8. Transparency in purchases doesn't mean window shopping!
You are conscious about the work you hand in for class, so be conscious about the products others try to give you! Whether it's organic cotton T-shirts, eco-friendly cosmetics, organic household cleaners, or recycled paper towels, there are hundreds of consumer choices than can help clean up the Earth.

After you finish up with your goods, don't forget too...


9. REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE!
There is a reason why this slogan has three parts.

REDUCE
Water bottles, made from fossil fuel-rich plastic, are rarely recycled--only 12% of bottles are recycled, leaving 40 million a day in the trash. Try investing in a Brita water filter/pitcher and a reusable water bottle. Why spend over $1 a day for a new bottle when you can carry your own and refill it at the nearby water fountain?

When you are printing out notes, syllabi, or papers for class, print them double-sided. Double-sided printing is less of a burden for you to carry and less of a burden on the environment.

REUSE
Keep old sheets of paper (like all of your NSO documents!) to use for scrap: to-do lists, notes, and doodling.

Be creative with your old water bottles. Why not put a plant in one of them to liven up your room?

Just as you should keep a reusable water bottle, take a reusable mug with you when you go to get coffee or tea, and expect a discount!

RECYCLE

Go here for information about recycling on campus.

And here for off campus.

And ask us any questions you have!

And on the topic of waste.....


10. A Good Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste: You got into Georgetown, right? Do you know what that means? It means that you definitely have the smarts, so make sure they are put to good use! Stay informed on the issues, and make sure to think about the impacts that your actions can have on yourself, your community, and your country. And get involved!

Welcome Class of 2013!

Welcome Georgetown University Class of 2013!!!

While you ease your way into the life of a college student (and as a Hoya!), we thought we'd give you some quick and easy tips to sustainable habits/eco-friendly lifestyles on campus.

Bleed Blue, Wear Gray, Think (and Live) Green.

1. Be cool with water usage!
Try to limit your shower to ten minutes--every minute less can save 7 gallons of water, and cooler showers mean that less energy is required to heat the water. Maybe try a navy shower, which can be as quick as two minutes. Also, when you are doing your wash, make sure to keep the water cold--you get the same results!

2. Don't be full of hot air!
Turn off the thermostat when your windows are open! All that cold air gets sucked out the window, and the energy gets wasted.

3. Give your room a nap!
Just as you get tired from the energy you expend during the day, so, too, does your room.

When you aren't in the room, don't forget to turn off the lights. And don't forget to turn off the A/C when you aren't there as well.

Also, turn off your screensaver--these screensavers, especially animated ones, can require more energy than standard power for the laptop. Better yet, turn your computer off at night! Good night room! And while you're saving energy.....

4. Human energy--the greenest and cleanest of all!
Using your own two legs is emission-free and also gives you great exercise. When you are going up to your dorm room, opt for the stairs instead of the elevator.

When you venture off campus, opt for biking or walking. DC's street system is easy to learn, for most of the city is a grid of numbers and letters.

For walking, all you need is a good pair of shoes. Go take a hike in Glover Archibold Park just past the Hospital, or for a long walk, follow the Potomac over to the Monuments!

As for biking, you are lucky to be in a very bike-friendly city. If you want to get to the Rosslyn metro stop in Arlington (1.0 mi) or to the Dupont Circle metro stop (1.5 mi), you can get there a lot faster by bike than by bus. If you are feeling competitive, try to see if you can beat the bus there!

And while we're on the topic of conversation....

5. There's a reason man wasn't meant to fly!
Most Hoyas travel to wherever they call home at least 5 times a year. There are several options to consider when making these plans: should you fly, drive, or hop on a train? As a student on a non-commuting campus, air travel will be the largest single contributor to your carbon footprint that you can directly affect.

If you live nearby (cough *New Jersey* cough cough--or even the rest of the tristate New York metro area---that means you, too, Connecticut), default to taking a bus or train home. Many students enjoy the Bolt Bus, which has free wireless internet (www.boltbus.com) and offers $1 trips--if you're lucky.

For those who must fly home, consider using Terra Pass (www.terrapass.com) to offset your flight. Surprisingly, the carbon footprint of a single cross-country round trip can be offset by as little as $10. And when booking your flight, use DC National, which is accessible by Metro. Dulles can only be reached by an hour plus bus ride or a $40 cab.

Now that you saved some jet fuel, get ready to discuss your personal fuel......

But that's in the next installment...So stay tuned!

Georgetown launches Sustainability Website

The Energy and Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee just launched a new and updated website.

The new site highlights some of Georgetown's sustainability achievements, research initiatives, and community engagement opportunities.

The site is based out of the Office of the Senior Vice President.

Vote for "Sam and the Wasted Semester"

In Vox Populi's Georgetown Youtube Madness, "Sam and the Wasted Semester" was up in the Activism category. Check out the video on the link above, and go vote!

Thanks for the heads up, Carter!

Eco-friendly Dorm Tips Countdown to the Hilltop #3

This post is going to be a 2 for 1 since I get to bring in some great survey data I found today.

According to a UK poll commissioned by IBM released yesterday, Generation Y (aka "us") is the least savvy age group when it comes to energy and water consumption. We tend to care more, but we know less.

To help you save energy, I am introducing

Tip #3: Buy a power strip...and use it.

The survey noted above interviewed 2014 adults 18 and over and asked them a variety of questions about energy and water usage. These included questions like "Which uses more energy: a kettle or a tumble dryer?" as well as questions inquring about people's own practices.

The 18 to 25 demographic, which didn't fare too well in the knowledge part, represents the college age and just out of college age group; in other words, those of us who are just living on our own for the first time. If we are living in a residence hall, we probably pay very little attention to our consumption since we don't see any bills, and even if we live in a townhouse, only one person in the group tends to coordinate the bills.

Having a power strip is a good way to making cutting down energy consumption a bit easier. If you want to turn things off but don't want to have to do so one by one (especially when they are hard to reach), you can just flick one switch to shut them all off (and then flip that same switch to keep them on).

Make sure to flip that power switch when you leave the room and go to bed so that your room doesnt' consume energy while you're out (or in dreamland)!

The power strip in the photo (taken from Flickr) is a "smart" power strip.

Eco-friendly Dorm Tips Countdown to the Hilltop #2

In your dorm room, you will probably collect a fair amount of trash over time. However, with all of the paper drafts, to-do lists, scrap, etc., a lot of that will be paper-based. So, here we have tip #2:

When it comes to recycling bins, "make it your own."

I know this isn't the most creative of catchphrases, but having your own recycling bin in your room is very useful. It makes your life easier to sort things as they come--paper, plastic, glass, cans in one bin; wrappers, food, etc., in the other.

You can put your mini recycling bin next to your mini trash can or maybe next to your printer if most of the recycling stream will be bad paper drafts. Or, you can work with your roommate so that one buys the trash bin and the other buys the recycling, and then you share.

And, if you really want to "make it your own," put a sign on it. I have always been partial to Woodsy the Owl, a character from an old Forest Service campaign.

Is Sustainability Increasingly on the Minds of the Freshman Class?

According to a study done by the Princeton Review, almost 7 out of 10 incoming college students said that the green practices of universities would have at least somewhat of an impact on their selection.


The survey question read as follows

If you (your child) had a way to compare colleges based on their commitment to environmental issues (from academic offerings to practices concerning energy use, recycling, etc.), how much would this contribute to your (your child's) decision to apply to or attend a school?

The results were the following:

Strongly (07% Students, 05% Parents, 06% Respondents Overall)
Very Much (19% Students, 14% Parents, 18% Respondents Overall)
Somewhat (42% Students, 40 % Parents, 42% Respondents Overall)
Not Much (24 % Students, 30% Parents, 26% Respondents Overall)
Not at All (08% Students, 11% Parents, 08% Respondents Overall)

The overall percentage ("somewhat" to "strongly") is 66% (68% for students, 59% for parents). However, the one question that must be considered in such an analysis is how much value the answer "somewhat" really has. The middle response (the 3 on the 1 to 5 scale) tends to be a default answer. However, the fact that 1/4 of students said that sustainability issues were mattered "very much" or "strongly" has more weight, in my opinion.

Eco-friendly Dorm Tips Countdown to the Hilltop

For the next few days, I have decided that I am going to go through some good tips to start off the new semester for all you new and returning Hoyas.

Tip #1: Think outside the bottle.

When sitting through class, trekking across campus (up and down hills), or just being outside (DC is humid, you know), you will probably want to have water on hand. Rather than stocking up on water bottles (which will cost you not only cost you a lot of money over time but also produce a lot of waste), invest in a reusable water bottle. This way, you can fill up wherever you are on campus: each building has its fair share of water fountains, and I can attest to the fact that the water is clean.

There are a variety of styles of water bottle that you can get to suit your personal interest:


Nalgenes (now BPA-free): These are most commonly associated with the plastic reusable bottles, but they make other products as well. You can get these at Whole Foods, Target, sporting goods stores, and other places as well.

SIGG (BPA-free liners): These are made from aluminum, and you will probably recognize them from their colorful styles. Check out the website or a local store to get a taste for the wide selection that exists.

Klean Kanteen (BPA-free from the start): These are made from stainless steel.

It's been a hot and humid summer, so stay hydrated and stay green.

Where's Georgetown?: Parte Deux

I came across a great piece from Auden Schendler at Grist talking about the Sierra Magazine rankings. He puts the value of sustainability for colleges in a blunt but truthful way:

"And the reason I’m pissed [His alma mater wasn't on the list either] is that it seems to me that even if you didn’t care one little tiny bit about climate or environment—if all you cared about was endowment, physical plant, and US News ranking—as an undergraduate institution you’d create a killer Enviornmental Studies program with a climate focus simply to recruit students and make money as a business.

Why? Because people are banging down the doors, almost literally, to study the interface between climate, politics and business so they can be part of the great challenge of our lives. And schools that train people well in that field will not only do well as both businesses and schools, they will also meet the needs of their students."

So, moral and ethical reasons aside (although they should matter to a university, especially a Jesuit one with a global focus), we have here a strictly practical and image-based reason to emphasize sustainability. Money and image are essential to any large-scale institution (keeping up with the Joneses, so to speak).

Your global reputation should have to do with how you help the globe, no?

Photo taken from Flickr.

Where's Georgetown?

Today, right as the US News & World Report unveiled its annual college rankings, the Sierra Club unveiled its "cool schools" list, ranking the top universities.

The top three were the University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Washington at Seattle, and Middlebury College.

However, more interesting to note here is that in this list of 135 schools (that is right, one hundred and thirty-five), Georgetown wasn't even there. Was there a reason why we weren't ranked? Were we not even considered, or did we just fail that badly?

George Washington was ranked #81; however, AU and Catholic weren't on the list either.

Whole Foods: What's the Whole Story?

Last Wednesday, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal on health care reform. His piece, entitled "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare" has caused a lot of buzz over liberal blogs over the past week.

Mackey, a self-professed libertarian, began his piece by quoting Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." He, as noted, accuses the Democrats' plan of socialism and avers that health care is not a right.

The end of his piece is heavy on the logic of individual empowerment/fault, i.e. if you aren't healthy, it is your fault.



He writes,
"Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age."

Although this point is true, it completely ignores the issue of access to such food (as discussed in Food, Inc., Fresh, and many other documentaries), and it also ignores the expansive array of health problems (from injuries to inherent conditions) that cannot be reduced as easily. Believe me, I am all for advocating dietary habits (I can go on for hours about the needed reform of the "American diet"); however, not everyone can afford Whole Foods, a farmer's market, or other such options. We at Georgetown are lucky to have a 4 Whole Foods stores within 3 miles, over 5 Farmer's markets in that same range, a Trader Joe's, and a few small natural markets. However, this is not the case everywhere.

Mackey's critique--especially the use of the misnomer "Obamacare"--has brought about much negative attention for Whole Foods. You can read about some of the blogging rage here. Many are calling for a boycott of Whole Foods because of Mackey's talking out of line and out of touch.

Moreover, Whole Foods has been called out in the past for its troubled relationship with labor issues, having forbidden its workers to unionize.

However, one point that I think is important not to ignore is this simple fact: Mackey's salary is only $1. Back in 2007, he decided to reduce his salary and donate his stock to charity because he didn't feel that he truly needed the money.

A boycott on Whole Foods, thus, would not be hurting John Mackey's bank account.

Whole Foods also has been one of the biggest champions of green power purchasing, animal cruelty prevention, an array of community organizations, and organic farming. Whole Foods, with its branding, has attracted many people to organic and all-natural foods, improving their health and the soil at the same time.

Whole Foods has founded the Animal Compassion Foundation and the Whole Planet Foundation to expand our notions of community, and it donates 5% of its net profits to charitable causes every year.

So, whoever out there has also been following the Whole Foods controversy, what are your thoughts? I don't think that the op-ed is reason for a full-out boycott. However, trying to buy more of your produce locally is always a good idea--if that's what you decide to do (which I have been trying to get myself to do).

Regardless of what you do, always remember to think before you buy an think before you bite.

Bill Clinton (SFS'68) encourages colleges to go green

Bill Clinton (SFS'68) spoke yesterday at the 2009 Climate Leadership Summit in Chicago, which was sponsored by the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment.

In front of a group of 250 college administrators, Clinton spoke about our need to ramp up action around climate change.

He said, "Every time somebody sees a project on one of your campuses, fixing a building, you are having an impact, even beyond the fight to produce climate change and lower your utility bills."

He also encouraged college students to call into their senators and representatives to advocate for reform.

Bill Clinton is always welcome to come to his alma mater to speak about college sustainability. I think that would be a powerful statement---one that would bear meaning to the campus on multiple levels. Maybe he can speak in the beginning of 2010---42nd for the 42nd, anyone?

I think we learned from his speech that, as is the case with all of us, renewable energy "turns him on," so to speak.

The photo comes from TreeHugger. I chose this over a fantastic but out-of-context photo of me with Clinton from a rally last year.

Preventive Medicine

All of this talk about health care is making me hungry for some preventive medicine...or..however you want to say that creatively.

Anyways, preventive medicine is a great way to include principles of sustainability in the health care reform because what is good for your health and what's good for the planet often coincide.

Take, for example, your food and beverage. New York talked about passing a tax on sugared soft drinks to much outrage from conservative talk radio. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest presents this calculator that shows how much revenue could be gained from placing a small tax on sugared beverages. Getting people to eat a more healthful diet (less high-sugar, high-fat, high-sodium, highly processed food in favor of more whole foods) benefits the environment because of the energy savings from the production process--the bottling, packaging, high-fructose-corn-syrup making process that characterizes our food industry.

What else would be a part of preventive medicine?

Also valuable to both people and planet would be an increased sin tax on cigarettes, another possible source of revenue. Cigarettes, unlike other drugs, have a direct health effect on those around the user (not just the user him/herself). Smoke pollutes the air and your lungs, releasing toxins into both. If we want clean air and healthy people, smoking needs to go down.

It would not be politically feasible to levy too high of taxes on these goods; HOWEVER, the volume of the purchases produces the revenue. Money can be reinvested in healthful school lunches and anti-smoking campaigns (and the people-friendly cities noted below), and overall consumption would go down a bit (maybe just slightly--but every bit makes a difference). Food companies would be able to innovate their way out of the problem if need be--finding ways to offer healthier options to the American public. (How nice would it be to see fewer--and more prounounceable--items on the ingredients of your food!)

However, the energy you take in is not the entirety of preventive medicine; one must also think about the energy put out, i.e. exercise. Making cities and suburbs more friendly to walking and biking as alternative means of transportation keeps waistlines thinner and emissions levels thinner as well.

Healthy people, healthy planet, healthy budget, healthy reform.

The photo comes from the CSPI's site (linked above), where you should go to take action!

Book Review: Cheap by Ellen Ruppel Shell

Ellen Ruppel Shell's book Cheap: the High Cost of Discount Culture is an expose on the inner workings of the world of consumerism: the designs, the psychology, the travels, the boardroom ideas that make us buy what we buy and expect to buy it for dirt cheap. Cheap is, I would say, the Fast Food Nation-equivalent for Walmart and the rest of our bargain-based economy.

The prices that we pay are kept low by an unsustainable system of cheap labor and environmental exploitation, of cutting corners around regulation every chance available. They are a prime example of our failure to contextualize our actions (and especially our purchases) in an increasingly globalized world.

When you buy a snack or a T-shirt, how much do you really know about it? How far did it travel to get there? Where, in fact, was it really made? Who made it? How much were the laborers paid--if they were even paid? These types of questions will foment in your mind while reading this book, and you will get a better understanding of the system of subsidies (which make our food dirt cheap and destroy agrarian economies abroad) and marketing (why prices are what they are--both economically and psychologically).

The one shortcoming of this book, in my opinion, is its failure to provide a semblance of a solution at the end. For those of you that saw Food, Inc., even though you probably felt powerless at the end, the producers attempted to give you a glimmer of hope. Ruppel Shell discusses Wegman's as an example of good quality goods, ethical practices, and low prices---for real. (Just ask anyone who shops at Wegman's about this: you will listen to them extol the praises of Wegman's for hours on end. Just make sure you have enough time.) However, one does not feel as though one really has the power to effect change in the system. Sadly, it comes down to the idea that, as you have heard since elementary school, knowledge is power. You can't solve a problem unless you know what the problem is.

Recycling Survey of Campus

We have discussed the idea of a recycling survey at various points throughout the year, and by the end, we had some progress but nothing streamlined. With no internship and no interviews (just some research and reading to do) lined up (plus an aversion to traveling to far in 100 degree heat), I decided to go on a building-by-building journey of campus and check out the trash and recycling situation. I hit the following buildings: Walsh, Healy, ICC, Reiss, and Leavey.



I started out in Walsh, and when you enter Walsh, you feel as though you are off to a good start because of the presence of battery and cell phone recycling (Yes, it's there). However, there is no marked plastic recycling on the first floor of Walsh: only glass, newspaper, and cans. This brings me to RECYCLING POINT #1:

RECYCLING POINT #1: All recycling locations should have facilities to accommodate all recycling (paper, glass, plastic, aluminum) possible and should be paired with a trash can.

as well as RECYCLING POINT #2:

RECYCLING POINT #2: Mixed paper, white paper, newspaper: How about one for just "mixed paper" as a collective term for all? If not, then either 1) more education needs to be done about what the value to separation is (Money, in case you are wondering), or 2) all forms of paper recycling bins must be paired with each other at all locations.

From there, I continued on to the rest of my journey through Walsh, which has one of the most abysmal states of recycling.

1) No standardization: There is no set style of bin in Walsh. Bins range from ghetto, broken, lidded plastics recycling bins to Coca Cola "Give it Back" bottle recycling bins. It is haphazard, at best.
2) Rarely even there: Standardization aside, the main problem is that recycling, often, isn't even available.

RECYCLING POINT #3: Bins must be of standardized form and placement.

Recycling Points #1, #2, and #3 characterize the states in Healy, ICC, and Reiss as well, so there is no need to elaborate too much there. However, I must establish the following vital rule with regard to the Leavey Center. Hoya Court, home to mass consumption of bottles and mass food and wrapping waste, has no trace of recycling whatsoever:

RECYCLING POINT #4: Recycling facilities must be available wherever corresponding materials are being consumed (i.e. paper by a copying machine, plastic/aluminum by a vending machine or a food court).

So, as for public spaces on campus go, I think these four rules sum it up well so far. If you want to see all of my photos (I have 120 photos chronicling my journey), just ask--I'll send the Snapfish link to you!

CarbonFree DC: Showing Why Green Doesn't Have to Cost You Too Much Green

Today, I went to a meeting for CarbonFreeDC's "Extreme Green Neighborhood Makeover." CarbonFreeDC won a $20,000 grant through the Green Effect competition, sponsored by National Geographic and Sun Chips. With this money, they plan to help 20 low-income families in DC make their homes more efficient and eco-friendly.

CarbonFreeDC will be reaching out to local businesses, government agencies, and community groups to get the most out of this money, and they will be featured in National Geographic Magazine (with possibly even a documentary sponsored by NG) and in an ad on Sun Chips bags.

Not only does this effort help low-income residents of DC, and not only does it help the environment, but it also helps to dispel the myth that you have to have a lot of greens (i.e. money) to go "green." They plan to track the savings of the 20 households over a few years to see how quickly the "Green Makeover" pays back.



CarbonFreeDC, a grassroots initiative to reduce the carbon footprint of our nation's capital, also has a number of seminars throughout the year on issues from composting to urban gardening, so they are worth checking out.

I would love to have some Georgetown representation in the Green Home Makeover project. It is a perfect example of the blend of sustainability and social justice, and it will help get us as a club more connected to the issues relevant to the residents of DC. You with me?

Who Says Mondays Can't Be Fun?

This summer, I have been reading a lot of HuffingtonPost Green, a site I would highly recommend to all of you environmental advocates out there. It is my top way of finding out about policy, analysis, trends, and fun stories connected to the environment.

In honor of today (everyone's favorite day of the week, Monday), I wanted to write about Meatless Mondays, a nonprofit initiative of The Mondays Campaign, in association with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which is encouraging people to give up meat (at least) one day a week. Their ultimate goal is to reduce meat consumption 15%, a goal that would benefit both the health of the public and of the planet.



The Meatless Monday's website outlines a number of the health benefits from jumping on the bandwagon with this movement.

Health Benefits:

• Reduce Risk of Heart Disease: Plant-based foods have less saturated fat and cholesterol.
• Maintain a Healthy Weight: Most Americans don't get enough fiber, and fiber comes from the bounty of the Earth!
• Improve Overall Quality of Diet: The more (natural) colors, the healthful and vitamin-rich it will be.

Environmental Benefits:

• Reduce Your Carbon Footprint: According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the meat industry emits about 1/5 of total greenhouse gases, putting it ahead of the transportation sector.
• Minimize Water Usage: From 1,800 to 2,500 gallons of water go into a single pound of beef (as opposed to 220 gallons per pound of tofu).
• Help Reduce Fossil Fuel Dependence: About 40 calories of fossil fuel energy go into every calorie of feed lot beef in the US. Plant-based protein, on the other hand, takes only 2.2 calories.

Meatless Mondays is something I would love to see brought to Leo's in the fall. Granted, it is hard to eliminate the meat options, but you could make the vegetarian options more attractive by getting some intriguing recipes.

Lost on what to eat for protein without your meat? There are plenty of options (and not just tofu), don't you worry?

• Tempeh: I like tempeh more than tofu becuase it has a more pleasant texture and a slightly nutty flavor; it's great for stir-frys.
• Edamame: the soybean itself
• Chickpeas: Do you love Middle Eastern food? Try falafel with some hummus.
• Lentils: How about some Indian food? You could try a lentil curry.
• Greek yogurt: Greek yogurt (Fage, Oikos) is delicious and very protein-dense.
• Eggs: Have breakfast for dinner, and make an omelette!
• Cheese: Make a pizza!

These are just some basic thoughts, but I'd suggest going to site above and searching for recipes. You might find something you like!