The Cancun Agreements

Friday marked the last day of COP 16—the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Following last year’s disastrous conference in Copenhagen, delegates from 193 countries met in Cancun with little fanfare and low expectations. The Cancun Agreements, drafted and released Saturday morning,are actually being met with general satisfaction.

On the positive side,the agreements are laudable: emissions reduction, limits to deforestation, financial support for countries affected by climate change. According to the Economic Times, global temperatures are to be restricted to a rise of 2 degrees C (3.6 F) over pre-industrial levels. Wealthy countries are to cut their emissions by 25-40% by 2020 over 1990 levels. In addition, as Grist describes in a surprisingly supportive article, the changes that developed and developing countries must make to their systems of monitoring and reporting on emissions. For example, developed countries will have to submit annual reports of their emissions, and developing countries will have to report every two years on their progress in cutting emissions.

COP16: Cancun

Last Monday, delegates started meeting in Cancun, Mexico, for COP16—the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Every year, officials from participating countries meet to discuss environmental issues and, we hope, make agreements to remedy those issues. Last year, they met in Copenhagen at a disastrous summit that ended in the notorious Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding, three-page “statement of intention” that participating countries merely “took note of” rather than adopted officially.

This year, 194 nations are sending representatives to Cancun for negotiations, but expectations for any binding agreements are low. Heads of state and high-level leaders are generally not attending. The ultimate goal at Cancun is to come to an agreement about extension of or successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that mandated reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily for wealthy countries. Kyoto expires on December 31, 2012, and without an extension or a new treaty, the world will be left without any significant, binding climate-change agreements. The United States never ratified Kyoto.

An Evening with the Surfrider Foundation, A History of the DC Bag Tax from an Insider View

As a member of the greater DC community, I’m sure you’re aware of the plastic bag tax.  Since its implementation at the beginning of this calendar year, bag use has dropped from 22.5 million per month to 3 million per month and individual stores have estimated a 60 – 80% drop in use, while raising $1 million for cleanup efforts on the Anacostia River.

The Surfrider Foundation was one of the major organizations that lobbied for this tax, and so far it has been a wild success.  They supported this initiative based on an early study done by a few volunteers, who walked up and down the Anacostia River and recorded every piece of trash that they found.  They discovered that 47% of the trash consisted of plastic bags on land, while 20% of the trash was plastic bags in the river.  The Surfrider Foundation was founded by surfers who advocate for access to beaches and waves, but also for clean water, a human right that many people don’t have access to.

The bag tax has been a major success, seeing a 66% drop in the number of bags being cleaned up since last year, but not without critics.  It’s important to note that the issue was never about raising money, so it wasn’t a tax in the traditional sense, but it was more of a tax to reduce the number of plastic bags clogging up our rivers.  (Think of a “sin tax.”)  The tax ended up passing with less resistance than expected, especially when you consider the fact that more environmentally aware/progressive cities and states have failed...

Lightbulb Swap: Using CFLs

This week, EcoAction will be in Red Square for the EcoWeek light-bulb swap. Bring your incandescent light bulbs, and we’ll give you a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) for free!

The switch to CFLs is a quick, easy way to make a huge impact on the environment. According to Energy Star, CFLs use 75% less energy and last ten times longer than incandescent light bulbs. They also produce 75% less heat, which reduces the energy used for air-conditioning in buildings. CFLs will save you money, too. One CFL is a bit more expensive than one incandescent bulb, but because it lasts so much longer it can save you up to forty dollars over its lifetime. Imagine how much money could be saved by replacing all the bulbs in your home or workplace.

Actually looking into where my food comes from... novel concept, right? (2nd post in food series)

I adapted an essay from my Local/Global Food and Farm Systems class, where we had to write a Food Diary:

I am a vegetarian, so I let some of my food habits slide because of the many ways that vegetarianism avoids environmental problems associated with factory farming. I have not yet admitted to myself that processed vegetarian foods also have negative environmental impacts and can also be part of the industrial animal-abusive food chain. I eat many unprocessed foods, like salads and vegetables, but they are rarely local, and often eaten with other processed foods like salad dressings.
Most of my food is organic or otherwise labelled as eco-friendly and targeted to concerned consumers like me. I have to look beyond the images of trees and the claims of "natural" and "green." For example, instead of butter, I use Smart Balance because it is labelled as healthier, yet its ingredient list is filled with names I cannot decipher, and one I wish I couldn't: “TBHQ for freshness,” a form of butane described by Pollan as  “the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget.”[i]

Voting and Environmentalism

Last week, EcoAction was tabling in Red Square with a list of the candidates that the Sierra Club has endorsed for the upcoming midterm elections. Claire and I were “tabling” on Friday afternoon—we were actually table-less, but we managed to commandeer a bench. Because not too many students stopped to see the list, I thought I would post it here so that if you missed us last week, you can still check out the endorsements.

The overwhelming majority of the candidates are Democrats: for the House races, they are all Democrats, and for the Senate races the only exceptions are Charlie Crist (I-FL) and Tom Clemens (G-SC). The Sierra Club did not endorse any Republicans. Obviously, since the District has no seats in Congress, this list is really only relevant if you’re registered elsewhere and you have an absentee ballot.

Urban agriculture event on campus Oct 9 ~ First in a series about food

Last Saturday, EcoAction and Georgetown Community Garden (formerly called GUSGI) co-hosted an event with food from the Burleith Farmers Market and three amazing speakers.

First, Christopher (Director of Business Operations) and Christian (Farm Manager) from Engaged Community Offshoots spoke about their awesome farm in Edmonston, Maryland.

 

Their story is inspiring; the four-person staff recently got a grant and found park land in Maryland, where they now have hoophouses so they could grow vertically, partner with groups like Whole Foods to get waste for their compost and restaurants like Busboys and Poets to sell their food, and teach hands-on classes for immigrant workers and college students so they can replicate this model in their own communities.

This is their mission statement from their website: “ECO seeks to reverse the effects of systemic poverty, racism, and environmental destruction through establishing and promoting social venture community-based businesses.”

Reusable Coffee Cups on Campus

Hi all! My name is Madeline, I’m a sophomore in the College (English major, Philosophy minor) and for my first post on the EcoAction blog, I thought I’d tackle an environmental issue that seems to be a huge issue here at Georgetown: the use of disposable coffee cups.

I often get coffee in the mornings at Uncommon Grounds in the Leavey Center, and almost every customer in line takes a disposable paper or plastic cup for their drink. Students, professors, staff, visitors—no one seems to carry a travel mug, a thermos, or even a ceramic mug with them for their drink. At the other Corp coffee shops, at Starbucks, and at Epicurean, it’s the same story.

We’ve all seen this across campus, and we’ve all been guilty of using a disposable paper cup at one time or another. I know I left my travel mug in my room all weekend even though I went out for coffee a number of times. It can be a burden to carry a mug around with you, especially if you’re also toting a reusable water bottle. Even if you do usually carry a mug, it’s easy to forget it from time to time; or you might find yourself with a serious caffeine craving when you don’t have it with you. These are all understandable situations.

But I think we can agree that even when wastefulness is due to normal human forgetfulness, it’s still a bad thing. Moreover, most of the wastefulness due to the use of paper cups is not the result of people forgetting their travel mugs at home; it’s due to complacency and, frankly, laziness at coffee shops throughout the country.

DC VegFest

Tara and I at the DC VegFest with the Carrot.

Last weekend, on September 11, my friend Tara and I headed to GWU for the DC VegFest, an annual festival celebrating vegetarianism.

Neither of us had been before, so it was a really great experience.  We bought delicious falafel from Amsterdam Falafelshop, located in Adams Morgan, and vegan cupcakes from Sticky Fingers Bakery, located in Columbia Heights.  (Yes, the cupcakes were delicious - just ask the winner of Cupcake Wars, a vegan chef!  We got strawberry and cookies-and-creme cupcakes, FYI.  Both delicious!)

We also had samples from Gardein, a company that makes vegetarian meats, and some protein shakes from Vegan Bodybuilding (no lie!).

So why am I writing about this on a blog about environmental issues?  It's been suggested that the meat industry as it exists today in the United States is a major contribution to carbon emissions - according to the Environmental Defense, if every American skipped a meal of chicken a week for a vegetarian substitute, the carbon dioxide savings would be equivalent to taking more than 500,000 cars off the road.

You can save tons of carbon emissions (literally) by reducing your meat consumption - meat is a much more greenhouse-gas intensive product than vegetables are (due to the emission of methane and the huge amounts of corn required to feed the animals, not to mention the emissions due to transportation).

Reusable Grab&Go bags at Leo's

School administration has approved a new program at Leo's for the 2010-2011 academic year. Every student with a meal plan will be provided a free reusable Grab&Go bag in September. Though administered for free last year, disposable plastic bags will now cost 5 cents to purchase. This program will significantly cut down on Georgetown's plastic waste, while fostering a collective student movement.

Some cool facts about wilderness

I can't believe summer is almost over! This is the second blog post I put on The Wilderness Society's site during my internship here (and probably my last post, considering I only have one week left).

The first few paragraphs (click below if you want to read more):

Did you know that wilderness boosts residential property values? This is one of the interesting facts from our recent statement on the economic benefits of wilderness for the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

The Wilderness Society's hearing testimony explains the important role that public lands play for local economies. Federally designated wilderness areas provide incredibly valuable services—like increasing local income and employment, boosting recreation and tourism, and naturally filtering our air and drinking water.

Onshore drilling is not the answer to off-shore drilling spills

Some people have taken the Gulf oil spill as a call for more onshore drilling. Doesn't make any sense to me... so I wrote about that in a blog post for The Wilderness Society. I am working for them this summer, and since I write posts for their blog, I realized I could post those here (at least the ones with my name in the byline), as well.

Here is the post I wrote on June 15 about the dangers of onshore drilling (before the whole judge ruling against the deepwater drilling moratorium debacle).

The first few paragraphs (click if you want to read more):

Following the Gulf spill, proponents of the fossil fuel status quo have called for more onshore drilling as a safer alternative to offshore drilling. Don’t let them fool you. Drilling can have devastating environmental impacts for both our waters and our lands.

Take, for example, today’s Chevron oil leak of 500 barrels (or about 17,000 gallons) into a Salt Lake City creek. At least 100 birds were covered in oil, and water quality has certainly been affected.

Oil is not the only fossil fuel that poses risks—so does the supposedly safe fuel, natural gas.

For example, just as there were few (or at least unenforced) regulations of Deepwater Horizon’s drilling process, there are few regulations on hydro-fracking, a natural gas drilling process that is unregulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, despite regular and serious reports of it polluting drinking water in local communities.

Green World Cup

Though Team USA is out in a heartbreaking loss to Ghana, millions of Americans are now tuned into the World Cup.

But did you know...

• Nike, the official sponsor of 9 teams including USA, Brazil, and Portugal, has made team jerseys entirely out of plastic bottles.
• Solar panels have been retrofitted to street lights, traffic lights, and billboards in 6 of the host cities.
• Eleven teams have pledged to offset the emissions caused by their participation in the World Cup.  PUMA has sponsored the offsets of Teams Algeria, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Uruguay, Italy, and Switzerland.  Chile, England, Republic of Korea, and Serbia have committed to offsetting their own emissions.
• Indigenous trees will be planted in Soweto.
• Waterless urinals are being used instead of traditional toilets.
• Food will be served in biodegradable containers.
• Soccer City Stadium has been built using recyclable concrete.
• Many of the stadiums are using LED lighting.

So... where does that leave us with regards to the oil spill?

3) What's going to happen and how can we help?

The only thing I can say for certain, people won't forget anytime soon.

If you've been reading my last posts about the BP oil spill, first off: thanks!  They're pretty lengthy, but I think I've managed to get a lot of information in them.  Secondly, I don't think anyone knows what's going on or what's going to happen.  I have some predictions, as well as a run through of some historically huge oil spill disasters, and some thoughts about what we can do to help.


As always, your feedback is much appreciated.

So... what's going to happen with BP and how will the government respond?

2) What are the business implications?  What are the political implications?  And, most importantly perhaps, how are these intertwined?

Team Hayword vs. Team Obama.  Let's not make it a draw a la World Cup.  Image source.

As with most national catastrophes, in this situation Big Business and Big Government has seemed to be in cahoots.

BP is in shambles as of late.  Their stock price has plummeted in accordance with their involvement with this disaster.  Though once lauded by those less knowledgeable about alternative energy as seeming to put emphasis on renewable energy, they have proven that "Beyond Petroleum" wasn't BP but BS.  The question remains though, can BP return from this?

The US government, meanwhile, has also been criticized and blamed, though also lauded and praised.  President Obama has been accused of using this event to further push his own agenda, particularly when it comes to cap and trade.  He has also been praised for taking a strong stance against BP's nonsense.  (Though, as with most events in politics, also criticized by Britain for trying to ruin their economy.  All right, England, let's save it for the World Cup.)  The question from this stance is will the government use this disaster to finally and seriously attempt much needed energy reform or will it allow Big Business to roll all over it, as it often does, and we go back to business as usual?

Read on for a breakdown of what BP's business implications are and what government is doing.

So... what exactly is going on with the oil spill?

1) What is the BP oil spill?  What's been done?  Who are the players?  Who is affected?

These are the images BP doesn't want you to see.  Image by Charles Riedel.

Hint: this is not what a pelican is supposed to look like.

The BP oil spill, as it's now being called (though it is more accurately called the Deepwater Horizon oil spill) is, without question, our generation's worst environmental disaster, and one of the worst in history.


Though the blame, in public eye, falls to BP (British Petroleum), the third largest energy company in the world, there are other players in this disaster such as Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling company, and of course, the US government and President Obama, whom many consider could be inextricably linked to this crisis and think it could determine his legacy much like Hurricane Katrina determined (in part) President Bush's legacy.


Besides the 11 killed people who were on Deepwater Horizon, there are many other people affected - the other workers and injured members of the rig, the BP execs all the way down to the gas-pumpers (if you live in NJ! [or Oregon]), the residents of Louisiana/Alabama/the rest of the Gulf, and, of course, YOU.  Not to even begin to mention the animals who have already been killed by the oil spill, the ones who will be killed, and the ones who are in dire trouble (see photo above).  Of course, the Gulf itself will be, perhaps irreversibly, damaged.


Read on for a breakdown of the oil spill itself, the players, and the victims.

BP oil spill: let us break it down for you

Image from The Rachel Maddow Show Flickr

Over 50 days ago, on April 20th, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig (a mobile offshore drilling unit designed to drill underwater wells for oil extraction) exploded due to a high pressure in the well, leading to what experts now think may be one of the largest oil spills in history.

With news reports every day updating citizens on new estimates of oil spilled, who's blaming who, which politician is offering his two-cents, which celebrity is offering his new technology, why they went wrong, and who is in trouble, it can be near impossible to figure out what's happening.

Over the next few days, I'll be writing some posts about:

1) What is the BP oil spill?  What's been done?  Who are the players?  Who is affected?

2) What are the business implications?  What are the political implications?  And, most importantly perhaps, how are these intertwined?

3) What's going to happen and how can we help?

I'll split it out over a few days so it's not like reading a novel but all we can say with certainty is that this event could be a major turning point - but of what?  (We don't quite know... a turning point for big corporations?  For small business?  For President Obama?)

Even more than a month later, there's quite a bit of conjecture, so, as always, your feedback is appreciated.

Children's Environmental Movies

Babysitting this summer?  Finding yourself nostalgic for some children's movies?  Bored?
I've compiled my top 5 children's environmental movies.

5) Ferngully (1992): Long considered the quintessential children's environmental movie.

Ferngully is about a group of fairies who need to protect their rain-forest home from humans who want to cut down their trees for wood.
Environmental theme: deforestation

4) Jetsons: The Movie (1990): Though maybe a bit before our time, this space-age adventure is still relevant to our time - almost a past-day, children's version of Avatar.  (Minus the cool effects and blue people.)

The Jetsons, America's favorite future-family, have moved to Orbiting-Ore Asteroid, where a new mining colony has opened.  However, the factory is drilling into aliens' community and ruining their homes.
Environmental theme: habitat destruction

Power Summer

Hey Eco-Readers!
Sorry for the lack of posts as of recently.  We would like for you to keep tuned for some easy summer posts and to give you a heads up for some reformatting to come this summer.
Additionally, we'd like to wish good luck and offer thanks to our seniors who graduated a few weeks ago:

• Jon Cohn, blog-poster extraordinaire, and ex-President/Treasurer/general holder-together-er, who will be going to graduate school
• Tripti Bhattacharya, peace loving, plant loving, ex-board member and voice of reason, who will be going to graduate school
• Mike Durante, generally awesome guy, ex-Monk, who will be working with his non-profit, Compass Partners, over the summer and then into the working world come Fall
• Anique Drumright, enthusiasm-expert and spear-header of the off-campus composting movement
• Maggie Curme, outdoor lover and kayaking master
• Annie McBride, artistic genius and ex-board member

Peace out everyone and look forward to some great posts
Love,
Kristin 

My Opinion Piece in the Hoya: "Earth Day: Consider Impacts of Daily Action"

I recently wrote an opinion piece for The Hoya in honor of Earth Day. You can find it here, or you can scroll down, where it has been reproduced for this blog.

Last week, Eco-Action co-sponsored an event with Campus Ministry on Catholicism and the environment, which included a speech by the executive director of the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change. In its newest wave of ads, the Catholic Coalition poses the question: “Who’s under your carbon footprint?”

This inquiry is jarring because it forces one to reflect more deeply on the effects that daily actions have in our interconnected world. As Earth Day is turning 40 this Thursday, and as the old adage says that wisdom comes with age, the best message I could give this Earth Day is simple but profound: think.

It’s not a complicated edict, nor is it very specific; however, it is by all means an important one. When we take more time to think — to truly reflect — on our daily actions and choices, it is much easier to see how they fit into the greater scheme of our own lives and those all around us.

Take, for example, the food in your lunch. All of the items on your plate did not just magically appear — they came out of the complex forces of nature (the seeds, the water, the sunlight) and the forces of transportation (the plane, the train or the automobile) that helped get them from their source to your plate. That brief moment of reflection — thinking about all of those people and entities that enable us to have what we do — can make us appreciate what we have and also to be more conscientious about what we do and what we buy.

Moreover, that brief pause — which allows us to see greater value in what we have — makes it more difficult to throw something away as easily as we do. If we do have to dispose of our goods, where do they end up? It is a sign of an educated person to be always asking questions.

It is only through the processes of self-reflection that we are able to engage in dialogue with others. This critical analysis and discussion are the reasons why we came to Georgetown: We came to challenge our minds to think about forces greater than ourselves, to enable ourselves to comprehend things that before may have seemed outside of our limits and to understand ourselves in the context of the environment in which we live.

These forces of reflection are essential to improving our roles as both consumers and citizens. Thinking about what we buy, why we buy it, from where it came and where it will go allows us to make choices that are both environmentally and socially responsible. Good citizenship is even more connected to the process of reflection. We must see our individual selves as integral parts of society and nature. We should understand that we have the knowledge and power to affect positive and lasting change.

We have to grapple with large concepts in order to come up with new ideas, breaking from the past or rediscovering what was lost. Engaging in discussions about these issues forces us to both challenge our beliefs and hone them. Out of the disparity or clash of beliefs will come new convictions better developed than before.

In both our roles as citizens and as consumers, however, we should never stop at thinking, but ultimately we must act. Never forget that an action is nothing more than an idea made into reality.

Jonathan Cohn is a senior in the College and a former board member of EcoAction.

EcoAction in the News

EcoAction has gotten some media attention this week, so I thought I would highlight two articles:

Vox Populi featured an article about our upcoming collaboration with the Center for Student Programs to help make marketing events less wasteful and more effective and to help reduce the waste generated by the events themselves. Stay tuned as this develops.

The GW Hatchet also covered the Glover Park cleanup from last week. It is a great piece that highlights the collaboration between the student groups at Georgetown, GW, and AU for the benefit of the local community.

You don't have to be a science person to learn about the environment in the classroom!

We all know that the STIA department is full of environmental classes; biology and environmental biology are great sources of education as well. But what about those who aren't as scientifically-inclined? Here are some great humanities classes that tackle the issue of man and his relationship with energy and the environment!


FOR THE FALL:

THEO-044: Religion and Ecology

Professor Haught

This course asks whether religions, and particularly Christianity, care for the welfare of the non-human natural world. In addition, it explores ways in which religions may contribute to the resolution of the ecological crisis. (Not offered 2004-05)

Credits: 3

Prerequisites: None

HIST-203: Global/Local food systems

Faculty: Timothy Beach and Meredith McKittrick

This course is also listed as STIA 329.

This is a survey of contemporary global food system -- and its critics -- through the lens of history, economics, and science. We introduce the major themes in the history of 20th-century agriculture, including the move toward industrial food production in the developed world, agricultural commodity production for export in the developing world, the Green Revolution, and the emergence of biotechnology in agriculture. We will then turn toward the criticisms of this global and industrial food system and its alternatives. We explore such topics as agrarianism, ecology, and conservation in both the U.S. and around the world, critiques of the Green Revolution in the developing world, the rise of ‘fair trade,’ organic, and the current debates over GM crops. Although the class will focus on the scientific and social aspects of agricultural production, students will also be exposed to debates about marketing and consumption and ethical considerations of food and agriculture. The class will include trips to nearby farms and guest speakers.

Topics
Agricultural History of the last Century
Green Revolutions
CGIAR
Major crops and their derivation
Seed banks
Soil fertility and degradation
Water demands of agriculture: water footprints
Carbon footprints of farming
Agroecology and Permaculture
Livestock and livestock raising systems
Conservation and Sustainable systems

Credits: 3

Prerequisites: None

HIST-290: Oil and World Power
Faculty: David Painter

Oil has been central to power and wealth since the early 20th century, and the history of oil provides important insights into the nature and dynamics of power and influence in the international system. This course will examine the interaction of the history of oil and key events in international history from the early 20th century to the present. This course can count for either the Us or the Middle East region for History majors.

Credits: 3

Prerequisites: None



FOR THE SUMMER:

Hist 182-20: American Environmental History

Faculty: Kevin Powers

From the popularity of hybrid cars and the increasing ubiquity of energy-efficient light bulbs to the Obama's White House vegetable garden, interest in and concern for the environment among Americans now seems widespread – or at least fashionable. But as the rancorous debates over energy policy, “green” jobs, climate change, and energy independence suggest, we often seem no closer to solving many of our most fundamental environmental problems. Green attitudes cannot by themselves change the fact that our environmental problems have deep historical roots and are woven into our daily lives – where we live and work, how we travel, the energy we consume, the goods we purchase. How did we get to this point?

The broad purpose of our course will be to examine the evolving and reciprocal relationship between Americans and their environment from the colonial era to present day. Nonhuman nature is a dynamic force that has profoundly shaped human history; we will therefore consider how the physical environment of the North American continent influenced spatial patterns of settlement, population growth, and the course of economic development in American history. But humans have been at work (re)shaping the environment for quite some time, and few humans have reshaped the environment more than those living in the lands that now constitute the United States. And so a second focus will be to examine how the decisions Americans have made regarding how to feed themselves, where to live and work, and how to best produce and consume desired goods and services has dramatically altered the environment throughout history, for better and for worse. Finally, we will examine how Americans' understanding of and their attitude toward the environment has changed over time. Our purpose is not to indict present or past generations of Americans for their environmental decisions, but instead to understand why particular choices were made at particular places and at particular times, by whom, and also to ask who benefited from these choices, who was harmed, and why.

3 credits

M-F Lecture 3:15 - 4:45 p.m.

Rock your best GREEN!

Earth Day 2010, April 22nd WEAR GREEN

April 22nd is Earth Day!! It is time for our student body to embrace the day, wear green and show up at Green Square between 11 am and 2 pm. Wearing green next Thursday means more than just putting on a nice color of the rainbow. It will symbolize how the Georgetown student body feels about the environment -- Hoyas want to preserve it.

So text your friends, send a lot of Facebook messages and share your excitement for Georgetown's embracement of Earth Day. We will send a message this year: Hoyas are most certainly thinking green!

A Clean Park is a Happy Park

Today, GU EcoAction, Green GW, and AU EcoSense all collaborated for a clean-up of Glover Archbold Park as part of the annual Potomac Watershed Cleanup.

Here are the stats:

Volunteers: 75 (approximately)---The three schools made up about 1/3 of this!

Bags of trash: 80

Plastic shopping bags: 250

Top 3 brands: Coke, McDonalds, Budweiser

Cigarette butts: 500

Tires: 3

Computers: 1

Car alternators: 1

Most unusual items: Washington Globe street light and a deer skeleton

Fantastic weather, beautiful nature, meaningful service, and good company--what's not to love?

Get to Know the Sustainability Movers and Shakers On Campus: Jess Buckley

You may have heard about a thing called the Sustainability Advisory Committee, the group of students, faculty, administrators, and staff that discuss the role of sustainability at GU, and maybe you haven't. Either way, EcoAction is taking the month of April--Earth Month--to introduce you to the important folks from the Committee--the sustainability movers and shakers, as I'll call them.

First up is Jess Buckley, Hall Director for McCarthy and the Head of Project Hilltop, a group of RAs and students promoting sustainable practices in residence halls and apartments on campus!



So, Jess, tell us about an average day at the job. What does your position entail?

I wear many hats, so everyday is different! I supervise RAs, oversee the building budget, work with facilities and housekeeping on infrastructure issues, do some programming, and sit on lots of university and Residence Life committees. Because of my interest in sustainability, I advise Project Hilltop, which is the Residence Life sustainability committee made up of RAs from almost every residence hall on campus along with some residents.

How did you come to Georgetown?

My husband started a PhD program here, and I was finishing a Master's in Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration at the University of Vermont. I saw the Hall Director position open, and it seemed like a perfect fit. I've loved working here.

How does Georgetown compare to other institutions at which you've worked?

Georgetown is a great place. It's a bit smaller of a community than some other schools where I've worked, which means departments often work closely together on similar projects. While we're not quite as far along on sustainability as some schools (like Vermont), we are also ahead of the game in many aspects. Our physical plant is top notch, our administrators are committed to sustainability, the Jesuit values go hand in hand with the work for sustainability, we have a great recycling and composting program, and we have devoted students. The working environment here is designed for collaboration, which is what real sustainable initiatives require. Georgetown is already doing so much around sustainability, our goals now need to be to educate the campus community and encourage faculty, staff, and students alike to participate in the effort so our behaviors match the efforts from our physical plant, recycling manager, and others. It takes the entire community to live lightly.

If you had three wishes for how to change campus, what would they be?

1. Cohesive info around campus for more community knowledge about what the campus is already doing.
2. Greater awareness around why and how sustainability is an issue of social justice. Sustainable decisions (like using less energy, buying fewer things, and producing less trash) make the most impact on the poor and oppressed both in our neighborhood and around the globe. Consider the St. Francis Pledge: http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/.
3. Re-work buildings like the Village C's and Leavey so that they do not become heat traps in certain times of the year.

What's a really common myth about sustainability at GU that needs to be debunked?

I hear all the time that the solar panels don't work. Xavier Rivera, our Director of Energy and Utilities, can tell us differently! While they do not produce as much energy as when they were installed, the panels do still work. Any new panels have to be specially made, so we do not always replace broken panels with new panels. But the total capacity is still 2/3 of what is was when installed many years ago.

What's the most important thing for Hoyas to do as individuals?

Become aware of consequences of each action, and ensure actions result in the consequences that are of best service to themselves and the community.

And now for a fun question: If you could be an animal (any one at all), which would you be?

A koala. Then maybe I'd eat more greens and less sweets!

Stay tuned over the next few weeks for more interviews!

From Personal to Social Responsibility on Food with Marion Nestle

If Dr. Marion Nestle (pronounced aptly like the verb meaning "to nurture" as opposed to the name of the food company) could teach the American public one thing, it might be that larger portions equal more calories. Alas, that is not as easy as it sounds.

Being healthy, Dr. Nestle, the author of Food Politics (which Kristin reviewed earlier) and What to Eat who spoke on campus yesterday for the Ellen Catherine Gstalder Memorial Lecture, explains, isn't difficult to do. In reality, it's quite straightforward: Eat less, move more, eat more fruits and vegetables, don't eat junk food, and enjoy your food. However, with the barrage of corporate messaging we see today about the health miracles performed by everything from your peanut butter hyped up on omega 3s to your Immunity Rice Krispies, a trip around the supermarket can become a mix of cognitive dissonance and visual overload.

How, though, did we get to be where we are today?
Dr. Nestle spent most of her early career focusing specifically on nutrition; however, she has with time realized that we need a more systematic or holistic approach to understanding our food, one uniting agriculture, food, nutrition, and public health (obesity, hunger, food safety).

She traces back the issue of obesity to the early 1980s, noting four major changes that have influenced the American diet. First is agricultural policy. In the 1970s, farm policy shifted; rather than paying farmers not to grow, the government began paying them to grow as much as possible. Something had to be done with all of that excess food, right?

Second was the wave of deregulation that came with the Reagan administration. With this wave came an increased marketing to children from corporations. This sector grew from $4.2 billion in 1980 to $40 billion in 2010. Granted, not all of this is food-based, but just turn on Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel and count how many sugary snacks or breakfast cereals you see in the commercials. It's not hard to see.

The third factor cited is an increase in women working outside the home. Dr. Nestle, however, notes that this gets overemphasized too much because the trend had already been started in the 1960s, decades before the obesity epidemic hit.

Last but not least was the shareholder value movement. In 1981 Jack Welch of GE changed the dynamic of Wall Street, pushing for immediate return rather than consistent return over time. Food companies, then, had to sell a lot more in order to grow.

Over that same span of time, the price of fruits and vegetables has seen a steady increase (relative to inflation), and the prices of beer, butter, and soda have all fallen drastically. Not the formula for a healthy public, is it?

The information we are being fed along with the food has changed, too. Health claims on food were not possible before 1990, when the Nutrition Labeling Act was passed. Food companies, consequently, could say whatever they wanted to on their products regardless of the existence or nonexistence of scientific evidence to back up their claims. This has been upheld by courts out of a gross corruption of the First Amendment. Dr. Nestle aptly noted that when she was in school, she learned that the founding fathers included this in the Bill of Rights to protect the freedom of religious and political speech, not the freedom of corporations to lie to us about their products.

There is, however, some hope in the future. Dr. Nestle was very optimistic about Michelle Obama's commitment to this issue with her Let's Move campaign. Moreover, the health care legislation included an amendment mandating that all chain restaurants release nutritional information on their menus.

What does she recommend that we do, both as consumers and as citizens?

As a consumer (i.e. personal responsibility), you can buy food, not "products," you can make your own food or even grow your own food, and you can teach your children about where food comes from.

One of the best pieces of advice I can personally give about making sure that what you are eating is actually "food" is to look at the ingredient list. If you were given all of those items separately, could you put it back together? Could you take those monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, natural and artificial flavors, xanthum gum, dyes for every color of the rainbow, and make food out of it? Probably not. Stick to what you know and can pronounce.

Also, your food should be rich in color, naturally occurring color that is. I have always attempted to make my plate look as attractive as possible and have always gotten comments from friends about how colorful and crafted my salads look. Just look at the photo above of Marion Nestle from her Food Politics blog and try to tell me that the array of yellow, red, and orange does not catch your eye.

As a citizen, moreover, we must advocate for more nutritious school lunches, more access to sustainable food, and regulations on marketing lies and campaign financing.

In the words of Michelle Obama, then, LET'S MOVE!

Locating the Environment in Political Philosophies

Professor Patrick Deneen wrote an opinion piece in yesterday's edition of The Hoya about the environmental movement's position within political philosophy. I think that it is an interesting and valuable read for its attempt to relocate respect for nature in the greater scheme of conservative philosophy; however, I feel that I need to address a lot of the overstatements that riddle the piece as well. Overall, however, I think that a debate about our role as both citizens and consumers comes out of this piece, and it is one that is central to any form of positive social reform.

First of all, I feel that the opening is too much of an overstatement. He claims that there is a "near-universal embrace" of environmentalism by today's youth. If there is, that's news to me; I must have missed the memo. Few people, of any generation, will actively speak out against the environment--unless you are Jim Inhofe, the self-proclaimed worst enemy of the environment, or one of his supporters. Wearing a "save the planet" sticker does not make you an environmentalist. Our generation might preach well on the environment, but practicing well--that's a different story.

Moving on, I feel that Deneen does raise the interesting point of personal accountability; however, at times, it feels a bit too much like an "Al Gore lives in a big house" style jab, if you know what I mean. Increased classroom technology can save paper although, at the same time, it uses energy. However, it helps to foment discussion and to promote knowledge--creating informed, well-rounded, reflective, engaged CITIZENS and individuals is the very purpose of a liberal arts education. And these citizens are the ones who make change.

However, I do feel, at times, that there is a tendency to ignore individual responsibility when advocating for corporate responsibility. One of my biggest pet peeves is environmentalists who smoke cigarettes. When you fight against the air pollution caused by the coal plant, why are you polluting the air yourself? And funding an industry that has no respect for your life? And doubtfully much for the environment either? We must be both good citizens and good consumers; they must exist together.

I disagree, however, with the issue of terminology that Deneen presents as the center of his argument. The word "nature" is a more distancing word, in my opinion, than the "environment." "Nature," as the word is commonly used, evokes the images of pretty postcards from national parks or tropical rainforests. The "nature," whether or not it should, implies an existence outside of the urban and suburban worlds. Even though the word "environment" can have the same pitfalls, at the very least, it can connote the entirety of one's surroundings. The air YOU breathe and the water YOU drink is part of your environment.

Moreover, it is not necessarily a "return to nature" that is being advocated in environmentalist discourse, but rather an "evolution with" or "growth with" nature. The problems with modern technology exist in the reliance on conflict minerals for their creation and the questionable issue of their disposal. Likewise, the electronics industry has based itself around the idea of planned obsolescence, making our iPods and laptops outdated by the time we buy them. Even though technology is the attempt to live beyond nature, we can still go beyond our natural abilities without destroying the environment to the extent that we do now.

It is true, as he notes, that early Progressive Movement often inadvertently caused environmental detriment in its aim at social liberation--just think of dams for a minute. Moreover, moving out of the scope of the US alone, just as there is no inherent respect for the environment in either socialism or capitalism. However, modern progressivism (and I will use the term "progressive" over the term "liberal") favors green jobs as a way to elevate labor by working with nature, not against it, and supports forms of energy that do not damage the health and well-being of the populace. You can harness the renewable sources of wind and sunlight rather than the nonrenewable sources of coal and oil.

However, Deneen is correct in that some elements of the environmental agenda do have firm roots in conservative principles. Take, for example, the desire to reinvigorate family farms, a system based on individual communities rather than on government-subsidized Big Ag. Growing your own food or using solar panels to get yourself off the grid are other great examples of an environmental ethos linked to a libertarian, individualist mindset. (Joel Salatin, discussed in an earlier blog post, is a self-described libertarian, for instance.) The intimate relationship between the GOP and Big Business has sadly corrupted these fundamental principles, which will hopefully blossom again.

Furthermore, I have always thought that the environmental agenda should not be ignored by those who claim to have a "pro-life" view of the world. The respect for the life of both humans and animals, wherever they are, lies at the core of the environmentalist ethos. If one purports to be "pro-life," how can one support mountaintop coal removal, which damages and shortens lives, or GMO foods that pose unknown threats to human life while under the guise of prosperity?

Ultimately, what one should take out of this is that leading a better future by working with (not over or against) the environment should not be a blindly partisan issue; however, as is the case with anything in this country, it inevitably will be.

Sustainability Survey Results: An Overview

Last week, the results of the Sustainability survey carried out by Project Hilltop and CNDLS (with early recommendations put in by EcoAction members) were released. The survey, which was conducted in mid-January, had 645 respondents, which is about 10 percent of the undergraduate population.

With any survey, one runs into the risk of a self-selecting audience of test-takers; however, the feedback gained provides valuable starting point for understanding how the Georgetown student body envisions sustainability at their university now and into the future.

Most survey takers deemed the sustainability initiatives discussed "important" or "very important." Recycling, often the most visible form of sustainability, was valued by 94% of the survey takers. At the low end of the spectrum were purchasing local or organic food (55.5%) and including sustainability in curricula (55.5 percent). As we have seen a growing interest in food issues (with a well-attended screening of Food, Inc., and lecture by Joel Salatin), I was shocked to see the low valuation of food; however, it gives us an idea of how to formulate future messaging campaigns.

The only category for which students said that they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with Georgetown's efforts was recycling (55.7%); no other category saw a majority of students satisfied. Over half of the students participating in the survey, moreover, were unsure of Georgetown's efforts in investment in sustainable funds and endowment transparency. This latter point has been one of our major weaknesses in the Annual Green Report Card.

The survey results also showed a dichotomy between student's views and their practices. 82% of respondents claimed that water conservation is important , but only 48% reported that they take shorter showers (under 5 minutes) "always," "frequently," or "occasionally."

There was also a divide between students' perceptions of their own behaviors and those of their peers. For example, more than 65 percent of students reported always turning off the lights when they leave a room, but only 4 percent thought that their peers "always" do the same.

Overall, the survey proved that people do care, but that they are unsure about what Georgetown is doing. The promotion of knowledge and the creation of convenience are vital steps in moving ahead.

For graphs from the survey, visit here.

Story Time with Annie Leonard

If you have to have a neuroses, Annie Leonard, the brain behind "The Story of Stuff" who held a book reading at Politics & Prose here in DC yesterday, would recommend hers.

When she sees an item--be it a chair, an iPod, or a bottle of shampoo--she immediately thinks of all of the stages of its life, from the factories to the landfills--all of which she has visited over the past 20 years. These materials, what she calls "stuff," exist in a specific context for her, a context of which most of us have lost focus.


If you have not already seen Annie's video, "The Story of Stuff," click this link and watch it now---it is a valuable, informative, engaging 20-minutes summary and tutorial on the relationship between your life and the lives of the stuff you buy, including the laptop from which you are probably reading this.

Annie's video and her book, which provides more in-depth information, demonstrate how so many of the issues that we face are interconnected, and in order to make positive, lasting social change, we must understand this. Rather than trying to get someone else to work for your issue, show them why their issue and your issue are intrinsically the same, and then work together for the solution. The environment, workers' rights, the treatment of women and minorities, global poverty, and more are all caught up in this web of "shop-watch-buy" and its effects. Moreover, if you really cared about "family values," you should value quality time with your family over the endless cycle of material consumption. Just saying.

The value of Annie's message, moreover, is that it speaks to the heart--to that deep, vibrant core in all of us that wants to see a difference and make it happen.

One of the most commendable traits that Ms. Leonard embodies is persistence. She has been working for over 20 years on the issue of waste, one that has not gotten a lot of attention in comparison to more aesthetically pleasing of topics. However, one of the best lessons to learn is what her good friend and notable environmental advocate Van Jones told her: "It's good to be marginalized for 20 years. By the time people start listening to you, you've gotten really good at saying it."

Returning to the crux of the topic, however, two fundamental paradigm shifts lie at the heart of the solution:
1) Waste is not an essence: it's a location. If a can is sitting on the table, it is a can, but as soon as it gets thrown away, it becomes "trash" or "waste." Break the paradigm that says that all things must end up in the trash can; buy the products that have the least amount of packaging, and find creative ways to reuse what you end up with.

2) The revitalization of the "citizen" part of our identity to match and surpass the "consumer" part of identity. As members of any collective body, we engage with others as both consumers and citizens. From an early age, we are taught to consume, to participate in the rituals of shopping. However, the lessons of citizenship often get lost, and an engaged civil society , one imbued with the ability to think critically (perhaps the most valuable asset of all), is essential to any attempt at lasting change for the public interest.

"The Story of Stuff" will soon be followed by more videos because of its unexpected, but decidedly well-deserved, success of the first. Premiering on March 22nd (World Water Day) will be "The Story of Bottled Water," a tale of manufactured demand. Soon to come, as well, will be "The Story of Electronics" (planned obsolescence), "The Story of Cosmetics" (toxics), and "The Story of Corporations" (on the recent Supreme Court decision).

A quick, amusing after-note: During the Q&A session, one guy came up to the mike holding a disposable cup and asked her if she would sign it for him. She replied, "Only if you promise never to throw it away."

Farming Extraordinaire Joel Salatin

This past week, I had the true pleasure of speaking to Joel Salatin, the author, farmer, and most important, owner of Polyface Farms, a holistic “beyond organic” farm in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. Salatin describes himself as a “Christian-Libertarian-environmentalist-capitalist farmer,” and after hearing his lecture I can tell you, none of those is an exaggeration.



To me, Salatin represents everything that could be right in agriculture, and if extrapolated, in business. Polyface Farms is a for-profit entity whose goal is simple: create value through their core competency of producing great meat. However, this value-generating purpose is couched in an understanding that most industries ignore: the fact that every successful long-term business venture must internalize the costs of its actions. Right now, the American food system relies on petroleum-based fertilizers and federal government subsidies. These create several external costs that go unrecognized by the market, including soil erosion, dead zones in our seas, and aquifer depletion (the list can go on and on, but I’ll spare you, dear reader). What does it mean to externalize these costs? Well, basically, our food system is causing long-term costs for which we will have to eventually pay, but fails to include these costs in their prices. This is why Americans spend less on food (as a percentage of income) than any other society in the history of the world, why McDonalds French fries might be cheaper than the potatoes at your farmers market, why our food system is obsessed with cramming extra calories into any processed food it can find.

Joel Salatin defies this system at Polyface Farms. Polyface Farms, in its current operation, could still be around 500 years from now. Think you can say that about Monsanto, or any other food giant?

The lessons Salatin is teaching to the agriculture industry are valuable for all business ventures. The baseline responsibility for all businesses should and must be to internalize the costs of all tangible externalities their operations create, whether environmental, social, or health-related. This is easily accomplishable if done voluntarily, rather than by government regulation. Salatin understands farming, his farm, and his land. For these reasons, he is in the best position to make his operations sustainable, and it shows in his product. It also shows in his costs and, subsequently, his prices.

It has been said that the slave of destructive business practices is the consumer who makes purchasing decisions based on price. It doesn’t need to be that way. If the food industry internalized costs the way Salatin does, Polyface Farms would be the cheapest meat you could find.

Calling All Gristians: The Role of Media in the Future of the Environmental Movement

Yesterday, Chip Giller, CEO and founder of Grist, a cutting-edge environmental news site around since 1999, came to campus to deliver a lecture co-sponsored by us, GU Center for the Environment, and Lecture Fund. The talk had the facetious title "Tweet Huggers: Media, Sustainability, and the Future." Although I didn't see many people hugging tweets at the event (Alas, I can't seem to get Twitter on my phone anymore---or, at least I have not since the 3 months ago when I last tried. How does one "hug" a tweet anyway?), there was a riveting discussion about the future of environmentalism.



In his introduction, Chip presented an interesting parallel history between the environmental movement and modern journalism. Both saw their beginnings in the late 19th to early 20th century, with press icons like William Randolph Hearst and environmentalist forefathers like John Muir. For most of the 20th century, both were highly centralized in form. The press was concentrated in large newspapers that had broad reach and an unquestioning audience, and the environmental movement placed most of its efforts at change on the macro, federal level (such as the Clean Air Act, Superfund, etc.). However, just as the 21st century has seen a decentralization of the media with blogging, tweeting, citizen journalism, and the like, the environmental victories we see today (on sites like Grist, among others) are becoming more localized. Just go on their site or Tree Hugger's, and you will see the great initiatives and innovations being taken in different communities across the country (and the globe).

What is particularly interesting about juxtaposing environmentalism and journalistic media is that both are so tightly linked to the concept of information. At the core of environmentalism is the desire to learn and to recontextualize: to know from where our food comes, to know from where our energy comes, and to place ourselves in a more globalized worldview so that we can see how all of our actions have consequences. Journalism was born to do the same: to inform, to search for the answers to these budding questions, to put issues into perspective. The only way to know about an environmental problem--or an environmental solution--is for someone to write about it.

Moreover, Chip focused on the importance of the tone created by the environmental movement. He designed Grist to have an irreverent twist--to make puns, to crack jokes, to be an equal opportunity satirist, and never to take itself too seriously. Environmentalism is often viewed as being too preachy, and a moralizing rant will not win over hearts and minds--but a shared laugh can.

Since we had a somewhat small group, we were able to have a very interactive Q & A session after the talk.

One question that I had been pondering was the role of credibility in the world of new media. Just as the decentralization of media can bring many benefits, it can also bring pitfalls. "ClimateGate," for instance, shows how easily misinformation can spread across the blogosphere, and once something is out there in the public space, it's stuck.

Jessica Lioon (MSB'10) asked about the business model of Grist. Grist runs itself as a nonprofit, getting its funding from foundations as well as generous readers. Grist does an excellent job at putting fun into fundraising--back in December, I remember seeing their "friends with benefits" campaign (You be their friend, and you'll get some benefits.)

Tripti Bhattacharya (SFS'10) asked about reaching out to wider audiences. When new media is becoming more niche, does one end up only preaching to the choir? This is one of the main issues that faces any advocacy organization: how do you connect with those that may not agree with you or just may be unaware? Chip noted that, although most of their readers will agree with their perspective, they can arm their readers with the information needed to explain the issues to others. He compared this to the way in which evangelical churches have grown, by bringing in converts---Gristians, in this case. A good environmental website is not preaching to a choir: it is teaching the choir the songs to sing and how to sing them.

Many people, even if they do not see themselves as environmentalists, care about a lot of the same issues. They care about the food they eat, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the ways in which what we do now will affect our children. However, the word "environmentalist" to too many people connotes an unshaven crunchy hippie who doesn't shower. (Believe me, environmentalists shower.) The word "green" has been reduced to a corporate buzz word, ripe for branding and selling products to idealistic consumers. Moreover, I wonder how many people actually understand what the word "sustainability" even means. The important task, then, is to help people to connect the dots--to see environmentalism for what it is: a passion for caring for all life--both our own, that of our global neighbors (both big and small), and that of our future generations.

Committing to Sustainability?

In late January, DeGioia signed the Sustainable Campus Charter, along with other members of the Global University Leadership Forum (GULF) in Davos, Switzerland. The pledge involves a commitment to three principles: demonstrating respect for nature, ensuring long-term sustainable development, and alignment of the University’s ‘core message’ with sustainability. The 25 university presidents in the forum agreed to set ‘measurable goals’ to achieve these goals.
Now for some perspective. Is this just an example of what the policy wonks at Georgetown might call a toothless international agreement, or does it represent a real step towards sustainability (whatever that concretely means) for Georgetown? We called on two seasoned Eco-Actioners: our current President Kristin Ng, and Mike Durante, a former board member.


Kristin Ng: Empty Promises?

When Tripti sent me the link to this article, the first thing I replied with was “lol.”
Not a great gut reaction. Georgetown’s pledge to “support sustainable practices in campus development and operations” is all good and well, but I feel that it’s mostly a fluff piece.
The signing of this charter means Georgetown will commit to three principles:
1) Respect for nature by considering sustainability when planning buildings on campus. This is already implemented, so Georgetown signing this doesn’t mean anything. We’ve ALREADY committed to getting LEED certification for all new buildings – why? Well, besides that we’re saving money on energy costs, it’s a GREAT talking point to recruit new students. Just the other day I heard a tour guide talking about the solar panels on the roof of the ICC. Come on, now. Let’s be honest. Those account for a small fraction of the energy used by the ICC at any given time.
2) Long-term sustainable development with environmental goals. As far as I can tell, this is just planning with the environment in mind. We already do this. As a confined campus in a major metropolitan city, we already have limited resources. There are no numbers here, no targets, no dates. Weak.
3) Aligning the university’s core mission with a living laboratory for sustainability. I don’t even understand what this means.
Mike pointed out, and with relatively good reason, that the President’s Climate Commitment didn’t really have any teeth either. But I still think the PCC is better than the Sustainable Campus Charter. Though there are no sanctions à la the United Nations, there are currently 667 signatories. This gives the PCC a bit more influence than the SCC. The PCC doesn’t give hard and fast dates, but they do aim to be carbon neutral, a much more concrete goal than “planning sustainability.” The PCC offers instead guidelines for dates.
Though I’m glad to see that Georgetown administration is getting more involved in sustainability, I hope that they commit to something more and something truly comprehensive.

Mike Durante: Reason for Hope?

On the opposite spectrum end of the spectrum from Kristin, my initial response to President DeGioia's signing of the Sustainable Campus Charter was (and I quote), "very cool!!"

Now I wouldn't call myself exactly ecstatic over Georgetown's moderate commitments to sustainability, but I do think we're headed in the right direction, and the president's public support for our efforts is helpful for several reasons. First, it gives student activists something to rally around in the future. Second, it broadens Georgetown's commitment to sustainability, which now mainly focuses solely on operations. The Charter text mentions the importance of dedications to environmental sustainability in research and curriculum, which tend to be more lacking than campus operational improvements. The universities involved also agreed to set measurable goals for sustainable development, though those have yet to be announced. This statement seems like a cop-out of sorts, but I think it makes more sense for each university to create tangible, meaningful, and attainable goals for the short-term future, rather than dedicating themselves to a goal like carbon neutrality in 2050, which is certainly desirable, but not necessarily helpful in making relevant progress.

The Presidents' Climate Commitment would, as Kristin notes, be a stronger step in the right direction for DeGioia and the University. It does state the ultimate goal of climate neutrality and sets out steps to plan for it. However, there isn't much in the Commitment that Georgetown isn't already doing. We have performed a greenhouse gas emissions inventory, we have an institutional structure dedicated to reducing our carbon footprint (the Sustainability Action Committee), we've made a LEED building commitment, and we've taken steps to promote waste minimization. Again, there is so much more we can do, but Georgetown is clearly headed in the right direction. I'd argue that - especially considering the President's Climate Commitment has little to no accountability (except for progress reports... as if universities don't get annual green report cards anyway...) - Georgetown's actions and this recent commitment set us on a course towards climate neutrality as well as the average PCC-signatory school