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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Princeton Review Names Green Honor Roll

The Princeton Review announced its Green Honor Roll, a new complement to the college rankings.

The top 15 schools are the following:

• Arizona State University, Tempe campus
• Bates College (Lewiston, Me.)
• Binghamton University (State University of New York at Binghamton)
• College of the Atlantic (Bar Harbor, Me.)
• Colorado College (Colorado Springs, Colo.)
• Dickinson College (Carlisle, Pa.)
• Evergreen State College (Olympia, Wash.)
• Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, Ga.)
• Harvard College (Cambridge, Mass.)
• Middlebury College (Middlebury, Vt.)
• Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.)
• University of California (Berkeley, Calif.)
• University of New Hampshire (Durham, N.H.)
• University of Washington (Seattle, Wash.)
• Yale University (New Haven, Conn.)

What can Georgetown do to get closer to some of these?

• Administration: Presidents' Climate Commitment
• Creativity: Bates has a "Trashion Show." Activities that encourage creativity and eco-friendly thinking outside the box could be fun.
  
• Food: Advocacy for local and organic options, a stronger program of donating food that can be donated (rather than discarding it)
  
• Transportation: Bicycle co-op, subsidized metro fare

How Green are Consumers Really Willing to Be?

On Friday, I attended the event "iPods vs. the Environment: the Real Story Behind How Green American Consumers are Willing to Be" at the Alliance to Save Energy. Suzanne Shelton, of the Shelton Group, was presenting, discussing the results of the recent EcoPulse survey, the premier survey for green consumerism in the US. The Shelton Group also runs UtilityPulse, EnergyPulse, and GreenLiving Pulse.

As Suzanne (the self-described "fastest talking Southern woman you'll ever meet") said herself, there was a lot of information packed into that one hour seminar (full of graphs and focus groups), so I am going to highlight here what I found most shocking or interesting.

1) American consumers say one thing an do another. The best way to put this one is the fact that Americans are fantastic at being "armchair environmentalists." We like the government and corporate America to take action (and think that they should be the ones to make the changes), but when it comes to taking actions ourselves, we fall short.

Concerning this point, consumers were asked whether or not a company's environmental practices affect their purchases.

47% of respondents said it did.

Now the question got more specific. Consumers were asked if they have actually made such a choice based on environmental practices.

14% actually did.

Then, they were asked to name the product.

7.5% could.

Basically, consumers are, as Suzanne put it, "terrified of getting screwed." With all of the greenwashing going on in the media, consumers don't know what to do, and the default ends up being to do nothing.

Another highlight from this first section of the presentation was the question about motivation, i.e. what is the best motivation for energy efficiency. Saving money was, not shockingly, the top motivation this year; however, what I found interesting was that back in 2005, "promoting energy independence and protecting the domestic economy" was number one. This motivator went from 35.7% to 4% over the past few years. Interesting how much economics and geopolitics shape our motivators, huh?

2) Consumers know less about green than you think.

Just as we had our armchair environmentalists before, we now have our "cocktail green" here; in other words, most consumers only know enough about sustainability issues to get by a cocktail party conversation.

Some (sad) surprises here:

a) Only about 53 percent of consumers could provide a feature of a green home. (The vast majority named solar panels as a characteristic.)

b) When asked what label was the best to read (100% natural, natural, organic, bio-engineered, etc.), 100% natural (which has no regulation at all to it) beat organic.

c) 61.3 percent of consumers did not think that they used more electricity than they did five years ago.

d) 40 percent can't name an example of renewable energy.

3) Skepticism

In this section, Suzanne outlined The Shelton Group's market segmentation. They break the market down into four groups although other firms may break it down anywhere from 12 to 66.

8.9 % Skeptics: Those that react adversely to any mention of green, environment, sustainability, etc and that tend to deny climate change has any correlation to man's behavior.

Most common demographic: White, CEO-level, Republican males (for whom it is easier to deny the issues than to make any changes)

24.5% Activists: Obviously, this section has its fair share of tree huggers, but it also has more mainstream consumers--often well-educated people who know the issues and act upon them.

Most common demographic: Baby boomers, who with the kids now grown and gone have time to revisit old values or spend some more time and money on their personal health and well-being

33.1% Distracteds: These are the people who tend to see themselves as too busy to focus on the issue; they may be confused or apathetic.

33.6 % Wannabes: These are the people who like the idea of green behavior and may have the thoughts, but when it comes to the actions, they aren't there.

Most common demographic: Generation Y (Our generation), who are sometimes the first to speak up about the issues but, when it comes time to make the purchase, refuse to sacrifice money (because they may not have it yet)

The photo was taken from yugatech.com through Google Images.

Agraria: Farmers & Fishers: The Waterfront Gets a Renovation

I just discovered today that Agraria, one of the restaurants lining Georgetown's beautiful waterfront and a long advocate of sustainable agriculture/dining, has undergone a name and menu change. Now known as "Agraria: Farmers & Fishers," it brings the influence of the water to its sister restaurant Founding Farmers (which I highly recommend and which Kristin reviewed a few months ago). Thew new Agraria has a more affordable menu with MANY more options than before, including "farmhouse pizzas" and "heritage tacos" (made in homage to the field workers who plant, tend, and harvest our food).

You can check out the new menu here.



What I am most intrigued to try:

Summer Hummus with Griddled Navajo Bread

Spicy Tuna Farm Salad

Veggie Farmhouse Pizza

Agraria's new menu still celebrates the diversity of the American family farm. With a new menu that looks this good, you may overeat, but there's at least no guilt to be felt from the sourcing of your food!

Image taken from restaurant's website.