Refilling instead of landfilling

There are two pieces of good news for us today at Penn State. It's amazing, the work that the original crew of Alex, Jared, Steve, and I started almost 3 years ago has spread farther and deeper.

First, Penn State's green.psu.edu from the Office of Sustainability fills us in on the bottle refilling stations across PSU. Those early and strong efforts (victory fill at right) to work with the Office of Physical Plant paid off. Today, there are 20 bottle stations at University Park and a few more across the Commonwealth campuses. 18 more will arrive at University Park in the next two years.

Second, tonight at 7 pm, the Bucknell Green Film Series will be showing Tapped, Stephanie Soechtig's debut feature film about the surprising and far-reaching impacts of the bottled water industry. The film probes topics like the petroleum used to make plastics and transport bottled products long distances, excessive groundwater withdrawals by bottling plants, and the general lack of regulatory oversight over the bottled water industry. Who profits and who loses out when society prioritizes convenience over sustainability?



Following the film, the a post-screening discussion and Q & A session about bottled water and its impacts here in Pennsylvania. The discussion will be moderated by Cathy Curran Myers, Director of the BUEC and former Deputy Secretary for Water Management at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. I (Peter Buckland) will also be a panelist discussing our work advocating on reducing bottled water here at Penn State.

Nestle at it again...

Here we go again, not surprisingly- Nestle continues the push to privatize water. And also, not surprisingly, we continue to fight back! Here is a link to sign a Corporate Accountability International petition to Nestle's CEO, Kim Jeffery: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2215/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6433.

(Note: it's been a while since I've posted and I can't remember how to insert a hyperlink! Please excuse my blog illiteracy.)

Bill McKibben coming to Penn State on October 4th

Noted environmentalist and author Bill McKibben to speak on October 4, 2010

Bill McKibben will speak on the University Park Campus on Monday October 4, 2010 as part of the annual Colloquium on the Environment Speaker Series. His lecture, “The Most Important Number in the World,” is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of the HUB-Robeson Center. A book signing will immediately follow his lecture. The event is free and open to the public.

Bill McKibben is an American environmentalist and writer who frequently writes about global warming and alternative energy and advocates for more localized economies. In 2010, the Boston Globe called him “probably the nation’s leading environmentalist” and Time magazine described him as “the world’s best green journalist." In 2009 he led the organization of 350.org, which coordinated what Foreign Policy magazine called “the largest ever global coordinated rally of any kind,” with 5,200 simultaneous demonstrations in 181 countries. The magazine named him to its inaugural list of the 100 most important global thinkers, and MSN named him one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.

“Penn State continues on its path to achieve a 17.5 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and is currently working on the next plan. We are looking forward to Bill McKibben’s presentation and hope to be inspired to do even more,” explained Steve Maruszewski, Assistant Vice President of Physical Plant and Manager of the Finance & Business Environmental Key Initiative.

McKibben is the author of numerous books. His first book, The End of Nature, was published in 1989 is regarded as the first book for a general audience about climate change. In March 2007, McKibben published Deep Economy: the Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. It addresses what the author sees as shortcomings of the growth economy and envisions a transition to more local-scale enterprise. In April of 2010, he published Eaarth. In Eaarth, he insists, we need to acknowledge that we’ve waited too long, and that massive change is not only unavoidable but already under way. Our old familiar globe is suddenly melting, drying, acidifying, flooding, and burning in ways that no human has ever seen. We’ve created, in very short order, a new planet, still recognizable but fundamentally different. We may as well call it Eaarth.

He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and lives in Vermont with his wife and daughter.

The annual colloquium is sponsored by Penn State Institutes of Energy and the Environment and the Finance and Business Environmental Stewardship Strategy at Penn State. This year’s event is also sponsored by the Center for Sustainability and Penn State Outreach. The event has brought numerous high-profile guests to campus including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Christine Todd Whitman, William McDonough, Amory Lovins, and David Suzuki.

Contact for more information:

Patricia Craig
plc103@psu.edu
814.863-0037

Paul Ruskin
pdr2@psu.edu
814.863.9620


Milea A. Perry
Program Coordinator
Penn State University
Campus Sustainability Office

1 Land and Water Building
University Park, PA 16802
Email: map40@psu.edu
Phone: 814-865-2714


websites:
www.opp.psu.edu
www.green.psu.edu

Transparency and transparent ignorance

That "Climategate"protest held by the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and the 9.12 Project was about at least two things: transparency and ignorance. On the one hand, they called for transparency from Penn State in Michael Mann's case surrounding these leaked emails from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit hoping for an independent investigation. On the other hand, it was also an appalling display of ignorance by people invested, for whatever reason, in denying climate change. We'll tackle these two things as we move through a loose narration and description of the event.

Just before the protest started, I met up with several members of Penn State's Eco-Action and a couple of the College Democrats to get IPCC handouts in order and a couple of signs. A young woman was also there gearing up a camera with which to interview YAF and 9.12 members to sort of see why they were there and what not. I take it that video will be coming out soonish. We'll be posted I'm sure.

Outside of the HUB the protesters geared up a little banner decrying "Mann's Nature trick...to hide the decline." That's a reference to one of the stolen emails from the East Anglia database regarding some research methods. As RealClimate.org reports it (one of whose contributors is Mann himself):

“Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.

So this alleged "hidden" decline was reported in the scientific literature itself, the method was written up and included in peer-review, and happened more than 10 years ago, during which time climate science has only found more empirical data to support human-induced climate change.

One of YAF's members stood on a milk crate and gave a speech. He decried Penn State's investigation on this matter (here in pdf). They have not been thorough enough. They are playing semantic games with the word "trick" that remind him of Clinton's squabbles over the definition of "is." Look, the context matters. What one guy calls a "trick" in an informal email that relates to something vetted through years of scientific work is not like a magic trick used for deception by Penn & Teller or the Houdini. Once again on this matter I defer to the editor of Nature on this matter:

One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

Not many organizations out there will have that much more interest in protecting science's integrity than Nature. And Penn State, whose reputation has come to be built on a very strong research and development program, is not so interested in crashing itself to save one guy. Who conducted the last investigation?

The Collegian reports that "[t]hree Penn State employees, Henry C. "Hank" Foley, vice president for research and dean of the graduate school; William Brune, head of the meteorology department; and Candice Yekel, director of the Office of Research Protections, sat on the inquiry panel." One of the original possible panel members, Dean of Earth and Mineral Sciences William Easterling, recused himself because of conflicts of interest. Office of Research Protections must protect the research integrity of the university. They are the biggest pain for researchers because they oversee so much and examine the ethical ramifications of what people do and they have to be responsive to government agencies like the National Institutes for Health and the like. I'd think that Candice Yekel (who I also know personally) isn't about to jeopardize her position for Michael Mann.

The good of the one does not outweigh the good of the many and it is not in the investigating panel's interest to clear Mann of charges of which he is guilty. As our own Collegian reported, "the panel concluded there is "no substance" to the first three allegations: falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal information and misusing privileged or confidential information." They reached this conclusion after doing the following (see report pdf link above):

• 206 emails that contained a message/text from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain;
• 92 emails that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did not write/participate in the discussion; and
• 79 that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work or publications; he neither authored nor was he copied on any of these.

From among these 377 emails, the inquiry committee focused on 47 emails that were deemed relevant.

Now this made the YAF speaker nuts. He had this 10-page mind-numbing (he used some term like that) document from Penn State on the Mann investigation. "47 emails! Just 47 emails out of more than 1,000 emails." He then made fun of this process and the university for focusing on "47 emails!" This is what we call selective quoting or "quote mining." Tell people that more than 1,000 emails were taken in and then make it about 47 emails without noting at all how the panel decided to get to it. So the context of the process of the panel is annihilated and misrepresented for political points. Isn't there something almost beautifully hypocritical and paradoxical about a group who is out for the truth about documentation, transparency, and process misrepresenting documentation, transparency, and process? I think so. What about the fourth allegation?

The committee have punted on the fourth accusations so that it can be taken up by good people who are qualified to assess it. They write:

Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.

In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.

So they appointed five investigators unattached to this climate business. The Collegian reports:

Five Penn State faculty members will sit on the investigation committee into the fourth allegation: Mary Jane Irwin, a computer science and electrical engineering professor; Alan Walker, an anthropology and biology professor; Albert Welford Castleman, a chemistry and physics professor; Nina Jablonski, an anthropology professor; and Sarah Assmann, a biology professor.

[Candice] Yekel [of the Office of Research Protections] will provide administrative assistance to the committee, according to the report. The investigation will take 120 days from initiation to completion, university spokeswoman Lisa Powers said.

So now you have five high-powered nationally and internationally respected scientists determining whether Mann's actions undermined "public trust in science." Seems to me that we have very good people working on this. But it's not enough for YAF and the 9.12 guys. They want to "Turn up the HEAT on Mann!" They want independent investigators. According to one of the protesters, the National Science Foundation is available for this investigation. Once again, I find it odd that an essentially anti-government group wants a government organization that works with funding on this issue to investigate Mann.

This group says they want "transparency." Me too. You should too. Science should be quite transparent within the limits that organization's put on the availability of their data. Sadly, the public cannot always see behind the process because nations, states, corporations, and other institutions simply make things confidential. As a sidenote, I don't see Pfizer or Exxon Mobil making their R&D transparent.

But this is beyond transparency. It's hounding of a very old kind that Chris Mooney documents quite well in The Republican War on Science. Pro-economic growth big business interests aligned with libertarians aligned with anti-science religious conservatives just can't take climate change so they call for "transparency" to serve their obstructionist tactics. That's Orwellian.

I, personally, do not find any of this to warrant much more investigation. In general, this is just more denialism being legitimated by the media. I don't object to the NSF doing an investigation in principle, but it seems a waste of time and more ways for climate denialists to keep their incredible celebration of ignorance in the media spotlight.

And what a celebration of ignorance it was. There was a guy holding up an American flag and saying things like, "Global warming? Haven't you noticed how cold it is?" Another guy said, "I want all those people to go stand in the ice and snow over there and tell me about global warming" or something very close to that. [Sadly, I didn't have my recorder out for this so my quoting is slightly off.] Both of these guys show that they fundamentally do not understand climate change, that they are deluded on the subject, or want to just lie about it. I point you all to the National Science Foundation's materials on it; you know, that group these denialists want to investigate Mann. The NSF calls climate change "the most important puzzle that humankind has attempted to solve."

The Nobel-Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report from its Fourth Annual Report warns us that the problem’s severity is escalating and accelerating:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level” and that “observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.

Grounds for “skepticism” have been soundly refuted. According to Naomi Oreskes' literature review on the subject, of 928 papers on climate science published between 1993 and 2003, there was no significant dissent from “the consensus view…[that] climate change is caused by human activity” leading to the conclusion that the evidence for human-induced climate change is “clear and unambiguous." In the five years since her paper was published, that consensus strengthened.

It's pretty stunning to watch this kind of entrenched anti-reason at work. In our work as teachers of ecological literacy, I hope to do better for a better tomorrow.

---

In a closing note: There were multiple media outlets there. I was interviewed by a Collegian reporter and someone from one cable news channel. The YAF and 9.12 Project folks and people from some environmental groups including Eco-Action were interviewed as well. Watch local stations and check the paper next week.

Counter the YAFhoos

This just in from Eco-Action:

EcoAction is going to work to defend Dr. Michael Mann and the entire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tomorrow out front of the HUB. We will be meeting outside of our office in the HUB at 11:30 AM tomorrow (Friday) in order to distribute fact-filled hand bills to people who want to help pass them out outside of the HUB. Please come and help speak out in the name of science.

Come on out!

So what do you say to this denialists?

As I posted in the last piece, there is a cavalcade of climate conspiracy theorists out there. "Climate change is a hoax!" they cry.

So I just wonder what they think of this story from Penn State Live: 'Supra-glacial lakes' are the focus of a new Penn State study. They write the following:

University Park, Pa. -- Rising temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet cause the creation of large surface lakes called supra-glacial lakes. Now a Penn State geographer will investigate why these lakes form and their implications...

"Learning where lakes are, how they form, and how that changes through the melt season can help us really understand a lot about important processes that control how the Greenland ice sheet responds to warming," Lampkin said.

Supra-glacial lakes form when melting water collects in pools in the lower levels of the ice sheet in melt or ablation zones. These lakes drain rapidly through cracks in the ice channeling water to beneath the ice sheet, affecting how ice sheets move and how pieces calve off into the ocean.

I wonder what tomorrow's Young Americans for Freedom and 9/12 Project protesters about so-called "Climategate" think of this direct empirical evidence positively correlated with rising human-produced atmospheric greenhouse gases. Is this a joke to them? To my mind, that is willful ignorance. When will there be enough evidence for them?

The Love Police

How's this for some public education?

Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change

As reported here a few days ago, three Penn State professors gave a talk about the few successes and many failures that emerged from COP 15. Dr. Don Brown, Dr. Nancy Tuana, and Dr. Petra Tschakert went as observers for Penn State. They provided a rundown of the ethical issues involved, generally referring to it as “climate justice,” “climate ethics,” or “the moral and ethical dimensions of climate change.”

386.7 parts per million: the Earth’s current atmospheric concentration of CO2. Based various data sources, that CO2 concentration is ~100 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels of ~280 ppm. Combined with other greenhouse gases (GHG) such as methane, water vapor, and refrigerants, CO2 causes climate change by warming the atmosphere on average. These effects disrupt longstanding climatic forces which in turn disrupt ecosystems – from rainforests to high tundra – which disrupt non-human and human communities which in turn harm an uncountable number of organisms. Climate scientists practically universally agree that industrial humanity has caused this problem and must act responsibly for the biosphere’s welfare, primarily for human welfare (watch this video made by the Rock Ethics Institute).

Politically and economically powerful people must positively answer the moral and ethical call to understand the many problems that we have caused and must work to curb damages, support the poor people who are and will be affected, must develop mitigation and adaptation behavioral and technological strategies, and must conserve much of the natural world. Many hoped that some meaningful action in this direction could come from COP 15, the 19th international climate summit held in Copenhagen, Denmark at the end of last year.

Issues include: How much money has been put in and should be put into adaptation funding and who should control that money? How should we deal with climate exiles such as people who will be displaced by rising sea levels such as people who live in the Maldives, Florida, Louisiana, India, and Bangledesh? How do notions of human rights play into this? What land should be set aside and who should control that land? How much risk should we put on future people? Are we worth more than them? What should their quality of life be?

Most contentiously in the United States, who should be responsible and who should pay? I note that the final question is most contentious in the U.S. because the U.S. is responsible for the emission of 27% of GHGs through history and by most standards of justice, the U.S. would pay for the humanitarian and ecological costs others are forced to take because of our economic "progress." Not that some of those costs are unquantified by current economics and maybe should remain that way. These would call for qualitative changes in life as well such as dietary and consumer habit shifts.

All of those "shoulds" or "oughts" show that these are moral and ethical questions. What is right and wrong and what beliefs and actions ought to follow?

Don Brown, Nancy Tuana, and Petra Tschakert all agreed at the end of the panel on a few things. First, we are responsible and should be acting in ways that are more sustainable. In daily life, we can consume less by just walking or cycling more and driving less. To extend this rather obvious idea, the simple act of slight reduction in the United States can have the effect of drastic change in a "less-developed" country. About 20% of our carbon footprint comes from diet much of which comes from food transportation, effectively equaling the footprint of an entire Pakistani family or Cameroon village. Efficient local food eating can greatly reduce that portion of our footprint as can simply eating less meat.

Second, we should "turn up the volume on the moral and ethical dimensions of climate change." Powerful people will not change policies and practices without pressure. That pressure can be through letters to politicians, phone calls, visits to offices, discussion with our friends and family, changes in buying habits, or activism which could well include civil disobedience. But if this is a justice issue that calls us to be responsible and responsive to the rights of others then we must act responsibly and loudly and clearly call on others. Pump up the volume.

Third, we must educate well. It is my (and I suspect the three panelists') firm belief that as teachers in the Deweyan sense that we need to guide students toward their understanding of their own moral duties and responsibilities by teaching morality instead of teaching about morality. What we do and how we do it in our formal schooling matters. The creation of more sustainable schools will shape behavior and moral sense. This is our place to be what we believe as ecologically-minded educators.

Our road is in front of us and this semester we will be going this way. We will join one another to consider Wendell Berry's work from "solving for pattern" (.pdf) and consider how to use the Center for Ecoliteracy's curricular companion for Food, Inc. We will keep pressing the water bottle issue and open people's minds to greater good through less use and waste in the place where we live.

Join us every first and third Thursday this semester in 134 Cedar Building at 7:30 pm. Be the good we need in this world. Help us raise the volume.

Attack coal on the triple-bottom line

Take some action for the future triple-bottom line. Work for the health of broader community, for a new economy, and for the natural environment. Let's get the EPA to recognize coal ash as a hazardous waste. You might wonder how it hasn't been for all this time but...well...the power of the coal lobby is amazing.

Coal combustion and its waste products generate some of the worst pollution today. There is no getting around the facts of the matter. It defiles ecosystems. Destroys watersheds. Creates filthy poisonous rivers and lakes. It spits ash into the air. Communities that are built upon its alleged economic benefits live with cancer, emphyzema, and more. [For a backtrack at this blog see posts here, here, here, and here.]

For generations we, as a people, have generally accepted this uglification as "the cost of doing business." It happens over there to those people, too often caricatured as "white trash" in Appalachia, undereducated rednecks who keep choosing that life. If they want to be poisoned, so be it.

Perhaps, no more. I just got the following (paraphrased) in my email.

One of the head attorneys working with the EPA has said that EPA could classify coal ash as a hazardous waste. He met with Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the EPA, who has postponed their decision until the end of January. They are under extreme pressure from the coal industry to compromise the hazardous classification for a weaker "hybrid-hazardous" classification that allows dangerous loopholes. If there were ever a time that our calls and emails could make a difference, the time is now.

There are two numbers to call to press Lisa Jackson to go ahead.
202-395-3080 - Office of Management and Budget
202-564-4700 - Lisa Jackson's Office

Call and say: "I support classification of fly ash as a hazardous waste."

To move toward a more sustainable society and one that not only says it values clean water, air, and soil but one that shows that it values clean water, air, and soil, we need to take this step. Please call.

What youth do better than anybody

Refuse. Resist. Disrupt. Disturb.

The energy behind the climate change awareness and action movement right now is kind of electrifying. Reports, blogs, and videos are pouring out of COP15 showing that youth have marked climate change as the issue of our generation and, it seems, for generations to come. It is grounding us and elevating our ideals and goals to bring about a revolution that centralizes global human economic, social, and cultural welfare and maximizes non-human life's welfare. We are coming to see a groundswell of systems thinking, ethical awakening, and meaningful action.

And some of that action is to simply disrupt nonsense like that held by so-called climate "skeptics." What that term really means is climate change denialists, people whose entrenchment in the status quo and business as usual places blinders on them. Unfortunately, they have been so heavily funded by big polluters like ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and others that they have gotten a mountain of press in the past. Their glory days have waned. Now they try to hold little counter-meetings at COP15 that deserve no attention, outright ridicule, or a nice shutdown.

Check the shutdown.



I love that Lord Monckton and these free market fighters are calling this "childish." I wonder what they've had to say about the gun-toters at the health care townhalls around the U.S. this past fall. Just a thought. And then the bit about them being "crazed Hitler youth" might be one of the mightier overstatements of all time. If you can't win an argument or aren't getting what you want, make a Nazi reference. It will either win the argument or make you look like a someone struggling desperately for any rhetorical strike. We report. You decide.

Luckily for us, the U.S. delegation is no longer owned by these denialists. Our government is no longer hiding or casting aspersions at reports like the one just released by the World Meteorological Organization saying that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record, warmer than the 1990s which were warmer than the 1980s. The report also notes other "extreme" weather events consistent with climate science's predictions including droughts, heatwaves, and the third lowest measurement of Arctic sea ice in recorded history. The EPA just released it edangerment ruling, as of yet unenforced, that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases (GHG) present dangers to human health and welfare because of their climate altering natures. It looks as though the Obama administration, unlike its predecessors from George Bush, Sr. on, will do something about the United States' unequal contribution to climate change.

Certainly, if the youth have anything to say and do about it, he will. While the youth sack denialists at Copenhagen, sack the editorial and opinion pages here, talk about it with friends and family, write to and meet with your representatives, senators, mayors, and planning commissioners, your farmers, your...well...you get the picture.

Refuse. Resist. Rethink.

What are we doing to fight climate change?

While these Greenpeace activists take direct non-violent action in Pittsburgh to influence the G20 to combat climate change, I firmly believe that what we are doing is remarkably similar.



We don't have big banners. We aren't hanging from bridges. But we are changing habits and beliefs here, affecting others habits and beliefs here, and we will certainly be helping to shape habits and beliefs in many of our students' lives to come. That's part of what teachers do. We touch the future every day.

You ready for our day of action on October 14th to Take Back the Tap?

Let's go for a coal-free campus

A new friend of ours from Sierra Club has just alerted me that we have a chance to be part of moving us a little closer to freeing us from the choke of coal.

Sierra Club’s Coal-Free Campus Campaign at Penn State will be kicking off the semester with a press conference tomorrow (Wednesday) at 11:30am on the South Side (lawn-side) of Old Main. We're releasing a national report detailing coal use on university campuses, which is featuring Penn State. We're gonna be launching an effort to retire Penn State's 80-year-old coal plant and clear the way for clean energy, as part of an nationwide campaign, led by the Sierra Club, on more than 60 college campuses. PSU students Rose Monahan and Melissa Hannum will talk about the problem with Penn State's coal use and we'll be calling on our administration to lead the country in building a clean energy future.

The event will run from 11:30-11:50, and will be attended by local media outlets.

What: Coal-Free Campus Media Event this Wednesday Sept 16th @ 11:30 by Old Main's south entrance.

We hope you can make it by for the event--we could use your support! The more people we have there, the bigger the message will be. If you're able to attend, do your best to wear a Penn State shirt to show the Lion Pride that's behind clean energy here on campus. Definitely bring your friends who also want clean energy, and if you can make it at 11:20 to help hold a sign or join the crowd, all the better!

Walking for climate change awareness

Greta Brown is a real public educator. She doesn't work for a public school or any other public institution. She's a Unitarian minister who has decided that climate change poses such a threat to us that she must go out and try to convert the masses to wake from our ignorant slumber. She blogs for adults and for children. That's not so different in the digital age.

Now she's walking really really far to explain to as many of us as possible what's at stake. The New York Times has an interesting story about her here. She faces no shortage of problems ranging from talking with fundamentalist religious people who deny climate change to people, out of sincere kindness, offer her single-use plastic bottles that are themselves a waste. It's a testament to the magnitude of the problems we face.

Update about the Washington University conference call

This past Friday, Washington University in St. Louis organized a conference call about how they were able to go plastic water bottle free. It was very informative, and I think there are some great points that we at Penn State can appreciate as we go forward with our own efforts.


Some background

The ban at Wash. U. started when the university was trying to figure out how to reduce energy costs. It was discovered that much energy was expended on "chillers," or devices used to keep beverages cold. The administration figured that energy use and costs associated with it could be reduced by getting rid of the water bottles.

The administration approached students at Washington University to make sure that such an effort was something that the students would be supportive of. It turns out that some students on campus were already trying to get water bottles banned in St. Louis, so it was a great match of efforts.


Raising campus awareness about bottled water issues

Several attempts were made to raise the campus' awareness about water bottle waste. To raise awareness about the quality of bottled water versus tap water, the students held taste-test events to see if individuals could tell which water was bottled and which was tap. Only one individual, an administrator, was able to tell the difference. The students also held a rally, where a "tower of consumption" constructed of discarded water bottles was built to create a powerful visual of what water bottle waste looks like on a larger scale.

Another more time-consuming effort was an evaluation of every drinking fountain on campus (!). Students tasted water, measured the temperature of it, and tested the fountains to determine how easy it would be to refill a water bottle there. This helped to figure out where any access issues would impede people's ability to easily get tap water.


Impact of water bottle ban

An exciting note from a service standpoint was that the campus dining services was not greatly impacted by a loss of revenue due to the prohibition of water bottle sales. Compared with January 2008, sales of juice went up 4 to 5% in January 2009. Soda sales decreased slightly, and water bottle sales decreased 90% (bottles are still being sold in the campus store until spring break of this year). The decrease in soda consumption might indicate individuals' consciousness of plastic waste in general, not just that of water bottles.

While some money is being lost in on-campus catering, it is being gained in other places because people utilizing catering services have more money to spend on other items now that the cost of water has been eliminated. Catering on campus was willing to take a revenue hit for the greater public good of eliminating water bottles. They do not charge for providing tap water at events.

There were no problems with the university's Coca-Cola contract. In lieu of having bottled water in vending machines, Coca-Cola put vitamin water (personal note: I don't see how vitamin water is an improvement since it is technically still water).

There are few other details that I'll skip here (like bottled water distributed at graduation being phased out by 2010, for example). In total, Washington University will eliminated about 350,000 disposable plastic water bottles each year. When one considers how most bottles end up in landfills, this outright elimination is astounding.


Considerations for Penn State

During and after this conference call, I was thinking about what is different about their situation and that of Penn State. First of all, the ban was something the Wash. U. administration really wanted, not just the students. While we do have some administrators who have expressed an interest in this ban, the fact is that this is clearly not a priority (which it must be). We need to get more administrators on board in our effort. Perhaps we should consider creating a petition that is sponsored by different administrators?

The Wash. U. student representative mentioned that they made significant efforts to get student organizations on board with their efforts. The more support they had from organizations, the easier it was to inform more people about the necessity of a bottle ban.

Students at Wash. U. sold BPA-free plastic bottles as a fundraiser and donated the money raised to a charity in Kenya that works to provide clean drinking water for people there. To raise awareness, we might consider a similar move. So many people in the world don't have access to a tap, let alone drinkable water from one. People should think about that fact each time they reach for a disposable plastic bottle.

Along these lines, if we want to do such a fundraiser, we must consider what kind of bottles we buy. I've done some research into the many companies that sell aluminum and steel water bottles, and all of them make their bottles overseas, mostly in China (except for Sigg, which is in Switzerland). Perhaps BPA-free plastic is the way to go. What are your thoughts on this?

I guess that's it for now. Your comments, thoughts, and suggestions are welcome and encouraged.

Collegian article about our efforts

Water bottles are in the news again.....and so is 3E-COE. Daily Collegian reporter Phenola Lawrence wrote a great article about our efforts to get water bottles banned from Penn State. In this article, Peter, Associate Dean Jackie Edmondson, Professor Madhu Prakash, and I were all quoted about the necessity of such a ban.

It's important for the administration to know that this issue is not something that's going to slip under the radar. Thanks to all involved in supporting this effort- it is easy to fight for a cause like this in numbers. It's important for us to keep up the pressure on this. I welcome any thoughts for another demonstration or activity we might do to raise awareness.

Penn State recycling pioneer honored

Penn State Live had a great article about how one of the university's pioneers of recycling was honored recently. Mr. Al Matyasovsky, supervisor at the Office of the Physical Plant, was recognized with a Kneebone Award for Extraordinary Volunteerism.

Al is truly an asset to Penn State, and it is wonderful that his efforts were recognized. More info about what he has done to improve the quality of life here is available in the article.

The coal ash spill in Tennessee

I watched this report (audio mp3) yesterday on the NewsHour about the Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill.

Tom Bearden reports from Tennessee on the lingering effects of one of the largest coal ash spills in the nation's history.

It's an absolute tragedy.

Learn more from some Tennessee environmental defenders, United Mountain Defense.

We are in Voices!

This months Voices of Central Pennsylvania has some hot stuff in it. Like what? Like 3E-COE of course (pdf)! They also have a spot on Eco-Action's work to get Penn State out of its contract with Kimberly-Clark at the same link. Heather Simmons also has a piece in about energy saving techniques. Keep up the good work.

Events on campus tomorrow (Monday, Feb. 2)

Hi 3E-COErs!

Hope you had a nice weekend. Wanted to pass on the word about a few things happening tomorrow:

1) From 12pm-4pm, Eco-Action will be holding a demonstration across from the HUB to raise awareness about the use of virgin paper products on campus. They'll be gathering signatures for a petition to present to OPP (asking Penn State to only buy recycled paper products, among other things). If you have a few minutes, it would be great to lend some support to Eco-Action for this event. They've been tremendously supportive of 3E-COE and our causes, and showing our solidarity with them can help all of us achieve great things. Cookies and hot chocolate will be served.

Information on the petition and the event itself here.


2) The Sustainability Coalition will be meeting from 5-6pm tomorrow in 106 HUB. On their agenda is getting support for the water bottle ban here at Penn State (yay!). Come if you can!


3) At 7 pm in 112 Chambers, two sweatshop workers from Honduras will be speaking about their experiences. Sponsored by United Students Against Sweatshops and Student Labor Action Project. More information can be found here.

Water bottle update

Hi everyone! Thought I'd provide a brief update with what's happened since our water bottle demonstration on December 10.

Perhaps surprisingly, President Spanier responded within a week in regard to the letter we wrote to him. While his response did not contain the magical statement that he would consider issuing an executive order to ban plastic water bottles, he did put us in touch with people on campus who are interested in working with us to reduce waste on campus.

Just over a week ago, we met with some of these staff members to discuss the water bottle ban. The meeting went well, and we plan to keep up the pressure on President Spanier to be involved in what's going on. There are staff members on campus who want the ban to happen, but unless we keep up pressure on Old Main, this effort could fade into the woodwork. However, many of us are too determined to let this effort fall off the agenda, regardless of the challenges it involves.

I've been in touch with people at Washington University in St. Louis, a university which went water bottle free this semester. I learned that it took a summer and a semester for the ban to be implemented, so I'm optimistic that we can hope for a similar timeframe. I'll post updates again in a month or so, perhaps sooner.

I've also been in contact with individuals working for environmental non-profits who want to help us get water bottles banned at Penn State. It's amazing that from this one article, our cause has been spread to many others who are invested in similar efforts. In great numbers, we can do even greater things!

If anyone has any questions or suggestions, feel free to e-mail 3ECOE@psu.edu.