Furman Greenbelt Sustainable Living Community

70% of the surface of the Earth is covered with water and 80% of life on earth lies under the water. Many of us forget how immense the Ocean is. Its capacity is hidden from us still remaining in mystery. With containing the vast biodiversity, one of its role is to chemically balance the pH of the entire earth. The enormous body of water acts as a buffer. A buffer can resist sudden changes of pH whether the atmosphere is too basic or too acidic.

Day to day, Earth is maintaining a constant equilibrium with Carbon Dioxide (CO₂). Depending on the amount of the CO₂ the Ocean either absorbs or releases CO₂. While CO₂ still remains as a key substance which flourishes all the greens on earth (photosynthesis), the earth came to a point where the level of CO₂ is threatening the beautiful life under the water.

So how actually does CO₂ acidify the Ocean? The Atmospheric CO₂ dissolves into the water. When it meets the water it becomes a Carbonic acid (H₂CO₃). Since the carbonic acid is a weak acid with 6.4 pKa(whereas one of the strongest acid; Hydrochloric acid’s pKa is just about -10), it constantly tries to be in an equilibrium from H₂CO₃ to Biocarbonate ions (HCO₃^–) and Hydronium ions (H₃O⁺). However, increased concentration of Hydronium ions lowers the pH. The ocean naturally has a base, a carbonate ion (CO₃^2-),that can bind with the hydronium ions to restore the normal pH. When natural concentration of  CO₃^2- in the sea gets depleted, organisms like shellfish and corals that build their structure with Calcium ion (Ca+) and Carbonate ion (CO₃^2-) gives up their minerals to balance the acidity. Then they become “bleached out” due to the escape of CO₃^2-  in the organism’s structure.

Losing the corals means destroying billions of fish’s habitat and their source of food. The more acidic the ocean becomes the more organisms will melt into the sea to stop the acidification. Why should they be the ones melting away because of our convenience and ignorance? When we become more aware of our better daily choices to the environment and more uncomfortable about our selfish habits, the chance of saving the biodiversity increases. Reducing unnecessary consumption of red meat, voting for political parties actively involved in sustainability, choosing green energy, and simply just using and spending less will remarkably decrease the CO₂ emission.

Dahye Kim

https://seagrant.unh.edu/news/ocean-acidification-gulf-maine-nhsgs-response-emerging-environmental-concern http://www.riclimatechange.org/changes_ocean_acidification.php

https://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/29/top-10-ways-to-reduce-your-co2-emissions-footprint/

 

“While you are reading these words four people, most likely children, will die of starvation—and twenty-four more babies will have been born”

 

 

 

In the 1960s, a new kind of fear began to spread across America. The idea that the rapid growth of population will eventually deem Earth inhabitable to mankind was powerful and controversial. It struck fear in a massive audience leading to radical proposals, discrimination against large families, and a disposition of doom that fell over largely populated areas. This alarming reality check was delivered to the world by one scientist: Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich.

Ehrlich was originally a biologist at Stanford who specialized in the study of butterflies. After one trip to the overcrowded streets of Delhi, his focus immediately changed from insects to the infestation of a much more complex species: mankind. His concern was straightforward: “We live in a finite planet with finite resources. With such a system, you can’t have infinite population growth.” (2015 Interview population bomb documentary).

Dr. Ehrlich became the grim reaper of human existence. In 1968, the biologist came out with “The Population Bomb”. Millions purchased the book and were shocked by Ehrlich’s apocalyptic prophesies. He warned that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death by the 1970’s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that overcrowded India was doomed beyond repair, and that “England will not exist in the year 2000”. In 1970, he predicted that the end of mankind was right around the corner.

 

“Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come. By ‘end’, I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

 

 

Ehrlich’s warnings and proposed methods of worldwide birth control kick started an international trend of fear-fueled protests and demonstrations, defending both sides of the controversial argument. One in particular was headed by a former student of Ehrlich, who demonstrated what post carrying-capacity America might look like by leading a public starvation demonstration.

The biologist’s calls for immediate action led to the formation of the Zero Population Growth organization. During his appearance on the Tonight Show, Dr. Ehrlich explained the philosophy behind ZPG: “We have to get the death rate and birth rate in balance and there’s only one of two ways to do it: one is to bring the birth rate down, the other is to push the death rate up”. Support for ZPG spread throughout America as the number of members went from six hundred to six hundred thousand. Commercials and newspaper articles encouraged married couples to limit themselves to two children, creating a negative stigma for families that exceeded this number. Ehrlich’s proposals for reducing the birth rate were radical, but to him, necessary. He advocated using force if voluntary methods failed along with:  a “responsibility prize” for childless marriages, taxes on children, luxury taxes on diapers and cribs, and additive chemicals in public water that would decrease fertility.

 

 

Women protesting the sterilization of mothers: Racial discrimination became a factor in the controversy when colored families were targeted by ZPG advocates to limit their families. 

 

 

 

Student of Paul Ehrlich, leader of a demonstration that involved 60 people starving in public: “There’s too many people and we would like to see people have fewer children and better ones…

 “Anyone who’s thinking of having a third child should try going hungry for a week”

 

 

Underdeveloped countries, which are more vulnerable to the environmental consequences of overpopulation, had already started implementing birth control methods. In the mid 1970s, the Indian government went to unethical extremes to encourage mass sterilization. Some communities were bribed into sterilization with food aid and free health care, while others were sterilized by force. A 1970s American News Station reported that over 8 million sterilizations had been performed in India, many by force. The anchorman described the inhumane treatment of the women, equating it to the treatment of cattle. Another station described the scene as a

deadly assembly line where “83 women were operated upon in a span of just six hours by a single doctor.” Protests flooded the streets of India, which authorities responded to with firearms. Over fifty protesters were shot down and killed during one demonstration.

 

 

 

 

So what ever came of the feared population bomb?

As we can see by the overabundance of food in America and the existence of England and India, Ehrlich’s drastic claims did not become reality. He predicted that by the 1970s, India would be starving. The case was quite the opposite. The Green Revolution, which peaked in the 1970s and 80s, created an agricultural boom by introducing new farming techniques and technology. The population growth may have been booming, but the economic explosion left an impact that was even more powerful than Ehrlich’s warnings: optimism.

A common criticism of Dr. Ehrlich’s theories is that humans are conscious, problem-solving beings. When we see a factor that has the potential to threaten our existence, we implement regulations and awareness. An example of this would be the Clean Air and Water acts in America. We have the unique ability to change our destiny.

Many parts of the world are even dealing with the flip-side of the population bomb: a “baby bust”. Counties in Asia and Europe are calling for another baby boom to manage issues related to the aging population and a lack of women in certain parts of the world.

Although the majority of his ominous predictions did not come true, Paul Ehrlich was successful in bringing a pending issue to surface and spreading awareness. Although the national policy in India has changed and no longer requires sterilization, the country has seen a voluntary decrease in family size. The population bomb was defused by urbanization, the Green Revolution, and efforts towards food distribution. In a 2014 interview, Ehrlich admits that there are things in the past the he would not have written today. But his core message and beliefs remain unfazed by the fortunate turn of events in the world.

Adopting his infamous tone of doom, Ehrlich explains that there are currently more than 4.5 billion people in the world, and they are consuming more resources than ever before.

“I do not think my language is too apocalyptic in “Population Bomb”. My language would be even more apocalyptic today. The idea that every woman should have as many babies as she wants is, to me, exactly the same kind of idea as everybody being permitted to throw as much garbage into their neighbors’ backyard as they want.”

As the world continues to see a growth in people and the consequential depletion of the environment, Ehlrich’s ominous warnings still echo in the hearts of humanity.

“Too many cars, too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticides, multiplying contrails, inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much carbon dioxide – all can be traced easily to too many people”

-Ellie Hunt

 

News report picture: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/06/01/blogs/dotpopcronkite/dotpopcronkite-facebookJumbo.jpg

Population bomb documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XOF3SOu8I

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

Ehrlich 2014 portrait: https://swh-826d.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Paul-R-Ehrlich.jpg

Plan your family poster: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/india-sterilisation-deaths-women-forced-camps-relatives

India sterilization: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/india-sterilisation-deaths-women-forced-camps-relatives

Much has been said regarding the current status of the honey bee in America today.  It seems like every other week we receive a new report on the wellbeing of hives across the country.  Half of these mention that bees are heading straight toward extinction and the other half claim bees are making a dramatic comeback.  While both of these do contain some truthful parts, being that bees were once heading towards extinction but have since made a mild comeback, both statements are not entirely truthful.  In reality, honey bee numbers across America have started to rise for the first time in a ten-year drought yet we still see a massive decrease in functioning hives each year.

Colony-collapse disorder is the term given to bee hives suddenly and rapidly deteriorating, killing all the bees and destroying the hive.  Colony-collapse has many causes but almost always occurs in the winter, when the bee population of the hive drops to its lowest.  It is when the population is the smallest that factors like neonicotinoid pesticides and varroa mites can take down a whole hive.  We have known about this main cause for quite some time, and much has been done to reduce the prevalence of these toxins.  For instance, many states have banned the use of neonicotinoids as a pesticide to protect pollinators, and the EPA is already working on a federal ban right now.

However, the varroa mite is a different story; it is not some compound that the government can ban. The varroa mite is common brown beetle roughly the size of a nail head, found in nearly every country of the world except for Australia and other isolated countries.  Varroa mites begin their lifecycle as tiny eggs laid inside the comb of a hive.  Here, the mites will wait for the queen bee to lay an egg in their cell.  Once the honey bee pupa, hatches so does the mite.  The mite then attaches to the baby bee feeding off its blood while the bee consumes the honey and nectar in its cell.  The mite will remain attached to the bee for the rest of its life, feeding off its blood, eventually killing it.  Then it finds another bee to attach to. There are many common methods of removing varroa mites, from putting in varroa strips which contains a chemical deadly to the mites to even dusting the whole hive in powered sugar to prevent the mites from hanging on to the bees.  Unfortunately, almost every method used was not effective enough to prevent collapse.  Until now…

Researchers at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem have accidentally discovered that after feeding their bees tiny doses of Lithium Chloride nearly every varroa mite died.  The concentration of lithium chloride is low enough to spare the bee, but the mites are killed off nearly as fast as the compound is applied.  If further testing yields the same results as found, this could be essential in the quest to save the bees.  Leaving only the regulation of noenicitinoids as a factor for extinction.   In the end, much has been accomplished to prevent extinction, including policy changes, neonicotinoid bans, and new varroa treatments; however there is still a lot to be done to save our fuzzy friends.

-Tyler Carlson

Picture this: the year is 2050, population has soared to almost 10 billion people… and they all want to eat meat. Currently, in the United States alone, there is approximately 1 one cow and seven chickens for every three people.2 The global population as of now is right around 7.3 billion people, but rising quickly. In a world where food shortages are already a common occurrence and farmers are running out of land for crops, how will humanity adapt to these thwarting conditions?3

Since the mid-twentieth century, worldwide meat consumption has greatly increased. Assuming that this trend in consumption will not change, it is important to start considering new options to replace meat. Although tofu has become a viable alternative for many vegans and vegetarians, for others, it can be a somewhat “acquired taste.” Scientists, taking this into consideration, have begun developing an alternative to the cattle industry: cultured meat.

The process begins by growing individual muscle cells that then connect and grow into tissue. Once enough of these cells are aggregated, other hamburger ingredients like egg, onion, and bread crumbs are added for taste. This remarkable development seems like an obvious solution to the world hunger crises—meat we can grow ourselves! For all the steak lovers out there, researchers are still trying to grow longer muscle cells that are required to form steaks, but as of now only hamburger meat is possible. Although, considering the progress made in the last decade, nothing is impossible!

The process of growing cells, however, is a controversial science. In order to grow the cells, scientists must use fetal bovine serum. This serum is collected from fetal calves and remains an unsustainable source of nourishment for the cells. Yet, in recent years, the same hamburger meat has been created without FBS.

The danger with FBS—disregarding its controversial nature—is the potential harm it could effect on consumers. For example, a diseased calf has the possibility to transfer the bacteria and illness to humans. This type of chain reaction is exactly what caused the beloved Mexican restaurant franchise, Chipotle, to shut down in 2016 due to an e. coli outbreak.4

Of course, the potential benefits are difficult to understate. Less cows mean less methane, a greenhouse gas, and less of the world’s agricultural space devoted to livestock feed. Reducing the number of cows would lead to more humane treatment of animals, giving us
healthier options such as grass-fed beef.

The decision that we have to make involves evaluating the risk and reward associated with this process. Is it worth advancing the research for cultured meat? I think that our answer should be yes. Otherwise, any hopes of accommodating the wants and needs of the world is impossible. Taking into account our future population and the demands that come with it, it is imperative to break from the status quo and begin a new era of innovation and creativity. Some may say this is easier said than done, but I believe that humanity has a good track record of adapting to stress. The only factor is whether we do it sooner or later.

-Sonia Clemens

 

1 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

2 https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

3 https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

4 http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/15/news/companies/chipotle-food-safety-meeting/index.html

 

 

 

As our climate changes, we tend to think about physical impacts to the environment, such as erosion or air pollution. We separate what is happening to the environment from ourselves to justify the detrimental impact that our current lifestyle generates. In reality, climate change directly impacts human wellbeing in many ways, including mental health. As our climate changes, weather patterns shift. Extreme changes in the weather destabilizes homes, which can impact physical and mental health. Research by Bourque and Wilcox (2014) provided evidence from specific weather events that have impacted psychological health. One of the weather pattern changes they studied was the drought in Australia that lasted nearly a decade. According to the prior research, the drought has been attributed to an increase in psychological distress causing anxiety and depression. The drought has greatly impacted the people whose life depends on the land, especially farmers. As they lose their crops due to the lack of water, their source of income dissipates. Many of the farmers reported feeling an “overwhelming sense of loss” because of losing their crops to the drought (Bourque & Wilcox, 2014). Furthermore, the Australian farmers have less access to mental health resources because of demographics and low income, making them more susceptible to psychiatric problems.

Indication that climate change has negatively impacted mental health can also be seen in the indigenous Inuit populations in Canada. Inuit life revolves around their natural environment. They use the land to sustain life through hunting and fishing, as well as many other activities that require the land. Beyond just sustaining life, the Canadian forests are their home, so you can imagine that losing their land could be equivalent to someone’s house burning down. The Inuit people are being directly impacted by climate change because of decreasing temperatures and an increased occurrence of storms that is destroying their home. This increased stress has been correlated with poor mental health. In fact, the suicide rates among the Inuit population are 11 times higher than the Canadian average (Bourque & Wilcox, 2014). Similar to the Australian farmers, the Inuit people also do not have proper access to mental health resources, which demonstrates the disparity climate change has on mental health in susceptible populations.

On a larger scale, climate change has increased the number of severe natural events, such hurricanes and floods, all over the world. Severe weather events can destroy homes and lives, which leads to acute stress. The elevated stress from these events is correlated with higher rates of PTSD and depression (Bourque & Wilcox, 2014). Specifically, flooding has been tied to high incidence psychological stress. In fact, a Dr. Onarae Rice at Furman University studies the relationship of dopamine pathway to PTSD in rats. In order to give the rats PTSD, one of the steps is to make the rat swim in water for an extended amount of time to simulate the feeling of drowning in a flood. Clearly, environmental disasters can directly impact mental health.

It is important that we help people who are experiencing the detrimental impact of climate change on their mental health. The first step is the acknowledge the correlation and inform people of it so that following a natural disaster people may be more likely to seek out mental health resources. It is also important that we have means for people to get counseling, since those who are the most susceptible to climate change impact most often don’t have resources. Of course, it is vital that we make changes to save our environment so that climate change does not progress.

-Olivia Larner

 

Bourque, F., & Cunsolo Willox, A. (2014). Climate change: The next challenge for public mental health? International Review of Psychiatry, 26(4), 415-422. doi:10.3109/09540261.2014.925851

Upon typing “Trump and the Environment” in google I was not surprised to see that the two do not have the most cordial relationship. Since Trump’s Inauguration in January of 2017, National Geographic has continued to keep an active list of the many changes to U.S. scienceand environmental policy. President Trump stepped into the White House and quickly undid many of the actions taken by Obama toward curbing climate change and limiting pollution as well as other environmentally harmful acts; Following this, President Trump thus announced that the United States will no longer regard climate change by name as a national security threat, viewing it as nothing more than a “burden”for businesses.

With Trump’s new budget coined “ A New Foundation for American Greatness ,” he cuts the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 31 percent, a bigger cut than any other department; these cuts translate to a $2.7 billion spending reduction and the loss of 3,200 jobs. What the trump. A recent study done by EDGI finds that in the first year of the Trump administration, U.S. government websites have been

“systematically altered to cut mentions of climate change (Michael Greshko, National Geographic ). The words “climate change” are no longer directly mentioned and instead have been replaced with more vague words. Since Trump’s inauguration, the EDGI has been monitoring thousands of government web pages for changes or deletions; the EPA’s “Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change” went offline between February and April 2017 (Michael Greshko, National Geographic ). Okay Trump, just because you don’t want to talk about it, doesn’t make it go away.

If hiding the problem and eliminating protection wasn’t enough, now he wants to facilitate the problem. If you are not familiar with the Clean Power Act, it was a mandate issued in 2005 by the U.S. power sector to cut carbon emissions by 32 percent by 2030 (870 million tons of CO2) (Michael Greshko, National Geographic ). Trump however is now campaigning against this act calling it a “burden” on the economy and coal industry. It seemed like this was a profitable move for Trump since The U.S. Department of Interior recently proposed auctioning off oil and gas leases for 77 million acres of federal waters within the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA said that if these fossil fuels were burned completely, they would add more than 28 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, more than five times what the United States’ total carbon footprint was in 2016. Now that our carbon footprint is going to skyrocket, I guess the birds aren’t going to have long anyways. The Trump administration announced that it will

no longer consider the accidental killing of birds, violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which has been in act for 20 administrations. That means companies won’t take preventative measures anymore to avoid zapping ducks on their power lines or knocking out eagles with their wind turbines. Poor birds. So I don’t completely sound like some liberal trump-hating hippie (which I’m honestly not), I will end with Trump in a positive light; President Trump did however donate the first quarter of his salary ($78,333.32) to the National Park Service. Super generous right? But wait, that was only after Trump’s 2018 budget called for a $1.5-billion cut to the U.S. Department of the Interior of which the National Park Service and its $3.4-billion budget belong. Well, at least he tried. Well now when it comes to talking about what Donald Trump has done to help the environment thus far, well, that’s a different story. A way shorter story that I have yet to find the inspiration for.

-Natalia Baldwin

Citation –
Michael Greshko (2018, January 17). A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the
Environment. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

In recent years, environmental issues such as climate change, use of pesticides, use of resources, genetic engineering of crops, and others have become increasingly prevalent. To counter these problems other movements have cropped up. The organic food industry is in response to increasing concern about pesticides and GMOs. In the same way, the tiny house movement arose partially as a way to combat the unnecessary overuse of resources in modern lifestyles while providing financial independence, freedom, and often mobility.

 

Historically, homes and personal spaces have not been large. But around the 1960s, the size of American homes ballooned and continues to grow even now. In 1950 the average size of a new, single-family home was 983 sq. feet, in 1973 it had become 1660 sq. feet, and by 2015 it was 2598 sq. feet (Kilman, 2016; McLennan, 2010). For many, the sheer amount of space is unnecessary and uses many resources that would be better used elsewhere or conserved, such as the labor that goes into the building process, gas and energy being used as power, material resources, and time. These resources, combined with the size of a home, amount to a heavy bill and cause financial strain. This means that homeowners will spend more time trying to cover their bills month to month than saving or using their money for personal enjoyment and gain. This is why people have started to move in the opposite direction with their housing; they are choosing to go back to their roots and not live beyond their means.

 

Building a tiny home can be complex depending on the homeowners’ locality. Most places have zoning laws that prohibit buildings under a certain square footage, normally done by county: “the minimum single-family residence size in Gwinnett County, GA is 1,400 sq. ft” (Kilman, 2016). As a result, the movement predominantly features tiny homes on wheels, which are classed as RVs. Going this route, the homeowners would also not pay property tax. With both more money in the bank and a home that could be pulled by a decently sized truck, many choose to travel. Taking a tiny home on the road has its own considerations. For instance, there are laws surrounding both the dimensions of the trailer and its weight, as either a permit or a different class of vehicle may be needed for a homeowner to tow the tiny house themselves. Most roads are about 9 feet wide for a single lane the general limit on height is 13.5 feet, and a tiny home should be built with this in consideration.

 

With the general restrictions on dimension, most tiny homes are around 180 sq. feet. The size is wonderful for utilities; the average monthly electric bill runs about $114, which can amount to a lot of savings (Lake, 2016). But the small space also requires some creative solutions to utilize, and because many of the movement’s adherents show environmental concern, some curious mashups have occurred. In the interest of conserving water, both toilets and miniature washing machines have been created with sinks in the top, so the water used in washing hands drains into the attached reservoir. Other space saving solutions are stairs that double as shelving, a trundle-style bed that disappears under a lifted kitchen floor and doubles as a couch, tables that fold down from the wall and hold spices or function as a mirror when upright, couches that can also be a bed or storage unit, cabinets in the floor for extra storage, shoe racks underneath chairs, and wet baths, where the entire bathroom becomes a shower.

 

The freedom a tiny home provides, both financial and in mobility, begs homeowners to venture out and experience. Why not, when you can avoid the costs of a hotel and just bring your house with you? Many people decide to go tiny specifically because they decide to put emphasis on experience rather than material goods and this lifestyle allows them to spend less time working and more time doing the things they love. Seems like sound reasoning to me. So take life by the reins, go tiny.

-Mikaela Williams

 

References

Code-Friendly Fresno’s California Tiny House Company – Tiny House Blog. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2018, from http://tinyhouseblog.com/uncategorized/code-friendly-fresnos-california-tiny-house-company/

Kilman, C. (2016). Small House, Big Impact: The Effect of Tiny Houses on Community and Environment. Undergraduate Journal of Humanistic Studies @BULLET Winter, 2, 12. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2732/8c4ba21b4f6ae467210ddffd3edb2da8fa4b.pdf

Lake, R. (2016). How Much Can You Save By Living in a Tiny Home? – SmartAsset. Retrieved February 2, 2018, from https://smartasset.com/mortgage/how-much-can-you-save-by-living-in-a-tiny-home

McLennan, J. F. (2010). The Righteous Small House: Challenging House Size and the Irresponsible American Dream. Retrieved February 2, 2018, from http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/the-righteous-small-house-challenging-house-size-and-the-irresponsible-american-dream

Tiny House Weight: How to Calculate and Weigh a Tiny Home for Towing. (2017). Retrieved February 2, 2018, from https://tinyhousegiantjourney.com/2017/01/26/tiny-house-weight/

 

By definition, sustainability means managing present resources without compromising the social, economic, and environmental abilities of the future. In action, sustainability aims to preserve and, if possible, improve society. As I see it though, sustainability begins with childhood education.

 

“Welcome to Sludge City –– where overflowing landfills stretch across a grimy coastline. Here, pollution has virtually wiped out most animals’ natural habitats and made it nearly impossible for most crops to grow in the barren soil. Fortunately, a thick smog cast over the city makes it difficult to notice all of these issues,” I explained as an outraged audience of kids morphed into pure frenzy.

 

As a counselor at Camp Invention, I helped 1^st through 6^th grade students tackle real-world sustainability issues with group collaboration and quick-witted innovation. With some basic school supplies and a room inundated with recyclable materials, these young inventors were encouraged to concoct the most off-the-wall solutions to problems that modern scientists, mathematicians and engineers are currently discussing. In five different classes, these students brainstormed ideas in the fields of geometry, electrical engineering, and marine biology. In one particular week, however, the challenge of revitalizing Sludge City overtook the children’s interests unlike any other class.

 

On the first day, the presented task was to restore the water quality and to filter out all of the harmful pollution. Each table first received a water bottle cut in half with the top half placed inside the bottom half like a funnel. Next, the kids obtained some glasses of dirty water, cotton balls, sand and gravel. After deliberating amongst their team of young inventors and experiencing a few failed attempts, the aspiring Edisons had constructed a miniature filtration system. Delighted, some children expressed their excitement at the end of the day by rushing to their parents to describe what they learned, while others displayed more immediate enthusiasm by drinking the filtered water.  Whether or not they realized the fact, the students accomplished much more than rebuilding Sludge City. Rather, they learned the value and enjoyment of sustainability –– a word some of them would have struggled to pronounce yet remarkably already understood.

 

If sustainability really does include looking towards the future, then we must remember to look towards our children. While those under the age of 18 represent less than one quarter of the population, they represent 100% of the future.[1] For that reason, I see no other way to look at sustainability than by equipping the youth to respond to current environmental concerns from energy management to pollution to air quality. On an individual level, this might be as simple as donating school supplies to a classroom in need or visiting an elementary school one day as a tutor, volunteer or mentor. Educational advocacy can also come in the form of political literacy through regular voting in local and state elections, attendance and participation in regional school board meetings, or researching educational issues on the web or at nearby libraries.  In any case, sustainability requires deliberate acts of compassion to help others in order to not only preserve but also enrich the future, so that future generations might one day do the same.

-Matthew Martin

[1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

I am a student at a small, liberal arts university in the south, and I am currently working on a sustainability initiative with a small group to get rid of the plastic straws and plastic bags in one of our dining halls. This has proven to be a challenge when thinking of how to tackle the situation because these items are used so often without being conscious of the environment. With the guidance of our professor and project tips from the article “Bagging the Disposable Plastic Bag” from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), we have been working on a game plan for implementation. Although some may be obvious, I want to share a few things I have learned along the way.

1. Research, Research, Research!
   1. Our professor recommended we look through databases for successful projects similar to ours to find out what issues ran into and how to avoid them. A simple Google search can suffice, but AASHE can quickly provide multiple relevant resources instead of filtering through a Google search trying to determine what is and is not credible.
2. Take time to study how your own campus uses plastics
   1. Find a subtle spot in the place of action to observe when plastics are being used the most. For our dining hall, most students who dine in do not get plastic tops or straws for their single-use cups, but if they are taking their food and drinks elsewhere, they are much more likely to get bags, tops, and straws, even if they do not need them. This method can help you evaluate students’ needs and target a more specific campaign to students.
3. Approach stakeholders with collaboration and conversation
   1. No one likes to be told how they should run their business. It may be easy to rattle off statistics and say, “You have to make this change; I can’t believe you haven’t done this yet,” but this can make others feel like they are being attacked. Avoid a condescending tone when giving information because you want the other people feel like they have a say and can work with you, not for
4. Gradual change
   1. Something the article “Bagging the Disposable Plastic Bag” brought to my attention was the actual timeline of taking away the plastic products. In the project described by the article, the students working on the project took away the plastic bags one day without any warning, causing students to complain, and the food provider to bring back the bags. When the students tried again, they did a countdown until the bags were taken away, and students were more receptive to this. Also, talking to your friends about this issue may give you an insight as to how the general student population would feel about it.
5. Generate excitement and interest in the mission
   1. Incorporating students into the initiative and making them feel like they are individually making a difference will help students think more positively about it. You can post facts about plastic on campus and show that your individual university is making a difference, whether you are the first university in your area to do it or you’re joining a host of other universities already participating.

-Katherine Kristinik

 

Citation:

Cammarn, Grace, et al. “Bagging the Disposable Plastic Bag.” AASHE, Association for the

Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10 June 2016.

 

The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, The Association for

the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2018, www.aashe.org/.

Every day we make decisions as consumers that affect the local, regional, and even worldwide ecosystem. Growing up, it is easy to think that you are just a kid in high school, or in college, so there is nothing you can really do to impact what we see around us, but that just isn’t true. Looking at statistics about waste and pollution can be overwhelming, such as plastic contributes to over 250,000 tons of trash to the ocean (Gourmelon), but every revolution starts as small. It is easy to think that you “living green” but there is always room for improvement, and it’s never too late to start. There are many small life style changes you can make that have a meaningful impact into helping the environment, even if you are living low-budget. And it all starts with a dialogue

America in general has an obsession with fast food. And while I’m not asking you to eliminate it, I am asking you to think about what you are consuming. The beef in your McDonalds hamburger, has one of the highest carbon footprints of any meat product, because it is a ruminant. This means that it produces methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, while the cow digests (Carrington). But the carbon footprint doesn’t stop there. As soon as your cow is killed to be ground up or otherwise processed, it must be kept at a very cold temperature to prevent any contamination and slow the spread of potentially harmful bacteria. This high level of refrigeration must be kept up for the entire duration of your ground beefs life – right up until it is cooked.

So, instead of going to McDonalds for your hamburger fix, why not hit up your local burger joint instead? Ask your favorite mom and pop shop where they get their meat. While you’re there, also ask if they have considered not serving straws any longer. Single use plastic straws are the single largest contributor to plastic in our oceans (Gourmelon), and they are completely unnecessary. As an added bonus, their restaurant can save money from not buying any.

Just by asking your local restaurants to stop using plastic straws, or ask them where they get their beef from, is contributing to change. Education is the key to revolution, and approaching people in a positive and polite manner can have a huge impact.

Other low budget options for college students could be as easy as switching their peanut butter type. Did you know that palm oil on of the leadings causes of deforestation in tropical rain forests (Rainforest Rescue)? Most people don’t. Helping this fight is as easy as checking your food products labels to see if they contain palm oil or any derivative, and switching to one that doesn’t include it. If you are say a coffee enthusiast, why not look into where your product comes from? Coffee is also grown in the tropics, and is naturally grown in the shade. Being grown in the shade, instead of a genetically modified monoculture out in the sun, acts as a corridor for migratory birds to rest in (Smithsonian Global). A simple, quick google search can show you any number of small and easy ways to reduce your carbon footprint and give back to the environment.

Leaving the local grocery store with your new rainforest friendly peanut butter and migratory bird friendly coffee, do you grab a plastic bag? The average use of a plastic bag is around 20 minutes (Greener Ideal). Used for just 20 minutes, and then where does it go? For over half of plastic bags used – it’s straight to landfills or our oceans. 20 minutes of use, followed by over a thousand years of polluting decay. All of this could be changed with a 1-2$ investment into a reusable bag.

Overall, there are many small switches anyone could make in their everyday life to live more sustainably – if only they knew. And that is why living cleaner starts with a dialogue! Any change you make will add up over time, and hopefully inspire others to do so as well. Reduce, reuse, recycle!

-Julia Clements