Baker Speaker

The speaker tonight at Baker was not super-lively. He was not speaking in a hellfire and damnation manner about the problems facing the Earth. Instead, he methodically and purposefully communicated a vision of Earth's future. Through what has clearly been an extensive body of research he outlined some major changes to the structure of our planet that will be occuring and many are not very far away if our current practices continue. He stressed that these issues are commonly referred to in reference to the next generation inheriting a problem but that in reality, it is not "just are children's problem." He outlined the difference between natural influences and human influences. He said that natural influences do affect the earth but that is not at the root of the current trend in greenhouse gases and their effect on the earth. In one of his 100 year projections he predicted a drastic effect on earth. The last time a climb like this occurred the earth's temperature increased by 3 degrees Celsius, which he said would have our planet looking very different. 

He did a great job explaining how we can rule out natural warming of the earth. He pointed to the fact that night temperatures are still rising, ruling out any solar variability. He pointed to ice as a main indicator for the changes. He spoke of a scary concept regarding tipping points. He thinks we are near the threshold of warming and melting where we could be past the point of no return, or in other words have done irreversible damage to the point where even a drastic change in our practices will be obsolete.  In regards to the ice as indicators he said that the new technology is a powerful tool and makes reading the patterns much easier. Some of his before and after glacier visuals were very powerful.

He noted that in 30 years there might actually be no glaciers left in glacier national park. Loss of glaciers at this rate, he said, could drastically affect our water supply. His ethos was on display when he took the view of skeptics who point to the natural ebb and flow of the earth's temperatures and glacial patterns but quickly noted that these recent patterns are outside this realm. His main research focused on glaciers and I like the term he used for their telling of the situation. He called glaciers, "the canaries in the coal mine," in that they are a great first indicator of how things are going to get bad. 

Group musings

I am admittedly a little dam-ed out after my persuasive paper and am looking to get on a project that is on a different topic. Some possible ideas I'm entertaining are..

Green construction

http://www.greenbuildingsolutions.org/s_greenbuilding/sec.asp?TRACKID=&CID=15&DID=15

http://greensource.construction.com/

I have an issue of New York magazine that highlights some people doing country living or green living in the city and the images were so cool. Very progressive indeed. Yards on rooftops ect. I thought it would be neat to explore some of these structures and what the most effective green building techniques are compared to what the most popular are? Is solar popular because people like it as a status symbol on their house? Do they like wearing green on their sleeves so to speak better than actually helping the environment.....

Also I thought about looking at the rise of education and study paths related to environmentalism. I feel like recently environmental geography and other earth related areas of study are on the rise. I would explore what schools are offering the most innovative and competitive programs in the way of green living aspects and what this increase in education will do for the environment.

enironmental science major

Sources

Works Cited:

Ed Newman Interview 2/18/09

“Recyclemania”

www.ohio.edu/recycle

“Recycling and Refuse”

powerpoint link?

campus recycle powerpoint presentation

OU Recycling

Ed Newman cannot sit still. His phone rings in roughly ten-minute intervals as we speak and he has to answer it. People have questions. Newman has answers. Long winded, frank answers that fly out of his mouth at a clip that makes it hard to keep up. As I type furiously in an attempt to capture the main idea of what Newman is trying to communicate, I cannot get past his energy. As our conversation wears on, I begin to realize that this is not a sudden jolt from too much coffee, but instead, a sustained effort. A constant state. The kind of unwavering energy that is necessary for a man in charge of so much. Newman responds to many titles, dubbing himself, "The top of the heap and the trash man,” before revealing his actual title of Recycling and Facilities Management Coordinator. The latter puts Newman in charge of campus recycling, an organization that has one of the greatest challenges at the University: getting apathetic students to decrease their solid waste and increase their recycling habits. In reality, if the group, composed of maintenance workers and a student staff, does their job, they create more work for themselves. More recycled materials, more pickups, more weight. And they’re ok with that.

The team already covers an impressive amount of ground. According to their website, campus recycling is currently responsible for over 16,000 collection bins spread throughout campus in academic buildings, apartments and residence halls. The organization was not always the operation we see on campus today though. The program had humble beginnings and Newman credits the Athens community and changing political and social climates as catalysts for getting the program up and running. He says that although the program only became official in 1990, area residents had been trying to start something since the early 80’s. “The development was grass roots,” Newman says. “In fact, the city of Athens was the first comprehensive curb collection in the state.”





Newman says that as the leadership changed at OU and energy became deregulated, the university realized that, “they were going to get knocked in the butt.” So as their efforts became less manageable, Newman and his crew gave the University an ultimatum. “I basically told the university we have to do it right or we’d stop the program,” Newman says. When no one responded, Newman put a halt to their daily operations and the subsequent outrage forced the school to take note. “The university was cut off,” Newman recalls. “Everyone got pissed off. That’s when they decided we better do something about it and they finally established a budget specifically for us.”

So campus recycling had their start. They used their initial investment to get a new vehicle, an office, phones and other supplies. Their funding comes from two different sources. About 50% of their operation is funded through the auxiliary side, or tuition money, and the other 50% comes from the university’s general fund. Much of this comes from the state budget. After acquiring their new capital, they went back to work, and have since essentially maximized what they can do with their current resources according to Newman. The group does regular pickups and coordinates special efforts like a move-out program that unites groups in an effort to bring items left behind back to the Athens community.

Other ways that the staff reaches students is through special campaigns like Recyclemania, which is going on right now. According to ohio.edu/recycle, Recyclemania, which was created in part at Ohio University, has grown into a nation-wide effort pulling in 93 schools by 2006. The drive helped recycle 9,330 tons of solid waste in 2006 and has grown every year. The campaign engages over a million college students, and pits traditional rival schools against one another all in the name of sustainability. To kick off Recyclemania at OU, the team puts on the annual Trash Dance at Casa Nueva. Newman’s recycle disciples at Ohio University are not satisfied though.

With their fiery leader at the helm, the staff has made it their goal to recycle 80% of the waste produced on campus. There are ways Newman thinks that his crew can try to break out of their current plateau. “We’ve basically reached our potential at what we can achieve in this high energy place that lives on 10 week intervals,” Newman says about their current operation. “We’re looking at ways to go after that other 70%.” Newman points to the possibility of collecting mixed recyclables and doing the sorting themselves as an option to stimulate better campus practices. He also says that two major areas the university can improve in are demolition recovery and green purchasing. With building projects on campus Newman admits that, “we need to do a lot better,” in terms of reusing the solid waste from tearing down structures. Green purchasing, or as Newman describes it, “how you consume as a university,” is another big way our institution can become more sustainable. He says that it is up to our financing department to develop contracts for supplies that are, “environmentally friendly and lasting.” Newman points to Rutgers as a leader in this practice and says that OU would do well to follow their lead.

Another way for continued improvement is thinking differently. As Newman rattles off some more statistics he points to the building we’re talking in, Baker Center. He says that Baker and their composting operation is an example of taking lemons and making lemonade. Baker had a problem. Their waste disposal room was too small and there was no dishwasher to accommodate real plates and silverware for fear of losing it all to theft. It was none other than Newman that saw the problem as an opportunity. He began sending out emails about composting until they worked their way up the administrative food chain until, as Newman recalls, somebody from the top said, “Damn, he’s right.”

Collaboration plays a big role in everything OU recycling does. This operation was no different, as the group teamed with the office of sustainability, which they often work closely with. Together, they secured $400,000 in grants for the composting project and Baker threw in another $750,000. The result is the largest composting operation at any university in Ohio, something that Newman can’t help but smile about. “We’re really swaggering right now in the state,” he says.

Newman is unclear on what else the future holds but knows that his recycling operation will continue to evolve. He points to the economic development and jobs that a larger recycling effort could produce nation-wide, and believes with the new political leadership, it just might start to happen. Newman has spent over 25 years touting recycling but does not let that convince him that it’s the end all solution to our problems. “It’s not number one,” he states firmly. “It’s part of a holistic approach and to focus on it would be a mistake.”
Sustainability in the broad sense though, is something Newman feels we all need to rally around and better sooner than later. “Things like recycling and the economic development around it, it’s a better use of money and resources,” Newman says. “It’s a cyclic way of following nature’s cycling of natural eco laws, instead of our linear existence that’s going to boom and bust.”




Ed Newman Interview - OU Recycling

Ed Newman Ohio Recycling Interview

What is your official position and how long have you held it?

“Top of the heap, Trash man. Recycling and facilities Management Coordinator… take your pick”

“A long ass time. Write that down. Put that in quotes. A long ass time. With a K a lonk ass time. No I’ve been here since 1990 officially but I’ve been involved with recycling on campus since 1982.”

When did our program come about in relation to others? “It’s a relative thing, the ones that have been around the longest is where consciousness was raised in progressive regions of the country, the West Coast and the Northeast and some others that were early… There might have been a few others that were early in the middle of the country, maybe Columbia Missouri or… Austin Texas, Ashville Tennesee maybe.


2. How has the program progressed in recent years? Has this coincided with the general raised public interest in recycling?

We didn’t start till 1990 but people have been trying to start it since the 80’s here. There have been stops and starts… what got us going here though was the fact that the community was getting it going early on. The development was grass roots in the early 80’s but they’ve sort of fallen back. In fact, the city of Athens was the first comprehensive curb collection in the state.

Cleveland heights was doing some newspaper and Oberlin was trying but that’s about it. We actually were a leader in the state, the leaders of what became the public utility lost sight of that. It’s a user fee self supporting… thing as opposed to getting tax money… It’s a solid business model but their ability to further their mission became greatly curtailed with their operation, a result of their leadership… so here’s OU and as the leadership changed here, energy was getting deregulated they realized we’re really gonna get knocked in the butt so OU started investing. An initial investment of 36 million went in and this cuts down on solid waste removal which saves the university money, so in essence, we were investing money to save money. We started investing a lot initially but …There are 85 schools in the state and we are the only one…


7. How are you funded? Who determines this amount? Is it enough? If you had unlimited funds what are some things you would implement? When they finally created a budget for the program right before 1990 there was industry consolidation going on in this region. One or two companies were coming in and taking over all the operations and that had a big impact. Also, trash removal went up 50%, it was the 20th anniversary of earth day, people realized we had to make some shit happen fast… society was going through a similar transition as today’s. The political leadership….that actually started with Nixon who was all over the place, The other thing that was going on was informal recycling at the university… It was a user fee system… being paid but they were reducing waste for us too…. There was an economic incentive to participate… I basically told the university we have to do it right or we’d stop the program. They didn’t respond and the university was cut off … everyone got pissed off… that’s’ when they decided we better do something about it…and they finally established a budget specifically for us. It paid for an office, a phone and some student staff. Thiss is when we began starting our regular routes …We bought a truck and hired 2 people to run. There was a partnership between the recycler and the university… In the 90’s it cost us 228,000 to collect trash …. Budget shrunk in the 1990’s. We were actually saving money. Those savings went right back into staff and collection bins. We were the only department that was shrinking while the university was growing significantly. We are funded 50% through auxiliary side of the budget which comes through campus tuition costs. The other 50% comes from the general fund which comes through non-housing and food related areas. This comes from the state budget After 19 years we’ve reached a plateau and have fallen backwards. One reason is that the service staff is a hard group to get going, even in the best times they were pathetic and a failure of the ability of that part of the campus to do things properly makes it so the management can’t do things properly. Secondly our vendor itself, our partner. They do a lot for us but this is how they were set up from the beginning when times weren’t so lucrative. They came up through the ranks in tough times we basically create our own markets to move our recycling the result is that 28 jobs were created. It’s a good investment. There’s great potential. Their methodology is source separation instead of mixing it all together. It used to be the argument in their favor the responsibility of sorting is the generator… the university that makes it cheaper for them to collect it… no sorting investment…the last time we reassessed it… they were facing some serious competition. One of the many things that contribute to our current economy actually. We’ve basically reached our potential at what we can achieve in this high energy place that lives on 10 week intervals The money we saved on reduced trash costs, we’ve got a consultant working to see how we can go after that other 70%.... we’re looking at maybe collecting it mixed up.

We’re already composting food… all those people giving us attention for one day is great… its exactly what Obama is trying to do to revive our economy. This operation is compatible to the environment good for the community and environment. During industry consolidation we turned to recycling. In the past there have been grass roots homegrown solutions… coming from Ohio university… homegrown… this composting thing you know why we’re doing this? We turn lemons into lemonade. This building (he points to Baker) they’re trying to compete for those education dollars… so they have this somewhat undersized waste area too small and bought an overly expensive dishwasher then didn’t use it. They were afraid students were going to walk out the door with the dishes, so they didn’t use real ones. So I said at least make it biodegradable and eventually the idea worked its way up through the email hierarchy until they said damn he’s right. One official said composting - we gotta make it happen. …We took this office of sustainability thing which has grown… through it we got $400,000 in grants for composting. Then the university put in 750,000, so Baker was really a catalyst for that…saves them on waste removal.

Areas we Need to improve? Demolition recovery…. Building projects we need to do a lot better… other thing we’re working on is green purchasing policies – how you consume as a university – Financing department keeps an eye on it. When they develop contracts for supplies they work in items that are environmentally friendly and lasting. Rutgers is a leader in this area…

We’re a leader in composting in Ohio. YSU is the only one also coposting and its like a little container outside the dining halls.… We’re swaggering right now when it comes to Ohio in that regard but we suck at recycling right now in my opinion


10. Of all the environmental issues that contribute to sustainability, make your case for recycling… why is it the most important? Its not the number one thing… its part of a holistic approach and to focus on one thing is a mistake… we’ve got to reinvent our society before it does us in… we’ve got 7 billion people living on less than a dollar a day… the U.S. consumes 40 to 60 percent… of the world’s resources…. We do things like support dictators who are very harsh on their own people so we can gobble up their resources… we have to get our shit together to be a better neighbor in the world. The last 8 years leadership has taken up 180 degrees in the opposite direction from unsuring our long term sustainability. Things like sustainability in the broad sense… with things like recycling and the economic development around it… it’s a better use of money, resources, cyclic sustainable way following nature’s cycling of natural eco laws… instead of our linear existence that’s going to boom and bust… there’s no where to go anymore. (colonization) we just happen to be the privileged few that live comfortably and if we don’t get our act together we’re done.

Follow up Email:

> 1. The organization's website says that the goal is to reach an 80%
> recycling level. How close did you say we were to that and what needs to
> change to break out of the "plateau" you mentioned to inch closer to the
> goal?

COMPOSTING WILL EAT INTO THIS AS WE IMPLEMENT IT AT ALL OF OUR FOOD VENUES.
REVAMPING OUR RECYCLING OPERATIONS
PERHAPS DEATH SQUADS
>
> 2. How does your org. "advertise" or try to communicate with the student
> body?

WE SUPPLY MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO RECYCLE
RECYCLEMANIA
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THEIR EFFORTS
WEBSITES
TONIGHT'S TRASH DANCE AT CASA FOR RECYCLEMANIA

This little piggy ate roast beef. This little piggy had none.

Reading Pollan's chapter really opened my eyes up to a new world of dimensions to the meat eating argument. So often in the past I have scoffed at preachy vegetarians using the simple logic of... it's natural to eat meat, our ancestors ate meat and, probably in the back of my mind, - and it just tastes so damn good. I was completely secure in my justifications. This piece though really does make you, as the author describes, either stop eating meat, or look away. With a very justifiable equality logic that puts species on an even (sometimes animals being above humans slightly in some instances) playing field, he makes it very hard to find excuses to justify our habits, as natural or old as they may be. What he really accomplishes though is bringing the reader along for his logic ride, inviting them into his brain as he attempts to justify the practice that he enjoys so much. This is his strongest asset; his ethos. He loves eating meat. He did not begin by throwing facts out about animal conditions although it finds its way into the argument. He simply shows his step by step process leading up to the arrival of his conclusions. He highlights his attempts to defy the animal rights groups and then provides their logical rebuttals. It is very effective in garnering reader trust and had me almost hanging on his conclusions to form my opinions. In short he is doing more than saying don't eat meat.... he is using the universal emotion of pain to begin a complex dialogue about whether we can justify this practice on a level any deeper than our love for the good old quarter pounder.

Shamus Eaton

Professor Rouzie

English 308J

2-3-09

What did the fish say when it hit the wall? Dam! This punch line, a favorite of mine, loses some its charm when the reality of a modern dam’s effect on the surrounding ecosystem sets in. The humorous image of a frustrated goldfish cursing his misfortune becomes altogether depressing when the image is replaced by one featuring droves of real life wild salmon butting up against each other, unable to continue their natural migration, decimating their population and threatening their future.
For many years the popular notions seemed to be that dams were a positive example of man cultivating nature to satisfy our needs. (Collier) In my mind, dams were always something to be admired. They seemed like a clean, efficient way to harness energy. The thought of using the flow of water seemed organic compared to images of burning coal or the risks of a large nuclear plant. This seemed to be the general consensus as our country went dam crazy after the structure’s inception. Over 75,000 of them have been constructed to alter rivers and serve our needs in this country. (Collier) After years of research though, it is evident that many dams have a lot more elements in the nearby ecosystems screaming ‘damn,’ or, perhaps not screaming at all as they become obsolete. Although dams do provide us with some value and utility, not all current dams are needed. There should be a calculated dam removal effort in the United States to return rivers with outdated dams back to their natural state. Dams that do still serve us do still depend on can be regulated and enhanced to lessen their burden on their surrounding ecosystems.
Rivers are objects of nature. They are unique from one another, boasting individual and distinct features that determine how the organisms surrounding a particular river operate effectively to survive. (Cristi) When dams are put in place this relationship is thrown out of balance. Suddenly, the way the organisms in the regions in direct proximity to the river are behaving in a way that the new landscape does not support. (Cristi) This fundamental change in a river greatly effects species that were adapted to the unique environment of the natural free flowing water stream.
Dams disrupt the reproductive cycle for many organisms because some species reproduce in accordance with water levels. When dams begin to regulate the water levels on humans’ terms man, many offspring are often born out of natural cycle decreasing their chances to survive. (Cristi) There are other subtle departures from the preexisting river that affect creatures that we don’t always see. Even the absence of debris in the water has ramifications. If sticks, leaves and dead plants find a home on the back of the dam they are unlikely to reach the species that rely on them for nourishment, protection and even homes. (Cristi)
One of the more documented harmful effects of the dam is its obstruction of fish species. A common byproduct of hydroelectric power is the harm to populations of fish that must migrate to the open water to, “complete their lifecycles.”(Cada) These fish suffer from a number of different injuries and deaths in passing through the turbines of dams. These mortality rates though are not set in stone. These numbers can be improved upon with the kind of dam regulation and improvement that this country should be working to make a priority. Diversion systems, improved screens for fish and passages for fish at spillways are all viable ways that dams should be required to work to provide or improve upon to ensure the future of many valuable species. (Cada) If a dam is still in good condition and providing utility to the point where its removal is out of the question, then it should be held to certain standards that make it as environmentally friendly as possible. These standards should include the safest turbines and fish screens or diversion systems. It is unacceptable for dams to operate without these features but these practices are a reality in our country.
Research has already shown that although, the risks of passing through dam turbines are tough to measure and calculate, improvement is achievable. Simply operating turbines closer to efficiency decreases the risks for fish. Some groups in the country are taking this into consideration and monitoring these operating levels during peak migration periods. (Cada)
The United States Army Core of Engineers has done extensive experimentation with the design of turbines to improve he mortality rate and have seen some success. Their work, and the work of other groups like them, has led to some small scale replacements and upgrades concentrated in the Northwest, but these proven methods should be mandatory in all parts of the country.
I am not in an idealist in that I do not believe that every dam can be removed, and we’ll still have all the energy we need and all fish and wildlife will go back to normal. Dams serve a purpose. They provide us with valuable commodities like cheap electricity and protection against erratic and frequent flooding. They provide irrigation and opportunities for recreation. (Collier) What I believe is that dams are overabundant and that we can achieve all of these commodities without sacrificing the integrity of our ecosystems in the manner that we are currently.
Although the prevalence of these structures has led us to believe that we can not function without them, the reality is that we have reached an age where many dams are unnecessary to achieve what we originally used them for. Progressive technologies have allowed us to harness the power of our rivers in new ways without essentially sticking a plug into them. (Collier)
In an article by Rupert Thapaliya posted by the organization Hydropower Reform Coalition on their blog, the model for what I think the future of damn activity should resemble. Careful calculated returns to natural flowing streams where it is possible. Thapaliya reports on the successful removal of four major dams on the Kalamth River.
Thapaliya first echoes my previous defense of removal starting that, “While dams serve a number of human needs, society has developed ways to address many of these needs without dams.”
He points out that, “flood control can often be accomplished more effectively and for less money by restoring wetlands, maintaining riparian buffers, or moving people out of the floodplain. Updating antiquated irrigation systems and replacing inappropriate crops can dramatically reduce the need for dams and reservoirs in the arid West.”
He calls for any energy that we do miss out on being made up for by conscious decisions that help our environment instead of hurt it. He admits that there was some power lost in the removal but that it could be, “replaced simply by replacing 75,000 light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs.”
Thapaliya also points out that many of the dams that are being phased out were barely making a dent in our energy production because they had already been out of service or their production was significantly less than when they were put in place.
In an article titled, “The Ecology of Dam Removal” on the American Rivers site, Steven Higgs states that, “While there are some limited short-term ecological consequences of dam removal, Bednarek’s study found that the long-term ecological benefits of dam removal—as measured in improved water quality, sediment transport, and native resident and migratory species recovery—demonstrates that dam removal can be an effective long-term river restoration tool.”
The article goes on to highlight various success stories around the country including Florida’s Dead Lake Dam on the Chipola River, Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in Maine, Woolen Mills Dam in Wisconsin and several dams on the Elwha River in Washington. All of these cases saw increases in diversity, natural flow, sediment flow and positive impacts on native species. (Higgs)
Even if the residents who live near these types of dams buy into the idea of dam removal there is still a great cost involved. The process of dam demolition and removal is not cheap but there is a great number of outlets to secure money for these projects. In an article about funding dam removal Betsy Otto outlines where to find money at all levels of government starting with the highest. She states that, “there is a remarkable array of federal programs and dollars that can be tapped for both removal and associated costs.” She goes on to highlight resources like, “Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Challenge Grants,
Community-Based Restoration (National Marine Fisheries Service), Chesapeake Bay Program’s Fish Passage Workgroup (U.S. EPA) and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (Natural Resources Conservation Service),” as some of the most commonly used sources for covering the monetary side of dam removal. It is not uncommon for state and local governments to get involved in dam removal either, on the basis of environmental protections and general safety precautions. (Otto 14)
In admitting that dams do provide a very real utility, I am calling for a streamlining of sorts. Like any wasteful practice, what is not needed should be rid of. The removal of dams and regulation of current dams to ensure the safety of its surrounding ecosystem needs to become common practice. Through legislation or other means of regulation there needs to be a precedent that forces us to take a long hard look at which dams can be replaced by a little ingenuity so that it is our harmful practices that become extinct and not our wildlife.

Works Cited
Baxter, R.M. “Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. . 8.1 (1977): 255-283.
Cada, Glenn F. “The Development of Advanced Hydroelectric Turbines to Improve Fish Passage Survival.” Fisheries 2001
Collier, Michael, Webb, Robert H., and Schmidt, John C. Dams and Rivers: A Primer on the Downstream Effects of Dams. Denver: U.S. Geological Survey, 2000.
Higgs, Steven. The Ecology of Dam Removal: A Summary of Benefits and Impacts. American Rivers 2002.
Otto, Betsy. Paying For Dam Removal: A Guide To Selected Funding Sources. American Rivers 2000.
“The Ecology of Dams.” Stream Biology and Ecology. 25 January 2009.