Come In, We're Closed

As students of the environment, we are bonded by trying to solve the largest problems of our world. But lurking in our midst, adjacent to our Nicholas School home in the Levine Science Research Center (LSRC), hides a problem of serious waste so easy but yet so difficult to fix: the perpetually shining lights at the Blue Express cafeteria.

Certainly you’ve noticed. Have you been fooled as I have, running to grab a late afternoon bite before class, desperately pulling on the cafeteria door, only to realize that no, it's CLOSED? But wait! That doesn’t make sense! The lights are on!

It is true- the lighting never varies in the Blue Express. Even if you stumble across it at midnight, you would think that it’s open (unless you are me and have learned the hard way). The cafeteria wastes thousands of dollars and contributes to more pollutants into the air by lighting a completely empty space when its closed for business, 16 hours every day. But neither you, nor I, nor anyone can turn the lights off—ever.

What can we do about this frustrating, age-old problem that still seems to plague so many spaces? If a building like the cafeteria can't use conventional light switches, then the space should use automatic motion sensors to control the lights. Bathrooms in the LSRC use motion sensors so that after several minutes of inactivity, lights will automatically turn off. Is there any reason that Duke couldn’t install these in the Blue Express? Do you have an idea that has worked in other cafeterias or open spaces?

Duke’s campus has made great strides in conservation before. The campus has reduced its water consumption through dual-flush toilets in many buildings, allowing people to use less than half the amount of water as a conventional toilet. Let’s push Duke to conserve on basic energy use, too. After all, nobody likes to be fooled by the lights.

The Issue of Liberal Fundamentalists

The post by the green eyed monster entitled "Defending Science from the Scientists" brought me back to my undergraduate curriculum in religion and environmental sicence and encouraged me to once again go down the dangerous road of Religion v. Science, God v. Evolution, and of course Richard Dawkins v. Anyone who will challenge him.

Richard Dawkins, the well known scientist, atheist, and author of The God Delusion, claims that belief in a supernatural creator qualifies as a delusion. This is an absurd claim for a scientist to make, since it is of course science that claims only physical observations can be observed or "proven." To imply that the physical sciences are capable of disproving the existence of an admittedly non-physical Being, seems to me unfounded. Dawkins should not use his position as an esteemed scientist to venture into the realm of things he has only superficially studied and try to influence the susceptible masses with flawed logic. This essay addresses Dawkins's argument more fully.

Dawkins sometimes comes across like the bully on the playground: he is usually the one who needs to reaffirm his position by beating up on those around him. Dawkins seems to believe that religion actually creates miserable people, wars, and damaging fundamentalist ideologies. While there are many historical examples that he can use (see the Crusades), I don't believe he has thought through the implications of his pseudo-logic. Much of what we do on a daily basis flies in the face of what scientific literalism tells us. For example, modern medicine's motto perhaps ought to be: keeping the unfit alive to reproduce and combat evolutionary theory since (insert year).

The unquestioned faith in anything claiming to be scientific that dominates most of the world's universities is explored in the recent documentary, Expelled. In this film, Ben Stein does a good job of exploring the current state of affairs in academia (and the "educated" world at large) regarding intellectual freedom, or lack thereof. In reality, popular academia is often controlled by scientific fundamentalists, who adopt the complete opposite, yet no less outlandish, perspectives associated with religious fundamentalism.

Scapegoating and ridiculing those who believe in God in the name of science is just an immature adults' game of "mine is bigger than yours."

An Elephant and the Environment

There’s a story about seeing an elephant. It goes something like this…

In the early days hundreds, perhaps thousands, of families loaded into canvas covered wagons and set out for the west. Can you imagine their sense of anticipation? Can you imagine their sense of discovery and potential? It must have been amazing. Amazing and epic.

The epicness is where the elephant comes into the story. It’s a long way from Jamestown to the Pacific. Anticipation, prospect, and hope can certainly fuel movement, but not forever. The slog westward was draining.

Of course some (the brave, the strong, the crazy) made it to the other side. But a lot of folks didn’t. At some point they paused and looked out across the infinite horizon and were overcome by the magnitude of their journey. They were swallowed by the vastness. And so they stopped; overcome by the endlessness of their journey. This, they said, was "seeing the elephant."

I’ve been thinking about this elephant recently.

What can we, as conservationists, learn from this story? To what extent does the elephant pose a problem today, as an obstacle to conservation and change?

Our scientific and technological capacity to analyze, model, measure, and quantify the world has expanded our understanding of the environment and environmental problems. And as a result we are more aware of the enormity of the problems we face then ever before.

Understanding is obviously important. We need to understand the science behind things like climate change. But our new awareness is a double-edged sword. Who hasn’t heard someone say, “It’s too late now,” or “We’re all screwed anyways"? Is this the same reaction some early settlers had?

This isn't the time to stop.

“I’M NO TREE-HUGGER”: PERSISTING STEREOTYPES PREVENT THE FULL-ON ‘GREENING’ OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

What comes to mind when someone says ‘environmentalist,’ or the oft synonymous word ‘tree-hugger?’ For many, these words conjure up a particular stereotype that has been traditionally associated with fringe groups. This has the unfortunate effect of marginalizing the idea of a ‘green’ way of life, and creating a perception among some groups in society that environmentalism is only for certain types of people.

But in this day and age, environmental problems exist on scales never before seen (e.g. climate change) and solving them will require that everyone adopt the ethos of the ‘hippie environmentalist,’ to some degree – a philosophy of harmony with nature and a low impact lifestyle. Regrettably, some major media outlets continue to perpetuate this stereotype, even as ‘going green’ becomes the new trend in American society.

Environmental issues have moved to being discussed in the sectors of business and finance, and the door has opened for a new type of environmental consciousness in the form of so-called ‘green consumerism’ – still the American consumer we know and love, but with a mind to making environmentally responsible choices with their purchasing power.

But the real challenge isn’t in getting people to buy ‘green,’ it’s in getting them to think ‘green.’

The question is: How do you go about changing people's perspectives?

The way to bring about large-scale, lasting change is to make environmental consciousness a truly mainstream phenomenon. When it becomes the norm for everyone to ‘think like an environmentalist,’ all sectors of society will change fundamentally...

...and we might finally see that being 'green' should be for everyone.

Defending Science from “Scientists”

Mankind's discoveries through the years of scientific exploration simply blow my mind. Although a comprehensive list of the most important scientific achievements goes well beyond the scope of a blog post, some of the most memorable moments in the history of science include:

• Identifying the double-helix sequencing of DNA
• Demonstrating that God doesn’t exist
• Describing the basic force of plate tectonics
• Harnessing electricity
• ...wait, what?

My list has been influenced by a recent ad campaign featured on the sides of London buses. The message on the ads is simple: "There's probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy life."

The ads came about in large part from the support of Richard Dawkins, a professor of Biology at Oxford University and a world-renowned atheist. Dawkins has expressed many times in interviews and debates (like this one from his website and this one from the Technology, Entertainment, and Design (TED) conference) a sentiment along the lines of: "I believe that the existence of a supreme being, a supernatural God, is a scientific hypothesis just like any other."

Far be it for me to contradict an esteemed Oxford professor, but as a student of science I think he's missing the mark. Environmentalists understand only too well the trouble of misrepresented science. Contentious political issues like global warming seem to encourage the misuse of scientific explanations:

• A cold winter day proves that global warming doesn't exist


• Earth history shows that the planet has warmed before, therefore humans are not causing the Earth to warm now


• A 10 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot possibly do any harm, since 10 is a small number and 1,000,000 is a big number

And, in all fairness, atheist scientists must not receive all of the blame for muddling good science and faith to the detriment of both.

We scientists (and here I mean any student of the scientific process) must fight to protect the legitimacy of the scientific method (and, if we have any time left over, we should still try to discover things). Science deals with all things observable, all things part of nature; in other words, all things natural.

Science cannot see God, whether or not God is there to be seen. So to address the question of God in scientific terms harms scientific integrity. Every time someone tries to back up a non-scientific idea with science, no matter the argument or the purity of their intentions, they harm the credibility of truly scientific explorations.

We, as human beings, have a staggering amount of ideas and opinions. But we must always distinguish between what we have shown to be true and what we believe to be True, no matter how well founded we believe our ideas to be.

Earth, Wind, and Fire: Creating True Multi-Use Landscapes

Despite recent winter congestion in my head, ideas about wind have been passing through on a regular basis. A proven technology with potential for exponential growth, wind power is an unobtrusive, clean energy source. And possibly a way to get more than just reductions in CO2 emissions.

Opponents of wind power have argued that it kills birds (true but unsubstantial, here, here, and here), degrades landscapes (a matter of opinion), or results in health problems like wind turbine syndrome (a possible reason for creating federal residential setback standards?). However, it seems increasingly clear that the benefits of wind power far outweigh its negatives. These many benefits and wind power’s increasing competitiveness with other forms of energy have led me to believe that on top of leading the charge of green energy, wind power will sustain it.

My mind conjures up images of a flat barren ground, wind whistling through the air, with turbine upon turbine stretching out over the horizon, supplying millions of kilowatts of clean energy. But recently I've realized that the barren ground in my vision could hold as much potential as the slow slinging blades above.

To get enough energy with wind power to meet growing demand will require the installation of large scale wind farms that cover vast areas. Many people have championed the idea that these wind farms be located in marginal areas, thus avoiding damage to sensitive ecosystems. That is smart planning, but can’t we do more? Even marginal lands can be used for more than just turbine installation sites.

A couple of potential land-use combinations spring to mind:

1) Biofuels and Wind - Much has been made about the potential to grow switchgrass, a source of cellulosic ethanol, on marginal lands. Why not combine wind and switchgrass production and get a two for one energy source?

2) Grazing and Wind - Picture vast herds of livestock under vast rows of wind turbines. Need I say more?

3) Prairies and Wind - Many conservationists have decried the loss of what were once two of the largest ecosystems in North America, native tall and short grass prairies. At first a marriage between wind farms and prairie restoration may seem like a stretch, but I think that with proper planning it holds a lot of potential.

4) Prairies, Bison, and Wind - Think idea number 2, but this time with herds of bison roaming through long stretches of restored native prairie. Food, biodiversity, and energy, all in one place.

So the next you think about wind energy, try to think beyond just the turbine.

Giant Hissing Cockroach - friend or foe?

My presentations with the Madagascan Giant Hissing Cockroaches at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry typically resulted in numerous shrieks from visitors.

But, many guests were also surprised to learn that these non-biting insects are highly social and oftentimes hiss to attract mates or defend their territory.

So, what is it about these creatures that makes them initially appear threatening? Is it their spiky legs or bushy antennae? Or, is the problem more deeply rooted in our cultural or evolutionary past?

According to Dr. Phillip Weinstein, a psychologist and professor at the University of Otago, entomophobia (the fear of insects, spiders, and mites) is:

1. a reasonable fear based on knowledge or experience (i.e. wasp or bee sting)
2. an unreasonable but culturally understandable repulsion, or
3. a misplaced fear resulting from inadequate information

To reduce the misplaced fears of visitors at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, my fellow educators and I emphasized the fact that the Madagascan Giant Hissing Cockroaches do not bite or attack. Instead, they make "hissing" noises that help them to attract potential mates, communicate with their young, or defend their territory from predators or other cockroaches.

As these visitors learned to empathize with a variety of organisms, they also began to learn the values of biodiversity and environmental conservation. Several previously apprehensive visitors even thanked us for helping them “overcome their fear” of Madagascan Giant Hissing Cockroaches and other insects.

So, the next time you see a "scary-looking" creature, what will you think: friend or foe?

What's on your dinner plate?

Which is worse for global warming-the fork or the SUV? To many the answer seems obvious—we all know how fuel efficient those Dodge Durango and GMC Yukons are.

But the answer is actually the fork, at least when that fork is being used to eat a big slab of meat. Our meat-heavy western diet is heating up our climate in a big way. A 2006 United Nations report that received little media attention, “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” examined how the industry impacted land use, water pollution, air pollution, and biodiversity loss.

It concluded that worldwide livestock farming accounts for 18% of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 13% from all the planet’s cars, trains, planes and boats combined. The majority of emissions come from deforestation, since the constantly increasing demand for meat means clearing land to create pastures or farmland for growing animal feed.

In addition, every day factory farmed animals produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population of the U.S.—87,000 lbs. of waste per second! Much of this ends up in giant pits in the ground or on crops, which eventually pollutes the air and groundwater.

So now we know what comes out of this industry, but what goes in? According to an E Magazine article “The Case Against Meat,” 4.8 pounds of grain is needed to produce 1 pound of beef. With so many starving people in the world, is it ethical to feed our growing desire for meat instead of feeding people? The article’s author says that the next time you sit down for an 8 oz. steak, think about “the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of you.” Overly dramatic? Maybe. But perhaps we need some dramatic imagery these days.

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that if the U.S. reduced its meat production by just 10%, it would free up enough grain to feed 60 million people. And what do meat producing companies respond to? Customer demand.

So my question is why more environmental organizations aren’t advocating vegetarianism or even reduced meat consumption as an environmental solution to everything from local water pollution to global warming. Hopefully this will change soon. Even the head of the U.N.’s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, recently urged the world to cut back on meat in order to combat climate change.

I encourage you to start thinking more about what you’re eating and where it comes from. Even if you don’t give up meat completely, you can start by cutting out one or two meat meals a week. And next time you get a mailing or email from a major environmental organization, by all means support them, but also send them a note asking them why they’re missing out on such a huge opportunity to make a difference.

Is the Renewable Fuel Mandate Reasonable?

Given the well-documented energy price increases in 2008 and our very uncertain energy future, the Renewable Fuel Mandate, passed by Congress as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 needs to be reconsidered. This legislation requires a gradual ramping up of ethanol production, from the current 10 billion gallons to a total of 31 billion gallons by 2022, in an effort to achieve greater energy independence. This number includes 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol and 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol.

The negative consequences of corn ethanol’s life cycle in terms of soil erosion, water quality, and energy balance have been well documented, so there has recently been greater attention given to cellulosic ethanol. The problem is that technology and land use plans are lagging behind on the cellulosic ethanol front. The Billion Ton Study, produced by the Department of Energy and the United States Department of Agriculture in 2005, estimates that there are 1.3 billion tons of biomass available annually for the production of cellulosic ethanol. While a careful reading of this report doesn’t give away any glaring flaws in the assessment, sustainably harvesting this biomass and converting it into ethanol with little or no environmental degradation and in a cost effective way is clearly a gargantuan task.

This task is made even more difficult by the fact that different regions of the country are better adapted for different sorts of feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production. For example, the south has a plethora of forest products while the heartland has agricultural residues like corn stover and the potential for large-scale growth of perennial grasses.

There are many obstacles to the efficient production of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. The most prominent on the front end are the harvest, transportation, and storage of millions of tons of feedstocks. On the back end, the conversion processes are different than the already well-established corn ethanol facilities, so the infrastructure and technology development that must occur will be extremely expensive.

At the end of the day, this Congressional mandate promotes a good idea: produce renewable fuels to help the United States become more energy independent. If it is to be seen as a lofty goal to provide a sense of urgency, I applaud Congress’s chutzpa. However, if the requirement remains set in stone regardless of the land use changes, water quality degradation, increased erosion patterns, and habitat loss that could ensue, future generations might look back and wonder what we were thinking.

The Future of Oz: Wildfires, heat waves, and climate change

During the 18 years I spent growing up in Perth, Western Australia, I never experienced Christmas with a “real” Christmas tree. We used a plastic tree (as did many other families) for fear that our house would catch on fire in the intense summer heat.

That fear has become a reality for many in recent months after Australia’s latest wildfires – the worst in the nation’s history - killed over 180 people. Almost 500,000 acres and over 700 homes were destroyed by the fires that spread throughout Victoria, a state in south-eastern Australia.

Just a week ago I was reading about the worst heat wave on record in this very same state. Temperatures soared up to 115 degrees Fahrenheit – the hottest on record. Unprecedented droughts in the region combined with extreme heat created the perfect fuel for this blistering inferno. Experts are saying that this is only the beginning of the effects of climate change that Australia will face in coming years.

Fires have been a part of the Australian landscape for millions of years. The natural ecosystems have evolved; the plants have adapted. But, add people to this vast and relatively empty continent and fire becomes a terrifying prospect.

All it takes is a single spark from a cigarette or a lightning strike, and the grasses will light up, the dried bush will catch on fire, and then the wind comes…. Before too long, you have a glowing river of flames expanding across the landscape. You would have to search very hard to find an Australian who is not afraid of wildfires. We all know someone who has been affected.

These recent fires are the worst in Australia’s history since the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983 and the Black Friday fires of 1939 that devastated south-east Australia. This region is considered to be one of the most fire-prone areas in the world, along with southern California. Both regions are predicted to be at greater risk of wildfires as a result of climate change.

According to a World Bank Report (see here), Australia increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 38% between 1994 and 2004 making it the sixth highest per capita emitter in the world -- mostly as a result of their dependence on coal-fired power. So, what is Australia's response to climate change? Their current target is only a pitiful 5% reduction by 2020. This is not enough if we want to avoid a repeat of these fires (see this link for recommended actions).

Luckily this most recent fire did not reach the state’s most populated areas, but what about next time? My own hope is that we can find better solutions to wildfire management in Australia before we need to resort to living in fire proof homes below the scorched surface.

If you want to encourage Australian politicians to take action on climate change, check out TheBigSwitch.org.au. This organization is working to encourage Australians to talk to their local politicians to take action.

Is Environmentalism a Religious Issue?

Is Environmentalism a Religious Issue?

Recently I had a revelation when watching a documentary about how various religions are becoming more environmentally minded. Surely if all the religious leaders of the world began to preach about the responsibility of people to care for the Earth, there would be huge positive implications for the environmental movement.

Many Americans have never thought about how religion relates to environmentalism. Have you? Well it does – in a big way! And in fact many of the arguments for and against the protection of nature and biodiversity stem from religious teachings.

As a result of my recent revelation I jumped at the chance to take a course this semester at the Nicholas School about Spirituality and Ecology. Through the class we’ve been introduced to a Communications Handbook entitled Ethics for a Small Planet produced by The Biodiversity Project. In it, world religions are grouped into three broad categories based on their thoughts about biodiversity and the natural world. This is an extremely simplistic version of religious-environmental views, but interesting none the less. They are:

• Earth-based, Animistic, and Pantheistic Religions: humans relationship with nature is one of kinship as opposed to management or oversight and it is based on harmony with nature across generations
• Asian and Eastern Religions: humans living in harmony with nature and showing respect for all living beings has great significance
• Monotheistic Religions: humans have the responsibility of being stewards of the Earth, but they may also be viewed as dominators of the Earth

No matter if you practice Christianity or Buddhism, Zoroastrianism or Shinto, are atheist or agnostic, your religious, cultural and/or spiritual beliefs have influenced the way you treat nature. The Bible, other sacred texts, and oral spiritual traditions passed down over generations make thousands of references to the environment. The interpretation of these texts and words continuously shape views about human being’s relationship with the Earth and other living creatures. While some religious views put humans on a pedestal giving them the right to exploit the Earth’s resources, other views see humans as caretakers of a sacred Earth and on an equal level with all living things.

One interesting attempt by the Sierra Club, the USA Human Society and the National Council of Churches to get the word out about the relationship between environmentalism and the environment is The Green Bible. This "new" version of the Bible highlights over 1,000 references to the Earth using green text. Their hope is that The Green Bible will "equip and encourage people to see God's vision for creation and help them engage in the work of healing and sustaining it.”

I can’t hope that green words alone will inspire people to action. I can hope, however, that environmentalists and religious leaders alike will help to open up a wider dialogue about how environmentalism is a religious issue – and hopefully that will open a subsequent dialogue about the role that religious and spiritual people inherently have in dealing with environmental issues.

So the next time you pray, or go to the synagogue, or find yourself in a spiritual moment, stop and take some time to think about how your religious or spiritual views have shaped your environmental ethic. You may be surprised at what you find!

photo from: www.jerryrussell.com/pages/RelignCovr.htm