Last week during the Environmental Panel, one of the main issues that was addressed was “fracking”. “Fracking” or, as it is scientifically known, hydraulic fracturing is the process of using pressurized water to create fissures deep underground so that natural gas can be extracted from rock. “Fracking” has become a very controversial topic especially in NY because even though there are many economic benefits, there are also many environmental consequences. I am of the belief that there should be no fracking. The main reason I am against fracking is the effect it has on the farmers or whoever lives on the land surrounding where the fracking takes place. First off, while the people are paid a great deal of money for the frackers to use their land, many of them do not know what to do with their new found wealth. This leads to them blowing a large portion of their money on outlandish purchases and then they are back to where they started. The target market for fracking companies are poor communities because when shown a contract for a large amount of money, it is simply an offer they cannot refuse. Another reason that I am against fracking is the environmental harm that it causes. There are many cases where people’s tap water is actually flammable (See youtube video below). If there was a process where the gas can be extracted in an environmentally friendly way and where once the people get paid there would be a financial adviser assigned to help them budget their money, then I would be fine with the process, but until then no fracking.

The panel of professors discussing the environment addressed many issues that have been widely reported upon for years. While it seems the world is making progress towards addressing these issues, improvement still is not fast enough. Unfortunately, if we do not act on climate change quickly it may be too late.

Often people are more likely to act on issues that directly impact them or when they believe that their action will be impactful. For many people neither of these conditions are met and thus little action is taken. The professors talked about designing economic policies to ensure that people and companies consider the environment in their production decisions. This process involves taxing actions which harm the environment. If these policies are to have a serious chance of impacting climate change they need to be multi-national and implemented with a sense of urgency.

If only one country in a region implements these policies many businesses will move to nearby nations to avoid costs. Also, since it takes time for pollutants to dissipate from the atmosphere changes should be implemented rapidly in order to have the best chance of success.

Despite the challenges, it was encouraging to hear about people who are making a difference. For example, the activists who help stop fracking in New York made a sizable difference through collective action. Also, I was excited to hear that Cornell is using innovative methods to be more environmentally friendly such as using water from the lake for air conditioning.

I also hope that other small changes will collectively make a major difference. One idea I have is turning off the hallway lights in the dorms at night. They could be activated my motion sensors just like the lights in the bathroom.

Professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe candidly discussed environmental issues that we face around the world and in our own backyard. I was most intrigued when fracking in Ithaca was brought up. I just saw today that Cornell is the sixth most beautiful rural college campus in the U.S. While I was not on campus when people were fighting those who wanted to do fracking here, I understand the outrage. I probably would think twice about coming to a school where I know the water could be contaminated. Global warming is a major issue but so often people are overwhelmed by everything that they need to do to solve it that the result is inaction. Although they did not specifically say this, it seems like people generally become the most invested in a project about global warming when it is tangible. Fighting fracking in Ithaca had a clear purpose and timeline. This makes it easier to commit to. The problem is that global warming is not, nor will it ever be, something easy to fix and the professors acknowledged this. Due to their different backgrounds, there was often disagreement about the best approaches economically and environmentally to reduce pollution. The ambiguity that results from no one really knowing how to solve climate change means fewer people are prone to try to solve it. In a room of arguably engaged and intelligent students, you would think there would be more environmental activism but there was very little. It is important that we remember that while this is a big issue, it can be broken down into more specific goals, such as getting Cornell to divest from fossil fuels and that these are the things we should focus on if we want to get anything done.

Climate change and other environmental issues can be viewed from more than just a scientific lens. This is something I learned at the Environmental Panel that included Professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe, two of whom are Economics professors. The talk was heavily focused on the different forms of renewable energy and their many drawbacks, as well as the tradeoffs faced by countries and corporations when dealing with environmental issues such as air pollution and waste disposal. Many of the threads of conversation seemed to be tied by a common theme: that efforts and benefits are relative to their scope. For instance, fracking is largely seen as a negative practice, and was largely opposed in New York State. However, compared to other methods of obtaining sources of energy, such as mountaintop removal, fracking (especially using modern technology such as horizontal fracking) is much less harmful, though the full effects of breaking up shale rock deep underground are still being studied. Likewise, though the U.S. is trying to make progress in capping the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by factories throughout the country, if China, who is by far the world’s greatest polluter, continues at current levels or increases their CO2 output, the world is not better off due to the effects of such “externalities” discussed in great detail during the talk. Essentially, the world has to agree on a plan to reduce greenhouse gases and actually stick to it in order to make a consequential difference. This, however, poses a major economic and political challenge that is yet nowhere close to being resolved.

Although the panelists each offered interesting points and ideas, I think that the discussion lacked cohesion and direction. As an audience member, I don’t have a clear take away besides the fact that no one can agree on what needs to be done, which I suppose accurately reflects reality. However, I would have appreciated a more impassioned and focused discussion on what I consider to be an extremely important topic.

During last week’s Rose Café events, Professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe discussed a number of environmental issues both domestically and abroad. Due to the professors’ various backgrounds, the panel was very diverse. While at times there was disagreement about an international vs. domestic approach on pollution control, for the most part, the professors agreed upon the most cost effective and most environmentally sounds approach to tackle these issues.

Remarkably, when the professors asked who was involved with environmental activism, beyond shutting off your lights when you leave a room, the response was very underwhelming. While I am conscious about polluting our environment and wasting our valuable resources, I feel as though I could be doing much more. Although I agree that I should be involved more with environmental activism, I am rather frustrated by how the professors danced around environmental protection actions. I believe the professors’ lack of complete support for any one particular environmental measure stems from their cost benefit analysis. While trade offs are a huge factor to consider, such as fracking over using coal, they cannot and should not discourage people to the point where they do nothing at all.

Overall, I enjoyed this particular question and answer session. However, in the future I would recommend the professors engaging in a more informative discussion with some sort of presentation to educate the audience on some of the current environment debates in order to provoke a more nuanced discussion. I truly look forward to attending, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, this upcoming week. While I do not know a whole lot about environmental activism and ‘environmental terrorism,’ I am eager to learn about the issues.

Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe shared their knowledge about environmental issues and climate change. One of the most striking things to me was how they viewed environmental pollution. In essence, pollution is viewed through an economic lens as an “externality.” As such, it needs to be regulated in order to find the best possible amount of pollution. I never thought about it in the way of cost benefit analysis.

It is difficult to incite action from the people with regard to environmental issues, considering everyone sees them as far away in the future. Few know that they can take small, every day action in order to improve the over all conditions of the world. I sat there wondering what I could possibly do to help the environment right now, and then realized that with this kind of mentality nothing will be done. The panel was enlightening to me because it gave me the message that something must be done and this starts on an individual level.

After attending the Rose-Becker Cafe–Environmental Panel on October 14th, I realized that there are many aspects of environmental awareness I am not aware of. In the event, Professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe discussed both domestic and international environmental issues. I was very surprised when I learned from the panel that there is still no global agreement on what the CO2 cap should be. Every year, there are always some kind of environmental conference, or summits attended by states representative to discuss environmental problems and potential solution. I was shocked to find out there was not an international agreement on capping carbon dioxide despite all these summits. Domestically, the U.S. has the Clean Air Act, but turns out it only poses some limits on the greenhouse gas(GHG) on certain facilities and there is no limit to the country’s carbon dioxide emission as a whole. Yet, the EPA has been putting effort into reducing GHG emission through increasing stringency of GHG emission through imposing different restriction on chemicals use in the transportation and industrial sectors. Around the world, the Kyoto Protocol commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The most recent negotiations were held in have different countries to agree on a post-Kyoto legal framework that would obligate all major polluters to pay for CO₂ emissions. However, China, India, and the United States have all signaled that they will not ratify any treaty that will commit them legally to reduce CO₂ emissions. It seems like there is a difficult balance between boosting domestic economy and committing to environmental protection. For example, as Prof. Li mentioned, in China, heavy industrial activities that emits high concentration of GHG are common because the states government want their states to have high gross domestic product and fortify their economy. Perhaps, the concern about facilitating the country’s own economy causes most country to be taken aback when it comes to committing themselves legally on CO2 emission reduction.

Last week Wednesday, a panel of professors from Cornell answered various questions about the environment. Professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe answered many questions with topics ranging from energy sources to environmental activism. Each professor specialized in a different part of environmental science and it was interesting to see the three of them tackle questions from different views.
Despite having different specialties, they all shared the same core message that every environmental action can be analyzed through its costs and benefits. This was a very new idea to me, as I have always thought of environmental activities as very black or white. Either activity ‘X’ is bad for the environment or activity ‘X’ is good for the environment. After attending this event, I learned that this is not always the case and that there are some grey areas. For example, while fracking may have negative consequences on the environment, it releases a lot less carbon than the burning of coal. People need to get their energy from somewhere so would we rather use fracking or coal.
Another topic that I enjoyed was the topic about environmental activism. The overall theme with environmental activism is that there is a lot of concern over the environment but not much is being done. When asked by the panel if any of us were concerned about the environment, everyone in the audience raised their hand. However, when asked if any of us participated in activities to help the environment, only a couple of people raised their hand. I was guilty of not raising my hand for the latter question and personally, I feel that the environmental problem is too large for me to make a difference. However, according to the panel, the easiest way to help the environment is to become educated on being environmental conscious and to spread this education wherever you go.
Overall, I thought that the event was good. I really enjoyed seeing the three professors working together and using their knowledge of different areas of environmental science to answer the audience’s questions. The Q&A format was also a nice change to the typical “presentation” or lecture format seen in most Rose Café events.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and general consensus of the scientific community, the issue of climate change continues to be a major source of controversy for some skeptics. One can argue that this very skepticism is preventing the implementation of public policies and measures that would challenge climate change. For example, if one adamantly denies climate change, he or she is probably more likely to support the process of fracking because he or she is ignorant of its consequences to the environment.

One of the professors mentioned that a carbon tax could be effective in deterring pollution and fossil fuel use. Professor Shanjun Li also commented on levels of air pollution in China. My roommate, an international student from China, has told me that one must sometimes wear a mask when going outside in Beijing because of high levels of air pollutants, especially during the Winter. I find this to be quite disturbing and upsetting. It was also very interesting to hear that Cornell utilizes lake-source cooling (thanks for cooling my room Cayuga Lake).

On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis released his encyclical, “Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home.” In this powerful document, the leader of over 1 billion Catholics around the world addressed the consequences of climate change, environmental degradation, and social inequality. The Earth is our common home. According to Pope Francis, we, therefore, have a moral obligation to protect it. The effort to protect it, however, is going to require a united effort. In order to unite, we must first all be on the same page. In other words, we must all recognize the truth about climate change and the impact it will have on future generations. I believe our home is a very precious and beautiful gift. To echo the words of Pope Francis: “Laudato Si, mi Signore.” Or, to translate, “Praise be to you, my Lord!”

As human beings, one of our greatest flaws is selfishness. We tend to make decisions that ultimately benefit us or we make decisions to feel better about ourselves. Now a days, it appears that nothing is taken for granted more than the environment, for it is just an aspect of everyone’s life that never changes. Yet, it goes without saying that we are the greatest threat to the environment, for we have the choice of conserving it or destroying it. At the Rose Café this past Wednesday, it was interesting to hear about the various issues that occur globally such as fracking and extreme climates. Although I was aware of what both concepts were, I realized that it hardly was of a concern to me because it is not something that I am constantly worried about, nor seems to be a prevalent issue when in fact it is. That is not to say that it should be an issue to cause paranoia, but it would not hurt anyone to become more educated about the threats that our planet is facing as time progresses.

There has been great improvement regarding the sustainability in our environment over the past few years. I recall that as a child recycling and reusing were never a big issue that schools and neighborhoods worried about. But now there are various recycling, composting, and landfill options for where to place one’s trash. Also, more reminders are being communicated regarding conserving water and saving electricity whenever possible. The environmental concerns are being addressed by certain government policies; for instance, there are restrictions on fishing in particular areas, more nature reservations are being created, and construction regulations are being reinforced with more consequences. We only have one Earth as far as we now, so it is critical to preserve and appreciate the various resources that are available to us currently because once they are used, it will take a long time before we get them back again.

While people have heard of the term ‘global warming’, many fail to look at the causes of climate change. But thanks to Professors Greg Poe, David Wolfe, and Shanjun Li, they shed some light onto the problems that plague the world physically as well as politically.

For instance, education progresses along with technology and teams of engineers and scientists have constantly been searching for alternatives for fossil fuel. One method known as fracking, which involves pumping fluid into the ground after drilling wells, allows users to harvest natural gas. However, there are environmental trade offs. By drilling into the ground and forcing liquid through the said holes, fracking creates cracking in shale. But what damage does breaking the shale cause in addition to destroying the underground environment? Nearby water transport systems that carry water to and from residencies could potentially be contaminated by chemicals and methane.

Another contributing factor to climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. Japan and Germany have reverted going back to burning coal in lieu of using nuclear sources due to the recent power plant meltdowns. And while nuclear power plants provide enough energy, they produce nuclear waste, which is potentially more dangerous than the byproducts of burning coal. However, Professor Shanjun Li and Professor David Wolfe told us to take note of recent development of fourth generation nuclear technology in China. Instead of creating more wastes, these new power plants are able to recycle old wastes to generate power.

While these alternatives are still in process of being adopted by other countries, Professor Shanjun Li shifted the focus of the talk onto international policy by extending the points he presented with Japan and Germany. Since most countries burn coal (not limited to just Japan and Germany), the toxic byproducts affect the Earth as a whole. But how can this be justified? If one country burns more coal than another, shouldn’t there be regulation rules to account for these differences? Unfortunately, the current policies, as Professor Greg Poe mentioned, are not enough to motivate companies or countries to stop burning coal.

The question therefore poses a dilemma. If a heavy tax is put on the burning of fossil fuels in the United States, this would most likely reduce the production of pollutants in the air. However, if another country refuses to apply this tax, profits from the United States could be given to the other country. A possible solution would be to create a system of caps and limits, which each country allotted a certain amount relative to firms and population. This way, there would be a system where there is active trading and reduction of overproduction of toxic byproducts.

While the issue of environmental policies are still being debated, there are ways that we can contribute to the environment as individuals! Cornell has a plethora of initiatives at the ‘Sustainable Campus’ webpage, but if you are not up to joining a club, turning off your lights when you leave the house or turning off the faucet when you’re brushing your teeth are ways to contribute as well!

I joined my peers Wednesday evening to partake in a discussion concerning the biggest threats to the environment. Lead by a panel of experts. Professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe whom are leading professionals in the scientific and economic field of climate change and environmental degradation, the discussion brought up serious topics concerning environmental degradation and societal indifference towards such. Among the topic of conversation also arose many innovative ideas for environmental conservation, such as alternative methods of energy harvesting, and the associated social, financial, and political obstructions to the implementation of such methods.

Fracking, the process of pumping fluid horizontally into the ground to collect natural gas, is a recent issue brought to the attention of the city of Ithaca. Prospective fracking was planned to occur within many parts throughout upstate New York, but thanks to persistent protest as well as economic reasons (it had become cheaper to halt drilling because of the falling value of natural gas), the plans to do so were ceased. Although an effective method of energy generation, it has several environmental consequences, such as incurring water contamination, droughts, and climate change in addition to displacing hundreds of individuals from their homes. Such controversial methods are a direct result of our inability to have the foresight to think about and act upon preventing the environmental consequences of our decisions.

The panel had actually proposed a solution to counteract our indifference and carelessness  in regards to conservation: taxation for pollution. In this way, individuals as well as larger corporations are more willing to take the extra step to find more environmentally friendly methods of production, rather than face the consequential fines. Otherwise, these corporations will be ruthless in their efforts to cut corners and to set aside safety and environmental concerns for profit.

Following house dinner, the Becker Rose Café had professors Greg Poe, David Wolde, and Shanjun Li come and host an environmental panel. They began the discussion by asking people what environment problems we have concerns about. I raised my hand and answered that fracking was seen as a big environmental concern nowadays.

I learned about fracking in my AP Chemistry class junior year. Once finished with the AP, our teacher thought it was important that we become more aware of our environment and learn about problems facing us today. One of the topics she covered was fracking. We actually watched a documentary that was filmed on the effects of fracking. Basically, fracking also known as hydraulic fracturing is a process when gas companies drilling down into the Earth and then a high pressure mixture of water and chemicals is released to hit the rock below the Earth and releases gas. Although the actual drilling is vertical, the process takes place vertically. One of my classmates also wrote their senior thesis paper on hydraulic fracturing, and she got the opportunity to speak with lobbyists and some Senators working to stop fracking. The gas companies, have a lot of money and therefore a lot of leverage in politics, so fracking continues to devastate several areas with little responsibility placed on gas companies.

When brought up at the panel, the three professors all chose to look at the benefits to fracking. They admitted that there were some negatives to fracking, but these effects were so minimal compared to the benefits gained from it. They said that virtually everything we do has a negative consequences. If this is true, what is the point of raising awareness of the destruction of forests, global warming, and other environmental problems? Where should the line be drawn with hurting the environment and benefitting society?

It’s true that fracking is a good resource for gas, but the negative effects are severely downplayed. The state of New York has banned fracking, so people are not aware of the negatives to fracking. I remember watching a video that shows how contaminated and dirty the water is and in fact, you could set the water on fire because gas has contaminated the water supply. I remember seeing images of sick animals who drank this water, and yet gas companies claim that the water contamination is not due to fracking. They dismissed the fact that people and animals got cancer and other diseases at the same time they started drilling for oil by “coincidence.” While the panelists brought up the positives to fracking, I couldn’t help but think back to the sick individuals who were manipulated by gas companies into allowing them to drill on their property. At the very least, gas companies should own up to the problems they have caused and they should offer some compensations for individuals affected.

At this week’s Becker-Rose cafe, professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe answered our questions concerning the environment and gave us insightful opinions. Everybody knows that it is important to protect the environment, but when it comes to how to protect the environment, a lot of problems come about.

One of the problems is energy. People have been debating for years whether nuclear power is a source of “green” energy. It does not cause mass pollution, but treating nuclear waste is still a big problem. Moreover, since the Fukushimi nuclear disaster, the safety of nuclear power has been a huge concern, and countries such as Japan and Germany are rethinking their nuclear policies. I realize how hard it is to make a decision with so many factors to consider.

The professors also mentioned that enforcing environmental tax on firms is a good way to make firms pay for polluting and encourage them to use more eco-friendly means of manufacturing. However, the environment problem is a global problem, and decisions such as imposing tax are made by country. Issues such as climate change and ocean pollution have worldwide impacts, but international collaboration does not seem strong enough. We have not yet reached a global consensus on how we should work together to protect the environment. But as the professors said, no matter in what way we choose to collaborate, we need to collaborate.

Although there are so many problems, I am happy to learn that Cornell is doing a lot to help the environment. Cornell has its own hydroelectric plant, and I was surprised to learn that we cool our building in the summer by using the deep cool water in Cayuga Lake. Now Cornell is planning to use the deep geothermal energy thousands of mile beneath the ground to heat our buildings. I feel this is quite a bold decision to make, since nobody had done this before and it is quite risky. I am proud that Cornell cares about the environment and I believe we as Cornellians should do what we could to help, such as recycling, reusing plastic bags, shortening our shower time and walking instead of driving.

“As students that are getting ready to start voting, it is important to think about what issues are most concerning to you,” said our panelists, Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe, at the Becker-Rose Café on the Environment. The panelists shared that to them, environmental policies are important to look for during the elections and to them, regulations are absolutely critical because anything humans do require some sort of environmental trade off so policy and cost-benefit analysis is extremely important.

Although some politicians believe strongly in free markets and do not agree with environmental regulations, regulations minimize negative externalities. The reason we have climate change and all of this mess with our environment is that individuals are not aware they are contributing to it. People should be allowed to “buy” whatever they want but if it comes with a cost to society, they should pay for that cost. People should “pay to pollute” with either a tax or import tariff. The problem is choosing a policy that other countries can agree to.

And why should we want other countries to agree? We should not be focusing on environmental impact in the USA only. We all live in the same world; CO2 emissions in China account for 22% of emissions in the entire world. So if the USA puts in policies to reduce emissions but China does not, we lose our comparative advantage to Chinese firms and pollution does not decrease because China would still be producing more and releasing emissions. However, China is presently moving ahead the USA which will hopefully incentivize other countries. WE NEED AN INT. AGREEMENT / TO WORK TOGETHER AND ADRESS THIS PROBLEM! However, one big global agreement may not be the best way to go. What would be more effective? That? Or Little partnerships? The best strategy forward is not clear. What is clear is that we need to work together.

At this week’s Rose Cafe event, three professors (Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe) came to speak about contemporary environmental issues, offering an economist’s take on them. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Lake Source Cooling is an environmentally sustainable project that keeps West Campus chilled by using Lake Cayuga as a heat sink. I was also quite interested to learn about Cornell’s ties to environmental activism and the creation of technology for sustainability initiatives.

Yet what stood out to me was the emphasis on creating incentives to drive environmental change. This makes some sense to me as a psychology student; rewards are typically better at shaping behavior than punishment, as the latter only informs the subject of what they shouldn’t do, not what they should do. Spritzing a puppy with water because he made a mess on the kitchen floor will discourage further accidents in that room, but the little fur ball may just ruin your bedroom rug instead of learning to use the newspaper corner. The capitalist economic system we currently inhabit thrives on self-interest and typically looks scornfully on restraints that threaten its expansion. Environmental policy can thus be made more effective by giving regulations a new spin; instead of looking at them as punishing polluters, rework them so that they are seen as rewarding efforts to reduce pollution.

The importance of incentives also relates to the impact of the falling price of oil. Many recent projects once promoted by the fossil fuel industry have gone south simply because they were not profitable. The Keystone XL pipeline was seen as not worth the controversy when the oil it would transport became less valuable. Oil exploration in the Arctic has stalled due to the same phenomenon. While these recent developments do demonstrate how political resistance can block undesirable business deals, they also suggest that if something is valuable enough, people will be willing to deal with lots of flack in order to obtain it.

This week at the Rose/Becker Café, a panel of professionals answered any and all questions students had regarding environmental sustainability and environmental economics. They touched on topics ranging from fracking in Ithaca to nuclear waste in France to the pollution levels in Beijing. However, I was most intrigued by the points they brought up about the actions Cornell University has taken to do their part as a leading institution and global leader.

Cornell aims to be a carbon-neutral campus by 2035.

            This goal places our university at the forefront of collegiate environmental activism. Cornell already uses lake-source cooling; instead of using a traditional air conditioning unit to cool our (rare) warm days, they pump cool water from the surrounding lakes into pipes to cool our university. I didn’t even know that was possible! What’s more, I would be willing to bet that most students don’t know this themselves.

Additionally, Cornell is currently trying to utilize geothermal heating to propel them to the 20-year goal. This process would use natural heat from the earth’s core to warm campus. Considering Ithaca’s notoriously painful winters, this would be a milestone for both our university and environmental sustainability as a field.

Cornell has taken revolutionary steps to protect our environment, and it makes me that much prouder to be a Cornellian!

This Wednesday, an interesting environmental panel was lead by three professors specialized in environment-related field. Several environmental issues are stressed and discussed at the panel.

To begin with, professor asked what are the concerns that most of us have about environmental issues. Global warming and fracking were raised by two of the students. Panelists use a series of evidence and examples to illustrate the different environmental consequences caused and possible solution.

A particular thing that I was curious about was the possible approaches to internalize the externalities especially on a global scale. As we all know, production can cause negative externalities and if the market is socially efficient, the pollution price should be paid by the producer. As the professor mentioned, we can use the environmental tax on the industrial production. However, I think this price is hard to be quantified, because the pollutant could disperse via air, river and ocean. Thus, the producer could pollute the environment “at no cost”. On a global scale, if there is no effective agreement between different countries, the dispersion of pollution could be hardly controlled among different countries which cause negative externalities. What’s more, the producers are also inclined to understate the pollution that they have caused, which could be another factor impacting the market result.

On Wednesday, I attended the Becker-Rose Café Series talk led by three Professors at Cornell. Professors Shanjun Li and Greg Poe are professors of environmental economics, and Professor David Wolfe is a professor of plant sciences. The discussion began with the word cloud for some of the biggest environmental concerns that the audience has for the future. A main concern was global warming. One student brought up the issue of fracking, which is when pipes are run underground, releasing chemicals to break up the shale for fuel supply. The panelists had mixed results on the practice, but were in agreement that Ithaca and New York state overall, is very opposed to it.

I found Professor Li’s comment very interesting on how the key factors needed to implement change are policies and technology. These are probably two of the most difficult things for policymakers, innovators, and the general public to agree upon. While Economics has never been my strong suit, I can definitely understand how it is logical to look at environmental issues from this lens. In developing policies and creating/implementing new technologies we truly are constantly weighing costs and benefits. It seems to me that more often than not, the crux of environmental debates seem to be pitting people against the planet. The costs vs. benefits perspective may then come off as a bit harsh. At one extreme, some may say, “Of course we should do whatever will make life easier for people.” At the other extreme, some may say, “Of course we should do whatever will save the planet.” Perhaps the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. We need to serve the needs of our billions of people, but we can try our best to do so in eco-friendly ways.

While a majority of the audience raised their hands that they are worried about the future of our environment, few could attest to participating in major climate change movements or reforms. There was a discrepancy between actions, such as recycling and attending marches at Washington. All of the panelists gave reassurance that as students, we do have power to make change. We can vote in major elections or take part in efforts on campus. West Campus is cooled by Lake Source Cooling!

My goal is to be informed about all the current issues being raised and their proposed solutions. This is something that the panelists heavily emphasized and a sure way that we can leave our mark, or maybe in this case, a footprint – just not a carbon one.

This week, our guests at the Rose Cafe were Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe.  They came to speak to us about environmental issues and to clue us in more about what we can do about them.

The talk began with the panel addressing our first few questions about our concerns about the environment.  The first concern we raised was global warming, an issue that we are all somewhat familiar with.  I was informed that this year, in the presidential debates, is the first time that global warming was actually a debate topic, which shows some progress in our government dealing with the issue.  I doubt that any discussion during a debate will really end up aiding in the fight against global warming much because as we know, politicians tend to make promises that they cannot keep.

This subject segued into a discussion about nuclear power, and then about fracking, which I had not known much about prior to this talk.  But the biggest takeaway I got from this talk was learning how environmentally conscious Cornell is trying to be as a university.  I did not know that the dorms on West Campus are cooled by deep water cooling from Lake Cayuga, a much more environmentally friendly way to cool our dorms.  I didn’t realize that Cornell is aiming to be a coal free campus in the future.  All of these things gave me hope for our country, because if our universities are trying to become more environmentally friendly, then the students at these dorms will hopefully learn about it, as I did last night, and become more environmentally conscious themselves.  And if this works, eventually we get many, many more people aiding in the fight to help our environment.

A panel lead by Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe, enlightened the audience on the environment and its delicate balance. We have to make informed decisions to combat the problems that we face due to human activity impacting the environment. A question that opened my eyes during the panel was,

“Who here are users of lake source cooling?”

At the time, no one raised their hands because not a single student in the room was aware that lake source cooling is the mechanism that is used to cool West Campus. It made me think about the importance of being informed in order to make educated decisions.

This panel reminded me of a book that I have recently read called “The No Impact Man” written by Colin Beavan. By reading the book you follow the Manhattan-based Beavan family as they abandon their high consumption 5th Avenue lifestyle and try to live a year while making no net environmental impact.

Everyday we are faced with small inconveniences, and we will go to great lengths to make our lives more convenient because we believe that this is directly related to our happiness. Colin Beavan did the opposite, entering a lifestyle experiment, that plunged him into a year to try an maintain as close to no net environmental impact as possible. This entailed a lifestyle that produced no garbage, travelling in only ways that emitted no carbon, and living a life that would cause the least environmental impact regarding food choices.  He examined how truly necessary the conveniences that we take for granted are and how, in their manufacture and use, they hurt our habitat. In addition, he analyzed how much of our consumption of the planet’s resources actually makes us happier and how much just deters us. Interestingly, Colin Beavan found that, “Environmentalism is not about the environment. It is about people. It is about a vision for a better life-for people.” Early in this experiment, he realized that the argument, that all of the food packaging helps cut down on the time people have to spend taking care of themselves and their families allows them more leisure time, is false. “In my family’s life, the convenience doesn’t mean more time for hanging out together. It means more time for work. After all, so many of us shuttle between two jobs and break our backs twelve hours a day and more to pay for all this “convenience.””  He realized that this “high standard of living” is not the same as a good quality of life, and he demonstrated that by making individual lifestyle adjustments, collectively we can improve our lives and the lives around us. The inconveniences that he intentionally put himself through, taught him that progress and advancements “are magical when they are created and done, but once we become addicted to them, once we have to have these things in order to feel just barely satisfied, they aren’t so magical after all.”

One important aspect of inconvenience demonstrating a lesson, is whether the learners, keep the lesson or if we fail to truly learn anything. In No Impact Man, Colin Beavan, changed the way he thought about our lifestyles, by the inconveniences that he subjected himself to. “Changing the people around me-the unforeseen consequence of individual action-is still one more result. By continuing to think about these issues and doing my best, even if it’s not as extreme as during the project proper, I continue to change the people around me.” He did not allow his lifestyle experiment to simply end, but he applied the lessons that he had gained and realized that we can all change the people around us by changing ourselves.  He continues to strive for this, because he realizes that suggesting that “collective and individual action are mutually exclusive, or even different, is wrongheaded and dangerous. It ignores the way cultures change, the responsibilities of citizens, and our potential as agents of change.” 

What might seem inconvenient to the point of absurdity instead teaches lessons that all of us need to learn. We as individuals can take action to address important social problems. One person can make a difference but we can only make a difference if we are informed.

This evening I heard an Environmental Panel of Cornell professors speak. All of these professors represent Cornell and its move towards environmental sustainability. Multiple questions were posed during the course of the panel, a few of which were directed at the audience. We were asked how many of us cared about the environment. Almost everyone’s hand went up. We were then asked how many of us had serious concerns for the environment and the future state of it. Again, almost everyone’s hand went up. But when the question was posed of how many people have actively done something to protect the environment or voice their concern, few peoples’ hands were raised.

While nearly everyone in the crowd knows that the environment is something that needs to be protected, not many people, including myself, have actually actively done something to protect it (besides turning off the lights when you leave the room or turning off the water when you’re brushing your teeth). Though this panel informed me of the different pros and cons of thermal energy, nuclear energy, coal, etc, the main thing I took away from this evening was the need for people to DO SOMETHING. Just like anything else (i.e. a job, a project, school work), nothing is going to be accomplished if you do not act and do something. If we are concerned for the environment, then we must play an active role in learning how we can preserve it and ensure its stability for years to come.

I like to call myself an environmental activist. In high school, I was a leader in educating our community for local environmental sustainable. I helped our high school become more sustainable. Baby steps was my anthem. I ran initiatives to spread awareness by publicizing facts about the environment and climate change. I educated people about our consumption and waste. I motivated people to turn off the lights, leave their car at home and find a more sustainable way to get to school, and throw their recycling in the recycle bin.

However, being in attendance at the Environmental Panel hosted by Professors Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe gave me the realization of the importance of economics and policy and their influence on the environment in the way I had never thought of before.

The professors brought up the importance of environmental policy and its turns out that we are behind. There are two policies that are debated in the economic and political community” taxation and capping. Taxation would inhibit a free market economy. Capping would require extensive regulation and motivation.

I’ve always thought of environmental issues as a issues catalyzed is the private sector. I have also believed that the private sector must catalyze its own reform or be motivated to do so through lower cost energy sources.

The professors discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a free market economy in regard to its affect on the environment. In a free market, every entity is making its own environmental decisions and each seem trivial in the grand scheme. Therefore, as individuals we find ourselves feeling powerless in the face of environmental change, and give up. However, having regulations and more government control on environmental decisions will allow each individual organization to be a part of a larger group, and understand the impact of their decisions in a more global and tangible manner.

While it will cost companies more to use unsustainable forms of energy and resources, it will push our market to seek new energy sources, management, and ideas. More governmental control has the potential to catalyze a national change within our markets and will allow a lot of advancement for the future.

So the fact that the environment has been and still is rarely a topic for political debate is bizarre. Our government is an institution that provides life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in order to to that, it builds infrastructure, funds development, and recognizes and deals with national issues that may inhibit us from our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Environmental initiatives are very important part of our infrastructure.

A panel headed by 3 experts, Shanjun Li, Greg Poe, and David Wolfe, enlightened the audience on how the environment is impacted by human activity and possible ways to preserve the environment, e.g., nuclear energy.

One important topic discussed was fracking, which is injecting liquid at high pressures underground to break shale and release gas. It is a necessary practice to satisfy our growing energy needs but transporting natural gas is actually inefficient because it escapes before it can be used, making the destruction of the environment essentially wasteful.

Another topic discussed was nuclear energy. An important point was made in the panel about how nuclear energy should be looked at as a system. It is not just a matter of harvest nuclear energy; instead, it also involves harvesting the materials, disposal of the harmful waste and more. Thus, certain countries are actually more capable implement nuclear energy as a valid and important source of energy, e.g., France and China. China in particular have been developing fourth generation nuclear reactors that would use nuclear waste as a way to harvest nuclear energy. Unfortunately, accidents like the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster hinder such progress. The United States probably won’t be implementing nuclear power into their infrastructure due to public opinion and it would be up to the current generation to change that opinion to continually develop and change nuclear power into a valid source of alternative energy; fracking and coal can sustain us only for so long. The eyes will be countries like France and China and see if their increasing reliance on nuclear power will prove to be safe and fruitful.

It is easy to be isolated in a bubble when going through your daily lives but we must be cognizant of the fact that our actions often have an adverse effect on the environment. It is imperative that we take action in some form, whether it be minor or major, to preserve our environment.

In the cafe series today, the environmental panel spoke about a very salient issue in our world today: preserving our planet. Even though it’s not a topic that’s always at the forefront of my mind, I realized by listening to what these men had to say tonight that it should be because it’s not like we can just hop over to another planet as soon as this one has been used for all its resources. And yeah, to be completely honest, I thought I was doing my part (or rather enough of my part) by recycling my empty milk jugs at home or tossing my used lunch plates in the compost bin at Trillium, but I’m becoming increasingly aware that that’s not enough. There’s so much more that is slowly destroying this planet than just an overabundance of plastic in landfills. These three professors made that point abundantly clear tonight.

For one, fracking (a word I only just learned the meaning of) is an enormous problem in many places in the world. By shooting fluids deep into the Earth in order to extract fossil fuels, some frackers have succeeded in doing so without some property owners knowledge at all. This surprised me a lot, not only because I was completely unaware that this was a practice actively being carried out, but also because it seems as though acquiring fossil fuels has become a much more competitive process than I thought it was.

On the bright side, though,  the professors enlightened the audience that because Cornell is a “hotbed of environmental activism,” no such thing (and by that, I mean fracking) occurs on our campus or near it.  In addition, the professors revealed that lake source cooling (a process that brings the cold water from the bottom of Cayuga Lake up  to campus to power our air-conditioning units) is the way that Cornell has chosen to keep our dorms cool. Learning both of these things gave me a certain sense of comfort because now I know that it’s not just the “going green” efforts that are being made in dining halls campus-wide that are tackling environmental issues, but rather it’s also things going on behind the scenes that are pushing for environmental reform in our little corner of the Earth. Not that I wasn’t already proud to be a Cornelian, but knowing that, as a school, we’re taking baby steps to leave a smaller footprint on Earth  makes me that much prouder of this awesome school.