Even though we printed our environmentally-friendly copies of the Patriot already, you may not have received one. If that’s the case, The Lehigh Patriot now offers a convenient and environmentally conscious solution: print your own right on Lehigh’s free printers!

Sure you can just view it on your computer, but who reads stuff like that?

Printing a Patriot is quite easy: visit www.LehighPatriot.com/pdfs/DecemberFinal.pdf and hit print! Make sure you only print one-sided though, duplex messes up the page order.

This message is sponsored by The Lehigh Patriot, and the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group (LEAG)*.

*: Not really, that part of the message is parody.

Here at the Lehigh Patriot, we have tremendous respect for our colleagues at the Brown and White.  They provide the Lehigh community with a biweekly feast of the news and analysis that keeps our campus dialogue informed and vibrant. Professors, administrators and prospective Lehigh families alike view the Brown and White as a window into the minds that make up our student body.  For better or worse, they speak for all of us.

It’s a small miracle, then, that the Brown and White was there to give us 800 words to describe the operating hours of a new off-campus deli.  From this thrilling investigative piece, we learned the following:

Samantha Petner, ’11, is a frequent patron of Dave’s Deli.

“I am kind of boring, I just like turkey on a Kaiser roll, but Dave’s really has the best sandwiches,” Petner said.

Kelly Sprague, ’11, goes to Dave’s Deli about once a week and is a big fan of the Chicken Ranchero.

Hannah Gobetz, ’11, does not consider herself a regular at Dave’s Deli, but she said she found the Chicken Caesar Wrap to be quite delicious.

This intrepid reporter didn’t stop there.  She managed to use “the internet” to uncover a startling fact:

Part of the deli’s secret, according to its Web site, is that it uses “the best” meats and cheeses.

While the news division of the Brown and White works to hold local establishments accountable to the highest standards of deli meats and cheeses, the lifestyle section reliably churns out impeccably sourced universal claims about the social lives of Lehigh students.  In a recent issue, they even tracked down an expert financial analyst to talk about the bar scene:

Brooke Wiener, ’10, said the current economic conditions haven’t impacted the bar scene.

“It’s not necessarily about the economy,” she said. “It’s just being smart about your money.”

In addition to economic issues, the Brown and White is always there to cover Lehigh’s attempts to be environmentally friendly. One such story gives us a great deal of detail about a “new eco-friendly printer” to be used in Rauch. If you are not excited yet, you should be:

Buskirk called Lehigh’s acquisition of the trial a rare opportunity. Few other universities have access to the ColorQube’s unique technology.

In case you were wondering, the ColorQube has other benefits:

In its brochure, Xerox says that the ColorQube can print up to 85 pages per minute…

For the printer aficionados in the crowd, the article continues to explain all of the gory details about printing technology that most of us never thought to ask:

“The ColorQube’s ink blocks only leave behind a small black spot of biodegradable wax that resembles a Necco wafer,” Buskirk said.

For all of its heady intellectualism, the heart and soul of the Brown and White is found on its editorial pages.  Here, the senior editors demonstrate that conventions of grammar, diction and syntax are merely obstacles to telling a unique and heartfelt story about how sad they are to be leaving Lehigh.  Some variation of the following statement (from the 10/20/09 publication) can probably be found in every Brown and White Edit Desk dating back to 1894:

The end of this magic experience is on the decline, and I for one am going to find all means of using Lehigh to get the best experience possible. I hope you all do the same.

Yes.  Everybody, please do…that.

—

(Editorial Correction:  The printed version of The Patriot incorrectly stated that the Brown and White Edit Desk referred to in this article was published on 11/13/09.  The correct publication date is 10/20/09.  The editorial staff regrets this mistake.)

Alumni often visit Lehigh to give lectures, speak on panels, or advise students. However, Lehigh students take many of these opportunities for granted. Attendance for most speaker series is often limited to overachievers and students prodded by their professors.

The question for everyone else becomes, “do I want to play another hour of Xbox or see a lecture in the Perella Auditorium?”

What is lost in this consideration is the value of Lehigh lectures. Alumni provide a view into the future. They can tell you what your life will be like, where you will work, and how much you will be paid. They can also explain some of their mistakes and detail how you can do better than they did, faster.

This article will focus on a few of those missed opportunities. Specifically, I will forward you alumni insights from the ISE Panel discussion and an independent interview with Daniel Mulholland.

“Become a student of what you do.”

Most students will graduate into jobs that require significant training past classroom education. Steve Senkowski, former executive of Armstrong, elaborated, “learning to learn is an important skill.” The best employees learn every step of their career. You must ask yourself, “Can I do the entire project from start to finish without conflict?”

“Take a job for the most valuable experience.”

There will be jobs out there, with great starting offers and many perks that lack substance. Tom Cassidy, Director at Bayada Nurses, took his first job at UPS for the extensive learning experience in industrial engineering. Although it was not the highest paying job, it was the job where he learned the most. This education translated into a quicker path to more senior, higher paying jobs.

“Never accept the initial solution.”

When working, you will often find quick solutions to arduous problems. However, it is your responsibility to strive for excellence and reject the first answers. Gary Whitehouse, Dean at Arizona State, explained that even if the statistical distributions match, you still must consider the source of attributes for your data.

“Never burn a bridge.”

Since the world is small and bad news spreads like wild fire, you should keep relationships from spiraling out of control. No matter how bad things get, according to Steve, you should end on a positive note with every relationship.

“Know every part of your organization.”

Daniel Mulholland, former president of Baker Chemical, advises you to discover each division of your organization. If you start out in sales, as he did, do not stay there. You should take every opportunity to do different jobs. Demand differentiation. Dan moved vertically from sales to information systems to manufacturing to administration to marketing before he became an executive and eventually president. It was the diagonal moves across his company that set him apart from everyone else during times of promotion.

“Leadership is getting others to want what you want.”

Students, and even some executives, confuse the terminology of manager with leader. Although, Merriam-Webster might tell you that they are synonyms, there is a distinct difference. Managers only maintain the status quo and keep employees on track. On the contrast, leaders are agents of change. They are driven to distinction. They improve their companies. Dan detailed that leaders think about the team and results count. The only way to ensure those results is to get people to like what you like and want what you want. That way you can lead and inspire instead of managing and delegating.

For those of you that enjoy learning about your future. There will be more insights available. In an academic setting, you can join the leadership minor to hear first hand from alumni in your classes. In a club setting, the National Society of Leadership and Success will have this information available as well. Also, keep posted on the Patriot website. I will upload similar content soon.

The climate is changing. It always has been, and it always will be.  The question that drives discussion on environmental policy of late is, “What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the huge changes that some politicians support in the name of combating climate change, it is important to take a critical look at this question. While I know that you may have heard that the scientific community has reached a consensus on this question, let us take a look – you may be surprised.

Carbon and the Climate

The theory behind anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change is that CO² emissions are causing a rampant increase in global temperature. Thus far, proponents of this theory have largely succeeded in making the public believe that this is an undisputed fact among the scientific community. The truth is, many notable climatologists and other scientists dispute this scientific hypothesis. To name a few:

1.     The Polish Academy of Sciences,[1] who submitted a letter discussing ten problems with the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

2.     Princeton Physicist Dr. William Happer[2], who testified before Senate in February that current climate models are inherently flawed.

3.     Ivar Giaever, Norwegian Nobel Prize winner [3].

4.     Dr. John Cristy, a lead author of the U.N.’s original IPCC report in 2001[4].

5.    Over 700 scientists according to a list provided by the U.S. Government[5].

Clearly, it would be inaccurate to claim that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. All of these scientists provide theories of their own regarding human activity and the causes and effects of an increased level of CO² in the atmosphere. It is understandable to see so many differing views; since even the climate models that predict runaway warming cannot agree on its role.

The climate models that do predict global warming provide an estimated increase in temperature of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius by year 2100. These models require hundreds of assumptions – one of them being carbon’s role in regulating the climate. As Dr. Happer explains in his senate testimony though, about 90% of the “greenhouse effect” on earth is due to water vapor, not CO². The role of CO² is much smaller. According to Dr. Happer, it could cause at most a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperature. He explains:

“There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO² concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO² will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO² in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.”[6]

Dr. Happer continues to explain that models currently used rely on the assumption that small increases in CO² levels will lead to increased levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, causing runaway warming. However, empirical evidence has shown this correlation to close to zero of even negative[7].

Whether or not you agree with Dr. Happer, he and other renowned scientists contend that anthropogenic climate change does not pose a serious threat. Indeed, even climate models disagree. Climate models which assume a positive correlation between CO² and water vapor predict a temperature increases of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius. What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the evidence, it is pretty clear that we do not know. With that being said, let’s look at the cost of the proposed legislation on climate change, which is currently stalled in the Senate.

The Waxman-Markey Bill

The Waxman-Markey bill, touted as “transformational legislation,” would require the U.S. to reduce emissions of CO² and other gases by 17 percent within the next 10 years and by 80 percent before 2050. Should the bill pass through the Senate, the government will use a “cap and trade” system to regulate the emission of CO². Essentially, the government will issue permits to emit CO², which can then be traded from companies that pollute less to companies that pollute more. The end result should be a level of emissions equal to the “cap” that is set. The main issues in this bill are the effects on the monetary system, and the effects on the climate. So before a judgment is made about this bill, let’s look at who pays, who profits, and what happens to the climate as a result.

As with most government policies, U.S. citizens will foot the bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will cost the average household $175 per year, mainly from an increase in the price of carbon based fuels. Due to a series of provisions within the bill, the poorest 20 percent of Americans will actually benefit, making $40 per year due to this bill[8]. In addition to the direct cost to taxpayers, the “cap and trade” system will increase manufacturing costs, and provide incentive for companies to move manufacturing plants overseas to areas with lower energy costs, which would likely result in increased unemployment.

Where does this money go? That should be obvious – to the bureaucracy! According to the same CBO report, the bill would increase federal revenue by $845 billion over the coming decade, with estimated expenditures related to the bill weighing in at $821 billion[9]. There are several interpretations of what this means. One interpretation is the creative New York Times headline that the climate bill “would trim budget deficit.” Such an interpretation is accurate if the budgeting assumptions are valid, but also terribly misleading. This bill calls for an increase in spending of $82.1 billion per year. To put that into perspective, the AIG bailout of last August was $85 billion. This bill is essentially another one of those every year so that our government can regulate the emission of invisible gases.

Now despite the large costs involved, proponents of the bill claim that the cost is worth the benefit of reducing carbon emissions. The climate models cited by the proponents of the bill predict a rise of anywhere from two to nine degrees Celsius over the next century. Similar models predict the impact of the House’s climate bill to be a drop of 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050[10]. Simply put, even if these climate models are indeed accurate, then this bill will do virtually nothing to change the warming trend. However, by 2050, this bill will have cost us $3,000,000,000,000 ($3 trillion) to change the global temperature increase from 3 degrees Celsius to 2.95 degrees.

Climate in the Real World

While the United States may look to self-flagellate itself through the Waxman-Markey bill, other countries will not do the same. With one third of the world’s population residing in China and India, both countries are going through rapid economic growth. Economic growth is inextricably tied to cheap energy consumption, and hence CO² emissions. China’s emissions of CO² have increased at a rate of 11% over the past five years, and are expected to continue at a similar rate[11]. These emissions will counteract any cooling effects the Waxman-Markey bill may have.

Even if we take the apocalyptic approach, the Waxman-Markey bill still does not make sense. Geoengineers have already devised several methods of cooling earth, some of which involve ejecting particles like sulfates into earth’s atmosphere to reflect sunlight [12]. This solution lacks appeal to environmentalists, but the result is that humans would see little effect from any warming that does occur. These methods are hundreds of times cheaper than the forced reinvention of the American economy.

In the past, the earth has been warmer, and it has also been cooler. There have been Ice Ages as well as warm periods, when Greenland was actually green. While it is easy to think that we live in extraordinary times, we do not. Our economy and our energy will become more sustainable over time, but we do not need to force the fact before it becomes economically viable.

Money and How to Waste It

For the sake of clarity, here’s what the Waxman-Markey bill does in real terms:

1. Takes a lot of money from 80% of Americans

2. Gives some of that money to the poorest 20% of Americans.

3. Uses the rest to create a huge government agency that monitors and attempts to regulate the emission of an invisible gas.

4. Creates cost incentives that will drive industry elsewhere, as unemployment continues to rise.

5. All of this is done in hopes that we can cool the planet by a 1/20^th of a degree over 40 years.

Clean and domestic energy are worthwhile goals, no one can dispute that. But, in typical government fashion, this bill goes about “achieving” those two goals in the most convoluted and inefficient way possible. This huge sum of money – about $12,000 per person – over 40 years should not be taken in the first place. The $3 Trillion could be used to directly fund clean energy research and technology. It could be used to build more nuclear power plants to provide cheap and clean electricity. It could be used to reduce the huge deficit built by President Obama and his predecessor. Instead, this bill is directly transferring wealth from citizen to citizen, and being used to fund yet another massive federal bureaucracy. To cap it all off, it will do essentially nothing to change the climate. It is but another example of political negligence.

---

[1] Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner, 4/24/2009. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html)

[2] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[3] Christina Reed, Nature, 7/15/2008. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/nobelists_talk_energy.html)

[4] Jon Birger, Fortune Magazine, 5/14/2009. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm)

[5] Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 12/11/2008. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

[6] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[7] Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf)

[8] Steven Mufson, Washington Post, 6/23/2009. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html)

[9] Darren Samuelsohn, New York Times, 6/8/2009. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/08/08climatewire-house-climate-bill-would-trim-budget-deficit-83573.html)

[10] Chip Knappenberger, MasterResource.org, 5/6/2009. (http://masterresource.org/?p=2355)

[11] Univ. Of California – Berkeley, 3/10/2008. (http://www.physorg.com/news124384270.html)

[12] Jamais Cascio, The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/2009. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html

In response to the recession, Lehigh has decided to launch a $20 million study to find ways to reduce wasteful spending.

“Alumni and students alike have urged us to exercise fiscal restraint in these tough times. For them, I am proud to present this new plan,” said the newly appointed Director of the Office of Fiscal Responsibility, Mark Simonson. The newly created Office employs 50 experts full time to monitor all costs at Lehigh. “Our purpose is to spend every dollar we get to find ways to save money,” Simonson remarked.

Instead of using available office space around campus, the plan provides for a special addition to the Alumni Memorial Building to house the new Office. Due to poor weather and an unreliable construction company, the project is already millions over budget, but that doesn’t deter the bright spirit of Simonson. “To properly do our work, we need a special, stress free environment and quite simply that just doesn’t exist on campus right now. But I am confident once we get to work then we quickly start cutting costs.” Currently, the staff of the Office is on university payroll but cannot begin work till the addition is completed, as stipulated by their contract.

In addition to monitoring all University expenditures, the plan entails interviews with every member of the teaching and administrative staff. The records from these interviews will then be destroyed and the interviews run again. “We’re hoping that the first round of interviews will be like a ‘trial run’ and the second time we will get more accurate results,” Simonson explained. “It is really important to be thorough, and that means sparing no expense to find ways to make the campus and overall education experience more affordable for the average student.”

Though most people expected the savings from this study to aid tuition costs for struggling families, Simonson assured the administration that this was not so in an open meeting between Simonson and the rest of the department heads last week. “Students can obviously meet the demands of a tuition that puts them in a life time of debt or they wouldn’t be here, why would we change that?” When asked what the hypothetical savings would go towards, Simonson did say there were some definite options on the table. “Right now Lehigh is really struggling with ways to pay for the new monolithic STEPS building which is running at least $7 million over budget at $62.1 million. We are also looking at ways to fund this study because right now we are running way over budget. The truth is, despite Lehigh’s award winning endowment and above average tuition, we simply do not have the money for simple things like a 135,000 square foot building such as STEPS.”

Despite Lehigh’s current policy of raising tuition at least three percent every year, many students are convinced the University has their best interest in mind and will lower tuition. “I’m glad the University is doing this study,” one sophomore said. “The University is going to save tons of money and tuition will have to go down. It’s simple economics.”

Parents are equally excited by the new study. “I took out a second mortgage on my house to help pay for my son’s education, so I am relieved to see that it is going towards a good cause,” said one parent. Another parent remarked, “I am always agitated when I hear more money is being spent on stupid things like financial aid and scholarships. This is finally something that has a practical application for us normal people.”

Though formal meetings are pending on the completion of their office, Simonson claims he and his associates have several ideas for cost-saving measures. “One of the biggest expenditures comes from residence hall’s power usage so it was obvious to us to start there. Right now we are looking at cutting supply power to the residence areas during quiet hours. That saves energy, saves money, and helps to enforce quiet hours: win, win, win. It’s progressive ideas such as that one that we are aiming for in this study.”

The debate over health care reform is ugly, and the victims are the American people. We have a 2000+ page bill which most legislators have not even read. Health care reform is being held back by partisan quibbles that have only gotten worse as the sides have polarized.

The heart of bipartisanship is compromise by meeting in the middle. Inherently, each side must give up a little if they want to get anything. The problem with the way compromise has manifested in this debate is that each side has gutted their opponent’s reforms. Democrats have eliminated tort reform and won’t allow insurance to be sold across state lines. The public option has been neutered to the point where it will hardly cover anyone. The polarization is so great that an olive branch is no longer possible. The bill doesn’t contain provisions to prevent illegal immigrants from getting free health care. Republicans say that means illegal immigrants are covered. Democrats say that means they’re not. Nothing gets done.

The path to compromise is revolting to most, but it must be done. The trigger to the public option is the key to an effective bipartisan bill.

Rather than have both sides cannibalize the reforms of the other, let’s split the bill in two parts. The first part is the Republican reforms, to fix the system we have. The second is the Democratic reforms, most notably a robust public option to throw the current system out. The third and most crucial part is the trigger.

The Republican part of the bill can fix the current system in a way that’s not been tried before. The state of health care has gotten steadily worse. The only tested solutions have been more regulation and bigger government. Even the reforms proposed by Republicans are compromised. Everyone wants to cover more of the uninsured. The free market way of doing that would make the market freer, so costs could drop and more people can choose to buy health care. The Republican reforms can include tort reform and deregulation of insurance plans.

Health insurance companies are monopolies. No, really. The Supreme Court ruled it is perfectly within Congress’s power to bust them, but Congress has been too frail to act. They wanted to improve insurance companies by letting them grow big, so that they can take advantage of the economies of scale. The problem is that the free market fails to be free in this scenario. Choice decreases, competition decreases, and prices skyrocket. Americans spend over twice as much on health care than any other country. Without this reform, any effort to increase competition is a joke. Free market idealists argue that the market should take care of this, but it has not occurred yet.

Interestingly, the lack of reform has been supported by the Democrats. When Hillary Clinton tried to get major health care reform passed during her husband’s administration, the industry funded the famous Harry and Louise ads that helped ruin public opinion and sink reform. Clinton learned her lesson and made a deal with the devil.

The Democratic part of the bill can be whatever they want. If they want to reduce drug patent life, tax small business, or punish drug company execs, let them do it. They can make a robust public option: Medicare for all, available even if you already have insurance.

The trick is where the two bills get sewn together. Both sides can work together to agree when the judgment has been made. The threat of the public option will also incentivize the industry to fix things.

Democrats and Republicans are in the mindset of a doctor. They’ve taken the Hippocratic oath to “Do no harm.” Legislators need to realize they are not doctors. The heart of my bipartisan bill is this: let the other side hurt the American people, because my reforms will be here to catch them. The Democrats believe the Republican reforms will be disastrous. Don’t worry about it. If you’re right, you’ve just proven them wrong, and you can catch them with the soft and fluffy public option and gloat all around town. Republicans think the current system isn’t beyond repair. So repair it. Then you’ll never have to trigger the public option and you’ve just proven the socialists wrong. Find me a better nail in the coffin for Obama’s reelection.

Effective compromise is built on agreement. As much as everyone disagrees, they share one common belief that can never be shaken, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” I feel healthier already.

The question posed to our editorial staff was: What should Lehigh do to become more sustainable?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Lehigh should be factually and intellectually honest when it comes to sustainability. Currently, most of Lehigh’s efforts to become more sustainable revolve around small changes – things that cost little and accomplish even less. The one notable exception to this is the new Steps building, which is extremely costly and still does not accomplish much in terms of making Lehigh “greener.” Everything Lehigh does accomplish is made highly visible. Even Rauch’s test of a “new eco-friendly printer” received a feature length article in the Brown and White.

So Lehigh can keep making highly visible, cost-effective changes that have little effect on the environment or Lehigh’s carbon footprint. But that is the easy way out; it’s like turning in your younger brother’s algebra homework to your calculus professor and then patting yourself on the back. Certainly, we do not want Lehigh to be in that business. To be intellectually honest, Lehigh has two options: make transformational changes to Lehigh so that it truly is environmentally friendly, or admit that cost is what really drives their decisions and that it really does not matter how environmentally friendly campus facilities are.

Given that choice, Lehigh should do both, since the two philosophies do not contradict each other. Lehigh can look to be a leader in innovating sustainable products and systems. Doing so has several benefits. Lehigh can bring in research funding, researchers, institutional renown, and all of the things that Lehigh needs as an institution. It will provide students interested in such subjects the opportunity to be involved in research, and provide them with opportunities not otherwise available. Lastly, it has a chance to lead to a breakthrough that will lead to large advancements in sustainability in the future.

Going hand-in-hand with the aforementioned strategy for making real progress, Lehigh should come out and say that research and a high-quality education is Lehigh’s priority. In doing that, Lehigh should throw all of the silly token-environmentalist acts by the whey side. President Gast should be working to establish energy research here, not signing silly climate commitments. She should disband panels like LEAG, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group, and let these professors and administrators worry about – here is a thought – teaching and administrating. Instead of posting signs asking students to shower less, they could work on finding a better way to recycle the water that we do use.

According to the Lehigh’s strategic plan, Lehigh is looking to stand out. While some in academia may view this policy as hypocritical. However, some would appreciate the honesty in the statement. The only reason any school actually enacts green policies is a) save money or b) brag about being green. Lehigh should expose this policy, and reject it. Lehigh should work for big advancements and innovations, and not play the political correctness game of “my green is better than your green.” In the end, it will be a net positive for Lehigh, its students, and the environment.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

Sustainability. It sounds good, doesn’t it? And it’s a win-win, too… or so they say. After all, what could be wrong with using less – waste not want not, and of course, we save money, which is good, right?

Give me a break. The single largest fallacy held by a mass of people in unison, aside from balloon boy, is the notion of environmental sustainability. Anyone who participates in the green movement at this moment, and believes that they are making any sort of difference because the university doesn’t turn a blind ear to their thoughts is deluded and ignorant.

This “movement” is a purely aesthetic concoction, bent on economic sustainability more so than environmental. And rightly so! Lehigh is competing (as staffer David Gritz, ’12 so acutely noted previously) with schools for research dollars, undergraduate (read: cash flow) students, and quality names for pie-in-the-sky academic movements that produce graduates who gross enough income to “sustain” the continued existence of this institution.

LEAG, STEPS, and Green Action are poster projects. And while I can’t deny that valuable biological and physical research will likely arise from the STEPS initiative, the new facility shares something in common with its grandfather, Iacocca Hall: both will transition into expensive architectural obsolescence. Back in ’59 when architectural powerhouse Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, conceived Iacocca it too featured innovative environmentally friendly notions like the reflecting pool, which was piped with condenser coils to exchange heat from the air conditioning system.

The problem was, this seemingly elegant system was both inefficient and costly to maintain. In 1986, when Lehigh acquired Iacocca (then called the Homer Research Labs) from the Bethlehem Steel Corp, one of the first things VP of Facilities Planning Anthony Corallo did was decouple the reflecting pool and install modern condensers, leaving an 8-foot deep, 1.5-million gallon pool full of rusty pipes. Sadly, even water-feature-friendly Lehigh couldn’t save the fountain (an insurance hazard), and in 2006 when the Alumni Memorial Parking Garage was constructed, much of the backfill from the excavation ended up in the fountain, filling it in and sealing its fate.

Sound familiar? STEPS is supposedly festooned with special “energy-saving” features like wind generators, electromechanical louvers to control natural light glare, and the famous grass roof (where no one can toss a Frisbee). I’d put money on it that in 25 years, when I come back for my class’s reunion, that roof will be leaking, the generators will be a giant ornament, and the louvers will have long-since been disabled due to scarcity of parts and repair talent.

It’s not an outright bad thing to care about the environment so much that you’d buy fair-trade products (which ironically carry a heavier carbon footprint than run-of-the-mill produce and coffee), compost in your back yard, sell your car, and bitch & moan to all of those who pass by (on Open House day, no less, Green Action!) with a half-hearted protest expressing your arrogant distaste for the university’s reluctance to capitulate to your every whim and will.

However, know that you have become a PR tool for the university to use in marketing its campus to other students who think they have found their cause. Know that the “no tray” policy was a cost-saver for Sodexo/ Wood Dining (hence why they didn’t eliminate it in the a-la-carte Upper UC café), and that neither Dining Services, nor the University truly deeply cares about your cause.

This movement, much like actual real global climate change (a natural, cyclic occurrence) happens in cycles. In the 1970s, so-called “global cooling” and an abundance of yuppies with disposable income created the first green movement; this is no different. Many so-called “green” products and ideas are less than such– like washing glasses rather than using disposable paper cups. I will never pay some sketch “fund” to “offset” my carbon, I do not support cap and trade (read: anti-capitalist) bills, and I am not so naïve as to think that this university, nee, the thinking, air-breathing public gives a damn about sustainability.

Alyssa Gerety, Class of 2013

Lehigh needs to move incrementally in order to become more sustainable. The STEPS building is a huge investment in sustainability, however it reflects the university’s reluctance to disturb the status quo. Students and faculty alike will be pleased with a shiny new building – as the administration opts to construct sustainability rather than curb the habits of faculty and students.

It is possible, however, for the administration to implement changes that will be small enough not to disturb students, as well as, foster sustainable habits. First off, the printers in every building and dorm should be calibrated for automatic double-sided printing. Students and faculty should have to seek out settings for single-sided printing, not the other way around. When replacing water fixtures in any building the university should consider low flow options. While evaluating transportation options available to students, the university should not only look for the most efficient routes, but also consider replacing old vehicles with alternative fuel transportation. In the dining halls, locally grown or organic food options are not only environmentally friendly, but also delicious. These are all relatively minor changes that the administration should look to implement in the near future.

Though there are much more drastic measures that could be taken, small incremental actions such as these will create a more sustainable university without too much disruption to, or outcry from, students or faculty.

David Gritz, Class of 2012

Lehigh can increase its sustainability and decrease its carbon footprint by abiding two principles of leadership:

(1) Don’t Micromanage – Contrary to the lessons of big bureaucracy, finding small problems and supporting the average student at the cost of the overachiever is not a goal of sustainability. Instead of focusing on individual energy consumers like students or charging for printing privileges, administrators and policy-makers should look at the entire system.

Starting with a systems map of all power consumption, GHG production, and resource use will allow the University to see what is happening. Using this map, a Pareto chart should be created to find the largest consumers. The chart will identify how the university can make large-scale changes and large-scale impacts. Instead of spending money on building “greener” individual specifications for the STEPS building, Lehigh might be better off building a geothermal cooling system for the buildings like Yale.

Furthermore, less time can be wasted and less people can be upset if we consult sustainability professionals. These professionals will focus on implementation of changes and not university politics. For example hiring a professional like Andrea Wittchen of iSpring Associates, sustainability group, would be more effective than tasking a group of volunteer professors in a green group.

(2) Think big – In order to substantially effect the course of sustainability on a national or global scale, Lehigh cannot limit its thinking to internal causes. If we want to make an impact, we have to help other people that are major consumers of energy and producers of toxins. Expansive change can be executed through centers of excellence and student support.

By supporting the Enterprise Systems Center’s creation of a National Center for Sustainable Manufacturing, Lehigh can make a large step towards setting national standards and providing applied research to the biggest users, companies and governmental organizations. Lehigh should not take an ad-hoc approach of a council here or a department there. We should make a unified approach that is connect to real world problems.

Similarly, students should be given the authority and legitimacy to act along with faculty as partners and not subjects. Student organizations should rise to the occasion of national action. By partnering with larger organizations like EcoEarth or Second Nature, students can cause changes nationally. Students could offer free education seminars to the residents on how to reduce energy costs or help local business with their sustainability efforts.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

The sustainability movement must first be realistic about its goals. Opponents justifiably bristle at the suggestion that we can save the environment, lower tuition and overtake the Ivy League just by switching to fluorescent light bulbs. In this regard, Professor Dork Sahagian was wrong when he told the Brown and White, “It’s our impact on the world that matters.” Steps that make our campus more sustainable or climate-friendly have no global consequences. We should be instrumentalists regarding the environment – seizing the mantle of sustainability to enhance student experience.

Thus far, the administration’s approach to this issue has been utterly incoherent. There are at least three campus environmental groups, including the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group, the Environmental Coalition and the Environmental Initiative. All of these efforts fly under the radar at best, or worse, they make the University look ineffectual and incompetent. High profile projects, like the STEPS building, are far more effective. If the University takes the lead and puts its money where its mouth is, students will be far more responsive.

Put sustainability in terms that Lehigh students will understand. Don’t tell us we can save the environment by walking instead of driving to class. Remind us that we can be the billionaires of tomorrow if we invent, engineer, or finance green technology. Recruit professors who are passionate about finding practical solutions to the energy crisis – not professors who are going to rant about how we’re all going to drown when the sea levels rise.

Piecemeal steps like those currently being peddled as a sustainability strategy won’t result in any progress. Big ideas and the execution of those ideas will be necessary to bring about the systemic changes that will define our future. If Lehigh is serious about contending in the global marketplace, we must realize that sustainability begins at Lehigh, but the focus should be on the bigger picture.

Start a conversation with a Jewish student at Lehigh on the topic of Israel, and the ensuing moments will look a lot like the movie Flubber. No one will really know what they’re talking about, spectators will suffer whiplash trying to keep track of what’s going on, and more than a few delicate objects will end up broken.

So when the Berman Center for Jewish Studies brought Israeli writer and director Ari Folman to campus to screen and discuss a much different film: his acclaimed, yet controversial anti-war epic Waltz With Bashir, the debate was sure to be fierce.

Bashir is Folman’s account of his role as a soldier in the Israeli Defense Force during the 1982 War in Lebanon. Years after the events took place, the film follows its writer, director and protagonist as he tries to recover suppressed memories from the 20 year-old conflict.

Specifically, Folman has a recurring nightmare about the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps (Google it). In one of the film’s most powerful and thought-provoking moments, Folman draws an equivalency between the actions of IDF soldiers and those of Nazis during the Holocaust. Both, he posits, stood by idly as thousands of innocent men, women and children were systematically executed.

The juxtaposition is startling, but for Folman, whose parents are Holocaust survivors, the shadow of that experience inevitably frames the discussion of all subsequent history. Yet many American Jews have a similar background, so it’s troubling that Israelis are free to engage in such unrestrained self-critique, yet external criticism of Israel is often dismissed as anti-Semitism in America.

To be clear, Bashir hardly touches the political dimension of this particular incident or Israeli foreign policy in general. The film focuses on the human consequences of war – especially its psychological impact on adolescent men who are tossed into a world of bloodshed and violence. In Israel, where military service is mandatory and conflicts occur at a tragically consistent rate, each generation is bound by the shared experience of the crucible of war.

In America, no such binding agent exists, which could go a long way in explaining why our political debate is marred by suspicions of bad faith and insidious motivations. At Lehigh and in the American press, the discomfort was palpable as Bashir raised issues that are usually considered off-limits. Rather than engaging the substance of Folman’s critique, some viewers simply dismissed its validity because they couldn’t be inconvenienced to amend their half-baked positions based on new information. It’s not that this film demands that every viewer radically shifts his or her perspective, but it does challenge the dangerous popular disdain for critical reflection.

Ironically, it was the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that published a scathing review on the eve of the Oscars (Bashir was nominated for best foreign film in 2009), slamming Folman for his too-delicate treatment of the IDF. When the Berman Center brought another Israeli speaker a few weeks later, he remarked on the high level of implicit censorship in America as compared to Israel. Of course, the internet makes it so that anyone can say anything, but political, social and institutional norms define the legitimacy of specific arguments while excluding others. For instance, in 2008, the Israel lobby and mainstream media outlets pounced on then-Senator Barack Obama’s mere recognition of Palestinian suffering. This statement was soon diluted to attribute that suffering exclusively to the failure of Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel as a state.

With these subtle constraints on dialogue in America, it’s even more remarkable that a film as critical as Bashir was financed entirely by public money from the Israeli government. As that government moves farther to the right under hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vigorous debate over Israel’s direction as a Middle Eastern democracy will ensue. We can’t count on Americans to ask the tough questions, so it is even more important that the vibrancy of Israeli public discourse remains.

Even with the Copenhagen climate change summit fast approaching, the average American could care less about the environment or related legislation. If Americans did care, the United States would already have extensive legislation to promote sustainability. The reason for this apathy is the same reason that most Americans don’t vote – they have no interest or benefit from acting.  They have not witnessed the detrimental effects of a deteriorating environment. Topping the carelessness, the scientific community is fighting discord on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

That is not to say that global warming does not exist or that the environment has not been harmed by unsustainable habits. In a discussion held on October 21^st, professors at Lehigh discussed the very real effects of pollution and unsustainable habits. Professor Fennel talked of China’s environmental agency finding 45% of its waterways unsuitable for human contact, some of which are used as drinking water. Numerous professors discussed the recent rise of precipitation events in the U.S., the use of groundwater mining to satisfy growing demand. This process pumps more than ten times more water out of the ground than is naturally being replaced.

Apathy toward the environment is fueled by various controversies surrounding climate change, including recent data contradictory to the “hockey stick” theory.  There is no consensus.  Northern Hemisphere climate variability is still actively being researched. This data has enormous implications for further legislation, because data on climate variability will help determine the earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions.²

These findings are not tangible to the average American, creating a disconnect between fact and public concern. Most Americans are blind to global patterns and environmental issues. Unless the stream in their backyard turns to sewage, Americans cannot be bothered with sustainability legislation.

In this way, the average American and Lehigh student share a lethargy for all topics relating to environmental sustainability. Small minorities of Sierra Club or Green Action members may recognize unsustainable habits, but they have little power to bring sweeping legislation to their respective institutions.

Change must come from a higher entity – like a global climate treaty. International efforts towards sustainability seem to indicate that only a very gradual approach is politically realistic. In the future, this incremental process may be the same tactic the university will utilize in curbing student and faculty environmental footprints.

It remains to be seen whether this legislation will triumph over apathy – coaxing more environmentally friendly habits – or will stir direct opposition caused by adherence and comfort in the status quo.

For now, it seems the American public and businesses need not worry about this legislation inconveniencing their lives or forcing change. Hopes have turned grim for a new energy bill. Politicians fear capping carbon emissions will cause economic hardship to an already hurting electorate. Internationally, Europe, the U.S., China, and developing countries harbor contrasting goals and levels of commitment. Many are wary that action will be possible from the climate conference in Copenhagen, though it does present a global stage and opportunity for change.³

1)               http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/10/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-2c

2)               November 6^th Jason Smerdon, Storke-Doherty Lecturer, Columbia University “Spaghetti Plots, Hockey Sticks, Pseudo-Realities and Congressional Oversight: A decade of attempts to reconstruct the climate of the last millennium and where we stand now”

3)              http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09caucus.html?_r=1

Public transportation is often seen as the answer to a variety of issues and has become popular in the eyes of environmentalists, urban planners and traffic-haters.  There is a drive to create more all-encompassing and better mass transit.  Although it looks good on paper, public transportation is failing to show real potential to solve societal problems.  Trains, for the most part, and government-run busing are two forms of mass transit that have repeatedly shown their inability to save society money, let alone save the environment.

As a resident of New Jersey, I have plenty of first-hand experience with the initiative to make transportation cheap and public.  The government-sponsored transportation company, NJ Transit, is the product of years of government efforts to further prop up a system that does not fulfill any of the state’s dire needs.  The state of New Jersey pours billions of the taxpayers’ dollars into mass transit with little to show for it.  I’ve been on New Jersey’s infamous buses and trains and it’s quite a sad sight.  Most trains operating are cost-centers, which are considered crowded if barely half the train is full.  The only way NJ Transit stays in business is through the state’s fiscal support.  The CATO organization notes that, “The average public transit vehicle in the United States operates with more than 80 percent of its seats empty.”  This is especially evident in New Jersey.  Secaucus, New Jersey, is home to another fine example of government’s ineptitude and the failure of mass transit.  Senator Frank R. Lautenberg built an eponymous rail hub there, with federal subsidies, in 2003.  The site cost $609 million to complete and only attracts 5,600 daily riders.  There is no parking nearby, despite its location just off a major interstate.  The atrocious cost of building this monument to the Senator’s ego, incompetence and myopia is almost criminal when one considers how few people actually use the station.  At the current rate of usage it will practically never be paid off.  If it is any consolation to the fine people of New Jersey, I can note with firsthand experience that the station is immaculate, although that is probably not attributable to it being well maintained.  A more likely reason is that it is perpetually empty.

The root of the problem with mass transportation is that nobody wants to use it.  It appears to be a great idea but this façade is proved to be incorrect in light of the reality that very few people actually use the trains and buses that the government provides us through Amtrak, NJ Transit and other companies.  It becomes clear why so many opt not to use government-run trains once you see the state in which they are kept and operated.  Often trains are dirty and are very inconvenient to use.  They run late and they make you bend your schedule to fit their often s   skewed time frames.  It is much more convenient (and in most places cheaper) just to drive wherever you want to go.

My home state jumps to my mind when the issue of mass transit comes up just because I have plenty of personal experience with it there.  New Jersey, however, is not the only place this is an issue.  It has been shown over and over again how ineffective mass transit is, especially when it’s government-run.  The CATO Institute points out that the last 25 years have taught this country a great deal about mass transit and its shortcomings.  Public transportation is odd because it has consistently received governmental support despite its obvious failures.  It has been said that mass transportation provides the poor with available options of travel, cuts down on pollution, reduces traffic, saves energy and revives urban centers.  All of these claims are false.  Only 7% of trips made by the poor are on mass transit and therefore do not benefit impoverished areas.  Due to the low use of mass transit, it does not reduce pollution.  In fact, usage is so low that a doubling in patronage would still have a negligible effect on air quality.  The fact that trains have not diverted a significant number of travelers from the roads means that the traffic problems we had 30 years ago are even worse today.  Mass transit doesn’t save energy either.  According to CATO, “because of the low average number of passengers per bus, energy consumption per passenger mile for public transit buses now is greater than that for private automobiles and far exceeds that for car and van pools.” Buffalo is a good example of a city that was not ‘revived’ by spending on mass transit.  After investing billions of dollars in a major rail network, Buffalo’s downtown area is losing businesses at an even more rapid rate than before the rails were implemented.  Mass transportation looks good on paper and therefore legislators are willing to support it.  People like the idea of a train, but in reality it actually costs more money and more energy than would private transportation.

Private bus lines, like Trans-Bridge in the Lehigh Valley, run where the demand is great.  They make money.  Government-run buses and trains are propped up because they lose money servicing lines that are generally untraveled.  I can recall seeing many NJ Transit buses on local roads in my area with an abysmally low number of passengers.  It makes me cringe when I consider that I am paying for the absurd amount of gas being used to transport two people three towns over.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York City, the city run organization that runs the subway, is broke.  The New York City subway is a good example of how the economics of trains do not always play out as we would hope.   The MTA has nearly $2 billion in service debt.  The subway beneath the streets of Manhattan is one of the most widely used rail systems in the world.  New York probably couldn’t function today if there were not some sort of mass transit system in place.  The debt incurred by the MTA is one that New York is willingly to support, as it should be.  Cities understand the necessity of systems like subways.  However, what should be taken from this example is that the economics simply aren’t there to justify mass transportation, especially trains, as a viable means for people to travel.  When the most traveled train system on the East Coast is losing money, how do governments justify propping up rail lines that are 80% empty?  NJ Transit is perpetually in debt, just like the MTA.  Unlike the MTA, however, NJ Transit is not a needed resource for the people of New Jersey.  It would be cheaper, in terms of gas and immediate cost, having a private bus line replace all of NJ Transit’s current train lines.  Let the market decide which line is worth keeping.   The state ends up wasting more energy and money trying to support these rail lines because people won’t use them.  They are inefficient and wasteful examples of government’s meddling and pandering to environmental propagandists.

The Brown and White r an an article in its November 6th issue discussing whether a train line from Lehigh County to Somerset County, NJ, is feasible.  Hopefully, the authorities behind this proposed project will do their research well and understand that their train will lose money and waste resources.  As for me, I’ll be taking Trans-Bridge Bus Lines home.